MyDD :: Obama's Huge Coattails (with Maps and District Analysis)

Obama's Huge Coattails (with Maps and District Analysis)

by silver spring, Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:34:06 PM EST

Measuring Size of Obama's (Relative) Coattails on Congressional Races

This is a long diary to read so I will tell you upfront what my conclusion is after examining the recent SurveyUSA 50-state polling: Yes, Barack Obama may indeed have huge coattails for Senate and Congressional races in the fall. Now, to the long explanation --

The recent SurveyUSA polling indicated a relatively even match between Obama and Clinton re. who would have the most electoral votes when facing McCain. Obama's total came to 280 EV, while Hillary's was 276 EV - a seemingly even match:

http://www.surveyusa.com/ECV_50-State_re sults_030608_vs_Obama.html
http://www.surveyusa.com/ECV_50-State_re sults_030608_vs_Clinton.html

In this diary I have tried to examine whether Obama or Clinton on top of the ticket would be better for us in terms of a "coattail" effect on competitive Senate and House races in 2008 - again based on the SUSA numbers. In that respect, this diary is perhaps not so much about the size of Obama's coattails on congressional races, as about the RELATIVE size of his coattails versus Hillary's. In some respects, though, it may be seen not just as a relative thing but as an overall, larger coattail effect -- that is if one assumes that Hillary's performance number is kind of a baseline equal to approximately how Kerry did in 2004. (A number of political analysts have proposed the existence of this so-called "50% plus 1" baseline for Hillary, where they think she may win the general, but only barely, while Obama may have the ability to vastly expand our playing field into previously red territory.)

The effect on Senate races is easy to determine, as one just has to look at how Obama and Clinton compare in each state. The effect on House races is more tricky. The SUSA polling provides detailed data in the crosstabs re. how Obama and Clinton perform versus McCain in particular geographical areas of individual states. For some small-population states the only numbers available are state-wide. For most states, however, more detailed data is available by region of each state. In this diary I have tried to correlate the SUSA data with how each of the Democratic candidates performs against McCain by individual (or groups of) congressional districts, and have tried to determine whether Obama or Clinton would be better on top of the ticket by congressional district.

It was not easy to determine the effect on House races, as the SUSA regions do not correlate perfectly with congressional districts or groups of congressional districts. There are many fewer "regions" than congressional districts, and the boundaries obviously do not match perfectly. Nevertheless, I have tried to correlate to the best of my ability, using the data that's there. Nebraska and Maine were the only states where SUSA actually measured by congressional district as those are the only two states which award electoral votes partly based on district. For other states I have tried to correlate using the regions SUSA provides. The SUSA polling provides what percentage of the state's entire population is in which region, and in many cases you can therefore rather easily correlate the region to congressional district. For example, looking at data for Minnesota -- http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollRepo rt.aspx?g=d1c7131a-2fc6-44c8-a679-763d6e 39dd47%20 -- you can see that the Twin Cities region forms 57% of the state's population; south Minnesota is 14%; west Minnesota is 16%; and the northeast area is 13%. In this instance, I have correlated "Twin Cities" with congressional districts 2,3,4,5 and 6; south Minnesota with district 1; west Minnesota with district 7; and northeast with district 8. It's not a perfect correlation, by any means, but at least it gives us a partial picture of where things are. In many states, the regions and congressional districts seem to overlap, and when correlating I have tried to mathematically account for this. For example, approximately 58% of CA-11 is in the Central Valley region, while 42% is in the Bay Area.

For Senate races I have used the Cook Political Report (Feb. 28, 2008) ranking of states seen as "toss-up", "lean-Democratic", "lean-Republican", "likely Democratic" or "likely Republican" (there are 12 such races):

http://www.cookpolitical.com/races/repor t_pdfs/2008_sen_ratings_feb28.pdf

Competitive House districts here are ones classified by the latest (March 6, 2008) Cook Political report as "toss-up", "lean-Democratic" or "lean-Republican". There are 39 such competitive House races according to Cook. I did not include the "likely Democratic" or "likely Republican" seats in this analysis as, frankly, it was just too much data to deal with in one diary. You may nevertheless correlate info. for any district yourself using SUSA's cross-tabs and the maps accompanying this diary.

http://www.cookpolitical.com/races/repor t_pdfs/2008%20house_comp_mar6.pdf

Out of the 12 states which are likely to have competitive Senate races this fall, Obama performs better than Clinton in matchups against McCain in 10 (Alaska, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, South Dakota and Virginia) while Hillary does better in 2 (Louisiana and Mississippi).

Out of the 39 competitive House races, 27 (69% of total) are ones where Obama performs better than Clinton in matchups against McCain. In 10 (26% of total) Hillary does better, and in 2 House seats both Democrats do equally well.

The maps first, and below them, a listing of the competitive congressional districts:

Congressional Districts:

Competitive districts in which Obama performs better than Clinton (based on SUSA data in parentheses) - total of 27 districts:

I have listed the districts in descending order of their "Obama advantage" number:

OH-1 (Cincinnati area - McCain 42- Obama 54; McCain 55-Clinton 36) - Obama advantage: 31 points

It is interesting to note that OH-1 and OH-2 are two Cincinnati area districts in which Obama seems to have a huge advantage vs. Hillary in terms of performance against McCain. This is in stark contrast to other parts of Ohio, where Hillary has a huge advantage - including an apparent 45 point advantage in southeast Ohio (5% of the state's population and approximating OH-6 where it's McCain 56-Obama 31; McCain 36-Clinton 56), which, btw, is the largest advantage for any candidate in all of this polling data. Overall, the disparate numbers from the different corners of the state seem to cancel out each other and whether it's Obama or Clinton, the Democratic candidate beats McCain 50-40 in Ohio according to the Survey USA numbers.

OH-2 (Cincinnati area - McCain 42- Obama 54; McCain 55-Clinton 36) - Obama advantage: 31 points

IL-14 (Collar Counties - McCain 37-Obama 57; McCain 47-Clinton 34; downstate - McCain 32-Obama 52; McCain 42-Clinton 49) - Obama advantage 33 points in Collar Counties; 13 points in downstate; weighed Obama advantage: 25.4 points

It is perhaps very appropriate that IL-14 is near the top of the list. In the 2006 election Hastert won here 60-40. This past Saturday Foster won here 53-47. Granted, Foster was a great candidate in his own right, Hastert was not running, and Oberweis was a lousy candidate; nevertheless, this was still a very Republican district. In the Almanac of American Politics, Michael Barone described this district as "some of the most heavily Republican territory in the country." Obama's ad on behalf of Foster was a big net plus for our side, but even more so, I personally strongly believe that the sheer excitement generated by Obama's candidacy in Illinois (and throughout the country) may have been the factor which ultimately put Foster over the 50% mark in this district. (I will not analyze the other districts listed, as it would be extremely time consuming in this diary, but I invite the readers to comment with their own analysis of the particular districts listed here in the comments section.)

VA-11 (northeast Virginia - McCain 37-Obama 58; McCain 48-Clinton 42) - Obama advantage: 27 points

CO-4 ("rest of state" - McCain 40-Obama 54; McCain 50-Clinton 40) - Obama advantage: 24 points

AZ-1 ("rest of state" - McCain 45-Obama 41; McCain 57-Clinton 30) - Obama advantage: 23 points

IL-11 (downstate - McCain 32-Obama 52; McCain 42-Clinton 49; Collar Counties - McCain 37-Obama 57; McCain 47-Clinton 34) - Obama advantage 13 points in downstate; 33 points in Collar Counties; weighed Obama advantage: 21.8 points

IL-10 (Suburban Cook - McCain 32-Obama 60; McCain 32-Clinton 51; Collar Counties - McCain 37-Obama 57; McCain 47-Clinton 34) - Obama advantage 9 points in Suburban Cook; 33 points in Collar Counties; weighed Obama advantage: 20.6 points

WA-8 (Metro Seattle - McCain 29-Obama 59; McCain 39-Clinton 50) - Obama advantage 19 points

TX-22 (east Texas - McCain 52-Obama 45; McCain 59-Clinton 34) - Obama advantage: 18 points

AK-AL (whole state - McCain 48-Obama 43; McCain 56-Clinton 34) - Obama advantage: 17 points

IN-9 (south Indiana - McCain 44-Obama 43; McCain 54-Clinton 38) - Obama advantage: 15 points

CT-4 (Fairfield County - McCain 32-Obama 59; McCain 39-Clinton 53) - Obama advantage: 13 points

OR-5 (Portland area - McCain 39-Obama 52; McCain 47-Clinton 46; "rest of state" - McCain 45-Obama 42; McCain 50-Clinton 37) - Obama advantage 14 points in Portland area; 10 points in rest of state; weighed Obama advantage 13 points

NC-8 (Charlotte area - McCain 41-Obama 50; McCain 45-Clinton 43) - Obama advantage: 11 points

CA-11 (Central Valley - McCain 53-Obama 42; McCain 54-Clinton 35; Bay Area - McCain 29-Obama 62; McCain 37-Clinton 56) - Obama advantage: 8 points in Central Valley; 14 points in Bay Area; weighed Obama advantage: 10.5 points

IN-7 (Indianapolis - McCain 55-Obama 39; McCain 57-Clinton 31) - Obama advantage 10 points

NV-3 (Las Vegas area - McCain 41-Obama 44; McCain 49-Clinton 42) - Obama advantage: 10 points

NH-1 (whole state - McCain 44-Obama 46; McCain 49-Clinton 41) - Obama advantage: 10 points

AL-2 (southern Alabama - McCain 59-Obama 37; McCain 60-Clinton 30) - Obama advantage: 8 points

NM-1 (whole state - McCain 43-Obama 50; McCain 47-Clinton 47) - Obama advantage: 7 points

MN-3 (Twin Cities area - McCain 43-Obama 49; McCain 44-Clinton 46) - Obama advantage: 4 points

MI-7 ("rest of state" - McCain 47 - Obama 43; McCain 49-Clinton 42) - Obama advantage: 3 points

WI-8 ("rest of state" - McCain 42-Obama 49; McCain 44-Clinton 48) - Obama advantage 3 points

KS-2 (eastern Kansas - McCain 47-Obama 45; McCain 48-Clinton 44) - Obama advantage: 2 points

AZ-8 (Tucson & south Arizona - McCain 48-Obama 42; McCain 51-Clinton 44) - Obama advantage: 1 point

PA-10 ("The T" - McCain 53-Obama 41; McCain 54-Clinton 39; Northeast Pennsylvania - McCain 52-Obama 38; McCain 51-Clinton 44) - Obama advantage 3 points in "The T"; -7 points in Northeast Pennsylvania; weighed Obama advantage: 0.5 points

Competitive districts in which Obama and Clinton perform equally well (based on SUSA data in parentheses) - total of 2 districts:

AZ-5 (Metro Phoenix - McCain 53-Obama 38; McCain 54-Clinton 39)
LA-6 ("rest of state" - McCain 57-Obama 39; McCain 55-Clinton 37)

Competitive districts in which Obama performs better than Clinton (based on SUSA data in parentheses) - total of 10 districts:

I have listed the districts in descending order of their "Clinton advantage" number:

PA-4 (western Pennsylvania - McCain 50-Obama 37; McCain 47-Clinton 48) - Clinton advantage: 14 points

Pennsylvania is a weird state. It is the only state in which the SUSA data does not seem to match data from other pollsters - in regards to how Obama and Clinton perform when matched against McCain. The SUSA polling concludes that Hillary would perform better, while 4 other polls taken at the same time conclude otherwise - in those polls, Obama either performs better than Hillary or is essentially tied. I wrote about this in a previous diary where I examined other state polls from the last 30 days or so, and tried to gauge Obama's and Clinton's "electability" in various states -- http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/8/93433 /10318 --

This inconclusiveness may be a factor of the fact that Pennsylvania is the largest of the states which have not yet voted. Perhaps the voters there are still trying to make up their mind re. these matters, and thus the data currently available is still very fluid and subject to change.

Out of the four other Pennsylvania polls, two (Quinnipiac and Franklin & Marshall College) also break-down Pennsylvania by geographical area (you can link via the above diary). Re. PA-4, Quinnipiac actually gives Obama an advantage in Allegheny County, which forms approximately 2/5 of the district, while every pollster seems to agree that Clinton has the decisive edge in the rest of western Pennsylvania. Below is a map which I drew separately -- just for Pennsylvania -- and using not only the SUSA data, but data from Quinnipiac and Franklin & Marshall as well. In some ways, I feel that this is perhaps more representative of the state than just the SUSA numbers alone. The data is more precise (both Quinnipiac and Franklin & Marshall divide PA into more geographic areas. For example, while SUSA just has "southeast", the two other pollsters have "Philadelphia" and "southeast" (the latter corresponding to the Philadelphia suburbs and Reading area):

FL-16 (southeast Florida - McCain 39-Obama 53; McCain 34-Clinton 61) - Clinton advantage: 13 points

NY-20 (upstate - McCain 43-Obama 46; McCain 38-Clinton 52) - Clinton advantage: 11 points

NY-25 (upstate - McCain 43-Obama 46; McCain 38-Clinton 52) - Clinton advantage: 11 points

NY-29 (upstate - McCain 43-Obama 46; McCain 38-Clinton 52) - Clinton advantage: 11 points

OH-15 (Columbus area - McCain 46-Obama 47; McCain 40-Clinton 51) - Clinton advantage: 10 points

NJ-7 (central New Jersey - McCain 39-Obama 46; McCain 36-Clinton 50) - Clinton advantage: 7 points

OH-16 (Cleveland area - McCain 34-Obama 54; McCain 35-Clinton 57) - Clinton advantage: 2 points

GA-8 (south Georgia - McCain 60-Obama 35; McCain 57-Clinton 33) - Clinton advantage: 1 point

NJ-3 (southern New Jersey - McCain 51-Obama 39; McCain 50-Clinton 39) - Clinton advantage: 1 point

Tags: Obama, Clinton, SurveyUSA, SUSA, 50 state, poll, general election (all tags)

Permalink :: 104 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Obama's Huge Coattails (with Maps and District (none / 0)

Very interesting. Recommended.

by KeithPickering on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:58:44 PM EST

Re: Obama's Huge Coattails (with Maps and District (none / 0)

This also shows just how lethal the obama/clinton ticket is going to be to the GOP in the general election.

hitting them where they live. Obama is carrying southern states, and the higher educateds. clinton is carrying blue collar districts.

the GOP is toast if obama wins the nod and clinton signs on has the president of the senate
and the number two slot.

toast. i say. toast!

by Trey Rentz on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:55:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's a huge misstep of logic. (none / 0)

With an Obama-Clinton ticket, the devastating hit that McCain will be able to make is that even Obama's own running mate doesn't think he is ready to be CinC. On the flip side, Clinton-Obama, the argument will be that Clinton is a flip-flopper that will say anything to get elected, and that she has picked Obama strictly for political gain, which is why I recommended rejecting the idea of a Clinton-Obama ticket).
Both candidates now would run better against McCain alone, unless Clinton either retracts her statement, clarifies it to make it clear that she thinks Obama is more ready than McCain, or apologizes to Obama and to his supporters for her political betrayal.
The bottom line is, we have to choose between Clinton and Obama, and Obama clearly has longer coat tails.

"Please. How stupid do I look to you? World Domination. I'll leave that to the religious nuts or the Republicans, thank you." The Monarch (Evil Villain)

by fetboy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:58:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Or McCain can get the voters (none / 0)

who get p.o.'d that their party doesn't respect so many millions of voters (like the 2 million FL/MI voters).

Who's McCain going to pick? Romney (think of what he said about him).

McCain will be able to pick up a lot of Democrats and Independents if there isn't a unity ticket. That's a fact at this point.

And this election will have the largest turnout in history no matter what--it's become a closer election than it should have been already.

FL was ready to go Democrat no matter what, now McCain's numbers are going up there. The generic Democrat beat the generic Republican by a mile nationally, now it's neck and neck which is crazy.

Close elections in a country with a winner take all system drive up voter turnout. But no unity ticket means McCain is going to have an advantage among divided and angry Democrats and some Independents.

by chieflytrue on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:19:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

silver spring, if you cross-post this diary (none / 0)

to Bleeding Heartland (www.bleedingheartland.com), I would like to promote it to the front page.

Or, if you prefer not to cross-post, I can link to it, but I think it would be great to have these maps at the site.

Thanks for the hard work.

John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

by desmoinesdem on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:00:52 PM EST

I don't have an account there .. (2.00 / 2)

but you can cross-post, link, and/or use any of the info. from the diary/maps ... thanks.

by silver spring on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:07:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't know how to reproduce the maps (none / 0)

What do you need to do? I don't think a simple copy and paste will work.

John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

by desmoinesdem on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:29:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

try this ... (none / 0)

go to map you want; right click on it and then "copy"

then go to microsoft paint (paintbrush) application and "paste"

you can then save as your own paint file and incorporate into whatever youre doing ...

by markt228 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:55:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

thanks ! (none / 0)

desmoinesdem ... hope that works for you -- ??. If not, I can try to post on your site, but do I need an account ??

by silver spring on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:04:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'll try it tonight (none / 0)

You would need an account to post at Bleeding Heartland, but it just takes a minute to sign up and get a password sent to your e-mail.

John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

by desmoinesdem on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:48:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

i made an account at bleeding heartland ... (none / 0)

& will post the diary there ... thanks.

by silver spring on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:32:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

let me know, btw, if that works ... ? (none / 0)

by markt228 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:59:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Huge Coattails! WOW. (none / 0)

My God. I will recommend ANY diary by silver spring that contains such unimpeachable DATA. Wow.

If there are any fence-sitters out there, or people who are afraid of what will happen with our congressional majorities relative to our nominee...this IS your DIARY!!

Cross post this at kos someone! Cross-post it EVEYWHERE!!!

Great work!!

Having said that, I doubt you'll get a lot of recommndations here.

by a gunslinger on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:12:08 PM EST

Re: Obama's Huge Coattails! WOW. (none / 0)

My God. I will recommend ANY diary by silver spring that contains such unimpeachable DATA. Wow.

The "unimpeachable" data of a poll...

And a poll taken eight months ahead of the election...

Wow - not so much.

Grumpy, reluctant, sore-losing, unhappy, irritable Hillary supporter for Barack Obama 2008

by DemAC on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:09:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Huge Coattails! WOW. (none / 0)

well, it's all we have to go on so far. And while you might argue that Obama's numbers may drop, it's almost certain that Hillary's won't improve.

It's all about McCain/Bush now...

by thereisnospoon on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:43:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Huge Coattails (with Maps and District (none / 0)

Amazing analysis. Well done. Recommended.

No wonder superdelegates are shifting to Obama, pareticularly elected ones in purple areas.

John McCain Opposed Expanded GI Bill

by hilltopper on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:25:10 PM EST

Re: Obama's Huge Coattails (with Maps and District (none / 0)

Well done sir!

Where do you find the time?

ENOUGH!

by JDF on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:55:09 PM EST

Re: Obama's Huge Coattails (with Maps and District (none / 0)

Fantastic job. Really well done.

by Chili Dogg on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:18:39 PM EST

Re: Obama's Huge Coattails (with Maps and District (none / 0)

You should post this on dkos, they will eat it up.

by Chili Dogg on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:24:28 PM EST

Great Diary (none / 0)

Wow, you did a lot of work on this one. Thanks!

Not only does Obama do better in more CD's than Hillary, he does better on average in those CD's than Hillary. His average spread is 14.1%, her's is only 8.1%.

In the senate races, his average lead is 11.5%, her's is 4.5%.

by grover738 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:43:43 PM EST

Re: Obama's Huge Coattails (with Maps and District (none / 0)

One key part of that Nebraska poll - two House races that aren't on anyone's radar screen that could definitely be competitive with Obama at the top of the ticket.

NE-02: Jim Esch or Richard Carter vs. Lee Terry. This is Omaha and suburbs. The district itself is 10% African-American, but the north Omaha precincts with heavy AA population have the lowest turnout of any precincts in the district.

NE-01: Max Yashirin vs. Jeff Fortenberry. Lincoln and eastern Nebraska.

Obama is ahead of McCain in those districts.

Further Reading

by Dave Sund on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:44:11 PM EST

Re: Obama's Huge Coattails (with Maps and District (none / 0)

Yes ! -- Obama may bring these districts into play.

by markt228 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:56:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

All of this (2.00 / 1)

means nothing.

The primaries are NOT the GE. The GE is many months away. GE polls and head to head polls this far out mean nothing.

Period.

Thank you.

Washington Woman

Progressive Blue

by kevin22262 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:58:17 PM EST

Re: All of this (2.00 / 1)

No data means nothing. It would be foolish to discount any data, just as it would be foolish to not consider the data in context.

www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com

by LandStander on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:04:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

have fun (2.00 / 1)

with the data, that come november will mean nothing.

Washington Woman

Progressive Blue

by kevin22262 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:06:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: have fun (none / 0)

Not saying that the data is perfect, but when superdelegates make their decision, who are they going to believe? The candidate who merely says she's better against McCain, or the candidate who has data backing up that claim?

This is one of many instances where Clinton is all hat, no cattle.

by amiches on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:12:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I disagree (2.00 / 0)

Can we go and look at the polls and match ups for the last year? Include John Edwards in the numbers also.

It means nothing this far out.

As I have said many many many times... if these kinds of numbers really meant anything, then Kerry would be prez, John Edwards would be kicking butt and/or Hillary Clinton would be our nominee right now.

Washington Woman

Progressive Blue

by kevin22262 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:05:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: have fun (none / 0)

Ok, if you want to interpret the data in the most narrow way possible, then yes, it is worthless. It does not predict the outcome of the November election, which apparently is what you think it is trying to do.

What you fail to realize is that no one expects this to predict the outcome of the election. That is not the purpose of this data.

www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com

by LandStander on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:43:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The only (none / 0)

purpose I can see, is to get people excited or dejected over an assumption of what may happen due to some numbers that really mean nothing right now.

Washington Woman

Progressive Blue

by kevin22262 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:06:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: have fun (none / 0)

OK...

Then which is it?

It seems pretty clear - I imagine you agree - that Clinton's path to the nomination MUST include superdelegates overturning the pledged delegate count. It seems entirely logical that her argument will have to revolve around "what's best for the party", right?

I mean... you tell me...

Are we back to using the will of the people and the pledged delegate race to select the winner?

Or are we counting on the SuperDelegates to decide based on what's best for the party?

You cannot have it both ways.

by zonk on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:56:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How about we do this (2.00 / 0)

let the process play out. I highly doubt that the majority of the SDs will go against the pledged count but who really knows.

This is a rare thing we are witnessing. Anyone who says they "know" what will happen is only fooling themselves.

Washington Woman

Progressive Blue

by kevin22262 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:20:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It appears that the Clinton campaign (2.00 / 0)

think the super delegates will choose sides based on which candidate is more 'electable' against McCain in November.

Polls are one possible way to try to guess. But this post also shows who appears to have a better shot at helping congressional candidates win in competitive districts.

We want to nominate the person we believe in advance has the best chance of winning and helping down-ticket candidates win.

That One is the Right One for 2008.

by GFORD on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:54:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I disagree (2.00 / 1)

with the down ticket assessment.

When you have two candidates basically getting 50% each of the primary vote and both getting a wide range of demographics and states, it looks good for both. Also, we do not know how people will feel about "the candidate" come November.

Just look at polls from a few months ago.

Right now, it is all purely speculation.

Washington Woman

Progressive Blue

by kevin22262 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:25:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree (none / 0)

Is this the same "Washington Woman" that goes off on Obama supporters that post on the pro-Hillary diaries? I believe the term I generally see is "trolling"?
That said, constructive dialogue and debating the merits of an argument can be quite healthy. Name calling on the other hand, while working for the GOP quite effectively over the last 8 years, has no place in the Democratic party IMHO.

by Rick in Eugene on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:53:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: All of this (none / 0)

well, then, if that's the case, then none of Hillary's arguments to the superdelegates mean squat, since nothing about the primaries matters for the GE. Right?

It's all about McCain/Bush now...

by thereisnospoon on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:44:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Huge Coattails (with Maps and District (none / 0)

Great, great post. This is about party-building, not personalities. I think it's clear who has the longer coattails.

by amiches on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:07:55 PM EST

Re: Obama's Huge Coattails (with Maps and District (none / 0)

Wow, you really put a lot of work into this.

The only thing, though, is that I don't think Obama is going to get the nomination.

Otherwise, great job!

by cc on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:29:23 PM EST

Re: Obama's Huge Coattails (with Maps and District (none / 0)

In what way do you see Hillary thieving it?

It's all about McCain/Bush now...

by thereisnospoon on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:45:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Huge Coattails (with Maps and District (none / 0)

Very thorough and helpful. Thanks!

"The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country." - Robert F. Kennedy

by dmfox on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:45:31 PM EST

What about what happened in Texas? (2.00 / 0)

I have heard that in Texas last week, voters showed up at the polls, voted for Obama and left. There were other races on the ballot, ballot initiatives, etc., but the voters were too wrapped up in the Wonder Of O to care about that. What if this happens in November also? Where's the coattail effect there?

No politician ever lost an election because he underestimated the intelligence of the American public. - PT Barnum, paraphrased...

by jarhead5536 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:26:55 PM EST

Re: What about what happened in Texas? (2.00 / 0)

"I have heard" vs. "data" and "facts"

by amiches on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:26:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What about what happened in Texas? (2.00 / 0)

Read it here yesterday, leaving the office now so I can't look, but it was a diary about the Texas caucuses...

No politician ever lost an election because he underestimated the intelligence of the American public. - PT Barnum, paraphrased...

by jarhead5536 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:42:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What about what happened in Texas? (none / 0)

In the general election, you actually can show up, vote, and leave. No caucuses there.

Visit Election Inspection for analysis, polls, and predictions!

by X Stryker on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:45:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What about what happened in Texas? (2.00 / 0)

My point was that voters in the primary, where there were other ballot questions besides the Presidential nomination, voters only voted for Obama, and ignored the down ticket candidates entirely...

No politician ever lost an election because he underestimated the intelligence of the American public. - PT Barnum, paraphrased...

by jarhead5536 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:57:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Here's an article (2.00 / 2)

"Many Obama voters ignored other Texas primary race"
Dallas News, 11:21 AM CDT on Sunday, March 9, 2008

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/ dws/dn/latestnews/stories/030908dnpoldem voters.3a5249f.html

"We live entangled in webs of endless deceit, often self-deceit, but with a little honest effort, it is possible to extricate ourselves from them". -- NC

by Trond Jacobsen on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:14:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Here's an article (2.00 / 0)

Why are the fact-loving Obama folks not talking about this? It directly controverts the claim of coattails for Obama-- quite the opposite. It could leave us in quite a pickle.

I am no sure how much we can extrapolate this to effects outside Texas but similar analysis should be done in other states (okay--the other primaries.) Does anyone see such analysis of downticket voting in other contests?

If there is this kind of drop off down the ticket then we can't be having a conversation about the 'facts' of relative coattails. I dont even know if there is evidence that new voters are more or less likely to vote across all the contests.

by hctb on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:24:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Here's an article (none / 0)

I think for this to become a 'big' story, it has to be shown to be a much wider trend. Also, that Dallas 'analysis' seems a bit, um, suspect. How do they know in a secret ballot who voted for whom? The article itself admits as much:

"The analysis has limitations: It's impossible to tell which voters skipped the down-ballot contest, though the counties in question leaned heavily to one candidate or the other. And it cannot take into account the decisions of individual voters, driven by many different factors."

In fact, I find the headline pretty, um, interesting, considering in what looks to be about a 1000 word article, only two paragraphs are spent on the topic of the headline.

John McCain is a coward. He has no honor.

by vadasz on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:36:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Huge Coattails (with Maps and District (none / 0)

Amazing analysis. You have spent a lot of time to write it. I enjoyed it, thank you very much.

McBush: ''Doesnt' know that much about economics''

by PrinceCA on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:26:10 PM EST

Re: Why this is masturbation (2.00 / 0)

Comparing primary results and projecting them to the GE is akin to mentally masturbating, pleasurable I guess but pointless. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Obama wins the nomination and then Rezko or something else blows up. There goes all the colorful maps. Or the Clinton momentum gives her a 20 point victory in PA, a close win in NC and substantial wins in KY, WV, and PR? Or suppose McCain hits on an issue that resonates with swing voters? Here is the point too many months too many variables. Masturbation The analysis is only good if absolutely nothing changes. You want to make a case to Super Delegates show them noting will change in 9 months.

by coolofthenight on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:36:51 PM EST

That's just silly (2.00 / 1)

It's virtually impossible for Clinton to take the lead on pledged delegates.

She'll need Supers to overturn whatever pledged delegate deficit she faces.

Soo.... How does Hillary convince the Supers? Ya think perhaps she'll be making this same argument, but conveniently ignoring the total national data and focus on a few key states?

by zonk on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:59:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's just silly (none / 0)

Beats me zonk pun intended. I am starting to think about a Hillary Bloomberg 3rd party ticket.
A rich moderate Republican coupled with Hillary's base and fund raising abilty might just slice off enough from McCain and Obama to win.

by coolofthenight on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:53:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's just silly (none / 0)

Huh. Randi Rhodes was predicting that Hillary would go full Lieberman if she didn't get the nomination. I thought that was way over the top.

by BlueinColorado on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:55:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's just silly (none / 0)

Bloomberg wants the next step and has the dough not so for Joe.

by coolofthenight on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:04:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's just silly (none / 0)

Well, Bill Clinton went on Limbaugh the day of the Texas primary and Ferraro's going on O'Reilly, so I guess they're looking to expand their voter base...

Visit Election Inspection for analysis, polls, and predictions!

by X Stryker on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:47:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's just silly (none / 0)

Yeah we shouldn't talk to anyone who doesn't agree with us. Isn't this a "those states don't count" sort of argument? How do you build a party if you only talk to those within the party?

by hctb on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:26:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's just silly (none / 0)

Fox viewers are the single most reliable GOP voting constituency.

More reliable than evangelicals.

More reliable than 200K+ earners.

More reliable than self-described 'conservatives'.

FoxNews is a propaganda outlet.

by zonk on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:55:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's just silly (none / 0)

aren't these the same people who tell us Obama is a failed candidate because he attracts independent and Republican cross-over voters?

by BlueinColorado on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:17:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's just silly (2.00 / 1)

i wouldn't put it out of the question at all. She seriously wants Obama to lose to McCain if she can't have the nomination.

It's all about McCain/Bush now...

by thereisnospoon on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:46:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's just silly (2.00 / 0)

Of course she does. It's not like she's ever said she'd support the nominee, for example, in a debate. But feel free to continue making things up if it makes you happy.

No Way. No How. No McCain.

by Denny Crane on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:22:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's just silly (none / 0)

Randi Rhodes was and is way over the top. There is zero chance that Hillary will run as independent.

No Way. No How. No McCain.

by Denny Crane on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:18:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's just silly (none / 0)

laughable.

by zonk on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:53:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama loses to McCain in Blue States (2.00 / 0)

Obama loses to McCain in Washington, a blue state. Obama will also have to fight to win California, Oregon, New Jersey etc. Obama will not win one southern state.

Obama will not have to spend a penny or a day in Florida because he has no chance of winning there, NONE! McCain will pick up some blue states and hold all of Bush's red states.

Obama, the rookie, will lose in a landslide to McCain despite his money advantage. Political Science 101: Rookie's don't beat war hero's when the nation is engaged in two wars (or occupations).

by mmorang on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:13:47 PM EST

Re: Obama loses to McCain in Blue States (2.00 / 1)

According to the most recent polls:

1) Obama leads McCain by fourteen points in WA, Clinton loses to him by two. He wins in Oregon by 8, Clinton loses by five. Obama is not going to struggle in CA or NJ. Which 'southern state' do you imagine Clinton can win that Obama won't, and that will balance out her losses in Iowa, Colorado, WA, and OR? (You'll need to show me 34 electoral votes).

2) Florida has a Republican governor with approval ratings near 70%. Jeb Bush left office with high approval ratings. 15 of their 25 CDs are held by some of the most conservative Dems in the House. Joe Lieberman will be campaigning for McCain in a state full of retirees, including retirees, and McCain's 'alma mater' at Pensecola.
Forget about Florida.
Name a "blue state" from 2000 or '04 where McCain leads Obama in current polling.

3) So Clinton, by championing McCain's qualifications as "commander-in-chief" and running an "I'm tough, too!" campaign is going to win? Little hint, if she's going to run as McCain Lite, as she has for the last two weeks, dumbing down the foreign policy debate and playing on fear and the lowest common denominator, people are just gonna go for the real thing. He's funnier than she is, too.

by BlueinColorado on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:46:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama loses to McCain in Blue States (none / 0)

"retirees, including military retirees", that should be

by BlueinColorado on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:47:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama loses to McCain in Blue States (2.00 / 0)

how about some links?

You are wrong when you say Obama is doing much better than Clinton in head-to-head polls against McCain. Here is the latest I've seen:

McCain vs. Obama in Florida: McCain by 9
McCain vs. Clinton in Florida: McCain by 5.5
Clinton out performs Obama
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/fl/florida_mccain_vs_obam a-418.html

McCain vs. Obama in PA: McCain by 1.4
McCain vs. Clinton in PA: McCain by 0.6
Clinton out performs Obama
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_mccain_vs _obama-244.html

McCain vs. Obama in OH: Obama by 0.2
McCain vs. Clinton in OH: Clinton by 0.5
Clinton out performs Obama
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/oh/ohio_mccain_vs_obama-4 00.html

McCain vs. Obama in OH: McCain by 2.0
McCain vs. Clinton in OH: Clinton by 11
Clinton out performs Obama
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_conte nt/politics/election_20082/2008_presiden tial_election/new_jersey/new_jersey_2008 _presidential_election

Your numbers seem way off. Obama did ok with upper-scale whites but has a serious problem with so-called working class whites. That is a fact. Ohio is an important swing state and Obama did terrible there. The latest poll I saw shows Obama losing in the blue state of Washington.

Obama should be beating McCain by about 15-20 points right now. He is now starting to get attacked. Of course he will get attacked worse when he's the official nominee.

Obama's polls will only get much worse as he is defined. He's given the Republicans all they need and more to rip him to shreds.

by mmorang on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:03:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama loses to McCain in Blue States (none / 0)

Obama v McCain

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/ 03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-obama- 280-mccain-258/

Clinton v McCain

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/ 03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-clinto n-276-mccain-262/

by BlueinColorado on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:10:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama loses to McCain in Blue States (none / 0)

I can't find the individual state polls you cite, the links are broken, but the overall at Realclear homepage shows Obama beating McCain by five, and Clinton by 2 (within the MOE).

by BlueinColorado on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:14:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama loses to McCain in Blue States (2.00 / 2)

Holy crap. I missed this the first time

Obama should be beating McCain by about 15-20 points right now.

"should be"? Based on what? If youj're going to invent fantasy goalposts to argue about, what "should" Clinton be leading McCain by? you people are just fucking nuts.

by BlueinColorado on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:18:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama loses to McCain in Blue States (2.00 / 0)

I'm basing it on the fact that Obama has had GREAT press and he's a blank slate now. He will not be a blank slate in November.

Do you remember the Dukakis/Bush election in 1988? Dukakis was up by 17 points and lost. Blank slates get defined and when they do their numbers fall fast and hard.

Yes, given the amount of harsh press McCain has recieved and the fact that he's a known quantity, I am not too confident about Obama's chances. I believe he will be beaten up pretty bad.

by mmorang on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:56:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama loses to McCain in Blue States (2.00 / 1)

McCain gets harsh press....

Jesus H Christ on a jumped up sidecar. And you people talk about Obama supporters drinking kool-ade.

by BlueinColorado on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:07:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama loses to McCain in Blue States (none / 0)

Put it this way, McCain is a known quantity. The bad press I was referring to was how he had to fire his old campaign staff, how he ran out of money. He was completely written off a while back.

But he is a known quantity. His numbers will be relatively stable. Obama is not a known quantity to many of the voters. He still can be defined by ads more than McCain or Clinton. Negative ads have a much bigger impact than positive one do.

The bottom line is that he will be defined by the Republicans in large part. He already is performing quite poorly among working-class whites and that will hurt him badly in the general election.

If history is any judge, I expect him to get crushed. Rookies don't beat war hero's in America when we're at war. Simple as that. Everyone will be frustrated as hell and wonder what were the voters thinking? But they will vote for Old-Man-McCain.

by mmorang on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:50:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama loses to McCain in Blue States (none / 0)

He already is performing quite poorly among working-class whites and that will hurt him badly in the general election.

Would that we could control our candidates, I'd magically make Clinton stop lying about NAFTA and fear-mongering about national security. I'd bet that Obama would do a lot better among working-class whites, like he did in Wisconsin, before Herself decided to use a scorched-earth policy so she could lose ugly, and lose her status in the Democratic Party.

As for Clinton beating McCain, she's playing to his issues, dumbing them down to fit his audience. And let's be honest, all it takes is a few references to "honor and dignity" (code for Teh Clenis!) to bring back all the low-information swing voters.

by BlueinColorado on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:55:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama loses to McCain in Blue States (2.00 / 0)

Talking about national security is not fear-mongering. It is not only ok to talk about it is mandatory if you are a serious contender for president. He ad was the same one used by Democrats against other Democrats. Walter Mondale used it against Gary Hart in 1984.

NAFTA? You must be kidding. Both candidates are less than honest about NAFTA. They both support it. They both voted for its expansion. Obama's advisor told the Canadians not to worry about Obama's campaign rhetoric about NAFTA. He was right. NAFTA is not the reason so many people have lost their jobs and I wish both candidates would say that to the voters instead of playing to their ignorance. Automation and cheap labor in China are the reasons for job loss, not NAFTA.

If you think Obama will end NAFTA you are in Fairy-tale-land. He won't. He has no intention of doing a thing on it except MAYBE tinkering around the edges, but I doubt that as well.

He's more pro-NAFTA then Hillary according to pulitzer prize winner Carl Bernstein and David Gergen.

by mmorang on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:34:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama loses to McCain in Blue States (none / 0)

He has no intention of doing a thing on it except MAYBE tinkering around the edges, but I doubt that as well.

Which is exactly what the infamous Goolsbee memo said. That he wanted to rewrite the environmental and labor provisions. Which is exactly what he says about it publicly. Which is pretty much what Clinton says about it. She knows this, she knew it at the time. But she can't win a fair and honest fight against Obama, so she went to slime.

NAFTA demagoguery doesn't work in places like Ohio and PA because of Canada. Lou Dobbs doesn't devote his entire show to raging about polite people coming to take American jobs. This was just more race- and class-baiting from a desperate, dishonest candidate.

by BlueinColorado on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:39:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

We're not that polite, y'know. (2.00 / 0)

We don't have to be, because we're less afraid of being shot if we're not :)

by corph on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:09:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama loses to McCain in Blue States (none / 0)

that's preposterous and you know it. Outright BS.

It's all about McCain/Bush now...

by thereisnospoon on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:47:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Wow (none / 0)

Only one point seperates McCain and Obama in TEXAS!?!

It's time to restore balance and fairness to our economy,... It's time to stop giving tax cuts to corporations that ship jobs overseas... - Barack Obama

by Lefty Coaster on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:09:18 PM EST

Re: Wow (none / 0)

Obama will get creamed by McCain in Texas. Provide a link. The latest poll I've seen in Texas shows McCain beating Hillary by 5 points and Obama by 8.

Here's how they currently stack up in key states:

You are wrong when you say Obama is doing much better than Clinton in head-to-head polls against McCain. Here is the latest I've seen:

McCain vs. Obama in Florida: McCain by 9
McCain vs. Clinton in Florida: McCain by 5.5
Clinton out performs Obama
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/... 2008/president/fl/florida_mccain_vs_obam a-418.html

McCain vs. Obama in PA: McCain by 1.4
McCain vs. Clinton in PA: McCain by 0.6
Clinton out performs Obama
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/... 2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_mccain_vs _obama-244.html

McCain vs. Obama in OH: Obama by 0.2
McCain vs. Clinton in OH: Clinton by 0.5
Clinton out performs Obama
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/... 2008/president/oh/ohio_mccain_vs_obama-4 00.html

McCain vs. Obama in OH: McCain by 2.0
McCain vs. Clinton in OH: Clinton by 11
Clinton out performs Obama
http://rasmussenreports.com/... nt/politics/election_20082/2008_presiden tial_election/new_jersey/new_jersey_2008 presidentialelection

I expect Obama's numbers to fall as he's defined. He should lose in a landslide to McCain. We'll find out soon enough.

by mmorang on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:01:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow (none / 0)

Yes, let's use broken links from the right wing RCP, that seems reasonable.

Visit Election Inspection for analysis, polls, and predictions!

by X Stryker on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:49:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

IMO (none / 0)

Polls for the Nov. election at this stage are meaningless.

by techfidel on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:42:48 PM EST

Re: IMO (none / 0)

polls don't mean anything this far out except that Obama has been on a roll winning and he's generally received great press until recently. He is a largely unknown quantity. So, I would expect his numbers to go down once he's defined. In fact, they already have. He is doing poorly among working class whites.

Looking at the numbers now, if the past is any help, he will have a tough time in November.

by mmorang on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:11:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree (2.00 / 0)

The recent contests, racially divided as they have been, do not bode well for his chances in Nov. How he can lose OH (and PA, probably) by double digits and still bear the mantle of Mr. Electable is beyond me. A 9:1 black vote gives him a big leg up in Democratic contests, but otherwise he is contending with a lot of skepticism from others (and, yes, racism). Seems like he really has to turn PA around to make his case, and stop trying to prevent a re-vote in FL, the 4th most populous state. If he could win in either of these states, it would be hard to argue against him being a strong candidate in Nov.

by techfidel on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:50:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree (none / 0)

How can Hillary lose MN, WI, IA, CO, WA and still be seen as Ms. Electable?

So it "seems" to you that he really has to win PA? Is that where the goalposts are today? Bill said weeks before TX and OH that HRC had to win BOTH comfortably. Well, she didn't. Move the posts again.

Here's my prediction:

Her lead will slowly but surely dwindle away, until 3 days before the primary, some polling outfit shows BO with a 2% lead.

HRC will then win by 4% in the most incredible comeback ever, proving that

A) PA counts
B) Only HRC can win PA in the general

She'll pick up a few delegates, and the media will once again wonder why BO can't "put away" HRC, despite the fact that his delegate lead will be the same after PA that it was after TX/OH/RI/VT.

BO will then go back to increasing his delegate lead in contests that don't count, and we'll do this again next time a state with demographics that favor HRC comes up.

by grover738 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:59:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

She won in TX (none / 0)

I don't count undemocratic delegate allocation processes.

by techfidel on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:36:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She won in TX (none / 0)

Fine, whatever it takes to help you believe she's winning.

Can you provide us with a list of contests that meet your standards?

by grover738 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:41:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Also, she will go into the convention ahead in the overall popular vote.

by techfidel on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:18:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She won the popular vote in TX (none / 0)

Only using tortured math would she end up with more popular votes. SD's will see through bogus numbers. Right now, it's anywhere from dead even to +700,000 for Obama, depending on how you count MI, FL, and the caucuses.

I don't see significant changes coming. PA, WV, and KY look good for HRC. NC, IN, SD, MT, OR look good for Obama.

For example, Obama went to Boise, ID on February 2nd, three days before Super Tuesday. Took up most of the day. If he wanted popular votes, he would have gone to CA, NY, MA, or any state with huge populations. But he went to Idaho, since he thought that was the best use of his resources for winning delegates.

Deciding a contest that is based on delegates by who did better in the popular vote is like deciding a basketball game on which team made more three pointers. The candidates (well, at least Obama) have tailored their campaign to get delegates, since, well, it's delegates that determine the winner.

by grover738 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:42:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IMO (none / 0)

and in that case, so are primary results! Free for all!

It's all about McCain/Bush now...

by thereisnospoon on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:47:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Primaries (none / 0)

McCain is not on the ballot in Democratic primaries.

Obama/McCain and Clinton/McCain matchups only exist in poll-land, and will not be tested until 8 months hence.

by techfidel on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:27:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

off-topic question for silver spring (none / 0)

I went back to look at your diary about the county-level results from Iowa and New Hampshire:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/1/12/2054 53/819

and the images are all gone. Did you remove those yourself? What happened to them?

Thanks for cross-posting this diary to Bleeding Heartland, by the way.

John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

by desmoinesdem on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:11:46 PM EST

yes ... (none / 0)

I removed the NH maps, as they were taking up a lot of space on the drive I use to store them (should have saved maybe, but its too late .. sorry) ... will try to save from now on.

by silver spring on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:11:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

too bad (none / 0)

Those were interesting maps.

John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

by desmoinesdem on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:57:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Huge Coattails (with Maps and District (2.00 / 1)

Polls, like states Obama won, and now Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, and countless others, are now insignificant to the pro-Clinton crowd.

I've always found people who have narrow definitions of what constitutes "the people that matter" to be completely insufferable and several other perjoratives that I won't get into right now.

Visit Election Inspection for analysis, polls, and predictions!

by X Stryker on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:52:32 PM EST

Re: Obama's Huge Coattails (with Maps and District (none / 0)

PS brilliant analysis, I shall be linking to it.

Visit Election Inspection for analysis, polls, and predictions!

by X Stryker on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:52:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry, not a buyer (none / 0)

If you read crosstabs in the various polling, a lot of the so-called Obama coattails comes down simply more Obama people holding out on Clinton support than the other way around. There isn't a real change much beyond that of the roughly 1%/ 1 million voters per year Democratic trend over the past 15 years or so.

I'm trying to get thrilled about big coattails, but the picture is mostly of maybe a dozen mostly conservative Democrats if they in fact hold up (which isn't actually obvious). It's of a piece with a a more conservative, hands off, picture of an Obama term with a Party more beholden to its conservatives.

Sorry, I'd rather have a couple fewer and more liberal Democrats elected. I want to see the day the Blue Dogs no longer control outcomes in the House, when no Gang-of-14ers decide that conservative Midwesterners are the only Americans whose opinion matters. And I'd like a President who finishes up the remaining Cold War and Culture War crap rather than making it Someone Else's Job while we go on to Bigger & Better Things.

by killjoy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:23:55 PM EST

Re: Sorry, not a buyer (2.00 / 1)

I don't understand your logic at all. to end the "culture war crap" is exactly what obama is running on. quite frankly, these battles have been fought for the last 40 years and have ceased being useful. obama speaks for a new (and more progressive) generation who is ready to move beyond these old battles-- NOT by becoming more conservative, but by framing progressive values as universal values as opposed to identity politics battlefields.

Also, think about this-- electing "fewer and more liberal Democrats" by definition means having more republicans in congress. Which are easier to work with and who can we