Electability in Swing States: More 2008 Discussion!

[Zuwxiv]

I've made a post on my blog (I know, shameless plug - but it's a lot of text, so I'll just give you a link) comparing the delegates that Hillary and Barack have received in the swing states and blue states.

I was trying to figure out who really is more electable; A lot of Obama's support seems to come from 'Red' states, which worries me. So I counted the numbers, and arrived at some pretty interesting conclusions.

Numbers are at the post, but base conclusions:


Exact same number of delegates for Obama and Hillary from 'blue' states.
With the Michigan and Florida compromise, Hillary is slightly ahead in the swing states.

Extrapolated conclusion: Considering that Florida and Michigan will have full sway in the general election, counting all of Hillary and Barack's delegates from their state is a little closer to what the general election will be like. Even then though, Hillary is only a tiny bit ahead of Obama compared to how many delegates they have.

So, thoughts? Concerns? Complaints? I know the method requires more analysis than simply counting delegates - such as looking at how McCain will do in those states, and counting the electoral votes of the swing states that each candidate 'won' in the democratic nomination elections.

But I would love to hear your feedback!

(Also, because this is more about some statistics and entails a lot of different information as well as my own 'research,' I figured this would be appropriate for a new thread. Mods, of course, are free to move it to the general thread.)

[Dunecat]

I wonder why Tim Russert or Chuck Todd doesn't use this method? Perhaps because it's silly.

Sorry...

[Zuwxiv]

I know the method itself is questionable... It will take much more time to look at the individual states, their actions in 2004, etc. There's no doubt in my mind that it is not the most solid way to argue for electability; but to my knowledge, nobody had considered just looking at the blue states and the swing states.

Silly as it is, I hadn't heard of anyone else doing this; how else would you suggest looking at the performance of Hillary or Barack in the general election?

The point is: Clinton factually has more delegates from blue states or swing states. Although a simple statement in itself, it is the most reasonable quickly quantifiable method of judging support among the swing states.

When I attempt to quantify such a blurry statement, knowing full well (and prominently mentioning) the problems inherent in my quantification, you don't need to reply with a sardonic dismissal...

[CDMan477]

The point is: Clinton factually has more delegates from blue states or swing states. Although a simple statement in itself, it is the most reasonable quickly quantifiable method of judging support among the swing states.

This actually has been played somewhat throughout the primary,(especially by the Clinton camp) but unless there is an accurate way to determine that Dem's would vote McCain as opposed to party lines, I don't see how it is admissible.

[Scar Face]

In the ending, a strong support in the south is a good thing. For the past elections Democrats and Republicans have been targeting swing states, for the first time in a long time however, the Democrats may be able to attack a Republican base. I don't expect a Republican collapse, I don't expect anything amazing to happen, but it is a start. It is an angle to make inroads in somewhere unexpected.

[Mongooose]

For the past elections Democrats and Republicans have been targeting swing states, for the time in a long time however, the Democrats may be able to attack a Republican base.

Yep. It really depends on what you see as swing states. Notice NC, SC and Georgia are not included in the totals. He's stayed competetive in the polling there and would hope he can make a breakthrought in atleast one of those places.

[CDMan477]

In the ending, a strong support in the south is a good thing. For the past elections Democrats and Republicans have been targeting swing states, for the first time in a long time however, the Democrats may be able to attack a Republican base. I don't expect a Republican collapse, I don't expect anything amazing to happen, but it is a start. It is an angle to make inroads in somewhere unexpected.

Yep. It really depends on what you see as swing states. Notice NC, SC and Georgia are not included in the totals. He's stayed competetive in the polling there and would hope he can make a breakthrought in atleast one of those places.

Is there any evidence that the south is going to be closer than in the last two elections?

[Icefrisco]

I think its pretty obvious Hillary has a huge advantage in swing states. Obama has clearly antagonized rural Americans which really hurts his chance of getting Pennsylvania, Ohio, or Arkansas. Those are all three states Hillary is expected to easily carry. Without Ohio or Pennsylvania, Obama would have a very hard time winning. In addition he is not well liked in Florida which already makes it near-impossible for him to win. The Democrats need a candidate who can get Florida. Hillary was that candidate. Now that she is out Obama is going to have to do a lot of apologizing to the people of Florida who didn't like his good friends Wright and Pfleger.

In general I think his lack of publicized harsh words for Iran and Hamas, his "bitter" comment about rural Americans, and his assosciation with two questionable clergymen has really hurt his chances of getting large rural, Jewish, Hispanic, and Catholic turnouts. He does get a lot of support from wealthy people. However, they don't make up the whole country. All Obama would have to do is look at Adlai Stevenson. He and Obama were in very similar situations.

In the ending, a strong support in the south is a good thing.

Your right. I understand that in the hills of Georgia and down in the Bayous of Louisiana the people are waiting for a Democrat.

So suddently Jebediah and Jethro are now going to vote for Obama who is pro-Choice, pro-affirmative action, and anti-War? This doesn't seem plausible.

For the past elections Democrats and Republicans have been targeting swing states, for the first time in a long time however, the Democrats may be able to attack a Republican base.

The Republicans have a better chance of getting New York and New Jersey then the Democrats have getting Alabama or Mississippi.

I don't expect a Republican collapse, I don't expect anything amazing to happen, but it is a start. It is an angle to make inroads in somewhere unexpected.

What makes you think that someone who says people who like guns and G-d are bitter will draw southern votes?

Notice NC, SC and Georgia are not included in the totals.

All three are strong Republican Deep Southern states. Only Carter has been able to carry Deep Southern States in recent years.

Is there any evidence that the south is going to be closer than in the last two elections?

Yes. Obama has hope. We must hope that they will be swing states. If we hope they will then they will. What don't you get?

[Icefrisco]

Ouch, hey I'm just the messenger here!! I did understand your point with some amusement though.

Sorry, I should have added a smiley at the end.

If I'm not being too personal here Icefrisco, being a Dem at or near the political center in the U.S., an obvious Clinton supporter compounded with a tight and contentious primary including major gaffs in Mich and Florida, do you consider McCain centrist enough to consider supporting him? None of my business I know, I'm just curious to hear from a person near the center who happens to be a Democrat.

I consider him centrist enough. The only issues that I really don't agree with him on are abortion, gay rights, and health care. Other then that I support his positions on Iraq, ethanol subsidies, the environment, the gas tax holiday, stem cell research, and attacking Pakistan.

If I could vote I probably would vote for him.

What good would the south be if Republicans take New York and California, and cement their lead in Florida? And besides, who wants the south in the first place?

McCain won't take California though New York is a possibility.

Is it right to ignore members of the Democratic Party in order to get a Democrat in the White House? Or should you follow your party's choice, even if it is unlikely to reap a President?

This was the issue in 1980 with Ted Kennedy and Carter. Everyone knew Kennedy would make a better candidate but the people liked Carter so the party had to accept Carter.

In my opinion, the Democrats should choose who they believe is more electable. By disenfranchising 50% of the Florida and Michigan votes the DNC has already made this process undemocratic. What do the superdelegates have to lose by going to Hillary? Nothing but they are afraid they will be breaking the will of the people.

[Big War Bird]

Obama does have a serious problem. He is the far left candidate running against a moderate republican. The folks voting for Clinton are just about right between the two.

Obama is in trouble because he is having to defend his own turf. These people. Obama can't hope to win over independents and moderate republicans is he is fighting McCain for democrats.