Clinton vs. Obama: Who's Stronger Come November?

First of all, let's ask ourselves what states are key to victory in November for the Democrats?  If you're like me, you don't say Utah, Idaho, North Dakota, Alabama, or the like.  Rather, states such as Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio probably come to mind.  Well, Survey USA just released some very interesting poll results, pitting John McCain against both Clinton and Obama in those three key states.

-Pennsylvania:  Building on what I said in an earlier post, Sen. Clinton has appeal to those so called "Reagan-Democrats", which make up a large portion of voters in states such as Pennsylvania.  Obama has yet to prove that he can appeal to those voters.  The latest polling from Pennsylvania confirms that indeed Sen. Clinton is stronger with working class voters that Obama; she would win against McCain.  On the flip side, Obama would lose by 5.  

-Ohio: Good news for Democrats concerning the state of Ohio.  In the latest poll, both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama lead McCain by 10%, a considerable margin.  It appears Ohio is finally going blue.  

-Florida: Perhaps the most notorious state in recent Presidential elections, Florida could once again prove decisive in 2008. In the latest polling, Clinton would beat McCain by a significant nine points.  Obama, in contrast, would lose to McCain.  

My conclusion is this: it's still way too early to say for sure which states are certain for which candidate, but these latest polls at least give us something to go by.  And if you go by them, it reinforces the point I've been trying to make which is that Clinton performs better in the swing states than does Obama. Why the inconsistency with national general election polling? Here's my explanation: Obama does do better than Clinton in some southern and mountain-west states, but still does not win them.  For example, in Utah, the latest polling has Clinton losing by 38, while Obama only loses by 11.  This means that in national polling, he may get more pure votes, but it's the electoral votes that will decide this election.  Thats why state by state polling for the general is so much more accurate than broad, national polling.  In addition, these are the polls Democrats should look at when deciding which candidate is more electable.  It's about winning the swing states, not almost winning the small states.   

To view all of the state-by-state polling I used in this post, conducted by Survey USA, please click here.  

The Daily Dose---2/27

And the Race Continues

It's two days later and I'm still shocked (and pleased) that Sen. Hillary Clinton pulled out three larger-than-expected wins in the Texas, Rhode Island, and Ohio primaries.  Although many Obama supporters are crying foul (I'm not sure why, she did win fair and square), the losses in these three states open up some serious questions about Obama's efficiency as a candidate.  First of all, with all the momentum and wind at his back, why couldn't Obama win Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island?  Secondly, why did Obama perform so poorly in these states compared to how he was polling in recent days?  Most polls had Obama losing by only 5-8 in Rhode Island (he lost by 18), losing Ohio only by 1-4 points (he lost by 10), and winning Texas by 2-4 (he lost by 4).  This tells me several things.  For one, Obama is not a strong of a candidate as many claim.  Secondly, Obama performs poorly under attack.  And lastly, simply put, Clinton, not Obama, had the message which resonated with the voters.

Exit Polling and What it Portends in the Keystone State

Exit polling from Tuesday's contests tells the story on Clinton's success. For one, Clinton won over white men significantly in Ohio and Rhode Island, and by a little less in Texas.  That is a major improvement as she has been losing white men in almost all of the contests since Super Tuesday.  Clinton also expanded her lead among Latinos, which allowed her to run up huge margins in Southern and Western Texas.  Also important to note, Latinos are a key swing group in the general election.  They could deliver New Mexico and Nevada to the Dems.  Clinton can carry them.  Can Obama?  My feeling is that Latinos would vote Republican again, as they did in '04, if Obama is the nominee.  Clinton also won those blue-collar workers by a larger margin than almost any other contest to date.  These are the "Reagan-Democrats". They would vote for Clinton come November, but again I'll ask the question, will they vote for Obama?  Hopefully, but McCain does have appeal to them.  Clinton also won seniors and those over 55 by her largest margin yet.  

So what does this mean for Pennsylvania?  It means that if Clinton can do what she did in Tuesday's contests, especially Ohio, in Pennsylvania, she can win, and win big.  Pennsylvania is more Ohio than Ohio is, if that makes any sense.  Pennsylvania has fewer African Americans, many more seniors, less young voters, and is even more "blue-collar".  The Pennsylvania primary is also closed, which means no Independents or Republicans can vote on April 22. These statistics don't mean we should count Obama out in Pennsylvania, but it does mean that he has a tough seven weeks ahead.  If things continue on the current path, Clinton could win on April 22 by a significant margin.

A Personal Note

I must say that I'm really getting sick and tired of listening to Obama supporters on other blogs talk about how if Obama isn't nominated, millions of people who voted for him will sit the election out.  Therefore, in their logic, we must nominate Obama or face certain defeat.  

Well, news flash to them, millions of people have also supported and voted for Sen. Clinton.  Is there any basis for believing that Obama supporters are more likely to be pissed come November than Clinton supporters?  It's almost as if, in their mind, they think that their candidate is so great, that if he is nominated no one will be hurt, but if he is not nominated, the whole world will be hurt.  

Listen, this isn't about me.  I prefer Sen. Clinton and I think she would be a better President, but if Sen. Obama is the nominee, I will support him and work my hardest for him.  But to imply that Clinton's supporters won't be hurt if she doesn't get the nomination is ridiculous.  At the end of this, we are looking at a 50.1-49.9% split for one candidate over the other.  That means that almost half the party won't have the candidate they supported as the nominee.  Trust me, I've talked to many people, especially women, who tell me they would be absolutely devastated and sit out the election if Obama is the nominee.  I try to tell them otherwise, but they are adamant, just as adamant as any Obama supporter. 

So my message to Democrats out there is this: One candidate is not going to lose any more support than the other would if nominated.  Regardless of who the nominee is, some will be hurt, but not a disproportional number for one side over the other either.  Our work, as Democrats and as Americans, is to unite this party and unite this country to elect the best person to the Presidency.  And although some of us may support Sen. Clinton, and others Sen. Obama, I think we can all agree that either of them would be better than McCain.  So let's have a great campaign and choose a nominee, but let's remember that there is always another view.  I think we would do ourselves and each other a great deal to keep that in mind.