Super Tuesday lessons

Here is what I expect we'll see tomorrow.

McCain has it won, not because he won everything (he won less than I thought), but because Huckabee won the south. Huck won 5 or so states, so he will not drop out. Neither will Romney, though Romney has to keep lending his own campaign money, while Huckabee gets by on free publicity. With both in, McCain builds a lead that is insurmountable.

Why won't one of them (Huck, Mitt) get out? Each thinks the other is a fake conservative, that is, Huck thinks Mitt isn't really a social conservative (those Mormons think Jesus and the Devil are brothers, right Mike?), while Mitt thinks Huck isn't a real economic conservative. Huck loathes the Wall Street crowd, and Mitt can't stand Mike's piousness... neither will back down and each would rather see McCain the nominee. They will both get their wish.

But the point of this blog was to analyze the Democratic results. There are too many easy headlines for the right one to be written, but luckily you came here.

The headline is, with McCain the Republican nominee, Obama has shown that he can compete in the swing states that will decide the election better than Clinton can.

Let's break it down.

Here is how the states will probably come out:

Clinton: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Tennesee. She previously won New Hampshire and Nevada. (Florida and Michigan were uncontested.)

Obama: Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, Utah. Previously: Iowa, South Carolina.

Obama got more states, Clinton got bigger ones, and the easy headline is "Split Decision" and stay tuned to sell more horserace newspapers. And certainly it is a tight race.

But.

In the 2004 election, 12 of the 50 states were decided by 5% or less. Six went Republican, six Democrat. Clinton doing well in Massachusetts or Obama doing well in Utah means little, as everybody knows how those states will vote.

Not everyone knows how these states will vote:
Colorado (+5%R)
Florida (+5%R)
Nevada (+3%R)
Ohio (+2%R)
Iowa (+1%R)
New Mexico (+1%R)

Wisconsin (+1%D)
New Hampshire (+1%D)
Michigan (+3%D)
Minnesota (+3%D)
Pennsylvania (+3%D)
Oregon (+4%D)

To win the 2008 Presidential election, Clinton or Obama needs to do well in these states. Maybe Virginia (+8%R) will be in play after electing its second straight Democratic governor and a Democratic senator. Other states may be up for grabs. Mostly it's about those above.

So let's break them down.

Colorado (+5%R) Obama by +33%
Florida (+5%R) not contested due to party rules
Nevada (+3%R) Clinton by 6%
Ohio (+2%R) not yet held (borders Obama's Illinois)
Iowa (+1%R) Obama by 8%
New Mexico (+1%R) exit polls show Obama by 5-10%
Wisconsin (+1%D) not yet held (borders Obama's Illinois and Minnesota below)
New Hampshire (+1%D) Clinton by 3%
Michigan (+3%D) not contested due to party rules
Minnesota (+3%D) Obama by 33%
Pennsylvania (+3%D) not yet held
Oregon (+4%D) not yet held

So the Clinton has won two contested presidential toss-up states (Nevada and New Hampshire) by an average of 5%, while Obama has won four by an average of 20%, with two more likely wins (Wisconsin, Ohio).

If Clinton has demonstrated an electability advantage, it is not in the midwest battleground states, but in strong support from Latino voters. Latino voters make up a sizable share in Florida, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California. Republicans will win Texas, and Democrats California. Republicans will also win Arizona, especially with McCain as their nominee. McCain's moderate and politically brave positions on immigration will make him competitive in Florida and New Mexico. Clinton won both Arizona and California tonight, but neither are tossups. She also won Florida, but as a front-runner with name recognition in an uncontested race. The only relevant Latino-heavy battleground she contested was New Mexico, which it seems she lost (or certainly did not dominate).

The point of all of that is to say, Clinton showed dominance in some Southwestern states, but not the one that mattered (save Nevada). All the other states she won tonight were either her home states, or their neighbors: New York plus Jersey and Massachusetts, and Arkansas plus Oklahoma and Tennessee. Democrats who know her well (home states and neighbors) are loyal to her. And she has a notable advantage over Obama in the Hispanic community, but that doesn't translate (except perhaps in Florida) to an electoral advantage.

Meanwhile, Obama plays well in the western states (Colorado, Minnesota, New Mexico) that will be 2008 toss-ups, and has the potential through both increased African-American turnout and religious-inflected oratory worthy of a Southern preacher , to force a non-Southern non-evangelical McCain to play defense in states like Virginia and Louisiana.

Simply put, Obama probably plays better in Colorado, Iowa, Ohio, Minnesota, New Mexico, and Wisconsin, while Clinton probably only plays better in Florida and Nevada. New Mexico and Nevada are useful but ultimately likely to go to the Arizonan McCain.

To put a further, harsher, light on it, Democratic primary voters have been about 60% women, and the white and Latino women have tended to vote for Clinton. The (fewer) men (all races) have voted more heavily for Obama. In a general election, there will not be a 20% surplus of women voters, so the likely results in a general election in these tossup states would be more strongly for Obama.

Also, some states have closed primaries not allowing crucial swing independent voters. Now I think it is an easy mistake to make, to assume that the candidate with most crossover appeal will do the best, because political moderates usually fail to attract the kind of fanatic support needed to fight a general election. Here, though, Obama's crossover support from Independents and Republicans comes in spite of his most-liberal-in-the-senate voting record (Clinton is #16), and Obama no doubt has fanatic followers. So his crossover appeal doesn't come with the usual downside (ref: the attacks on McCain coming from Limbaugh and Co). And in an open contest (as the general election is), his comparative strength vs Clinton in e.g. New Mexico (closed) and California (closed) would be better.

Conclusion

Clinton has shown she can win in the Northeast, in her home states of Arkansas and New York, in their neighbors, and among Latino voter and older women. Obama has been able to win further outside his (smaller) "comfort zone", including important toss-up states and constituencies that will likely decide the 2008 election.

Hillary Clinton could win the 2008 election, but she would likely need to follow Al Gore's and John Kerry's electoral strategy, but either win Florida or Ohio, while defending marginal upper midwestern and rust belt states. Obama has more strategies available, being able to bring southern border states into play, likely having a native son advantage in the swing states of the upper midwest, with the ability to fight McCain for independents while having a comparatively more motivated political base.

Tonight showed (me at least) that Obama has a far greater chance of winning the presidency than Clinton does.

Key dates and questions ahead:

Saturday: Louisiana and Washington State. Can Obama energize enough turnout to potentially bring the Southern state into play? Or does the Arkansas-neighbor factor work in Clinton's favor? The Washington caucus gives a good sense of who is most competitive in the Northwest, ~+3% Democratic territory that must usually be defended in the general election. Chance for either candidate to demonstrate some electability chops.

Sunday: Maine caucus. Clinton won neighboring NH. Mostly a chance for a winner's picture in the Monday paper.

Tuesday: DC, Maryland, Virginia. DC will go huge Obama, not necessarily a great PR thing as it brings up the race issue. Maryland is reliable Democrat. Virginia is a potential swing state. A big win by Clinton or Obama here gets electability points.

Week Tuesday (Feb 19). Wisconsin. Obama should romp here as a setup to Ohio below. If so, great mo. If not, will send wave of second thoughts.

March 4. Texas and Ohio. Beginning of the end. If Obama can win Ohio (a critical swing state with a modified-open primary), while holding his own in Texas (unwinnable for Dems but demonstrating reasonable competitiveness for Latino voters), he will make a strong case for the electability crown and try to get the establishment (especially superdelegates) behind him. Clinton will spin Ohio as home-field advantage for Obama and hold out for April 22 in Pennsylvania. But that is 6 weeks later, and McCain will be running ads for the general election. Dems will want to shut this game down. Besides, Ohio/Texas is a lot of delegates. If either candidate is within shouting distance of the nomination, there will be tremendous pressure for superdelegates to line up and end it. Obama's trump card is hope that the electability scenario peels off Clinton's superdelegates. Clinton's trump is trying to reinstate the Florida and Michigan delegates she won uncontested.

Stay tuned.