New polls from Ohio and Colorado, and why the "Electability" question is unanswerable

One of the key questions in the Democratic primary has been whether Clinton is too polarizing to win the general election. Obama and Edwards have repeatedly implied that Clinton might just not be electable, whereas they themselves are the most likely to win against Republicans. This has also been the rationale labor unions have used when endorsing Edwards. This morning, the NY-based Transport Workers endorsed Edwards, with their president saying, "We think he can win."

But the bottom line remains that there is simply no way to know which candidate is the most electable come November 2008. Polls are out daily, and they paint a widely differing picture. The one common thread is always that all Democrats are showing great numbers in close states, and all have to be considered slightly favored to win the race.

Quinnipiac came out with a new poll from the key state of Ohio this morning. Here are some results:

• Against Giuliani, Clinton wins 47-40. Obama leads only 42-41, while Edwards posts 47-38 advantage.
• Against Thompson, Clinton leads by 12 (49-37), Obama by 12 (46-34) and Edwards by 18 (50-32).
• Against McCain, Clinton is ahead 46-41, but Obama loses by 1 (42-41). Edwards leads 46-38.
• And all Democrats crush Romney: Edwards by 20, Obama by 13 and Clinton by 12.

So this poll suggests that Clinton is a better general election candidate for Democrats than Obama, and that she runs only 1-2 points behind Edwards. But we get to the same conclusion as in most polls: The difference between Clinton and her competitors is generally the number of undecideds. Many people stay uncommitted when asked about Edwards, but run to the Republican when Clinton is in the race. This does not suggest that Clinton is less electable than the other candidates, for how many of those people would actually end up voting for a Democrat in any case? The important point is that Clinton reaches the high 40s against all Republicans in the swingest of swing states, and posts healthy leads against all 4 of them. Her favorability rating has also been improving. It now stands at 51%, against 43.

But how debatable this electability question is becomes evident with a glance at this new poll from Colorado. Edwards was not included in the poll, but here are the results:

• Against Giuliani, Clinton loses by 6 (50-44) and Obama trails only by 1 (46-45).
• Both candidates win against Romney, but Clinton is only ahead 48-42, while Obama wins 50-37.
• Clinton's favorability rating here is only 43%, against 51%.

Contrast these numbers with the Ohio ones. There, Obama was much weaker than Clinton, and was the only Democrat who lost a matchup against a Republican -- and he barely inched ahead of Giuliani. Here, Obama puts Colorado in play, while Clinton is significantly behind. This is enough to prove that the electability argument will not be resolved in any satisfactory way, and there will always be new polls to contradict other ones. Heck, we might soon see a poll soon with Gravel or Biden as the Democrats' best chance!

And this is not necessarily a bad thing. The electability debate loomed large in 2004, and is what propelled Kerry to the top. In retrospect, he certainly wasn't the most "electable" of the Democratic candidates.