The states were Masssachusetts, New York, Ohio, Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Kentucky, Virgina, New Mexico, and California. And guess what? Hillary outperformed Obama in 9 of the 10 states -- everywhere but Iowa. According to this polling, we are potentially in dangerous territory if we nominate Obama against Giuliani -- but with much better chances if we nominate Hillary.
If Obama clearly does worst against Giuliani, who does better, Edwards or Clinton? Well, I'd have to call that a draw. On the one hand, Edwards does better in Clinton in six states, while Hillary is better in four states. But Hillary's states are on the average much bigger (California, New York, Massachusetts, and New Mexico). For example, the poll shows that Edwards loses to Giuliani by 5 points in New York, while Clinton beats Giuliani by 11 points there -- and it's hard to imagine the Democrats winning the presidency without winning New York.
Now, how seriously do I take all this? To be honest, not too seriously. First, it's only one poll (albeit of ten states). Secondly, a lot can change between now and the primary, and even more between now and the general election. I am not putting this out to "prove" that Hillary is far more electable than Obama (though I believe that in the end she will be). But I do think we should stop the nonsense about Hillary being unelectable.
For those of you who don't like Hillary for her politics, I applaud you supporting the candidate of your choice. But for those of you who insist that Hillary is unelectable--then, this data suggests that Edwards is equally unelectable and Obama is even more unelectable. So let's lay off on the claims of unelectability
Comments are closed on this story.