Clinton’s New Electoral College Argument
March 24, 2008 | Permalink
Another week, another benchmark for the Clinton campaign:
IN Sen. Evan Bayh, a Hillary Clinton supporter and surrogate, suggested yesterday on CNN that Super Ds should use the Electoral College to determine which candidate they’ll back.
“So who carried the states with the most Electoral College votes is an important factor to consider because ultimately, that’s how we choose the president of the United States,” Bayh said on CNN’s “Late Edition.”
Per the NYT, Clinton has won states with a total of 219 EC votes, not counting FL and MI, while Obama has won states with a total of 202 EC votes. Obama has won more states, more delegates and leads in the popular vote, however. Meanwhile, as we know, the EC is not a factor in primary contests, only in the general.
I find it hard to take these arguments seriously when the Clinton campaign changes them so often. (And also because it’s the only metric Clinton is even arguably ahead.)
There’s some notable weaknesses:
- The Obama Campaign has pointed out that any Democrat would almost certainly win New York and California. The Clinton campaign would rebut that any Republican would win states like Idaho and Utah. Both of these are true - there are some states that will not be very competitive come November. So why count any of them? This impugns the whole metric.
- There’s a long way before the general election. Note that New Hampshire which voted for Clinton in more recent polls seems to be for Obama. Clearly there’s also regret on some Democrats after the Wright story broke. Point being that locking all of these results in stone is a bad decision making metric.
- I believe (but am not certain) that this NYT metric assumes Clinton won Texas (and I’m too busy to spend the 10 minutes necessary to do the math). But if you look at total delegates, including caucus delegates, Obama has emerged with more delegates.
In other words, I’m not totally convinced.
It seems more a reaction to ths Politico article calling the election essentially over. Also, Ambinder’s response is worth reading.
Sphere: Related Content
http://hillbuzz.blogspot.com/2008/03/burden-to-prove-electability-is-on.html
There is a lot of evidence that shows McCain would give Obama a good run for his money. First, people picking Hillary will swing over to McCain. He is moderate and he has experience. Additionally, if Obama can rally all of the Latinos in Cali to his side, he’ll take Cali. But there is a movement to go to McCain if Hillary is not the nominee. Can’t win without Latinos.
This blog proves Hillary is the true heavy weight.
How does Obama expect to win states he LOST to Hillary — the big states that are important?
Obama failed to prove he could win big states against a candidate of Hillary’s stature….what PROOF does anyone have that he can win against McCain?
Just gut.
Additionally, the caucus argument is bunk. There are no caucuses in the General Election. Everyone will be able to vote. It does not matter who came out ahead in the end. It only mattered what the state counted for their delegates.
Take Washington State for instance. Obama won the caucus by around 23%. But 5 times the amount of people voted in the Primary. He won by around 2%.
No caucuses in the General, so a caucus does not prove anything when making predictions for the General.
These arguments seem pretty specious. The Democratic nomination is not intended to be a preview of the General. Also, no matter who wins, things will change. For instance, HRC cannot win the general without winning some Upper Midwest states like Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa. I wouldn’t write her off their either.
The election should be determined on the issues. Electability is a crapshoot.
Moreover, these arguments would have more force if Clinton didn’t pick a new one every week.
this is the stupidest website ever. it doent even make sense. u needa get fired for dis shit that u wrote!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!