So the chattering classes now ask, is he really the stronger candidate?
To answer the question, I ask some of my own: which states are likely to be "in play" in 2008? Do Obama or Clinton play notably better?
States in Play
Game Changers
(Toss ups now and in the past)
- Colorado 9 (Obama+3, Clinton-14, Kerry-5, Gore-9) - OBAMA ADD
- New Mexico 5 (Obama-1, Clinton-3, Kerry-1, Gore+1) - WASH
- Michigan 17 (Obama+2, Clinton-9, Kerry+3, Gore+5) - CLINTON DROP
- Ohio 20 (Obama-4, Clinton+3, Kerry-2, Gore-4) - CLINTON ADD
- New Hampshire 4 (Obama-3, Clinton-6, Kerry+1, Gore-1) - WASH
- Washington 11 (Obama+13, Clinton+3, Kerry+7, Gore+5) - CLINTON DROP
- Oregon 7 (Obama+9, Clinton+1, Kerry+4, Gore+1) - CLINTON DROP
- Wisconsin 10 (Obama+5, Clinton+0, Kerry+1, Gore+0) - CLINTON DROP
- Minnesota 10 (Obama+6, Clinton+1, Kerry+3, Gore+2) - CLINTON DROP
- Missouri 11 (Obama-8, Clinton+1, Kerry-7, Gore-3) - CLINTON ADD
- Florida 27 (Obama-15, Clinton+1, Kerry-5, Gore-1) - CLINTON ADD
- Iowa 7 (Obama+7, Clinton-6, Kerry-1, Gore+1) - OBAMA ADD
Observations: There are 3 close states where Clinton plays notably better Obama: Ohio, Missouri and Florida (58 electoral votes). These are states Democrats have come close to winning in 2000 and 2004, but lost both each time. Clinton can claim putting these states in play much more than Obama. If the Democrats are to win Ohio or Florida, Clinton is much more likely to do so. Note however she leads McCain by 3,1 and 1 points respectively - none are guaranteed or even likely wins. They are just in play.
At the same time, there are 7 close states where Obama plays notably better than Clinton. Five of these are states where Democrats have won the last two elections, but Clinton polls badly (Michigan 17) or polls almost even with McCain (Washington, Oregon, Wisconsin, Minnesota 38). Obama also plays much better in perenial toss-up state Iowa. He meanwhile uniquely puts Colorado 9 into play, a state that has gone Republican in recent history. In 4 of these 6 Obama has a big lead and the risk is Clinton losing a Democratic state. Meanwhile, Obama's Michigan lead is only 3, not a guarantee.
Essentially, each candidate may put about 60-70 different electoral votes in play, Clinton via the traditional Democratic strategy of big states where Obama does poorly, and Obama through Western and Midwestern states, many Democratic, where Clinton plays poorly.
On to the long shots...
Hopes and Fears
(Close now but not in the past)
- Texas 34 (Obama-1, Clinton-9, Kerry-23, Gore-21) - OBAMA ADD?
- Nebraska 5 (Obama-3, Clinton-27, Kerry-29, Gore-35) - OBAMA ADD?
- New Jersey 15(Obama+2, Clinton+1, Kerry+6, Gore+16) - WASH
- Massachusetts 12(Obama+2, Clinton+15, Kerry+22, Gore+27) - OBAMA DROP?
- North Carolina 15(Obama+0, Clinton-11, Kerry-13, Gore-12) - OBAMA ADD?
- South Carolina 8 (Obama-3, Clinton-6, Kerry-17, Gore-16) - WASH
- West Virginia 5 (Obama-18, Clinton+5, Kerry-13, Gore-6) - CLINTON ADD?
- Connecticut 7 (Obama+17, Clinton+3, Kerry+10, Gore+18) - CLINTON DROP?
- Kentucky 8 (Obama-34, Clinton-2, Kerry-20, Gore-15) - CLINTON DROP?
Obama looks to put Republican Texas, North Carolina and Nebraska into play, while risking Democratic Massachusetts, but none of these seem likely given their history. Obama may get 3 electoral votes from Nebraska, though. Clinton also appears to risk Democratic Connecticut while having a shot at Republican Kentucky, but this too seems unlikely. Clinton does get credit for putting West Virginia 5 into play.
Thus each candidate again puts a few more electoral votes in play, Clinton in the east and Obama in the west.
Conclusion
Both candidates seem equally strong in the general election. Obama secures much of the traditional Democratic states, while putting some western and midwestern toss up states in play. Clinton has more upside and downside potential, with weakness in some base Democratic states, but the only real shot at some big swing states that have trended Republican.
Obama would pick the Republicans apart with many little states, Clinton a few big.
