MyDD :: Hillary Won The Tough Districts

Hillary Won The Tough Districts

by Hatch, Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:18:39 PM EST

Today the Clinton campaign released a PowerPoint presentation to argue that the superdelegates should pick Hillary over Obama because she won more of "the tough districts," which they define merely as those that voted for Bush in 2004 and voted in a Freshman Democrat in the 2006 midterm elections.

I took a look at their list, and frankly it isn't a very good measure of anyone's strength. Several of the seats listed aren't considered by anyone I know of to be at risk of going back to the GOP in the fall. Several others are in Clinton's (and my) home state of New York, so her victory in those districts wasn't necessarily a show of her strength over Obama in a General Election.

I do, however, think that if Clinton were much stronger than Obama in the "tough" swing districts, it would give her a compelling argument to use when talking to superdelegates. So I went to the Rothenberg Political Report to look at their 2008 House Ratings to find out which Congressional Districts really are in play this year. I used USA Today's district-by-district primary and caucus results to find out which competitive districts Obama won and how many Clinton won. Here's what I found.

AT-RISK DEM SEATS:

Clinton did in fact best Obama in more Democratic seats that could be considered in danger of changing hands in the fall. But not by much. Clinton won in the following blue districts which Rothenberg lists as Toss-Up, Tilt Republican, and Tilt Democratic:

TX 22 (Lampson, D)
NH 1 (Shea-Porter, D)
AL 5 (Open; Cramer, D)
CA 11 (McNerney, D)
FL 16 (Mahoney, D)
PA 10 (Carney, D)

Obama only won in three at-risk Dem districts:

KS 2 (Boyda, D)
LA 6 (Cazayoux, D)
GA 8 (Marshall, D)

He'll presumably also win OR 5, so let's call it 4 districts to 6. Clinton wins this one, narrowly.

STRONG DEM PICKUP DISTRICTS:

Obama just barely edges Clinton in this category. He won in the following currently red districts which Rothenberg lists as Toss-Up, Tilt Democratic, Tilt Republican, and Lean Democratic:

IL 10 (Kirk, R)
AK A-L (Young, R)
WA 8 (Reichert, R)
VA 11 (Open; Davis, R)
IL 11 (Open; Weller, R)
MN 3 (Open; Ramstad, R)
MS 1 (Open; Wicker, R)
NM1 (Open; Wilson, R)
NC 8 (Hayes, R)
LA 4 (Open; McCrery, R)

Clinton won the following potential pick-up districts:

AZ 1 (Open; Renzi, R)
OH 16 (Open; Regula, R)
NJ 7 (Open; Ferguson, R)
NY 26 (Open; Reynolds, R)
NY 29 (Kuhl, R)
NJ 3 (Open; Saxton, R)

OH 15 was basically a tie, with Clinton winning the district by 1%. So we'll give that one to her and call it 7 Dem pick-up districts for Clinton to Obama's 10. Obama wins this round.

The point is, Clinton was stronger than Obama in two more at-risk districts, and Obama was stronger than Clinton in three more districts that have a strong possibility of turning blue in November. It's basically a tie.

It's really hard to argue that either one of them is a better General Election candidate based on this metric alone. It's even harder to argue that Hillary's non-existent advantage in the "tough districts" is a good reason for the superdelegates to take the nomination away from the elected delegate winner.

Tags: congressional races, clinton, obama, congressional districts, primary, general election (all tags)

Permalink :: 27 Comments :: Post a Comment

Tip Jar (2.00 / 5)

No Obama vs. Hillary fighting in this comments section, ok?

by Hatch on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:19:20 PM EST

To account for homestate effects (none / 0)

The districts from IL and NY should be thrown off, it doesn't change the math but shows where each candidate runs stronger with more clarity.

Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!

by Student Guy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:24:05 PM EST

Re: "Hillary Won The Tough Districts" (none / 0)

This is over.

nice job!

by cherrygarcia on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:25:27 PM EST

Then why (none / 0)

Did so many Dems in red state and districts endorse Obama?

Janet Napolitano
Kathleen Sebelius
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Tim Johnson
Chet Edwards
Claire McKaskill
Ben Chandler
Jay Rockefeller

by RandyMI on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:36:03 PM EST

so what? (2.00 / 1)

The Democrats won in every single one of those districts.

There were far more votes in the Democratic primary than the Republican primary, everywhere. Voters were inspired to choose between/among exceptional candidates, in contrast to the negative, desultory gaggle of Republicans. In many, probably most, of these primaries, even the "loser" (actually, the second choice) between Obama and Clinton received more votes than McCain did.

We weren't voting for "good" vs. "bad" in the primaries -- that's what the general election is all about. No, the primaries are really a Stephen Colbert event ... deciding whether a particular Democrat is a great candidate or the greatest candidate in 2008.

Great as Clinton (and Dodd, and Edwards, and Richardson, and Biden, ...) is, in the end we've chosen Obama as this year's greatest.

by N in Seattle on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:36:59 PM EST

I Agree! (2.00 / 2)

It doesn't matter one bit who won which congressional district. Obama will win in many districts that Clinton won the primary, Clinton would have won in many districts where Obama won the primary.

I was merely taking apart the bogus argument of that PowerPoint presentation.

by Hatch on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:45:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Most troubling: (none / 0)

Obama will have a steep uphill battle winning the two biggest swing states - Ohio, because it is blue-collar, and Florida, because it is elderly.

Reality check.

by phoenixdreamz on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:37:44 PM EST

Ohio And Florida (2.00 / 1)

Those are tough states in every Presidential election. They'd be every bit as tough for Clinton, had she won the nomination.

Part of the beauty of the Obama candidacy is that those two states become far less crucial. Obama has a very good chance of winning the Presidency without having to take either of those states. Not that he won't try as hard as he can. I think he'll probably win in Ohio and lose Florida. The important thing is that he changes the map.

by Hatch on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:43:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Most troubling: (2.00 / 1)

You accuse others of being divisive. Yet, you keep using the Clinton code words of "Blue Collar" for her "hard working Americans. White Americans. Americans who didn't go to college."

Clinton use to get more of the African American vote, and less of the white vote. The campaign started to use code word that are well recognized. She has targeted the support she has as being the easiest to get, and stated so clearly (notice she hasn't clarified her comments). She is too divisive to lead us.

She can only win with SD's overturning the regular delegate results. That would break apart the party.

This is over.

by IowaMike on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:00:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Respectfully Mike (none / 0)

I'm not a "code word" type of person. In fact, I'd never even heard of the term until just recently. I don't have a racist bone in my body, and enjoy the friendship of some truly wonderful people in the African American community whom I respect deeply.

Now please stop attacking me, thank you.

by phoenixdreamz on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:13:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Respectfully Mike (2.00 / 1)

calling for the overturning of all of the rule abiding, fairly and legally presented contests for no reason other than my base is bigger because its made up of "the hard working Americans (you now know the rest)," doesn't deserve respect. You have stated that i am divisive when I lampoon it. It deserves ridicule. And just because you don't recognize a code word doesn't mean people aren't using it for that purpose.

The people have spoken, and Clinton's only path is for the SD elite to decide for us.

This is over.

by IowaMike on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:24:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I know black people argument (none / 0)

Sorry that doesn't fly.

My Asian immigrant mom always says she's not a racist because she interacts well with her African American employees. Would she invite any of them to our house? No.

I'm not saying you're a racist, but don't pretend that racism isn't an issue or that those who exclaim the loudest "I'm not something" usually is.

For example, all those Republicans that exclaim they're moral examplars who are founding wallowing the men's bathroom, or with young pages, or with prostitutes, etc.

Anyway, I always found that type of response repugnant so I just had to address it here.

by Regenman on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:42:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh for gawd sakes (none / 0)

drop it already. This obsessive, accusatory witch hunt is poison. Think good thoughts.

by phoenixdreamz on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:52:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh for gawd sakes (none / 0)

Yes, ignore my insensitive comments and focus on your own.

i got to get this plank out of my eye!

by IowaMike on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:27:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Michael (none / 0)

I wasn't addressing you in that comment. You are stalking and harassing me now. Stop it immediately.

by phoenixdreamz on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:37:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Hillary Won The Tough Districts" (none / 0)

Now lets look at the key Senate races this fall where we need more seats if a Democratic president is going to get anything through.

Virginia - Won by Obama (64%)

New Mexico - Won by Clinton (49%)

Colorado - Won by Obama (67%)

Minnesota - Won by Obama (66%)

Louisiana - Won by Obama (57%)

New Hampshire - Won by Clinton (39%)

Oregon - Obama favored to win (51% in latest poll)

Thats 4 states strongly won by Obama and another likely to be won compared to 2 won with less than 50% of the vote by Clinton.

by WellstoneDem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:46:15 PM EST

Re: "Hillary Won The Tough Districts" (2.00 / 1)

And lost the nomination.

Its over.

by IowaMike on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:55:31 PM EST

Re: "Hillary Won The Tough Districts" (none / 0)

Listen... explain to me in some way that makes sense why it is an advantage to a Democratic Candidate in a Democratic primary that you have more appeal to the republican voters (in "tough" (ie republican) districts.

This is not the GE. These people are going to vote based on fear and faith in the GE. It does not matter who republican voters support in a democratic primary.

What does matter is who democrats support, and this argument only further proves that Obama has massive democratic support.

Democratic voters far outnumber republican voters in this cycle... as much or more then anytime in history. Plus most independents lean democrat currently.

Thus, wouldnt it make more sense to appeal to the majority? Arguing that you have the "white" working-class vote in the primary and extrapolating that to the GE makes no sense what so ever. In fact it only proves you do not have appeal to the majority of voters in this cycle if the best you can base your argument on is your cross-over appeal to the minority.

(and NO I am not saying the minority does not matter... but come on here... this argument makes no logical sense what so ever.)

by herenow on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:56:43 PM EST

Obama's argument backwards (none / 0)

Hey, you've got your arguments backwards -- or Obama just turned his arguments backwards.

He used to say he could 'bring in Inds and GOP' and make a whole new breed of Obamacrats. That's how he justified his "Democrats for a Day" gaming of the earlier primaries.

HIllary's argument was that Obama's delegates from red states are not indicative of any real support there in November.

Now that HIllary is actually doing what Obama claimed he could do -- suddenly it's not worth doing, swing/GOP votes don't matter.... The New DNC Order is going to jettison all the swing Reagan Democrats anyway....

In that case, we should be looking only at the registered Democrats who voted for Obama -- disregarding Obama's claim of a 'popular vote lead' which rests on including his crossover voters.

Obama asked GOP to come over "for a day" to hurt Hillary, then go back to GOP. Hillary is asking those blue-collar voters to support her in November as well as now.

There's a threshold below above which a district or a state is too red to matter -- but that may not be the same for the district as for the state. 2006 turned a lot of red districts blue -- but could a Dem POTUS have carried those states if 2006 had been a Presidential election year?

I might come back and rec this diary if you remove the final sentence -- too many assumptions, rules that Obama is trying to invent in the middle of the game.

by 1950democrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:31:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Respectfully (none / 0)

I'd like to know why you think I should remove the last sentence. There's no disputing that Obama has already wrapped up the elected delegate majority. The point of the diary is to refute the Clinton campaign's argument that superdelegates should back Hillary because she is a better candidate in competitive Congressional Districts. The fact is they each have weak and strong districts, and when you look at the whole picture they're about evenly matched.

by Hatch on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:49:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

States of play (none / 0)

Hillary on the top of the ticket will put the following states into play:

Florida
Ohio
Oregon
Arkansas
Missouri
California
Hawaii
Washington
New Mexico
Iowa
Kentucky
West Virginia
Minesota
Maryland

Obama will put the following states into play:
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Colorado
New Mexico
Iowa
Nevada
Virginia
Louisiana
North Carolina (despite current polls)
North Dakota

by RandyMI on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:00:24 PM EST

Missing a few there (none / 0)

I'm not sure where you're going with this.

Are you saying that either candidate has to worry about CA?

Your list is just confusing

Obama won't put

Hawaii in play? (bit confused on that one)
Oregon (fair shot)
Missouri (he won so why is that in HRC's column)
Maryland (ditto)
Iowa (ditto)

Please put some context in that post so I can figure it out.

by Regenman on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:47:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Missing a few there (none / 0)

Polls show that McCain keeps Hillary under 50% in CA and runs close to her in Hawaii, Connecticutt, Maryland. He also leads her in Oregon and possibly Washington. In this sets, she puts them into play in a bad way. On the positive, she runs stronger in OH, PA, MO and FL and some others. Throw away the old electoral maps. The new cast of charachters will change it in November. Iowa and New Mexico are going back into the fold no matter who the nominee is.

by RandyMI on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:54:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

One more point (none / 0)

Missouri (he won so why is that in HRC's column)

One issue I agree with Team Hillary on is that winning a primary does not equate winning the state in the GE. However, the same goes for winning "white working class" voters as well. Having a subset of primary voters does not mean you will win the larger pool in the GE.

I also think Obama can put Kansas in play.

by RandyMI on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:57:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Missing a few there (none / 0)

Looking at the two lists, I'd suggest that RandyMI is saying:

Bush states that Clinton might have made competitive but Obama won't -- FL, AR, MO, KY, WV
Bush states that Obama will make competitive but Clinton wouldn't have -- CO, NV, VA, LA, NC, ND
Bush states that Obama will make and Clinton would have made competitive -- OH, NM, IA
Kerry states that Clinton would have made vulnerable but Obama won't -- OR, CA, HI, WA, MN, MD
Kerry states that Obama will make vulnerable but Clinton wouldn't have -- PA

I'm not sure I agree completely with RandyMI, as I don't envision CA as vulnerable in any way, don't really see much difference in their respective chances in MO.

I will note that if Clinton might have put MD in jeopardy, what does that say about the opinions of the "general public" of federal employees regarding the Clintonian inside-the-Beltway orientation?

by N in Seattle on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:18:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Memo To Congressional Dems (none / 0)

A rundown of Congressional elections in the Clinton era:

1992 - Bill Clinton is first elected president. Democrats lose seats in the House. Senate is a wash because we lost two seats in the South.

1994 - First midterm. Democrats lose the House and Senate along with the majority of governorships and state legislators.

1996 - Clinton re-elected. Dems gain some House seats back. Dems lose seats in the Senate.

1998 - Dems pick up seats in the House due to impeachment backlash. Senate again is a wash.

by RandyMI on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:48:27 PM EST

You can add CA 50 (none / 0)

district which went to Clinton. This was Francine Busby vs Bilbray district.

by nikkid on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:33:04 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.