Why Hillary is Ahead in the Popular Vote
Posted on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:30:07 PM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, 2008 (all tags)
Michael Barone at Real Clear Politics examines the popular vote totals, including caucus states, and says Hillary Clinton is ahead.
Her 214,000-vote margin in the Keystone State means that she has won the votes, in primaries and caucuses, of 15,112,000 Americans, compared to 14,993,000 for Obama.
If you add in the votes, as estimated by the folks at realclearpolitics.com, in the Iowa, Nevada, Washington and Maine caucuses, where state Democratic parties did not count the number of caucus-attenders, Clinton still has a lead of 12,000 votes.
Barone says even with a loss in North Carolina, Hillary may keep the lead if she does well, as expected in W.Va and Kentucky and Puerto Rico. [More....]
So it's likely that Clinton will be able to argue that undecided super-delegates should heed the will of the people.
Barone presents the Obama campaign's likely response, which he says, likely will prevail with superdelegates:
Their candidate is ahead and will remain ahead in delegates chosen in caucuses and primaries. Michigan, where Obama was not on the ballot, and Florida have been disqualified by the Democratic National Committee for voting too early. Counting popular votes unduly discounts the results from caucuses, in which many fewer people participate than in primaries. And the Democratic Party can't afford to alienate the young and black voters who enthusiastically back Obama.
But, and there's a big but: Barone says Hillary is more electable in November:
Clinton's popular vote lead is one piece of evidence that suggests that Obama will be a weak general election candidate. In national polls, neither Democrat seems stronger than the other: The realclearpolitics.com average of polls as this is written shows Obama leading John McCain 46 percent to 45 percent and Clinton and McCain tied at 46 percent apiece. But they don't run the same in different states.
SurveyUSA's 50-state polls released in March showed that electoral votes would go to different parties in 15 states depending on whether McCain was pitted against Clinton or Obama. And it is electoral votes that determine who will be president.
While Obama will say he'll do better in the West, and he may, it's not enough:
Clinton seems to run stronger than Obama in the industrial (or formerly industrial) belt, running west from New Jersey through Pennsylvania and Ohio to Michigan and Missouri. Obama's weakness among white working-class voters in the primaries here suggests he is poorly positioned to win votes he will need to carry these states in November. This is not a minor problem -- we're talking about 84 electoral votes.
Barone points out his weakness among Latino and Jewish voters and says no candidate can win Florida without Broward or Palm Beach counties, which have high Jewish populations. Here are the maps showing how poorly Obama did in the Florida primary.He didn't only lose those counties, he lost all counties in the state except those on the northern border.
Barone also posits that Obama's weakness among Latino and Jewish voters could put California in play:
Obama's weakness among Latinos and Jews could conceivably put California's 55 electoral votes in play. Los Angeles County delivered an 831,000 vote plurality for John Kerry in 2004. Most of that plurality came from areas with large numbers of Latinos and Jews.
Barone concludes:
Hillary Clinton's current and tenuous popular vote lead may not persuade Democratic super-delegates to reject the candidate who has, after all, won more delegates in primaries and caucuses. But it may prompt some to think hard about Electoral College arithmetic.
For more on the electoral vote matchup, see my earlier post here.
Comments now closed.
| < The Electoral Map and the Battleground States | Late Night: Johnny Can't Read > |
