Clinton's Path To The Nomination: Clearer Than You Think

I find it interesting that the majority of people who are writing about Clinton's "path to the nomination" are mostly Clinton eulogists. These essays read like this, "Clinton needs to achieve this long list of unlikely victories and then will still have to face a hostile elective body in Denver who clearly prefer Obama." They then go on to point out that Clinton's only real hope is that Obama will do something to tank his own campaign and make himself unpalatable to the DNC. Then, and only then, will Clinton have a chance of swaying the superdelegates to back her, and by then, the image of the Democratic party in general will be so trashed that McCain will sweep the election, and everyone will be sorry they didn't speak out louder for Obama. They're already plating up a big, healthy meal of buyer's remorse, when no one's been bought yet. In light of all this, I think it is far and away time to see a Clinton-favoring "path to the nomination."

Of course these eulogies started popping up as soon as Clinton achieved what everyone said she needed to achieve: big wins on March 4th. Everyone from both campaigns, to the media, to the DNC said this was the "firewall." She passed that firewall with flying colors. And, in spite of accusations that Clinton is capitalizing on the Wright scandal, the more likely reality is that March 4th gave Clinton momentum for Pennsylvania. She was already in the lead in the Keystone State, and her lead started to grow immediately after March 4th. Yes, the Wright scandal probably helped, and Clinton cannot be blamed for passively benefiting from it. More likely, the Wright situation is helping her more in North Carolina, where Obama's lead has been drastically shortened. Three weeks ago, Penn and NC looked like mirror images of each other, now it's a landslide for Clinton in Penn and a narrow win for Obama in NC. Since the beginning or March, the head-to-head schematic has started to slide Clinton's way, too, with the "vs. McCain" results no longer favoring Obama (which they were by 5 points) and with Clinton performing better against McCain. In that race, Obama has lost nearly 6 points and Clinton has gained 3. That is a 9-point variance, which is outside most margins of error.

So, what is Clinton's path to the nomination?

Florida and Michigan

While the pundits are calling the likelihood of nothing happening in FL and MI towards re-votes a "blow" to Clinton, I think this is a media-created fallacy. First of all, a re-vote in either state presents the very real chance that Obama could close the gap. Campaign schematics are different, the media coverage is different, only 25% of the original candidates are still standing, and Obama is seen as a much more serious option than he was pre-Edwards drop out. Second, if nothing happens in the two contested states, and the DNC continues their shut out of those delegates, they still represent 1.2 million votes for Clinton. Official or not, those votes close the gap. With FL and MI included, the popular vote total only favors Obama by 0.3%. Anyone who tries to claim that those votes should not count should also check their cries for the popular vote to be respected. Regardless of a rule that disenfranchised millions of American voters because governmental bureaucracy made a bungle, votes are still votes.

Big States Strategy and Electoral Strategy

These two are related, and are a very normal and typical general election strategy. In spite of the nit picking about the importance of such and such demographic and arguments about who can turn red states blue, the simple fact remains that Clinton has performed the strongest in the big states and that she leads in electorate strength. Barring a huge reversal in Pennsylvania, that argument will be almost unchallengeable by April 22. Obama has cleaned house in small states and in caucuses. And, in spite of creative math supported by questionable arguments that Obama appeals to swing voters more than Clinton, big states decide the general election, and the general election is not run caucus-style. Yes, there are states that are so blue that any Democrat will carry them, but that is true of Clinton too. Also, Texas is the major big-state stronghold for Republicans, and there is a very compelling case that Clinton would be much more competitive in Texas than Obama. I'm not sold that Democrats could take Texas at all, but stranger things have happened. If 700,000 Latinos come out to vote on Election Day in Texas like they did on March 4th, we might see an upset in Texas. An area where Clinton has an arguable advantage is in voter empowerment, and in energizing her ground game at the last minute.

Swing States and "pink" states

The swing states are: Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana. They represent 71 electoral votes which is 13% of the nationwide electorate and 26% of the required majority to win. Based on a combination of results and poll projections, Clinton beats Obama in the swing states by 10 points. I believe there is also a strong argument that Clinton could take Florida, a "pink" state. She is performing much better in head-to-heads than Obama in the Sunshine State, she won the Florida primary by a very convincing margin, versus McCain's narrow win over Romney. If Clinton can hang onto her Latino base and regain the white male vote, she could give McCain a run for his money in taking Florida's 25 electoral votes. The other pink states are: Georgia, Arizona, Colorado, and Montana. In terms of the Democratic race, those states are split in half with Georgia and Colorado for Obama and Arizona and Montana for Clinton (Montana projected.) Of the pink states other than Florida, only Georgia has much electoral weight, and in fairness to Obama, I do think he would stand a fair chance of taking Georgia, but he would lose Florida which would cut into his net gain pretty seriously.

The Money Myth

"Obama outspends Clinton." "Obama raises more money than Clinton." The fact however, is that since the beginning of March, Clinton has been raising at least a million a day, and when they sent out panicked calls for donations last week, they raised over 2 million on 1 day. I do not see that kind of push from Obama, who is currently coasting on financial advantage based on higher debt on the Clinton side. Also, Clinton is much more financially prepared for the general election, by more than a 3-to-1 margin. Both Democrats have left McCain in the dust financially. If Clinton can get to the general election, she will have a huge financial advantage. Obama would have to focus on fund raising, whereas Clinton would be much more agile because of her money lead. In the general election funds, Clinton is ahead of McCain 7-to-1 whereas Obama is ahead just over 2-to-1. Obama is blowing through money very fast right now trying to regain his momentum, outspending Clinton by over a million a day. While that makes him look like he is winning, it is literally costing him. If Clinton can stay financially afloat for the next 5 weeks, the financial schematic will look very different by June. By that time, the Clinton campaign will have paid off its debt, and Obama will be struggling to keep his lead against McCain and the GOP who will no doubt open their wallets wide. Clinton has also been slammed for her big-donor strategy, which I cannot fathom being a bad idea. With big, cash-flushed donors on her side, there is a much greater chance that when push comes to shove, Clinton will be able to keep her lead, versus Obama's "grassroots" financial support. If I was in dire straights for money, I'd ask my rich friends for money before my poor ones.

General Election Focus and the Issues

I believe that Clinton has been focusing on general election strategies from the start: take the big states, build up a big general election fund, stay centrist on the issues. Clinton is appealing to the wallet -- economy, housing, health care. Obama is appealing to the spirit -- change, cooperation, reform.

I think it is clear at this point that the working class prefers Clinton, and in the end, her positions on keeping your house and getting medical care will win the day. While it has come out that Clinton apparently "misrepresented" her position on NAFTA, I still think that one goes to (or against) Obama. Clinton held pro-NAFTA meetings while Bill was president, and NAFTA was widely seen as a good move for the US economy. Clinton has said that NAFTA is hurting the economy now, and said that she would use opt-out threats to renegotiate NAFTA terms. Obama pretty much said the same thing, but it also came out that his campaign strategists knew this was just rhetoric and didn't really mean it. So, 10 years ago Clinton said, "Let's do NAFTA." Now it's not working out, and she acknowledges this and wants to fix it. Obama just looks like a liar in this case, whereas Clinton has a much stronger argument that, "We tried it, it didn't work out as planned. We can fix it."

As for Iraq, people think that Obama has a better plan because he opposed the war from the start. This is another media-created fallacy. Just because Clinton voted to authorize the war doesn't mean that today, five years later, in a completely different political climate, Clinton is not capable of coming up with a reasonable solution. Also, the likelihood that Iraq is going to get worse before it gets better is still very real. Pro-Iraq sentiment is at an all time high again. Even though liberals won't acknowledge it for the most part, the troop surge worked. I believe Clinton's Iraq position is also a general election strategy to appeal to moderates who support the war effort (even if they opposed it originally) but want to see progress toward withdrawal. Obama's anti-war stance is much stronger and louder, and that may not be a strength against McCain, although it presents more contrast. Clinton and McCain are both on the Armed Services Committee, which begs the question, who knows more about Iraq? Probably Clinton. Couched together with her very real point that Obama has been seriously negligent in his duties as the chair of the sub committee on Europe, Clinton comes out looking much more prepared to deal with Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran.

The Superdelegate Myth

The prevalent attitude at this time is the the superdelegates favor Obama. Currently, Clinton is holding a 14% lead in superdelegate support. Clinton has had superdelegate majority since the beginning. Obama is closing that lead, but he is doing so with his primary and caucus numbers, not with unpledged "defectors" as the media is portraying. The main myth that is being perpetrated is that the superdelegates are in some way going to automatically support Obama based on "large" popular vote leads. First of all, I don't see much of a large lead, and it is getting smaller. Florida and Michigan are going to count in the arguments, even if they don't count in the math, and that erases Obama's "big lead." The superdelegates are not bound to the popular vote, otherwise their function would be what? Nothing. Superdelegates exist because of the obvious need for discernment in the nomination process. If Clinton can convince superdelegates that she is the right one for the job, there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, the pundits are already saying that this is exactly what she has to do. When all the primaries are over, and the nominating process enters its final stages, either one of them is going to need the superdelegate contingent to get their majority. Obama has to campaign for their support, too, but you don't see anyone saying he shouldn't. The superdelegates are voters in the nominating process just like the pledged ones, and arguably their role is more important at this stage, since neither candidate is going to win without them.

If find no compelling argument that Obama's case is any stronger than Clinton's. The two are still in a dead heat, and Obama is currently suffering. If Clinton had experienced the horrible week Obama just had, the opinion would be that it was over for her. The fact that she has hung on, is gaining in the head-to-heads and is closing the gap in states that were "Obama Country" a week ago, is certainly not a sign that she should quit. It is a very strong sign that she could turn it around. Clinton has come back every time it has looked like it was over. There is more evidence to support the idea that she can come back again, rather than she won't. This battle aint over til it's over. Clinton very well may win the argument that she is more electable, and that is going to win the nomination. Democratic party leaders have made it very clear that their priority is a Democratic win in November, and whoever demonstrates a stronger elective case by August will be the nominee.