The Democrat nomination arena is different from the general election arena. To win in the nomination arena a candidate needs 2,025 delegates from the one-vote-per-person voting system and the caucus system or a majority of votes from superdelegate party leaders. To win in the general election a candidate needs the majority of swing state support from states using the one-vote-per-person voting system.
The arena that is more important is the general election arena because the goal of the nomination process is to choose a candidate who will win the general election and enable a party to rule the Executive branch of government. Since the general election is the more important arena, the goal of the nomination contest should be to select the candidate with the best qualifications to compete in the general election.
The best way to find out which candidate is most qualified to compete in the general election is to see how they perform under conditions similar to the general election arena. This essay compares the Democrat presidential candidates’ potential in the general election arena by seeing how they perform under the following general election conditions: 1) winner takes all system, 2) one-vote-per-person voting system and 3) swing state support. Senator Clinton excels in all three categories, thus she is the stronger Democrat candidate.
1) Winner Takes All System
In the nomination contest the pattern of awarding delegate allegiance is that the higher percentage of votes a candidate gets the more delegate votes they receive. In contrast, the general election uses a winner takes all system so that all electoral votes go to the winner. Although delegate votes are not the same as electoral votes, nevertheless, the gist is that the general election is different in the way it awards votes. Using the winner takes all system (which the Republicans use) the following would be the distribution of electoral votes for Clinton and Obama if they were competing in a general election arena:
Alabama – 9, Obama
Alaska – 3, Obama
Arizona – 10, Clinton
Arkansas – 6, Clinton
California – 55, Clinton
Colorado – 9, Obama
Connecticut – 7, Obama
Delaware – 3, Obama
DC – 3, Obama
Florida – 27, Clinton
Georgia – 15, Obama
Hawaii – 4, Obama
Idaho – 4, Obama
Illinois – 21, Obama
Iowa – 7, Obama
Kansas – 6, Obama
Louisiana – 9, Obama
Maine – 4, Obama
Maryland – 10, Obama
Massachusetts – 12, Clinton
Michigan – 17, Clinton
Minnesota – 10, Obama
Mississippi – 6, Obama
Missouri – 11, Obama
Nebraska – 5, Obama
Nevada – 5, Clinton
New Hampshire – 4, Clinton
New Jersey – 15, Clinton
New Mexico – 5, Clinton
New York – 31, Clinton
North Dakota – 3, Obama
Ohio – 20, Clinton
Oklahoma – 7, Clinton
Pennsylvania – 21, Clinton
Rhode Island – 4, Clinton
South Carolina – 8, Obama
Tennessee – 11, Clinton
Texas – 34, Clinton
Utah – 5, Obama
Vermont – 3, Obama
Virginia – 13, Obama
Washington – 11, Obama
Wisconsin – 10, Obama
Wyoming – 3, Obama
Clinton: 298 electoral votes (59%)
Obama: 210 electoral votes (41%)
Clinton would win the general election with an 18% lead over Obama not counting the states which haven’t voted yet. Even after all the states vote she would still win because a winner needs 270 electoral votes and Clinton surpassed that number. Thus, in a general election between Clinton and Obama, Clinton would achieve a huge victory.
2) One-Vote-Per-Person Voting System
When the second factor, the one-vote-per-person voting system is implemented, then Clinton’s advantage increases. The following is a list of all the states that have held primary (one-vote-per-person) elections:
Alabama – 9, Obama
Arizona – 10, Clinton
Arkansas – 6, Clinton
California – 55, Clinton
Connecticut – 7, Clinton
Delaware – 3, Clinton
DC – 3, Obama
Florida – 27, Clinton
Georgia – 15, Obama
Illinois – 21, Obama
Louisiana – 9, Obama
Maryland – 10, Obama
Massachusetts – 12, Clinton
Michigan – 17, Clinton
Mississippi – 6, Obama
Missouri – 11, Obama
New Hampshire – 4, Clinton
New Jersey – 15, Clinton
New Mexico – 5, Clinton
New York – 31, Clinton
Ohio – 20, Clinton
Oklahoma – 7, Clinton
Pennsylvania – 21, Clinton
Rhode Island – 4, Clinton
South Carolina – 8, Obama
Tennessee – 11, Clinton
Texas – 34, Clinton
Utah – 5, Obama
Vermont – 3, Obama
Virginia – 13, Obama
Wisconsin – 10, Obama
Clinton: 293 electoral votes (68%)
Obama: 141 electoral votes (32%)
These figures show that the more the nomination process becomes like the general election process, the stronger Clinton becomes. By adding the one-vote-per-person factor to the winner takes all factor, Clinton’s lead increases from 18% to 36%.
3) Swing State Support
I define swing states as states where there was less than 3% of a margin between the Democrat and Republican vote during past elections. I believe that elections are better determiners of swing states than current polls because participating in a poll is much easier than going out to vote and perhaps wait in line for a long time. So voting requires more commitment and commitment is difficult to measure by a survey. Also, there is a synergy during elections that does not occur when someone calls and asks for voting information.
I wrote a diary comparing Clinton and Obama to find out who was stronger in swing states. Clinton won 64% of the swing states from the 2000 presidential election and Obama won 36%; thus, Clinton has a 28% lead with those swing states. Clinton won 76% of the swing states in the 2004 election while Obama won a mere 24%; thus, Clinton has a 52% swing state lead with swing states from the most recent election.
http://www.dailykos.com/...
Popularity in swing states is the number one factor in determining who wins the presidency. Clinton has much more swing state support than Obama, thus based upon just that factor she is a much stronger candidate than Obama. Clinton has consistently shown strength in swing states form the beginning of her campaign to the present. Since she has consistently won swing states over a long period of time it is reasonable to assume she would continue if she enters the general election arena.
This is not an analysis comparing Clinton to McCain, or Democrats to Republicans. This is a comparison of the Democrat candidates’ strengths in the three most important aspects of the general election arena: 1) winner takes all system, 2) one-vote-per-person voting system and 3) swing state support. Clinton outperforms Obama in every category. When you add all the categories together her lead is astronomical. Because Clinton is much stronger in the general election political arena, she is the best choice to be the Democrat presidential nominee for 2008.
Sources:
CNN.com
http://www.cnn.com/...
2008 Democratic primaries
http://en.wikipedia.org/...