Clinton's Electoral Advantage

This is starting to hit the media wire already, and I find it very hard to ignore: the electorate math is starting to stack up in favor of Clinton, and much to Obama's disadvantage. I've been doing the math myself, and any way you look at it, Clinton has a very convincing case that she will perform better in the general election.

Let's look at a few points.

Red States that could be converted to Blue:

Georgia: I think Democrats could take Georgia. It's a "pink state" and Bill Clinton won Georgia in 1992, against Bush. Georgia is a very conservative state, but has a large African-American voter base, much higher than national averages. This presents a toss-up between Hillary and Barack, however. Clinton's moderate leanings combined with Bill's '92 win say she would do better, but the black voter turnout says Barack would do better. Still, I think in a head-to-head, McCain would win Georgia over Obama, and Clinton would win over McCain.

Florida: Florida is also a "pink state," again taken by Bill Clinton is 1992, versus Bush. I think there is no contest here. Clinton could take Florida. Obama could not. Women, Latinos, Moderates, and exit polls showing Clinton far stronger in key issues like the Economy and Commander-In-Chief confidence. In a head-to-head versus Obama, McCain would sweep the white vote, the rich vote and the moderate vote. The men vs. women voter turnout is also very close, with white men dominating for McCain and Clinton.

Texas: Texas is a deeply red state. By and large, extremely conservative and most voters claim regular religious practice. However, I think Clinton could take Texas. Women, Latinos and Moderates came out loud and strong for Clinton in Texas. She also wins confidence votes for Commander-in-Chief big time over both McCain and Obama. Huckabee didn't do so well in Texas, but he did leave McCain in the dust on conservative votes and confidence votes. My main reason for saying Clinton could take Texas is the Latino turnout: 33% of Democratic voters were Latino, 10% were Republican. Also, women rocked the vote, and soundly trumped Obama in favor of Clinton. Clinton also dominated East Texas and Rio Grande Valley, far outstripping McCain in two very key voting regions. In spite of my admitted bias in favor of Clinton, I truly do think that Texas could be stolen by the Democrats, but only if Clinton is the nominee. Obama would not stand a chance in Texas. 32 electoral votes for the Democrats that have traditionally gone to the Republicans is a very big deal.

Swing States, specifically Ohio

Clinton has taken twice as many swing states, and more than twice as many (presumed) electoral votes from swing states. The swing states are: Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri and Nevada. Of the 8, only West Virgina and Kentucky have not yet voted. In terms of electoral weight, only Ohio breaks the top 10.

Ohio is the big one, of course, because of the traditional backing of the winner, and Clinton took Ohio big time over both Obama and McCain. She took Commander-in-Chief, plan for the country, Economy, Liberals, Moderates, Independents. I believe NAFTA related issues hurt Obama in Ohio, where foreign outsourcing is destroying whole towns economically. Even if the accusations that Obama may have lied about his position on NAFTA turn out to be wholly untrue, I believe the shadow of it will be long. And, it is beginning to look more like it is not wholly untrue. I don't believe what may have happened is the issue; I believe that the quick and hostile denial by Obama followed by continued revelations that something did happen is the problem. If it was so minor, why so defensive? I think the damage has been done, and it would carry over to the general election. I believe Clinton can take Ohio and its 21 electoral votes, but against Obama, I believe McCain would easily win. Superstition runs strong in the political predictions business, and losing Ohio means losing the White House.

The top 11 states in electoral votes (three states have 15 so top 10 would not be fair) are: Georgia, New Jersey, North Carolina, Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Florida, New York, Texas, and California, arranged smallest to largest. These eleven states represent just over 50% of the electoral vote. I believe Clinton has outperformed both Obama and McCain in 7 of them. According to WorldAtlas.com, "The biggest states - California (54), New York (33), Texas (32), Pennsylvania (23) - have the most impact on the result of the presidential election." Clinton has won three and is expected to win all four of those states.

As I have said above, I believe Clinton could take Texas, but Obama could not. I also feel there is a good case that Clinton could take Georgia and Florida. If she can win Pennsylvania, combined with the strong chance of stealing three Red states, plus the boast of Big Four dominance, Clinton will have a very strong case for the nomination. We should not forget that electability really is the core issue at this point. Democrats are not going to take any chances this time, which is why the competition has been so fierce. A convincing argument for electoral fitness could take the day.

With John McCain the sure opponent, the stakes are getting higher as well. McCain has the leisure to take pot shots for the next 6 months and see where he lands a hit and where he needs more practice. He also has at least 3 more months to test drive campaign strategies against both Clinton and Obama. GOP candidates get stereotyped as inflexible and closed minded, but Republican candidates evolve on the campaign trail, too. McCain is very smart and very slippery. Look at how quickly he completely evaporated a sex scandal. Who even remembers it? He's adaptable and responsive. Another thing I have said before: McCain should not be underestimated. He was the Republican Comeback Kid.

I believe the Democratic race should be allowed to play out in its own time and manner. A positive side of the protracted race is that both candidates are logging road time. Now that both Clinton and Obama have been actively campaigning for more than a year, we are starting to see signs of fatigue on both sides. Both of them have shown finesse as well. I think the image playing field is being leveled and finally the issues are coming front and center. Very harsh insults have become campaign themes. Clinton has said that Obama is all talk and no ability. Obama has called Clinton a hypocrite and says she cares more about winning than being fair. The Experience vs. Change Divide has drawn a level of scrutiny to each of them rarely seen at this point in the election cycle.

Obama is the polarizer. Without him, Clinton would have sewn it up on Super Tuesday, John Edwards would be her VP and everyone would be satisfied. It is arguable that no other viable candidate could have challenged Clinton's meta organization. Clinton was blindsided by it, and it took much longer for her campaign to recover than it should have. I personally believe that Maggie Williams has long been a private voice to the Clinton campaign, and her assumption of campaign leadership, likely in heavy cooperation with Ace Smith was probably decided by the words, "Are you ready to listen to me now?" Clinton's campaign today is nearly indistinguishable from two months ago. Hillary is still Hillary, but her campaign is more focussed, less verbose, has put the pedal to the metal on fundraising, Bill is saying all the right things, and media spin is going well.

Clinton has come back twice. She has a very strong argument for electoral strength. I think the Democrats in general are doing very well, and likely either Clinton or Obama could win the general election. Here's the difference, for me: I think Obama could win. I think Hillary would win. Another argument I have made and which is now getting serious attention for the first time is the women's vote. I have said before that I believe the thickest glass ceiling in the US is the Oval Office and it is for women. I think it is arguable that it is the biggest symbol in this country of the dominance of men over women. Exit polls are saying that race and gender have nothing to do with their votes. Let's be serious -- they have everything to do with it. Electing a woman President of the United States would be a much bigger culture change than electing a black man. Unfortunately for Obama, he is still a man.

What I have just said is what no one wants to say. It can be seen in so many negative ways, it is just easier to avoid it. With both candidates using their "history making" characteristics as fuel for their core campaigns, there is no way, at some level, they are not being considered by voters. Race is a more sensitive issue, and I believe Obama has enjoyed the benefits of reverse racism. It makes white people feel good about themselves to support him. Again, this is such an un-PC comment, I know I am going to get slammed for it, but I don't care. It is what I believe. I am not a racist (I'm going to get slammed for saying that too). In 2004, I would have backed Obama over any other Democrat, hands down. I admit a long admiration of Clinton, and part of that has been because of what I have always seen in her: a woman who can be President. She has worked toward this goal for a very long time, and I believe in the end, that preparation and the votes will prove me right. This is not just pontification on my part. In the March 4 contests in Ohio and Texas, Clinton showed a major gain from last minute deciders who said the recent debates played a major role in their decision. Women also surged out in favor of Clinton in almost every demographic. This tells me that voters said, "Are we ready to say goodbye to Hillary?" And the answer was no.

Obama has not faced a do-or-die primary yet, and likely he will not. Likely Clinton will not again either, as the last truly major contest is Pennsylvania where she is still holding a big lead. Clinton coffers are still holding a million-dollar-a-day income, and campaign offices and officers are spreading across the state already. Obama created the Texas - Ohio Firewall by being the one to point out that Clinton didn't stand a chance unless she won those two. That positioned Clinton to regain her momentum simply by doing it. This was a blunder, in spite of its justification, on Obama's part. Clinton has now created her own firewall: the rest of the primary season. Even Howard Dean has called for the remainder of the primaries to play out. Michigan and Florida have indicated willingness to find a suitable compromise that will allow their readmission to the Convention. For Obama, this means more time to slide, which is happening, and for Clinton, more time to gain, which is happening.

Momentum is exponential, something Obama is well aware of. Every victory has made each one after all the grander. I believe Clinton can truly reverse the Obama trend and spread her lead over the Pennsylvania polls. Clinton learned from Wisconsin, and she is learning faster from positive reinforcement in 3 recent wins. If she wins big in Pennsylvania, the resultant momentum will bolster all the other arguments too, bringing them closer on the scale to reality than theory. Obama is the one who is looking rattled and inflexible, true or not. Since the March 4th wins, Clinton has regained her win in McCain head-to-heads and Obama has dropped 4 points off his lead as anticipated winner of the Democratic nomination. Another overlooked statistic is undecided margin in head-to-heads, where Clinton leads with the smallest undecided margin. More people are on the fence between Obama and McCain. This supports the electoral argument too.

I also believe that the Democratic nomination is going to be brokered, no matter what. It may be brokered privately, or by the media, or by unforseen incident before the Convention in August, but there will be deals made nonetheless. The popular vote alone will not and cannot decide it. Howard Dean has also said that the rules are not going to be changed mid-cycle. This means, above all things, that superdelegates will vote independently. The argument is rising that in a race so close, the superdelegates are actually more necessary. The judgment of appointed and elected party leaders will be required to arbitrate the wisest choice. The candidates themselves could settle it on their own by brokering their own deal. An impartial "closer" like Gore or Edwards could intervene with an endorsement. The likelihood of Clinton pulling ahead, or at least razor close to Obama in delegates is growing. While this would be the most direct road to a win, I am not convinced it is the only way, or even the only fair way. It depends on what your priorities are and how you view the issues and the evidence. I also believe even if there was simply a re-vote in both Florida and Michigan, the results would still dramatically favor Clinton. The case for this is strong in Florida, where all candidates were on the ballot.

This has become my personal campaign slogan for Clinton, but never count out a Clinton. Hillary is gaining, Obama is facing his first serious integrity challenge, and the commander-in-chief confidence scale is sliding toward Clinton. McCain's agenda, which is clarifying itself daily, is focusing the issues for the general election, and Clinton is presenting herself as the stronger opponent against the GOP. If she can win that argument, she's in.