Democrats' choice of Obama or Clinton may hinge on 'electability,' not delegates

The struggle for the Democratic presidential nomination may come down not so much to their respective totals of delegates or popular votes but to a powerful political question in the minds of the party's superdelegates:

Would Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton be the stronger candidate in November?

"What you have to ask yourself is who you believe would be the better nominee to go toe-to-toe against John McCain," Clinton said after beating Obama in Pennsylvania last week.

Clinton can't win the most delegates in the primaries. So she's trying to frame the choice for the party's superdelegates -- who will likely settle the nomination issue after the primaries end on June 3 -- around that question.

Obama, who would become the nominee if the superdelegates simply ratify the primary and caucus results, is playing along, though his performance over the last few weeks has done little, if anything, to advance the case for his electability.

Many wonder if there are more Rev. Jeremiah Wright issues to come out of Obama's background. And some writers are now questioning Obama's will to fight for the party's top prize.

"You can almost feel the air seeping out of the Obama phenomenon," the New York Times' Bob Herbert wrote Saturday, suggesting what was supposed to be a Democratic championship year was turning into "a potential train wreck."

And he questioned "Obama's strange reluctance to fight harder in public for the nomination."

Early voting for the May 6 primary begins this morning in North Carolina, but deciding which Democrat has the better chance of winning the presidency isn't nearly so simple as it might seem, according to independent analysts and party strategists who aren't working for either candidate. "It's more or less pick 'em, if you were a....

...handicapper," said Andrew Kohut, whose independent Pew Research Center has polled nationally and in battleground states. "You'd say you can't make the case for either one."

National opinion surveys illustrate his point. In the Gallup tracking poll's latest election match-ups, a post-Pennsylvania bounce has put Clinton three points ahead of McCain; Obama is dead even with McCain. "That's much closer than you'd expect for a Republican candidate, given all the Democratic advantages" this election year, Kohut pointed out.

At the moment, concluding which candidate is more electable appears more of an art (that is, educated guesswork) than science.

A highly unscientific sample of those interviewed for this article came down on the side of Obama's superior electability, but the view wasn't unanimous. Some saw him as only marginally stronger, and no one said that Clinton's argument was unreasonable.

"It's not crazy. It's not an absurd case. It's a debatable question," said Stuart Rothenberg, who publishes an independent election newsletter. "There are clearly some Democrats in some key states who aren't going to vote for Obama: older voters, blue-collar voters, the old Reagan Democrats."

Clinton's strategy is to keep the race going as long as possible, in hopes that doubts about Obama will grow. Already, his position "has been eroded" by losing big industrial state primaries, said Rothenberg. It "reminds people who weren't paying attention that he has trouble with a key Democratic voter constituency" -- working-class voters.

Alan Secrest, a Democratic pollster, said it was "absolutely unknowable" at this point who would be a stronger nominee but that the picture might be clearer by the time the primaries end in early June.

Obama "sometimes does better with independents and some Republicans," said Secrest. But once the Republicans "have worked him over, I suspect there'd be relatively little difference" between him and Clinton.

What is evident already, said analysts, is that the shape of the fall campaign will depend on which Democrat heads the ticket.

An Obama-McCain contest would be unlike any in recent memory and hinge on an unusually large group of independent, swing voters. A match between Clinton and McCain would more closely resemble the polarized 2000 and 2004 elections, a battle to turn out each party's voter base.

Clinton maintains that she can keep more Democrats from crossing over to the Republican side than Obama. But if she's the nominee, "young people will not turn out" and the African American vote will be depressed, predicted Curtis Gans, director of American University's Center for the Study of the American Electorate.

If Obama is the candidate, "there will be some people who will not vote for him because of race," he said. "But most of the Democrats will come into the fold, because of things like the war and the economy."

Last week, each candidate made new pitches to the superdelegates, promoting what they see as their unique advantage on the electoral map, based on states they've won so far. But both camps are stretching the predictive value of primaries, strategists said.

A number of the states won by Clinton, such as New York and California, are reliably Democratic in presidential elections and will be again this fall, regardless of who heads the ticket, they said. Meanwhile, Florida, where she prevailed in a primary that the Democratic National Committee invalidated in advance, will likely go Republican in any event.

Obama argues that he can put "red states" in play that Clinton cannot. He's touting his strength in places, such as North Carolina and Texas, that neither he nor Clinton would have a realistic chance of carrying, the analysts said, unless the election became a Democratic rout.

What has caught the attention of Democratic strategists is a handful of traditional battleground states -- including Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan -- that could well be pivotal and where doubts about Obama's strength have grown in recent weeks.

In Michigan, said longtime pollster Ed Sarpolus, "Barack Obama has to understand that if he is to have any chance of overcoming the racial factor, he has to develop a middle-class message, and he has yet to find that."

In Ohio, Clinton would probably do better than Obama against McCain, said Secrest, who advises congressional candidates in the state. He cautioned that it was "a tough call at this point" but "conceivably" Clinton could carry Ohio and Obama could lose it.

The ultimate question is how much difference the electability argument will make with the roughly 230 uncommitted superdelegates -- governors, congressmen, senators and DNC members -- with the power to choose any candidate they like.

Many dread their role as deciders, afraid of alienating a vast constituency no matter which way they go, and they aren't engaged at all in the debate the candidates are staging for their benefit, according to Bill Carrick, a Democratic consultant.

These superdelegates, he explained, "are basically younger members of Congress and DNC members." They are so uncomfortable making a decision, he added, that they would prefer making none at all.

-- Paul West and Andrew Malcolm

Paul West writes for the Swamp of the Chicago Tribune's Washington bureau.                                                                  Photo Credit: AP

Comments

[Core Democrat]

Regardless of what the polls say, which are NEVER right and slant for Obama, Senator Clinton is by far the more electable candidate. She is most qualified, she has a solution to America's problems and she is not wrapped up for 20 years with an Anti-American black theologist that spews hatred, bigotry and racism. And this is the LAST thing that America needs in uniting this country. She also carries the CRUCIAL states that we all sit by our televisions to see if they go blue or red, and that is not Colorodo but Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. Obama cannot carry even one of these states and Clinton carries ALL of these states. Obama blew it. With Wright and Ayers, his own wife's comments and his own "typical white person" comments and San Franscico comments. He is OUT and trending down. He would have been out on Day 1 had Americans known more about him. At this point, he is only ahead by default, but he will never carry a General Election. And that is a fact. Hillary Clinton is the best chance the Democrats have in winning in November. She may be polarizing with Republicans but Obama cannot even unite Democrats much less Republicans and Independents. He is the most polarizing candidate in memory.

[Goldie]

Hillary has not been properly vetted yet by the press. An issue that the GOP will play up is her clerking for a communist law firm in Berkeley in the 60s. Older Reagan Democrats will have a fit when they find out. The GOP will label her as a closet communist. It will be a terrible scandal and she would lose, having already lost the support of African Americans and young people as well as some of the Democratic activists that she disowned who will vote out of protest for Nader. I hope the superdelegates look into Hillary's unvetted vulnerabilities like that before they vote. There is so much about her that the GOP will exploit, especially the Clinton Foundation problems. The press is not doing it job.

[keith]

There's just the little problem of Hillary's 50% negatives isn't there? And the fact that a lot of minorities will drop out of voting for her if the superdelegates negate the popular vote. Obama brings people together from both sides of the fence, Hillary polarizes. What do you mean by "Obama can't win the big states"? He hasn't faced a GOP opponent. As for Obama not joining the mudslinging - imagine that, a candidate with some class, who'd want to vote for that. Hey Democrats, ever heard of the people's choice? Offend the nation at your own peril. Wouldn't put it past you.

[tonyE]

A Clinton candidacy is a step backwards. The GOP has chosen a middle of the road candidate who is strong with moderates and independents, while the Far Right will turn out to vote against Clinton at all costs. Clinton will get her share but it will not be -IMHO- nearly as much as Gore got because McCain is a better choice. Also, if Clinton gets the nod, it's quite likely that many of Obama's moderate voters will swing to McCain.

Obama, OTOH, is also a centrist. An Obama-McCain contest will bring out the independents and minorities into play. Sure, the Far Right and Far Left will vote their way, but this election will be elected by the moderates.

I think it's time for the polarization of our politics to end. We've had it up to here in California with that and Arnold was the result for us. As a registered GOP I want Clinton to get the nod, but as an American I want an Obama-McCain election.

[Roger Willcox]

"She may be polarizing with Republicans but Obama cannot even unite Democrats much less Republicans and Independents. He is the most polarizing candidate in memory."

What are you smoking? She can't unite the Democrats either. There is no more polarizing figure in the modern history of politics than Hillary Clinton, hence the reason for her HIGH unfavorable ratings regarding her trustworthiness!

[Anne]

As a lifelong Democrat, I am so disgusted with the Democratic Party that I hardly know what to say.

The Dems have, in my opinion, already lost the election--snatched defeat out of the very jaws of victory. They are fiddling while Rome burns, too narcissistic to come together even as a juggernaut of conservative dictatorship rolls over America like a tank. They'll be remembered as the last people who had a chance to stop it, and as the people who threw that chance away.

[mike s]

Electibility huh? Isn't that how we ended up with John Kerry?

[Avery]

What I don't get is that too many of us seem to feel that what it means for a candidate to be "properly vetted" is for a lot of distracting and meaningless garbage to be played over and over again, preventing us from having a substantial discussion. And Obama is seen as not fighting hard for the nomination (see above blog) because he will not stoop as low as the other candidates by playing the stupid game, and digging up more dirt of his own on others. He is saying let's change the game. Many of us would love nothing more than to do so. The presidential contest has become a boring contest in the mud-slinging of predictable and stupid arrows honed by right-wing FOXIES but now also sharpened by Hillary and the others who want to make this another election about everything but the real issues. And by the way, when Obama haters fret about whether he is a "Muslim" it seems pretty clear many of them are really unhappy that he is black. "Muslim" has become a code name for black for people who don't want to admit they are racist. Not that he is a Muslim of course, but none of that seems to matter to those who have been writing in response to these blogs lately.

[Jarrett]

I am thankful someone like Jeremiah Wright isn't afraid to tell America about itself. Someone needs to tell America about itself. Yes, America encouraged terrorism through blind selfish progress. I say blind because had America been paying attention, Americans might have seen 9/11 coming. Now Americans are slandering Jeremiah Wright, blindly insulting Africans in America and others like Michael Moore with pronounced common sense. Good people are once again being disenfranchised by ignorant comments and prejudice. So I just want to say thank you Jeremiah Wright. Thank you for being honest and unafraid to protect your country from its own ignorance.

[bunny]

Hillary's is going around saying that she has won the BIG states and should be the nominee. That is not a good reason to make her the nominee. First of all, the BIG states such as California, Michigan, and New York will vote Democratic in November no matter who the candidate is. The other BIG states such as Texas, Florida, and Ohio are going to vote Republican, simple as that. Hillary won Pennsylvania, but not by the margin she was projected to have, which means Barack gained lots of momentum there despite the negative press he has received. He has a strong chance of carrying Pennsylvania in November.

Obama should be the nominee, he has the most votes, the most delegates and is the best candidate to beat McCain.

Hillary needs to stop giving Republicans talking points they can use in November,

[keith]

Ever see the movie "Election" with Reese Witherspoon? Hillary is the embodiment of Tracy Flick.

[N.E. BodybutHillary]

HRC Is untrustworthy. HRC is a proven liar. HRC is responsible for allowing Bush to plunge us into the worst war since Viet Nam. HRC is as dispcable a choice for president as Richard Nixon was. HRC is not only un-electable, she is also a polarizing factor which is destroying the Democratic party

[Jim]

OF COURSE Hillary wants another way for the delegates to look at it.

She's first tried "I am inevitable" as an argument, then "whoever wins the popular vote and delegate," then "who cares about MI and FL since those won't count anyways," but then when she is down on both counts it's "MI and FL has to be counted," and now it's "ignore the people, ignore the delegates won already, vote for a popularity contest."

Even more apalling is the artificial support the media has for her, in creating a fake close contest. She cannot win via legitimate means so she has to manipulate the media into creating the illusion that she can still win with votes and delegates.

Somehow her persistent 65% "untrustworthy" CREDIBILITY GAP gets no play in the media, when they happily tout "Obama losing support" and actually wonder who's more electable??

[Lisa]

The DNC will LOSE my vote completely if Hillary wins this nomination by some "good old boy" backroom dealings. I have never been politically active in my lifetime. Barack Obama changed that for me. I have traveled on my own dime and time to two "red" states to campaign for him. I believe in this man and what he stands for that much. Hillary does not speak to me! And guess what? I am white, 43 and female. I don't trust Hillary as she has been caught out in so many lies and just shrugs them off with "I forgot". She makes up experience that she never had, she takes money from PACS and Lobbyists, she also is decisive allowing people like Geraldine Ferraro and her slobbering husband make racists comments she does not denounce. Also, I wonder if the GOP will dig up all the mess on her being a lesbian???? That would sit really well right now???? If it is true or not, no doubt it will be brought up and thrown up as another reason to distrust Hillary. How ridiculous is it too that this woman running for President is using her first name. Does she not respect herself or is she that embarrassed by her last name??