SUSA-Palooza
On these SUSA polls Josh and David have been dissecting.
Chris Bowers over at Open Left digs up a striking trend that might go unnoticed if you only look at topline numbers. He breaks each race into a solid or lean win for either candidate, or a strait toss up:
Against Obama, McCain's "solid" and "lean" states only add up to 123, while Obama's add up to 229. In a matchup against Clinton, the "solid" and "lean" states are of equal size: 201 for McCain, and 203 for Clinton. In other words, while McCain and Clinton appear evenly matched, McCain is only able to keep it close against Obama by running up a series of narrow wins in the toss-up states.And Bowers' numbers show that not only are Obama's loses smaller than Hillary's, his victories are bigger.
You should check out the full post to see the raw numbers and caveats, but it's a compelling case that while Obama and Hillary may be essentially even in this snapshot, Obama has an ability to quickly grow his margin of victory (or pad losses) that Hillary doesn't.
Advertisement
Comments (15)
This, of course, also has an impact on down-ticket races in "purple" - more favorably under Obama if I read these results correctly. And that, of course, is the most important issue of the '08 campaign. If a counter-argument can be made that Hillary gives the down-ticket candidates a push and puts more "purple" regions into play, I'd like to hear it. But everything we're seeing - not just here, but from the primaries as well - points to Obama being the stronger "down-ticket" candidate. That's why folks like Senator McCaskill have been endorsing him. If we care about the Democratic party - as opposed to the Clinton personality cult - this must be a paramount consideration. In fact, if as the Clinton camp argues the superdelegates have a right to decide the contest, the fortunes of the party as a whole should be their main criteria. I'm increasingly disgusted with the Hillary camp's narcissism and increasingly short-sighted strategies. Of course we've been through this before. In 1994 Hillary helped elect a GOP congress with her political incompetence and arrogance. And the solution ? Hire the repugnant Dick Morris. Now it's Mark Penn who seems to be pretty much the same guy.
March 6, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, win 32 little states and lose the general.
Some plan.
March 6, 2008 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can you read ? Or do math ?
March 6, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blog commenters who support Hillary may not be able to read or do math.
But it's a safe be that the super-delegates can read and do math. That's bad news. For Hillary.
March 6, 2008 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Workerbee, it is rare to find such mind-boggling stupid a comment on TPM as yours, but hats off to your achievement.
March 7, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
I requested this very information on the original post that Eric put up.
March 6, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Clintons keep saying that Hillary will be a stronger general election candidate than Barack because. presumably and illogically, he cannot win in November any state he lost to her in the primary.
The Survey USA match-ups with McCain show a different story. He does better or as well as in many states he lost to her.
New Hampshire: C -8, O +2
Nevada: C -8, O +5
New Mexico: C even, O +7
Ohio: C +10, O +10
Texas: C -7, O -1
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/6/145023/7178/225/470640
I also see that while they both would win California, it leans Hillary (6-10 pt spread) , while it is solid Obama (11 or more point spread).
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4374
March 6, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I won't explicitly argue SUSA's methodology or conclusions, but as a two decade resident of the Pacific Northwest, I am bewildered by their contention that in a case where Senator Obama and Senator McCain are matched, Obama wins. Yet, where Senator Clinton and Senator McCain are matched, McCain wins.
Oregon's last Republican Governor left office 21 years ago. The same is true in Washington. Only one of the five Oregon congressional representatives is a Republican, the other four are Democrats. Three of nine of Washington's are Republican, twice that many are democrats. While Oregon's Senators are split, both of Washington's are Democrats.
At least one of Washington's Representatives and the lone Republican Senator from Oregon are in serious electoral contests this year, and both are more likely than not to lose their respective races.
In light of that situation, and the trend lines away from Republicans and toward Democrats at the State level in both Oregon and Washington, I find SUSA's conclusions troubling, and completely inconsistent with the current political climate in the Pacific Northwest.
Just sayin'…
March 6, 2008 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I live in Oregon and I can see it easily being as SurveyUSA calls it. Oregon has over 26% of the registered voters are NAVs. So who wins the NAV/independent vote carries the state. We have ample evidence that Obama outperforms Clinton in winning NAV/independent by a wide margin. If it is Obama v. McCain Obama more than holds his own in NAV/independent votes, where as McCain would do far better in winning NAV/independent voters than Clinton. That's the whole ball game here in Oregon.
Also add into the mix that McCain is more in the mold of old-school GOPers (i.e. non-theocratic wingers) than most prominent GOPers these days, and he harkens back in some ways to the Hattfield, MacCall brand of GOPer which Oregon has a history in previous decades.
March 7, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
When you go to the Survey USA site they give percentages.
I wonder why they give McCain Michigan in the McCain/Clinton matchup, when both are tied there.
I know they are operating within the margin of error so both of those maps could change alot.
Also I agree on the Pacific Northwest. I just can't imagine it going Republican. I do know PA and FLA with significant older populations would go Republican if the nominee is Obama.
March 6, 2008 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why can't you imagine the Pacific Northwest going Republican? Washington was a tossup in '04; Oregon's routinely close. The WA GOP is going to fight like hell to try and reverse what they think was an unfair gubernatorial result in 2004 and that can only help McCain.
Josh more or less hits the nail on the head in his post on this yesterday. Obama's winning and doing it differently. Counting states that he's doing better than 5% below McCain in (ie states they'd have to spend money in and compete in), Obama's playing for over 409 delegates and Clinton's playing for under 340. That's a huge difference. Obama puts Texas into play... Alaska... Iowa goes solidly blue... the Dakotas are in play. This saps resources from McCain and is an indescribable boon for down-ticket candidates who think they have a shot. How do you beat someone in a traditionally safe seat in a red state? Increase turnout. How do you increase turnout? Have something to root for at the top of the ticket.
March 7, 2008 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I suggest a moratorium on reporting on polls, as the constant reporting on TPM, on TV and in the newspapers is driving me batty.
Taking a page from Bill Maher:
NEW RULE:
Reporting on Polls allowed only once a week.
March 7, 2008 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
A couple of points.
One, SurveyUSA's state samples were in the 600 range, so they probably have numbers down to a quarter of a percent or so. If McCain was one respondent ahead in Michigan, he's shown as leading even though the numbers are the same to the nearest percent. That's why Chris Bowers' analysis is useful. He treats all matchups within 5 percentage points as tossups, rather than picking a winner or loser. 5 points is actually a bit less than the margin of error, but it's useful.
Two, under that analysis, McCain/Clinton is a tossup in Washington and Oregon. And that's a reasonable result.
Based on the most recent gubernatorial elections, neither WA nor OR looks like a sure thing. Christine Gregoire went through a highly contentious recount fight in 2004, and was behind in at least one of those counts. Ted Kulongoski beat the Republican by 100,000 votes in 2006, but with the numerous third parties on the ballot he only ended up with 50.7%, hardly a landslide.
And in 2004, John Kerry only got 51.3% in OR and 52.8% in WA. Those are not "solidly Democratic" numbers.
March 7, 2008 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
What this survey tells me is that we have two weak candidates vying for the nomination. Neither defeats McCain convincingly--a weak candidate in what ought to be a very Democratic year.
Ultimately, I think the reason they both have a tough time is because they are too centrist/corporate in their politics. The positions they take provide less contrast with the Republicans than a solid and truly Democratic candidate would.
I know it won't happen, but the best thing that could happen for Democrats at this point is for neither of the corporate, centrist candidates to be able to win the nomination and we find a different, more Democratic, pro-people candidate. Gore would be ideal in this situation. Edwards works too.
Both of them have learned that the centrist schtick is ineffective at bring about the changes our country and people need and both are now fully in the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party as a result. Both are articulate defenders of the interests of the common man and woman and enemies of the special corporate interests that have raped our national government and our people for nearly 40 years.
Either of those two would smash McCain in November and lead the party to an overwhelming victory that would bring in hundreds of other Democrats who would otherwise lose.
But, of course, Democrats would rather indulge their desire for changing the face at the top instead of achieving change that matters for regular Americans and their lives so there ain't a chance in hell the party would come to it's senses and turn to someone like Gore who could and would lead us to a great victory resulting in lasting, permanent change on the fundamental issues the blowhard centrists talk about at election time but never do anything about once elected.
March 7, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
This argument is now moot, as he will win Louisiana and Mississippi, and a few more.
May 27, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink