SUSA Electoral College: HRC +56; BO -54

So I've updated Survey USA's Electoral College prediction based on updated results in 14 states.  The results:

Hillary Clinton 292
John McCain 236
Tie 10

John McCain 296
Barack Obama 242

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 and 14 more states released April 17.

Maps below the fold

NB - the traditional definitions of "Red" and "Blue" are reversed.

Hillary vs McCain

Image Hosted by

Obama vs McCain

Image Hosted by

Tags: Election 2008, electoral college, polls, Survey USA (all tags)



this is great!

can you please email this post to all the Superdelegates!?!?!?!

by BlueDoggyDogg 2008-04-17 06:27PM | 0 recs
Re: this is great!

Lets begin with the fact that polls this far out mean little, but since you are so certain that this is a good analysis I'd direct you to a couple links with much better analysis of where the race stands.

At  You will see, updated daily three different charts.

One is a comparison/ combination chart (currently on the front page).  In this chart, States that are brown are states where Obama is better, Pink states are where Clinton is better, Blue states where they are both better, and Red states are ones where both democrats are just as bad against McCain.

As of 04/17/2008

Please notice this:

Pink states: FL, WV, MA

Barely Pink: NY

Brown states: WA, OR, ND, WI, IA, NE, NM, TX, MI, NC, CT, HI  

Barely brown states: NV, SC, MN, NH, NJ

Solid Blue states: CA, IL, PA, ME

Red States: AK, ID, UT, AZ, WY, MT, SD, KS, OK, MO, AR, LA, MS, AL, TN, GA, KY, VA, IN, OH

So according to this map, the total electoral votes that Obama is better than Clinton in is 130 EV with barely Obama adding 27 EV more

Clinton on the other hand is better in 45 EVs with Barely Clinton adding 31 more.

So the difference here is 157 to 76 Obama.

Now if we take a look at the head to head match-ups (also provided by friendly

Projected electoral total for OBAMA vs. McCain ama/Maps/Apr17.html

Obama 237 McCain 277 Undecided 24

Dem pickups (vs. 2004): IA NV NM ND    
GOP pickups (vs. 2004): NH NY inton/Maps/Apr17.html

Clinton 240 McCain 298

Dem pickups (vs. 2004): FL NV WV    
GOP pickups (vs. 2004): MI NH OR WA WI  

But the devil here is in the details.  The democrats lose more states vs. 2004 if Clinton is the nominee, but also look at how solidly things are for each candidate.

Break Down for Obama vs. McCain

Strong Dem (111)  
Weak Dem (42)  
Barely Dem (84)  
Exactly tied (24)  
Barely GOP (82)  
Weak GOP (37)  
Strong GOP (158)  

Break Down for Clinton vs. McCain

Strong Dem (43)  
Weak Dem (98)  
Barely Dem (99)  
Exactly tied (0)  
Barely GOP (16)  
Weak GOP (130)  
Strong GOP (152)  

As you can see Clinton has the fewest number of strong Dem states (43), and the largest number of barely Dem states (99) in EVs, while McCain in this scenario maintains strong GOP (152) EVs and the least number of barely GOP (16) EVs.

For Obama vs. McCain there is a totally different math.  Strong Dem states (111), Vs Barely Dem (84) is the smaller than Clinton.  Also there are 24 EV totally up in the air (which Clinton's map shows none).  McCain fares much worse on the other hand.  Strong GOP (158) is slightly better than against Clinton but Barely (82) GOP is MUCH MUCH larger.

This means that Obama puts many more EVs in play than Clinton does.

Thus, assuming that Obama is the nominee, and with a 50 state strategy, the likelihood of victory is much higher since many more EVs are in play, and the downside is less.

If Clinton, by some miracle gets the Nomination, without acrimony (something I find highly doubtful due to the circumstances that would have to transpire in order for her to get the nod), and she runs her predictable 50 + 1% EV strategy (which her strengths in states really seem to favor anyways).  There are FAR fewer EVs available, and all it takes is some unscrupulous people in OH, PA, or FL to upset the election IN EXACTLY THE SAME MANNER AS 2000 and 2004.

Now Clinton is fond of saying she is a fighter and that she is not as bad as Kerry or Gore were.  But it is clear from the electoral map that she would in essence be running the same exact campaign as they did.  So much for forging her own path.

Do we really want a repeat of 2000 and 2004?

by Why Not 2008-04-17 10:45PM | 0 recs
Re:Repeat of the '92 & '96

No ! We do not want a repeat of 2004 & 2000.

No,We do not want to lose every single southern state including Florida just like 2004 & 2000.

No, We do not want to lose Ohio & Missouri again just like 2004 & 2000 !

Obama is the EXACT SAME story as Kerry & Gore! ( Oh yes, he will lose all of the above & even throw in PA. Yet, he will give us North Dakota !)

We want a REPEAT of 1992 & 1996 !

We want WV & AR in the Democratic column again.

We want Florida in the Democratic column again.

We want Ohio in the Democratic column again.

We want Missouri in the Democratic column again.

We want Republicans to truly sweat in the state of Tennessee

And yes, We Want NJ,PA,MA safely & soundly in the Democratic column again.

Only ONE person can bring us back to All of the Above.

Hillary Rodham-Clinton.

Who happens to be the other half of the ONLY Democrat who have us 1992 & 1996 - Bill Clinton

P.S. Sir Bill Clinton carried in the General election TWICE - KY,TN,WV, AR & FL- all in the southern region.

Isn't it a lovely coincidence that in the primary  Hillary Clinton won TN,AR & FL by a landslide. And is about to win KY & WV by a bigger landslide !

by latinfighter 2008-04-18 05:23AM | 0 recs
Re:Repeat of the '92 & '96

Instead of screaming talking points over and over again at the top of your lungs, why don't you consider what I said, and what the maps on electoral-vote show.

There are many more states that are competitive with Obama than Clinton accounting for amny more EVs.

So if you would like to speak about the specifics.. that might be helpful.

Unless you don't want to be helpful, in which case continue using your blinders.

by Why Not 2008-04-18 06:45AM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Electoral College: HRC +56; BO -54

Thank you for the analysis.  When will people begin to wake up to the fact that Obama will lose us the next presidency?

I''m sick of hearing the words "kool-aid", "Obamabots" and the rest of the crap being put out.  But the FACT remains that we will not win this election with Obama as our candidate.  Sigh, etc. etc.

by Gabriele Droz 2008-04-17 06:32PM | 0 recs
And we'll win it...

...with someone people consider untrustworthy, which would most certainly be one of the attacks against Clinton from Republicans?

Oh, and they will.  They'd call her a liar everyday until the election.  And it would stick.  And it would hurt her chances significantly.  In fact, it would make her unbelievably unelectable.

It fascinates me that the current reasoning why Hillary is more electable is built upon the fact that she is losing the nominating contest.  That is an astounding leap of faith.

So is putting much stock in general election polls seven months before the election.  Why?  Because of passages from articles like this:

Michael S. Dukakis is capitalizing on deep public doubts about Vice President Bush and the Reagan Administration's handling of key issues and has emerged as the early favorite for the Presidential election in November, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.

Mr. Dukakis, the probable Democratic nominee, ran ahead of Mr. Bush, the almost certain Republican candidate, by 49 percent to 39 percent among 1,056 registered voters. ml?res=940DEEDD1F3EF934A25756C0A96E94826 0

Be sure to ask former President Dukakis how he's doing the next time you see him.

After that, remind yourself of the kind of petty, cheap, bullshit attacks that destroyed Dukakis' candidacy...Willie Horton, riding in the tank, going after his wife.

Democrats either stand up to that sort of thing outright, or we stand divided; some of us permit it, some of us take joy in in it, some even participate.

by jaywillie 2008-04-17 07:16PM | 0 recs
Re:Dukakis = Obama, Obama = Dukakis


Why do you think every single Liberal Icon from Ted Kennedy to Jesse Jackson ( to Louise Farrakan) to VIRTUALLY ALL the Liberal Left Netroots leaders led by Markos, Chris Bowers & Matt Stoller are ALL endorsing Obama!

The last time I checked ALL 3 of the Highest Liberal Massachusetts Democrats in the home of Dukakis - Ted Kennedy, John Kerry & Duval Patrick are all strong supporters of Obama.

I think you have it WAY WAY CONFUSED!

Its Obama who will be PERCEIVED & ACKNOWLEDGED as the "Liberal Black Democrat from Chicago".

Obama is Dukakis. Dukakis is Obama.

Don't make up stories. lol

P.S. Clinton can carry West Virginia, Arkansas, Florida, Ohio . Southern states & the Midwest.

None of which Dukakis or Obama could carry even if Ronald Reagan endorsed them personally.

Stop creating illusions please.

by latinfighter 2008-04-18 05:32AM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Electoral College: HRC +56; BO -54

thanks for the good diary. some of us are actually interested in winning the election, not just the nomination.

by campskunk 2008-04-17 06:37PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Electoral College: HRC +56; BO -54

Really? That's too bad, because we Obama supporters actually wanted to lose the election and thought no one had caught onto us. And we would've gotten away if not for you meddling kids and your dog.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-04-17 06:41PM | 0 recs
Rooooby-dooby-dooooo!!! :-)

by itsthemedia 2008-04-17 07:22PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Electoral College: HRC +56; BO -54

Like, WOAH, man! Like, seriously, man, WOAH!

by ragekage 2008-04-17 08:16PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Electoral College: HRC +56; BO -54


by ProgressiveDL 2008-04-17 08:29PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Electoral College: HRC +56; BO -54

Weren't the Clinton supporters the ones who were saying that polls are meaningless this far out?

by DreamsOfABlueNation 2008-04-17 06:38PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Electoral College: HRC +56; BO -54
Some of them were I guess, now it's your turn =D
by Apostle 2008-04-17 09:26PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Electoral College: HRC +56; BO -54

I was agreeing with them at the time.  I guess I'll just keep on keepin on.

by DreamsOfABlueNation 2008-04-17 09:47PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Electoral College: HRC +56; BO -54

Wait for "SUSA is a lousy polling company", "Every one of those is an outlier", "Polls mean nothing"..........

by Scotch 2008-04-17 06:39PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Electoral College: HRC +56; BO -54

Heh.  Look below.

by Scotch 2008-04-17 06:39PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Electoral College: HRC +56; BO -54

Should I find the one where you disparaged SUSA when it showed Obama up? Easy to do, your comments never go away.

by ragekage 2008-04-17 08:17PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Electoral College: HRC +56; BO -54

April 17 Data
New Mexico
New York

March 19/20 Data

March 6 Data
All other states + DC

by DaveOinSF 2008-04-17 06:40PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Electoral College: HRC +56; BO -54

Wow.  Recommending.

by bobbank 2008-04-17 06:46PM | 0 recs
If it's about electability, I would think the

remaining uncommitted supers wouldn't want to be known as "the supers that gave us McCain." Hey supers, listen to Dean and commit already. The country needs you!

by Rumarhazzit 2008-04-17 07:01PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Electoral College: HRC +56; BO -54

SUSA is by far and away the best polling source. This is excellent news for HRC and shows that we do defintly have a better shot with her at the helm than Senator Obama. Let's go all the way to the White House--the only way to do that is with Hillary!

by zcflint05 2008-04-17 07:07PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Electoral College: HRC +56; BO -54
Tell this to the superdelegates.  Obama is a train wreck waiting to happen.
And you won't see this on Kos either.
by mikelow1885 2008-04-17 07:10PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Electoral College: HRC +56; BO -54

But, but, but - -

Isn't getting North Dakota more important than losing Pennsylvania?

(Like ND will really go Dem in Nov., anyhow.)

by johnnygunn 2008-04-17 07:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Red and Blue -

The TRADITIONAL definitions of red and blue are exactly as shown.
I don't know what idiot at Faux News decided to switch them ten years ago.

Throughout modern European history, red has been the color of revolution, socialists, leftists, and communists. Blue has been the color of royalists, reactionaries, ultra-nationalists, and rightists.

You know?
Terms like the "red scare"?
And "blue blood"?

by johnnygunn 2008-04-17 07:15PM | 0 recs
not to mention

Blue Eyes Crying in the Rain


I'll fix your little red wagon!

(hey, I said not to mention those!)

by itsthemedia 2008-04-17 07:27PM | 0 recs
The Electoral College?

Doesn't there have to be something called, you know, a general election before the Electoral College numbers are tallied?
And isn't the general election preceded by something called, you know, a Presidential campaign?

And isn't it a little silly, if not outright nuts, to be counting electoral votes 4 months before the Presidential campaign begins?

by toyomama 2008-04-17 07:22PM | 0 recs
Re: The Electoral College?

Are you nuts? If Obama's given that long to campaign, he'll certainly win and these numbers will be meaningless. We need the superdelegates to take action now, while they still show a meaningless win for Clinton!

by ragekage 2008-04-17 08:19PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Electoral College: HRC +56; BO -54

A significantly more serious and statistical analysis says Obama still has a slight edge:

by gcensr 2008-04-17 07:27PM | 0 recs
not by much!

The gap between the two has narrowed a lot over the last six weeks.

by mikelow1885 2008-04-17 07:33PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Electoral College: HRC +56; BO -54

Thanks Dave, for keeping us updated.

Still don't understand why the red/blue flip thing though lol


by SluggoJD 2008-04-17 07:45PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Electoral College: HRC +56; BO -54

Thanks for the update.

by mztower 2008-04-17 08:25PM | 0 recs
MyDD's electoral calculator

shows Hillary Clinton LOSING to McCain, 257 to 281.

I guess that means we shouldn't have Hillary OR Obama as the candidate?  Based on the MyDD front-page calculator, at least.

Also, I looked around for this map on the SUSA site before I realized that the diary author made it up himself, or somebody made it up.  The last official SUSA calculated EV map was the March 6th one, shown here:

Back when this was posted, a month ago, showing Obama winning with more EV votes than Hillary, I didn't see any of the familiar faces here saying that Hillary should be the candidate even if she should get the most pledged delegates because Obama is the better candidate.  No, no, no.  But along comes a poll (in this case, a pasted-together poll) that is more favorable to your candidate, and that's sufficient reason for some to state unequivocally that Obama is going to LOSE us the election in November, but Hillary will win.

Pardon me if I don't take this graph as sufficient reason to turn the election process upside down.  Obama is going to win in November, and almost certainly with a different set of states than the ones posited in any of these graphics, either SUSA or MyDD (Jerome) or the diary author's.  

How can I be so sure?  It's April.  That's why.  The election is in November.  No poll can predict things seven months away.

Furthermore, Hillary and McCain are nearly broke, but Obama is rolling in chips.  Based on that much more reliable and predictive metric, it would seem Obama is most likely to win in November, but not even that is set in stone.

by Dumbo 2008-04-17 10:25PM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD's electoral calculator

I explained in the diary.  I started with the SUSA data released on March 6 and have updated it for the states in which SUSA has released subsequent polls.  Specifically, Obama now loses Virgnia, Ohio and New Mexico.

by DaveOinSF 2008-04-17 10:55PM | 0 recs
Re: UGLY, Real UGLY with Obama

Great job Dave!

Any democrat who still clings to the Illusion that Obama can somehow miraciously carry Virginia, New Mexico & Ohio must see a shrink.

Yes, Clinton or Obama will have a very tough race against McCain.


If Clinton goes down against McCain, she will go down based on losing Red & Purple states. Similar to Gore's demise.

With Obama, if he goes down, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT a MASSIVE Electoral LANDSLIDE not seen since 1988.
He would lose not only the entire south, Ohio, MO,NM- he would lose previous Blue states like PA, NJ, MA, NH,NM

If Obama goes down, it would be UGLY, very UGLY!

That's the difference between Clinton & Obama in the GE.

by latinfighter 2008-04-18 05:42AM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Electoral College: HRC +56; BO -54

Yes, thank the Lord, at last we learn from the most reliable of all polling firms, just how badly Obama does in the general.  And this before being vetted, before being defined by the Radical Right, which the Clintons have already been for fifteen years.

The wonderful aspect about being seasoned in politics and well over fifty is that one has seen it all before.

Obama is the next McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, waiting in the wings.  His general election loss will not be close.  His support will likely cap at 38%--even if every college crowd participant and African-American in the country turns out for him.

I always knew that Howard Dean's reconstitution of the Democratic Party primary process would be the end of that party in presidential election terms.  Obama, if the nominee, is about to prove that fact.

But 2008 was, for the MSM, its pundits, and the Dean/Kennedy/Kerry/Bradley/Pelosi wing of the party was all about chasing away the Clintons.

Nothing more mattered to them--certainly not another general election loss--than defeating the Clintons.

Hillary and Bill know that the country, post-Clinton, is economically and diplomatically in ruins.

They understand that--whatever she must say now to prevent being further pummeled by the punditocracy--in fact, Obama cannpt win.  She must state "yes, he can," but that does not mean she actually thinks it.

As I have reported, I have never voted any other way but Democrat in my nearly fifty-five years.  Nor has, they have avowed, any member of my family whose experiences with Democratic politics goes back more than sixty years.

But for the first time in my life, I knows now that I will be voting McCain if Obama is the nominee.  As shall the members of my family.

In that sense, I think we well reflect the sentiments of our key bell-weather Ohio quite well.

It is the simply the obvious--as the most recent Democratic debate revealed--Obama is simply not ready for the presidency.

Was Bill Clinton in 1992?  Yes.  He had been multiple times elected governor of Arkansas.  And although a small state indeed, he was multiple times its governor nevertheless.

Is Hillary Clinton ready in 2008? Yes.  She has been her husband's ineluctable political advisor from the outset of his career, and evety Clinton analyst, both pro and con, knows that only too well.  And aside from her very politically involved eight years as First Lady, more importantly, she has done well by New York State, and was returned to office with 67% of its vote--her state has reaffirmed her worthiness there.

But Senator Obama had only a single year in the United States Senate before beginning his presidential run.  There is simply not enough of a national record.  This is simply not enough of a vetting for him to assume the presidency.

It is obvious, and his dismal performance in the recent debate--some four months after his Iowa caucus win--reveals just how disastrous he can be for the fall.

I believe the best for Senator Obama now is the vice-presidential nod.  Otherwise, he will never see the presidency.  And the Democratic Party will suffer a debacle of McGovern/Mondale/Dukakis proportions with him at the top of the ticket in the fall.

Then again, perhaps such a debacle matters far less to that Dean/Kennedy/Kerry/Bradley/Pelosi wing of the Democratic Party, and their sympathetic supporters in the MSM and the punditocracy than does driving out the Clintons.

That was the #1 objective of the 2008 campaign.  Time will tell if that objective succeeded.

by lambros 2008-04-18 06:25AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads