5. Speaking of swing states, can we call a cease-fire on the whole "our candidate does better in swing states" meme? Please consult this handy chart put together by Craig Gilbert, the Washington bureau chief for the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. It shows that, in the 20 closest states from 2004, 15 of which have held Democratic National Committee-sanctioned primaries or caucuses thus far, Obama has won eight to Clinton's seven. If Florida and Michigan are counted, or even if Clinton holds them during a re-vote, it would be Clinton nine, Obama eight. And if Clinton wins do-overs in Florida and Michigan, and wins two of the remaining three (presumably Pennsylvania and West Virginia, with Oregon going to Obama), at best her "lead" would be 11-9 -- and even this "advantage" would have to be discounted because his margins in the states he won are generally larger than hers in her states.
6. But before we declare a cease-fire about the swing states, let me get in a few shots of my own. You keep tearing each other down, but you both have strong cases to make.
Limiting the discussion to the dozen states, containing 142 pivotal electors, decided in 2004 by 5 percent or less, the first thing one notices is that eight of the states are located in two regions: The Midwest (Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin) and the Southwest (Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico). The other four states are New Hampshire, Florida, Oregon and Pennsylvania.
Assuming for the sake of argument that Obama carries Oregon on May 20 as he did neighboring Washington, and that Clinton wins re-votes in Michigan and Florida and her current polling lead in Pennsylvania holds up on primary day, April 22, that might in theory give her an advantage in seven states to his five, and a whopping Electoral College vote difference of 99 electors to Obama's 43. Even if you give Obama Nevada and New Mexico, which she won but in which (according to SurveyUSA results) he seems more competitive against McCain, she still leads 89 to 53. On the other hand, if he wins a Michigan re-vote or, in lieu of a re-vote, pulls ahead of her in Michigan polls, the states split 6-to-6 and the electors are almost identical: Clinton 72, Obama 70.
Swing state competitiveness hinges to a certain degree on statewide demographics, and specifically whether one believes Obama's "wine track" coalition of African-Americans, men, high-earners, young voters and independents will be more likely to hold or flip the swing states than Clinton's "beer track" coalition of downscale whites, women, Hispanics, seniors and registered Democrats. The Clinton camp's ability to hold down traditional Democratic constituencies does bolster its claim that the party would have to worry less about keeping New Hampshire or Pennsylvania blue, but her lesser appeal to the "independents and some Republicans" Obama's campaign incessantly talks about means she might have trouble flipping some new states from red to blue. Obama's case is the inverse: More likely to open the map but, by virtue of doing so, adding a bit more risk of allowing some states to flip back from blue to red.
Both campaigns can point to a demographic -- she, Hispanics; he, young voters -- that should comprise a larger share of the national electorate this year compared to 2004. Each of your candidates also has a highly motivated block of identity voters (she, women; he, African-Americans), and while the even distribution of female voters across all states would seem to give Clinton a slight advantage, the four swing states with significant black populations -- Florida, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania -- also happen to be the four biggest prizes among the 12 swing states.
You are, in other words, downplaying each other's considerable strengths. But you're also downplaying your own weaknesses.
7. Finally, paradoxes abound. Clinton consistently performs better with Latino voters, and yet the SurveyUSA results suggest Obama would be more competitive against McCain in Latino-infused Southwestern states. Conversely, despite being the darling of the upscale "wine track" voters, against McCain Obama seems vulnerable in New Jersey -- the state that battles Maryland annually for bragging rights to the highest median household income in America -- while Clinton is stronger.
In conclusion, both of your candidates are potentially electable against -- or beatable by -- John McCain. And if all of the above analysis makes your head hurt, well, now you know how the rest of us feel.
About the writer
Thomas F. Schaller is associate professor of political science at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County and the author of "Whistling Past Dixie: How Democrats Can Win Without the South."
Related Stories
It ain't over yet
Victory is sweet for Clinton after 11 losses, but the path to overtaking Obama in the delegate count is still far from clear -- and could lead back to Florida and Michigan.
A non-paranoid's guide to superdelegates
Rather than an anti-Obama cabal, these Democratic insiders are the ultimate tiebreakers.
How will it all end?
Obama surge? Or Clinton comeback? Superdelegates anyone? With the delegate count agonizingly close -- and proportional representation likely to keep it that way -- all bets are off.
Story finder (3 ways to search Salon)
Salon Directory (browse by topic)