2,741,165 people voted for John Kerry in Ohio in 2004 to Bush's 2,859,764 -- a difference of 118,599. Leaving aside questions of vote fraud (these are, after all, the only numbers we have to work with) why did Kerry lose to Bush in a state with very similar constituents to a state Kerry won, Pennsylvania? Kerry won 16 counties to Bush's 72, including the populous (i.e., urban) counties of Cuyahoga (Cleveland) and Franklin (Columbus). Yet even with a total of 734,304 votes in these two counties to Bush's 458,853, Kerry still lost statewide to Bush by 118,599 votes. There are three reasons for this: 1) Kerry's win margin in the largest county (Cuyahoga) did not exceed his total in the other 15 counties he won, Which proved decisive for his win in Pennsylvania. 2) Kerry failed to win the third largest county in Ohio, Hamilton (Cincinnati), losing to Bush 222,616 to 199,679 (22,937 votes). 3) Kerry only won about 18.2 percent of the counties in Ohio compared to 17.6 in Pennsylvania. Those extra counties -- and votes -- in Ohio gave Bush his margin.
What does all this have to do with 2008? If either Clinton or Obama are to outperform Kerry, they'll need to increase their margins in these big counties, for starters. Obama won Cuyahoga, Franklin and Hamilton counties on Tuesday and the total vote in those counties between him and Clinton totaled 676,991 (Kerry won 933,983). This is, in short, a strong base of support that can be built upon by either candidate in a general election against John McCain. Clinton will argue that her victories over Obama everywhere else (he only won five counties statewide) demonstrates that she's better equipped to win Ohio in a general election. But as we saw from the Pennsylvania example, Kerry's victory came from winning Philadelphia county, and winning it big. That margin alone overshadowed his victories elsewhere.
Increasingly, Clinton seems to be making an electability argument that is counterintuitive to the Democrats' strengths. Instead of focusing on urban centers of strength, she is (most likely) taking them for granted and saying she can win over the white working class voters -- Reagan Democrats -- that have previously been out of reach. Of course a primary election doesn't demonstrate that at all -- it only shows that those voters prefer her to Obama, not necessarily a Republican to a Democrat. It might be true that Obama has a problem with expanding his base, but it's also true that he has polled better against McCain than Clinton in previously uncompetitive states like Nevada, Virginia, and Colorado. Whether this appeal will last until November is difficult to say but it holds great potential for widening the Democrats' appeal countrywide, while Clinton seems content to fight over a constituency whose allegiances once belonged to the 40th president.
--Mori Dinauer
