NEWSWEEK: Who Will Carry the Purple States?

[pathansen]

“Durring a conference call this week, Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson pointed to a new Gallup Poll titled, "Hillary Clinton's Swing-State Advantage" as further evidence that Senator Clinton would be the stronger Democratic candidate against Senator John McCain in the general election. "I think the very definition of the process that we're going through suggests that, as a party, we believe that primaries have some bearing on electoral outcomes in general elections and that they are somewhat predictive," he told a group of reporters.”

See the following new gallup poll:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/107539/Hillary-Clintons-SwingState-Advantage.aspx

CONCLUSION: Delegates need to choose the most electable candidate.

[NYCGirl]

1. CONCLUSION: They already ARE choosing the most electable candidate. And

by a margin of close to 200 — getting larger every day.

[GCP]

4. Huh? Did you read it?

Clinton's popular-vote victories thus far include the three biggest Electoral College prizes: California (a solid Democratic state), New York (another sure bet for the Democrats), and Texas (a solid Republican state). (Although Obama won more delegates in Texas, Clinton's vote total exceeded Obama's by nearly 100,000 votes.) However, her victories also include several of the largest swing states that both parties will be battling to win in November: Pennsylvania and Ohio, as well as wins in the disputed Florida and Michigan primaries. As a result, Clinton's 20 states represent more than 300 Electoral College votes while Obama's 28 states and the District of Columbia represent only 224 Electoral College votes.

(Note that the findings with Michigan and Florida data removed are virtually identical to those shown above. Clinton performs five percentage points better than Obama versus McCain in the states she has won (51% vs. 46%), excluding Michigan and Florida; Obama has virtually no advantage over Clinton versus McCain in the states he has won.)

The question is, do Clinton's popular victories over Obama in states that encompass three-fifths of national voters mean Clinton has a better chance than Obama of winning electoral votes this fall? That's the argument she and her campaign have been making, including at a campaign stop in Kentucky 10 days ago (prior to the Kentucky and Oregon primaries), where she was quoted as saying:

"The states I've won total 300 electoral votes. If we had the same rules as the Republicans, I would be the nominee right now. We have different rules, so what we've got to figure out is who can win 270 electoral votes. My opponent has won states totaling 217 electoral votes."

[NYCGirl]

6. Huh? Do you understand that popular vote means nothing in the primaries?

And do you think that Obama won't win California and New York in November. He's already making Texas competitive with McCain, and it's a long time to November.

WE DON'T HAVE THE SAME RULES AS THE REPUBLICANS, as much as Hillary Clinton wishes we did.

[GCP]

9. I'm looking at electoral votes

In the GE - the states she won and looks to win against McCain have more electoral votes than the ones Obama carried.

[NYCGirl]

11. As I said, Obama will win all the states Clinton won in the primary except for

the Appalachian ones, and he will do much better in the West than she could and in some near South states.

[jbm]

53. Obama will be lucky to win ANY state

But I've decided the party insiders don't care. My new theory is that most of them are friends with McCain, and know he'll work well with many of our Washington Dems. Having the house,the senate, and a Repub president they can work with may seem like a good scenario. Meanwhile, they get to nominate the first black candidate and look very progressive.

They did make a grave error in judgment though, because they failed to take into account that there is still latent sexism in our country. That sexism has surfaced during Hillary's campaign, and pissed off many of the quiet, party faithful women who have been huge supporters of the Democratic party in the past. I know that there are Obama women out there who will deny this, but I don't care. It's very real and I'm not sure how deep the fallout from it will be. Anecdotal evidence leads me to believe that many women will sit this election out, but get back on board if the party seems to represent them in the future. I hope it's that easy.

[NYCGirl]

61. Anecdotal evidence is often very wrong. NT

[Exilednight]

14. The popular vote does not win Presidential elections, just ask Gore. Also ........

recent polling shows that some states, like California, have buyers remorse with Hillary. A recent poll by the NYT shows that Hillary would lose NY to McCain, although she does still poll within the MOE. On the other hand, Obama would carry NY easily, and is dead even, or within the MOE depending on the poll, with McCain in Texas.

I doubt that Obama will carry Texas in the GE, but it makes McCain use resources that he can't spare to defend what should be a rethug stronghold.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. May I have a link please?

"A recent poll by the NYT shows that Hillary would lose NY to McCain,"

-ExiledNight

May I have the link please?


Here's a link to all the available polls from New York matching Clinton v McCain:


http://www.pollster.com/08-NY-Pres-GE-MvC.php


Hillary Clinton is beating John McCain by thirty points in the Empire State...

[Exilednight]

20. I'm looking to see if it is online, this might take a while, but .......

if I find it I will post it. I get the NYT delivered and read it in the paper.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. So Do I...

Perhaps the poll exists but as all the evidence suggests that poll is the mother of all outliers and contradicts literally dozens and dozens of polls going back to 2006...

[Exilednight]

28. Yeah, that's how polling is done. Basic statistics teaches you that. n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. I Don't Get It

Here's a link to thirty one polls dating back fifteen months! There is not one poll that shows McCain beating Clinton in NY

http://www.pollster.com/08-NY-Pres-GE-MvC.php


Respectfully, I don't see how a person can be intellectually honest and suggest Hillary Clinton is in danger of losing New York.

My only fidelity is the truth and I go where the data leads me..

[Exilednight]

34. Right here is an NBC/Marist poll showing Hillary losing 49% - 46% with Rice on McCain's ticket .....

http://www.maristpoll.marist.edu/nyspolls/GV080409.htm

I think this is the poll that was printed in the NY Times.

But here's the fact, a strong Democratic state like NY should not be in play with its home state Senator running.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

35. It's Not In Play

http://www.pollster.com/08-NY-Pres-GE-MvC.php

The freshest poll has her winning New York by thirty points....The second freshest poll has her winning by twelve points and the third freshest poll has her winning by twenty seven points...

I submit a statewhere one candidate that leads another candidate by twenty four points in the three most recent published polls does not suggest a state that is in play...

[Exilednight]

37. That's open to interpretation. I don't trust rasmussen, and the Maris/NBC poll also seems out ....

of whack. That would make it pretty even in my eyes. I think Survey USA may have it right, but I've seen a lot of anti-Hillary sentiment here lately on LI and NYC, and both areas comprise nearly 3/4 of the state population.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

42. Maybe I'm Obtuse

But it seems to be if a candidate is leading in thirty one out of thirty one polls, ergo:

http://www.pollster.com/08-NY-Pres-GE-MvC.php


by as much as thirty one points that candidate is in the lead and the state is not in play...

[Exilednight]

45. Hillary lead in polls in 8 out of the ten post Super Tuesday states. How many did she win? n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

47. We Are Comparing Apples And Oranges

We have to deal with the universe of polls we have now...Out of that universe of polls there is not one published poll that shows McCain beating Hillary Clinton in New York, ergo:


http://www.pollster.com/08-NY-Pres-GE-MvC.php


The burden of proof is on you to show that the state of New York is in play....

[Exilednight]

29. Here's another poll that shows both Obama and Hillary losing with VP match-ups .........

http://www.maristpoll.marist.edu/nyspolls/GV080409.htm

NBC/Marist poll

[Exilednight]

22. Here's one from Siena College .......

that shows McCain well within the margin of error of both candidates, and showing that Hillary would not get 50% of the vote in NY.

http://www.siena.edu/level2col.aspx?menu_id=562&id=17251

Still looking for the NYT poll.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. Here's A Link To Every Available Published Poll Re: Clinton & McCain In NY

http://www.pollster.com/08-NY-Pres-GE-MvC.php

[pathansen]

26. We are talking about winning the Swing States, not the popular vote

[Spider Jerusalem]

17. That's a brain-damaged argument that only a moron would take seriously.

The primary is not the GE, full stop. You can't compare one to the other and say 'I won states with more electoral votes in the primary, therefore I would win more electoral votes in the GE.' It doesn't work that way, it's a stupid, disingenuous argument, and if Hillary and company had an ounce of shame, I'd say they should be ashamed of themselves. I WILL say that anyone whose critical thinking skills are poor enough to be gulled by this arrant nonsense can't be taken seriously.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. I Agree That Argument Lacks Merit

However if I read the Gallup survey correctly, Hillary polls better against McCain in swing states than Obama does...

That argument does have merit but it is not dispositive for a multitude of reasons.

[JoFerret]

24. Clearly not

Instant knee jerk reaction to reject denounce and renounce views that don't fit in the box.

[Arugula Latte]

59. FYI, Obama is polling HIGHER now in California than Hillary.

[GCP]

2. At least 90% of the people here don't want to hear that

and those figures are what worry me about the Obama candidacy.
At the moment it's blood sport trashing HRC and her supporters, nobody wants to look down the road to the GE.

[IsItJustMe]

5. These polls don't mean a damn thing now. Bill Clinton was far behind Bush and Perrot at this point

[pathansen]

60. ?? If people change change their mind as much as you claim then same must hold true for primaries

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. I Concede Obama Will Be The Nominee

I watched Bill Schneider who has a fucking PhD from Harvard in Political Science stand those surveys on their head last night. He suggested all swing states are equal in impact as in arguing carrying the swing states of Virginia, Iowa, and Colorado is as powerful as carrying the swing states of Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania...Look up how many delegates each set of states has and get back to me...

As has been discussed ad infintum and ad nauseum every metric favors the Democratic nominee for president, i.e. struggling economy, unpopular war, unpopular incumbent, et cetera but the Republican nominee is running even in the polls... This should not be...

It will be interesting to see how this plays out...I will vote for Obama in the Fall but I have no emotional investment in the result... I will watch as a detatched observer...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. CONCLUSION

The findings of those surveys are of interest but of only academic interest at this moment...We will learn in the fullness of time who was the most "electable" candidate.

Let history judge...

[Ninga]

7. History has judged. And once the general election starts in earnest, the playing field is

cleared and evened out.

Political memories fade and blur......and May and June will be light years away.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. Maybe And Maybe Not

Every available metric favors the Democrat but lots of empirical and anecdotal information suggests McSame is set to run a competitive race...

This race should be as competitive as Hoover vs. Roosevelt...

[Exilednight]

19. running even is a better advantage to the Democratic nominee when compared in recent historical ....

context. Bill Clinton started out way behind in '92 and had a stunning win.

Also, there are many factors that people aren't taking into consideration. Barr is running on the Libertarian ticket, and many swing states that lean rethug, but occasionally go blue, are heavily libertarian in nature. Especially western states surrounding Utah which equals out to 32 electoral votes.

Just another little tidbit, Obama will under-poll in the GE. Polling is done using historical trends to determine possible outcomes, but there's a problem with historical trends vs this election; groups that don't usually turnout at the polls are showing up in record numbers.

Typically, less than 25% of all eligible African American voters turnout to vote, and only make up 12% of the overall vote on average - and that number has been shrinking. When Bill won in '92 it was closer to 15% of overall turnout, then it shrunk to 12% and for Kerry it was right around 10%.

A polling company will look at that and say that less and less of the African-American community is voting, so logically it would predict that only 8-10% of African-Americans will vote in this GE. So now when they go out and poll 1000 people, only 80-100 of those people will be African-Americans, but African-Americans are turning out in record numbers and will probably make up a larger percentage of the overall vote. Same thing with voters under 30.

Contrary to popular belief, Hillary can not break the 50% mark with women. Neither can Obama, (currently it's Hillary 47% and Obama 43%) but he can make it up with a large turnout of African-Americans and under 30 voters. With Hillary as the nominee you can expect the AA vote to shrink to 8-10% of overall voters, and the under 30 vote will remain the same in previous elections. There's been no proof that women will run out in record numbers to vote for Hillary, and the fact that Obama is only 4 points behind her reinforces this belief.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. It Is Too Early To Make Predictions...The Political And Economic Environment Favors Obama

I don't understand your remarks about African American voters...They comprise 12.8% of the American population...They already vote Democratic and in numbers that roghly correspond to their percentage of their population...I have seen models that suggest with even unprecedented African American turnout Obama will add only about one percent to his popular vote...

Here's 04 exit polls:


http://www.pollster.com/08-NY-Pres-GE-MvC.php

African American comprised 11% of the electorate...That's fairly close to their actual percentage of the population...

Also the Liberterian candidate usually gets less than one percent of the vote...I'll believe a Liberterian will do better when he does...

[Exilednight]

27. Let me explain ..........

For the first time in modern history the under 18 age group for the African-American community is shrinking, but the over 18 age group is growing. The younger age group is being out paced by the Hispanic-American and Latino-American communities. Overall, African-Americans are growing in size of a voting block, but that trend will reverse in 5-10 years.

Remember, you have to look at eligible voters.

Barr will fair better than previous Libertarian candidates thanks to Ron Paul. Remember, Paul's idiots are still voting in double digit numbers in rethug primaries. I doubt he will get Ross Perot numbers - Perot had 23% of the popular vote, but he should pull down about half of that.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. African Americans Make Up 12.8 Of The Population

Let's be wildly optimistic and posit that they vote at their percentage of the population and 95% vote for Obama...That increases Obama's overall percentage of the pop vote by about 1.5%...

Pat Buchanan who is a hell of a lot better known and a better campaigner than Bob Barr ran on the Reform Party ticket in 00 and got .05% of the vote...

I don't think Barr, Nad(i)r, and McKinney will be playas in 08...


Oh, and Perot got 18.9% of the vote...He also spent $65.9 million of his own money...Bob Barr is no Ross Perot...Also, Ross Perot was invited to the major debates... Barr will not be invited to the major debates because he will never meet the 15% threshhold that has to be met to be allowed in the major debates...

[Exilednight]

33. Have you ever seen voter turnout for a GE ........

for an industrialized country it's abysmal. Only half the population bothers to turnout to vote in your typical General Election, but this election is anything but typical.

McCain doesn't exactly scream "vote for me" to true conservatives, and I think many will stay home or protest vote. For the first time since Reagan the rethugs don't have a likable candidate to the base.

On the flip side, the we have a candidate who energizes the base. African-Americans could make up 20% of the overall vote in the GE.

The real question is voter suppression in states southern states like Mississippi, where they have three times the national average of African-American voters, but have less than the national average turnout.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

36. Here's Exit Polls From Mississippi For 2004

http://www.pollster.com/08-NY-Pres-GE-MvC.php

African Americans comprised 34% of the Mississippi electorate...That is only 3% less than their percentage of the entire population...


As to your suggestion that African Americans will comprise 20% of the electorate in 2008...That presupposes that non African American participation will have to go down by about thirty percent...That's not likely...

[Exilednight]

38. 20% and 30% equals 50%. Non African-Americans would have to go down to 80% which is quite possible

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. Kerry Got 14% Of The White Vote In Mississippi In 04

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5297171/

If African Americans comprise 38% of the electorate and Obama gets all 38% of that vote and receives the same 14% of the non African American vote he still loses 53% -47%...

[Exilednight]

44. You're confusing voter turnout with eligible voters. In theory, if Obama managed to turnout every

African-American who is eligible to vote in Mississippi, the AA community would constitute nearly 80% of all voters in Mississippi.

The ACLU has questioned the 38% AA voter turnout in Mississippi, and there are several known cases of African-American voter suppression all over the state.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

50. That's Mathematicaly Impossible...

African Americans comprise 37.1% of the entire population of Mississippi, ergo:

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/28000.html


If every one of them voted they would comprise 37.1% of the electorate and whites would comprise 60.9% of the electorate, ergo:


http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/28000.html



"You're confusing voter turnout with eligible voters. In theory, if Obama managed to turnout every
African-American who is eligible to vote in Mississippi, the AA community would constitute nearly 80% of all voters in Mississippi."

-Exilednight

Where do you get your 80% figure from?

[Exilednight]

54. Only half of all eligible voters actually voted in Mississippi .......

Let's do it this way, and I'll use round numbers to make it easy on the math.

1,000,000 eligible voters in Mississippi.
380,000 are African-American.
620,000 are non African-Americans.

500,000 (overall) bothered to vote in the 2004 election.
190,000 (overall) were African-American in the 2004 election. (38% of 5,000,000)

Now let's say that voter turnout stays the same at 500,000. (dixiecrats won't vote for a black man, and they hate McCain's stance on immigration.)
500,000 (overall) will vote.
360,000 (overall) are African-Americans. They would then comprise 72% of the overall vote.

Now let's say that the same amount of non African-Americans vote as in 2004. That would be .........

310,000

But let's say that every eligible African-American votes, and not a single non AA votes for Obama. He would still win. Now this is a very unlikely scenario, but you get the idea.

Personally, I think it will be somewhere in the middle. Obama will increase AA turnout, and McCain will turnoff non African-American voters, and Obama will still draw in younger people and a small double digit turnout of white voters.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

56. There Has Never Been A Statewide Race In Mississippi With More African Americans Than Whites Voting

Usually when one builds a model electorate there is some historical predicate...

Also, there is a Seate race, and of course the entire Congressional delegation is on the ballot...Are non African American voters going to sit those races out too?

And there are state wide races...

[Exilednight]

57. You can vote Congressional races and not vote the Presidential. Not everyone votes the top ........

of the ticket. Last election I lived in a blue seat in a red state. I didn't like Kerry, but wasn't about to vote for Bush. My vote wouldn't make a difference at the top of the ticket either way, so I voted down ticket for Democrats and skipped the top.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

58. That's How The Republicans Explained The Florida Undervotes That Cost Gore

Their rationale to me which was horseshit was that Florida Democrats wanted to vote for other Democrats on the ballot but not Gore so they didn't vote for president at all...

Most folks fill out the entire ballot... I seriously doubt that most Mississippians are going to leave the presidential ballot blank...

The suggestion that Republicans hate McSame and won't vote for him in the Fall strikes me as fanciful and naive but I guess that's why we have elections...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

46. So Your Model Mississippi Electorate is 53% White And 47% African American

Respectfully, I will bookmark this thread and see how accurate your model electorate is...I submit there's not an unbiased analyst who would make a model for Mississippi like that...

[OzarkDem]

41. and women are 52%

but they'll vote the way the Dem men tell them to, right? :sarcasm:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. Women Made Up 54% Of The Electorate In 04

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5297138/


I'm trying to read the data, analyze the data, and make inferences from the data free from bias...

Who am I trying to spin here?

There's no gain...

[Exilednight]

49. Women are almost split dead even among Hillary and Obama. Hillary can not break the 50% mark ......

with women in the Democratic primary, neither can Obama, but they're fairly close. Hillary leads 47% to Obama's 43%. That's not that large of a margin, and IF Obama was winning the AA vote by only four points - we all know the headlines would be "Obama can't win his own".

Now I wouldn't say that Hillary wouldn't win women in a GE, but she will not motivate them to turnout - just like she hasn't motivated them in the primary - but there's no proof that she would win them over from McCain in large numbers.

Now you can argue the other way and say that every Dem candidate has won the black vote by 90%. But that doesn't make much difference if AA's only comprise the same amount, or lower, of overall turnout then it doesn't do us any good. If the AA vote was .5% to 1% higher, and Kerry maintained the same ratio of 90% wins, he would be President today.

[OzarkDem]

52. Link?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

55. Kerry Lost The Pop Vote By 2.4 %...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2004

Even if African American participation was increased by fifteen percent he would still lose the pop vote...

And don't forget that Bush* got 16% of the African American vote in Ohio, many of whom were inspired to vote for him because he supported the anti gay marriage amendment on the ballot that they also supported:


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5297182/

[pathansen]

63. I've heard otherwise. Do you have a link?

[my3boyz]

8. Clinton can harp all she wants about her view that SHE is the only

democrat that can carry the states she won in the primary. It is bull! Yeah, she might win because of the rural racists in Central Ohio but she would also lose the western states big time. At least Obama has a shot there. Plus he leads big time in places like Wisconsin and she does not. I LOVE it when people underestimate Obama! That is what makes his victory sweeter! Hillary underestimated Barack and look what happened. I hope McCain and Hillary's bitter supporters underestimate him again!

[Exilednight]

13. Howard needs to take a closer look at history .........

"I think the very definition of the process that we're going through suggests that, as a party, we believe that primaries have some bearing on electoral outcomes in general elections and that they are somewhat predictive,"

That's bullshit. Bill lost CO, IA, MD, MA, NH, VT, and CT in the '92 primary, but won them in the GE.

[iamthebandfanman]

16. by electable, im assuminig BEING ELECTED

makes you 'electable'.

so yes, they will pick Obama because he won the primary... you know... an election.

[iconicgnom]

30. a one-eyed, one-horned, flyin' purple people eater

[OzarkDem]

40. Some think winning the GE is of secondary importance

Go figure.

[Occam Bandage]

51. For instance, the "take it to the convention!" morans.

[Quixote1818]

48. I read someplace that Clinton is doing better in polls because of Operation Chaos

Rush is telling them to say they are for Hillary instead of McCain so people think Obama is the weaker candidate. If you get 1 out of 10 Republicans doing this then it really fucks with the totals.

[nichomachus]

62. Hillary is Rush's meal ticket -- without her

he and Maureen Dowd would be in the unemployment line.