In arguing that popular vote should be the metric used to determine the democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton and her supporters point to the illegitimate and un-democratic nature of caucuses as one reason why. As we all know, Obama has destroyed Clinton in caucus states, racking up huge margins of victory in the process. Yet, for Clinton, Obama's strength caucus states actually proves her argument that Obama is un-electable, contending that Obama is winning the pledged delegate count primarily because of his wins in "illegitimate" caucus states, states which are predominantly red-states anyway.
To test Clinton's theory, I want to examine 2 questions: (1) are caucus states mostly red-states, as Clinton supports argue? (2) in recent polling, how is Obama faring against McCain in general election match-ups in caucus states? And how is he doing compared to Clinton?
The answers to the two questions, I'd argue, completely undermine Clinton's critique of caucus states and her contention that Obama is un-electable. In fact, Obama's strength in caucus states actually may show that he is more electable than Hillary Clinton. Analysis after the fold.
The basic premises in the argument against caucuses are:
- Caucuses are un-democratic because they tend to have much lower turn-out than primaries, and therefore are not likely to reflect the true will of the state's voters.
- Caucuses favor candidates who are popular among democratic activists, but who may not be popular among democratic voters in general.
- Caucuses have been unfair to Clinton, because most of her supporters, the elderly and the working class, are voters who are less likely to participate in caucuses.
- Victories in caucus states don't mean a democratic candidate is electable in a general election, since most of the caucus states are Mred-states in which a democratic candidate will have little chance of winning in the fall.
Hence, for Clinton, since Obama's pledged delegate lead come from his victories in undemocratic caucus states, popular vote should be the metric used to determine electability, not the pledged delegate count.
First, I want to address the question, are caucus states mostly red-states in which a democratic candidate stands very little chance of winning in the general election? The answer is no. In fact, most of the caucus states are best characterized as purple or swing states, those states that will be crucial to determining the presidential election.
Purple caucus states: Iowa, Washington, Minnesota, Nevada
Blue caucus states: Maine, Hawaii
Red caucus states: North Dakota, Colorado, Idaho, Alaska, Nebraska, Wyoming
Second, now, I want to see how both candidates are doing against McCain in the most recent general election polling data. If Clinton's argument is correct, then she should be doing equally as well if not better than Obama against McCain in those states, since her base (elderly, working class) will be reflected in the polling. What does the polling show?
Let's start with the key swing states. First, Washington and Minnesota. My information is from Real Clear Politics or Pollster.com:
Washington (RCP average)
Obama beats McCain, 49-40
Clinton is essentially tied with McCain, 44-43
Minnesota (average of 2 most recent polls from pollster.com)
Clinton beats McCain, 46-44
Obama crushes McCain, 52-38
So, in WA and MN, Obama is handily beating McCain while Clinton is essentially tied with McCain. These states are very important for Clinton, because if she loses these states, she would lose the general election even if she wins Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Her failure to compete in these two caucus states points to a real vulnerability during the general election.
Let's look at some of the other swing states. The data also suggests that Obama will be much more competitive against McCain than Clinton:
Iowa
Obama beats McCain, 47-41
McCain beats Clinton, 45-42
Nevada
McCain handily beats Clinton, 47-39
McCain is essentially tied with Obama, 44-43
What about those irrelevant red caucus states? They aren't irrelevant anymore, at least with respect to Obama. Obama may be able to turn these red-states into blue states:
Colorado
Obama beats McCain, 46-43
McCain trashes Clinton, 50-36
Nebraska
McCain leads Obama 45-42
McCain blows out Clinton, 57-30
Alaska
53-McCain
36-Clinton
50-McCain
41-Obama
What these numbers show is Clinton's general election weaknesses and Obama's general election strengths in these caucus states. His big victories in caucus states are no flukes - they seemed to have made those states very competitive for Obama. Why? One reason may come down to organization. To win caucuses, you have to be organized. We know that has been a trademark of the Obama campaign, while the Clinton campaign has been the epitome of disorganization and chaos.
Here is an objective measure of general election electability - which candidate is better organized in the various battleground states? The caucus state results provide the clear answer - it's Obama.
Because of his campaign's superior organization, states that are solidly red for Clinton are very much in play for Obama. Clinton gets blown out in states like Colorado and Nebraska, while Obama will be very competitive and has a good chance of winning. Moreover, Obama's strength in the caucus states will weaken McCain in other battleground states, because McCain will be forced to spend time in those states, time he wouldn't have to spend if he were going up against Clinton.
Ultimately, then, Obama's blow-out victories in caucus states actually support his general election electability, because they show just how well organized his campaign has been, and how he has already put in place the infrastructure necessary to be competitive in those states in the fall.
In writing this diary, one goal was to provide some talking points to Clinton supporters who seek to de-legitimize Obama's delegate count by dismissing and downplaying Obama's caucus state victories. I welcome any comments or suggestions for making a stronger case for the importance, relevance, and legitimacy of Obama's caucus state triumphs.