Barack Obama is Clearly the Better Candidate

I have been waiting for somebody to do this. SurveyUSA dumped a bunch of change and did a 50 state poll. It absolutely destroys Clinton’s big state argument, and it clearly shows that Barack Obama is the better candidate for the general election.

Obama runs ahead of McCain in unusual places—like Virginia, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Colorado and New Mexico. Obama only trails McCain by one in the Nebraska. Because Nebraska awards its delegates via Congressional Districts, Obama actually picks up two electoral votes from Nebraska. Overall, SurveyUSA says Obama would win the election with 280 electoral votes if it were held today.

But there is a potential for far more electoral votes to go Obama’s way. Even in states where Obama trails, his phenomenal potential is shown. Obama trails by 5 or less percent in the following states:

Alaska (-5)
Florida (-2)
Nebraksa (-1, 2 electoral votes awarded to Obama)
New Jersey (even)
North Carolina (-2)
Pennsylvania (-5)
South Carolina (-3)
South Dakota (-2)
Texas (-1)

Also of note, despite Clinton claiming that Obama can’t win Ohio, he leads McCain by 10 in the polls there. We as a party should realize what Obama can do—he can put places which haven’t voted for a Democrat in half a century in play. We’ve been longing for a candidate who can compete in places like South Carolina, Alaska and Texas for a long time.

Yet some people still think that we will get that by nominating Hillary Clinton. The only state Clinton brings with her is her former home of Arkansas which she wins by 11 while Obama loses by 20. That’s not surprising. SurveyUSA says Clinton wins Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Florida and New Jersey while Obama loses in PA and WV and basically ties in FL and NJ. (For the record, I do not believe West Virginia will vote for either Democratic candidate; nor do I believe that NJ will vote for McCain). These states give Clinton a narrow 276 electoral votes, and the barest of majorities.

While Clinton wins the election, she does so with a different (more traditional) set of states. Clinton loses in places which Obama does wins. She loses in Virginia; she loses in Washington and Oregon; she loses Michigan; she loses in Colorado, North Dakota, Iowa, and Nebraska. Again, Obama wins electoral votes in all of these states.

Among the states that Obama could compete in—those which he is losing by less than 5 percent—Clinton fares very poorly.

Alaska (-22)
Florida (+9)
Nebraska (-27m 0 electoral votes)
New Jersey (+5)
Nebraska (-27)
Pennsylvania (+1)
North Carolina (-8)
South Carolina (-5)
South Dakota (-13)
Texas (-7)

So Clinton doesn’t do very well in states Obama can make competitive, and conceivably win; meanwhile Obama is very close in states like Florida and New Jersey–where Clinton holds a narrow leads and Obama is basically tied with John McCain. In fact, Obama seems to do good in the big states and the small states. While Obama narrowly wins a state like Virginia, Clinton loses by 10 percent; while Obama wins Iowa by 9 percent, Clinton loses it by 5 percent; while Obama wins Oregon by 8 percent, Clinton loses it by 5 percent. And And the list goes on.

The best candidate for our party is the candidate who can win in November. This poll, and the striking results show that the candidate is not Senator Clinton. She is too divisive and has alienated too many people with her primary campaign to win in November. Meanwhile, Barack Obama’s different kind of campaign, fresh approach, and inspiring message appeals to people across this great nation. This poll sends a message to the Super Delegates: if you want to win, nominate Barack Obama. He can make the Democratic Party viable again in places like North Carolina, Virginia, North Dakota, and even all the way out in Alaska.