Debunking the Obama unelectability myth

Drunken Irishman

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat May-24-08 05:10 PM
Original message

Debunking the Obama unelectability myth

Edited on Sat May-24-08 05:15 PM by Drunken Irishman

He's not electable, they say and then point to those pesky electoral-vote maps as evidence of this. However, this far out, you can't look at the total vote count as evidence of him not being electable. You've got to look deeper into the numbers to find that he's probably far more electable than Hillary Clinton and that's because her support is far softer than Obama's.

What do I mean? Well let's look at today's two maps from electoral-vote.com

Now I'll conede that at first glance, Hillary Clinton looks like the better candidate to run against McCain. I mean, she does win the electoral college, while Obama -- though he leads -- does not. However, you've got to look beyond just the votes because that does not tell the full story.

Strong GOP

We'll start with STRONG GOP, as these EC votes are almost certainly going Republican in November. If you compare Clinton to Obama, you find that Clinton has 143 electoral votes that are considered STRONG GOP, while Obama only has 129. That is a difference of 14 electoral votes the Dems could lose in November, which, as we saw in 2000, could decide the election.

Weak GOP

Weak GOP are votes that the Democrats could win in November. Now Clinton does not do well here, as there are only 39 weak GOP electoral votes up for grabs in her map, while Obama has 73. That's a difference of 34 electoral votes. Will Obama win them all? No, but the fact he puts more electoral votes in play will help him this November.

Barely GOP

This is probably the biggest bloc of electoral college votes because it's our real chance of stealing a few Republican states. Clinton only has 26 electoral votes that can be considered barely GOP, while Obama has 46. That's a difference of 20 electoral votes and that could decide the election, especially if Obama can steal a couple of "weak" GOP states.

Tied

These votes are huge too because they basically can break either way. For Clinton, she's tied for 17 electoral votes and Obama is tied for 24 electoral votes. That's a difference of 7 votes, so the difference here is not that big.

Now I know some will say her numbers are lower in Republican states because she's doing extremely well in Democratic states. This is not true.

Barely Dem

Both do ok here, as Obama has 32 electoral votes that are barely Democratic and Hillary 33. This is big, though, for Obama because the higher the number here, the softer the support. And the fact Obama doesn't have soft support among Democratic states shows that he's in good shape.

Weak Dem

Not nearly as big as BARELY DEM, but close. These states the Democrats can't afford to lose, because it could change the election. Now Obama only has 92 electoral votes listed as WEAK DEM, while Clinton has 157. That's a difference of 65 electoral votes. That's a lot, because that means these states will be contested by Republicans and it's possible they could switch at any time in this election cycle.

Strong Dem

These are states Democrats shouldn't lose and Obama has the lead here. 142 of his electoral votes are STRONG DEM, while only 124 of Clinton's fits into this category. That's a difference of 18 electoral votes, which is a pretty high number when you consider we've heard Obama might not do well in traditionally Democratic states.

So what's the whole point of this? Well I believe both Obama and Clinton could beat McCain, however, these maps prove Hillary's support is pretty soft in many states. Soft support isn't bad IF it holds and you win those states, but it's May and anything can happen. And while she does beat McCain in the EC, there is a concern that support isn't strong enough to hold over months of a grueling campaign.

When looking at these numbers, you must take into account the foundation of each candidate's support. And while Obama may not have 270 electoral votes yet, he does better in Republican states than Clinton and his support in Democratic states appears to be stronger as a whole. That doesn't mean Clinton won't poll better in past Democratic states, but as a whole, her support is far more softer than Obama. So when some people on this board suggest Obama can't win and use these maps as proof Clinton does better than Obama, you've got to look at in the whole context. While she may do better than Obama RIGHT NOW, it's not by much and the support she does have is very fickle and prone to switching at any time. And though I believe Obama has his work cut out for him, it is a good sign his support at this moment is stronger than Clinton's and McCain's, because in the end that will be more important to the campaign than to who is leading in what state in the month of May.