electoral-vote.com: Obama vs McCain (he loses) Hillary vs McCain (she wins) maps now up.

[joshcryer]

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

This is *the* site to go to for electoral vote predictions and commentary.

Obama-McCain: http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/Mar23.html

Clinton-McCain: http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/Mar23.html

The data will get clearer over time, but I would recommend this site above all others as far as political commentary is concerned. Hey Obama supporters, even has a little Obama bias. ;)

[Blue_State_Elitist]

1. Well to be fair

Hillary only gets 268 out of the magic number 270.

[SunsetDreams]

2. It's still only March..

Thanks for posting though :)

[jackson_dem]

3. Yes, Obama's negatives have a long way to increase

:scared:

[villager]

5. as do McCain's!

n/t

[jackson_dem]

6. Not as much as Obama's. Clinton's have long remained about the same....

[virtualobserver]

8. but imagine when the republicans run ads......

about Hillary's delusion of ducking under sniper fire in Bosnia.

her commander in chief cred will be zero - they will run it 24/7 on fox news

[jackson_dem]

15. All ads are not created equal

[virtualobserver]

20. true...unlike some, that ad will be devastating.

[jackson_dem]

21. A politician padding a resume is not a surprise

It is only a problem, perhaps, if the candidate has no actual resume...

[virtualobserver]

22. padding with imaginary war action......

is deadly when going against war hero mccain.
She will be laughed out of the race.

[villager]

12. uh, unless you've peered into the future, you can't know that yet

Nice Democratic optimism, though...

[jackson_dem]

14. Over two centuries of American political history suggest that

"new" candidates always have their negatives rise. Either they are way ahead early on, like Carter was by 35 points at this time in 1976 or Bush by 11 in 2000 and even Kerry by 8 in 2004, or they luck out because the incumbent declines faster than they do and they benefit, like Bill Clinton in 1992. McCain isn't an incumbent so this won't be a factor this time.

[villager]

18. new candidates like Lincoln, you mean?

Not that it'll be easy, I just reject the defeatism on this board regarding McCain...

[jackson_dem]

19. 1) That was during a crisis 2) the Democratic party split into two that year

Neither factors are present this time.

Obama could still win but he will likely start, if nominated, behind while Clinton will be ahead of on par with McCain. Obama should be trouncing McCain in general election polling at this stage. He once did...

[villager]

40. The present times don't smack of crisis?

n/t

[Kahuna]

33. Really? No crystal ball is needed to know Hillary's lies are fodder for

the Swiftboat treatment.

[loveangelc]

24. Her negatives were low in the late 90s. Why have the gone up since 2000/2001 so much?????????

[joshcryer]

4. Meh, I changed the topic.

4 views without controversey and it dropped quickly. 78 views now. Proves just what the state of political commentary is in this god forsaken forum.

[MattP]

7. Early polls don't pick the president.

If you're going to pick someone by early polls she would already been the nominee.

[joshcryer]

9. The website in question has been accurate in every election.

Of course the polls are early and there's even a disclaimer on the website that they're early, but over time the numbers will get accurate.

If you want to know who the next President is I suggest you sign into that site the day before it happens.

[TheDoorbellRang]

46. "The website in question has been accurate in every election"

But we're not anywhere near the election.

I went to that website almost every day when Kerry was running. Somewhere I still have a printout from there from about a month before the election that showed Kerry beating * by almost 100 electoral votes.

Every poll is merely a snapshot in time. Nothing more. McCain is benefitting now solely because he is the presumptive nominee with only one Dem actively campaigning against him. Let's take a look again when we've levelled the playing field.

[rocktivity]

10. As long one as one party has one candidate and the other party has two

This is invalid speculation.

:headbang:
rocknation

[jackson_dem]

16. One of our candidate's electability is tanking and we should take this into account

[rocktivity]

27. The other Dem candidate's electablilty isn't anything to write home about

And don't get me started on the GOP candidate's electabilty.

There are four months of campaigning to go--why do we have to make a final decision about electability NOW? The real point is that with an unequal number of candidates, these polls aren't presenting a reality-based choice.

:headbang:
rocknation

[bowens43]

31. tanking? hillary was never a viable candidate

You would have to very politically naive to think that she ever had a chance of beating any republican.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

32. You should get some sleep. You have surpassed the required quota.

I think you made tier 3 for the day. Congratulations!

[VeraAgnes]

11. Thanks, this makes for a valuable

tool for the upcoming months. I do believe the Democratic Candidate with be the one who has and can win the "must win" states.

[joshcryer]

17. It has the best data of any site you'll find. I was going to wait to post it...

...but the commentary of the owner is invaluable.

[emilyg]

25. Glad you posted.

[MADem]

13. Good Lord...those white states are tossups???

That's a LOT of opportunity to cheat around the margins, especially in that first scenario...

[crispini]

23. it's still relying on polls -- it's waaaaaay early.

that said, how funny that Obama brings Texas into play. May I just say "I knew it!" LOL.

[joshcryer]

26. "The data will get clearer over time."

When we got a nominee and a few days out, possibly even as far as a week out, we'll know who the President is! It's a very accurate site.

[charlie]

28. Data doesn't get clearer over time

It isn't something that crystallizes into sharper definition. It lurches and twists, and where it lands on election day is dependent on circumstance and timing (not time). All a prognosticator can do is follow the data and try to explain why it's where it is at the moment, since electoral predictions are less reliable than weather forecasts at this distance from voting day. So no, we won't know with any certitude who the President will be right after a nominee is picked. Even if the guy is using proven analytical tools like The 13 Keys to the White House, the predictive results can still be different in October.

Otherwise, it looks like a really good site. That he collates and presents fresh data daily is impressive. Thanks for the link.

[AllentownJake]

29. This map is a little fishy

Mass is barely democrat. Shit they were the only people who voted for Mondale. I find that suspect.

NJ is tied....doubt that too.

PA last voted for a rebuplican president in 1988...not going red.

TX being barely GOP...don't get me wrong I'd love to welcome TX aboard but I really have my doubts ther.

[mnhtnbb]

30. Thanks for posting.

[LeftHander]

34. Minnesota will not go to the Republicans...

I simply know that Minnesotans will not go GOP.

[moobu2]

35. Borrack is clearly unelectable in the GE

[berni_mccoy]

36. Clinton has done a lot of damage with her racial attacks. It will take a lot of work for Obama

to repair the damage she's done.

[mikelewis]

37. Do they have the winning lotto numbers too...

These prognosticators must be real good to call the race this far in advanced. Heck since they have such a firm grip on the future, why don't they just win the lotto themselves... become Republicans so they can dodge their taxes and declare McCain the winner in every race.

[Tom Rinaldo]

38. Yes it is early, but Obama supporters have posted literally hundreds of threads

over the last few months arguing that Obama is the only Democrat who can defeat McCain and that a vote for Hillary in the primaries guarentees us President McCain. This has been pushed as one of the strongest arguments to back Obama over Clinotn, his supposedly superior electability.

I have always argued the opposite, going back to last summer, and have gotten a lot of grief here for doing so. Countless times it has been asserted that OBama can appeal to Independents and reasonable Republicans but nominating Clinton would be handing the Republicans a victory on a silver platter. Well it turns out that McCain can appeal to the same Independents and moderate Republicans that Obama was counting on.

If this is not clear evidence that Clinton is more electable than Obama is, at the very least it is clear evidence that all of those arguments Obama supporters have been making for months how important it is to vote for Obama because he is the only Democrat who can defeat McCain have been total bunk.

[high density]

42. Maybe they can tell me what the S&P 500 is on November 4

:)

[Mezzo]

39. yet another reason to look at our girl. nt

[Yossariant]

41. Excellent links. Thanks.

:hi:

[debatepro]

43. Obama is running against two...

At this moment he is running against the rightwing machine plus the clinton machine... the fact that he is holding his own against such an enormous challenge is nothing short of a miracle.

once clinton is out and their machine falls in behind obama... this thing will change dramatically... plus some of our biggest assets are on the sidelines still... Al Gore and John Edwards... are big time ... once the nomination is over we get to have them on the field with Obama... we are going to crush mccain.

[BzaDem]

44. Thank you. This has been so obvious to me for months.

Anyone who thinks we can still win the GE if we don't win 2 of PA, FL, and OH is just spouting drivel. That is the math.

And these polls show that Obama loses all 3 of them.

Why do we keep nominating unelectable candidates.

[UALRBSofL]

45. Oh y'all please understand this

McCain can't defeat Obama or Hillary. Y'all just give it up. Everyone know he doesn't have a chance this election cycle. I am sure the RNC is gearing up for 2012. This stuff about Obama this, Obama that, Hillary this, Hillary that is just ignorant. The skeletons in McCain's closet wont hold water. In addition it appears McCain has early signs of Alzheimer's. So to say McCain will win the GE is just showing your ignorance and lack of critical thinking. Now, talk among-st yourselves.

[theredpen]

48. Hear, hear

Well, said, UALRBSofL.

[ajamo]

49. McMain

After debating Obama and by the time November gets here McCain would probably forget he is running for President.

[Hav]

47. .

The site is indeed great and was the sourse of valuable information for me for both 2004 and 2006.
Still, I don't agree with some here who see this as definite proof that Obama is unelectable and Clinton is.

Clinton wins PA and WI by 1.
Obama loses MI and MN by 1. NJ is seen as tied. Give him these states that were all won by Gore and Kerry and he would win without Florida, Ohio and PA because he seems to make so many other states competitive.
The polls used there are just that close that the result could have been reversed and it's also way too early.

What's also interesting: A higher result for strong Dem states with Obama and way more states become barely GOP with Obama as well.

[Tom Rinaldo]

50. Kick for something worth discussing n/t