Clinton is safer electoral candidate with more upside?

Based upon polling data as expressed at electoral-vote.com on May 29th, Clinton is not only the safer candidate, winning even if only holding states trending weak and strong Democrat for her candidacy, but also showing less downside and more upside in potential electoral college votes.

__
Based upon the May 29th map from electoral-vote.com, a Clinton general election campaign would need to strongly fight in Michigan, a state she won in the primary process (caveat understood) and which has marginally favored the Democrats in recent Presidential elections, and that struggle could be lost with success still ensured for the general election.
_
_

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Cl inton/Maps/May29.html

__
The Clinton campaign would also be wise to protect its slim leads in three states, which it could also loose and still prevail in the general election:
_
_

   * one of which she lost in the primary process but which has marginally favored the Democrats in recent Presidential elections (WA);
    * one of which she lost in the primary process and which has marginally favored the Republicans in recent Presidential elections (MO); and
    * one of which she lost in the primary process but which has favored the Democrats in recent Presidential elections (CT).

__
The Clinton campaign could also fight for three weakly held McCain states, all of which would also be unnecessary but would allow for a more decisive victory:
_
_

   * one of which she lost in the primary process and which has weakly favored the Republicans in recent Presidential elections (CO);
    * one of which she lost in the primary process and which has flipped from Democrat to Republican in recent Presidential elections (IA); and
    * one of which she lost in the primary process and which has marginally favored the Democrats in recent Presidential elections (WI).

http://www.mydd.com/evclinton

Clinton minimum map as of May 29th.
    Clinton = 309 vs. McCain = 229

Clinton maximum map as of May 29th.
    Clinton = 360 vs. McCain = 178

__
Based upon the May 29th map from electoral-vote.com, an Obama general election campaign would need to strongly fight in Virginia, a state he won in the primary process but which has favored the Republicans in recent Presidential elections, and Indiana, a state he lost in the primary process and which has favored the Republicans in recent Presidential elections, and those struggles would likely require one win to ensured success for the general election.
_
_

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Ob ama/Maps/May29.html

__
The Obama campaign would also be wise to protect its slim leads in two states, of which it likely needs both to still prevail in the general election:
_
_

   * one of which he lost in the primary process and which has flipped from Democrat to Republican in recent Presidential elections (NM); and
    * one of which he lost in the primary process and which has marginally favored the Republicans in recent Presidential elections (OH).

__
The Obama campaign could also fight for four weakly held McCain states, some of which it may need to still prevail in the general election:
_
_

   * one of which he won in the primary process but has marginally favored the Republicans in recent Presidential elections (MO);
    * one of which he won in the primary process and which has marginally favored the Democrats in recent Presidential elections (WI);
    * one of which he lost in the primary process (caveat understood) but which has marginally favored the Democrats in recent Presidential elections (MI); and
    * one of which he won in the primary process but has favored Republicans in recent  Presidential elections (SC).

http://www.mydd.com/evobama

Obama minimum map as of May 29th.
    Obama = 241 vs. McCain = 297

Obama maximum map as of May 29th.
    Obama = 336 vs. McCain = 202

Tags: clinton, downside, electoral college, may 29, safer, upside (all tags)

Comments

53 Comments

Re: Clinton is safer electora

Well that doesn't help the fact she lost the nomination.

by Cheebs 2008-05-29 06:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton is safer

Probably true enough.

by Liame 2008-05-29 06:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton is safer electoral candidate with more

How many times do we have to have this same discussion?

1. Poll numbers change.

2. Primary votes don't predict general election votes.

3. Clinton has benefited from a period when no one has campaigned against her, Obama has had two people campaigning against him.

4. After a nominee is selected, the nominee receives a bounce.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-29 06:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton is safer more upside less downside

Probably until the super delegates have decided.  This certainly interests me, and likely them as well, especially the [safer],  while also [more upside] and [less downside].

Furthermore, while polls certainly change and don't predict outcomes, they do show certain trends and best guess likelyhoods.  We should not rely exclusivley upon current polls, but neither should we stick our heads in the sand.

See also

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

and

Jay Cost analysis
A Review of Obama's Voting Coalition, Part III
May 29, 2008

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horsera ceblog/2008/05/a_review_of_obamas_voting _coal_iii.html

by Liame 2008-05-29 06:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton is safer more upside less downside

Polls thus far out are pretty worthless, particularly in predicting relative turnout of different groups, which is an extremely important influence on election outcomes.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-29 06:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton safer more upside less downside

One must admit that the "safer more upside less downside" is pretty remarkable, even if only transient, given where political thinking was after super-Tuesday and with various polls regarding the negatives that each candidate may or may not bring to the table.

It would certainly give me pause, if I was a super delegate (probably why I am not aye).

by Liame 2008-05-29 07:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton is safer more upside less downside

538 has an interesting take on all this. Much of the reason Clinton is rising in what few polls actually still test her support because she isn't getting attacked. By ANYONE. Not Obama, not Republicans, not even the most ardent Hillary Haters are bothering to attack her. So her poll numbers normalize again.

by Lost Thought 2008-05-29 07:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton is safer more upside less downside

I'm not sure I buy this argument, she was doing quite well in general election matchups when she was being attacked on both sides.  And if you do accept that the numbers today are a result of her not being attacked and him being attacked you have to acknowledge that the attacks are working on some level since he is having trouble on the general election front.  What will the numbers look like after 6 months of attacks.  

by nyarch 2008-05-29 07:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton is safer more upside less downside

I've followed fivethirtyeight since basically when it launched, and Clinton having a better chance than Obama in the general is a fairly new development, that dates after he had basically locked up the nomination. I've said this before, but I think that Clinton is getting a valedictory bounce, because her candidacy is over in the eyes of many.

by mattw 2008-05-29 07:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton is safer more upside less downside

Perhaps. I would say that it is a reflection of her changes since febuary. She got in it for real and I think she changed a lot of minds.  If it is too late so be it, but I'd say she has much more effect on her chances than Obama not talking about her does.

by nyarch 2008-05-29 08:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton is safer more upside less downside

Except her electoral chances on 538 have been behind his until May; if her pivot was in February, that would have to be a significantly lagging indicator.

by mattw 2008-05-29 10:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton is safer electoral candidate with more

Well if and when Obama gets the nomination we will all just have to fight together to makes sure Obama wins by a landslide.

by jsfox 2008-05-29 06:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton safer more upside less downside

This is true.  However my apprehension is that Obama will be unable to effectively move to be embraced by the middle, as represented by necessary swing voters.  This election, I strongly believe, will be about with which party that `middle' aligns now and for the foreseeable future.

by Liame 2008-05-29 07:06AM | 0 recs
It's A Bit Early

To be basing any decisions on electoral-vote.com.  I followed that site religiously through the entire 2004 election cycle.  The prediction of who would "win" changed constantly, and then they incorrectly called the winner.

By the time the election rolled around they were CLOSE, but their maps six, three, or even two months out were just ridiculous compared to the actual outcome.  Nobody can base a case for either candidate on that site presently.

by TooFolkGR 2008-05-29 06:42AM | 0 recs
I'm quite comfortable

I'm good with choosing the less safe candidate if both can win, because I think that Obama is the better campaigner who has seen his numbers trend upwards as the campaign has gone on.

It's also not about who CAN win, but who we believe SHOULD win.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-29 06:46AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm quite comfortable

If McCain moves center and would lead as a centrist, then I would agree with you.  Otherwise safer would be much better.

I think the DNC would like to improve its recent record of winning, especially given the current political climate, so safer may be something they might consider as well.

The "should" argument is probably too hot a potato[e] for this discussion.

by Liame 2008-05-29 07:22AM | 0 recs
No offense intended, but...

Screw that.

If Obama can win, and by winning make it more difficult for another Bush-type president to hijack our country, then we damn well better take the risk and put our faith in the American people.

Even if Clinton wins, she's shown little interest in actual reforms of the wheels of government; she'd be an excellent administrator like her husband was, but in four or eight years, we'd be set up for some corrupt politician to take advantage of our complacency and screw us... again.

Like I've said before: We need to swing for the cheap seats this year, because we may not have a chance like this again any time soon.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-29 07:27AM | 0 recs
Re: No offense intended, but...

I agree with your sentiment, and have internally debated the no President without experience vs. the oratory skills for real change conundrum.

However, real change cannot come by energizing only 50% +1 vote, or less given that some may be voting merely because they are strong Democrats.

I also don't believe we have another eight years to throw away.  Perhaps a good administrator would be better than an unsuccessful leader?

I think the question remains, 'How do we effectively combine these two voting blocks'?  The Obama campaign has not yet demonstrated to me that it truly understands that, especially in regards to the swing districts in the traditional swing states, there is a very big, and possibly insurmountable, hurtle for him to overcome.

by Liame 2008-05-29 07:51AM | 0 recs
Obama isn't 50%+1

Hillary Clinton's game is running the same base strategy as Kerry and Gore, putting our fate in Florida and Ohio... again.

There's no way that Obama is going to be running a 50%+1 strategy... it might turn out that we win by that margin, but it won't be because that's all we were shooting for.  Obama will vigorously contest many, many more states, and make McCain spread his limited resources thin.

Clinton's current numbers come from the fact that she's essentially a more vigorous version of Kerry or Gore; the strategy is still flawed and puts too many eggs in too few baskets.  It may not hold up in the general... or it might.  Quite frankly, I'm willing to risk an "unsuccessful leader" for the chance to make real change.

If you think that Obama will not be successful as president, you probably haven't paid close enough attention to how he's running for president.  He's led us pretty well so far.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-29 08:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama isn't 50%+1

<Obama isn't 50%+1>

He is certainly more 50%+1 now than he was on super-Tuesday.  And she is a more dynamic candidate than she was on super-Tuesday.  That is the wrong direction trend for an Obama general election campaign.

<He's led us pretty well so far.>

It is the fact that 'us' is only half of the voters in the Democratic primaries, and perhaps a little less than half, that worries me.  Us needs to be an inclusive group not an exclusive one.

<Obama will vigorously contest many, many more states, and make McCain spread his limited resources thin.>

My diary, at least based upon today's information, seems to counter this argument.  She is not only the safer candidate but also has more upside and less downside.

<Quite frankly, I'm willing to risk an "unsuccessful leader" for the chance to make real change.>

I am willing to take some risk as well.  I am still trying to decide how big a risk it is, and how much the thinness of his resume will diminish his effectiveness.

by Liame 2008-05-29 10:02AM | 0 recs
Timing

He is certainly more 50%+1 now than he was on super-Tuesday.  And she is a more dynamic candidate than she was on super-Tuesday.  That is the wrong direction trend for an Obama general election campaign.

I don't know how you can say that Obama is less dynamic now than he was then.  He's just spent the last couple weeks taking McCain and Bush on vis foreign policy and considered by most to have won.

Clinton, by contrast, made a silly gaffe that touched off a firestorm based on basic campaigning taboos.  I've defended her on this before, but nobody can say credibly that it wasn't a fundamentally silly thing to say in the first place.

I'm guessing that you're claiming Clinton's dynamic-ness on the fact that she was willing to take on an ill-advised policy stance in opposition to all expert opinion in order to score votes from under-educated white voters.  I'll give her credit that she sold it pretty well, but please realize that she'd have lost Indiana were it not for Operation Chaos, so it really hasn't helped her much.  Being strong among Appalachian and Deep South whites is NOT the winning coalition that you seem to think it is.

Us needs to be an inclusive group not an exclusive one.

Who says it isn't?  Honestly, most people trying to divide the party on this site are, at least on the surface, Clinton supporters.  There are some Obama supporters in there, too, but most of both groups are perfectly willing to join forces to beat McCain.  I think your fears are unfounded.

I am still trying to decide how big a risk it is, and how much the thinness of his resume will diminish his effectiveness.

Don't give me that.  Obama has 11 years of elected experience and Clinton has 7.  You want to include work prior to public office, you gotta include Obama's civil rights law work, University of Chicago lecturing, and community organizing, too.  The fact that people just let the whole "35 years of experience" thing slide is because it's not worth correcting her (what's McCain on, 50 years of military and elected service?).

by Dracomicron 2008-05-29 10:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Timing

He certainly has moved to general election campaigning while she has not.  I think politically he walked into the appeasement trap, is getting tarred with the preconditions flack, and came out neutral regarding veteran's benefits.

Yes she had another 'moment' amongst both their gaffs of the week.  I discount most of that stuff as noise, but that's just me.

The middle, east of the Mississippi at the very least, seems to think it isn't part of the 'us'.

His resume is thin: relatively uncontested races, many present votes, no closeness to the decisions of either a Governorship nor Presidency, no significant legislation, no significant bi-partisanship, and general lack of overcoming obstacles in his adult life.

by Liame 2008-05-29 11:13AM | 0 recs
You're reaching.

You're getting dangerously close to wingnut talking points here, I'd just like to mention.

I think politically he walked into the appeasement trap, is getting tarred with the preconditions flack, and came out neutral regarding veteran's benefits.

I haven't seen any credible source saying that he came out worse-for-wear on any of those points. Every pundit on CNN and MSNBC that isn't a Republican says that he gave as good as he got, and that tying McCain to Bush will only hurt McCain in the end. The fact that 75% of the Senate voted with him on the GI bill can't possibly be seen as "neutral."

relatively uncontested races, many present votes, no closeness to the decisions of either a Governorship nor Presidency, no significant legislation, no significant bi-partisanship, and general lack of overcoming obstacles in his adult life.

You're forgetting his failed congressional bid in 2000.  That was "contested."  

Obama's got quite a fine bipartisan legislative resume' if you care to look: the Lugar proliferation bill, the Coburn "Google for Government" bill, his own genetic testing law bill, his Illinois death penalty/policie interrogation bill, among others.

"Present votes."  You've gotta be kidding me.  This boondoggle has been debunked more times than I care to count, and even if it were true, it's less than 3% of his total votes in the Illinois state senate and nearly all of them were either procedural or part of an overall strategy.  This is a very weak argument, and I suggest you drop it if you want to be taken seriously.

Finally, if you don't think that Obama has overcome challenges in his adult life, then how do you propose to explain how he's going to be the first African-American Democratic nominee for president very shortly?

by Dracomicron 2008-05-29 11:28AM | 0 recs
Re: You're reaching a matter well within grasp.

That is why I prefaced my statement with "I think ... ".  It was meant as an opinion, and I remain unconvinced that he is prevailing in that arena.  Perhaps by holding his ground somewhat he improves his effectiveness, but also perhaps he demonstrates McCain's vigor and reinforces a topic that plays to a McCain perceived strength.

Otherwise, you make some reasonable points. I still think that he is relatively wet behind the ears, but he is not going to be up in some ivory tower all by himself.

by Liame 2008-05-29 11:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton safer more upside less downside

As above, see also

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

and

Jay Cost analysis
A Review of Obama's Voting Coalition, Part III
May 29, 2008

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horsera ceblog/2008/05/a_review_of_obamas_voting _coal_iii.html

by Liame 2008-05-29 06:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton safer more upside less downside

You mean fivethirtyeight's analysis of the increase in younger voters voting?

* The share of the electorate aged 65 and older decreased in 21 states, increased in one state (Wisconsin), and was unchanged in one state (New Hampshire).

* The share of the electorate aged 45 and older, likewise, decreased in 21 states, increased in one state (Delaware), and was unchanged in one state (New Hampshire).

* The share of the electorate aged 18-29 increased in all 23 states.

* Weighted by the turnout in each state, voters aged 65+ made up 18.0 percent of the electorate in 2008 as compared with 23.3 percent of the electorate in 2004; a 22 percent decrease.

* Weighted by the turnout in each state, voters aged 45+ made up 60.9 percent of the electorate in 2008 as compared with 67.9 percent of the electorate in 2004; a 10 percent decrease.

* Weighted by the turnout in each state, voters aged 18-29 made up 14.5 percent of the electorate in 2008 as compared with 9.4 percent of the electorate in 2004; a 53 percent increase.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-29 06:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton safer more upside less downside

For some additional and somewhat sobering thoughts regarding the gen-Y vote, its inclusion in other metrics and its best case increase in overall percentages, see also

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/200 8/05/29/youth_vote/

by Liame 2008-05-29 07:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton is safer electoral candidate with more

http://electoral-vote.com/evp2004/may/ma y29.html

Hey, look...President-to-be Kerry is mopping the florr with Bush in a no-brainer election.

Wait...he DIDN'T WIN IN NOVEMBER?

But how can that be?!?!?!?!!!!!!!!!!??111???!

by Reeves 2008-05-29 06:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton is safer electoral candidate with more

May 29, 2008 - Clinton 327, McCain 194, Tied 17
May 29, 2004 - Kerry 327, Bush 211

That's just creepy.

by TCQuad 2008-05-29 07:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton is safer electoral candidate with more

I didn't compare them, but are they are same old maps?

by politicsmatters 2008-05-29 07:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton is safer electoral candidate with more

Sources for my comment:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Cl inton/Maps/May29.html

http://electoral-vote.com/evp2004/may/ma y29.html

The state distribution is a bit different (Kerry had MI, WI; Hillary has NC, WV) but the sum ends up being the same.

by TCQuad 2008-05-29 07:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton is safer electoral candidate with more

Gaaaa.  Saw your comment as soon as I'd posted mine.

But mine has a picture, so nyeeaahh.

by mistersite 2008-05-29 07:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton safer more upside less downside

These `anything can happen arguments' would seem to apply to both candidates.  I personally would anticipate that it would be easier for Obama's support to be shaken prior to election day than for Clinton's support, given her constituency is less likely to be naive to the negatives she carries with her.  These are just my thoughts though.

by Liame 2008-05-29 07:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton safer more upside less downside
hmmm.  i think that you're underestimating the sophistication of obama voters.  most of the ones i've talked to are very familiar with obama's weaknesses as well as his strength.
s.
by synth 2008-05-29 08:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton safer more upside less downside

I think the anti-Obama vote and the pro-Clinton vote in the current polling is extremely soft, and here's why: To Clinton supporters, we're still in the midst of the primary campaign, and there's a certain advantage to saying you will vote for Clinton but not for Obama, in that it strengthens her arguments.  But to many Obama supporters, this primary campaign is just about over, so they don't have any problem saying they'd vote for Clinton if she got the nomination, because to their minds it's just not going to happen.

If she were to actually get the nomination, I think she would have almost no support from the African-American community.  They'd be roaring pissed, and in my mind not without reason, because the African-American candidate won the most pledged delegates by playing by the rules and had the nomination taken from him.  Quite frankly, if Clinton's the nominee, I could see the Democratic Party losing AA's for a generation - not to the Republicans, but to apathy.  And when's the last time a Democrat won without significant AA support?

Moreover, I think, if Obama gets the nomination, as long as Clinton is gracious in giving it up and admits she lost fair and square, he's going to benefit from a unity bump these soft-anti polls don't show.  He'll get even more of a bump when he accepts his party's nomination on the 45th anniversary of the "I Have A Dream" speech; I'd expect that he'll have millions of eyes watching him speak that night, and in that situation, he never disappoints.

by mistersite 2008-05-29 08:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton safer more upside less downside

Perhaps the polling reflects a presumptive nominee trend for only one candidate.  I think not, but that's just me.

The pledged-delegate majority argument has always made me laugh, as it is a false one promoted without basis, as far as I am aware.  Pledged-delegates are established as threshold; if the threshold isn't met then its up to the super-delegate.  It is like a high jump over which neither candidate has gotten, with the Obama campaign claiming it failed to get over better.  Now whether or not the pledged delegate quantity is more important than popular vote and/or possible electability issues is up to the super-delegates (they seem to be saying it is).

I do not believe that any group that typically leans left will be lost by a rational choice for either of these candidates, although their enthusiasm may be diminished for this general election campaign.  However, I do feel that the middle, as represented by voters in the swing counties in the swing states, are a more tenuous constituency, and I believe this is reflected fairly routinely in the exit polls.

by Liame 2008-05-29 10:24AM | 0 recs
Pledged delegate majority is meaningful

Superdelegates are intended to either ratify or overrule the elected delegates in the case of someone unelectable getting the nod.

Nobody sane thinks that Obama can't win.  He's no McGovern, no matter how much Clinton would like to say otherwise.

Regardless, the preference of the superdelegates has been clear in the latter half of the primary.  As elected officials themselves, they're not generally willing to go against the will of the people, out of ethics or self interest.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-29 10:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Pledged delegate majority is meaningful

I was with you until <will of the people>, which gets a little nebulous when the pledged delegates aren't necessarily the popular vote.

I am also unsure as to the exact accuracy of <either ratify or overrule the elected delegates in the case of someone unelectable getting the nod> but think that could certainly be a reasonable interpretation.  Do you have any reference for this statement in the 2008 DNC rules or the like?

by Liame 2008-05-29 11:02AM | 0 recs
They appeared in 1982

The Hunt Commission created superdelegates in 1982 because Democrats were concerned that they'd get more McGoverns or Carters: candidates viewed as weak (you know, despite the fact that Jimmy won a term).  They wanted to be able to overrule the results of the public primaries.

The wikipedia page is fairly well sourced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelega tes

by Dracomicron 2008-05-29 11:17AM | 0 recs
Re: They appeared in 1982

Thanks.

by Liame 2008-05-29 01:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Super-Delegates

So 'electability' should, in fact, be their master concern, which is not often reported by others.  This seems to validate the topic, if not the specific conclusions.

We have two candidates with similar levels, but different constituencies, of primary strength, one of which has a modest lead in pledged delegates and the other of which argues an extremely slim lead in popular vote.  The candidates also seem to have different levels of national support, at least at this point in time.

by Liame 2008-05-29 01:14PM | 0 recs
Yeah

Thing is, all other things being equal, they'd be very, very foolish to go against the pledged delegate winner.

If there were a huge discrepency in the electability and numbers, then they'd have a case, but since they're both within the margin for error against McCain for the most part, the electability argument doesn't hold much water.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-29 01:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton is safer electoral candidate with more

yawn........not that I agree with the premise.......but fuck "safe"....viva la revolucion

by feliks 2008-05-29 07:06AM | 0 recs
Clinton safer more upside less downside

As above ...

If McCain moves center and would lead as a centrist, then I would agree with you.  Otherwise safer would be much better.

I think the DNC would like to improve its recent record of winning, especially given the current political climate, so safer may be something they might consider as well.

The "should" argument is probably too hot a potato[e] for this discussion.

by Liame 2008-05-29 07:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton is safer electoral candidate with more
/ In 1992, Bill Clinton lost college-educated voters to Paul Tsongas in the early competitive primaries, but he went on to win that group in November by the largest margin any Democrat ever had./
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/opinio n/29mellman.html?ref=opinion
by politicsmatters 2008-05-29 07:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton safer more upside less downside

This would seem to be an argument for the Hillary Clinton candidacy, given her base constituency.  Perhaps it was meant to be.

by Liame 2008-05-29 08:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton is safer electoral candidate with more

May 28, 2004:

In other words: Polls in May mean nothing to an election in November.

by mistersite 2008-05-29 07:26AM | 0 recs
Re: How do you imbed a picture?

How do you imbed a picture?

Thanks.

by Liame 2008-05-29 08:33AM | 0 recs
If that was the way we select a nominee..

we could save ourselves lots of money and take a damn poll in choosing them in the beginning of the primary..besides these polls are static and can change dramatically by November, therefore your argument does not hold water.

by netgui68 2008-05-29 07:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton is safer electoral candidate with more
Delegates:    Pledged    Super    Total    Needed
Obama            1,660.5    319.5    1,980    45
Clinton            1,499.5    280.5    1,780    245
Remaining    86     196     282
by nogo postal 2008-05-29 07:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton is safer electoral candidate with more

Current polls are not the end all.  Hopefully, well all can agree on that.  However, these polls show some remarkably strong under-currents, as shown in the Jay Cost analysis, that do not bode well to having a safe candidate in Obama.

Additionally, the examples cited could just as easily be applied to Obama later tanking, rather than Clinton.

I think the question remains, 'How do we effectively combine these two voting blocks'?  The Obama campaign has not yet demonstrated to me that it truely understands that, especially in regards to the swing districts in the traditional swing states, there is a very big, and possibly insurmountable, hurtle for him to overcome.

Jay Cost
A Review of Obama's Voting Coalition, Part III
May 29, 2008

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horsera ceblog/2008/05/a_review_of_obamas_voting _coal_iii.html

by Liame 2008-05-29 07:37AM | 0 recs
Recent campaign dynamics

Along with the well-made point by previous commenters that it's too early to be relying on Electoral-Vote.com for anything reliable, I'd also suggest that Clinton's numbers are inflated because, while Obama is being criticized by both the right and the left, Clinton is being spared any negative rightwing attention.  Certainly Pat Robertson and co want the "Dems in disarray" meme to play for as long as possible because it keeps their ancient-ass candidate out of the spotlight.

Short-run motion in poll numbers is generally associated with recent positive or negative media coverage (See Thomas Holbrooke's book, "Do Campaigns Matter" for a good treatment of the phenomenon, or see John Zaller's "Theory and Nature of Mass Opinion" for the most complete explanation).  Clinton is going to continue to poll higher than Obama from now through the convention so long as the Republicans train their sites on him and only him.  That's poll inflation though, not bedrock public opinion.

by sierradave 2008-05-29 08:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Recent campaign dynamics

True, certainly from a national polling standpoint.  Less true perhaps in the swing counties of the swing states.

As above ...

I personally would anticipate that it would be easier for Obama's support to be shaken prior to election day than for Clinton's support, given her constituency is less likely to be naive to the negatives she carries with her.  These are just my thoughts though.

by Liame 2008-05-29 08:31AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads