The discrepancy between the Texas Primary and the Texas Caucus has me wondering: why (with results still unconfirmed) is Senator Obama significantly outperforming Senator Clinton in the caucus yet he failed to win the primary? And what are the possible implications in the general election? This oddity and its implications should not go unnoticed by superdelegates.
Here is what we know so far about the math: Senator Obama has outperformed Senator Clinton in caucuses, while Senator Clinton has won more primaries. He is ahead in the delegate count and in the popular vote, by 3.5% and 2% respectively, without Michigan and Florida . Yet counting primaries only, she’s ahead.
So why is this important? Because the general election is more like a primary. In two important ways, the Democratic primary season is not like the general election. The former has a mix of caucuses and primaries and awards delegates proportionately, while the latter follows a primary format with a winner-takes-all allocation of Electoral College votes. The Republican Party was smart to more closely replicate the general election format in their primary and caucus elections because it results in a nominee more likely to win in this format.
Democrats should consider the following: looking at a winner-takes-all allocation of delegates in primaries only, and not including any superdelegates, Senator Clinton currently leads Senator Obama 1376 to 974. That many of Mr. Obama’s caucus wins are in traditionally red states unlikely to choose a Democrat in the general election gives us another reason to discount the caucus wins.
Beyond the delegate math, lie the district-by-district primary results in Ohio and Texas . Mr. Obama won cities in both states, while Mrs. Clinton won essentially everywhere else. Typically, though, Democrats win in cities while they struggle in rural and suburban areas. Mrs. Clinton has proven she can draw strong Democratic support and give Senator McCain a run for his money in traditionally Republican areas in swing states. This will be especially important in Ohio, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Florida. With Texas’ large Hispanic population, which favors Mrs. Clinton, we can count on it to also be in play in November.
Mr. Obama’s campaign is right in assuming Mr. Obama can replicate Mrs. Clinton’s wins in traditionally Democratic states such as California, Massachusetts and New York. Even with lower margins, he would still claim all the electoral votes. Likewise, Mrs. Clinton would be favored in a general election in Illinois, Wisconsin, Hawaii and other traditional blue states won by Mr. Obama. But what she has proven, and Mr. Obama has not, is that she can win in Democratic strongholds and swing states.
Many of Mr. Obama’s wins have been in Republican strongholds, which are unlikely to switch parties in 2008. Colorado, which Mr. Obama won, last went Democratic in 1992 when they elected Bill Clinton but has gone red every other year since 1980. Other traditional red states won by Mr. Obama, including Alaska, Idaho, Nebraska, Kansas, and North Dakota haven’t gone blue in over 28 years.
Senator Clinton, at political risk, put her resources and energies into winning Democratic strongholds and swing states. Although her delegate lead has been lost, she can make a strong case why she is the more electable Democratic candidate in the winner-takes-all general election in November. Superdelegates would be foolish to ignore this.
Sources:
Delegate and popular vote counts – http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
Presidential Election results 1980-2000 - http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2004/politics101/politics101_ecmap.html
