SurveyUSA: Obama at 280 EVs Versus McCain, Clinton at 276

SurveyUSA has conducted polling across the country with interviews of 600 registered voters in each of the 50 states, or 30,000 total interviews, pitting both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama against John McCain. The resulting electoral college maps look like this (click on them to enlarge):

Hillary Clinton v. John McCain

Barack Obama v. John McCain

Crunching the numbers on an electoral vote counter, I come up with 280 electoral votes for Obama and 276 electoral votes for Clinton in matchups against McCain -- so not a terribly large difference. The maps don't look entirely similar. Obama fairs much better in the West than Clinton, while Clinton performs better in traditionally Democratic states in the North (though not, interestingly enough, in the Rust Belt state of Michigan). Both Obama and Clinton put new states on the map for the Democrats that weren't there in the last two elections. In the case of Obama, states like Colorado, Virginia, Nevada and even apparently North Dakota (though I'll believe that one when I see it); in the case of Clinton, West Virginia, Arkansas, and Florida.

Of course this is very early in the cycle, and these numbers are highly speculative. A potential Democratic nominee is not a Democratic nominee, and polling eight months out from an election day isn't traditionally the greatest predictor of future results. That said, this polling does pass the smell test in terms of the types of states that each candidate has strength in, and what's more it does underscore the great likelihood that either Clinton or Obama would have a good shot at winning the presidency were they nominated.

Anyway, we should know more later today when SUSA actually posts the specific numbers from each state. But for now, what are your thoughts?

Update [2008-3-6 14:55:45 by Jonathan Singer]: The full data is now available at SurveyUSA's website. Note that the polling has Obama picking up a couple of congressional districts, and thus a couple of extra electoral votes, in Nebraska (thus I have changed the totals above).



Display:


Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs Versus (none / 0)

Guess all that talk about Obama not being able to win "Democratic" states in the GE appears to be unfounded nonsense, huh?


by goodnbad on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:38:24 PM EST

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs Versus (none / 0)

Losing PA and NJ?  That's not big enough for you?

Hello?


by Sieglinde on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:51:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs Versus (none / 0)

If you're going to be like that, then what is up with Hillary losing Michigan, Oregon, and Washington?

I would personally be happy with either of those maps, since either means Dems win. However, I don't think either one will be totally accurate come November.


by Mullibok on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:27:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs Versus (none / 0)

losing oregon and washington is pretty pathetic.
 we're relatively solid progressive states, and she should be able toi carry the northwest, that she can't is an issue she has to contend with
by Lazeriath on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:28:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

NJ & Penn. (none / 0)

No way in hell New Jersey turns red. Even Penn. will likely stay blue once it's on, thanks to highly motivated Dem turnout.

So chill out.


by JD Lasica on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:11:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: looking at the map (none / 0)

The interesting thing is, he beats McCain in Michigan and Nevada, while Clinton does not, even though she "won" Michigan and narrowly won Nevada.


by megaplayboy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:40:33 PM EST

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs Versus McCain, Cli (2.00 / 1)

Why is Obama's map darker than Hillary's?


http://www.yawnmccain.com
by enozinho on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:41:00 PM EST

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs Versus McCain, Cli (none / 0)

LOL!


I proudly support Barack Obama for President!
by Zeitgeist9000 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:41:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs Versus McCain, Cli (none / 0)

<snort> funny!


by JustJennifer on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:46:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs Versus McCain, Cli (none / 0)

Yup.

Well, hell - it's good news for both campaigns!


by Cycloptichorn on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:41:18 PM EST

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs Versus McCain, Cli (none / 0)

Everybody seems to think Michigan is a Clinton State... Am I only the only one that thinks that this is an Obama state - I mean she got 56% in the fuax election, that ain't too good...and since then he has gotten the Teamsters and SEIU - and has considerably more support now, than he did nationally when the Mi faux primary happened.

I'm a bit surprised he doesn't carry MO, and of course NJ will come home - they always threaten to turn are in pre-election polls but never do.


Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.
by CardBoard on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:41:20 PM EST

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs Versus McCain, Cli (none / 0)

Michigan is a Clinton state. Don't know what's up there. Of course the African American vote in Detroit would be pivotal. I don't know if they're being mum with the pollsters considering the "uncommitted" controversy.


I proudly support Barack Obama for President!
by Zeitgeist9000 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:44:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs Versus McCain, Cli (none / 0)

That's an assertion.  There's no reason to believe that MI is a 'Clinton' state.

My guess is that the SUSA polling is as accurate now as it has been all cycle.


by Cycloptichorn on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:47:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs Versus McCain, Cli (2.00 / 1)

actually the numbers are out obama is up by 1 and she is tied with mccain and he gives the electoral votes to mccain for some reason.

needless to say , she would win michigan


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:50:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs Versus McCain, Cli (none / 0)

No assertion, buddy: look at past election cycles. MI hasn't voted REP for prez since '88.


I proudly support Barack Obama for President!
by Zeitgeist9000 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:50:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs Versus McCain, Cli (none / 0)

This is the problem with Clinton thinking: that past performance equals future results. We've seen, in multiple polls, that Obama wins several "red" states like Virginia and Missouri, and presents credible threats to McCain in places like Texas. In a race where we have the fundraising edge, the ability to make McCain spend money in places he otherwise would've won handily is an asset up and down the ticket.

Hillary, deserved or not, has deeply-ingrained reputation issues in the new South and Mountain West that she will not reverse in six months.


by amiches on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:35:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs Versus McCain, Cli (none / 0)

SEIU spent nearly $5 million promoting Obama in Ohio, and it earned him a 10 point loss.  


by mgee on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:59:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs Versus McCain, Cli (none / 0)

Or a 10% win, if you compare to the polls a month out and the fact that she needed the delegates in her self-declared firewall.


by marcotom on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:24:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs Versus McCain, Cli (none / 0)

If we get to compare to polls, HRC's win in California was like, 25% according to Zogby.  And her NH come from behind victory was about 15%, too.  Shall we keep cherry picking, or admit mutual defeat and find something more constructive to do?  


by mgee on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:36:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs Versus McCain, Cli (none / 0)

14%.

dg


by giusd on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:25:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs Versus McCain, Cli (none / 0)

North Dakota for Obama. You got to be kidding.


by Safe at Home on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:41:24 PM EST

The Farm Belt states are not so reliably Repub (2.00 / 0)

Lest we forget, Dukakis won Iowa by double digits, and kept Montana, South Dakota, within 6 points. While he lost by 8 nationally.


John McCain
by MILiberal on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:20:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs Versus McCain, Cli (none / 0)

My thoughts exactly.


by ejintx on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:21:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs Versus McCain, Cli (none / 0)

the libertarian vote seems to be splitting from the republicans due to civil rights, and i don't think you guys are quite aware of the liberterian presence in the mountain states and the northwest.

the "western democrat" archtype is a growing demographic, and they are decidedly liberterian.

i think he could feasibly win north dakota, just like he could win colorado


by Lazeriath on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:31:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs Versus McCain, Cli (none / 0)

You don't understand midwest politics at all if you think that is out of the realm of possibility.


Tony Romo for Secretary of Awesome
by kasjogren on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:05:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 (2.00 / 1)

This survey is based on a fantasy. If Obama goes to the convention ahead in delegates and the popular vote and Clinton games the nomination, Afican Americans walk away. No way Clinton carries
NJ, PA or even maybe NY without the AF vote.
by NYWoman on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:42:14 PM EST

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 (none / 0)

And, if after Clinton takes PA and has all the state behind her that would put a Dem in the WH, and Obama is the nominee, at least 25% of Hillary's supporters  will be voting for McCain.  Where is that reflected here?


by cmugirl90 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:00:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 (none / 0)

Well, I believe this is a scientific survey that reflects things like actual survey results and data, not wild speculation like you're presenting.


by FlashStash on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:05:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 (none / 0)

Labor Day to November is a long time to hold your breath>


by Skipster on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:03:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What is your opinion of: (none / 0)

What do you think would happen if Clinton came in with more popular vote?

What if she is more popular vote and within 20-30 on pledged delegates?

Which rules should be followed and which ignored at the convention?

Here is an interesting poll I heard on NBC. apparently about 25% of Clintons supporters would fo to McCain and 10% of Obama's would. If each did not get the nomination. I was quite surprised with that.


by del on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:11:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What is your opinion of: (none / 0)

We would be in an alternate dimension.  Clinton is down so far in pledged delegates, that for her to catch up to 20-30 pledged delegates would require her to win more then 63-65% in EVERY REMAINING RACE.  

Not gonna happen.


by Cycloptichorn on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:16:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 (none / 0)

Not on my own convictions, but purely talking to people...there are a large number of Obama folks out there who will not vote for Hillary, a smaller but significant number who will not vote for Obama - But, if there is any reason for anybody to say she "stole" the nomination a larger block of Obama supporters will get all riled up.


Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.
by CardBoard on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:19:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 (none / 0)

Do you think all African Americans will refuse to vote for Clinton if she becomes the nominee?!  Then we have a huge problem, don't we? I thought Obama's campaign is not playing the race card.  Please don't bring up Bill Clinton and SC.  Here is what I wrote a couple of days ago in response to another post:

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/3/4/55 38/75877/121#121

Now that is pathetic. The fact Obama is black is playing to his advantage not disadvantage! When I first heard Senator Obama in his famous speech in 2004, I was still in graduate school. I proclaimed that he'd be the first black US president. My roommate was more cautious and checked who his wife was and only agreed after finding out he married a black woman - "if he had married someone white, he won't be black enough to win the black vote!" Those were my roommate's words! Come to think about this now, it really makes me sad! The Clintons have not a fiber of racism in them. Bill Clinton was even proclaimed as the first black president. Do you know that Bill Clinton was the first president to mandate that environmental impact statements for any federal projects have to be done in connection with racial and economical background (the executive order is still effective today). This is the executive order aimed to prevent things like garbage dump sites, nuclear waste sites from being built in mainly African American communities! The distortion of his speech and intention in SC just makes me sick.

-------------------------
The Clinton administration did a lot of SUBSTANTIVE things for the African American community.  I think it would be really sad if all AAs refuse to vote for Hillary Clinton.  The fact that over-whelming percentage 87% 90% of AA vote for BO just makes me sad because honestly, there are not that many drastic differences between their policies to justify such drastic difference. It saddens me that congressman Lewis had to go through the agony to switch his vote, but it baffles and saddens me more to hear that he defines BO's potentially becoming president as the civil rights' movement's dream come true - as I see it - the real goal of the civil rights movement is that all people will be treated based on their merits and efforts not on their race, or gender for that matter.  An AA president will sure reflect a huge improvement in the civil rights front (so would a female president), but it should not be defined as the end goal.  When a decision is made based on facts, there should not be so much emotional agony.  This is a job interview and a decision should be made based on facts not emotions.


by observer11 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:03:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 (none / 0)

Hey Obama's a leader on Women's rights and yet for some reason they vote for Hillary at a 66% clip.


by Socraticsilence on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:16:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 (none / 0)

All of the great things that Bill Clinton did doesn't mean his wife isn't running a dogwhistle racist campaign in the primary. You can exploit racism to your advantage without being a racist.

Of course, I think both propositions are equally odious.


by amiches on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:38:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NJ and FL seem doubtful (none / 0)

At first glance it seems unlikely that Obama would loose New Jersey, and it would be no easy task for Clinton to hold Florida.

If you flip these two states, Obama has a substantial electoral vote advantage over Clinton.

OTOH it is hard to see HRC loosing WA.


by upper left on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:43:52 PM EST

Re: NJ and FL seem doubtful (none / 0)

yeah no way I live in Washington state it will not go for McCain.


by JustJennifer on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:45:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NJ and FL seem doubtful (none / 0)

If you flip these two states, Obama has a substantial electoral vote advantage over Clinton.

And if you flip them all McCain wins against both candidates.  We're doomed!


by aaronetc on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:03:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NJ and FL seem doubtful (none / 0)

Are you just foolin', or do you really not see my point?

The three states I memtioned are out of step with their patterns over the past several election cycles.


by upper left on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:47:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs Versus McCain, Cli (2.00 / 2)

Those polls don't mean too much at this point.  If Pennsylvania went for a candidate like Kerry, I can't imagine them going red against either Dem in this race.


No way. No how. No McCain.
by freedom78 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:44:30 PM EST

I agree with this (none / 0)

I think NJ and PA would fall into line for Obama, and WA and probably MI would fall into line for Clinton. They're probably just polling badly in those states right now because partisans for one candidate are taking it out on the other in polls.

Florida will be tough but I think Clinton definitely has a better shot at it than Obama (and I say that as an Obama supporter.) Same in reverse with Virginia. It'll be tough for Obama to win Virginia but is definitely doable.

Either of them could win this thing handily. Several of the 'red' states on both of their maps will be close, and Republicans will have to dump resources in there just to maintain leads. I don't see how McCain even finds the funds to compete seriously in New Jersey if he has the rest of this disgruntled map to deal with. ND is not really going to go blue, but McCain is going to have to pay attention to it to stop it from doing so if Obama's the nominee, is how I read that. He's probably going to have to work at a bunch of other states he'd have preferred to take for granted too.


by tjekanefir on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:59:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree with this (none / 0)

No matter who wins the nomination, the other has eight months from now to persuade his/her supporters to stay with the Dem candidate.

The hangover of the primary will fade.  The cold hard reality of a McCain Presidency will loom large.  I don't know think many Democrats would vote for McCain, even if they're talking a big game about doing so, right now.

There are other questions, though.  If Hillary is the nominee, what kind of support will she get from Obama's independents (and crossover Republicans)?  I know those groups are slammed (wrongly so, in my opinion) on here for their influence on this process, but in the general they're THE power which decides who will win.  


No way. No how. No McCain.
by freedom78 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:06:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs Versus McCain, Cli (none / 0)

no way she loses NH and MI, and now way he loses NJ.

Also, I agree with freedom78 about PA--it will be blue.


by along on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:46:19 PM EST

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs Versus McCain, Cli (none / 0)

I would be surprises to see Oregon with McCain.


by del on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:14:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs Versus McCain, Cli (none / 0)

i just don't get how it's possible.

oregon is about as progressive a state as you can get.

and McCain is not progressive.

the only thing he has going for him is the east, and they break more liberterian then anything.


by Lazeriath on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:38:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs Versus McCain, Cli (none / 0)

Oregon also has a history of independent thinking and a depressed but not insignificant Republican party. It only went narrowly--51-47--for Kerry 4 years ago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presid ential_election%2C_2004%2C_in_Oregon
by along on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:41:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs (none / 0)

What?  You're telling me that McCain won't win NY or CA if Obama is the nominee?  But...but...BIG STATES!!!

I'm shocked I tell you, shocked.


by rfahey22 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:49:03 PM EST

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs (none / 0)

PA and NJ.  Not big enough for you?


by Sieglinde on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:53:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs (none / 0)

The point is that both candidates have strengths and weaknesses, but that both are viable.  Pointing to one or two states and saying that the nominee must win those in the primary is simply inaccurate.  The paths to the presidency are slightly different for both.  The spin that Obama "must" win certain states in the primary or Clinton must be handed the nomination by the superdelegates is simply that: spin.


by rfahey22 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:11:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs (none / 0)

Obama must win certain states in the primary-- I think this is more than spin.

You can't rely on Utah and Alabama to put you over the top.

At the end of the day, it's the electoral map that you have to contend with.  Facts on the ground dictate that not more than a handful of states will be truly in play.

One thing you can be sure of:  with McCain on the other side, PA, FL, and OH will be in play.  Obama must prove he can win in all these states to be credible.  This is REALITY.


by Sieglinde on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:22:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs (none / 0)

No, it is not, as you can see on the above map. These are the states that Clinton must win to get the Presidency - as you see above, he can do without them. That doesn't mean it would be nice to have some extra states and be on the safe side.


by marcotom on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:26:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs (none / 0)

The electoral map is displayed above - aren't you looking at it?  It shows that both candidates can beat McCain.  Why, then, would anyone discount certain delegates because they come from "red states"?

The disconnect in your post is amazing.


by rfahey22 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:30:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs (none / 0)

Yes, and I see North Dakota and it's blue.

Right.

I'm not talking about the map.  I'm talking about FL, PA, and OH.

This is the REALITY.  Not some made-up map by a pollster.


by Sieglinde on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:36:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs (none / 0)

This is hilarious.  What REALITY are you living in?  The made up numbers in your head?  

Let me know when you have some empirical evidence to prove that Obama is not electable and not some faith-based argument to the contrary.  


by rfahey22 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:44:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs (none / 0)

Look, they know why they believe it.  They just won't come out and say it.


http://www.yawnmccain.com
by enozinho on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:48:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs (none / 0)

Empirical evidence?

Hillary won OH, Obama didn't.

Based on elementary probability, there's a higher likelihood that Hillary will win OH than Obama.

Obama lost OH.  Didn't you hear?


by Sieglinde on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:49:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs (none / 0)

And the map even shows that Obama could still lose Ohio and win the presidency.  Heck, it even spots Pennsylvania to McCain. So, why do you cling to these states?  That you can't imagine a scenario where that is possible does not mean that it doesn't exist.


by rfahey22 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:59:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs (none / 0)

If BO can't win OH, and he can't with HRC as VP and his ego will surely prevent that, he will have a very hard time to win 270 and this will require winning CO.  Now he could do this but just remember it is a mountain state and very close to AZ and McCain will be very strong there.  And his campaign will be throwing around liberal there like it is O2.  

IMHO it will difficult for any dem to win without OH and that is HRC state now.  

Just my thoughts.

david


by giusd on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:35:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs (none / 0)

The map shows Obama needing to win Ohio to get your 278 electoral votes.

I think you have to go to 4th grade and brush up on US geography.


by Sieglinde on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:42:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs (none / 0)

Did you find Ohio on the map yet?

Stare at it intensely.

It's that state with lots of Democrats voting for Hillary.

Do you see it now?


by Sieglinde on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:45:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs (none / 0)

Still don't see it?

It's the state right there in the industrial midwest.  The state Hillary won by 10 points.

Look again, quick, before it turns red.


by Sieglinde on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:58:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs (none / 0)

You realize that this smarmy, holier than though, look at how smart I think I am attitude is exactly why your campaign is losing right now don't you?


Tony Romo for Secretary of Awesome
by kasjogren on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:51:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs (none / 0)

My campaign?  I got nothing to do with Hillary's campaign.  I'm simply a supporter.

If you line up every nutjob for Obama and then say that these nutjobs represent the campaign, then you're a nutjob yourself.

Are you guys for real?  Is this the basis for your opposition?


by Sieglinde on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:55:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs (none / 0)

It is the same attitude though.  Then you did it again.  It must be rough being so much better and so much smarter than everyone else.  I would guess it gets lonely at the top.


Tony Romo for Secretary of Awesome
by kasjogren on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:04:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs (none / 0)

Oh yeah it's lonely at the top.  How's it going down there?


by Sieglinde on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:54:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs (none / 0)

You know just me and plebs hanging out waiting for our turn at the public bath house while you scrape the olive oil off your skin.


Tony Romo for Secretary of Awesome
by kasjogren on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:20:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs (none / 0)

Survey USA has been the Jaguar of polling firms this cycle... I know its far out, but these numbers are probably accurate comparisons of candidate strenghs in certain regions. Obama does better in the upper midwest and libertarian mountain west, Clinton does better in NE and FL.

not too surprising.

Also, ditto on the ND, SD, NE findings, Obama may have a shot at them... a la Dukakis in 1988


Wiz in Hussein Wis
by Wiz in Wis on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:53:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs (none / 0)

Dukakis lost.  ;)


by Alexander Drummond on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:26:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs (none / 0)

Actually, there's been lots of data out for weeks that says if Obama is the nominee, California is in play because he enjoys lots of support from Hispanics, and they know him, since he is the Senator from the state next door.  Also there are pockets of some big military presence.


by cmugirl90 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:02:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs (none / 0)

I would love for McCain to believe that.  Please, by all means let him spend his money there.


by rfahey22 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:07:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs (none / 0)

Respectfully, be careful what you wish for.

This cycle is already deep into "we've never been here before" territory, and it will only get stranger between now and election day.


The Cost of Energy: Higher than you think
by Lou Grinzo on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:13:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs (none / 0)

Huh?!  Who is the senator next to CA?


by observer11 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:24:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

maps will change (none / 0)

But it shows Obama stronger in the West and Midwest, Hillary stronger in the Northeast (less NH) and more competitive in the South.


by mikelow1885 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:49:12 PM EST

For What It's Worth (none / 0)

I would agree with others that ultimately this is good news for BOTH candidates.  If they look this strong against McCain at a time when they're (1) tearing each other apart; and (2) when he hasn't faced any attacks at all from the left, then I think we're going to be just fine come november whoever is on top of the ticket.  

Stated otherwise, we will get through the silly season despite all of our worst impulses.  Mine included.


by HSTruman on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:49:35 PM EST

Re: For What It's Worth (2.00 / 1)

Cheers, as your are right on the money here, no matter how much I disagree with you elsewhere!


by mgee on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:01:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: For What It's Worth (2.00 / 1)

Thank you for that.  I have to remind myself from time to time what the ultimate endgame here really is.  And that's definitely denying the GOP GWB's third term.  Everything else is secondary.


by HSTruman on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:08:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: For What It's Worth (none / 0)

i think a win is in the works, but at the same time, what i'd like to see is instead of a two front war between the democrats
we see two general election campaigns begin against McCain, with the winner being the one with the more salient message.

that way we can get twice the campaigning in, while not making the other looking bad


by Lazeriath on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:37:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: For What It's Worth (none / 0)

Well, that would certainly be nice but I don't think Senator Clinton will sign on for that.  And I don't mean that as a jab at her.  

The reality is that when you're trailing in delegates, as she is, the only path to victory is by damaging your opponent.  If they both beat McCain, there's no way the superdelegates will choose her over the guy who is going to win more pledged delegates.  


by HSTruman on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:53:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: For What It's Worth (none / 0)

Am I the only one who thinks that a prolonged campaign helps both of them? they're building machines in all these states.

Lest I remind you that Clinton/Obama got more votes in the Texas Primary than Kerry got in the 2004 GE


Wiz in Hussein Wis
by Wiz in Wis on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:56:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: For What It's Worth (none / 0)

Obama's 55 million would be better used on McCain.  I could care less how much money Clinton has spent on pants suits last year.


http://www.yawnmccain.com
by enozinho on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:59:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: For What It's Worth (none / 0)

Oh, I take your point -- and it's a valid one.  The organization building aspect of this IS fantastic.  In some ways, especially in the "red" states that we've written off for far too long, but also in places like Ohio and PA.  I just think that it is going to get REALLY ugly in the very near future, and think that will cancel out most of the positives.  +But who knows, maybe I'm wrong.

The other aspect that I do worry about, however, is the impact of a race like this on the candidates themselves, along with their staff.  I have friends working on the campaign who have now been working seven days a week - with ridiculous hours - since the fall of '07.  They, along with the candidates, could use a chance to catch their breath before the GE starts.  Tired candidates say crazy things.  


by HSTruman on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:25:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary's map (none / 0)

I doubt that NH, WA, MI, and OR will fall in the Republican column, regardless of who the Dem nominee is.


by Sieglinde on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:50:09 PM EST

Re: McCain will be the next president. (2.00 / 1)

That's hilarious.  Although..one of my main reasons for supporting Hillary over Obama is that McCain will make the Jr Senator look like a cub scout if they go head to head in the GE.  Hillary is plenty tough enough to take McCain on though.  Obama..well he is just too easily rattled and not tough enough yet.


by JustJennifer on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:50:25 PM EST

Re: McCain will be the next president. (none / 0)

Which Junior Senator? I mean Hillary's a Jr Senator as well.


by Socraticsilence on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:58:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain will be the next president. (none / 0)

How is Hillary a Jr Senator?  She is on her second term.


by JustJennifer on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:11:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain will be the next president. (none / 0)

She's the junior Senator from New York.


by rfahey22 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:15:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain will be the next president. (none / 0)

Woah woah woah!  Not so fast with the facts, you'll confuse them.


by Cycloptichorn on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:17:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain will be the next president. (none / 0)

Chuck Schumer is the Senior Senator for New York. It's based on simple seniority within your state delegation.


by along on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:17:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain will be the next president. (none / 0)

Aha right you are.  I was confusing Jr. with first term.


by JustJennifer on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:20:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain will be the next president. (none / 0)

Do you even know what the term "Junior Senator" means or are you just tossing it out there to sound smart, and belittle Obama?


by Socraticsilence on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:00:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain will be the next president. (none / 0)

Forgive my comment, I didn't see your explanation.


by Socraticsilence on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:00:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

great for dems & (none / 0)

yes, it is early.  but it is heartening to see that HRC could win the general.  i am tired of the "unlikeable" & "unelectable" memes re ms clinton.

it is just not true.


by oklib77 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:54:46 PM EST

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs Versus McCain, Cli (none / 0)

This is exactly what I said in the last thread. The Obama can't win big states meme is a load of bunk.

To be sure, both Hillary and Obama are going to put slightly different sets of states in play, but the traditional democratic big states that Hillary keeps insinuating Obama can't win - California, New York and Massachusetts - will all easily fall in line.


by Wade on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:55:33 PM EST

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs Versus McCain, Cli (2.00 / 1)

PA , OH , NJ gone .

Did you see the numbers.

I am not saying he would lose these states but that is what survey usa shows


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:56:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs Versus McCain, Cli (none / 0)

And Hill loses MI and WA along with most of the midwest.


by Socraticsilence on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:59:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs Versus McCain, Cli (none / 0)

she doesn't lose michigan , the numbers are a tie and obama is only up by 1 .

44 -44 , i wonder why he gave the win to mccain


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:01:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs Versus McCain, Cli (none / 0)

And NJ for Obama is 43/43.  Same thing.


Beat McCain!
by thezzyzx on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:57:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs Versus McCain, Cli (none / 0)

Exactly. Both candidates have different strengths, but the bottom line here is both can get over the finish line.

And if you're trying to argue that Hillary would have a better path to victory just look at the EVs above.


by Wade on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:06:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs Versus McCain, Cli (none / 0)

The narrative at this website has been that Obama's failure to win certain states in the primary means that Clinton must be awarded the nomination if we are to have any chance in November.  That argument is clearly nonsensical, and this map is Exhibit A.


by rfahey22 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:13:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs Versus McCain, Cli (none / 0)

Please point to me where on the map Obama loses Ohio.


by Mullibok on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:31:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 278 EVs Versus McCain, Cli (none / 0)

According to Survey USA, Obama carries OH


Wiz in Hussein Wis
by Wiz in Wis on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:57:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Supercrunch the numbers (2.00 / 1)

OFFENSE:

States that show red but in play with Obama (McCain under 50 and Obama within 5):

Alaska
Florida
Nebraska
New Jersey
North Carolina
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Texas

States that show red but in play with Clinton (McCain under 50 and Clinton within 5):

Colorado
Iowa
Michigan
Missouri
Oregon
Tennessee
Washington

DEFENSE:

States that show blue but in play with Obama (Obama under 50 and McCain within 5):

Michigan
North Dakota
Virginia

States that show blue but in play with Clinton (Clinton under 50 and McCain within 5):

Delaware
New Jersey
New Mexico
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
Wisconsin

You've got to ask yourself, which Offense and Defense combination do you prefer?


Bill Foster would agree, Barack Obama has coat tails.
by Walt Starr on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:55:59 PM EST

Re: Supercrunch the numbers (none / 0)

Clearly, a lot of the people pushing for Clinton "know" Obama can't win some of these swing state, although they usually fail to come out and say why.

In these swing states McCain and Clinton fight over the same voters.  With Obama, at least you have the opportunity bring in new people to offset his demographic problem.


http://www.yawnmccain.com
by enozinho on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:03:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Supercrunch the numbers (none / 0)

Can anyone tell me what Clinton's GE strategy is?

Is it a replay of 2004, where the democrats follow the polls that say the economy is the number one issue, and the voters turn around and vote for the guy with the biggest jock strap?

Is the war going to be ignored again?

Seriously, if her plan is OH, FL, and PA, what is her strategy against McCain?


http://www.yawnmccain.com
by enozinho on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:29:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Supercrunch the numbers (none / 0)

From the map, it looks like the Northeast, California, and New York South (Florida).  The usual coalition that has disappointed so often lately.


by rfahey22 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:32:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nebraska!!! (none / 0)

According to Survey USA, Barack Obama is within the margin of error for Nebraska!  We also have a strong U.S. Senate candidate and congressional challenger ion NE-01 that could be big pickups on capitol hill if Obama is at the top of the ticket!

This is why competing in 50 states is important... even if he doesn't win the state, campaigning there might win us a U.S. senate seat and increase the lead in the house!

The Clinton folk don't seem to care about that kind of stuff...  you guys only care about the presidential race.  Well, let me tell you something, Hillary can't do it alone!  She needs a friendly congress!  Downticket races are very, very important!  If she wins the presidency and loses congress, exactly what type of legacy will she be able to bring?  She envisions herself as LBJ, well LBJ didn't have a republican congress!

But, Mark Penn doesn't care... it's the Kerry states + Ohio for them, who cares if we miss out on half a dozen senate pickups...  

THAT is why I support Barack Obama... He's the best candidate for the party as a whole!  His candidacy will grow the party in new places.  That is not only good for democrats, it is good for the nation.


It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)
by LordMike on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:57:11 PM EST

Re: Nebraska!!! (none / 0)

I';d like to add that with Obama, there is a plan B... if the presidency fails, we've at least increased our congressional lead.

With Hillary (who never has a plan B), if she loses, the entire democratic party may be sunk for a long time... 'cos there are no attempts at congressional coattails.


It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)
by LordMike on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:58:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nebraska!!! (none / 0)

Growing in new places (e.g., Nebraska CD-2), bombing in old places (i.e., Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, California, Michigan, etc.). Sounds like change to me!


I proudly support Barack Obama for President!
by Zeitgeist9000 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:01:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nebraska!!! (none / 0)

Yeah, 60 senate seats would suck royally!  

Obama is not bombing in MI, nor will he lose NJ or California...  PA will be tough for both candidates.

I'll give you Ohio, but that's 'cos we're practically a Klan state...  but even Hillary's success here is not assured... Ohioans are saps for people like McCain...


It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)
by LordMike on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:06:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nebraska!!! (none / 0)

i was a little surprised at how racit ohio is.
 of the people who said race mattered, 3/4 voted for clinton.
 fucking racist
by Lazeriath on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:42:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nebraska!!! (none / 0)

Frankly its Cinncinati, they're like MS Burning made into a major Metropolitan City.


by Socraticsilence on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:03:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nebraska!!! (none / 0)

No, Cleveland, too... it's the most racially segregated city in the country...


It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)
by LordMike on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:02:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nebraska!!! (none / 0)

Please provide evidence of bombing in California. SUSA has Obama up solidly. And also up significantly in Ohio.


by Mullibok on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:34:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 280 EVs (none / 0)

Lord Mike, if Hillary loses, Obama is President in 2012.


by falcon4e on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:03:45 PM EST

Huh? (none / 0)

Obama wins North Dakota? Hillary loses Washington and Oregon? Sorry, I don't buy it.


by alexmhogan on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:03:55 PM EST

Re: Huh? (none / 0)

Obama can win ND.. they are friendly to democrats up there, but don't like establishment figures...

Hillary will struggle in Oregon... McCain-types (like Gordon Smith) do very well up there...  don't know about Washington...


It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)
by LordMike on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:09:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 280 EVs Versus McCain, Cli (none / 0)

Why is everyone so obsessed with "big states"... big deal... all electoral votes are equal...


It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)
by LordMike on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:07:48 PM EST

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 280 EVs Versus McCain, Cli (none / 0)

well, I don't agree with Clinton's big state electability meme, but the reality is that not all electoral votes are equal, because they are bound within the borders of states and linked to population. OH, PA, FL, MI etc. offer BIG--meaning "more"--electoral votes than states like VA, WI, WA, MO, etc. There are very good permutations for both Obama and Clinton, but on balance, all presidential candidates must realistically prioritize the Big States. And especially the Big Swing States.


by along on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:28:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 280 EVs Versus McCain, Cli (none / 0)

Huh?  I'd rather have someone who can win in Michigan or Florida than someone who can supposedly win in North Dakota and Idaho.  


by cmugirl90 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:36:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 280 EVs Versus McCain, Cli (none / 0)

So you're ok with either candidate, then?  In the map above, Obama wins MI, Clinton wins FL.


by rfahey22 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:38:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 280 EVs Versus McCain, Cli (none / 0)

We'd pick up a senate seat with Idaho....


It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)
by LordMike on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:49:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: Obama at 280 EVs Versus McCain, Cli (none / 0)

These are great numbers for both candidates. But, I don't care right now. It is March. I will consider general election numbers after McCain has chosen his VP and we have a ticket.


Restore America's Strength.
by