Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

So I've updated Survey USA's Electoral College prediction based on updated results in 15 states.  The results:

Hillary Clinton 294
John McCain 231
Tie 13

John McCain 288
Barack Obama 238
Tie 12

Hillary vs McCain

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Obama vs McCain

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Based on "Electoral Math" by SUSA (Obama, Clinton) released March 6, 2008 and modified using updated results from 15 states released March 19 and 20. NB - the traditional definitions of "Red" and "Blue" are reversed.

Tags: 2008 Election; SurveyUSA, electoral college (all tags)



Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50
Can somebody send this to Pelosi???
It's the math!
by ProudMilitaryMom 2008-03-20 01:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

There's another math you need to pay attention to:

26 million votes already cast. Beats the 1200+ sample used by SUSA, don't you think?

by lizardbox 2008-03-20 02:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

The 26 million votes already cast have little or no bearing on what will happen in November.

by arkansasdemocrat 2008-03-20 05:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

But what 1200 people told SUSA in march does?

C'mon now

by JDF 2008-03-20 07:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

A poll of how the GENERAL population is going to vote does beat the results of how PRIMARY voters voted considering that we're talking about the general election.

Oh and the obvious fact that NO ONE has voted in a democrat versus republican match up yet, I'd consider this comprehensive data pretty important.

...it amazes me what i have to explain to some people sometimes

by world dictator 2008-03-21 05:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50
Isn't your camp going ape sh*t about counting Florida and Michigan? 26 million votes aren't important? What happened to voters' rights?
by lizardbox 2008-03-20 09:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

I think the commenter is referencing that the 26 million votes already cast are for the democratic nomination not the general election.

The different make up of the electorate and the different candidate matchups between the primary and the general election makes that the nomination results don't cross over as a prediction method for the general election.

The votes are extremely important. They just aren't suited to use a prediction method in the general.

Now these polls for the general still show wild swings and will probably differ a lot from what the final outcome will be but they are more suited to the actual subject of the diary.

please don't start arguments by misrepresenting positions just for the sake of fighting.

by Ernst 2008-03-21 03:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

Do you not get the difference between primary and general election polling and/or results?

by Thirsty Gator 2008-03-21 05:53AM | 0 recs

People still subscribe to and read the Literary Digest?

by Michael Bersin 2008-03-20 06:34PM | 0 recs
Re: What?

People still subscribe to and read the Literary Digest?

Hahahaha. Landon '36!!!

by RP McMurphy 2008-03-21 12:48PM | 0 recs
Didn't those 26 million votes

include more than a few Republicans trying to game our primaries?

by georgiapeach 2008-03-21 07:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Didn't those 26 million votes

only the Republican crossovers who voted for Hillary were trying to game our primaries.

The Republican crossovers that voted for Obama in states like Idaho and Utah are sincere Obama voters who deliver thoise states in November.

I am being sarcastic.  I think a lot of those Obama votes were just about as sincere as Hillary votes. No easy way to fix this unless all primaries are closed primaries.

by WolfmanJack 2008-03-21 08:37AM | 0 recs
Phew! Thanks for making it clear

that you were being sarcastic. I thought you were, and I hoped that you were, but I have run across Obama supporters who really do believe that with all their heart.

by georgiapeach 2008-03-21 05:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Didn't those 26 million votes

Weren't there subsequent Democratic voters in later States that would be discouraged from voting for Hillary, on the basis of this Limbaugh scam?  Do you seriously believe that Limbaugh has had any other goal, than to discourage votes for Hillary, in telling some republicans to vote for her.  I'm flabbergasted at the abysmal ignorance of some democrats, that would allow themselves to  believe that Limbaugh is being "honest" with us.  This junkie is the incarnation of deceit and corruption.  If he told republicans to vote for Hillary, that's a sure sign, that democrats should vote for her; because his "intention" is to discourage democrats from voting for her, or is that not obvious?  If he wanted democrats to vote for Hillary, he would have allowed the process to take place, without injecting his polluted agenda into it.  "How can I reduce Hillary's votes?"  It's obvious.  All I need to do is appear to support her candidacy, make damn sure that media are fully aware that I'm pulling this scam, so that it will be widely publicized.  Mission accomplished.

by johncp 2008-03-24 03:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

and all of the supers, too.

by Rumarhazzit 2008-03-20 07:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

Huh, funny how when the same poll a few weeks ago had Obama way ahead of Clinton versus McCain none of you were making this kind of noise.

by TheSilverMonkey 2008-03-21 06:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

No.  This diary is based on that SurveyUSA information.  When it was released, Obama was 280-258 over McCain while Hillary was 276-262 vs. McCain.  This diary takes all that information and updates it in the 15 states that have had subsequent head-to-head polls done by Survey USA.

This very diary requires the validity of that set of polls as its starting point.

by DaveOinSF 2008-03-21 06:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

I don't see how you say no, considering my point is the same. When these numbers first came out, none of you said that was it for Hillary or gave them any real credence. But, when they're going your way after a few weeks of bad news, suddenly they are hugely important. Reminds me a lot of Mark Penn, who a few weeks ago was talking about how meaningless polls are, and recently cherry picked the most inaccurate polls, which happen to be favorable to Hillary, to say she's winning. Here's a bit of news: once a single candidate is picked for the Dem nom, after a month or so of griping, we'll all probably get back together and realize what a disaster John McCain would be for this country and rally around the winner. Most of these number discrepancies are just bitter supporters who prefer one candidate to the other and feel the need to insert undue vitriol into this thing.

by TheSilverMonkey 2008-03-21 09:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

What are you talking about it?  When the earlier  SUSA data came out it showed Hillary and Obama performing equally well against McCain (Obama with 4 EVs more than Hillary).  Why would anyone in their right mind think that that result would indicate that "that was it" for Hillary?

Now, with a little bit of time, things have moved decively in Hillary's favor to the point that she's doing over a 110EVs better vs McCain than Obama is.  That's significant.  

by DaveOinSF 2008-03-21 10:00AM | 0 recs
But Obama has won the nomination.

Your post is meaningless.

by cypruspoint 2008-03-21 08:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

Your colors are so 1976!

New Hampshire deciding the election as I don't think Hillary will carry Florida.

by mikelow1885 2008-03-20 01:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

Clinton would definetly carry Flordia.  There are other states she may not.  Unlike Kerry and Gore, the demographics really support her in Flordia, and the Democrats in that state do as well.

by njc2b5 2008-03-20 02:33PM | 0 recs
Florida DemVoters Disgruntled

McCain leads both Clinton (nearly 3 pts) and Obama (nearly 7 pts) in latest polling.  This in a state where Clinton was once upon a time leading over all Republicans.

by Limelite 2008-03-20 08:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

Clinton will not carry Florida.  That state is trending red.  Just look at the 2006 governor results.  In a good Democratic year, our candidate still lost the open seat by seven points.  

by Toddwell 2008-03-20 09:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

No it isn't.  Yes, Florida Democrats actually think Charlie Crist a more liberal politician than they did the Blue Dog type Democrat who ran, and generally believe the better and more desirable of the two won.

Crist has done something no other Republican has- he wanted to reverse the vote disenfranchisement of all people who have completed their sentences for felony convictions.  Other Republicans have limited him to only restoring the vote to about 2/3 of the elegible population- about 600,000 of over 900,000.  And the process is being footdragged to death bureaucratically (only 35,000 have gotten their right restored so far).  But it's a start at dealing with Florida's greatest travesty of law.

Democrats have net picked up either three or four state House seats in the past year and a half out of seven or eight.  The US House races have seen Democratic vote percentages bottom out in 2002 and climb in 2004 and more in 2006.  (See, for example, Florida-13.)  Basically, Florida does fit the 1% per year national Democratic trend in the country as a whole.  It's confused a bit by the slowing dying out of the substantial number of conservative white Southern Democrats- who I don't count in, since they vote Republican whenever it matters.

Democratic shift is just relatively unevenly distributed in the state.  It's happening unobtrusively along the southeast coast and more prominently in an arc along the center of the Gulf coast and then the goes inland roughly to Orlando and the I-4 corridor.  (The I-4 Corridor is roughly where Southern white agricultural settlement ended, thinning out into cattle ranching south of Ocala, at the time of the Civil War.)  Tampa Bay/Sarasota/Clearwater to Orlando to the Space Coast.

2008 predicts to a 51/48 Democratic lean.  It would be 1-2% better if the ex-felon reenfranchisement weren't being logjammed or INS weren't slow-walking Hispanic citizenship applications, but such it is.

by killjoy 2008-03-20 09:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Change in Florida

Very nice round-up of reasons for optimism in Florida.

Somebody else sure thinks there's change in the wind in Florida: That list of targeted races released by the DCCC the other day has eight, count 'em, 8, Repub-held House seats in Florida, more than Ohio or any other state.

Of course, three of those involve Cuban-Americans in Miami-Dade districts. There's good evidence that younger voters in that community are more independent and even more Democratic, while their parent's and grandparent's generations were hard line Repubs.

The older refugees who had supported the Batista dictatorship are dying off as fast as those Dixiecrat Dems in the Panhandle who had left our party to vote for Strom Thurmond, George Wallace, Ronald Reagan, and George Bush. This year, if 5% or 10% of the Cubanos switch over to the Democrats, that will give us more House members and help us win the state's electoral votes as well.

by Woody 2008-03-21 11:45AM | 0 recs
she'll carry if if you count our damn votes!

by campskunk 2008-03-20 03:46PM | 0 recs
Sigh...it doesnt even look like a hanging chad

and yet it wont be counted.  Please sign this petition to get your vote counted  seatourdelegates.com

by Sandy1938 2008-03-20 06:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

When Florida voted, if I am not mistaken, Hillary got more votes without campaigning than all of the Republicans got put together.  I think there is no doubt that Hillary will win Florida in the general election.

by macmcd 2008-03-20 03:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

You are mistaken.  Florida seems to be one of the only (if not the only) state where more Rs voted than Ds.  Ten seconds over at Google will yield:

In the last Florida GOP contest in 2000, 700,000 Republicans voted. This year, about 1.9 million did. Democratic turnout was also up dramatically from 2000 and 2004, with at least 1.7 million voting on that side.

And, Florida has a strong statewide R record, so it's foolish for you to have no doubts.

by 1jpb 2008-03-20 08:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

Anyone know why so few democrats voted in FL?


by grover738 2008-03-20 09:30PM | 0 recs
Property tax measure was on ballot

Nothing brings out Republicans like  the opportunity to vote against taxes. Also the Republican side was still hotly contested.

And it wasn't few democrats, it was still a large turnout.

by ineedalife 2008-03-21 03:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

Well, she didn't "campaign"

But she came into Florida to raise money plenty of times.

And then she flew into Florida to acknowledge that the vote that was not going to count went her way. Suprisingly, right after the polls closed.

Hillary Clinton (who I will support if she is the nominee) has been gaming the Florida and Michigan fiascos since day 1.  Michigan did not have a real contest.  As soon as Obama passed her in the delegate count after winning in all the primaries and caucuses that obeyed the rules; Clinton started in with "I'm shocked and appallled that FL and MI are not going to count"   Well thats been a fact since Day One and She's been planning to play this angle since Day One

That being said --- Howard Dean is the big screw-uo here.  He should have made it clear to HRC after she flew in after the primary that she was breaking the rules

You can't win something that does not count; You cannot declare victory in a contest that was not sanctioned and You cannot thank people for voting for you when their vote was meaningless

by kmwray 2008-03-21 06:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

"You can't win something that does not count; You cannot declare victory in a contest that was not sanctioned and You cannot thank people for voting for you when their vote was meaningless[.]"

And those rules are written where exactly?  As an Edwards backer, I still thought she did the RIGHT thing for going to FL after the primary and thanking the Dems who voted.  Edwards and Obama should have done the same thing, if only to say, "It isn't YOUR fault your State party broke the rules.  We hope you'll stil support the Dem nominee come fall."

by howie14 2008-03-21 07:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

Nonsense.  When Hillary initially disavowed the Florida/Michigan vote, she didn't need them, and said so.  She didn't appreciate the media hit she'd be taking, once media realized that they weren't going to destroy her campaign, unless they assaulted and demeaned her with twice the fury to which they were accustomed to attacking her.  They would also simultaneously have to give Obama, the near universally acknowledged "free pass," he would get.  The world has changed since that situation existed.  Now the race is essentially an extremely close one, and any extra votes are also essential.  There is nothing the least bit dishonest or unususal about Hillary stating that we need the results in Florida and Michigan, because "the race is close."  

Whether Forida and Michigan are allowed to count their votes is not a legalistic matter, it's purely political.  Otherwise, why were we all waiting for the results of the dispute that was going on between legislators and politicians, candidates and their supporters, about what should be done about a re-vote, etc.?  We were waiting because it wasn't a foregone conclusion that FLorida/Michigan would go a certain way.  Clinton appears to have lost this game, for no other reason, than that the people in power, able to direct the outcome, reasoned that it was in Obama's favor to disallow and disenfranchise the voters in those two critical States.

by johncp 2008-03-24 04:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

If the primary fiasco isn't fixed you can bet Florida will be in the McCain column.

by Thirsty Gator 2008-03-21 05:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

I would have been anyway.  

by Toddwell 2008-03-21 10:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

It would have been anyway.  

by Toddwell 2008-03-21 10:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

Hi, thanks for the maps. Dem states should be blue and Rep red. That is the current generally used arrangement.

by DaleA 2008-03-20 02:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

"There are no Red States, There are no Blue States"

Well that's what Barack Obama once told me.

by DaveOinSF 2008-03-20 02:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

He also told me: "There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America -- there's the United States of America."

by observer11 2008-03-21 09:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

Obama will not lose MN, MA and NJ. Mark my word.
Obama path is to win CO, IA and gain VA. That is all he has to do.

Obama will come out of this crisis stronger. He is fully vetted now.
He has shown he is calm and collected under pressure. He has debunked the muslim smear lie. The pastor issue which was bubbling under the surface is now open and people will move on from it.

Come October we can flood the market with Hagee and McCain together as a counter to their swiftboating.

by ListenNOW 2008-03-20 02:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

Obama will lose NJ,MA,CT & PA.

It won't even be close!

You are so out of touch with reality.

My folks still live in NJ. My spouse is from MA.

NJ,MA,PA are three of the eight largest population states  with white reagan democratic voters.

by libdemusa 2008-03-20 02:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

You think Obama is going to lose MA, CT, and NJ while accusing someone else of being out of touch with reality? Wow.

by grover738 2008-03-20 06:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

Hillary will never carry Wisconsin.  And I doubt that she will carry Washington St. or even Oregon.

by Delver Rootnose 2008-03-20 09:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

CT re-elected Joe Lieberman. Yes, I do believe Obama will lose CT.

by Thirsty Gator 2008-03-21 05:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50
libdemusa, I can't tell you about NJ or MA because I don't have folks living there or a spouse from either state like you do, but I live in CT and I can tell you outright that the idea that Obama willl lose CT is not worth the type that it's written in.

Here is the Rasmussen Reports November matchup for Obama and McCain for March 15, before the Wright controversy blew out, with Obama leading McCain by 12 points in CT.

And here is the Rasmussen Reports November matchup for both for Massachussetts for March 20.

Plus you gotta consider the primaries popular vote numbers with which Obama and McCain carried CT respectively.

Mind you, none of this early projection that's 8 months out really means anything. When the Democrats finally get behind a single nominee, then we can begin to call the states. Right now these "Sorry Obama" calls are simply nothing but pathetic wishful thinking. I think Democrats generally ought to begin to move away from all this negativity.

by Olu Oguibe 2008-03-20 11:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50
Hold on....Obama will note take Massachusetts..
I am a long time Massachusetts residence and I can assure you, he will not take it...not after his "twin" Gov. Duval Patrick is doing such a horrible job...he'll be a one term Governor..
I dare say the residence of Massachusetts are learning that they have been "bamboozled"
by Patriot2008 2008-03-20 04:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50
Jack and Booby will both turn over in their graves BEFORE McCain beats either Clinton OR Obama.  
Your delusional if you think otherwise.
by stryan 2008-03-20 08:12PM | 0 recs
How old are you?

Reagan won there. He won every state but Minnesota. If the Reagan Democrats go for McCain we will see a similar landslide.

I lived in Wisconsin in 1984 and did phone calls for Mondale. It was amazing to hear people who whole-heartedly supported our very liberal congressman and enthusiastically supported Reagan at the same time. Ideology means nothing in such an election.

by ineedalife 2008-03-21 03:27AM | 0 recs
Re: How old are you?

I dont disagree with MA voting for a REPUB.  But - remember, the REPUB tangibles in this cycle favor the DEM candidate, regardless if it is Obama or Clinton.  Unpopular war, bad economy, a 'hawk' REPUB candidate ... the list goes on, and mostly favors the alternative candidate.  Just look at how many REPUBs are retiring, what over 30 this cycle? That is a huge number, and shows the public what REPUBs are thinking of their chances in November.  Mind you, I still dont think it is a slam dunk the DEMS win the WH, but - we certainly are favorites.  

by stryan 2008-03-21 09:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

You mean you HOPE he is fully vetted. I'm sure you thought that before the Rev. Wright tapes came out. Hannity is already bragging about all the other things he hasn't brought out yet about him. Could be smoke. But you don't know.

by CognitiveDissonance 2008-03-20 09:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

"He (Obama) is fully vetted now(?)"  He's fully vetted....my ass.  

Now that Obama has gotten a smidgen of the abuse to which Hillary has constantly been exposed, from all directions, in all shapes and forms, in media, you want the nominating process to stop, because you fear, if a little more of the downside of Obama's past and present, are known, he's history.  Richardson, that pathetic goof, a man with 10 times as much ambition, as he has intelligence, just came out and said the same garbage.  To paraphrase, he said, "It's time for us to stop bickering, and get behind our nominee; we shouldn't allow this Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton stuff to go on."  To see a Governor use such pitful bullshit to advace his case, is disgusting, when all he was really saying was, that now that he had endorsed that candidate that he calculated had the best chance of making him VP, he wanted everyone to shut up now, and go home.

by johncp 2008-03-24 04:20PM | 0 recs

These polls are wacked.

Obama is going to win North Dakota and Iowa but somehow LOSE Minnesota? Over my dead Lutheran body.

Obama will win VA but lose in PA, NJ, and tie in MA?

Hillary loses Michigan but ties in VA?

Yeah, we should forward these polls to Pelosi. Maybe she needs a good laugh.

Hillary brings two states that Obama doesn't - WV and AR. Obama brings CO, IA, MO, NH, 2 cd's in NE, and makes VA, NC, and MT competitive. He's a map changer. Her map looks like the past two elections.  

by grover738 2008-03-20 02:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Hilarious

Let's not forget OH.

by ejintx 2008-03-20 02:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Hilarious

I think either one of them will win it, but her winning OH and him losing it is within the realm of possibility. The ones I listed are flat out rediculous.

by grover738 2008-03-20 02:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Hilarious

Oh and Florida, my mistake.

by ejintx 2008-03-20 02:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Hilarious

Pelosi is crying right now for speaking out too soon for Obama. Someone might have called her white grandmother:-)

by Sandeep 2008-03-20 02:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Hilarious


good one....."white grandmother"

by Patriot2008 2008-03-20 04:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Hilarious

AND - MN went for Obama 67-32 over Clinton, has the endorsement of 5 of 6 democratic representatives, but she's going to win the state over McCain and he's going to lose. Please.

by grover738 2008-03-20 06:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Hilarious

That was a caucus wasn't it? We aren't having a national caucus in Nov. remember?

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-20 06:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Hilarious

Right, forgot that we don't count. Sorry. I should have been able to tell by the fact that Obama won the state.

Who won in Nevada?

by grover738 2008-03-20 07:04PM | 0 recs
Then why does he lose the MN poll now?

200,000 showed up to caucus in a state of over 5 million.  Plus, MN, like many other places may now be having buyers remorse.

by lombard 2008-03-20 07:21PM | 0 recs
Minnesotans for Obama

Nope, we still love Barry.

by jdusek 2008-03-20 07:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Then why does he lose the MN poll now?

So you're obviously implying that HRC has more support than the caucus shows.

Why can't Hillary get people to show up to caucuses? If they can't show up to caucus, are you sure they'll show up in the general?

by grover738 2008-03-20 09:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Then why does he lose the MN poll now?

it's kind of like school board elections which religious conservatives dominate - they do that because only a tiny fraction of the electorate bothers to show up.  In Minnesota, for example, about as many people showed up to caucus in Minnesota (72 pledged delegates) as who came to vote in Rhode Island (21 delegates).  In Alaska, only 9000 peoeple showed up at all - less than 10% of the people who voted for John Kerry in 2004.  Contrast that with Florida (which Obama and Howard Dean say shouldn't count), where 50% of the people who voted for Kerry showed up.

by DaveOinSF 2008-03-21 07:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Then why does he lose the MN poll now?

I agree that the ratio of participants:delgates is lower in caucus states.

This country is run by those that show up.

Once again, why can't Hillary get people out to caucus?

And when has Obama said that FL shouldn't count? Can you give me a link to a quote please?

by grover738 2008-03-21 08:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Then why does he lose the MN poll now?

Hillary got lots of people to caucuses.  Obama got more.  Obama has a larger share of the political activist class.

by DaveOinSF 2008-03-21 10:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Then why does he lose the MN poll now?

You really don't get it, do you? A large percentage of Hillary supporters are NOT 9 to 5 workers, that have evenings and weekends off and that have the TIME to caucus. What is WITH you folks that can't seem to understand that?

Primaries, where there is an entire day or days to vote, where you won't be bullied by more aggressive people, and where you have PRIVACY to cast your vote, are far more democratic.

Caucuses are NOT democratic, in any way shape or form. I would HATE to have to caucus, for all the reasons stated above. In our state, we had a primary that lasted for almost a week, all day long. No lines, no going out in bad weather, no intimidation. Just pick your best time of day, your best day, and vote privately.

by splashy 2008-03-21 03:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Then why does he lose the MN poll now?

Back up your statements. Show me the data that says a larger percentage of HRC supporters are not 9-5ers  than Obama supporters. Lots of Obama supporters are young, and many young people work service industry jobs. Service industry jobs are not 9-5 jobs.

I know that what you wrote is the official excuse for HRC's underperforming in caucuses. I think it is because her support, outside of the diehards who post on blogs, are not committed enough to make arrangements to get to the caucuses.

Have you ever caucused? You sit with your neighbors and talk politics and candidates. You get recruited to volunteer for the democratic party. You hear speeches from local D's running for local offices. You meet your local leadership. You find out who the dems are in town. There was no intimidation.

by grover738 2008-03-21 10:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Then why does he lose the MN poll now?

No intimidation? To me, not having a private vote is intimidation.

There are lots of people who vote that don't WANT to HAVE to sit and talk with others about voting. I certainly don't.

I like the way we do it here in Arkansas. You have a week, don't have to wait in line, don't have to talk to anyone about your vote, and can pick a good day instead of having to hang around for hours on a certain day with a bunch of other people with whom you may not want to have to hang around.

by splashy 2008-03-23 10:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Then why does he lose the MN poll now?

To add to my previous post, what you describe sounds like a nightmare to me and my spouse.

by splashy 2008-03-23 10:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Then why does he lose the MN poll now?

You can easily hide who you're voting for if you want to. Even if it was impossible to hide your selection, how could being around supporters of other candidates be intimidating? I proudly support Barack Obama, but have no problem with HRC.

And if didn't have to talk with your democratic neighbors if you didn't want to. You can actually just show up, vote, and leave if you want to, and leave the strengthening of the Democratic Party to the rest of us.

by grover738 2008-03-26 10:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Then why does he lose the MN poll now?

Doesn't sound like it to me, by the descriptions from people that have caucused.

I much prefer our primaries here in Arkansas. We have almost a week, all day long. Our general elections are the same.

Who'd a thought that supposedly backwards Arkansas has a better system than so many other states? We are usually at the bottom of the barrel on everything else, but we are thoroughly democratic when it comes to voting. We are a definite swing state too, a little oasis of liberalism in the middle of a right wing sea.

by splashy 2008-03-28 10:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Then why does he lose the MN poll now?

Why can't Hillary's people show up at the caucuses?  Probably because most of them are adults, that have families to take care of, jobs to do; or older people that have difficulty hangin' out at the caucus rooms, man!

by johncp 2008-03-24 04:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Then why does he lose the MN poll now?

You just described me (adult, 3 kids, job), but I showed up, because supporting Obama was important enough to me to make sure I made arrangements to be there.

The caucuses were scheduled months in advance.

Hillary's lack of caucus support is due to a lack of enthusiasm amoung her supporters.

As for the old people, they were the ones there 30 minutes before it started, and who found it quite easy to "hang out" in the room.  

by grover738 2008-03-26 10:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Hilarious

Obama puts TX in play. Not enough that he'll carry it, most likely, but enough that McCain is actually going to have to work here, campaigning, spending money and time.

McCain will probably win but I doubt my more than a few points.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-20 06:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Hilarious

And Obama also puts MA into play and he'll have to spend time and money there trying to keep that state blue.

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-20 07:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Hilarious

Do you honestly believe that MA is in play? Honestly? I know it helps you make an argument, but really. MA is not in play.

by grover738 2008-03-20 07:06PM | 0 recs
Reagan won MA twice

And they don't like Deval Patrick - Obama Jr.

by lombard 2008-03-20 07:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Reagan won MA twice

Do you have any evidence of this supposed hatred of Deval Patrick?

I mean I know he isn't the best Governor of all time but unless you have some polling that shows he is so hated it smacks of, what is at best, wishful thinking on your part.

by JDF 2008-03-20 07:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Reagan won MA twice

I agree, the guy has been in office for about a year, give him a little time.

And, he's dealing with the Romneycare mandate mess, and the Romney budget mess.

by 1jpb 2008-03-20 08:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Reagan won MA twice

and nothing's changed in twenty years, not demographics, not politics, not the Iraq War....

by BlueinColorado 2008-03-20 07:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Reagan won MA twice

Obama Jr.?  Sounds like you think those guys have something in common.  Oh, right....

by haystax calhoun 2008-03-20 08:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Reagan won MA twice

Obama and Patrick have many similarities.  Each has based his campaign on a theme of "hope", managed by David Axelrod, and Obama copies Patrick's speeches.

by DaveOinSF 2008-03-21 10:08AM | 0 recs

Has 47% approval, 45% disapproval, according to a mid feb poll by survey usa.

by grover738 2008-03-20 09:26PM | 0 recs
Hmm..He lost the TX primary but it's in play?

by lombard 2008-03-20 07:22PM | 0 recs
Obama does not put TX in play

There was one poll (by SUSA) that showed Obama doing better in the state than Clinton; every other poll showed the opposite. But regardless, it's not in play with either candidate. It's especially not in play with a candidate who's not particularly popular with Hispanics and does terribly with Southern whites. Of course, it'll be closer than the '00 and '04 margins - I'd guess 9-12-point McCain victory.

I live in North Texas, and I'd love to see a Democrat win the state this time. But it's not happening this year and definitely not with Obama (especially post-Wright).

by Shawn 2008-03-20 07:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Hilarious

The SUSA Texas data included in this calculation show:

McCain 49 Hillary 43
McCain 49 Obama 41

by DaveOinSF 2008-03-21 10:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Wow

Just wow. The most famous woman in America, if not the most famous woman in the entire Spanish-speaking and English-speaking world, gets exactly two, count 'em, 2, percentage points more in the SUSA poll than junior Senator and near-stranger, Barack Obama.

As a Texan, I'd love to see the state in play. My hunch: It's a long shot for Obama, and a sure non-starter for Hillary. Why a non-starter for Hillary? Because the Clintons write off Texas, they don't plan to win it, while Obama has been playing a 50-state strategy and winning by doing it.

Back in October of 1992, so the story has been told, the Bill Clinton campaign decided to pull the plug on Texas -- go dark on TV, move all staff to other "battleground" states. Governor Ann Richards called up her friend, to plead that the state was winnable against a divided opposition of G.H.W. Bush and Ross Perot. She warned Clinton that conceding the state would demoralize and weaken the party in future elections. But Clinton wrote off Texas, and lost by  214,256 votes out of 6, 154,018 cast. In 1994 Ann Richards lost by 334,066 votes to George W. Bush.

This year we can nominate a candidate who plans to campaign in Texas as if he could win it, or choose one who plans to write it off. I think we are more likely to carry the state with the one who plans to make it part of his campaign effort.

by Woody 2008-03-21 12:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Wow

Believe whatever you want to believe.  I just thought data would help better inform your assumptions.

by DaveOinSF 2008-03-21 12:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Wow

I did take note of the data you presented. Wow. Hillary gets two, count 'em, 2 percentage points more than Obama in the poll you rely on to assert that Hillary is more likely to win Texas. But as others have pointed out, 2% is within the margin of error for all these polls. So the data on Hillary's lead that you celebrate on your maps in living hues of red and blue leads me to this conclusion: Big f***ing deal. That was my point that you seem to want to miss.

by Woody 2008-03-21 05:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Wow

I do not celebrate Hillary's 2% improved showing in Texas vs. McCain as compared to Barack.  I agree that it is irrelevant.

I do, however, seek to educate you that there is no evidence that Barack Obama "Puts Texas into play".  That's just BS.

by DaveOinSF 2008-03-21 06:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Wow

Just to further clarify, I do not believe I have anywhere asserted that Hillary would be more likely to win Texas.  My purpose with the Texas data was to refute your assertion that Obama "Puts Texas into play".

As for the rest of the diary, I think it speaks for itself.  Among Bush 2004 States, Hillary is leading in  Arkanasa, West Virginia, Ohio, Florida while  Obama is not.  Among Red States, Obama is more likely to win Colorado, Iowa, North Dakota, Virginia and 2 CDs in Nebraska while Hillary is not.  Hillary's group of states has a lot more EVs than does Obama's.

Among Kerry states, Obama is losing (or tied) in Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey and Pennsylvania while Hillary is not.  Hillary is losing in Michigan and New Hampshire while Obama is not.

by DaveOinSF 2008-03-21 06:26PM | 0 recs

Bill Clinton campaigned in Texas right up until Election Day '92.

I'm sure the campaign diverted funds to other states when the national race tightened up at the end (there was a Bush "surge" about a week before the election). Obama or any candidate would make the same decision. If you'd like to win TX, but you need to win PA, to which are you going to devote more resources? I think it's obvious. Remember, absent the butterfly ballot, Bush would've blown the 2000 election by taking a premature "victory lap" through California and New Jersey.

Again, I don't think either would be particularly competitive. But I think the candidate more likely to win is the one who has a large following among Hispanics (and can motivate them to vote, as seen in the primary) and doesn't completely alienate moderate-to-conservative yellow-dogs.

by Shawn 2008-03-21 01:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Hilarious

Over my Lutheran dead body?  I love that comment, dont be surprised if you see it again ... plagiarized by me.  =)  

by stryan 2008-03-21 09:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

Utah?  South Carolina?  Are you serious?  Or am I looking at the map wrong...

by jarhead5536 2008-03-20 02:14PM | 0 recs

Red = Democrat
Blue = Republican

This is the way they do it on the Leip atlas site.

by Shawn 2008-03-20 02:15PM | 0 recs
colors switched...

takes some getting used to. Amazing how the typical red/blue is drilled into our brains.

by grover738 2008-03-20 02:15PM | 0 recs
Re: colors switched...

I agree:-) I was like wow we are getting Texas, etc and was excited for a sec and then noticed we are losing CA and NY and reality dawned on me. Sighs:-)

by Sandeep 2008-03-20 02:18PM | 0 recs
Switch to Decaf

Tune in after Labor Day. We might have a  candidate by then. Hopefully.

by LibDem 2008-03-20 02:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

This is really important information that all super delegates need to understand.  Thank you for this excellent diary.  Recommended.

by macmcd 2008-03-20 04:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

Actually, it's not very good info.

When I went to the Survey USA data I didn't see all these contests, some of these estimates must be old or they're from somewhere unspecified.  Also, many of these states are called even if the data shows a single point spread (well within the margin of error.)

If you care about meaningful information this diary is not useful because it is manipulated information.  If you care manipulation, then I can see why you would think this is an excellent diary.  Whatever floats your boat, I guess.

by 1jpb 2008-03-20 08:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

Ver good!

Highly Recommended!

by MediaFreeze 2008-03-20 05:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

Here are better quality pictures. The only discrepancies is Nebraska, where Obama wins 2 electoral votes according to Survey USA.

by RJEvans 2008-03-20 05:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

How many of these polls were taken post Wright? Even before Wright, Obama was a weak GE candidate. It seems to have only gotten worse.

If he keeps on like he has, he's going to drag the whole party down to a massive defeat that we might as well not even run a presidential candidate.

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-20 06:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

AL, CA, IA, KS, KY, MA, MN, MO, NM, NY, OH, OR, VA, WA, WI were polled March 14-16.

by RJEvans 2008-03-20 06:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

Here are the real colors, per the 2004 and 2006 elections:
http://florida-delegates.com/elect-col.x ls

She is definitely winning in the blue states and even winning in the purple states.  Remember, we get to count Florida and Michigan in the general election!  And, there are NO CAUCUSES to contend with.  She is a 'shoo-in'.

Take Care, Sharon

by lanesharon 2008-03-20 06:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

Too bad the MSM has not ONCE reported this. THANKS

by IndyRobin 2008-03-20 07:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

This map hasn't been reported because it is an exercise in manipulation rather than information.

A substantial number of these called states are within the margin of error, some with only a one point spread.  This means that these results   indicate the state is just as likely to go to the candidate who is polling slightly lower.

Also, I went to the SurveyUSA website, and I don't see very many of the fifty states with recent data.   The diarist doesn't specify the times, spreads, and margins for most of these polls. So, it is silly to suggest this diarist is providing scientifically meaningful survey data.

by 1jpb 2008-03-20 08:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

The map just gives us a rough sense of where the head-to-head matchups stand at this point in time.  It should be taken with several grains of salt, but its still meaningful and important information as long as its interpreted correctly.  Don't be so quick to dismiss something just because you don't like it.

It also should be noted that when the first wave of this stuff came out (which tended to slightly favor Obama), these maps were referenced across the blogosphere by pro-Obama folks as suggesting his greater electability.  

Speaking of interpreting these results correctly, your claim that results within margin of error indicate that the state is equally likely to go to both candidates is flat out wrong.

by Fuzzy Dunlop 2008-03-21 04:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

The previous maps had shading variations that showed where the data was weak.  

Actually, being within the margin of error does mean that neither outcome is more likely than the other.  You don't need to take the statistics classes required for a Chemical Engineering degree (any basic statistic knowledge will do) to know this, but it doesn't hurt, as I can testify to.

by 1jpb 2008-03-21 10:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

So Clinton can't win without Florida? Florida: 15/25 CDs are Republican; the Florida state co-chairs of her campaign are afraid to campaign against Republicans; old people; retired military; Joe Lieberman will be campaigning a lot harder for McCain than he ever did for Al Gore; Pensecola....

by BlueinColorado 2008-03-20 07:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

I don't even think  BO wins MI after the latest snub. He'll never win in the general. We need Hillary if people are serious about wanting to end the war in Iraq.

by seattlegonz 2008-03-20 07:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

You are crazy if you think Hillary will end the war in Iraq.  She is playing you guys for suckers.  

by Toddwell 2008-03-20 09:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

Samantha Powers.

by RJEvans 2008-03-20 09:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

That's your comeback?  I just want to let you know what a Hillary Clinton administration will look like.  She will govern in a center-right fashion, appeasing the right at every step by passing strict immigration limitations and backpeddling getting out of a Iraq.  She will pretty much be our version of Richard Nixon, someone who destroyed their own party just so they could personally gain.  

by Toddwell 2008-03-20 09:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

You are just wrong. Hillary is actually much more progressive than Bill -- look at her record and you can see it if you look past your prejudices. Her agenda has always been for economic equality and she's been accomplishing it bit by bit.

by seattlegonz 2008-03-20 10:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

She will govern by the polls.  Watch for her to sign a partial birth abortion ban and strict immigration enforcements.  

by Toddwell 2008-03-20 10:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

Both candidates are somewhat cautious and center left.

Both Clinton and Obama have shown little inclination to go against opinion polls on most issues.

However both have impeccable pro-choice records.

keeping it believable wil help you convince more people.

by Ernst 2008-03-21 04:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

You guys crack me up. The thing is -- you can look at Hillary's record and see where she stands. She has always stood up for women's rights and she isn't going to change that now. You're statement is completely false and absurd. If she were going to govern by polls she wouldn't have pushed so hard for universal health when it wasn't popular. She fighting to implement an agenda that will help keep people in their homes, healthy and with good jobs and good income. It's been her "nefarious" plan all along.

by seattlegonz 2008-03-22 09:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

"She will govern in a center-right fashion, appeasing the right at every step by passing strict immigration limitations and backpeddling getting out of a Iraq. "

You are completely wrong, and have absolutely nothing to back up your claims. Obama's advisors are center-right, in favor of market solutions to health care, credit, housing, and all other domestic issues. That is the basis of his "bipartisan - let's all get along" approach to governance.

Maybe he will be a little less in favor of "reaching out to the other side" now that they are unleashing their dogs on him to destroy him, as they have done to all Democrats, especially the Clintons, for so many years now.

by 07rescue 2008-03-20 11:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

You tell me how Obama's advisors are center-right.  He's not the one with Lanny Davis, who supported Joe Lieberman even after he decided to leave the Democratic party in the 2006 Senate race, all over the news bashing Obama.  

by Toddwell 2008-03-21 12:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

His economic team favors traditional center right policy.

Both candidates have questionable advisors, just as they both have some very good ones.

Arguing who's better in that regard is an arguing minutea.

by Ernst 2008-03-21 04:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50
I think this is an exercise in futility.  The graphics are nice, good comments ... but, team, we are 8 months from the GE.  As we have seen with high priced hookers and crazy preachers, campaigns turn on a dime.  Wait until McCain has another Alzheimer moment after the DEMs finish their primary...
Both Obama AND Clinton can win this GE.  
by stryan 2008-03-20 08:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

They have McCain up 1 point in Minnesota, I think we might be getting a little ahead of ourselves putting that one in McCain's total. Obama wins that and Mass as well.

by AllergicToBS 2008-03-20 08:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

Agreed - NJ going to McCain?  C'mon - I have a bridge I want to sell SOMEONE on this string.   I need the money.  
This is what happens when the DEM primary gets ugly.  From Ras. Reports today ...
On Thursday, Barack Obama's favorable ratings are unchanged for the third straight day--48% favorable, 49% unfavorable.
McCain is viewed favorably by 53% of voters nationwide and unfavorably by 43%.
For Clinton, those numbers are 43% favorable, 55% unfavorable.

55% unfavorable for Hillary?   I hate polls, completely useless ... 8 months before a GE.  But 55%  AINT going to convince the SD's she will help down-ticket ...  I think the Electoral Map exercise is a bit premature ...

by stryan 2008-03-20 08:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

Sorry -
But these maps are just sooooooo wrong.
It's like writing a novel by committee.

1) First, if Massachusetts is a toss-up, then the Dems better get ready to move to Canada because it's gonna be a long night.  There's something wrong with SUSA polls when they have Mass a toss-up for Obama, but Virginia a sure thing.  Massachusetts has been one of the most consistently Democratic states for the past 80 years.  Virginia hasn't voted Democratic since dirt was invented.

2) There is little reason to believe that Clinton would lose Michigan while Obama would win it - esp. given each candidate's core demographics.  Michigan has voted Dem in the past four presidential elections.  For a Dem to win, he/she needs and will get Michigan.

3) Same goes for Obama and Minnesota.  Yes , Minnesota hasn't gone as strongly Dem as in the past, but it will surely go Democratic in a close race - certainly more so than North Dakota!?!?!  I can't believe that SUSA gives Obama N.D. and two districts in Nebraska, but doesn't give him Minnesota.

4) New Hampshire and New Jersey.  Given the huge shift in state government and congressional representation from GOP to Dem in New Hampshire, it is doubtful that Clinton would lose NH.  Likewise, it is doubtful that Obama would lose New Jersey unless the Dems get skunked - NJ has gone Dem the past 4 elections.

5) Obama may actually do better with "New" Dems in the West and Clinton may do better with "Old" Dems in Penna and Ohio.

That comes to:

Clinton - 305
McCain - 233

Obama - 270
McCain - 268

by johnnygunn 2008-03-20 09:08PM | 0 recs
The Annotated JohnnyGunn

Good points all around, Johnny Gunn. A couple of amendments and quibbles:

1a.) Obama tying in MA is based on SUSA's 3/15 poll, which is an outlier. He was up by 7% in the 2/27 poll, and the 3/18 poll by Rasmussen also shows him up by 7%. In 2004, MA provided far and away the largest margin of victory for Kerry of any state: 25 points. And just to show it wasn't the "favorite son" effect, Gore won it by 27 points in 2000. Calling the state for McCain on the basis of one bad poll is silly.

1b.) Don't write off Virginia. With a Democratic governor, a Democratic state senate, and one Democratic U.S. senator (the other is an anti-war Republican) -- the Commonwealth is trending blue. SUSA's 3/15 poll has Obama up by one, with the previous polls showing a tie and up by six. Clinton's tie on 3/15 is her best showing for VA; previously, she lost by 10 and 3.

2.) Don't take Michigan for granted. At 3.5%, it was one of the closest states in 2004: Closer than CO or FL. The last SUSA results I could find (2/27) have Obama up by 1, but Clinton tied. The latest Rasmussen (3/10) has McCain up by 3 on both of them. At 17 EVs, this is a prize, and McCain will be visiting a lot.

3a.) Minnesota is another one of those states that has been "blue" for so long, it's easy to forget how narrow the margins have been. That said, the story here is much like MA -- assuming that one bad poll result will hold. Unlike MA, there are not any newer polls (that I know of) to compare the 3/15 numbers.

3b.)The optimistic results in ND and NE, by comparison, can be explained by the fact that the last SUSA poll was 2/27. Had those states been polled on Obama's worst polling day, the numbers would likely have shown the same pressure as elsewhere.

4a.) New Hampshire is the birthplace (in 2000) and re-birthplace (2008) of McCain's candidacy. It is trending Dem, but McCain is unusually popular there and knows the state very well. Rasmussen's 3/16 poll has both Dems losing, with Obama down 3 and Clinton down 6.

4b.) The NJ numbers are old (2/27) and at variance with other polls that show both Dems with secure leads. I agree that NJ is not a soft target for McCain.

Overall: These maps are a combination of old numbers and poll results from a single day, which happened to be Obama's worst. Good for cheerleading, but totally unserious as a predictor.

If you question, as I do, the award of MA, MN, and NJ to McCain over Obama, that's an exchange of 37 electoral votes -- bigger than TX -- and pushes Obama well over the margin of victory.

On the other hand, the award of FL to Clinton is based on a 2/27 poll which is the only recent(?) poll that awards the state to either Democrat. Rasmussen's 3/12 poll has Obama down by 4 and Clinton down by 7.

Quite a few of the states reflect an isolated best showing for Clinton. She has consistently lagged in OR, and the 3/15 poll is the first one that has her winning that state. It was also deceptively close in 2004, and will be targeted by the Republicans. Her numbers in WI are also soft, and as noted above, both candidates have a fight on their hands in MI.

by baudelairien 2008-03-20 11:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50
Looks like we're going to have to rely on the superdelegates to overturn the will of the Democratic voters so we can have Hillary as our candidate.  That will be sure to inspire the youth vote who are working so hard for Obama and the Democratic Party.  And to think George Bush handed an entire generation of voters to the Democrats on a platter only to have the Democratic establishment tell them to go bug off!
That's the kind of thinking we need!  Lets just keep up the infighting, McCain and the GOP are loving it.  We always attack Republicans for their war on science.  Now we have bretheren on our own party who seem to have declared a war on math.  
by Rick in Eugene 2008-03-20 09:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

Its also going to be hard to convince the superdelegates that it is OK to nominate a candidate that will likely cost Mark Udall the senate seat in Colorado as well as several red state Congresspeople their seats.

by Toddwell 2008-03-20 09:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

Kerry lost to Bush in CO by 5%. Ken Salazar beat Pete Coors by 4% in the same year. Pete Coors is a mediocre candidate but he managed to beat Bob Schaffer in their primary. Coattails are overrated.

by gomer 2008-03-20 10:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

Coattails are very important.  If John Kerry had done just a little better in Florida and South Dakota in 2004, we would have Senator Betty Castor and Senator Tom Daschle in the Senate as we speak.  

by Toddwell 2008-03-20 11:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50


There is very little really known about coattails. It could be. But just as likely not.

But I'm very doubtful that an incumbent senator who is the minority leader would lose his seat based on coattails.

You can't base a solid argument on coattails because we don't know enough on how they work yet.

Certainly not beforehand.

by Ernst 2008-03-21 05:04AM | 0 recs
The benefit of having a nominee

What you're seeing here is the effect of the GOP already having its nominee.  People are divided over Barak and Hillary right now and are probably not answering honestly in these polls.  The "I won't vote for the other guy" effect is in play.  Plus both candidates are taking shots at each other and McCain looks good by comparison.  

Wait until a few weeks after Hillary concedes.  McCain is a weak candidate and Obama (ok...or Hillary) will crush him in November.

by BeerNotWar 2008-03-20 10:32PM | 0 recs
Can we update this again

if we get a week of stories about Bill's adventures on Ron Burkle's private jet?  Or after the Clintons release all their tax returns?  It might give us a perspective for a comparison of bad weeks and their temporary electoral college effects.

by Dumbo 2008-03-21 01:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50
These are the folks who tend to sort it out the best
by nogo war 2008-03-21 05:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

I distrust some of these state polls.

For example- Obama is ahead in 2 of NE- CD's and ND. Those Area's are suppose to be leaning McCain. (-5ev)
Obama should pick up MN(Wellstone State) and NJ(True Blue state- except for 2004- 9-11)-. and MA.
238 +12 250 - 5 245 + 25 270ev.

by nkpolitics 2008-03-21 06:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

I don't necessarily mistrust them, but would point out that several states are based on slimmest of margins, e.g. Minnesota has McCain leading Obama by 1%, while Clinton is leading McCain by 2%.  This in context of Wright fallout, and - what I think is most significant - with McCain as as a kind of idealized Republican nominee rather than a flesh and blood candidate who will have to defend not only the Iraq war but also Bush trade and fiscal policies.  Interesting for speculation and making maps, but not necessarily a good predictor of results on 4 November.  

Also, and I know the HRC folks will scream here, Survey USA is a very good firm, nailing CA and OH results for example, but on average has demonstrated slight underestimation of Obama  final vote and very slight overestimation Clinton for same.  Look at Realclearpoliticscom for comparisons, e.g. final Survey USA Missouri Poll had Clinton 54, Obama 43, with final result Clinton 48, Obama 49, and in Alabama final poll had Obama 49, Clinton 47 with final result Obama 56 and Clinton 42.  When averaged out Obama is understimated by about 3 or 4 percent and Clinton overestimated by about 1 percent or 1.5 percent.  That's a very good record, particularly given the impact of undecided split on final result, and additional wildcard of McCain, but should give pause to those who use this as definitive indication of final electoral results.  

by Kensingtonbill 2008-03-21 07:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

To wit - latest 20 March Rasmussen poll shows Obama winning Minnesota and Clinton losing:

Minnesota: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 47, Clinton 46, Und 7 McCain +1
Minnesota: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 43, Obama 47, Und 10 Obama +4

by Kensingtonbill 2008-03-21 07:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

On planet Obama, the most villified and examined couple in United States history--Bill and Hillary Clinton--haven't been vetted.

On planet Obama, everything that is old news about the Clintons matters, and everything that is yet unknown about a freshman Senator from Illinois doesn't.

On planet Obama, not counting votes from either Michigan or Florida doesn't matter.

On planet Obama, having trashed the Clintons, doesn't carry weight with the firm base of the Democratic Party--which remain Clinton supporters.

On planet Obama, losing every blue state and every major state, aside from Illinois and the extreme narrow victory in Missouri, matters not.  And even coming in third behind both Clinton and McCain in many of those blue states matters not.  All those blue states will magically "return to the fold" come November.

On planet Obama, doing dismally in Ohio and Florida (where everyone was on the ballot, and knew very well whom they were voting for) matters not.

On planet Obama, doing dismally in Massachusetts and Rhode Island--with Kennedy endorsements and endorsements from Kerry and Patrick--matters not.

On planet Obama, current polls showing him getting trounced in the general in those most reliable of blue states--Massachusetts and Rhode Island--matters not. Somehow they'll "return to the fold in November."

On planet Obama, a single speech compensates for a twenty-year affiliation with a minister that clearly damns White America.  That too, matters not.  Even if such a story involves a whole army of white legs leaving the Democratic Party come November.

On planet Obama, losing by double-digits (inevitable now) in Pennsyvania matters not.  It's just another of those pesky normally blue states that will somehows drift back to him.

On planet Obama, endorsements, not voters, are everything.  Bill Richardson, defying the will of his own Latino community and state caucus, opting for Obama, is a case in point.  Rather like the Kennedys endorsing Obama, even though their own state routed him.

Obama is a recipe for November disaster.  I predict a bloodbath--perhaps a 48-state loss.

But the MSM has played team Obama and his Democratic in-crowd for fools.

It's just that bedrock Democratic voters don't want to jump off the cliff with them.

by lambros 2008-03-21 07:01AM | 0 recs
Using common sense is like raining on a parade on planet Obama.
by Al Depansu 2008-03-21 08:04AM | 0 recs
Please adjust your telescope!

Things look a lot different from here on Planet Obama.

On Planet Obama, there's a consensus that Bill and Hillary Clinton were thoroughly vilified by right wing operatives over 20 years. It's unfair that so many people have already made up their minds about the Clintons. But we can't risk the future of the Democratic Party on the chance that we can undo distrust reinforced over decades in the course of a single election year.

On Planet Obama, we're frustrated that Florida and Michigan could not come to an agreement with the DNC before the voting began. We think that our friends from Planet Edwards got a raw deal on that.

On Planet Obama, we don't confuse performance in a state's primary election with performance in the general election. We commend Senator Clinton for her primary victories in Massachusetts, New York and California, but we know those aren't going to be the battleground states.

On Planet Obama, we've got real concerns about Ohio and Pennsylvania. Polls show John McCain running an extremely competitive race against both Democratic candidates in those critical states. And so it is that we're especially proud of our candidate for running a positive campaign in those states, and thereby avoiding giving McCain ammunition for November.

On Planet Obama, we're proud that our candidate understands the complexity of the racial divisions that make our country weaker, and has a vision for healing these divisions. We understand that listening to people with grievances, is not the same as taking up their grievances. We understand that ostracizing such people does not bring us together and does not make our country stronger.

On Planet Obama, we look forward to the end of the primary contest so that we can start working with the inhabitants of Planet Clinton to further our common interests: peace, prosperity and a strong Democratic party.

Why don't you come visit us sometime. You might find it a lot more like home than you would have imagined.

by baudelairien 2008-03-21 11:55AM | 0 recs
2 More Electoral Maps

Here are two more accurate electoral maps.  Per the polling data, the estimate is that we start the race down 187-255 with Clinton (the old democratic playbook) and up 219-119 with Obama (writing his own).

by Republicus 2008-03-21 08:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

Your reversal of red and blue had me scratching my head for a while. Glad I read on.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-21 08:57AM | 0 recs
Survey USA: Obama can't win MA decisively!?

http://www.delegatehub.com/archive/?id=6 643

by Molee 2008-03-21 09:08AM | 0 recs
A chance to make some money

Anyone who wants to bet me that Obama doesn't win NJ, MN, MA, put your money where your mouth is.  I'll give anyone 1:1 odds on Obama winning any or all of these three states.  Respond to this thread and we can work out the details...

On a side note, I expect Obama to carry OH, PA, FL, ND, MT, MO, and NC as well.

by bbrown8370 2008-03-21 09:24AM | 0 recs
Hillary Lied About Fundraising

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition /asection/la-na-money21mar21,1,6702245.s tory

Hillary lied about her February fundraising totals. She said she collected 35 million but in reality she collected about 20 million.
"Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) was second in fundraising. She collected $34.6 million in February, pushing her total to $173.8 million. That includes $10 million from her Senate campaign account and a $5-million personal loan. Clinton owes consultants and other vendors an additional $3.7 million."

by chatters71 2008-03-21 09:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Lied About Fundraising

Off topic.

by DaveOinSF 2008-03-21 10:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50

I don't believe Obama will lose MA/NJ/MN, just like I don't believe he will come within 5 in Alaska and Texas.

by DemGenii 2008-03-21 10:43AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads