It's time to do your job and nominate the Democrat that can actually BEAT John McCain in November.

By Nancy Kivlen

The following information was taken from the following sources: Jay Cost (Real Clear Politics), Gallup Polls Study, P. Cronin (The Confluence), Electoral-vote.com, and Hillary Clinton's website.

Hillary Clinton should be the democratic nominee based on the fact that she is the most qualified and most experienced candidate. Time and again, Hillary Clinton has out polled both John McCain and Barack Obama on questions of the economy, which is the key issue to winning in November. Most important, Hillary Clinton will win the popular vote total for the Democratic nomination:



This graph from Real Clear Politics illustrates the way in which actual votes are disseminated to pledged delegates.

Essentially, smaller, less populated states (like Idaho and Alaska) where Democrats will NOT be competitive in the fall and who hold low electoral vote numbers are weighted far more heavily than larger, more populated states (like OH or PA) where Democrats NEED to be competitive and win in the fall, and which hold much larger electoral vote numbers.





Hillary Clinton has the strongest coalition of supporters which the democrats need to win in November.


These graphs show the coalition that supported Senator's Clinton v. Obama in the primaries where exit polling data was tracked.

These results are clearly consistent with what we found in the voting data. White males have been a kind of swing vote nationwide, but Clinton has performed extremely well with them in the Republican swing states. Unsurprisingly, she also won Hispanics and white women. Obama, per usual, carried the African American vote.

What about white voters by age? We know that, nationwide, young whites are partial to Obama, older whites partial to Clinton. What about in the Republican swing states?

While Obama did better among young whites, Clinton still carried them. Furthermore, she carried whites of all age groups.

What about partisanship? We know that white Democrats are partial to Clinton, white Independents are partial to Obama. Does this apply to the Republican swing states?

The answer is yes and no. While Obama did better with white Independents, Clinton still won them.

What about income groups?

Again, we see that while Obama did better with wealthier voters than with poor voters - Clinton won all categories.

What about our other metric of socioeconomic status, college education?

Clinton won those without college degrees comfortably, and the two basically split the college educated.

Finally, what about votes by type of living area? We can break these into three categories - city, suburb, and small town/rural. Let's see how each candidate did.

While Obama carried the cities, Clinton won the suburbs by a solid margin. The results from the rural areas are particularly noteworthy. What you see there is a 40-point Clinton victory.

All in all, the exit poll data, the statewide votes, and the countywide votes point in the same direction: Clinton is stronger in the areas that have swung presidential elections in the last decade. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that she would be relatively stronger at recreating the voting coalition that has provided victory to the Democrats in years past.

Gallup Organization did this analysis pointing out that Clinton, not Obama is by far the stronger candidate in the swing states which are necessary for Democrats to win in November:

Swing states won by Clinton, excluding Florida and Michigan:

Swing states won by Clinton, including Florida and Michigan:

The analysis by Gallup:

In the 20 states where Hillary Clinton has claimed victory in the 2008 Democratic primary and caucus elections (winning the popular vote), she has led John McCain in Gallup Poll Daily trial heats for the general election over the past two weeks of Gallup Poll Daily tracking by 50% to 43%. In those same states, Barack Obama is about tied with McCain among national registered voters, 45% to 46%.

In contrast, in the 28 states and the District of Columbia where Obama has won a higher share of the popular vote against Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primaries and caucuses, there is essentially no difference in how Obama and Clinton each fare against McCain. Both Democrats are statistically tied with him for the fall election.

         The Gallup study directly supports Clinton's assertion that she will be a stronger general-election candidate against          John McCain in crucial battleground states, based on her primary election performance.  Obama, on other hand,               cannot claim a similar advantage.

The following maps are from various unbiased sources. Each source shows the SAME information: Hillary Clinton handily beats John McCain in November in the General Election and Barack Obama does not.

REMINDER: The Winner needs 270 Electoral Votes to win the Presidency

Map 1 (from Karl Rove polling): McCain vs. Clinton.  McCain has 206 EV Clinton as 259 EV with 73 toss-ups



Map 1 (from Karl Rove polling): McCain vs. Obama.  McCain has 238 EV Obama as 221 EV with 79 toss-ups



Map 2: Hillary leads McCain by 120 EVs






Map 2: Obama loses to McCain by 46 EVs





Map 3: Hillary has 327 EVs McCain has 194 EVs with 17 toss-ups

May 28

Electoral Votes: Clinton 327     McCain 194     Ties 17

---

Map 3: Obama has 266 EVs McCain has 248 EVs with 24 toss-ups

May 28

Electoral Votes: Obama 266     McCain 248     Ties 24

---

From P. Cronin's excellent analysis of how Caucuses do not accurately reflect the will of the people.  First and foremost, they suppress a large number of voter's based on their restrictive nature:




This graph outlines the differences between voters that participated in Primaries vs. Caucuses.

The sizable difference in voter participation between primary and caucus states is even more startling when viewed as a
comparison of total votes cast.  Of the 33.5 million popular votes in the 2008 Democratic Primaries, caucus voters have
collectively cast only 3.2% of the total or 1.1 million votes. In perspective, voters in the New Jersey primary alone cast
58,000 more votes than cast in all 13 caucus states combined. Further, Senator Obama has won 5 states where he drew
nearly 1.1 million votes and Senator Clinton has won 5 states with more than the 1.1 million cumulative caucus votes. 






If there were not such stringent restrictions that filter-out so many would-be voters from caucusing, how many would have participated?  And, how would those unheard voices have voted?

In aggregate, the 13 caucus states have 23.2 million eligible voters.  The average Democratic voter turnout in 2008
caucuses has been 4.5% versus 19.92% in primaries.  So, if caucus turnout was similar to all primaries roughly 4.6 million Dems would have voted. 

Example 1: On February 9, Washington held its statewide caucus and an estimated 245,000 caucus-goers 5.3% of
eligible voters chose Obama over Clinton by 67.5% to 31.2%, a whopping 36-point margin. Ten days later, WA held a
primary attended by 691,381 [15% of eligible voters, ie, almost 3 times the caucus turnout] and Obama won by 51.2% to 45.7%.

Citizens of WA voted-in a State-run Primary. However, the Party-run caucus results are still the legal results.

Washington allocated its 78 pledged delegates at a ratio of 2:1 [67% to 33%] and Obama got 52 versus Clinton's 26.

Obama gained 26 delegates.  If the pledged delegates had been allocated according to the primary results, Obama would have 41 delegates compared to Clinton's 37. Obama would have gained 4 delegates.

Bottom line: The caucus vs. primary benefited Obama by a net 22 delegates, 14.5% of the 152 pledged delegates separating the two.

Example 2:  Texas held a primary & caucus on March 4 and once again widely different results were recorded.  Over 2.8
million Texans voted in the primary and gave Clinton a 100,000 vote margin over Obama, a 52% to 48% win. However,
just hours later, the Texas caucus registered an Obama win over Clinton of 56% to 44% [with 41% of the precincts
reporting, total caucus participation has not been released].  Allocation of the 126 primary pledged delegates were Clinton
65 and Obama 61.  Allocation of the 68 caucus pledged delegates were Obama 38 and Clinton 29. 

Bottom line: Obama actually won 5 more pledged delegates than Clinton in Texas. Common sense begs the question if this result was truly in line with the will of Texas voters.
 
Example 3:  On February 9, Nebraska held a caucus and only 3.04% of the 1.3 million eligible voters participated.  Those
38,571 caucus-goers chose Obama over Clinton 68% to 32% and he won 16 of the 24 pledged delegates.  In stark
contrast, on May 13th, Nebraska held a primary where nearly 94,000 voters [7.5% of eligible voters] chose Obama by
49.4% to 46.6%, only 2.8% instead of the 36% vote-spread recorded in the caucus.  If delegates were allocated on the
results of the primary instead of the caucus, Obama and Clinton would have received 12 pledged delegates each.

Bottom line:  Obama's 13,700 vote victory in the red-state Nebraska caucus netted him 8 pledged delegates. Compare that to Clinton's 204,000 vote victory in the battleground state of Ohio which netted her only 9 pledged delegates.

(update by Nancy): On May 27, 2008 Idaho also held a primary (after their Feb 5 caucus) where twice as many Democrats voted as in the caucus. Obama won the caucus by 62 points (79 to 17). In the primary, Obama won 56% to 38%, or by 18%. This is more in line with the neighboring Oregon primary results. The results of the pledged delegate count in all instances (WA, TX, NE, ID) would have been drastically different based on the primary results vs. the caucus results.

Compare these Obama caucus wins with Clinton primary wins. Which states are more important to win in the
General Election?  Which are a stronger indicator of candidate strength and offer a better barometer for voter preference
for the Democratic nominee?  42% of Obama's wins are caucus states, 95% of Clinton's wins are primary states.

Never in our history has the Democratic nomination race been this close. The job of the Super Delegates is to make a determination as to which candidate will be the best President and will win in November.

Our party has always stood for counting votes, being a "Big Tent" for all citizens to belong. Our party and the country suffered greatly when voters were disenfranchised in Florida in 2000, which cost us the election. The democratic party must stand up and count ALL of the votes. Regardless of the final pledged delegate count, Hillary Clinton will have received the MOST VOTES and therefore this MUST be taken into consideration particularly when so many of Obama's delegates were won through the disenfranchisement of caucus voters.

Women are the majority of the Democratic Party and as such have found a voice in the First Woman to ever get this far in a Presidential election. To dismiss this woman, Hillary Clinton, is to dismiss us.

Hillary Clinton is far more qualified, far more experienced and has actually WON the nomination through the voting process, to ignore this and give it to an inexperienced, unqualified candidate is a slap in the face of every woman.

There are many of us, lifelong Democrats, that simply will not support Senator Obama should he become the nominee. I am certainly one of those people. But, I will go a step further and actually leave the Democratic party and support Senator McCain for President. I tell you this not as a threat, but as a fact. I tell you this not because I am angry (though I am), but because I believe that my country is more important than the party I belong to. I simply cannot, in good faith, vote for a candidate that would be the LEAST experienced President we have ever had in our history and has absolutely NO foreign policy experience of any kind in his resume.

Thank you for listening and I urge you to hire and nominate the best candidate for the job, Senator Hillary Clinton.