Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Obama significantly outscores Hillary vs. McCain
Supporters of both sides argue that their candidate will be the best to defeat McCain in the general election. Each side has their arguments. Obama’s supporters argue that he has more crossover appeal, can draw independents away from McCain, and that he doesn’t mobilize the right-wing in the way that Hillary will. Hillary’s supporters argue that she is a ruthless fighter, has already been covered with battle-scars, and will be able to overpower McCain. I suppose we will get to see how one of those head-to-head matchups goes.
For now, we have to be contented with national polling data and the impressive 50-State work of SurveyUSA. As for national polling, I have compiled all of the head-to-head comparisons for Obama and Hillary vs. McCain that are found in the Poll Tracker here on TPM. I subtracted the percent that voted McCain from the percent that voted for Obama or Hillary in their respective head-to-head polls. These difference scores are graphed here.
Hillary’s scores and her best-fit trend line are in orange. Obama’s scores and his best-fit trend line are in blue. As you can see in the graph, Obama has consistently out-scored Hillary in head-to-head polls against McCain.
I submitted the difference scores to a paired-samples, two-tail t-test. Obama’s scores are significantly higher than Hillary’s (alpha = .001). This means that the difference between Obama’s and Hillary’s performances against McCain are statistically different. That is, Obama out-performs Hillary against McCain.
Looking back at the graph, Hillary
does seem to have attained some upward momentum against McCain in the past 2
weeks, culminating in the highest scores after her March 4th victories.
We will have to keep watching to see how far that trend goes before it hits the
ceiling. It would appear that Obama’s ceiling is much higher than Hillary’s,
given that he has scored as much as 12 points over McCain. However, a high
ceiling could mean that his floor is lower.
If someone is looking for bragging rights in a head-to-head against McCain, it seems that Obama's camp has the most to boast.
-stYMied
(If you found this analysis useful and/or interesting, please click the "recommend this" link below so others can see it. Thanks!)
Comments (9)
Maybe this is why Hillary is campaigning for McCain?
March 9, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
While your reference poll SurveyUSA , dated 3/6/08 looks interesting, as the 2000 election told the world the Electoral College (EC) is what counts. SurveyUSA has some interesting and unrealistic numbers to include: Obama winning VA, zero and no chance. NM, unlikely... near AZ and too many Hispanics, and even Ohio, zero or a small chance. I would give Obama better chances in PA and NJ (SurveyUSA has him losing both); at least a split.
The same SurveyUSA poll has Clinton losing Michigan, unlikely, Washington and Oregon again unlikely; at least one of two for her. If she were to somehow get the nomination and Obama passed on the VP, Evan Bayh as VP would add Indiana.
SurveyUSA gives Obama a 4 pt. EC margin over Clinton/McCain. There are some significant questions one could ask on certain states since it goes against quantified long term historical presidential voting patterns. It's March 2008, any survey today doesn't mean much. I think at one time even Kerry was ahead of W but today we only have Lt. John "reporting for duty" in the Senate (go away John, loser; your wife can stay). Dems almost always nominate losers...LBJ, Humphrey, McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry...only the best!
March 9, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
By that same logic Survey USA has Hillary Clinton winning Florida. That is not happening.
It should also be noted that Hillary has no path to the general election that does not include her winning Florida. If she is nominated she will run the same race both Al Gore and John Kerry ran, in other words her campaign will be all about winning Florida and Ohio.
Obama has several different paths to winning the general election and is not dependent on winning any one state.
March 10, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
MP,
I will refer you to this deeper analysis of the SurveyUSA report, and then follow it up with this analysis.
March 9, 2008 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, this understates Barack Obama's advantage. He polls much better than Hillary in most states. And we all know that a president does not rule alone. We need Democrats elected all across the country. Neither Clinton nor Obama may be able to win some red states, but Obama typically does much, much better. That's important, even if he doesn't win the state. It will force the Republicans to commit resources in those states AND it will provide a much better chance to elect Democrats running for other offices in those states.
Looking at just the presidential outcome in all this is more-or-less Hillary Clinton's way of thinking. Looking at the good of the country and of the Democratic Party - and of the FUTURE of the Democratic Party - is Obama's. Barack Obama is a much better candidate, but a lot of that is in the details.
March 9, 2008 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
A few points.
() The basic point is correct. Obama does run "significantly" (statistically) better against McCain than Clinton does. What is missing from the analysis is the relative vulnerability of Obama to defections. His weaker support among traditional Democrats (compensated by his support among independents) and the greater likelihood that Clinton supporters would defect if he's nominated (See recent Pew Poll) suggests that Obama's nomination is higher "risk," just as Bill Clinton suggested.
() The clear implication of the SurveyUSA 50-state poll is that Obama's nomination puts many more states (and electoral votes) in play for Democrats than Clinton's. With limited resources, it's clear why the GOP would rather run against Clinton. The number (and size) of battleground states is significantly fewer with a Clinton nomination.
() Complaints about the accuracy of SurveyUSA's results are worthless. The data are what they are. I live in Washington State. Given McCain's role in the recent Air Force tanker deal, his chances of carrying Washington are only slightly better than Clinton's (or Obama's) chance of carrying Wyoming. Nevertheless, the data (in late February) suggest he's competitive in Washington. The landscape will undoubtedly change in a few months in a number of states. However, the SurveyUSA data provide a useful starting point for analysis.
March 10, 2008 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
"...and the greater likelihood that Clinton supporters would defect if he's nominated..."
Really? You think it's MORE likely that 'traditional Democrats' (your phrase) would desert the Democratic Party than Obama's more independent-minded supporters? That doesn't make any sense at all.
I agree with the rest of your post, but I can't understand this. The Democratic Party base is more likely to stick with the party, no matter who is nominated. It's Barack Obama's supporters - many of them young and/or independent - who would be more likely to desert the Democrats, or just stay home, if we nominate Hillary Clinton. Her more elderly supporters are likely to vote, and to vote Democratic, anyway.
I'm not young, but I don't think I could bring myself to vote for Hillary Clinton after her tactics in this campaign. She's revealed too much about herself. Of course, it won't matter, since she doesn't have the slightest chance of winning my state (though Barack Obama does, to the Republicans' increasing dismay).
And there is another thing you miss, I believe. Polls don't mean anything if people don't actually vote. Having Hillary Clinton on the ticket would positively guarantee a HUGE turnout for the Republicans. A lot of them don't like McCain, but they would be very enthusiastic about voting AGAINST Hillary. The intense hatred of her is just frightening. They don't feel that way about Obama (though they don't like him, I'm sure), and some of the extreme right-wing would be likely to just stay home in disgust at their choices.
Nominating Hillary Clinton would ensure a lower turnout of Democrats and a higher turnout of Republicans. Whatever the actual preferences of the majority of Americans, the majority doesn't decide elections - only the majority of those who VOTE.
March 10, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Whatever the actual preferences of the majority of Americans, the majority doesn't decide elections - only the majority of those who VOTE."
Recomend
March 10, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed, turnout is an important variable that is completely missed in telephone polling. Thanks for reminding us all.
March 10, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment