How Obama Transforms the Electoral Map

In the aftermath of a split in Texas and losses in Vermont, Wyoming and Mississippi, Sen. Clinton has achieved an improbable feat: persuading most uncommitted Democratic superdelegates that she remains a viable candidate. However, her chief argument - that only she can win the big states in the general - is not only erroneous, but founded on a failed strategy and outdated electoral map.

When President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he reportedly confessed to an aide, "We have lost the South for a generation." Of course, the Democratic party's subsequent shift in strategy made matters worse, relegating its electoral prospects to the northeast corridor and coasts. As a result, Democratic Presidential nominees have been thrust into general election contests at a serious - at times insurmountable - disadvantage. Simplicity, predictability and cowardice have defined the Democratic campaign for the Presidency. Are Democrats really surprised by the GOP's ability to persuade voters to compromise their constitutional rights and economic self-interest? At least the GOP showed up.

The fundamental problem with Sen. Clinton's argument is that it comes from same failed playbook and outdated map at a time when the country stands at a crossroads. For the first time in decades, voters in the South and Heartland are listening. Obama leads Clinton in the Democratic contest, not because he's worked miracles or parted the Mississippi river, but rather because he's showed up. While Clinton likes to emphasize the "big," "important" and "significant" states, Obama has campaigned everywhere. He's gone from the bluest of Blue States to the most crimson corridors of America, fighting for each and every vote and not once conceding a contest. Whereas the Gore and Kerry campaigns were defined by the electoral map. Obama intends to transform it.

To illustrate my point, I compiled available polling data on head-to-head, state-by-state general election matchups for Obama v. McCain and Clinton v. McCain. In the interest of full disclosure, I have made a couple of minor calls that conflict with the data. For example, the latest polls have Clinton 6 to 8 points behind McCain in New Hampshire and Obama trailing by 2 in New Jersey. It is highly unlikely McCain will win either state. We've seen a dramatic blueward shift in New Hampshire's most recent state elections and the current political climate suggests that McCain's chances are slim. New Jersey is famous for its peculiar practice of showing a Republican lead until the 11th hour and then handing an overwhelming victory to the Democratic candidate. Look no further than the 2004 Senate contest between Robert Menendez and Tom Kean Jr.

With these minor adjustments, I proceeded with general election maps for both Obama and Clinton with deep blue for strong Obama/Clinton, deep red for strong McCain and cyan/light blue for states where the margin is less than or equal to 5 (except for Ohio, which I included despite the fact that Obama and Clinton both trail McCain by 6 points). The difference is striking.

For our feed and email readers, the first map shows McCain leading Clinton 255-187 in the electoral college. The second shows Obama with a 219-119 lead and a lot more swing states.

If Clinton became the nominee today, she would enter the general election contest like many Democrats before her - with a lot of ground to make up and a limited time to do it. In contrast, Obama would enter the general election contest in an unfamiliar position - winning. Admittedly, states like Texas will be uphill battles for Obama. He may not win them, but you can be sure he'll force McCain to spend time and money there at the expense of classic swing states like Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

When was the last time you've seen GOP candidate scurry south to defend Texas? North Carolina? Virginia? I can't remember either.

Sources: Rasmussen, SurveyUSA.