One of the more common arguments I’ve heard from the Clinton campaign in recent weeks is that Obama is a weaker general-election candidate because he’s losing “big states” to Clinton. The argument has drawn criticism for being elitist, and while there’s probably something to that, the point is worth considering in more detail.
Indeed, at first blush, it seems reasonably fair. When Obama wins by 30 points in the Nebraska caucuses or 20 points in the Utah primary, it’s impressive, but it’s not exactly a reliable general-election indicator. Nebraska and Utah don’t have a lot of electoral votes, and both are going to vote Republican in November. Clinton, meanwhile, has won states like California, New York, Ohio, and Texas. These are big victories, in big states. Obama may have twice as many statewide victories as Clinton, the argument goes, but he’s not winning where it counts.
Today, the Obama campaign (which seems to be issuing forceful strategy memos a little more frequently lately) sent out a mini-report from Iowa Governor Chet Culver, Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle, Washington Governor Christine Gregoire, Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, and Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill — all Dems from swing states where Obama defeated Clinton. The goal, they said, is to “debunk” the “big-state myth.”
Senator Obama has scored important victories in each of our states — states that will play a decisive role in deciding whether or not John McCain will be given the chance to enter the White House and extend George Bush’s failed policies for another 4 years. […]
The Clinton campaign’s argument ignores relevant facts about how significant a role these states played in determining the outcome of the presidential race in 2004. In fact, Obama has won 7 of 9 of the biggest states that were close in the 2004 presidential election and have already selected delegates to the 2008 Democratic convention.
Specifically, the memo points to Obama victories in Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Colorado, Washington, Missouri, and Virginia, all of which were decided by single digits in 2004.
The argument has merit, but it’s also the result of a little cherry-picking.
The key is the definition of “big.” The Obama campaign memo said Obama has won seven of nine of the “biggest states that were close in the 2004 presidential election” that have already held primaries or caucuses. These are the notorious “purple” states that both parties will be targeting carefully in November, so if one candidate is excelling in these states, it makes sense to consider this while picking a nominee.
But there’s a catch — the Obama memo neglects to mention that Clinton has won some “purple” states of her own. New Hampshire, Nevada, and New Mexico were all decided in 2004 by six points or less, and will likely be competitive in 2008 as well. This year, Clinton has won all three, but they didn’t make the cut in the memo analysis, because they’re not “big.”
In some ways, this leads to an interesting dynamic — the Clinton campaign is boasting of its ability to win contests in big “blue” states, while the Obama campaign can tout its success in winning in big “purple” states.
Does this “debunk” Clinton’s big-state argument? Sort of. I’ve never found the argument entirely compelling, but I consider states like Virginia and Missouri pretty big, and if Obama has a better chance of winning these states in November than Clinton, it’s an important angle to consider.
The next question, at least for me, is whether Clinton’s big-state victories are limited exclusively to her. In other words, she won major prizes like California and New York — but does that mean Obama wouldn’t win California and New York? That would matter a great deal, but I haven’t seen any evidence to that effect.