Electability Five Months Out
Clinton supporters have marched out their last gasp argument, and it's called electability. Clinton argues that because certain polls are in her favor now, five months before the general election, she's the more electable candidate.
But, in truth, the only argument for electability is the ability to run a campaign and actually win elections. The history of Clinton's campaign belies the entire argument.
Five months ago today, Clinton's average polling on RealClearPolitics.com was 44.2 percent, and Obama's was 23 percent. This was down from her peak average of 48.5 back in October. By the middle of February, Obama had passed her in the polling, and she's been running behind ever since. Currently, the average is 51-42 for Obama. He hasn't dropped below 45 percent since February. She hasn't been able to get above 46 percent during that same time.
This is what running a campaign does. It changes the numbers. Clinton has not been able to significantly increase her numbers in any state. There are no states where she dramatically changed the dynamic in her favor, and thus, there is no reason to assume she would be able to move her numbers against McCain.
Obama, on the other hand, knows how to move numbers. In race after race, he's shown he can run a campaign. Wherever he has concentrated his efforts, his poll numbers have increased.
He now has five months to focus on McCain. He's got ground forces out in every state working to increase turnout. He had a plan to win the Democratic nomination and now he's got a plan to win the presidency. He is an extraordinary campaigner. The Republicans are going to be stunned.
Electability is the ability to change the dynamic. The states Clinton has won are states where she was always poised to win, states where she held huge advantages a year ago. Almost every state that Obama has won, excepting Illinois, has been a state where he worked for the votes and came from behind.
Right now, with no campaign against McCain being run in earnest, both Clinton and Obama run slightly ahead of him, but not in statistically significant or comfortable numbers. These numbers will change by fall, but how will they change? My money is on the guy who has a lot of experience with creating an upward sloping trend line. I'll stay away the flatliner.
But, in truth, the only argument for electability is the ability to run a campaign and actually win elections. The history of Clinton's campaign belies the entire argument.
Five months ago today, Clinton's average polling on RealClearPolitics.com was 44.2 percent, and Obama's was 23 percent. This was down from her peak average of 48.5 back in October. By the middle of February, Obama had passed her in the polling, and she's been running behind ever since. Currently, the average is 51-42 for Obama. He hasn't dropped below 45 percent since February. She hasn't been able to get above 46 percent during that same time.
This is what running a campaign does. It changes the numbers. Clinton has not been able to significantly increase her numbers in any state. There are no states where she dramatically changed the dynamic in her favor, and thus, there is no reason to assume she would be able to move her numbers against McCain.
Obama, on the other hand, knows how to move numbers. In race after race, he's shown he can run a campaign. Wherever he has concentrated his efforts, his poll numbers have increased.
He now has five months to focus on McCain. He's got ground forces out in every state working to increase turnout. He had a plan to win the Democratic nomination and now he's got a plan to win the presidency. He is an extraordinary campaigner. The Republicans are going to be stunned.
Electability is the ability to change the dynamic. The states Clinton has won are states where she was always poised to win, states where she held huge advantages a year ago. Almost every state that Obama has won, excepting Illinois, has been a state where he worked for the votes and came from behind.
Right now, with no campaign against McCain being run in earnest, both Clinton and Obama run slightly ahead of him, but not in statistically significant or comfortable numbers. These numbers will change by fall, but how will they change? My money is on the guy who has a lot of experience with creating an upward sloping trend line. I'll stay away the flatliner.
Advertisement
nice analysis
June 1, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
good post. I'm not a numbers person, but as I understand it, in states like Pennsylvania, Sen. Clinton gave up significant leads, some over 30pts, whereas Obama gained almost that much.
Ohio, Texas, Indiana, California, and others showed her leading in a big way before the primary, and while she held on to win, (except in Texas) she lost significant margins.
The big picture that no one talks about is that from before the primary to after the primary, Clinton's trend lines overall went way down as Obama's trend lines went way up.
When you think about a general election, the most significant pattern to me is that she started off with a lot more support than she finished with.
The opposite is true with Obama. He started off with less support and ended up with insurmountable support.
Another poster reminded us all that elections are fluid and dynamic, and to me, that gives Obama an incredibly convincing November electability argument.
June 1, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post. As others have noted, Clinton simply has a lower ceiling than Obama does when it comes to support. And while Obama might have a lower floor, he has shown an ability over the last few months (and amid some serious negative press) to maintain his numbers. In this sense, I'm optimistic about the fall.
June 1, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. We haven't seen Obama's ceiling yet. He's got quite a few percentage points he can add. Hillary, on the other hand, is pretty much maxed out. She's hit her ceiling, and it's not going to be enough.
June 1, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another thing I should add is that Obama cut her lead with a pretty softball campaign. I know, certain Hillary supporters insist that he was terribly unfair to her, but I think most reasonable people can see that anything he dished out was pablum compared to how the Republicans would attack. He pulled his punches, and he left a lot of potential attack material off the table.
If she couldn't hold her ground against Obama, it's hard to see how her poll numbers would survive a Republican attack. Obama, on the other hand, increased his numbers even with the kinds of attacks that give Karl Rove tingles of twisted glee.
June 1, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
But think of what Hillary has done for dictionary authors. Next time they need to explain the expression "paper tiger", they can use Hillary's picture!
Looking at Hillary's support is actually fascinating. Her campaigning didn't make any difference whatsoever; she essentially never managed to convince any people who weren't going to vote for her a year ago. She had terrific name recognition... but she didn't have anything else.
June 1, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bullshit Phoebe,that was anything but a "softball" campaign. Axelrove cut his teeth on just this type of campaign. And, taking a page out of the Bush playbook as well was part of it.
June 1, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
(((*hug*)))
June 1, 2008 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, when you look at the list of things he didn't hit her on, that the Republicans most certainly would hit her on, it's a very long list. There was no mention of the various '90s scandals that the Republicans would recycle 16 ways from Tuesday. There was nothing on the rather unique circumstances surrounding the purchase of the Clinton's home in New York, nothing about her carpet bagging her way into New York, nothing about Bill's business dealings in the last eight years, including dealings with dictators in places like Kazakhstan, nothing about the truth of the NAFTA scandal, which was that it was Hillary's people who contacted the Canadians with the wink and a nudge. The Bosnian sniper lie was never exploited to its full advantage - Obama could have stood on that debate stage and said my opponent is an acknowledged liar, but he repeatedly was gracious.
That's all just off the top of my head. I'm quite sure Karl Rove has a binder three-inches thick of material with which he could attack Hillary. She is not in any way "vetted."
June 1, 2008 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right. There was nothing on impeachment (as a number of stories are pointing out today) and nothing on the number of White House gifts that illegally made their way to Westchester with the Clintons. Hell, no one even mentioned that Bill's vaunted offices in Harlem were his 2nd choice. He had originally wanted to be in midtown Manhattan (he may even have signed a lease for office space), but the public outcry caused him to reconsider and spin it as a sign of his affection for the African-American community. And while Hillary has consistently undermined the legitimacy of Obama's nomination (from popular vote to preferential media treatment, etc), he has been largely silent about her -- as gracious, one might say, as a young man who visibly tolerates a moody, combustible uncle or aunt.
June 2, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is Axelrove related to Mark Pennrove or Lanny Darovis or Howard Wolfrove?
June 2, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for elucidating on the obvious. Sometimes we get so tangled up in the trees that we forget to step back and see the forest.
Historical context is always illuminating.
If I may add one more statement: Primary results do are not a predictor of general election outcomes.
June 2, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Phoebe Fay: You have done a nice job of turning a negative into a positive, but let's not lose sight of the reality. Go to realclearpolitics.com and you will see that Clinton's electoral math looks far more promising than Obama's. She wins more of the contested states by wider margins. The number of states that Obama puts into play is relatively small. Yes, June polling is notoriously unreliable as a November predictor so I don't find this decisive in terms of selecting the nominee. But the argument that Obama has greater upside seems more based on hope and faith than anything empirical. Obama had plenty of time to campaign in Pennsylvania and Ohio and didn't move mountains there. I hope he can, but I wouldn't be so dismissive of the polls.
As for the claim that Clinton hasn't been thoroughly "vetted" I say nonsense. Of course the Republicans could trot out all the old charges, but it's a song the Americans have heard before. Despite these so-called scandals, Bill Clinton left office with stratospheric approval ratings. The American people found it very easy to separate the "scandals" - real and manufactured - from his ability to effectively govern the country. Judging by your list that could have been gleaned from Limbaugh's greatest hits, it seems you do not make that distinction and are all too happy to reiterate Rove's talking points -- in the interest of the new politics of unity, of course.
June 2, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
If her numbers are so good, how come she can't win anything?
June 2, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink