An alternate to Jerome's flawed post

by kjblair2, Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:09:39 PM EST

Jerome's previous post cherry picks data to the same extent that Markos does at dkos. It's intellectually dishonest and both of them should stop it.

An alternate approach would be to take ALL of the state head-to head matchups on Pollster.com and see where the chips fall. It includes all of the states (except Kentucky) that Jerome includes in his analysis plus several others which he just happened to leave out. Not having Kentucky isn't a big deal since both candidates lose to McCain. The state-by-state analysis is in the extended entry.

AR: Clinton - Yes, Obama - No
CA: Clinton - Yes, Obama - Yes
CO: Clinton - No, Obama - Yes
FL: Clinton - No, Obama - No
IN: Clinton - No, Obama - No
IA: Clinton - No, Obama - Yes
ME: Clinton - Yes, Obama - Yes
MA: Clinton - Yes, Obama - Yes
MI: Clinton - No, Obama - Yes
MN: Clinton - No, Obama - Yes
MO: Clinton - No, Obama - No
NV: Clinton - No, Obama - Yes
NH: Clinton - No, Obama - Yes
NJ: Clinton - Yes, Obama - Yes
NC: Clinton - No, Obama - No
OH: Clinton - Yes, Obama - No
OR: Clinton - Yes, Obama - Yes
PA: Clinton - Yes, Obama - No
TX: Clinton - No, Obama - No
VA: Clinton - No, Obama - No
WA: Clinton - No, Obama - Yes
WV: Clinton - Yes, Obama - No
WI: Clinton - No, Obama - Yes

What are the EVs each candidate gets from the above states? Clinton gets 145 and Obama gets 166.

Now one can argue whether a poll conducted more than 6 months before the general election is reflective of the ultimate outcome in November. And one can argue whether RCP or Pollster.com is better at coming up with a synthesis of what the polls are telling us at the moment. But at least you get a better sense of the bigger picture if you don't predetermine what states to leave out of your analysis.




Tags: 2008, Clinton, Obama, Electoral College (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 21 Comments :: Post a Comment


You'd do better to included every state (2.00 / 1)

to cover all your bases...


Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!
by Student Guy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:14:29 PM EST

Re: You'd do better to included every state (2.00 / 1)

I don't know SG - part of me wants to point out the many flaws with his argument, such as it were, but I think they are apparent enough that it isn't really necessary.


by bobbank on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:18:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You'd do better to included every state (none / 0)

Well, lets look at the other states I didn't include because Pollster.com didn't have summaries available.

VT
RI
CT
NY
MD
DC
SC
GA
KY
TN
AL
MS
CA
ND
SD
NE
OK
MT
WY
AZ
ID
UT
AK
HI
DE

Sorry for them not being in alphabetical order.

What states do you see in this list that would change my general conclusion? Is any Democrat goint to lose NY or IL? Is any Democrat going to win AL or MS? I'd have included them if Pollster.com would have had data but they didn't.


by kjblair2 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:47:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You'd do better to included every state (none / 0)

possible red state pick ups for Clinton are TN.  Obama has a shot at some EVs in NE.


Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!
by Student Guy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:56:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An alternate to Jerome's flawed post (2.00 / 1)

People are obsessed with PA, OH, and FL, and they are important.  However, Hillary's numbers against McCain in the upper Midwest and Pacific Northwest frighten me.  Obama rolls in those states.  It's a story that's not getting told in terms of the GE comparisons - especially not by Jerome, but also not by the MSM or the Obama camp for that matter (at least that I can see).  Obama's also better poised to win in the Mountain West.  I don't care how we get the EV's just that we get them.


I like baked beans.
by SpideyDem on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:17:15 PM EST

Re: An alternate to Jerome's flawed post (none / 0)

not to mention if McCain really wants Flordia he would add Crist as his VP and she has no chance.


by obamaforprez on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:21:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An alternate to Jerome's flawed post (2.00 / 1)

There are previously solid states in the pacific northwest and the upper midwest that Obama carries easily and Clinton barely.  Just going by the binary who-wins-and-who-doesn't data isn't enough.

I'll concede that Hillary Clinton would have an easier time with PA, OH, and FL than Barack Obama.  However, if she's the nominee, John McCain will be able to campaign and press her all over the map - in Washington and (especially) Oregon.  In Michigan and Wisconsin and Iowa and Maine and Minnesota.  These are places that Hillary Clinton will have to spend time and money defending and Barack Obama won't.

Hillary Clinton puts a lot of states in play, in a bad way.  States that shouldn't be up for grabs at all.


by Mostly on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:38:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An alternate to Jerome's flawed post (none / 0)

/Now one can argue whether a poll conducted more than 6 months before the general election is reflective of the ultimate outcome in November. /

It isn't.  It's a waste of time.

I am wondering how many diaries we will have showing so and so "up in X or Y state" before June?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz zzzzz


by reggie44pride on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:18:08 PM EST

Re: An alternate to Jerome's flawed post (none / 0)

Yeah I really am surprised people would use today's poll to determine the outcome of an election 6 months from now. Anything can happen, hell Obama wasn't even suppose to be here 6 months ago.


by obamaforprez on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:18:19 PM EST

Re: An alternate to Jerome's flawed post (none / 0)

Jerome keeps taking Colorado off the board for Obama.  That one pisses me off.


by Spanky on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:20:54 PM EST

Re: An alternate to Jerome's flawed post (2.00 / 1)

But isn't that that point?


_____________
PUMA: Perverse Undemocratic McCain Adherents
by lizardbox on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:23:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Waste of Time (none / 0)

How anyone - especially those who actually follow politics fairly closely, can even imagine that these polls mean something in the midst of this very contentious primary...so far off from the conventions...much less November...is beyond me. The fact that people are cherry-picking them makes it even more laughable.

Lets focus on IN and NC...and McCain.


We don't need a thinker. We need a doer: someone who'll act without considering the consequences. (H.J. Simpson)
by Newcomer on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:23:40 PM EST

Re: Waste of Time (none / 0)

People who follow politics know the demographics of the states that are close.

The demographic profile of each candidate are already known and mostly won't move much.

Obama has 92% AA support, Obama will continue to have 80-92% AA support etc.  This is known today.

These people largely know TODAY how this plays out if it were held today.  

Obama faces very difficult DEMOGRAPHICS in the states that are traditionally close.

In the states that Obama is ahead that are not traditionally close he gains many of those votes by being GOPish.  If the voters there who traditionally vote GOP realize he is not GOPish or the other voters who traditionally vote Dem realize he is GOPish then he has a problem.

The DEMOGRAPHICS of team Obama don't work.  He doesn't have a stable coalition that all understand what he is selling.  Many of his voters will turn off when they realize how his tax structure to spending structure will actually work because they don't want the same things.

Clinton/Obama is the fastest train to President Obama land.


by DTaylor on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:41:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Waste of Time (none / 0)

What people are ignoring is that Hillary Clinton makes a lot of states that aren't even remotely close, traditionally or otherwise, competitive.  She's not carrying the pacific northwest and the upper midwest either at all, or by any kind of comfortable margin.

Have you looked at the electoral maps?  She puts way too many solid blue states in play for me to feel comfortable.  Imagine John McCain campaigning in Oregon and Minnesota and the Democratic Party having to put resources there.


by Mostly on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:44:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Waste of Time (none / 0)

Here are some examples.

In Washington, Clinton is down 1.0% and Obama is up 5.3%. In Minnesota, Clinton is down 2.5% and Obama is up 11.4%. In Iowa, Clinton is down 7.2% while Obama is up 4.9%.

It works the other way as well. In Massachusetts, Clinton is up 15.9% while Obama is up only by 2.0%. In Ohio, Clinton is up 5.4% and Obama is down 2.3%.

My take is that for states that are solidly blue, the Democratic candidate will win fairly easily because of the general trends working against the Republicans. For states that are purple and trending blue, such as Pennsylvania, we should be in good shape but it will take a little more effort. The biggest difference is in red states that are trending purple, such as New Hampshire, Colorado, Ohio and Nevada. In general, Obama does better in these states but there are exceptions, such as Ohio.


by kjblair2 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:22:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Waste of Time (none / 0)

I suppose there is no reason to campaign, then.


We don't need a thinker. We need a doer: someone who'll act without considering the consequences. (H.J. Simpson)
by Newcomer on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:52:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama's humiliating loss In Pennsylvania (none / 0)

on the heals of his humiliating losses in Ohio and Texas really has to call into question whether we can elect this guy.  I think we're headed to a real Mike Dukakis moment.


Another Hillary Supporter for Obama!
by Beltway Dem on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:37:58 PM EST

Re: Obama's humiliating loss In Pennsylvania (2.00 / 2)

I dunno, if you call two single-digit victories and one 10 point victory "humiliating", what do you call the 25 percent average that Obama has been winning his states by?  States the democrats need to carry, like Washington and Maryland and Wisconsin and Minnesota where Hillary Clinton was wiped out.


by Mostly on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:41:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's humiliating loss In Pennsylvania (2.00 / 1)

Actually, the PA loss was on the heels of his big wins in Mississippi and Wyoming, though I understand why you don't want to count those. You know, since he pulled 9 delegates out of two tiny states and she only pulled 10 out of her giant stronghold. I would also say that Hillary's humiliating losses 12 times in a row through February call into question whether we should elect her - of maybe her humiliating loss in Iowa, that tiny little state, where she dumped millions and millions of dollars and spent at least 2 months campaigning in but still couldn't close the deal.


by TheSilverMonkey on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:58:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Again (2.00 / 2)

The purpose behind the bogus delegate map, and pointing to these poll numbers without the benefit of the actual campaign - is to try and scare Democrats into thinking that maybe Obama is too much of a risk. Jerome, and many others who are harping on this, 1) never believed Obama would get this far, or 2) never WANTED Obama to be the nominee.

Again, it cuts both ways - it's possible that Hillary would, with the benefit of the campaign, cut into McCain's support in areas that she may appear weak today.

But the thing that really worries me are those numbers on honesty and trustworthiness. Democrats don't lose elections on issues. The voters usually agree with our side when it comes to health care, the environment, tax policy etc. If we produce a candidate that MORE THAN HALF OF THE COUNTRY believes is dishonest - we are setting ourselves up for a disaster. Once a candidate is considered dishonest, it fundamentally undercuts whatever message s/he is trying to convey to the voters.

Yes, voters in Michigan and elsewhere think NAFTA needs to be reworked, but what if the people don't believe you're being honest when you promise that you will be tough on (un)fair trade?

Yes, the idea of a withdrawal from Iraq sounds great, but what if people think you're only saying this because you want to divert attention from the fact that you initially voted for the war?

The list goes on and on.


by highgrade on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:43:43 PM EST

Re: An alternate to Jerome's flawed post (2.00 / 1)

thank you, that was very informative


by dawolfe on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:30:04 PM 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.

Login
Username:

Password: