Clinton's claim: Who is winning the swing states?

&forum&mesgClinton has long been making an argument that she has won "the big states" as if that has any relevance to electability.

(It doesn't, for reasons I've discussed at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg=132&topic_id=5882894_id=5882894 and http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=5925041 )

But last night, in her victory speech in West Virginia, she said



Unlike her earlier argument, this one at least has some validity, in that, while "who won the big states" is meaningless in terms of electability in November, "who won the swing states" might actually matter.

According to the site http://www.270towin.com , these are the 2008 swing states: Colorodo, Connectcut, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin.

Now let's look at Hillary's claim: Who is winning more swing states?

Colorodo – Obama
Connectcut – Obama
Florida – disputed, candidates didn't campaign
Iowa – Obama
Michigan – disputed, candidates didn't campaign Obama not on the ballot.
Minnesota – Obama
Missouri – Obama
Nevada – Clinton
New Hampshire – Clinton
New Jersey – Clinton
New Mexico – Clinton
North Carolina – Obama
Ohio – Clinton
Pennsylvania – Clinton
Virginia – Obama
Wisconsin – Obama

That's 8 states for Obama, 6 for Clinton, 2 disputed.

Even if you give Clinton the two disputed states, it's only a tie. So no, Clinton is not winning the swing states.

But I come here to analyze the situation, not to bash Hillary by simply pointing out another questionable statement.

So let's look at a different metric. While, technically, Clinton is not winning a greater number of swing states, perhaps she is winning a greater number of swing state electoral votes. It's not what she said, but maybe it's what she meant. And it would be true that, in November, getting more swing state electroral votes is more important than getting more swing states.

Here are the numbers of electrol votes for each of the swing states:

Colorodo – 8
Connectcut – 7
Florida – 27
Iowa – 7
Michigan – 17
Minnesota – 10
Missouri – 11
Nevada – 5
New Hampshire – 4
New Jersey – 15
New Mexico – 5
North Carolina – 15
Ohio – 20
Pennsylvania – 21
Virginia – 15
Wisconsin – 10

Looked at this way, Clinton's claim is… still wrong. She is losing the swing states with only 70 electoral votes to Obama's 83.

Unless of course you count Florida and Michigan, which she claims to have won, which would give her 114. To be fair to Clinton, while the Florida primary is disputed, polls indicate that she'll have a much easier time winning Florida than Obama would. Michigan is less clear.

So the bottom line?

Hillary's statement is wrong if taken literally.

Hillary's statement is wrong if extrapolated to mean electoral votes rather than just number of states.

Hillary's statement is right if extrapolated to electoral votes and you count Florida and Michigan.

The underlying message, that delegates should consider this kind of thing regardless of who would more likely win the nomination otherwise, is a topic I won't even go into, as there has been plenty of discussion about that elsewhere.

It's been pretty solid in the last few elections. But otherwise I think you are absolutely right. And Obama also won Washington State, which is a swing state, and is favored to win Oregon, which Kerry and Gore both won narrowly.

LIEberman aside - CT is reliably dem, so is Wisconsin

Kerry won Wisconsin by only 11,000 votes. The final margin was 49.7% to 49.32%.

Latest poll had Obama up 26

New Jersey will probably go Democratic, but not by 26 points. New Jersey always gets just close enough in the polls for Republicans to scare us into spending money to defend it. It's aggravating!

the whole meme that he can bring in the deep south is ridiculous... and several polls have recently completely denied these states to him.

It's been on most strategists' radar screen for a while. I agree with you about Connecticut though. North Carolina could be in play but I am not sure I'd call it a swing state...I'd make it a watch for right now.

Did you possibly mean Mississippi, instead of Missouri? I agree that Mississippi is definitely not a swing state.

BTW, a recent Quinnipiac poll in Florida had Obama down only 1 point.

But are you seriously saying MO is not a swing state?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_bellwether

"The Missouri bellwether is a political phenomenon that notes that the state of Missouri has voted for the winner in every U.S. Presidential election beginning in 1904 except in 1956. Missouri is also considered a bellwether of U.S. views on hot-button social issues such as stem cell research,<1> school vouchers,<2> and same-sex marriage.<3><4> Some economists also consider the state a bellwether for economic trends such as consumer confidence and unemployment.<5>"

MO went for Bush in 2000, 2004, Clinton in 1996, 1992, Bush in 1988, Regan in 1984, 1980, and carter in 1976, .....

Thats a big swing..

If you want to measure electibility, look at new-voter turnout and where it went. Nothing else indicates anything.

:spank:

It went for Dukakis and Clinton.

If Obama is the nominee, it is strong for McCain. (Completely non-biased view here, just reporting the facts as they are now.)

The only swing states that matter are those that she won.

It could be decided right here in the state of Colorado. We're deep purplish, trending blue. Obama could carry Colorado.

McCain has no chance here. If Hillary wins the nomination unexpectedly, then it will also be McCain's state to carry if Hillary is on the top of the ticket.

Last time we went blue was in '92, but since then we've elected a couple of Democrats, and we have a big race here to take another U.S. Senate seat - Downticket Democrats are important!!1

But Colorado isn't a "traditional" bellweather. I honestly think that with Hillary at the top, Colorado will go Democratic.

Looking at http://www.270towin.com (Remember--keep your eye on the ball.)

McCain vs. Hillary

Colorado – 9 (it's 9, not 8) Leaning McCain
Connecticut – 7 Can't call
Florida – 27 Leaning Hillary
Iowa – 7 Leaning McCain
Michigan – 17 Can't call
Minnesota – 10 Can't call
Missouri – 11 Can't call
Nevada – 5 Leaning McCain
New Hampshire – 4 Can't call
New Jersey – 15 Can't call
New Mexico – 5 Can't call
North Carolina – 15 Can't call
Ohio – 20 Leaning Hillary
Pennsylvania – 21 Leaning Hillary
Virginia – 15 Leaning McCain
Wisconsin – 10 Can't call

So that's 36 Leaning McCain, 68 Leaning Hillary, 94 can't call (198 total--math check. :) )

Total: 224 Hillary, 189 McCain, 125 Swing

McCain vs. Obama

Colorado – 9 (it's 9, not 8) Can't call
Connecticut – 7 Leaning Obama
Florida – 27 Can't call
Iowa – 7 Leaning Obama
Michigan – 17 Can't call
Minnesota – 10 Leaning Obama
Missouri – 11 Leaning McCain
Nevada – 5 Can't Call
New Hampshire – 4 Leaning McCain
New Jersey – 15 Can't call
New Mexico – 5 Leaning McCain
North Carolina – 15 Can't call
Ohio – 20 Can't call
Pennsylvania – 21 Leaning Obama
Virginia – 15 Leaning McCain
Wisconsin – 10 Can't call

So that's 35 Leaning McCain, 45 Leaning Obama, 118 can't call (198 total)

Total: 201 Obama, McCain 141, Swing 196

Now, they say themselves it's really too early to tell and to, "Expect to see a good deal of volatility in these numbers at least through the summer."

Here's the thing, though--this is what counts. It's not popular vote--we don't elect based on a popular vote (yet, probably never).

Basically if the election were today, Hillary would need 46 electoral college votes from:

Washington - 10
Minnesota - 10
Wisconsin - 10
Michigan - 17
New Hampshire - 4
Connecticut - 7
New Jersey - 15
Deleware - 3
Hawaii - 4
New Mexico - 5
Missouri - 11
Kentucky - 8
West Virginia - 5
North Carolina - 15

("Traditional Bellweathers" Missouri (S), Arkansas (H), Ohio (H), Tennessee (M))

Barack would need 69 from
Alaska - 3
Nevada - 5
Colorado - 9
North Dakota - 3
Nebraska - 5
Wisconsin - 10
Michigan - 17
Ohio - 20
Massachusetts - 12
New Jersey - 15
Virginia - 13
North Carolina - 15
South Carolina - 8
Texas - 34
Florida - 27

("Traditional Bellweathers" Missouri (M), Arkansas (M), Ohio (S), Tennessee (M))

I've got some questions on the OP.

1) Who decided what the "swing states" are. They're showing up differently for each candidate. Washington is currently leaning Democratic if Obama were the nominee, but is "swing" if Hillary were the nominee. (See, Mrs. McKinney and Mr. Cloud! I'm using the subjunctive! ;) )

2) Things look to be more unsettled with Barack as nominee, as there are more electoral votes up. If we can say that advertising costs are roughly proportional to population, then it should cost more to run ads, particularly television ads, in states with more electoral votes--or if there were more states in play, then more ads would need to be run. Either leads to a conclusion of a more costly race. Seems, then, that the Barack v. McCain race would be much more expensive than the Hillary v. McCain race.

3) Colorado? I think Colorado will be decided by the Senatorial race. Mark Udall vs. Bob Schaeffer. I don't see people voting for Bob and not McCain. Udall can likely deliver a state for the Democratic nominee (unless it's a close vote) either way, I suppose. I'm also highly optimistic that Udall will carry Colorado (hey, I really am a liberal, you know.)

re: "Who decided what the 'swing states' are"

That's what I got from the web site I referenced. BUT yes, it is also true that different states will be more or less in play depending on the candidate. While these maps are a couple of months old and there's sure to have been some shift since then, they do show this well: http://www.cogitamusblog.com/2008/03/all-victories-a.html

re: "Seems, then, that the Barack v. McCain race would be much more expensive than the Hillary v. McCain race. "

Even if that's the case, at least Obama seems much more able to raise money than Hillary.

most of the states you list aren't swing states by any measure I'm aware of.

I provided the link for the list of swing states. I don't know how they made their determination, but if you have a source for another list, we can try the exercise again...

:)

but the big 3 are usually considered to be Florida, PA, and Ohio. Based on electoral votes, I suppose.

NJ, CT, MI? No way. Same for Maine - if we win Maine, it will be part of a national landslide. West VA is considered a swing state by most - while VA is not. NH, Iowa, NM - all classic smaller swingstates. CO, NV - not so much. It's been a long time since a Democrat got a majority in those places - and history, not just current polling, has to be a consideration when determining swing states. MS is a swing state, but it's also a state where if we win it will be because of a landslide, IMO.

It's electoral votes. Pennsylvania and Ohio are twice as important as Minnesota and Wisconsin.