Electability: Clinton Ahead in Florida for General Election, Other Dems Fare Worse

So much for the electability argument. I posted a lengthy comment last week about the vitality of a Guiliani nomination in the Northeast. My thesis was that Clinton was the only Democrat, based on polling, that could retain the New York / New England Presidential base. Now, very similar numbers from Florida. These are SurveyUSA polls conducted 10/1. By far, Clinton is our most electable candidate in the Sunshine State.

Summary of Results Florida (follow link above for detailed results):

Clinton defeats Guiliani
Guiliani defeats Obama
Guiliani defeats Edwards

Clinton defeats Thompson
Thompson defeats Obama
Edwards defeats Thompson

Clinton defeats Romney
Romney defeats Obama
Edwards defeats Romney.


This electability argument is interesting. At first blush, it is easy to be compelled by the "Hillary-is-so-disliked-and-most-men-will-never-vote-for-her-and-she-could-never-win" mantra. The only problem with this tired framework is that it just isn't so. It is fine to be motivated by electability. I, too, was disheartened to see two great potential Presidents- Gore and Kerry- go down to defeat to a lackluster Republican candidate. But, if we are going to use electability as our paradigm for choosing a nominee (again, perfectly valid in my view) we should at least know the facts. The election is a long way off and a great deal could happen, but right now, based on the only evidence we have (polling) Hillary Clinton wins the electability debate hands down. There are some good reasons to believe that Edwards and Obama would underperform their already lackluster polling numbers in swing states.

The electoral college is the whole enchilada in presidential politics. If the Democrat loses NY (for example) in any given election, it is more or less a definate loss. Competitivness in Florida is icing on the cake at this point, but it is an electoral vote rich cake.

Post on Guiliani and Northeast

Rudy Guiliani is Delusional...

if he thinks that he would produce a landslide against Hillary Clinton. In a memo released today from his campaign, he is willing to give her MA and VT (plus 3 from DC).

Via My DD, this is Guiliani's "state of the race" map. I don't know who his pollsters are, but they are not worth what he is paying them. A few issues with this map, aside from obvious methodological flaws:

1. Hillary will carry Arkansas- no doubt in my mind.

2. Putting FL in the Guiliani column is silly. All recent demographic and election data show that it is a competitive state and getting more competitive.

3. CA is probably not up for grabs. The most recent poll I have seen shows a 20 point Clinton advantage over Guiliani.

4. While I believe that Guiliani would run stronger than, say, Mike Huckabee in the Northeast, I think that RI, CT, ME will definately be blue in '08. NH probably will be.

5. MN was the rare blue state that John Kerry carried with a larger margin than Al Gore. It will produce its electoral votes for Hillary, or whomever the Dem nominee is.

6. IL, a state I visited yesterday, is home turf for Hillary and is reliably a Dem state. No dice on that one either.

7. NY is the home state of both Clinton and Guiliani, but all the polling I have seen shows that Hillary is far ahead and would carry the state. Huge margins in Manhattan, coupled with the work she has done to make herself acceptable to moderate Republicans upstate will work in her favor.

8. NJ is a state that no Republican has carried since 1988. I doubt that Guiliani, neighbor to NJ that he is, would be especially competitive there.

9. Not all the mistakes are in Guiliani's favor. LA is a conservative state save New Orleans. With the demographic shift after Hurricane Katrina, it should be a GOP lock in a presidential. Curious that it is purple in Guiliani's rubric.

10. OR and WA are always close-ish in pre-election polling and end up being reliably blue when the returns are counted.

Just a few of the many issues presented by this poll. I still think that Guiliani is unlikely to be nominated. If he is, I think that it will be a tougher race than otherwise. I don't think it is a given that Sen. Clinton would beat him, although I do think that it's likely. This map / memo is absurd. Rudy Guiliani should fire his pollsters immediately.

Later in the week, I will be posting some general election analysis, focusing on the Northeast. The coasts are our base at this point. They are must wins. I personally believe that if Guiliani is nominated, Hillary must be the candidate of the Democratic party if we are to win next year. The truth is, this cockamamie map aside, that Guiliani would run stronger in the Northeast than most other Republicans. If Hillary lost the nomination, and Obama or Edwards were the nominee, NY, NJ, CT and several other "base" states would be perilous for Democrats. She runs stronger and will win these states where other Democratic candidates will lose them. I'll expound on that thesis in greater detail soon.

NC, AR, LA giving Dems more Electoral Votes

North Carolina is very close to joining Maine and Nebraska as apportion states in the Electoral College. Arkansas and Louisiana are also exploring the idea. How this works is as follows:

The winner of the overall popular vote in a state gets the two at large electoral votes. Then, the winner in each congressional district gets a vote.

As an Arkansan, I can tell you that if this had been in effect even only in this small state, Al Gore would have been President. Gore carried the 4th (Pine Bluff) and 1st (Jonesboro - Helena). He would have gotten two votes from Arkansas, and Bush would have gotten four. That would have made his total 271, or one more needed.

All three of the states exploring the change are basically red states with blue districts. This means more electoral votes for Democrats every time.

In the past, this hasn't come into play, even in the states that apportion. Maine is so blue and Nebraska is so red that the Democrat has carried both of Maine's CDs in recent elections and the GOP has carried each of Nebraska's three districts. (The Omaha - Lincoln district is competitive.)

MyDD with details.

To illustrate the impact, explore Dave Leip's Political Atlas, note the CD split in each state. (Important note: For this site, Democrats are RED and GOP is BLUE.)

Exact figures: Would have given Kerry 4 more votes in '04 and Gore 6 more in 2000 if change had been in effect in all three states.