Friday, May 09, 2008
According to press reports, Senator Hillary Clinton sincerely believes she is more electable than Barack Obama. That is the case she wants to make to the Superdelegates who will ultimately decide the Democratic Nomination. As part of her public pitch, Clinton has said, “I'm winning Catholic voters and Hispanic voters and Blue Collar Workers and Seniors, the kind of people that Senator McCain will be fighting for in the general election.”
It is possible to assemble data that shows Clinton would be a stronger candidate than Barack Obama. It’s also possible to assemble data showing just the opposite. The reality is that Clinton and Obama represent different types of general election candidates and it’s impossible to know who would end up as the stronger candidate come November. Clinton is the lower risk candidate with less upside potential while Obama is a higher risk with significantly greater potential in both directions.
If Clinton and Obama were on equal terms at this point, she could probably make a persuasive case that the Democrats should go with the lower risk candidate since the fundamentals are so good for Democrats this year. But, the two Democrats are not on equal terms at this point. Obama has won the most pledged delegates to the convention and will soon have an absolute majority of those delegates. Clinton is asking party leaders to overturn the results of a Primary season on the grounds that she is more electable.
However, the larger reality is that the electability argument doesn’t matter. For one thing, most Democrats remain optimistic about Election 2008 and believe that either Democratic candidate will win this year. From that perspective, even if Clinton is theoretically more electable, it’s a distinction without a practical difference.
More importantly, Clinton’s belief that she is more electable rests upon the assumption that she can get the nomination without tearing the Democratic Party apart. That’s not a credible assumption in the minds of Superdelegates. The conventional wisdom is that handing the nomination to Clinton would create a Democratic civil war. No matter how it was explained, a fair number of Obama supporters would sit out the election or vote for a third party candidate. Some might even vote Republican. The bottom line is that the very process of handing her the nomination would make her unelectable.
But, in that scenario, the problems for Democrats would go far deeper. If Obama is denied the nomination, the collateral damage could reduce the number of House and Senate races that Democrats win this year. Why would any Superdelegate want to risk that?
Rasmussen Reports is a media company specializing in the collection, publication and distribution of public opinion information.
We conduct public opinion polls on a variety of topics to inform our audience on events in the news and other topics of interest. To ensure editorial control and independence, we pay for the polls ourselves and generate revenue through the sale of subscriptions, sponsorships, and advertising. Nightly polling on politics, business and lifestyle topics provides the content to update the Rasmussen Reports web site many times each day. If it's in the news, it's in our polls. Additionally, the data drives a daily update newsletter, the Rasmussen Report on radio and other media outlets.
Some information, including the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll and commentaries are available for free to the general public. Subscriptions are available for $3.95 a month or 34.95 a year that provide subscribers with exclusive access to more than 20 stories per week on Election 2012, consumer confidence, and issues that affect us all. For those who are really into the numbers, Platinum Members can review demographic crosstabs and a full history of our data.