A thoughtful look at the electoral college map for the fall comparing Obama and Clinton — The Fix: Is Clinton the Stronger Candidate?

There are a few of issues here worth discussing.

First, I think the post’s general conclusion that Clinton is the slightly stronger candidate in several key swing states — Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida — is accurate.  In the end, I suspect that Obama  will have a very, very difficult time in Florida in particular.

Second, that said, the Obama camp’s claim that the old electoral college math is irrelevant given the nature of his appeal is paradoxically both glib and potentially insightful.  The glib part is that somehow the mantra of “change” is sufficient to alter Red State – Blue State dynamics.  The insightful part is that the Red State – Blue State divide is a self-fulfilling prophesy when it is the basis of the a campaign strategy.  Obama will have the money to run a 50 state campaign.  If those resources are mated to a commitment to do so, it is quite possible that the current electoral college map can be redrawn.  Clinton may have a marginally better chance to eke out a 270-268 victory.  Obama undeniably has a much better chance to win with 350+ electoral votes.

Third, and perhaps most importantly… we all want to win.  You can’t do anything unless you win first.  But that said, being the “stronger” candidate is not and should not be the be all and end all.  There is also a question about who is the “better” candidate.  In the end, Clinton’s fundamental weakness is that while she has managed to convince many that she is more likely to win — because she’s a fighter, because she’s vetted, because working class whites will be reticent to vote for a black candidate — she has not managed to convince much of anyone that she would be the better candidate.

Obama’s appeal rests on this third point.  He’s the better candidate and he’s likely strong enough to win.  Her marginal superiority on the latter measure does not overcome his dramatic advantage in the former.