Obama Camp Challenges Clinton On Electability

Still haven't come up with a better word for electability -- sorry. Maybe y'all can help. Anyway, there are numerous cables flying today between the campaigns. First, the Obamagon is challenging the Clintogan on its oft-cited claim she's won the big states and the big Democratic states and thereby is better suited to represent the Democratic states in the general election.

A word about these arguments. They are a bit illogical. What matters more than who wins a state in a primary is what type of coalition butresses said winner. With the exception of Virginia and Wisconsin, Obama has failed to attract a large number of white, working class Democrats. Clinton has failed to attract blacks, young voters, affluent voters and educated voters.

Obama's campaign is on more solid ground when they contend that Obama does better than Clinton in general election matchups in key states -- they claim, but do note cite, polls show showing Obama beating Clinton's margin in California, New York, New Jersey and Ohio.

Update: here are the polls the Obama campaign was referring to:

California: Survey USA – Feb 15-17th [Though, full disclosure, our memo has a typo and says Obama does 10 points better against McCain – when he actually does 4 points better.]

New York: Survey USA – Feb 15-17th

Ohio: Ohio Poll/U of Cincinnati – Feb 21-24th

New Jersey: Fairleigh-Dickinson University’s Public Mind Poll – Feb 18-24th

Comments

Maybe "Victory" is a better word?

Posted by Dr. Duh | March 12, 2008 12:31 PM

I am hoping that very soon, the Obama camp, or Obama himself, or perhaps someone in the media will ask Clinton a very simple question.

She states that (and her supporters contend) that she is winning the loyal Democratic vote. If she then states that she has a better chance of winning in the GE those big states she won in the primaries, she is in effect saying these loyal Democrats would not vote for the Democratic nominee if it is Obama.

The question to ask her is if she is indeed saying that, and if so, why does she think loyal Democrats will desert and betray the party?

Posted by john | March 12, 2008 12:32 PM

For all it's worth, SUSA's latest 50 state polling showed Clinton running better in the Northeast -- and most polls confirm that, so Obama's claim that he runs better in NY and NJ is not at all correct (though I'm sure they could cite one poll supporting that).

In Pennsylvania, the latest poll has Clinton up 19%... though there's 6 weeks left.

Posted by Daniel | March 12, 2008 12:37 PM

Clinton runs better in the Northeast EXCEPT New Hampshire. There, Obama wins and Clinton outright loses. But Obama still wins easily in the Northeast with the exception of PA. After a month and a half of campaigning I bet he'll be well ahead in PA too.

Posted by Elrod | March 12, 2008 12:41 PM

The question to ask her is if she is indeed saying that, and if so, why does she think loyal Democrats will desert and betray the party?

She's projecting, because she's willing to do exactly that.

Posted by justinb | March 12, 2008 12:42 PM

Curious this fondness by Clinton's camp of historical data: no president has been elected without winning Ohio, or the big states, or whatever. It makes me wonder: which president has EVER been elected with a minority of elected delegates in the primary? Not to mention which president has EVER been elected with a minority of votes in the primary process.

Posted by Zitron | March 12, 2008 12:53 PM

she is in effect saying these loyal Democrats would not vote for the Democratic nominee if it is Obama.

I believe she's saying that more Democrats (loyal or otherwise) are voting for her. That's true.

She's saying in effect that some percentage of those Democrats will decide that McCain looks better, and that this number will be far larger than the Democrats who would vote for McCain in the event that she is the nominee.

It's precisely because white and Hispanic Democrats are less "loyal" than blacks and liberals that Obama's weakness in the former groups is a problem.

As for the chart, it's worth remembering that Obama won Virginia and Wisconsin by wide margins largely on the strength of independents/Republicans, and they gave him the narrow margin in Missouri as well. It's hard to know what they'll do in the primaries.

Most of the rest are caucuses, and really, the press should point this out rather than repeating the talking point.

Posted by Cal | March 12, 2008 1:01 PM

Marc- "With the exception of Virginia and Wisconsin, Obama has failed to attract a large number of white, working class Democrats. Clinton has failed to attract blacks, young voters, affluent voters and educated voters"

Cal- "It's precisely because white and Hispanic Democrats are less "loyal" than blacks and liberals that Obama's weakness in the former groups is a problem"

But which candidate has done more to alienate the gorups that are not currently in their coalition? I don't think polls would show that Obama has angered working class Dems or female Dems in any way that would prevent them from voting DEM in November.

Posted by client8 | March 12, 2008 1:11 PM

Further playing on Marc's "except Virginia & Wisconsin" statement - aren't these important GE states? In which states did Clinton eat into Obama's base?

Posted by neilrlca | March 12, 2008 1:15 PM

the FLAW in Hillary Clinton's argument on "big states" is that in 2000 if Al Gore had won one more small state (Tennessee for ex) he would have won the President -- and Florida would have been irrelevant

winning a lot of small states yields the same amount of electoral votes as winning as big state

and the Clinton campaign keeps claiming CA and NY as her sole property -- the democrat will carry those states

Every non partisan poll has OBAMA doing better than Clinton against McCain in the electoral college

Posted by allison | March 12, 2008 1:23 PM

This is a good start by the Obama campaign, but this argument needs to go farther, and it's not complicated:

1) Kerry won 20 states in 2004 (including D.C.). Of these 20 states, 17 have already had 2008 contests (not including Michigan). Obama has won 11 of the 17 contests. Clinton won only CA, NY, NJ, RI, MA and NH. Obama would not be expected to lose any of those states in a general election, with the possible exception of NH.

2) Of the 5 states that went most closely for Bush in 2004 (i.e., the states most likely to swing to the Democrats), Obama has won 4: IA, CO, MO, VA. Clinton has won only one: OH.

3) The 3 states won by Kerry most narrowly in 2004 (i.e., the states most likely to flip to rhe Republicans) were all won by Obama: WI, MN, WA.

Is it just me, or is this an overwhelming case for Obama's electability by Clinton's own metrics?

Posted by Brian | March 12, 2008 1:23 PM

The only thing that I've observed is the vote going for Obama is a vote Against Hillary, not a positive vote. Simply stated, people don't like her.

Posted by John | March 12, 2008 1:28 PM

You'd expect Clinton to run better in the NE - it's closer to her home. And I'll concede WI and MO because of their proximity to IL.

Look, the matchups state-by-state that were done give Obama the edge. And he can put AK, MI, and GA into play with stellar black turnout and a mere third of whites. And AZ, NM, and CO probably go his way too. Clinton can win the way that Gore and Kerry could have - on a razor's edge. Obama can choose that path *OR* a different one. He has more options - which means he needs less things to fall his way.

And we're not even talking about the coattails argument here.

Posted by Client 3.14159 | March 12, 2008 1:33 PM

Actually in my case it was a vote for Senator Obama... which has since BECOME a vote against Senator Clinton. I really honestly like Obama's views on policy, and how it should be formed.

However, as an independent voter, I have no particular loyalty to the democratic party. If you guys decide for whatever mind boggling reason to choose Senator Clinton, then I will be voting for Senator McCain, who at least I feel has a sense of honor.

Oh, and as a military voter, let me mention that even my more conservative friends LIKE Obama, and will consider voting for him. Simply because of his approach to politics. Even as they disagree with his policies, they feel they can respect him. If Senator Obama is the candidate, then we will actually have to make a choice. If Senator Clinton is the candidate, then our choice is made. It will be Senator McCain.

Posted by Daniel | March 12, 2008 1:40 PM

The only thing that I've observed is the vote going for Obama is a vote Against Hillary, not a positive vote. Simply stated, people don't like her.

Posted by John | March 12, 2008 1:28 PM

Then why do exit polls show that Clinton voters are more negative towards Obama than Obama voters are towards Clinton? This was true in Mississippi, and very counterintuitive. You would think Mississippi would have been more negative towards Clinton because: a) her campaign has offended black voters; and b) her comments in Iowa characterizing Mississippi as backwards should have alienated all voters in the state, but especially white voters.

Posted by Brian | March 12, 2008 1:53 PM

I find both campaigns arguments to be uncocnvincing. A paragraph about each candidate.

Clinton does do better in PA and NJ. She also does poorly in the pacific northwest, Iowa and Michigan. And she is unlikely to put any new states in play except Arkansas and maybe West Wirginia. The more I crunch the numbers it looks like she MUST win Florida to get to 270.

Obama puts more states in play than Clinton. Specifically, Colorado, Virginia and North Carolina and possibly even Nevada, South Dakota and Nebraska. There are more combinations Obama can put together to get to 270. This does not mean he is more electable, it just means he would have a larger margin for error than Clinton.

As a Democrat I would just point out that the conventional wisdom about electability has kept Republicans in the White House 20 of the last 28 years. And even in victory we needed an assist from Ross Perot. That doesn't mean Clinton couldn't be more electable. But it is fair to say that the traditional Democratic argument of electability has been proven wrong over the past generation and it is time to come up with a strategy that is more likely to win.

Posted by Ben | March 12, 2008 1:59 PM

Is it just me, or is this an overwhelming case for Obama's electability by Clinton's own metrics?

No, it's an overwhelming case for Obama's electability by Clinton's own metrics. Nicely argued.

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 12, 2008 1:59 PM

"With the exception of Virginia and Wisconsin, Obama has failed to attract a large number of white, working class Democrats."

This sentence depends on ignoring caucus states, because if you don't ignore them, this list gets MUCH longer. Indeed, it quickly demonstrates that Clinton's support in these demographics has been more regionally limited than Obama's.

Now, I know Clinton wants everyone to ignore caucus states. The problem is that they get to actually vote in the general election, even though they held caucuses. Hence, ignoring them turns out to be a bad idea.

Posted by DTM | March 12, 2008 2:10 PM

Be a smart idea also to factor in the Limbaugh Republican (white male?) crossover vote as the evidence emerges and the effects become clearer. It fattened Clinton's numbers a bit in Texas and Mississippi. That dubious support doesn't, of course, carry over to the GE. Nope: those guys lined up behind her to give her a push over the cliff.

Posted by PW | March 12, 2008 2:48 PM

How the blacks swing towards Obama, the Latinos will swing in that direction towards Clinton. So Clinton also has a chance in Nevada and Texas. Clinton won't be a 51% President. More like 55%. As for Obama, isn't it the reason why we voted for him is so he can be a 60% or above President? If he can't reach that mandate, then wouldn't it defeat the purpose of his unity campaign? This is the risk that i find Obama has. Remember that this nation is having multiple catastropic problems. It's nice to have hope but not the right time to have one. The time of hope was in year 2000 but we chose not to because times are good, so i hope we will make the right choice of hope when we have the chance again in 2016.

Posted by StevenT | March 12, 2008 2:58 PM

So Clinton also has a chance in Nevada and Texas.

No, she doesn't. At least not in Texas. Unless you think all those Dittoheads who voted for her in the primary are (ha!) going to vote for her in the general.

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 12, 2008 3:03 PM

The only thing that I've observed is the vote going for Obama is a vote Against Hillary, not a positive vote. Simply stated, people don't like her.

My vote for Obama (and, for what it's worth, my volunteering for his campaign) was most assuredly a positive vote because of the things he stands for and his record -- not a vote against Sen. Clinton. Though given the way she's waged her campaign of late, I'd be fine casting a negative vote against her, too. Call it icing.

Posted by jbryan | March 12, 2008 3:40 PM

@ Zitron

This is called masturbation with empirics. Or data mining. It should be well discredited at this point, and it is used by small minds like Mark Penn who know statistical methods but don't have the brains to understand them.

One more statistic that should be a real killer-diller for the Clinton Camp... No person nominated or elected president has ever been a woman. Ouch.

STOP WITH THE EMPIRICO-STATISTICAL MASTURBATION. You only get stupid results like the penultimate sentence of the last paragraph.

Posted by Richard Pointer | March 12, 2008 4:27 PM

Key endorsement:

http://www.forbes.com/businesswire/feeds/businesswire/2008/03/12/businesswire20080312006068r1.html

Posted by Queue | March 12, 2008 4:55 PM

1) Obama is more electable: there is no one person that rallies Republicans to get out and vote against them, and that is Hillary Clinton

2) Obama has was caucuses AND primaries: the Clinton camp, you'll notice isn't claiming this anymore

3) Obama has blown Clinton "Inevitability" away: through tough, smart, coordinated ground work - the kind of work that could produce results so badly needed

Posted by TheNest | March 12, 2008 9:02 PM

DON'T BE DUPED!!!

Large numbers of Republicans have been voting for Barack Obama in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucuses. Because they feel he would be a weaker opponent against John McCain. And because they feel that a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket would be unbeatable. And also because with a Clinton and Obama ticket you are almost 100% certain to get quality, affordable universal health care very soon.

But first, all of you have to make certain that Hillary Clinton takes the democratic nomination and then the Whitehouse. NOW! is the time. THIS! is the moment you have all been working, and waiting for. You can do this America. “Carpe diem” (harvest the day).

I think Hillary Clinton see’s a beautiful world of plenty, and comfort for all. She is a woman, and a mother. And it’s time America. Do this for your-self, and your children’s future. You will have to work together on this and be aggressive, relentless, and creative. Americans face an even worse catastrophe ahead than the one you are living through now.

You see, the medical and insurance industry mostly support the republicans with the money they ripped off from you. And they don’t want you to have quality, affordable universal health care. They want to be able to continue to rip you off, and kill you and your children by continuing to deny you life saving medical care that you have already paid for. So they can continue to make more immoral profits for them-self.

Hillary Clinton has actually won by much larger margins than the vote totals showed. And lost by much smaller vote margins than the vote totals showed. Her delegate count is actually much higher than it shows. And higher than Obama’s. HILLARY CLINTON IS ALREADY THE TRUE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE!

As much as 30% of Obama's primary, and caucus votes are Republicans trying to choose the weakest democratic candidate for McCain to run against. These Republicans have been gaming the caucuses where it is easier to vote cheat. This is why Obama has not been able to win the BIG! states primaries. Even with Republican vote cheating help.

Hillary Clinton has been out manned, out gunned, and out spent 2 and 3 to 1. Yet Obama has only been able to manage a very tenuous, and questionable tie with Hillary Clinton.

If Obama is the democratic nominee for the national election in November he will be slaughtered. Because the Republican vote cheating help will suddenly evaporate. All of this vote fraud and republican manipulation has made Obama falsely look like a much stronger candidate than he really is. YOUNG PEOPLE. DON’T BE DUPED! Think about it. You have the most to lose.

The democratic party needs to fix this outrage. I suggest a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket now! Everyone needs to throw all your support to Hillary Clinton NOW! So you can end this outrage against YOU the voter, and against democracy.

I think Barack Obama has a once in a life time chance to make the ultimate historic gesture for unity, and change in America by accepting Hillary Clinton’s offer as running mate. Such an act now would for ever seal Barack Obama’s place at the top of the list of Americas all time great leaders, and unifiers for all of history. But the time to act is soon.

The democratic party, and the super-delegates have a decision to make. Are the democrats, and the democratic party going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee to fight for the American people. Or are the republicans going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee through vote fraud, and gaming the DEMOCRATIC party primaries, and caucuses.

Fortunately the Clinton’s have been able to hold on against this fraudulent outrage with those repeated dramatic comebacks of Hillary Clinton’s. Only the Clinton’s are that resourceful, and strong. Hillary Clinton is your NOMINEE. They are the best I have ever seen.

“This is not a game” (Hillary Clinton)

Sincerely

jacksmith...

Posted by jacksmith | March 12, 2008 9:43 PM

Until recently, I was taking the attitude that having Barack or Hillary as our eventual Democratic candidate was a great problem to have. I'm well aware of how polarizing the Clintons are, and though I am an Obama supporter, felt that either one would be remarkably good candidates...as I said: until recently...

Clinton, and handlers, Mark Penn and Howard Wolfson, have turned this primary back into another tiresome 'gotcha' kind of ordeal. It seems like every other second she, or one of her handlers, have some 'witty' comment designed to cut someone down in the service of making Hillary look bigger (e.g.: that dis about the 'latte-sipping crowd' or that infuriatingly unfounded "Ken Starr" claim). Hillary's own comments : "He's not a Muslim...that I know of" or that comment about McCain or Hillary, herself, being the only ones with the 'experience'
to lead were manipulative and cynical in the extreme, and, it has taken the debate down so
many levels that I have lost any respect I had for her. Clearly she is threatened - for whatever reason - by Barack Obama's popularity, and will do or say anything to win, even if it means selling the Dems out to John McCain.

I was seduced by the idea of the Dream Ticket, but, Clintonian arrogance and egomania have surely dashed that idea with unfunny punchlines about how she and McCain have the 'experience' to cross the threshold to the White House "...and Barack's got..a speech".

I am not prepared for another four years of Clinton sordidness and faux hopefulness. The last blog-poster made it sounds as if the Clintons planned all this, as if they're so smart that they made it look as if Hillary's struggling, when in reality, she knows the score, is barely breaking a sweat. This is a complete fantasy.

Though I, too, have some good memories of the Clinton Years, THEY'RE GONE, never to be repeated,
and, we need a leader like Barack Obama who can win the general election. While Hillary shape-shifts with whatever serves her agenda of the moment - a hawk one day, a tearful dove the next - Obama as U.S. President only appeals more;
Barack steers clear of the sound-bite, reactionary rhetoric and gives us a little credit for understanding some complexity. One gets the sense that Mr. Obama truly views this as an opportunity for public service; with Hillary, it's always seemed like she viewed the Presidency as inevitable, some sort of birthright.

For these reasons, and many more, it will be very difficult for me to cast a vote for Mrs. Clinton, even if she is eventually named the Democratic nominee. (If she is, I hope that some late-breaking Green Party candidate throws a hat into the ring, since I sure will not be voting for
McCain, who has completely sold his soul to Bush/Cheney, Inc.) She has - again - brought the dialogue down to a level of divisiveness and fear-mongering that I'd hoped we were past with Bush on his way out the door. Guess not.

Posted by TJ | March 12, 2008 10:56 PM

P.S. Re : Jacksmith post (aka Hillary advertisement)
- I appreciate different opinions, just don't believe that Republican mobilizing/conniving is the cause for Obama's landslide victories. I think his message resonates with people -- in short, that Washington insider experience/resume does not equal wisdom or vision.

One thing I have to say, though: Hillary campaign was almost dead and buried till about a week or so ago (Texas/Ohio)...You have a very sunny idea of how it's been around the Clinton campaign offices, methinks.

Let's face facts without being too semantic or anything: Barack has won a bunch of states, Hillary a few! She "offered" him the VP
position when she is trailing him by a large margin -- NICE! She gets all his votes and he gets...what?

Posted by TJ | March 12, 2008 11:18 PM

Democrats need to be aware of this - the future of the Democratic party may depend on it. Make sure you read these two links because failure to be aware could be costly:

www.alternet.org/election08/79506/
www.fivethirtyeight.com/

While you're at it, you might as well get an update on 'Naftagate':

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBheLrsMh4E

Posted by Jay | March 13, 2008 7:14 AM