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!


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.


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.


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.


Torture me once, shame on you; torture me and get away with it, shame on us all.
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.  


Torture me once, shame on you; torture me and get away with it, shame on us all.
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.


But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.
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.


"This was never part of our arrangement, Specter" "I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!" "This deal keeps getting worse all the time!"
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.


"This was never part of our arrangement, Specter" "I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!" "This deal keeps getting worse all the time!"
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!


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...


"This was never part of our arrangement, Specter" "I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!" "This deal keeps getting worse all the time!"
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...


"This was never part of our arrangement, Specter" "I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!" "This deal keeps getting worse all the time!"
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...


"This was never part of our arrangement, Specter" "I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!" "This deal keeps getting worse all the time!"
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...


"This was never part of our arrangement, Specter" "I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!" "This deal keeps getting worse all the time!"
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....


"This was never part of our arrangement, Specter" "I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!" "This deal keeps getting worse all the time!"
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 RJEvans on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:08:18 PM EST

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

I agree, Wyoming on saturday and Mississippi on the 11th is where we should be focused on.  

/I know, I know small states don't matter, but can we at least try?


by rejectandenounce on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:14:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

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

TN is competitive if Clinton is the nominee.  


by truthteller2007 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:10:53 PM EST

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

Solid Obama--163 (eleven or more points): CA, CT, DC, HI, IL, ME, MD, NY, RI, VT, WA, WI
Lean Obama--66 (six to ten points): CO, DE, MA, MN, NM, OH, OR
Toss-up--186: (five points or less): AK, FL, MI, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NC, ND, PA, TX, VA
Lean McCain--25 (six to ten points): IN, MO, MT
Solid McCain--98 (eleven or more points): AL, AZ, AR, GA, ID, KY, LA, MS, OK, TN, UT, WV, WY
Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.
by CardBoard on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:11:03 PM EST

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

Solid Clinton--77 (eleven or more points): AR, DC, IL, MA, NY, RI
Lean Clinton--126 (six to ten points): CA, CT, FL, ME, MD, OH, VT
Toss Up--135 (five points or less): DE, HI, IA, MI, MN, MO, NJ, NM, OR, PA, TN, WA, WV, WI
Lean McCain--136 (six to ten points): AL, CO, KS, KY, LA, MS, NV, NH, NC, OK, SC, TX, VA
Solid McCain--65 (eleven or more points): AK, AZ, GA, ID, IN, MT, NE, ND, SD, UT, WY

Thanks to Chris Bowers


Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.
by CardBoard on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:11:33 PM EST

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

I was just gonna point that out.  But to be fair, it is WAY early for that.  I remember Electoral maps with Kerry having a blowout EV win against Bush.  


by yitbos96bb on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:13:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

NO way (none / 0)

WA is going for mccain! I live in WA.

Polls like this, while the Democrats are still going at it and tthis far out from the GE care nonsense!


Washington Woman

Progressive Blue

by kevin22262 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:25:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NO way (none / 0)

Well it is a toss up...the point is the Obama puts a lot more states in play than she does, she will have to play defense in some places like WA


Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.
by CardBoard on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:31:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

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

also from Bowers, fwiw:

Despite seemingly similarity in their performance against McCain, this breakdown shows real differences between Obama and Clinton in the general election. Against Obama, McCain's "solid" and "lean" states only add up to 123, while Obama's add up to 229. In a matchup against Clinton, the "solid" and "lean" states are of equal size: 201 for McCain, and 203 for Clinton. In other words, while McCain and Clinton appear evenly matched, McCain is only able to keep it close against Obama by running up a series of narrow wins in the toss-up states.


by pholkhero on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:32:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA (none / 0)

IMHO what i think this data says is how different the voters are for both HRC and BO.  And while this may be good news McCain only has to take one state away from each of these candidates to win.  IMHO what this data really says is that, like it or not, HRC and BO will need each other to win.  BO brings us voters for the west but loses tradiational states and HRC brings those tradiation reagan democrats back into the party.

david


by giusd on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:12:09 PM EST

Re: SurveyUSA (none / 0)

I agree!  They each need the other!


by mikes101 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:22:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

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

These numbers favor Obama heavily - From Chris "Against Obama, McCain's "solid" and "lean" states only add up to 123, while Obama's add up to 229. In a matchup against Clinton, the "solid" and "lean" states are of equal size: 201 for McCain, and 203 for Clinton."

"McCain is only able to keep it close against Obama by running up a series of narrow wins in the toss-up states."


Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.
by CardBoard on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:12:41 PM EST

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

Another day, another comment that shows Wolfson is a giant Douche.  Maybe she will have the integrity to fire him for this.  But I'm guessing not since this is the "fun" part of the primary.  


by yitbos96bb on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:15:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

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

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23503060/


by yitbos96bb on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:16:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

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

Plus McCain will be forced to spend money in red states where he wouldn't have a problem with Hillary.  This is a good position for Obama to be in.


by rejectandenounce on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:16:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

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

When was this survey conducted?  If it was conducted over a rolling period during the last month of Obamamania, it is going to show an Obama bias.  Now Clinton has the momentum - expect these polls to start shifting further her way.


by mikes101 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:22:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

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

I don't believe in this "momentum" argument, there is no such thing.  After Iowa he lost, after New Hampshire, she lost, after 11 straight wins he lost, and after her big wins in tx and Ohio, he is looking at 2 straight wins in Wyoming and Mississippi.  This election has proved there is no such thing as momentum, if it were, we would had a nominee by now.  


by rejectandenounce on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:28:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

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

Not true... the polls bounced bigtime in Feb. for Obama.  Some of these states are at 50-50 against McCain.  Now Obama is trending neutral to down, and Hillary is trending up.  I just want to know when the survey was conducted.


by mikes101 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:37:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why isn't Washington in Clinton's column (none / 0)

Bill Clinton, Gore, Kerry carried Washington St. Both Senators and the governor are female. Of course Clinton would win here.


by esmense on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:19:34 PM EST

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

The Dems need to pick up 18 electoral votes from where they were in 2004.

Which means that, solid red and blue states aside, then GOP has to hold in a LOT of key places:

The Midwest:
Iowa (7)
Missouri(11)
Ohio (20)

The Mountain West/Southwest:
Colorado (9)
Nevada (5)
New Mexico (5)
Arizona (10)...though I'm assuming Johnny boy will carry this one

And, of course, Florida (27)

On the other hand, the Dems only have to hold in a couple of places (before picking off some states):

Pennsylvania (21)
New Hampshire (4)
Minnesota (10)
Oregon (7)

I can see New Hampshire, which seems like a dog that humps McCain's leg, going red.  But I think the Dems will easily hold the other three.  If they lost NH, they'll need a pick up of 22 EVs.  

That's Florida, by itself.

Or Ohio, and any other state.

Or maybe Missouri and a couple of the smaller states.

It's certainly feasible.  

Right now, McCain is a pretty popular guy.  He has this rogue image that really plays with the moderates.  But after months of connecting him (quite easily I might add) with Bush...well, that'll soften up the middle quite a bit.


Torture me once, shame on you; torture me and get away with it, shame on us all.
by freedom78 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:19:36 PM EST

hahaha! (none / 0)

What a joke!

Or and WA going for mccain?  That is such BS! I live in WA and no way will WA go for mccain!

Doing head to heads this far out and while the Democrats are still fighting it out, is nonsense!


Washington Woman

Progressive Blue

by kevin22262 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:22:25 PM EST

Re: hahaha! (2.00 / 1)

That's fine if you also reject all of the BS electability arguments being front-paged recently about how if Clinton wins the PA primary, she clearly must be the nominee.  All of this armchair primary analysis is idiotic.  How many times do people have to be told that the primary and the GE are two different things before they finally listen?


by rfahey22 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:35:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I reject (none / 0)

all GE polls this far out. They mean nothing.

If polls that try to predict the future so far out meant anything, then John Edwards would be kicking ass and/or Hillary Clinton would be the nominee right now.


Washington Woman

Progressive Blue

by kevin22262 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:39:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I reject (none / 0)

They only mean nothing when the Democrats choose a candidate that negates their natural advantage in the GE.

The question that has everyone arguing here, is which candidate plays to our strengths and which plays to our weaknesses.


http://www.yawnmccain.com
by enozinho on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:42:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I reject (none / 0)

Great, so let's just rely on the popular vote numbers and the pledged delegate totals to choose a nominee.  After all, there's no way for anyone to divine who is more electable come November.


by rfahey22 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:46:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Did you (none / 0)

read the last part of my comment? Do you know why I said that?


Washington Woman

Progressive Blue

by kevin22262 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:50:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Did you (none / 0)

Please, explain your oracular wisdom.


by rfahey22 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:01:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Did you (none / 0)

Who lead all of the head to head polls for most of the last year? It was John Edwards.

Who was leading in every poll until the primaries actually got under way? Hillary Clinton.

Also, John Kerry would be prez right now having won by a wide margin.

Get it?


Washington Woman

Progressive Blue

by kevin22262 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:30:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Did you (none / 0)

I got it perfectly the first time.  What did you think I didn't get?  My point is that if we're going to chuck such evidence out the window, I don't want to hear about how the superdelegates can look into some crystal ball and divine that the candidate trailing in pledged delegates and the popular vote (most likely) would be more "electable" come the fall, nor how performance in a primary automatically bodes well for the general.


by rfahey22 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:53:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Did you (none / 0)

Hey rfahey, did you see Ohio on the map yet?


by Sieglinde on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:00:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: hahaha! (none / 0)

i don't understand how people can believe that in a cinsistently blue state, one nominee winningbover the other means that they won't vote for the loser in the GE

this is a line of reasoning that has no basis in logic or reality


by Lazeriath on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:45:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: hahaha! (none / 0)

BS.

mccain will NOT win OR or WA. No Way.


Washington Woman

Progressive Blue

by kevin22262 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:31:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What this really shows! (none / 0)

A true 50 state strategy demands a combined ticket: combine Obama's states with Clinton's states and we have the world of tomorrow.  


by mgee on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:23:27 PM EST

HRC's blue-red states (none / 0)

I guess it would suck to be in one of Hillary's 'Red' states if she's selected (not elected) to be the nominee.  All of the down ticket campaigns have the opportunity to run against her.  Wait, I live in Colorado.  Damn.


by philipdenver on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:37:51 PM EST

Re: HRC's blue-red states (none / 0)

that selected BS is BS.

PLEASE tell me how Obama OR Clinton get the needed delegates to be TRULY elected?

Either way, one of them will be "selected" (I would say elected) by the SDs.


Washington Woman

Progressive Blue

by kevin22262 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:32:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HRC's blue-red states (none / 0)

Prove this.  EVIDENCE?

david


by giusd on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:43:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: (none / 0)

The absurdity of this is that it assumes that the states Hillary has carried very big would even consider going Obama.  NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.  

Ohio is my home and I know the state very well.  McCain would blow Obama away in the fall, and I believe traditional blue states like California and New York would also go with the moderate McCain.  

Obama is more detested than either his supporters or his weird pollsters and pundits can realize.  

Latinos, Asians, and large sections of non-African Americans will desert the party in droves.  Obama, and his wing-nut supporters, are delusional.  

If he has not prevailed against Hillary Clinton in any large state save his own in the primaries, he surely will not prevail against McCain in those same states in the fall.

Sadly, pollsters like this one are not factoring in both a racial bias and a neophyte bias.  There is an additional factor: we Clintonites will not support Obama.  We loathe him now as much as anyone else in the electorate possibly can.

One doesn't need pollsters, at this point.  Just grant the states to the current primary winners.  

Obama's states are nothing compared to Hillary's.  That is all Superdelegates need to know, and all they'll ever need to know.


by lambros on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:50:14 PM EST

Re: SurveyUSA: (2.00 / 0)

Wow NY goes McCain? You are one crazy dude Lambros, so can you tell if youb logic is true how Hillary wins while Losing the NW, Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, Mizzou, VA, Maryland, Vermont, Colorado, Lousiana, Minnesota and every other Obama state? Or does crazy BLue-states the HRC won will go red logic only work for her and not for him.  


by Socraticsilence on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:12:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: (2.00 / 0)

Just keep sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring reality.


by rfahey22 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:51:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: (none / 0)

The reality is that Obama needs to win OH, PA, FL.

As a friendly reminder:  Ohio is the state Hillary won by 10 points, and is the state in the midwest that Obama looks like he needs to achieve electoral victory over McCain.

Look at the map.


by Sieglinde on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:05:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: (none / 0)

Yes. Look at the map.

You mean the one where Obama loses two of these states and still wins the Electoral Vote?  I don't quite get what you mean.

He won't lose New Jersey (it's actually tied in the poll anyway) and probably won't lose Penn.  Clinton probably won't lose Washington or Michigan either (but the latter will be a fight for either save a mccain breakdown - a more likely occurrence than most people think).  I've seen many a poll that indicates Oregon plain doesn't like her.  


by thurst on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:07:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SurveyUSA: (none / 0)

Yes and Santa Claus is real and the tooth fairy really does exist.  These fine charts and polls are all just fantasy with a capital F.  After what has happened in these primaries it's incredible people still like these laughable polls!


by orionwest on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:50:46 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.