|
U.S. Presidential Elections 2008
|
The Numbers
Why Hillary Clinton is the stronger
Democratic candidate
for the November race to the U.S. Presidency
The author grants anybody who wishes the
right to reprint or spin this article
under the sole condition to properly quote and link to the source :
D.C. Shouter / A Classification
of American Wealth
|
Much
has been said about why Mrs Clinton would be readier for the executive
office than Mr Obama and even more recently about her better chances to win
the election in November against Republican John McCain. Numbers were
generally invoked, but what numbers are relevant to determine who should be
the Democratic candidate running for the U.S. Presidency in November ?
Both,
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton claim for them the relevant victories in
the primary elections, that should entitle them to the candidacy of the
Democratic Party. Mr Obama claims that he has won the majority of pledged
delegates and is close to reaching the magic figure of 2026 delegates that
would give him the nod. Mrs Clinton defends her position on the ground that
she has won the larger swing states which decide the election in November.
She also makes the somewhat weaker claim to the majority of popular vote.
But
what victories are relevant in the race to the U.S. Presidency and who won
them?
The
U.S. Presidential election is held state by state and, unlike in the
Democratic primaries, the winner in each state receives the full slate of
Presidential electors corresponding in numbers to that state’s
representation in the U.S. Congress. A total of 538 presidential electors
are thereby designed to elect the new president according the votes of each
state.
Past
presidential elections show that many states have a clear leaning towards
either the Republican or the Democratic party. If a map was drawn, the North
East and the Pacific Coast would clearly appear in Blue (Democrat), whilst
the South and the Western Plains states would show the Red color of the
Republicans. Some traditional swing states have thus decided the past few
U.S. presidential elections and, if demography and values have not changed
radically during the last four years, these same states will also decide the
election in November 2008.
But
which are the swing states and who is better suited to win them in November
?
In
our basic analysis, we consider Republican/Democrat states, those whose
people voted for the Republican/Democrat candidate in at least four out of
the last five U.S. presidential elections. Swing states are those who went 3
to 2 Republican or 2 to 3 Democratic. Typical Republican states are
Mississippi, Texas and South Dakota; typical Democratic states are
California, New York and Illinois. Because of the narrow Republican victory
in the year 2000, Florida is considered Republican in this analysis,
although it is clearly a swing state.
Under
the assumption that Republican states will go Republican and Democratic
states will go Democratic in November anyway, primary victories in both must
be considered irrelevant to the general election. This impairs Barack
Obama’s many victories in the deep South, where he was carried by the
African American communities, and in the Western Plains states. But it also
impairs Hillary Clinton’s victories in such large states as California, New
York and Pennsylvania, all traditionally Democratic.
The
only relevant victories for Barack Obama were Louisiana, the only swing
state in the South, and Missouri, where he won by a narrow 1% margin. Mrs
Clinton’s relevant victories include Kentucky, Ohio and West Virginia, but
also such less publicized traditional swing states as Arkansas, Nevada and
Tennessee. All in all Hillary Clinton scored eight such relevant victories,
representing 64 electoral votes, whereas Mr Obama had only two relevant
victories, yielding 20 electoral votes.
The
good news for the Democrats is that, under the assumption that, in the
general election, the winning Democratic candidate will also carry the swing
states he won in the primaries, Barack Obama, now the most likely Democratic
candidate, will still win against John McCain, albeit by a narrow margin
(275 electoral votes against 263). However, under the same assumption, Mrs
Clinton’s victory would be carried by a much larger margin of 319 to 219.
Thus, here is a set of numbers that clearly defines Hillary Clinton as the
stronger candidate for the November election.
Of
course one may argue that looking at the past is not the best way to predict
the future. We have thus refined the analysis by an alternative definition
of the swing states, based on voters registrations. Independent states (ie
where declared independent voters represent the largest percentage) and
states whose largest group of registered voters differs from past voting
patterns are thus considered swing states.
By
this definition, Florida joins the rank of swing states, as does
Massachusetts (declared Independents represent 50% of registered voters) and
North Carolina (with 45% of registered voters declared Democrats ie in
direct opposition to its past pro-Republican voting pattern). However, swing
states with a majority or largest share of Democratic registered voters have
to be considered Democratic states and their favorite candidates’ victories
therefore are thus no longer relevant.
According
to this analysis Mr Obama is credited with seven relevant victories (representing
52 electoral votes), including Alaska, Connecticut and Iowa, but no longer
including Louisiana (now considered a Democratic state). Mrs Clinton still
has more relevant victories (10) with more electoral votes (111) than her
presently more successful opponent. Relevant Clinton victories under this
analysis now also include Florida, New Jersey and Massachusetts, the latter
two being assimilated to Independent states.
To
see a Democratic fortress like Massachusetts go Republican in November
defies the imagination. But then again, so did the prospect of an African
American or a woman to be the Democratic nominee just twelve months ago. And
imagination may be less stressed, if McCain’s running mate would be the
wealthy Republican Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. And imagination might
even carry us further, if McCain chose the immensely popular former mayor of
New York City as his vice-presidential candidate. In such case, the
Republicans might even stand a chance to win the much larger prize against
Barack Obama.
Disregarding
the latter as the Republicans do not even dream about it, both Democratic
candidates would still clinch the oval office in November according to this
analysis. But again, Barack Obama’s victory would be narrower (285 to 253 electoral votes)
than Mrs Clinton’s (344 to
194). In light of such number based analyses, the safe play for the
Democrats, in the absence of a generic candidate, would
obviously be to support Hillary Clinton.
At
this stage this would however require a bold un-bureaucratic decision about
the seating of Michigan and Florida’s delegates and the massive support from
remaining undecided super-delegates, relegating ideology to pragmatism. Both
are unlikely to happen.
* Note : The figures and conclusions seem to express that the Democrats will
win in
November, no matter who will be their nominee.
This is however not quite accurate, as the analysis was done under the (for
the
Democratic Party) very optimistic assumption, that their candidate would win
all
swing states which he/she won during the primaries.
Analysis 1 : States classification according to past voting patterns
Analysis 2 : States classification according to voter registrations
General Interest
: Politics
> Presidential Elections 2008 :
«
Previous
1
- 2 Next
» |
|
