Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
The North-Carolina win is a day of doom for Obama
Despite what everybody and the MSM seems to think, Clinton is too the more electable candidate
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/May09.html
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May09.html
She's beating mccane in florida, while obama loses that.
And sure. sure, the race is long, but it's kinda telling.
Obama loses even Penn to mcan
swing states under clinton v mccane:
wisconsin Kentucky, missouri, iowa, oregon, wash state, and new hamp
swing states under Obama v mccane:
wisconsin, Colorado, new mexico, nevada, michigan, ohio, indiana, penn and florida
Advertisement
Comments (11)
Personally I think looking at polling today as an indicator of electoral outcomes in November is a zero sum game. As someone wrote in one the MSM columns today way back when Ross Perot and Clinton were running. Early polling had Ross in first place and
Clinton in third.
May 9, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know what's so great about these polls predicting something we're 6 months out from? They're spot on.
I mean, think about this: 6 months ago, it was a foregone conclusion, based on polls, that we were going to have a general election with Hillary vs. Giuliani.
May 9, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
When you put such an emphasis on poll numbers, it narrows analysis to mere extrapolation. When you use old electoral models, it doesn't take into consideration how things change and the rate at which they can change.
You can't just say a democrat needs this state, this state and this state to win in November.
The one organization that has most accurately predicted voting patterns by state is the Obama campaign.
I think their opinion on these matters should receive more weight in the media.
May 9, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Polls don't mean shit. Besides, electability is a stupid argument anyway. Both are electable. Hell, just about any democrat would be electable in this political environment. The Republican party is on the ropes, falling apart at the seams.
The entire Democratic platform this year could be just pointing at McCain and saying "He's a Republican."
The question in this primary season was never about electability, as much as the Clinton campaign tried to make that the issue. It was about who would be the best leader of the party, and of the country as a whole. Obama is the choice.
May 9, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
TPM Reader BDH covered this months ago. To paraphrase, Hillary is going to have one insurmountable obstacle against McCain in the fall: Her name won't be on the ballot.
May 9, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
i really hope y'all are right, however, sometimes I wake up screaming in the middle of the night ...
According to every logical reasoning winning from mccain should be a breeze, but the polls show that it's not. Obama is somewhat up against him nationally, but he should be up 20 points.
May 9, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
He shouldn't be up twenty points.
May 9, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bear in mind that these polls can, and do, shift. It's a snapshot of the most recent poll(s) from each state. Also, note that the site totals votes based on who's leading in the polls. It ignores how big the leads are, and Mrs. Clinton holds some very small leads in a few states, whereas McCain has very few small leads, so the current total is close to a best case scenario for Obama.
The opposite is true for Obama: he has relatively few small leads, while McCain has relatively many, so Obama has more upside potential than Clinton. I actually have been doing posts using the same raw data as www.electoral-vote.com but running them through simulations. The first one I did showed that Obama would win a head-to-head a little more often than Clinton, but both were about a 50/50 shot to beat McCain.
The latest one I did showed both Democrats beating McCain most of the time, but Clinton winning more often. I'll run numbers again this weekend and post another summary.
But both the www.electoral-vote.com charts and my analyses using that data are just snapshots in time, assuming nothing changes between now and November, and that the only polling error is random sampling error. In reality, the race is more fluid, and things can, and will, change. Either Democrat could win in November, and, frankly, either could also lose.
Clinton does better in the totals, but not that much better. Obama is also leading McCain, and both are "electable". Maybe Clinton truly would be a little stronger than Obama in November - that's what the current numbers suggest. But Clinton also has, by her own admission, plenty of baggage. And while Obama hasn't really tried to make a significant issue of it, we can be confident that the GOP would if she is the nominee.
May 9, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is also important to recognize that while Barack Obama will continue to run a dignified, professional campaign in keeping with the theme and tone of his candidacy, he can and most certainly will "draw contrasts" much more sharply against John McCain than he did against his fellow Democratic candidates. I don't think true Democrats will come away from the GE with any concerns about whether or not we nominated a fighter...
May 9, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is not!
May 9, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is a report from CNN regarding this issue and please take in mind that in February when the Presumptive Nominee became McCain. Obama was ahead of McCain by 12 points. It is only since the muddle with Clinton that his numbers dropped, once everything settles down his numbers will go up again to where they originaly where..a year out.
MANCHESTER, New Hampshire (CNN) -- It's one year until Election Day 2008. Do the current polls tell us anything a year before the election? Yes, they tell us something, but you have to be careful.
Al Gore was the last front-runner one year out to win the Democratic nomination.
The polls tell us Sen. Hillary Clinton is the clear front-runner for the Democratic nomination and Rudy Giuliani's the Republican front-runner. So is it all over, before it even begins?
Be careful with a poll, says New Hampshire Institute of Politics Director Paul Manuel. "It's not a predictor. It's a tool. It's a useful way to understand what's happening at that moment and nothing more."
Let's look at the record of polls taken a year before the election.
Polls predicting the Democratic nominees have mostly been wrong. Surveys taken in November 1971 predicted the Democrats would nominate Edward Kennedy or Edmund Muskie. In 1972, the Democrats nominated George McGovern.
In November 1975, the polls predicted Kennedy again. The next year, the Democrats nominated Jimmy Carter.
In early November 1979, the polls predicted Kennedy would defeat Carter for the Democratic nomination. He didn't.
Don't Miss
A year from election day, Clinton person to beat
Election Center 2008: Candidates
In 1987, Jesse Jackson was the Democratic front-runner. In 1988, Michael Dukakis was the Democratic nominee.
Mario Cuomo led the Democratic field in November 1991. In 1992, the Democrats nominated Bill Clinton.
Howard Dean was well on his way to getting the Democratic nomination in November 2003, until John Kerry took it away from him.
Only twice have polls the year before correctly predicted the Democratic nominee. Walter Mondale in 1983 and Al Gore in 1999. Both won the nomination the following year. And both were current or former vice presidents.
On the Republican side, the polls have almost always been right the year before. They predicted Ronald Reagan's nomination in 1980, George H.W. Bush's nomination in 1988, Bob Dole's in 1996 and George W. Bush's in 2000.
Republican polls a year out got it wrong only once, in 1976. The polls in 1975 predicted Reagan. The next year Republicans nominated incumbent President Gerald Ford.
In the past, the Republican nominating process has usually been an orderly succession. Predictable. The Democrats have had a free-for-all. Unpredictable.
"Historically, the Democrats have been an alliance of many different groups and the Republicans are a more narrow band," says Manuel.
If that's still true, the message to Republicans is, it's Rudy Giuliani. And to Democrats, don't bet on Hillary Clinton.
But is it still true? Don't bet on it.
This time, the Democratic front-runner has a bigger lead. And the Democrats say they're more satisfied with their choices. So this time, the Democrats look like they may have an orderly succession. And the Republicans may have a free-for-all. A topsy-turvy year.
When it comes to predicting the general election winner, the record of the polls a year out is actually pretty good.
A year before the election, polls predicted Reagan would defeat Mondale in 1984, Bush would defeat Dukakis in 1988, Clinton would beat Dole in 1996, Bush would defeat Gore -- by 16 points! -- in 2000 and Bush would beat Kerry in 2004.
The year-before polls got it wrong twice. In 1979, the polls predicted Carter would beat Reagan. And in 1991, they predicted the first President Bush would defeat Bill Clinton.
In both cases, voters a year out expected the president to get re-elected
May 9, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment