Letters to the Editor

• Hamlet_d-your answer

  [Read the article: She's still in it to win it]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  Salon no longer has the ability to provide cutting edge coverage behind the MSM smokescreen but others do. Here's Kos using the *Clinton* EV map. This was BEFORE North Carolina-Indiana. Recent essays by Kos and Marshall highlighted that Obama does not have a "white-working class problem", its an "Appalachia problem". The map on both Kos and TPM demonstrate the concentration of greatest Clinton support all though Appalachia (and the rust belt portions thereof.)

  Cheers

  1)The Clinton and Obama maps by kos

  Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:38:38 AM PDT

  So the pro-Clinton camp is circulating these Electoral-Vote maps to "prove" that Clinton is more "electable" in the fall:

  Clinton v McCain:

  McCain: 239

  Clinton: 289

  Ties: 10

  Obama v McCain:

  McCain: 254

  Obama: 269

  Ties: 15

  I can quibble with the methodology, but I won't. There's a larger point to be made using those maps. The author has helpfully divided the states into Strong, Weak, and Barely Dem/GOP. Let's see how our two candidates fare:

  Obama Clinton

  Strong Dem 67 74

  Weak Dem 144 98

  Barely Dem 58 117

  Tied 15 10

  Barely GOP 76 13

  Weak GOP 44 89

  Strong GOP 134 137

  What's this tell us?

   It tells us that Obama's base is stronger: "strong" and "weak" Dem add up to 172 for Clinton, and 211 for Obama. We have to play less defense.

   With Obama, McCain's base is weaker: 226 EVs versus Clinton, and 178 versus Obama.

  These two data points alone are worth the price of admission for Obama. With him as our nominee, Democrats have a larger safe base, and Republicans have a smaller one. But what about the contested states?

   More Democratic states are at risk with Clinton. In the "barely Dem" category, Clinton has double the EVs -- 117 to 58. What's more, the "tied" state -- Wisconsin, is a Blue state. So with Clinton, we have 127 EVs that are in weak hands.

  With Obama, however, we have only 58 "barely Dem" EVs, and the tied states, North Carolina, is a Red state.

   Obama puts more pressure on McCain states: With Obama, McCain has 76 "barely GOP" EVs compared to 13 against Clinton. Put another way, best case scenario where our candidates take all the states in their column and "barely GOP" columns, Obama ends up with 360 EVs, while Clinton would get 312. Obama has far higher ceiling.

   Obama Holds the Kerry states better: This is related to the "base states" stuff above. The only Kerry state Obama currently loses is New Hampshire. On the other hand, Clinton loses Michigan, New Hampshire, and ties in Wisconsin. Furthermore, Obama has three Kerry states in the "barely" category -- Michigan, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. Clinton has six -- Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Hawaii. That means that Clinton is losing or barely holding on to 9 Kerry states (out of 19), compared to four for Obama.

  Democratic numbers versus McCain are currently artificially depressed because of our long-running primary. But despite that disadvantage, Obama still runs a far broader, map-changing campaign than Clinton.

  **If Democrats want to run the same campaign that has served us so poorly the last decade -- hold the Kerry states and win Ohio and Florida, then Clinton is the person. It's clear in her rhetoric that she can't fathom any other path to the White House. That's why she has insulted so many "Red" states and small states and whatnot. Because in her mind, 50%+1 is the only thing that matters.** (my emphasis-Ken-this is the rub)

  Beside having a more solid base than Clinton, Obama's campaign would have a tough time competing in Florida, no doubt about that. But he opens up the Mountain West -- Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, possibly Montana, North Dakota, and even one or two of Nebraska's EVs (they are apportioned by congressional district). Obama would be competitive in Texas, North Carolina, and Virginia -- with their large youth, African American, Latino, and creative class voters.

  And I'm getting this all from the map currently cited by Clinton supporters as evidence of her supposed better electability. The map, sad to say (for them), says the exact opposite.

  Permalink Wednesday, May 14, 2008 09:38 AM

• Hmmmmm

  [Read the article: Some thoughts about West Virginia ]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  Well, Joan, I guess the sargument isn't what you thought it was. When did CV start to over ride good reporting? Of course these numbers will change as the GE gets into gear.

  Poll: McCain Beats Obama And Hillary By Equal Margin Among Working Class Whites

  By Greg Sargent - May 14, 2008, 11:14AM

  There are some key numbers buried in the internals of today's Quinnipiac poll that go some way towards deflating Hillary's claim that she would outperform Obama against McCain among working class whites.

  It finds that McCain beats both Hillary and Obama by an identical margin among working class (no college) white voters.

  Among these voters, McCain beats Obama 46%-39%.

  And McCain beats Hillary 48%-41%.

  That's a seven point spread in both cases.

  What's more, the poll also finds that both lose to McCain by an equal margin of seven points among whites overall.

  Of course, Hillary's argument is also about who would fare better among these voters in the big states in particular, and this is only one poll.

  Nonetheless, there's no getting around the fact that the above numbers are difficult to square with a central aspect of her basic argument.

  Permalink Wednesday, May 14, 2008 09:50 AM