There’s much talk here, based upon hypothetical match-up polling that has never been accurate or relevant come general election time, about who would be the better candidate in November. But that ignores a very simple fact. The November election is won through the Electoral College. So let’s look there, shall we?
We start with a huge advantage. A Democrat, any Democrat, will win the states Obama won by more than 10% in November:
- Washington (12)
- Oregon (7)
- California (55)
- Illinois (20)
- Michigan (16)
- New York (29)
- Vermont (3)
- Maine (4)
- Massachusetts (11)
- New Mexico (5)
- Rhode Island (4)
- Delaware (3)
- Connecticut (7)
- Maryland (10)
- New Jersey (14)
- Hawaii (4)
- D.C. (3)
That’s 207 right there, and 270 wins.
If you add states President Obama won by 5 points or more, and that’s a big win in politics, you have to add:
- Nevada (6)
- Minnesota (10)
- Wisconsin (10)
That makes the running total 233.
That means we have to ask who would be more likely to pick up 37 more votes.
Let’s start with a basic assumption, shall we? If you want to win in any state, you start by winning among Democrats in that state. The best candidate to win ____ state is the candidate who wins ____ state in the primary or caucus. That might turn out to be incorrect if the primary or caucus is close (e.g. Iowa), but does anybody really believe Clinton has a better chance than Sanders of carrying New Hampshire? No. I didn’t think so.
Florida (29) , as usual, can almost win the election on its own. Who is stronger in Florida?
There hasn’t been any polling since voting began, but at last look, Clinton’s lead over Sanders, in mid-January, was 36 points. That kind of number doesn’t show mere preference. It shows a tremendous difference in excitement and dedication to a candidate. The numbers may have moved, they may have moved significantly. But if you want to persuade anybody Sanders is a better general election candidate than Clinton, you’ll have to show that he is stronger in Florida than she is.
The next big prize is Pennsylvania. It has 20 electoral votes. Is the Pennsylvania race close? No. It’s not. Clinton’s lead there is 21 points. That’s not just a preference number. That’s an excitement number. Who is more likely keep Pennsylvania blue? Hillary Clinton.
The third big prize is Ohio (18). According to the Q-poll, which has not exactly been leaning Clinton, she leads by 15. That is still a pretty big number when it comes to elections. The simple fact that she leads by 15 indicates she has a better chance of keeping Ohio blue than Sanders.
Those are the big three. There is one other double-digit state in play, Virginia (13). Not only is Virginia +22 for Clinton, but Sanders has run up the white flag there and surrendered for Super Tuesday. There is just no way, no way at all, to argue that a candidate who isn’t even trying to maintain support in the primary is the better candidate in the general.
Folks, match-up polls during primaries tell us less than nothing. A Ted Cruz partisan, when asked about a Sanders v. Trump match-up, is going to say “Sanders,” even though there’s no way on Dog’s Green Earth that he’ll ever vote for Sanders. Why? Because it reinforces Cruz’s strength. There are just too many variable in these early match-ups to mean anything, which is why they never have.
If you really want to try to decide who gives us the best chance of winning in November, look where the election is won or lost, and then look at who will, first and foremost, bring out and win the base.
Right now, based upon the information we have (and, in Virginia, on Sanders’ own actions), it appears that the strongest candidate is Clinton.
Your turn.
(It was pointed out that I had a typo in California, as 65 rather than 55 EVs. Fixed.)