All Victories Are Equal, But Some Are More Equal Than Others

These maps from SurveyUSA don't really give you the full picture. While Ezra notes the final electoral college margins are similar, the margin-of victory in individual states is not. Here's a better look:

Chris Bowers notes that Barack Obama clearly has both a larger base and more potential swing states. To get to 270, Obama simply needs to defend New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, while picking up Ohio, Florida, or two more medium-sized states like Iowa and Virginia. Hillary Clinton has to play defense in the same places, but she also has to spend time and energy defending the Northwest and the Upper Midwest in a way that Barack Obama does not. Her only real pickup opportunities are Ohio, Florida, West Virginia, Arkansas, Iowa, and Missouri. Obama has Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, North Carolina, South Carolina, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Texas. Okay, even I don't believe he has a shot at all of those states, but he has a much better chance there than Clinton does in Mississippi or Kentucky or Oklahoma.

In addition, in the states with the ten most competitive Senate races, Obama does better than Clinton in eight of them; only Kentucky and Louisiana are better for Clinton (and, seriously, if Mary Landrieu can't win 25% of the white vote in Louisiana, she's got bigger problems). There's also the third tier of Senate races, in places like North Carolina, Nebraska, Kansas, South Dakota (that's a defense), Texas, and Idaho, where Obama does better in four of five and ties Clinton in the fifth. Should Rick Noriega or Scott Kleeb catch lightning in a bottle, it would be better to have Obama at the top of the ticket. Put Tom Daschle or Ed Rendell as VP and he'll be unstoppable.

At the moment, Barack Obama is the better general election nominee. Period. Full stop. He will have to spend less time defending blue states. He's competitive in a larger number of red states. And he's more competitive in states that have Senate elections. Barack Obama: because this is the year to bust the map wide open.

Comments

[yoyo]

The Senate is a pretty good reason why the the "Big States" PennStrategy is the opposite of right.

[Joe]

Is there a reason Obama is doing so poorly in Pennsylvania and New Jersey ? I also can't figure out why he isn't doing as well in Missouri as Hillary (unless she does better in the areas that border Arkansas).

One explanation is that Obama seems to do much better in places where the voters value good government and civil liberties (like the Northwest, Colorado and the Upper Midwest). Clinton seems to do better in places which rely on White working class machines (NJ, PA, WV).

From this map, I think an Obama ticket might very well be benefitted by a Tom Daschle while a Clinton ticket would be strengthened by a rust belt politician like Strickland or Bayh (each would strengthen the ticket in the swing states where the candidate is the strongest).

[yoyo]

Yeah, the difference between blue collar whites in appalachia and the steppe doesn't make sense to me. Maybe a scotch-irish vs. german immigrant thing? Baptist vs. methodist/lutheran? They both seem to go republican outside of unionized areas.

[yoyo]

I think a southernern could play well for obama though, if one is on the same page message wise (Nunn, graham.) PA, VA, NC, FL, MO, TX, SC all look winnable if Obama can improve in that demographic.

[weboy]

Nick, your posts are starting to resemble Neil's from last fall - "I've looked at the latest data... and clearly [John Edwards then, Barack Obama now] is the best." That's fine... but it didn't necessarily work out for Neil... is all I'm sayin'.

I tend to agree with a number of peple that it's hard to draw conclusions here - you can make a strong case that the polling method is flawed, and a number of results by state are curious, if not questionable (I'm not as skeptical as some that McCain might have a shot in New Jersey, but that's just one), and I think all of this is polling about a race whose contours are not fully understood; there's a considerable wild card to consider in advertising, debates, and the news stories that could reframe this election well before the fall.

In short, I think the best conclusion to draw - for a number of people who've been howling otherwise - is that both Democrats have a good map at this point, and while McCain looks good on paper, he's not especially strong. That, it seems to me, is reason enough for Democrats to feel good about the fall... whoever becomes the nominee.

[Nicholas Beaudrot]

weboy: obviously if you look at any one state, you might find flaws. For instance, do I think Obama can carry Texas? Probably not. Ditto McCain and New Jersey. But while some state may be off, the overall picture is pretty clear that Obama does better than Clinton in states that were close last time.

I feel good about Clinton, but I feel much better about Obama. With Clinton, it's just Florida-Ohio-Pennsylvania for the six months. With Obama, there are opportunities elsewhere.

[Nicholas Beaudrot]

weboy: obviously if you look at any one state, you might find flaws. For instance, do I think Obama can carry Texas? Probably not. Ditto McCain and New Jersey. But while some state may be off, the overall picture is pretty clear that Obama does better than Clinton in states that were close last time.

I feel good about Clinton, but I feel much better about Obama. With Clinton, it's just Florida-Ohio-Pennsylvania for the six months. With Obama, there are opportunities elsewhere.

[DTM]

From what I can tell, Appalachian Democrats have a lot of affection for Bill Clinton, and they also tend to be in Hillary Clinton's demographic wheelhouse. Accordingly, I think there is a good chance they would convert to Obama in higher numbers than they are reporting right now, if the Clintons campaigned for him.

[DivGuy]

Nick, your posts are starting to resemble Neil's from last fall - "I've looked at the latest data... and clearly [John Edwards then, Barack Obama now] is the best." That's fine... but it didn't necessarily work out for Neil... is all I'm sayin'.

What do you mean? As I understood those old posts, Neil was arguing that Edwards was the strongest general election candidate. That he lost the primary doesn't really speak to the question Neil was addressing. It's an is/ought thing - Neil's point was that for the good of the Democratic party, Edwards ought to be the nominee.

Likewise, Nick isn't arguing that Obama will win the nomination because he's the strongest general election candidate, but that he ought to be the nominee.

[AJD]

These maps are very hard to read: the extreme +12 and –12 points both look black to me rather than dark red and dark blue. So in the big-win states, I can't tell which candidate it is except by things like, well, if it's Arizona, it's probably supposed to be red, and so forth.

[Ron]

The thing that jumps out to me is that for all the crap we've heard the last week about Ohio both candidate would win it by large margins. Michigan, Florida, and Pennsylvania look like much more important swing states. Overall though these numbers confirm something I've been saying for a while which is that either of these candidates should win in November handily. That being the case, wouldn't it be better to pick the candidate who has a greater chance of expanding the map and bringing in new Democratic members of Congress because half the country doesn't already passionately hate him?

[Nicholas Beaudrot]

Well, half the country passionately hates Obama; it's just a different half, one that already hates all Democrats.

[24play]

This looks even better for Obama when you consider all the likely swing states where he hasn't even campaigned yet—PA, MI, FL, and OR.

They should all go a little bluer once they've had the opportunity to spend a little quality time with the senator from Illinois.

[Kman]

"These maps are very hard to read: the extreme +12 and –12 points both look black to me rather than dark red and dark blue."

Ditto

[Roger Karraker]

I'm drooling at the prospect of an Obama/Clinton ticket, in any order. When the two are able to stop shooting at each other (absolutely understandable now) and concentrate on McCain we should see a dynamite ticket.

I'd like to see something like a British cabinet system pre-Blair, pre-Thatcher, with each cabinet member having a fiefdom. Imagine having a Cabinet that includes Edwards, Bayh, Daschle, maybe Biden, Dodd, etc. We could finally see some good administration.

[Richard Biccum]

What's occuring is the possibility that the Democratic Party of today will be the GOP of the Lincoln-McKinley-Roosevelt days. In fact, if you look at a map of the states won in those days by both parties it shows a northern-western alliance for the GOP - a Southern stronghold for the Dems at the time. Essentially the old GOP was more progressive economically and politically - whereas the old Democratic Party until Bryan and Wilson was more conservative or traditionalist. FDR changed all that with his coalition - which no longer includes the South and 'liberal' Republicans (leftovers from the old Lincoln GOP) are mostly Democrats today. I agree a British style cabinet system would be much better - I kind of like how they do that!!

[John]

Essentially the old GOP was more progressive economically and politically - whereas the old Democratic Party until Bryan and Wilson was more conservative or traditionalist.

Whuh? McKinley was more progressive than Bryan? The political parties were basically not ideological in 1900. The Democrats had a populist, quasi-leftist wing, led by westerners like Bryan, and a conservative, pro-business wing, led by easterners like Grover Cleveland.

The Republicans had a conservative, business as usual wing (McKinley, Hanna, etc.) and a progressive wing (TR). Neither party had any clear ideological orientation of its own - there was basically a full political spectrum within each party.

[Anon]

Considering only the states polling outside the margin of error--approximately 4%--this survey shows a far clearer advantage for Obama than may be readily apparent.

In an Obama/McCain match up, Obama is currently beating McCain 241 to 153 in electoral votes from states polling outside the MoE. This means Obama would only have to win 21% of the remaining 144 electoral votes to reach the magic number of 271.

In contrast, Clinton is currently beating McCain 233 to 213 in electoral votes from states polling outside the MoE--meaning Clinton would have to win 41% of the remaining 92 electoral votes to win the presidency.

[Jimmy]

The problem is that Hussein Obama has way too many secrets in the closet that are going to ooze out. We cannot take a chance and have this country go down the drain. At least, not according to som of the stuff I have recently leared on http://www.ecertifications.net

[Laurent Fourier]

shut up Nick Beudreaut. what you are really saying is that this is the year Barack Obama busts your ass wide open, because you are in love with him.

[Paul]

The shading in GA in the Clinton-McCain matchup seems off. It's shaded in the 10% range but according to the SUSA poll McCain leads by 21 points (56-35).

[bingham37]

I think that either one can and will eventually win over McCain. The country is just too sick of the war and the bad economy to believe all the right-wing hype and lies anymore (I hope). Both Obama and Clinton have drawbacks, but they are both light-years above the devastation to our country that we have endured for the last 7 years (that McCain would continue and reinforce). When all is said and done... Obama has the slight advantage of being an excellent communicator and that inspires the confidence that Americans want to believe in about themselves.

I'm not actually a writer for ElectionReferee.com... I just really like that blog right now. I also like this site for tracking polls etc - http://uselectionatlas.org/PRED/PRESIDENT/2008/pred.php.