[Update] Please read at least the first 3 paragraphs before flaming ;-)
...According to the Head-to-Head tracking polls against McCain
...According to the snapshot electoral maps against McCain (Clinton // Obama)
This argument cannot be ignored. By definition, the stronger Democratic candidate is the one who is most likely to beat the Republican nominee in November. If, in fact, Hillary Clinton would perform better against John McCain than Barack Obama, then she is the stronger candidate. End of story. Discussion over.
The problem is that there are three significant overlooked factors that head to head tracking polls, as well as their corolary snapshot electoral maps, do not account for. These make any such claim to Hillary's stronger candidacy problematic.
1. The Olive Branch / Sore Loser Effect
I have no idea whether political scientists have a name for this phenomenon, but if they don't then I have just offered one (even if it isn't exactly concise and catchy). This accounts for the emotional impact that kicks in towards the end of a hard fought primary.
Supporters of the winning candidate suddenly become concerned with party unity and begin to put aside whatever animus they held towards their candidate's primary opponent since they are no longer a threat. In so doing, they notice that "Gee, Hillary actually isn't THAT bad. After all, she does agree with me on most of the important issues. And we're all Democrats, right?" In short, the victor's supporters can afford to stow away their negative emotional baggage. Therefore, Obama's supporters are more likely now than before to select Hillary over McCain in head to head matchups.
The supporters of the losing candidate, on the other hand, are emotionally downtrodden and pissed off. They are more inclined to intensify whatever dislike they harbored for their candidate's opponent. Nobody likes to be beaten, and for some supporters their investment (emotional, financial, and volunteer time) is so great that the notion of supporting the nominee who just recently defeated their candidate is unthinkable. Therefore, Hillary's supporters are more likely than they were before to select McCain over Obama in head to head matchups.
In other words, Obama vs. McCain is reality, whereas Hillary vs. McCain is not. If the reality of the situation actually were Hillary vs. McCain, that would mean the superdelegates decided to give the nomination to the candidate with the fewer pledged delegates. This would have a tremendous negative emotional impact on Obama's supporters and we would then witness the "OB/SL" phenomenon swing dramatically in the other direction. Hillary would not perform anywhere nearly as well in these head to head matchups or in the electoral map snapshots.
2. Intensity of Voter Support
The intensity of Obama's supporters versus Hillary's supporters has been documented and diaried numerous times. I would include a picture of Obama's record breaking 75,000+ crowd in Oregon to illustrate the point, but I'm too lazy and we've all seen it by now. Elections are more than just pressing "1" on your touch-tone phone to indicate your political preference. Hell, it's even more than voting. It's also recruiting volunteers to drive your get-out-the-vote effort; it's raising money to fund all of your campaign's operations. All of this is powered by the intensity of the support behind your campaign. Sure, Hillary has her share of strong supporters. But Obama dwarfs her in this category by any measure.
But just as important is the intensity of your opponent's support. Right now the Republicans are dispirited, financially broke, and in tatters organizationally. They have nominated a candidate that the Republican base despises. Evangelical leaders have exhorted their flock to withdraw from politics. McCain is widely seen as weak on the economy (by his own admission). They are angry at his "soft on immigration" stance. In short, the Republicans have no reason to go to the polls in November.
Hillary would give them a reason. It is no secret that Republicans wanted to see Hillary at the top of the ballot. What energizes the Republican base more than the Clintons, and Hillary in particular? The Republicans can't run on anything this year, so they were at least hoping for something to run against. It is not for nothing that FoxNews has started "treating her fairly" and that Karl Rove has started bolstering her case as the stronger candidate, and that Rush Limbaugh encouraged his listeners to vote for her, etc.
Some have claimed that Obama's association with Jeremiah Wright will serve the same energizing function for the GOP. They are wrong. First of all, the kind of resentment that has built among the Republicans for Hillary cannot be replicated overnight. This anti-Clinton vitriol has been festering in the party for 16 years. Furthermore, all the evidence we have seen to date points to the fact that Wright will have no such impact whatsoever. The recent special election in Mississippi where the Republicans tried to smear the Democratic candidate with images of Barack Obama next to Jeremiah Wright demonstrates how ineffective any such effort will be in the fall.
The polls have not developed any methodologically sound screen to account for this dynamic of voter intensity for the general election.
3. New Voters
Obama creates them; Hillary does not. Obama has repeatedly demonstrated that he can deliver on the long hoped for Democratic promise to increase voter turnout among demographic groups that vote in much lower numbers than the rest of the country, specifically African-Americans and young voters. Furthermore, Obama is making tremendous and unprecedented efforts to register new voters all across the country. It is no secret that voter registration drives benefit Democrats. Why it has taken so long for a Democratic presidential candidate to incorporate registration drives into the structure of his campaign, I have no idea. But there it is.
If I may ask a fairly blunt rhetorical question, where is Hillary's 50-state voter registration drive? Why has she shown absolutely no active interest in creating new voters for the party? The reason is that she is working off the old conventional (and deficient) Democratic model - limit your resources to pursuing only the current field of voters.
No polling outfit has yet figured out a way to account for this huge upswing in voter turnout resulting from new voters. They have not accounted for voter intensity. They have not accounted for the "Olive Branch / Sore Loser" effect. Given all of these factors, the fact that Obama is polling as well as he is (he is currently beating McCain in the most recent head-to-head), he's in very good shape for November.