by miker2008, Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:29:59 PM EDT
Apologies if this has been posted already. I just saw it, and any case it's worth repeating as the DNC and MSM increase their frantic drumbeat to get Obama the nomination before everyone wakes up and smells the coffee.
If Democrats actually want to hold the White House (which historically, for Democrats, has never been entirely clear), then Gallup's article should give them pause:
by TCQuad, Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:17:30 PM EDT
I, the great Quadrino, shall now look into the crystal ball and... OK, I'm only marginally adequate with basic writing and really bad at sarcastically dramatic writing. But I'd like to talk about the current polling with regards to the general election.
As I mentioned previously, Kerry had a substantial electoral college lead, almost identical to Hillary's current lead, on this date four years ago. Arguments have been made that Clinton's lead is significant. But substantial movement from voters led to that-which-shall-not-be-named in 2004. What would happen if the same movement occurred today? Is Hillary Swift-Boat safe? What about Obama?
by thezzyzx, Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:36:47 AM EDT
Andrew Sullivan put up this map from May of 2004:
This is why electability arguments can only go so far. Look at that map and wonder how that happened. Ohio AND Florida should have gone to Kerry, let alone states like Nevada.
Polls in May can be used to create a valid argument, but even if you ignore reasons why Clinton might be polling better than Obama now, Obama would have to be around 100 EVs and Clinton at 400 for them to really spook superdelegates. Remember that they're the opposite of low information voters; they've seen this process many times before.
by TCQuad, Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:43:56 AM EDT
Recently, there's been a trend to argue that Hillary should receive the nomination due to the fact that she's more electable. She, in current polling, receives far more electoral votes. The path to the election, Clinton conventional wisdom goes, is a piece of cake.
As per my title, I disagree.
by TexasDarlin, Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:25:06 AM EDT
The Obama camp contends that Clinton's performance in the primaries is not indicative of her performance in the general election.
A new Gallup study suggests otherwise:
Swing states won by Clinton, excluding Florida and Michigan:
Swing states won by Clinton, including Florida and Michigan:
In the 20 states where Hillary Clinton has claimed victory in the 2008 Democratic primary and caucus elections (winning the popular vote), she has led John McCain in Gallup Poll Daily trial heats for the general election over the past two weeks of Gallup Poll Daily tracking by 50% to 43%. In those same states, Barack Obama is about tied with McCain among national registered voters, 45% to 46%.
In contrast, in the 28 states and the District of Columbia where Obama has won a higher share of the popular vote against Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primaries and caucuses, there is essentially no difference in how Obama and Clinton each fare against McCain. Both Democrats are statistically tied with him for the fall election.
The Gallup study directly supports Clinton's assertion that she will be a stronger general-election candidate against John McCain in crucial battleground states, based on her primary election performance. Obama, on other hand, cannot claim a similar advantage.Cross posted at TexasDarlin