Clinton Wins the Coasts But Obama Excels Across the Map

Super Tuesday was a tale of two election stories. Hillary Clinton won the population centers on the coasts--California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts--along with Bill's home turf of Arkansas and two of its neighboring states, Tennessee and Oklahoma.

Barack Obama dominated pretty much everywhere else, raking in delegates in the South (Alabama, Georgia), midwest (Kansas, Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota), the West (Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Utah and likely New Mexico) and pockets of the Northeast (Connecticut and Delaware).

(note: this map incorrectly labels Clinton as winning New Mexico.)

If this contest really hinges on that elusive prognostication of "electability," score Super Tuesday for Obama. He won in blue areas, red areas and purple areas. He competed in places where Democrats dare not normally roam, like Idaho, notched impressive victories in swing territories such as Colorado and Missouri, and exceeded even his own expectations in the South. "The breadth of wins last night speak to his strength as a general election candidate," said Obama campaign manager David Plouffe this morning.

Clinton has big strengths of her own, particularly among women, the elderly and Hispanics. Yet Obama shrunk the gap among women, widened it among men and continued to get an overwhelming share of the African-American vote. His advantages among young voters and Independents remain undeniably large. That's what Obama means when he says that Clinton's supporters will vote for him in the general election but his supporters may not necessarily back Clinton. That could be especially true if the GOP nominates John McCain, as seems increasingly likely.

Obama is broadening the Democratic base while Clinton is holding onto it. Going forward, we'll see which candidate's coalition is built to withstand the test of time.

Comments (24)

1. I do find it interesting that it's the so called "progressive" states that are clinging to the past with the Clintons.Some of the "backward" redneck states went black for the future.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 02/06/2008 @ 12:19pm

2. All good news for Obama ....for November, Mr Berman.

   But let's get that DELEGATE COUNT down first. Hope springs with the latest that he might be up by 9 delegates after last night...but She-Who-Still-Must-Be-Considered has the "super-delegates" and some states with heavy Latino voting pops (her strength).

   But, if he can beat her....McCain is going to be in deep doo-doo.

   Posted by Mask at 02/06/2008 @ 12:25pm

3. He won in blue areas, red areas and purple areas. He competed in places where Democrats dare not normally roam, like Idaho, notched impressive victories in swing territories such as Colorado and Missouri, and exceeded even his own expectations in the South.

   Excuse me, but the problem for Democrats winning red states is not the democrats in the red states. So how does the fact that the Democrats who are willing to vote in a primary voted for Obama in Alabama mean that he can do better than anyone else in Alabama? Those people will probably vote democrat in the generals, and just get overwhelmed by republican votes for McCain.

   Kerry won every southern state but South and North Carolina (if you count Oklahoma as a southern state then you still have to deal with him finishing 3 points behind the leader) in 2004. Did that make him an electable candidate? Did that give him reach into the red and purple areas?

   Tuesday was a win for Obama and you don't have to make wild leaps like this one to show that.

   Posted by dentedpat at 02/06/2008 @ 12:38pm

4. So how does the fact that the Democrats who are willing to vote in a primary voted for Obama in Alabama mean that he can do better than anyone else in Alabama?

   ~Dented Pat

   Relax, DP. The arguments will unfold soon enough about demographic strengths and weaknesses in a theoretical general election. I suspect that the huge turnouts of voters at Democratic contests thus far, including large numbers of independents and crossover Republicans bodes extremely well for Obama down the road.

   Enjoy the day, Dented Pat.

   :-)

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/06/2008 @ 12:56pm

5. DENTED, I think the same holds true for McCain in blue states. My concern right now is voters in November. Let's say Clinton wins the nomination. Does anyone here think we'll see even close the amount of votes for her in a general that we've seen for both of them in the primaries? I don't think so. On the bright side, it sounds like the Republicans are having the same problem with McCain.

   Posted by FritztheCat at 02/06/2008 @ 1:03pm

6. Now, if Obama wins the nomination, I'd wager there would be more voters showing up in November to support him over voters showing up in November to support Clinton if she were to win the nomination.

   Or how about this? McCain wins the Republican nomination. Hillary wins the dems. How many republicans will show up in droves to keep Clinton from the whitehouse by voting Republican? If Obama wins the nomination, will there be that same amount of vitriol on the Republican side to show up en masse at the polls to keep Obama from the whitehouse by voting Republican?

   Posted by FritztheCat at 02/06/2008 @ 1:06pm

7. i like how obama is blue

   and clinton is red.

   hmmmmmm?

   Posted by frosty zoom at 02/06/2008 @ 1:27pm

8. Um, in all fairness, New Mexico isn't decided yet, and could easily go either way, so I think this assumption that she won just because she is a little more than 100 votes up at the moment is a little premature. Just putting that out there..

   Posted by bridoc at 02/06/2008 @ 1:50pm

9. I just saw the footnote, so ignore my comment directed at The Nation, but you can apply my annoyance to everyone who assumes Hillary won New Mexico.

   Posted by bridoc at 02/06/2008 @ 1:52pm

10. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/06/2008 @ 1:27pm

    I noticed that too.....subtle hint from Mr Berman?

    Posted by Mask at 02/06/2008 @ 2:13pm

11. subtle?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/06/2008 @ 2:15pm

12. CHICAGO -- Now that the dust has (almost) settled, Barack Obama has won more Super Tuesday delegates than Hillary Clinton, his campaign said this morning. Of the 22 states up for grabs, Obama won 13 states to Clinton's 8. They're still counting votes in New Mexico, where Obama holds a narrow lead.

    The delegate victory yesterday, assuming it holds, would represent a significant coup for Obama. Clinton had long been seen as the dominant candidate in the Feb. 5 contests, and she was expected to emerge with more delegates.

    But while Clinton captured big wins in California, Massachusetts, and New Jersey, it wasn't enough to overcome Obama's strength around the country, including in pivotal states like Missouri and Connnecticut. He also did better in Clinton's home state of New York than she did in his home state of Illinois.

    "Last night was an outstanding night for the Obama campaign," campaign manager David Plouffe told reporters in a conference call this morning.

    According to Plouffe's tally, Obama won 847 pledged delegates yesterday to Clinton's 834, bringing his pledged delegate total to 910. Clinton's overall total, Plouffe said, is 882. But there's a long way to go: It takes more than 2,000 delegates to win the nomination.

    Posted by Metteyya at 02/06/2008 @ 3:16pm

13. Posted by METTEYYA 02/06/2008 @ 3:16pm

    Has it been INDEPENDENTLY verified?

    just asking...

    Posted by Mask at 02/06/2008 @ 3:41pm

14. Posted by MASK 02/06/2008 @ 3:41pm

    Independently verified by whom?

    All the Obama folks did is use the formula in each state for awarding delegates - not exactly rocket science.

    The point is that just a week or two ago, Hillary had double digit leads in nearly every state Obama won.

    The momentum has clearly shifted in Obama's favor, and his win underscores that Hillary's support is VERY soft, and is based primarily on name recognition, and not a real comparison between the candidates. The more voters know about Obama, the more they favor the "real" change from the status quo that he has to offer.

    It is not about changing from pants to a pantsuit, it is about substantive change in our government so that it is responsive to the needs of ordinary Americans.

    Camp Hillary is trying to "fake" change, by doing a John Edwards, and thinking that "talking" like an agent of change will convince voters to ignore her voting record and history of supporting the status quo.

    This will not work over the long-run, and Obama will have enough time in this campaign to rub her status quo history in her face for all voters to see, so they can properly discern between "feigned" change and "real" change - change you can believe in.

    Posted by Metteyya at 02/06/2008 @ 4:06pm

15. One of the talking heads on CNN actually made an interesting point last night. He said unlike Rudy, the longer Obama stays in an area, the more popular he becomes. Rudy, on the other hand, became less popular the longer he stayed in an area.

    If this is so, I think the break between super Tuesday and the other primaries may work in Obama's favor. I'll be interested to see what areas of Virginia Hillary and Barack visit.

    Posted by FritztheCat at 02/06/2008 @ 4:42pm

16. Posted by METTEYYA 02/06/2008 @ 4:06pm

    ALl I'm saying is...where's the NY Times, LA Times, CNN, ABC, NBC, etc. reports on how Obama "has really won more delegates"?

    Why is this only coming out of the Obama camp?

    Posted by Mask at 02/06/2008 @ 4:47pm

17. Mask msnbc right now is showing Barack, 838 Clinton, 834. Not sure how accurate it is but that's what MSNBC is showing.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/06/2008 @ 5:07pm

18. Posted by MASK 02/06/2008 @ 4:47pm

    You need to ask the MSM that question. Like I said, this ain't rocket science, and any news guy with junior high arithmetic skills can reach the same conclusion - that Obama WON the pledged delegate count on Super Tuesday!

    If Obama continues to lead Hillary in "pledged" delegates based on true voter sentiment, it would be suicidal for the Superdelegates to give the nomination to the loser and expect the Democratic voter to turn out for her in the general election after ignoring the votes of most Democrats.

    By trying to pay off these Superdelegates with favors and job promises, Hillary has put herself in a position in which she she has to "force" herself on the Democratic voter who has rejected her in favor of Barack.

    I think BOTH candidates should make a pledge today, that the winner of the pledged delegate count gets the nomination, to avoid a destructive inter-party fight in a brokered convention.

    Posted by Metteyya at 02/06/2008 @ 5:17pm

19. it would be suicidal for the Superdelegates to give the nomination to the loser...

    Posted by METTEYYA 02/06/2008 @ 5:17pm

    So, democracy does NOT apply to the "Superdelegates"? What if they vote just like the "Democratic voters" and split along gender, race, age, JUST LIKE THE WAY MAGIC & HRC HAVE BEEN GARNERING VOTES?

    Why can't most male "Supers" vote for Obama (plus for him), most female "Supers" vote for HRC, most white & Latinos vote for HRC, etc....? IF the Supers actually go directly proportional to the final Primary votes of "Democratic voters", what's the point of having supposedly more politically-in-tune Supers?

    Bottom Line, Democracy for ALL...let them vote as they see fit!

    Posted by Happy at 02/06/2008 @ 6:03pm

20. While we're being mathematical here, could someone please help someone who's, uh, mathematically challenged? Or at least someone who knows how to add, subtract, multiply and divide but who hasn't a clue whether the results mean anything?(!) Last night and early this morning, I kept an eye on the Clinton and Obama wins and losses in a chart showing what percentage of votes were in, what percent of those counted had gone to each candidate. What struck me all along the way, right up to the end, was how huge the Obama wins were in some states, much bigger than Hillary's. Bigger in Illinois, for example, than the margin of Clinton's win in New York. In other words, Obama had much more dramatic wins in many cases. Now that the votes have been counted (with some small exceptions)I added up the margins each candidate had stacked up, divided by the number of states won in each case, and found that Obama's margins were 10% greater overall than Clinton's: 28% to 18%. That seems pretty significant to me, but is it? And while we're at it, what's with Obama winning 79% of the vote in Idaho? Idaho?

    Posted by saetias at 02/06/2008 @ 6:10pm

21. Posted by HAPPY 02/06/2008 @ 6:03pm

    HAPPY,

    You are ignoring the very function of Superdelegates. They are not there to vote their conscience or support the choice of the Democratic voter. They are there to "obstruct" the democratic process and protect insiders from challenges from the outside.

    Posted by Metteyya at 02/06/2008 @ 7:14pm

22. Posted by CCCOMFO1 02/06/2008 @ 5:07pm

    If true, happy to concede METTE's claim.

    Posted by Mask at 02/06/2008 @ 7:27pm

23. Yes SAETIAS your right, Idaho! He won in so many places that he shouldn't have that its plainly easy to see that momentum has shifted, couple that with the fact that HRC is borrowing to fund her campaign and it's pretty obvious where this is going.

    Mett: Your absolutely right. That is the point of super deligates.

    Oh, and I'll ask a question of everyone here, has anyone seen who's been chosen by the DNC to to be chair of the National Convention? Nancy "off the table" Pelosi, and all the co-chairs are women too....hmmmm wonder if they had a plan going into this thing....

    Posted by DaCraftyB at 02/06/2008 @ 8:12pm

24. super deligates.

    I'll have the corned beef on rye.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/06/2008 @ 8:15pm