The Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket is no longer a luxury, it is a necessity

If there is something that must be learned from all the primaries so far, it is that Senator Clinton and Senator Obama no longer have the luxury to snub each other when the time comes to choose a running-mate. The ticket Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama has become a necessity and the safest way for either of them to win in the fall.

A look at the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate would lead you, if you are fair-minded, to this conclusion. Let us examine those strengths and weaknesses of each candidate now.

Senator Obama is very strong with the youth vote. In every primary, he has shown that his appeal to the younger generation has worked, and worked well. The exit polls in states that Senator Obama has lost are a better indicator than exit polls of states he has won. For instance, despite losing New York and California, the Senator has shown that he has almost a lock on the vote of those under 35 years old, margin of victory notwithstanding. Along with the youth vote, Senator Obama has  very strong appeal and support in the African-American community. Some would say that this is expected, but this is not the point of this small comparative analysis. Finally, according to the exit polls, in states the Senator won or lost, he has shown that his appeal has not varied and stayed strong with upper incomes and with college graduates. Knowing that college graduates represent 27% of the nation, knowing that around 65% of them identify themselves as solid democrats, and knowing that they are more likely to reside in urban centers, Senator Obama’s appeal is very strong nationally in this demographic and it is unlikely to decrease. The college graduate demographic, African-American community and the youth vote give Senator Obama a comparative advantage and explain why Senator Obama has been very successful in carrying big urban centers, college towns, and the upper income demographic. Briefly stated, Senator Obama is very strong with the younger generation, college graduates, African-Americans and in large urban centers and college towns.

Senator Clinton’s strengths are with other demographic groups. The Senator has consistently won the women’s vote, margin notwithstanding. Even in states she has lost, the Senator has won the women’s vote. Some would argue that this is expected, but it is beside the point.  Moreover, her appeal has also been very strong in the Hispanic/Latino community in almost every state. In Florida, Ohio and Missouri, she bested Senator Obama with the Hispanics/Latinos.  More importantly, she has shown that she can win the rural vote, sometimes by big margins, even in states she lost, such as Missouri and Virginia. Along with the women, the Hispanic/Latino, and rural demographics, Senator Clinton’s appeal has been very strong with the elderly or those older than 65 years old. This is a reliable group. Every NES since the 1970s has shown that the elderly consistently turn out to vote and in great numbers. Again, in Florida, there are counties where the elderly electorate exceeds 40% like in Pinellas County, St Petersburg, and represent the largest electorate in the adjacent county, Hillsborough County.  In addition to these demographics, Senator Clinton can count as faithful groups the non-college graduate and the low income classes, whose vote has benefited her in almost every primary.

As for the white men’s vote, it varies greatly from one state to another. It has, however, moved in the last three primaries slightly in favor of Senator Clinton, but Senator Obama has done better overall with white men than Senator Clinton. Nevertheless, the white men’s vote as a demographic group has so far leaned and favored Republican candidates over Democratic ones.

One of the criticisms that might be leveled is that some of the demographic groups listed above overlap. For instance, urban and African-Americans, or urban and college graduates, low income and non-college graduates and so forth. However, it is easier to operationalize these groups separately to have a reliable reading of the dynamics inside the race and to have better analytical leverage.

Nevertheless, the most important thing that one can glean from the above categories and victories and defeats of each candidate is that the weakness of one candidate is the strength of the other. If Senator Obama is strong in urban centers, with youth, African-Americans, college graduates and upper incomes, Senator Clinton is strong in rural areas, with elderly, Hispanics/Latinos, non-college graduates, lower incomes and women. Senator Obama’s strengths shore up and complete Senator Clinton’s weaknesses, while Senator Clinton’s strengths shore up and complete Senator Obama’s weaknesses. This is a yin/yang phenomenon. One is the mirror image of the other. Each candidate by himself or herself cannot win or it will be very hard to win swing states.

In Missouri, Ohio and Florida, the ultimate swing states, the combination of the strengths of both candidates would cancel out the weaknesses of both candidates. For instance, in Missouri, if Obama wins the urban centers, youth, college graduates, and African-Americans, and Senator Clinton carries rural counties, low incomes, elderly, women and Hispanics/Latinos, the Obama/Clinton ticket or the Clinton/Obama ticket would win Missouri in a landslide. The same is true for Ohio, Florida, Tennessee (which I believe can go blue in the next electoral cycle), Nevada, Colorado, Pennsylvania and even Virginia, which could go blue with the right strategy.  This is a ticket, order notwithstanding, that could win those swing states conclusively.

One note before I wrap up this post. The white men’s vote is not decisive for the democrats. If the democratic ticket, Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama, increases dramatically its numbers with five key demographic groups—i.e. women, youth, Hispanics/Latinos, African-Americans and low income non-college graduates/rural—Obama/Clinton and Clinton/Obama would not need to win the white men’s vote. They just need to approach the 40% margin of white men’s vote.