Who'll Carry the Purple States?

During a conference call this week, Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson pointed to a new Gallup Poll titled, "Hillary Clinton's Swing-State Advantage" as further evidence that Senator Clinton would be the stronger Democratic candidate against Senator John McCain in the general election. "I think the very definition of the process that we're going through suggests that, as a party, we believe that primaries have some bearing on electoral outcomes in general elections and that they are somewhat predictive," he told a group of reporters.

Wolfson then read the first two paragraphs of the poll, which explained that in the 20 states where Clinton claimed popular vote victories, she led McCain by 50 percent to 43 percent for the general election. In those same states, McCain led Senator Barack Obama by one percentage point, 46 percent to 45 percent. In the 28 states and the District of Columbia "where Obama has won a higher share of the popular vote," there was almost no difference in how Obama and Clinton each fared against the presumptive Republican nominee.

The poll, which was conducted from May 12 to May 25 and based on aggregated data from Gallup Poll Daily tracking, was released days before the Democratic National Committee's Rules and Bylaws hearing on Florida and Michigan--states which Clinton counts in her "win" column. Newsweek's Jessica Ramirez spoke with Lydia Saad, the author of the poll and a senior editor at Gallup, about Clinton's claim that her primary wins are an indication of how the general election could play out. Excerpts:

Senator Clinton has been making the claim that she is the stronger Democratic candidate for some time. What prompted you to do the poll now?
Lydia Saad: I was prompted because of the idea that votes in the primaries translate into officially greater support in those same states in the fall. It's Senator Clinton's argument that that's why she's a stronger candidate, and I wanted to look at the data to see if there was some validity to it.

Your poll suggests that in head-to-head matchups against McCain, Clinton fairs better than Obama in the primary states where she's won the popular vote, but Obama does not fair much better than Clinton in the primary states he's won. What does that mean?
That part speaks to Senator Clinton's argument, which is that how a candidate does in the primaries has some bearing on how they will do in the those states in the general election. That's the hypothesis. The data does not support the hypothesis because, while [the hypothesis] looks like it's true for Clinton, it's not true for Obama. We would have to look at the same sort of information for candidates over multiple elections to get a better sense. In this first look, the data suggests that it's not a persuasive conclusion that doing well in states in the primaries means you will do better in those states than your opponent in the fall.

Let's say her claim holds for her. What does that say about her suggestion that she would garner more electoral votes than Obama in the fall based on the states that she has won so far?
What [Clinton] has said was, "The states I've won total 300 electoral votes. If we had the same rules as the Republicans, I would be the nominee right now. We have different rules, so what we've got to figure out is who can win 270 electoral votes. My opponent has won states totaling 217 electoral votes."

The implication in that comment is, 'I have a better chance of winning 270 electoral votes because the states that I've won in the primary have significantly more Electoral College vote value than Obama's.' Is that valid? Could we say that for any primary in any election year?

First of all, she's assuming that Florida and Michigan belong in her column and that's a judgment call everyone has to make for themselves, whether she would have a valid claim to the electoral votes in those states. She's also including states that are traditionally Republican in the general election. To get a better sense, we would have to break out the states each candidate has won by their status as red [Republican], blue [Democrat] and purple [swing states].

When you break them out by status, how does that change the scenario?
When I break it out, it looks like they both hold the blue states to the same degree. Clinton does better in red states, but those will likely remain red in the general. What is interesting is that they both do better [against McCain] in their respective purple states. The purple states support her argument that primary state wins can be indicative of general election results.

How do the two compare, if we look at just the purple states each has won?
Right now, Obama has the purple states of Oregon, Minnesota, Colorado, Wisconsin, Iowa and Missouri. Those would total up to 54 electoral votes in the fall.

If you leave out Florida and Michigan, Clinton has 61 electoral votes in the six swing states she's got, which are Nevada, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Ohio, New Hampshire, and New Mexico. In this case, she has only slightly more potential electoral votes than Obama. If she gets Florida, her total is 88 and with Florida and Michigan [it's] 105. That scenario would give her swing state cluster significantly more heft than Obama.

Overall, what does this analysis tell us about each candidate's chances against Senator McCain in the fall?
It's telling us that the Blue states are making little distinction between Clinton and Obama. The Red states are going to be problem states for Obama more than they are for Clinton, but there's a question whether or not that really matters. They are both very competitive in swing states against McCain, with each candidate fairing better against him in the states where they won the popular vote. Clinton may have an advantage because, as I indicated earlier, her swing states-particularly if she gets Florida and Michigan-represent more Electoral College votes than Obama's. All of this is as of today. We have to wait and see if that changes once there is a nominee and the Democrats hold their convention.