The exceptional poblano at dailykos has done a statistical analysis of all 50 states, and summarized the data in a chart that is fascinating. It uses the Survey USA's 50-state poll released a couple of days ago along with other state polls. I urge everyone to take a look at it to see how radically Obama can permanently change the political landscape.
Poblano currently has Obama with a 63.9% chance of beating McCain, while Clinton has a 43.9% chance. But what's most interesting is the format of the chart, comparing poll results with Kerry in 2004, letting us see just how deeply Obama is striking into red territory.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/6/212016/8597On the same point, the Survey USA poll on the surface shows that Obama performs only slightly better than Clinton against McCain. Obama beats McCain 280-258, while Clinton wins 276-262. But looking deeper at the numbers, it is clear that Obama has many more safe states than Clinton does. Chris Bowers at openleft.com shows Obama with 163 electoral votes that are Solid (11+ margin), and 66 that lean Obama (6-10 points). Clinton has 77 Solid, and 126 Lean.
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaxryId=4374Here's the links to the original Survey USA polls:
http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-obama-280-mccain-258/http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-clinton-276-mccain-262/The inescapable conclusion from all of this is that Obama greatly expands the potential democratic electorate, while Clinton fights on a much narrower battlefield, leaving us endlessly chasing after Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, always needing to win three of four to win the nomination.
What is also noteworthy is how weak Clinton is in the plains states and the west, beating McCain in only California and New Mexico. Along with those states, Obama also wins Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Colorado, North Dakota, and splits Nebraska. Even more striking: in the SUSA poll, he loses Texas by only one point!
One argument that has been heavily pushed by the Clinton camp is that the superdelegates should give her the nomination because she has beaten Obama in the states the Democrats need in order to win in November. Most of these states, however, will support any Democrat--NY, MA, Cali, etc., so the argument is irrelevant for these. But in states like Ohio it is not. Looking at the SUSA data, we can see that the Clinton argument is flimsy at best:
Ohio: Obama beats McCain by 10, and Clinton beats him by 10
Michigan: Obama +1, Clinton Even
Pennsylvania: Clinton +1, Obama -5
Florida: Clinton +9, Obama -2.
These states are her big arguments. But in two of the four Obama and her are the same, and the other two are very much winnable for him. These are Clinton's most important states, yet in two of them she is essentially tied with McCain.
While Clinton beat Obama by ten points in the Ohio primary, in November Obama won't be running against another Democrat. He'll only be running against McCain, and he does just as well as Clinton. While he may not have been the first choice of the majority of Democrats in Ohio, he is certainly the second choice.
Also, the Clinton campaign has unwittingly made a good case for Obama by complaining that states with open primaries are unfair because up to 25% of the voters are independents or republicans. But in November they will all be allowed to vote. And in 2004 independents and republicans were 63% of the electorate.
But the four states mentioned above aren't the only swing states of recent election cycles. Let's look at some others, listed in order of Obama's advantage over Clinton, with the grouping in the middle being essentially the same:
Washington state: Obama +14, Clinton -2
Colorado: Obama +9, Clinton -6
Iowa: Obama +9, Clinton -5
Nevada: Obama +5, Clinton -8
Oregon: Obama +8, Clinton -5
New Hampshire: Obama +2, Clinton -8
New Mexico: Obama +7, Clinton even
Wisconsin: Obama +11, Clinton +4
Minnesota: Obama +7, Clinton +4
Missouri: Clinton -4 Obama -6
Tennessee: Clinton even, Obama -16
West Virginia: Clinton +5, Obama -18
Arkansas: Clinton +11, Obama -20
And look at these states that also come into play with Obama, expanding the playing field and making the republicans spend their resources trying to defend them:
Virginia: Obama even, Clinton -10
North Carolina: Obama -2, Clinton -8
Texas: Obama -1, Clinton -7
North Dakota: Obama +4, Clinton -19
South Dakota: Obama -4, Clinton -12
Nebraska: Obama -3, Clinton -27 (and Obama wins a split of the electoral vote)
One last point--I have seen analysis of the upcoming Congressional races that will be contested, with the Democrats looking to gain many republican seats. These seats are almost all in states that are much more favorable to Obama than Clinton. Not only does Obama look much better than Clinton in the general, he will also undoubtedly bring with him a much more democratic Congress, solidifying and expanding upon the gains of 2006. Clinton will be a heavy drag on the many down-ticket races in the plains states and mountain west.
The Democratic party has made tremendous gains in these regions recently and have the potential with Obama of taking control of it, leaving the republicans a regional party, railing against the "browning" of America and the young who embrace it, a party confined to the southeast and to a past it cannot escape.