JUSIPER

 
And here's the answer

Posted by Sini

Why do Clinton and Obama perform equally against McCain, while Obama is able to better on the electoral map?

Today's three SurveyUSA polls, in particular the one from Kentucky, give us a hint. Clinton loses Kentucky to McCain by 10, but Obama loses it by 36 points. The same is true of Tennessee, West Virginia, Arkansas, and big chunks of Ohio (the white flight aided, no doubt, by Hillary's recent racebaiting).

In short, Obama is doing spectacularly poorly among low information white voters in Appalachia and in most states in the Deep South. Hillary is not likely to win those states against McCain, although she has a shot if she wins a strong national victory. Obama will never win them.

Obama is making up for that deficit by doing well among white voters in states that actually are traditional Democratic battlegrounds: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Oregon, as well as Washington, Nevada and Colorado.

Clinton has had a good two weeks (in fact, she's about to have six more good weeks: the first primaries Obama has a shot in are in early May). She is moving up in the polls against McCain and Obama. But the basic geographical splits are fairly constant here. Hillary does much better than Obama in states she is unlikely to win anyway. Obama makes up for that by doing well among white voters in battleground states. Which is a whole lot more useful.

That said, right now Clinton appears to be doing better than Obama in Ohio. But polling out of the state is a mess. I suspect McCain has a strong shot at Ohio no matter who the Democratic nominee is. And Hillary's divisive campaign has a whole lot to do with that.

7:28 PM |