Another way to draw conclusions from Poblano's excellent work at fivethirtyeight.com.
I'm looking at Poblano's current numbers at fivethirtyeight.com, and I'm thinking that dividing his election simulation results into four groups of states for each of the candidates (eight groups in total) is somewhat enlightening.
Group 1 Those states which are solidly for either Obama or Clinton; defined as those that the candidate wins in at least 60% of the simulated elections.
Group 2 Those states which are weakly for either Obama or Clinton; defined as those that the candidate wins in 50-59% of the simulated elections.
Group 3 Those states which are weakly against either Obama or Clinton; defined as those that the candidate wins in 40-49% of the simulated elections.
Group 4 Those states which are solidly against either Obama or Clinton; defined as those that the candidate wins in less than 40% of the simulated elections.
Add up the electoral votes from a candidate's Group 1 states to find a pretty solid floor below which that candidate is unlikely to sink. Obama: 225; Clinton: 178.
Add the Group 2 states, the low hanging fruit, to find the number of electoral votes that the candidate should be able to secure without too much difficulty. Obama: 257; Clinton: 224.
Add the Group 3 states, those that the candidate has a fighting chance to win, to find a pretty solid ceiling above which that candidate is unlikely to rise. Obama: 281; Clinton: 274.
Beyond just electoral votes, we can also look at how many states the candidates will have to campaign in hard in order to secure their Group 2 states and win their Group 3 states. Obama: 2 states in Group 2 (MI and NJ), and 2 states in Group 3 (ND and PA); Clinton: 4 states in Group 2 (MN, NM, OH, and WA), and 4 states in Group 3 (MI, OR, PA, and WV).
Conclusions from current data:
- Obama is significantly ahead of Clinton in electability, having more secure, Group 1 electoral votes than Clinton has in Group 1 and Group 2 combined.
- Obama's lead in Group 1 + Group 2 is only half of what it is in Group 1 alone; there is not as much low hanging fruit for Obama.
- Either Obama or Clinton is capable of narrowly securing more than 270 electoral votes and the presidency.
- Clinton has essentially no margin of error, since losing any state in her Groups 2 or 3 would lose her the presidency. Obama has only a small margin of error, being able to lose only ND among his Group 2 and Group 3 states while still winning the presidency.
- In order to campaign hard in Groups 2 and 3, Clinton will have to spread her resources over twice as many states worth almost twice as many electoral votes as would Obama in his Group 2 and Group 3 states.
Bottom line: Clinton is less electable than Obama, and she would face a significantly more difficult and higher risk presidential campaign than would Obama.