From today's Beyond Chron.

Yesterday's Washington Post had a front-page piece on Findlay, Ohio - the "Flag City" - where small-town voters in the ultimate swing state still believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim.  What the Post didn't report is that Findlay voted 2-1 for George Bush in 2004, and in 2006 rejected Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown (who won a landslide victory statewide.)  It's just the latest example of the media projecting the myth that the Presidential race is somehow close, and grasping for non-existent trends to keep it alive.

But reality says otherwise.  Women and Latinos who supported Hillary Clinton are flocking to Obama, despite the narrative that Democrats are "divided."  State-by-state polls consistently show Obama on his way to surpassing 270 electoral votes - with hints that November could become a rout.  Even national polls with Obama ahead by double digits are dismissed as "outliers," along with the constant reminder that Michael Dukakis blew a 17-point lead (without any context of two very different candidates).  The media won't admit that the Presidential race is over, and Obama is going to win.

[Cross-posted (and augmented) from DailyKos]

We've heard ad nauseum about the differences between Democratic delegate allocation and the Republican method, and between delegate allocation and electoral votes. Bill Clinton has suggested that his wife would have the delegate lead if Democrats chose delegates as Republicans do, and Evan Bayh attempted to use electoral votes as a comparative measure.

Suppose, though, that instead of changing the Democratic system to approximate the GOP or the general election, we changed the distribution of electoral votes in the general election to the approach used by the Democratic Party to allocate convention delegates. What would be the outcome of that change?

Follow me below the fold for a look-see...

Jerome, turn WI from Red to Blue for Obama, and it's now 300 - 238.  While Hillary is ahead using current polling (ignoring lots of arguments over how she would be doing if she were front-runner), it's hard to argue that Barack is not electable.

Let me start with the link.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollRepo rt.aspx?g=59d53a82-4258-4988-be6a-3e0e67 ecf4df

A few things I noticed:

How can we have reasonable discussion if there isn't basic transparency in the information presented here?

Item 1:

A few weeks ago I called for transparency for the data in compiling electoral vote maps.  

The diary was on the recommended list for more than 24 hours and 93% voted in favor of more information regarding which polls were used, their sample sizes, margins of error, etc.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/14/1450 42/287

The response from those who keep the maps was that a) They did it that way four years ago and b) The maps are helpful because you can click on them and change who gets what states.  

But:
 a) The internet has changed a lot in the last four years and what was new then is old technology now. While I used to recommend this site to the college students I teach and my friends and colleagues because of the information provided this not my choice for that purpose now. There are, simply put, better sites, for up to date, accurate and transparent information.  Of course that doesn't have to be the case. This site could be as good as the others.
  b) There's no technical reason that I know of as to why the maps can't both be used to show how the overall electoral votes would shift and allow for transparency regarding the data used to support them.

Item 2:

The graph now front-paged which purports to show that Clinton had more votes per pledged delegates than Obama. Besides certain problems posters have pointed out (such as the ridiculous use of a compressed range, an issue I learned about 30 years ago in an Intro Psych class, via the text How to Lie With Statistics and the issue relating to caucus states, etc.), there is no information presented about what vote totals were included.  The lack of transparency presents a problem for discussing in an intellectually honest way.  

The people are speaking.  Is our party listening?

Early in the primaries, Barack Obama promised that he would win more people over the longer he campaigned.  He said that every state becomes an "Obama state" once he goes there.  But an interesting thing happened as winter turned to spring, and the people kept voting in record numbers.  Hillary Clinton stole the momentum.   Her popularity soared; her appeal broadened; and she steadfastly became the darling of the masses, even as Barack was crowned darling of the mass media.

It started back in New Hampshire, when Hillary "found her voice," but what really happened is that the American people have found Hillary. And there's nothing like raw data to illustrate the point:  

*The Electoral Vote "Poll Watcher" shows Hillary gaining steam against McCain, now leading 310 to 228, with Hillary winning key states like Florida, North Carolina, and West Virginia.  (Obama trails McCain by over 30 EV's.)

*Over the last three months, Hillary has won more contests, gained more votes, and earned more delegates. Since March 4th, she has gained nearly 500,000 more popular votes than Barack Obama as voters in crucial battleground states have made their voices known.

*More Americans have voted for Hillary than any other presidential candidate this cycle. In fact, more people have voted for Hillary than any other primary candidate in history - nearly 18 million so far.

*Just yesterday, Hillary won 150,000 more votes than Obama in Kentucky and Oregon, even though delegate counts will be split fairly evenly.

*Hillary has now won nearly 64,000 more votes than Obama in total, when all caucuses and primaries are included.

Hillary Clinton just keeps winning.  She is the candidate who closes the deal with voters. Despite being out-spent by margins of up to 4-to-1; despite anxious efforts by Obama, his surrogates, and an obedient press corps to convince people that the race is over.  They keep voting for her anyway.  Thankfully there's a stubborn gene in the American people, a natural resistance to authority, and maybe that's why the people love Hillary.  They see her get up with the roosters every day, work herself to exhaustion in pursuit of a dream, and never give up or give in to the nay-sayers.  Hillary, in spite of all the odds, has become a genuine Made in the USA hero, a leader for the people and no longer just "Bill's wife," the other Clinton.

My candidate for President, Hillary Clinton, said in her Kentucky victory speech last night:

It is not just Kentucky bluegrass that is music to my ears. It is the sound of your overwhelming vote of confidence even in the face of some pretty tough odds. Some have said your votes didn't matter, that this campaign was over, that allowing everyone to vote and every vote to count would somehow be a mistake. But that didn't stop you. You've never given up on me because you know I'll never give up on you.

Funny thing...that pesky notion of one-person-one-vote-rules in a democracy, such an irritant to the power-brokers who want Hillary Clinton to pad dutifully back to her seat in the Senate, and forget about the 18 million people who want her to be President, including 2.3 million in Florida and Michigan who knew exactly what they were doing.

Power to the people, that's the lesson from November, 2000.  It's not too late to take it to heart.  Hillary Clinton can close this deal for the Democrats in November.


Note: popular vote statistics from Real Clear Politics




Cross posted at texasdarlin

TexasDarlin, all rights reserved
Not affiliated with the Hillary Clinton campaign

Via ABC's Political Punch:

Electoral maps put together by the consulting firm helmed by Karl Rove, and obtained by ABC News, show Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, to be a stronger general election candidate in a hypothetical general election match-up against Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., than Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois.

Click HERE to see the maps and charts from Karl Rove & Co. provided by ABC.

Of special interest in the link, check out the two charts showing polling trends, and you'll see that Hillary Clinton is the ONE candidate of all three who has had signficiant momentum from March through May.

Hope the Superdelegates are paying attention!

Cross-posted at TexasDarlin

Reading about the impressive crowd size at the Portland Obama Rally caused me to reminisce about another awesome Presidential rally - John Kerry's Portland water front park rally in 2004.

Here are some of the awesome pictures:

The crowd size was estimated at 50,000.  Link

Some 50,000 people came out to hear John Kerry and special guests speak in Portland on a sweltering hot summer day. Your phototographer arrived before 10AM, and Kerry finished speaking a tad after 2PM. (I'm wearing a towel over my head - find the shot of me in here).

Along with Kerry, the rally included quick speeches by Oregon's Democratic representatives and leaders: Governor Ted Kulongoski, Senator Ron Wyden, and Representatives Darlene Hooley, David Wu, and Earl Blumenauer. Celebrity guests included actor Leonardo DiCaprio, and rock musicians Jon Bon Jovi and Richie Sambora (who played two accoustic songs).

Finally, the Kerry busses arrived, and Kerry's step-son Chris Heinz spoke briefly first. Then Tereasa Heinz Kerry spoke for quite a few minutes. Jim Rassmann (whose live Kerry saved in Vietnam) also spoke briefly. Retired General Tony McPeak - a Republican critic of Bush's policies - was on stage but did not speak.

Kerry spoke last. He got a lively reception from a large crowd that had been waiting several hours in the heat.

Watching that rally, I was very confident that John Kerry would become our next President.  He and John Edwards were getting amazingly huge and enthusiastic crowds all over blue America.

I cried the day I watched John Kerry concede in Boston on TV.  It was incomprehensible to me why he would lose  --  he was getting huge and fantastic crowds all over the place compared to GWB.

I'm less naïve now.  Like Kristen Breitweiser, I have learned to understand that it is all about swing state electoral votes.  Big crowds in Oregon and Pennsylvania are fantastic but they won't guarantee us victory in November.  Both Obama and Clinton would beat McCain in Oregon according to the most recent head-to-head Oregon poll (Link),  but that would not guarantee us victory in the 15 critical swing states that include Ohio, Florida, Michigan, West Virginia.

Kristen's article Reality Bites: Swing-State Math is very helpful to me in understanding why John Kerry didn't win.  It's a must read.  

Excerpt:

In '04, I traveled as a surrogate for the John Kerry campaign. I was sent to places like Iowa, Ohio, Nevada, Colorado, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, and Florida. Quite the roadtrip.

In the beginning, I wondered why I kept getting sent to these random "swing states." Iowa (a state in 2004 with, yes folks, only one Starbucks!!) Why did Iowa matter? I was a political novice. So dumb. So naïve.

To me, it seemed so terribly undemocratic that a handful of states could determine who became our president. Likewise, It never truly clicked in my head when my New Yorker friends would wryly state that their vote didn't count. Of course their vote counted. Every vote counts. This is America, right?

And then on Election Day '04, I learned the hard way why those swing states mattered so much. John Kerry lost Ohio and Florida and therefore lost the election to George Bush. Four more grueling years of Republican rule. My impression on that sad day? 1460 days to go.

Now with roughly 240 days until Election Day '08, one thing remains the same: THE ONLY VOTES THAT WILL MAKE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ELECTING JOHN MCCAIN AND A DEMOCRAT TO THE WHITE HOUSE ARE THE SWING STATES.

So with all this talk of delegates and superdelegates counting and not counting, why has nobody (at least to my knowledge) looked at how either Clinton or Obama performs against McCain in the crucial 15 swing states? Frankly speaking, isn't that really all that matters?

Like Kristen, I want a nominee that can win the GE -- the one that has a better odds at winning the swing states.  In my opinion, that candidate is Hillary Clinton.

People today can look for more and more information on the internet.  One sort of information political folks often want is how the candidates are doing in the electoral college.

MyDD's electoral maps purport to provide that information.  And they are cited regularly on this site.

It is an important service, well worth providing.

Yet there is very limited transparency when it comes to the information. No one can tell:
a) Whether the data is based on one poll or a poll average of some kind,
b) If it is a poll average, what particular polls are included and what rule is used to decide which polls remain in the average,
c) How recent the poll or polls are,
d) The trend from the last poll conducted by the same polling organization for that state,
e) The organizations that conducted the poll orpolls,
f) The sample size and margin of error for the poll,
g) Whether there are additional data, such as internals for the poll, that would shed light on the dynamics of the race, and
h) How recently a state's data and the electoral map as a while has been updated.

And, at the same time, the current maps have some very real discrepancies from what other, more transparent sites show. For example, realclearpolitics shows Obama over McCain in PA while MyDD does not, and realclearpolitics shows Clinton losing to McCain in Wisconsin while MyDD does not.

In my opinion, for the readers of MyDD to be able to use these data well in their discussions and analyses, more information is necessary.

Please vote in my poll to indicate whether you think more and more transparent information for those electoral votes maps would be of benefit.  

And, of course, discussion is most welcome. Perhaps we could convey to site administrators that we very much appreciate them posting the electoral vote maps, but also let them know what information would be most useful.