The Dartmouth Observer

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by Listed on BlogShares

Monday, May 19, 2008
The Map, Not The Math

Needless to say, I am tired of the main-stream media and blogosphere extraordinare competing to describe just how dead Clinton is. Team Clinton has rightly begun to explicitly state is newest argument: it's the map not the math. Whether in terms of counties won, or all of the votes cast for a candidate in this primary season, or the number of 'important'/'swing' states won, Sen. Clinton has exceeded expectations. While things would certainly be easier if she were ahead in other three metrics--pledged delegates, superdelegates, and states won--she does has a solid grip on three of the six measures.

Nevertheless, it is easy to get lost in all this math and these inane arguments about 'rules.' The Democratic Party has two questions it must resolve: (1) what is the party going to do about the certified elections that occurred in Michigan and Florida? (2) Given the closeness of this primary race--neither candidate has been able to deliver the knockout blow--which candidate, or combination of the candidates, is the most competitive in the 2008 November election?

This is a measurement that can only occur, as I have argued earlier, by each state's contribution to an Electoral College victory. Quite frankly, I am of the opinion that Sen. Clinton is the clear choice and here's why. Her electoral victory map represents a more sure shot of a Democratic presidency.

Polls consistently show Obama winning and Hillary losing in the following states:


Polls show Hillary winning and Obama losing in the following states:

West Virginia

Obama's states = 16 electoral votes
Hillary's victories= 58 electoral votes.

Obama's states + the Kerry map results in an electoral college loss.
Hillary's states + the Kerry map results in an electoral college victory.

(For comparison, see Karl Rove's polling company's results.)

It's that simple. It's the difference between winning (Hillary) and losing (Obama).

Let me be clear: Obama can win; Clinton will win. The deep irony of the situation is that the Republicans nominated their only candidate who could win this year while the Democrats seem intent on nominating the only remaining candidate who could lose.

Clearly Sen. Obama has proven his worth as a candidate: his nomination to the vice presidency would make the Democratic ticket an unstoppable force for up to four presidential elections, and for many congressional elections as well.