Clinton: A Sure Democratic Win; Obama: Not So Sure

Latest polling released from Quinnipiac from critical November swing states shows who is the clear favorite: Sen. Hillary Clinton.  Here are the results:

Florida

Clinton defeats McCain by 8%

Obama loses to McCain by 1%

Ohio

Clinton defeats McCain by 10%

Obama loses to McCain by 1%

Pennsylvania

Clinton wins by 14%

Obama wins by 9%

Overall, it appears Obama can carry Pennsylvania, but that still just puts Democrats where we were 4 and 8 years ago. Democrats must win either Ohio or Florida (I'd like to see us win both) to win the White House.  Sen. Clinton can do that. Obama seems to be having problems.  

The point is this: Do Democrats want to nominate a candidate who can't win?  Or would they rather nominate a candidate who has clear strength in the crucial swing states?  If I were a superdelegate, the choice would be clear --- nominate the winner. 

Obama's Faulty Memory

While campaigning in Pennsylvania this week, Senator Obama, on more than one occasion, said that the economy under President Clinton was one reason why the people of Pennsylvania have come under hard economic times.  It is obvious Obama was trying to get to Senator Clinton through her husband, but that doesn't change that what Sen. Obama said was factually inaccurate.

 

The fact is that people in all walks of life and pay groups did better on President Clinton's watch and under his economic program than any other administration that Obama can even remember.  The Department of Labor can attest to that.  There is no other administration that can match the economic progress achieved on Clinton's watch.  The people of Pennsylvania, who Obama was talking to, were certainly not better off on George W. Bush or the Reagan-Bush watch that started back 28 years ago.

 

In fact, the economy under President Clinton did so well for people across the pay scale, there is not another economy you can compare it to.  What other administration created over 22 million jobs in 8 years; had an unemployment rate of 4.2%, the lowest in 30 years; the lowest crime rate in 30 years; balanced budgets with record surpluses while paying down over 400 billion dollars on the national debt?  I challenge Obama to come up with an administration that performed better for the people.

 

It is one thing to be in a political campaign when some people think they can say anything that is not factual, but that is a reflection on their character and a disservice to a President who worked so hard on the economy to reverse the 12 straight years of the Reagan-Bush era, where the American people lost ground economically. 

 

Obama may have the right to wallow in his hatred for President Clinton and his wife, but he does not have a right to knowingly misrepresent the truth and the facts.

The Morning Dose---4/2

Today's Morning Dose comes from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and is entitled, Not so fast: The Clinton-Obama race still has a way to run:

_______________________________________________________________________

Just when Pennsylvania is about to have its moment in the presidential primary season, calls have been made in the Democratic Party for Sen. Hillary Clinton to drop out and concede to Sen. Barack Obama in the interest of unity.

Mrs. Clinton says she will fight on -- and she's right to do so. We say that not because of Pennsylvania's interest in holding a relevant primary on April 22. Simply put, this fight isn't over.

To be sure, Mrs. Clinton is trailing in the combined totals of delegates and the math looks bad for her chances. Even so, Mr. Obama hasn't clearly won. What we have now is something of a stalemate, one that is likely to harden before it breaks. As Sen. Bob Casey said of the candidate he endorsed Friday, Mr. Obama is "the underdog in our state." Gov. Ed Rendell, who supports Mrs. Clinton, believes the race will tighten.

All of this speaks to the larger picture: It's premature for Mrs. Clinton to quit while the race remains competitive. These calls to step down by Obama supporters are no more realistic than the earlier ones floated by the Clinton camp that Mr. Obama would make a great vice presidential nominee on a "dream ticket."

While Pennsylvania has a late primary, it is not the latest. Among others, the voters in Indiana and North Carolina (May 6), West Virginia (May 13) and Kentucky and Oregon (May 20) will still have to be heard from after Pennsylvanians go to the polls three weeks from today.

As Major League Baseball starts another season, a bit of hardball wisdom from Yogi Berra applies to the Clinton-Obama race: "It ain't over till it's over."

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.