I am sure you are not trying to be deliberately obtuse, but that is the way I am perceiving it. Recycling an unpersuasive argument does not make it any more persuasive. A condorcet win of A over B does not predict a win of A over C. This is pretty basic formal logic.
I don’t understand the “all that matters is Ohio” argument. Isn’t that a rather cynical way to approach politics - and a relatively recent one? Clinton won many more than “Kerry + 1”. Reagan, of course, won even more states than that.
The way I see it, all of these states could be in play (either way): NH, MD, NJ, MO, WI, IA, AR, CO, NM, WV, VA, FL, PA, and possibly more I can’t think of.
Also, I agree with **Maeglin ** that divining a general election result from a primary result is hopeless, especially when a non-insignificant number of primary voters were Republicans crossing over - their intentions are not at all clear.
Finally, a winner-take-all system greatly increases the value of name recognition, to the point that even left-for-dead John McCain won basically because lots of people knew who he was.
Well, I’m not trying to be deliberately obtuse, I’ve explained myself as best I can. Hillary did better amongst swing demographics, she did better in raw numbers. If that doesn’t predict a better showing in the general than Obama then I simply have to conclude the primary has no predictive ability whatsoever. I certainly can’t say that it shows the candidate who lost the primary is better suited to win that state in the general.
Exactly. That some small subset of population Z prefers A to B tells you basically nothing about population Z’s preference between A and C or between B and C.
Also true.
Martin Hyde , this is one of the most interesting and thought-provoking analyses I’ve read so far. You’re right that Obama leads in delegates, but in swing states, Clinton looks stronger . . . many of the states that Obama has won are either definitely going red or blue in the next election, no matter who is running.
Luckily, my state has already voted, so I no longer have any responsibility for this decision.
Gestalt
I will grant you that it was thought-provoking, but unfortunately, the inferences were unsupportable by both logic and facts.
My inferences or Martin Hyde’s inferences? If the latter, how are they unsupportable by logic? It stands to reason that:
- Some states will go blue or red no regardless of the candidate
- These “sure thing” states are not enough for either party to win the presidency
- Therefore both parties must cater to “swing” states who could go either blue or red, and try to get these states to vote at least 51% for them
Agreed? Okay then, furthermore
- It is more crucial for the Democratic candidate to appeal to swing states than to solidly blue states, because the solidly blue states are theirs regardless
- *Thus far, Clinton has won more swing states than Obama: Ohio, Nevada, Alaska, Oklahoma went to Clinton while Obama has only taken Utah and Virginia
- Therefore, Clinton is the better Democratic nominee.
*What determines a swing state is debatable, and by some definitions, I concede that Obama may have won more.
At the very least it’s an interesting point.
Gore – 48.4%
Bush – 47.9%
The race is looking a lot different now. Lieberman in '08!
As explained above, there is no logical connection between 4 and 5; they do not lead to 6. A better continuation from 4 would be something like:
5a) As the Democratic voters will vote for whoever their final candidate is, the Democratic candidate needs to appeal to independent voters in swing states to win the swing states.
6a) ??? appeals better to independent voters in swing states.
7a) ??? is the better Democratic nominee.
The problem is 6a can’t be determined from the primary results, even with drilling down into the demographics. At best you would have a non-random sampling of a small subset of independent voters, not nearly enough information to say one way or the other.
Except, of course, for the fact that independent voters in states like Ohio don’t just stay independent, they participate in one or the other primary. Thus, the fact that Clinton did well in obtaining votes from those voters who are “swing” voters in the Democratic primary here would indicate that she has a better chance than Obama of obtaining swing voters on her side in the fall.
It’s time that the Obama supporters stop trying to make the result in Ohio out to be something that it isn’t. Going in, they were talking about how they were gonna catch up and prevail. Now, having “lost,” they are attempting desperately to assert that it doesn’t matter (which, btw, they were saying with derision before the election would be the line from the Clinton supporters if SHE “lost”). How about Obama’s supporters here say the following: “Oh, well, looks like Ohio didn’t get our message yet. We’ll have to try and see that it gets out better there in the fall, if we are fortunate enough to be the nominated faction.”
Of course, Senator Obama said pretty much exactly that. HE, at least, shows some class in defeat. 
RIF
Unless those “independent” voters were actually Republicans hoping that Hillary wins.
Ahh, yes, the old “unnamed supporters of my opponent are classless, therefore I can gloat and assert strawmen and generally act just like them because I have a class surplus!” argument.
(Hey, you come up with a better name for it.)
Please don’t bother showing me any cites; anybody can find supporters of any politician who can act like complete dipwads.
But I am tired as hell at people who decide they hate a candidate because of his supporters. It’s a stupid argument.
And I will also say this: Hillary hasn’t won anything. She hasn’t ever been in the lead in the delegate count, not since day one. Her gains today will likely be erased in the Wyoming and Mississippi votes.
I’ll also say this: I used a phrase earlier this week to describe some of the more unhinged Hillary supporters. (Taylor Marsh, anyone?) The phrase was “the stench of thwarted entitlement”. It refers to the poisonous bitterness emanating from some members of her flock that was way, way out of scale for the implications of HRC losing the Democratic nomination. It was as if Obama became Dubya . . . no, scratch that. It was worse. Much worse. And this was because of a guy who, let’s face it, isn’t all that much different from HRC, policy-wise.
If you are seeing anything like that from Obama supporters, it’s likely the same phenomenon. With, of course, the difference being that HRC supporters assumed the nomination was theirs from the get-go, while Obama’s people actually, you know, could back it up with results, i.e. the delegate totals. Which are still in his favor. And which are the only votes that matter, after all.
So I’d say, enjoy it now. Because it’s going to get a lot worse . . . for the Democratic party, which is (after all) the important thing. Right?
My political affiliation, whatever it may be, has nothing to do with the staggering illogic perpetrated by pretty much everyone about these results.
The results of the election matter because they drive delegate allocation. That is all. Using these results to make inferences about the results of the general election on Ohio or otherwise is fundamentally, completely, absolutely flawed. It does not matter who is doing it. Spin the strategic significance of this any way you want, because any hypotheses are not testable. But, by Jove, do not infer the results of the general from the results of the primary.
You make some huge assumptions in point 5: First, that strength in a primary translates into strength in the general – which may not be true, as polls showing Obama beating McCain in Nevada (but Hillary losing) indicate. You also have an odd definition of swing state when, say, Alaska, Oklahoma and Utah are included, but Colorado, Missouri and Iowa are not. Furthermore, some swing states are states that voted Democratic in the last couple of elections, such as Wisconsin and Minnesota. So even if it were an interesting point (and I think the lack of correlation between a primary and the general makes it less of one), it may not even support the conclusion you make.
I’m not convinced that Clinton will do better in the real election than Obama. It’s not just about who appeals more to the middle – though that is indeed important – it’s about who energises the bases on both ends of the spectrum.
On the left (“liberal”) end, clearly Obama is better at energising the base, and will draw more young and black voters into voting in the real election.
On the right (conservative) end, Clinton is better at energising – in a bad way. Right-wing voters who will not particularly support McCain, and who might therefore stay at home, might well turn out in November to vote against Clinton, while they will be less antagonistic to Obama as a candidate.
However, now that Ohio has a Democrat Secretary of State, who will not be trying to limit the turnout in strongly Democrat areas the way that the last Secretary of State did, I think that either of Clinton and Obama will beat McCain in 2008, by a comfortable margin.
I’ll be honest, I don’t understand the caucus concept and particularly in a system like Texas that uses both caucus and straight voting in combination. I would think someone could sue the caucus system out of existence based on the idea of voter privacy. I think it would be easy to say that big business or big unions could track the voting of employees/union members and thus influence a vote through intimidation.
Also, Caucus voting allows a party to gather voters and use crowd influence as a way of stacking the deck.
But this is just a vote for who is going to run under the banner of the party, not a vote for an actual government official. Parties need a certain amount of leeway to determine how they can select their candidates. I would think that unless voters within a given state were being treated differently, then the government has no business telling the party how to set up its primary process.
It’s part of the voting process so I’m not sure how to weigh what you’ve said.
I don’t get your point about party leeway. Why does a party need a way to manipulate the process? And I think The Texas set up does treat citizens differently. I take voting seriously but I can’t imagine having to put up with a pep rally in addition to voting. It would also encourage a mob mentality that would fall into the scenario’s I described earlier.
Isn’t that rather a high bar to set? Obama’s less viable because he can’t win the deep red states?
Let me come back to the electoral college, but first . . .
Saying “Clinton > Obama” is not the same as saying “McCain > Obama”. And you overstate Ohio’s importance.
Which brings me back to the electoral college. Ever played around at www.270towin.com ? Fun little site. Yes, McCain has to win both Ohio and Pennsylvania. But it also says that Obama–or Clinton, for that matter–can win 270 electoral votes without Ohio, Florida, Missouri, and any state in the south, if they sweep:
The Pacific states, except AK: 82 EV’s.
Inner West: Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico: 14 EV’s.
The Upper Midwest: MN, WI, MI, IL. 58 EV’s.
The Northeast–PA, MD, and everything northeast of there: 117 EV’s.
82 + 14 + 58 + 117 = 271 EV’s.
Just another little data point to digest . . .
This is a good point, and one I wish the pundits would consider. Hell, if Obama takes Virginia, he can win without either Pennsylvania or Ohio.