Rasmussen Updates Electoral College Map

Rasmussen has updated its electoral college map of how each of the 50 states should go in November.

It moves Tennessee into the "safely Republican" category but says that has no effect on the total. Including the "leaning states,"

Democrats [are]leading in states with 284 Electoral College Votes. Republicans are favored in states with 229 Votes.

Here are the toss-up states:

Eight states with 97 Electoral Votes are either a pure Toss-Up or just slightly leaning to one party or the other. These are likely to be the early battleground states of Election 2008: Florida (27), Ohio (20), Virginia (13), Missouri (11), Colorado (9), Iowa (7), Nevada (5), and New Mexico (5).

Anyone want to weigh in on the significance or lack of significance of Rasmussen's new map?

< Wyoming Democratic Caucus: Obama Wins | Ohio, Hillary, the Rural Vote and November >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    IA is not a toss-up state (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by desmoinesdem on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:48:13 PM EST
    The GOP is in total disarray here. The caucuses extended the Democrats' voter registration edge over Republicans:


    Two of our three Democrats in the U.S. House have no declared Republican challengers, and the third is unlikely to have trouble holding his seat.

    Tom Harkin has more than $3 million in the bank, and his only declared opponents are jokes. A bunch of Republicans are retiring from the state House and Senate, sensing that this will be a big Democratic year in Iowa.

    Put our 7 EVs in the Democratic column.

    Iowa is in the 'Leans Democratic' (none / 0) (#23)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:07:53 PM EST
    category on the Rasmussen link.

    I think Jeralyn got it wrong


    Just doing some quick math... (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Oje on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:53:48 PM EST
    As a counter argument to the Democratic party's arcane system of pledged delegates, it will be useful to compare the EV representation of Clinton and Obama at the end of this race. Currently, based on wins and most recent polls (or patterns), my estimate is that Clinton's state vote victories (so Texas to Clinton) will represent 308 EVs, while Obama's will likely be 230 EVs.

    Also, I think Clinton outpaces Obama in every categorization (Safe Democratic to Safe Republican), with the exceptions of Toss Up (5 C, 20 O) and Likely Republican (6 C, 15 O). Clinton won safe, likely, and leans Democratic states, as well as leans and safely Republican states.

    Looking ahead to the end of this process, the EV map will be yet another way in which the narrative about Obama's 50-state coalition just does not match the realities of the general election. Clinton will possess broader popular and electoral appeal than Obama.

    Note: If you want to verify what I did, the states that voted are self-evident (and I gave Clinton Fla. and Mich. results--this may change obviously if they hold another vote). For upcoming states, I allotted based on most recent poll or regional trend: Penn., Ken., Ind., and W.V. to Clinton; Ore., N.C., Miss., Mont., and S.D. to Obama. I double-checked my numbers, but I make mistakes!

    Actually... (none / 0) (#58)
    by sef on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:58:58 PM EST
    When you look at the state by state numbers replacing generic dem with McCain vs. Obama or Hillary, Obama is more competitive putting states in play that haven't been in play in a generation (North Dakota goes dem, Texas is within a point) in EVs and would likely have wider coat-tails, however, both would do amazingly well.  Either candidate is likely to be a 320+ ev winner & a 400+ev is not out of the question.

    However, November is a million years from now and anything is possible


    My statement... (none / 0) (#63)
    by Oje on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:44:14 PM EST
    is based on Rasmussen electoral map, the electoral vote value of each state, and the outcome of the primaries--not surveys.

    I merely wish to point out that Obama will likely not represent the popular vote or the electoral vote majority from the primary process. Also, if he puts red state's into play more than Clinton, why are the electoral vote totals for his Republican state victories likely to be less numerous than Clinton's EV totals from red states?

    Leans Rep (27 C, 13 O)
    Likely Rep (6 C, 15 O)
    Safely Rep (86 C, 82 O)
    ALL Rep (119 C, 110 O)

    Demonstrably, based on actual voters this primary season, Clinton will possess a stronger claim to the will of the (electoral) voters and may even have a more substantial coattail than Obama in the red states.


    ummmm (none / 0) (#70)
    by sef on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:22:13 PM EST
    Obama currently has the electoral vote majority, and there is no reason to believe that he won't continue to have it going forward.  Hillary will have to blow out Obama in PA (and PA simply doesn't do blowouts) for her to take a major lead in the total votes.

    You mean pledged delegate lead... (none / 0) (#71)
    by Oje on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:53:25 PM EST
    we are on two different pages....

    and after the remaining states vote, revote, or have their delegates seated at the convention, it is increasingly likely that Clinton, not Obama, will receive the majority of popular votes. I think BTD started a story on this the other day.


    Effect of anti-AA amendments? Karl Rove? (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by ineedalife on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:08:37 PM EST
    CNN had a bit that both MO and CO, and several other states, will have anti-affirmative action amendments on the ballot in November. Looks like Karl Rove is going to try to incite bigot vote again. The anti-gay amendments probably won it for Bush in 2004 particularly in Ohio.

    How do Hillary and Obama deal with this? Decry racism and sexism, launch a strident defense of affirmative action, or embrace them and do away with affirmative action?

    Perhaps this: As with NAFTA (none / 0) (#40)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:44:57 PM EST
    it may be time to look again at the law and improve it?  (Important as it is, it can privilege people based on race who have made it into the upper middle-class or even the upper class while thus, with limits on enrollment, for example, actually disadvantaging poor AAs and others.  It also can be too reliant on surnames as indicative of ethnicity.)  

    Remembering that the (none / 0) (#48)
    by oldpro on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:16:25 PM EST
    greatest recipients of affirmative action have been women.

    Link? YOu know your stuff (none / 0) (#55)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:51:50 PM EST
    so I don't doubt it, but I'd like to see the data and how it's discussed -- and how different it may be between some groups of women and others.

    Women are, after all, THE largest group of Americans by the standard categories, and some certainly seem to have not done well, so it would be interesting to see.  (And, of course, the EEOC has stopped doing a lot of enforcement re gender in recent years.)


    Can't tell you the best source (none / 0) (#75)
    by oldpro on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:21:25 AM EST
    link, etc.  Seems to me the last time I read it definitively was in a higher ed publication on public policy and the reference was to the differences before AAction and after AAction in female enrollments in law and medical schools and other professional postgraduate programs.  Such changes, of course, are readily observable since the 60s!

    the Judiciary and the Executive branch is such a comfort, is it not?

    yes it is, however i'd like to see more in (none / 0) (#72)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:56:43 AM EST
    leadership positions. i have to say that pelosi is a major disappontment to me.

    Affirmative action never did apply (none / 0) (#76)
    by oldpro on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:27:04 AM EST
    to elective office or exempt employees in the public sector, although they have been affected along with the rest of the culture.

    A great many more appointed and elected officials are female now than was true 20-30 years ago, including in the judiciary.  The SCOTUS, however, is still behind the curve.


    I think this is a very important subject... (none / 0) (#61)
    by Oje on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:26:35 PM EST
    For the general election, the Republicans will use this to push the narrative that our impending passage into a postracial and postgender American history that draws to an close the "temporary bandage" of affirmative action. It is not insignificant that 2 of the 5 states are potential swing states (based on the SUSA survey).

    First, as the economy takes front and center in this campaign, we have to recognize the differences between the parties. When Democrats discuss economics, it is about trade, corporations, anti-union activity, and the loss of jobs overseas. When Republicans talk about the economy, it is about how a black man, a woman, or an (illegal) immigrant wants to take their job away from them or has a job because of "preferential treatment." It is the Republicans' classic response to economic distress experienced by working class voters.

    My second suspicion is that this classic argument will have a unique twist in the campaign. Republicans want anti-affirmative-action laws on the ballots in swing states to distort the meaning of Obama's or Clinton's nomination to the Democratic presidential ticket. In the Republican "strategic" mind, Obama and Clinton will have to answer to whether they received "preferential treatment" in their path to the Democratic nomination. For them, Obama's or Clinton's nomination will present an opportunity to push the idea that America has come to the point where all this talk about race or gender is just reverse racism and reverse sexism--in effect, Republicans will tell voters (perversely) that America will overcome race and gender inequalities when we put an end to the reverse racism and reverse sexism of laws like affirmative action.

    I see these ballot initiatives as a joint effort, to delegitimize the Democratic candidate's nomination and to accelerate the end of affirmative action: Republicans have no intention to wait for "... 25 years from now, [when] the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary..." Consequently, I want to see both candidates on the record with a strong statement of opposition to these ballot initiatives and support for affirmative action. If either fails to do so and insists on being called a "self-made" wo/man, no doubt that McCain and the media will devolve into an endless examination of just how "self-made" the Democratic candidate is and/or how we have reached the end times of race and gender history.


    does anyone know where either candidate stands (none / 0) (#62)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:39:37 PM EST
    on affirmative action?

    Looks like nonsense (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by muffie on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:09:42 PM EST
    Key quote:

    Until the Democratic nominee is determined, the polling data used for each state will be based upon an average of the results for Barack Obama vs. John McCain and Hillary Clinton vs. John McCain.

    The extremes of safely Democratic/Republican look right, but the middle states depend too much on the nominee.

    toss up states? (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:16:32 PM EST
    These are likely to be the early battleground states of Election 2008: Florida (27), Ohio (20), Virginia (13), Missouri (11), Colorado (9), Iowa (7), Nevada (5), and New Mexico (5).

    Actually, if Obama is nominee, I think you can kiss Florida and Virginia goodbye and Pennsylvania becomes in play for the McCain.

    that's my thinking

    OK I'll bite (none / 0) (#46)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:13:40 PM EST
    Why is Virgnia gone if Obama the nominee but a race if Hillary is the nominee?  Didn't Obama beat Hillary by 18 points in Virginia?

    The SurveyUSA poll (none / 0) (#54)
    by kenosharick on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:42:30 PM EST
    from a few days ago actually has obama taking Virginia in Nov. I agree with you.

    This is about a "generic" Dem candidate (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by plf1953 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:19:21 PM EST
    The real question is how would BO or HC do in the real thing.

    Here is my guess:

    Lets say that all the safe states go for either one:  that's 157 EVs to start for each

    Of the "Likely Dem," I think HC wins all of them while BO loses MI, PA and NJ;  so +95 for HC or +42 BO

    Of the "Leans Dem," HC wins NM and OH for +27, while BO wins only IA for +5

    Of the "Toss-Ups," HC wins NV and MO for +16 and BO wins MO and CO, for +20

    So, its HC +295 to BO's +224

    Hillary wins it;  BO doesn't.

    Of course, FL is also a possibility for HC but not for BO, IMHO.

    Anyway, my theory may or may not hold water (probably won't/doesn't), but I think this is the kind of analysis the Super Ds will do to decide who to vote for;  that is, they will look at the electoral map and gauge the effectiveness of each canfidate in their home state (or the nation at large) and decide who to put over the top for the nomination.

    NJ (none / 0) (#66)
    by muffie on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:10:02 PM EST
    Barring a discovery that Obama actually is Bin Laden, just dressed up in a very clever disguise, there's no way he loses NJ.  (Margin in 2004: +7 Kerry).  

    The other stuff I disagree with, but it's at least within the realm of nightmarish possiblity for Obama.


    Yes, I do not doubt that young voters (none / 0) (#67)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:14:13 PM EST
    and others may not "see it that way" about the delegate count now.

    So?  How does that have anything to do with how they vote in the GE?  

    Actually, you do not understand the delegate role and rules.  No candidate can "overturn elected delegates."  So are you a young voter, a new voter?


    'overturn' (none / 0) (#78)
    by Aussie Chris on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:24:22 AM EST
    I assume we are talking about the superdelegates overturning the Obama lead in pledged delegates. Unless Clinton leads in the popular vote (which is certainly possible) I doubt that the 270 remaining uncommitted superdelegates can or will overturn Obama's lead in pledged delegates. Clearly, there would be a large backlash as occurred after the '68 Chicago convention.

    Thats very naive (none / 0) (#79)
    by plf1953 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:37:09 AM EST
    You don't think "remaining uncommitted superdelegates can or will overturn Obama's lead in pledged delegates" if in not doing so they are dooming the party to a loss in the GE?

    Of course they will.

    The tough part is that they aren't clairvoyant and don't know what will happen in the GE.

    But you gotta believe they will at least evaluate the primaries and the exit polling from those to get a gauge on each candidate's electability.

    This is where they begin to doubt the strength of Obama's chances despite his lopsided caucus wins and related pledged votes therefrom.

    This is the basis of my projection above.  

    Of course its just an amateur's projection at this poiint, but the party will make this calculus before awarding the nomination.

    Wouldn't they be foolish not too?

    Oh, and I don't think threats of riots from Obama supporters are going to deter them from choosing a GE-winning Dem nominee ... in fact, those threats probably will drive the non-Koolaid drinking among them right into HRC's camp.


    this statement strikes me as racist (none / 0) (#84)
    by plf1953 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:25:52 PM EST
    If you're talking to me, all I can say this isn't my statement or threat.

    It's the threat tossed around by Obamaphiles.

    Its also insinuated in your first comment above and has been insinuated by Obama surrogates, if not the campaign itself.

    Doug Wilder, the mayor of Richmond and a former governor of Virginia, went even further, predicting riots in the streets if the Clinton campaign were to overturn an Obama lead through the use of superdelegates.

    "There will be chaos at the convention," Wilder told Bob Schieffer on "Face the Nation."

    "If you think 1968 was bad, you watch: In 2008, it will be worse."

    I will say what I said again, though ... this constant threat of walking out or throwing a group tantrum (aka "riot"), isn't working and will, likely, cause people to vote against your candidate not for him.


    What you don't seem to acknowledge is that (none / 0) (#82)
    by plf1953 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:49:31 PM EST
    the rules, in fact, provide for the Super Ds to "overturn" the vote of the pledged delegates if they believe its in the best interests of the party (or the nation, one would hope).

    That Obama supporters don't agree with this rule, and want the rule now to be that the Super Ds will only vote to ratify the pledged delegate count (or any other metric that favors their candidate and not the other), is really the source of the brewing controversy.

    If they bolt the party or the election because they don't like the outcome of the nominating contest, I say good riddance to them.

    They obviously weren't real Democrats to begin with if they can only support the Obama candidacy and no other.


    Oh, and one other thing ... (none / 0) (#83)
    by plf1953 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:55:39 PM EST
    I suppose its OK to alienate all of the demographics that support Hillary - and brought home popular wins for her in virtually all of the most significant, most heterogenous states - but its not OK to alienate the "young and AAs" who swept Obama to victory in undemocratic caucus events and in non-representative states, huh?

    I think we saw an inkling this week ... (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:49:32 PM EST
    of how Obama may look like in the fall.  And it wasn't a pretty sight.

    "I already answered, like, eight questions."

    If Obama is the nominee I will strongly support him, but I think a Dukakis level loss is a real possibility with him.

    And if he gets into that position no amount of grass roots organizing or GOTV can save him.  The voters just won't be there.

    You've got to be kidding me (none / 0) (#45)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:12:50 PM EST
    You could run for President as a Democrat this year and do exponentially better than Dukakis.  

    We'll see ... (none / 0) (#47)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:14:54 PM EST
    ... we'll see.

    Dukais led Bush (none / 0) (#53)
    by sancho on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:26:35 PM EST
    by twenty points or so in polls taken during the summer of '88. It is hard to believe how quickly things change after the nominee is set.

    I agree with flyer (none / 0) (#60)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:21:22 PM EST
    I am afraid Sen Obama will not be able to win the Nov election if he is the candidate, but he ain't no Dukakis!

    They moved Tenn into repub column? (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by kenosharick on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:52:03 PM EST
    Survey USA has Hillary tied with mccain there.Sounds winnable to me. That poll also shows Hillary with 276 EV; and that is WITHOUT Oregon, Wash., or Michigan which I think would all go her way. That gives her 307 EV- with Tenn. and Iowa still possible.

    Looks like a job... (3.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Angry Mouse on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:36:16 PM EST
    for the dream ticket: Clinton/Obama.

    She carries those bigger states; he carries the smaller ones.

    God, the solution to the whole situation is so freakin' obvious.

    not to me (none / 0) (#35)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:38:56 PM EST
    I have a new post up expressing my doubts about it.

    Bill Clinton chimes in (none / 0) (#59)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:07:26 PM EST
    (I posted this on the other thread but it is relevant here, too) From Taylor Marsh, with my edits:

    "I know that she has always been open to it...  you look at most of these places, he would win the urban areas and the upscale voters, and she wins the traditional rural areas that we lost when President Reagan was president. If you put those two things together, you'd have an almost unstoppable force." - Bill Clinton

    Ask Al Gore (none / 0) (#1)
    by Mike Pridmore on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:24:39 PM EST
    about the importance of TN.  He should have won it and if he had he would have not had the election stolen from him by  4 to 5 vote.  And Hillary Clinton can win TN against John McCain.  

    TN was a very different state in 2000 (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by desmoinesdem on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:50:25 PM EST
    from the state Gore represented in the Senate. Also, Gore was hurt by Clinton administration scandals that were not his fault.

    NH should have gone for Gore, but the polling ahead of the election made it seem like a safe Republican state. Thousands of NH residents voted for Nader--more than the margin between Bush and Gore. I believe that if NH had been depicted in the media as a swing state, the Nader vote there would have been lower, and Gore would have had his 271 EVs even without Florida.


    I disagree. (none / 0) (#17)
    by Mike Pridmore on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:03:22 PM EST
    Bill Clinton had 65% approval ratings at the end of his second term.  Gore did not campaign a well in TN.  I lived there at the time.  Gore should have been allowed to claim his winnings in the 2000 election.  He won without winning TN really.

    Well, except for college, I've lived here my (none / 0) (#24)
    by Teresa on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:08:27 PM EST
    whole life. Of course, I'm in very red Knoxville. The Ford race and how close it got gives me hope too but I'll believe it when I see it. If HC gets the nomination, Bill needs to spend a lot of time in Memphis.

    Knoxville is beautiful (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:14:04 PM EST
    and a college town too.

    Had a great time in Knoxville in 1981 (long time ago)


    i was very proud of the amount of time that (none / 0) (#73)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:00:12 AM EST
    bill spent in texas. my brother in law went to a lunch and had gumbo with him. he was thrilled.

    Gore hurt by Clinton? (none / 0) (#30)
    by Coral Gables on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:15:50 PM EST
    I don't agree that Gore was hurt by Clinton. On the contrary Gore should have had Clinton out campaigning much more for him. Clinton left office with huge approval ratings. Gore should have embraced him on the trail.

    It's not necessarily a dichotomy (none / 0) (#41)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:47:05 PM EST
    I do think Gore was hurt a bit by Bill Clinton, but that it could have been more than compensated by having Bill Clinton campaign for him.

    She would have beaten Romney here but (none / 0) (#10)
    by Teresa on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:50:29 PM EST
    I'm not very confident about McCain. If the Huckabee voters come home to McCain, he'll win TN pretty easily. Though Bill could help her a lot here.

    A lot of people are going by what (none / 0) (#19)
    by Mike Pridmore on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:04:48 PM EST
    happened with Harold Ford last year.  I think Dems are stronger there than his candidacy would make it seem.  I lived there until 2004 and still have connections there.

    Harold Ford in 2006 (none / 0) (#52)
    by KevinMc on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:06:16 PM EST
    Harold Ford lost to Bob Corker by 50,000 votes.  I think he could have won if not for the investigation and subsequent conviction of his Uncle, John Ford, a former Democratic member of the State Senate.
    From the Wiki
    John N. Ford (born May 3, 1942) is a funeral director, insurance agent, and consultant in Memphis, Tennessee. He is a former Democratic member of the Tennessee State Senate. He is the younger brother of former U.S. Representative Harold Ford, Sr. and hence the uncle of former Tennessee U.S. Representative and 2006 United States Senate candidate Harold Ford, Jr. In April 2007 he was convicted on Federal bribery charges.

    Ford resigned from the Tennessee State Senate on May 28, 2005 in a letter to the Lieutenant Governor of Tennessee, John S. Wilder, and was placed under FBI house arrest. He stated in his letter of resignation that "I plan to spend the rest of my time with my family clearing my name

    I think if not for the association of the name Ford and the active investigation, Harold Ford would have won in 2004.  Also our Governor, Democrat Phil Bredesen, was the first Governor to win every county in the state.  I think Obama could keep Tennessee close and possibly win.  I know Hillary could win the state if she takes the time to campaign here during the general election.


    Correction (none / 0) (#57)
    by KevinMc on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:57:46 PM EST
    I think if not for the association of the name Ford and the active investigation, Harold Ford would have won in 2004.

    I meant 2006 of course.


    Wow (none / 0) (#2)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:26:32 PM EST
    252 EV's in the "safe Dem" or "likely Dem" categories.

    As long as Dems hold all those states, they only need 18 more EV's from any combination of the following: IA(7), NM(5), OH(20), CO(9), MO(11), NV(5), FL(27), VA(13), AR(6), NC(15).

    That's a fairly nice place to be.

    Rasmussen is using hocus pocus (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:30:39 PM EST
    and don't say exactly what's in their formula.

    I like SUSA's state-by-state head-to-heads better.

    And it's already weeks out of date (none / 0) (#5)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:33:38 PM EST
    as I clicked on my state, and at least it's based on mid-February data.  The race has rather turned around since then. . . .

    So: Bleh.


    Florida (none / 0) (#4)
    by fladem on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:31:32 PM EST
    is not winnable by either Clinton or Obama.

    Democrats have won two statewide races since 2002, and one of those was a Senate race against Kathleen Harris.

    If you bother to study the trends (including the 2004 race) you find growing Democratic erosion in the I-4 corridor between Tampa and Daytona.  This was where Bush built his 5 point advantage in 2004, and where Crist's blow out of Davis took shape in the '06 Gov race.

    In 2001 there were two conflicting views of Florida.  One was expressed by John Judis in "The Emerging Democratic Majority", the other by Michael Barone in the Almanic of American Politics.  Judis argued increasing Hispanic vote plus growth in the suburbs (where he saw Democrats doing better) meant Florida would trend Democratic.  Barone argued the in-migration from Florida was mostly from rural midwestern and sourthern counties and that the growth was in exurbs not the suburbs and predicted Florida would trend republican.

    Barone at this point appears to be clearly right.  As I said - we have won two statewide races since 2002.

    I agree with you about Obama (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by desmoinesdem on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:51:07 PM EST
    but don't you think that Clinton's edge among seniors and Latinos would at least give her a chance to win FL? SUSA seemed to think so.

    No (none / 0) (#36)
    by fladem on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:39:39 PM EST
    a couple of reasons:
    1.  The swing vote in Florida is in the I-4 corridor - and is far younger than people outside the state understand.
    2.  You can only hope to split Latinos - half the hispanic vote in Florida is Cuban and very Republican.
    3.  The older voters are increasinly Republican because those that remember FDR (and leaned Democratic) are dying and being replaced by Eisenhower Republicans.  

    SUSA says Hillary beats McCain (none / 0) (#16)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:00:27 PM EST
    by 10 points.

    what about Obama vs McCain? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:04:44 PM EST
    Obama loses big. (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Mike Pridmore on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:05:51 PM EST
    Today, Clinton talked again (none / 0) (#22)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:07:07 PM EST
    during a speech about having Obama in the number two slot, then the Big Dog mentioned it, too...

    Very clever. (4.50 / 2) (#43)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:49:53 PM EST
    I don't think he'd do it, but it's advantage to Clinton on this, having voters picture it as possible . . . and that is picturing her as president.  And then if he says no, wasn't it nice of her to say so?

    Just what Clinton is doing by being on the side of the disenfranchised voters in FL and MI.  


    Except, at DK, a diarist says look (none / 0) (#74)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:04:21 AM EST
    at that, HRC says she'll tap Obama as her VP, so he must be qualified to be President.

    Yea (none / 0) (#39)
    by fladem on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:44:10 PM EST
    he trails in SUSA by 2.

    That's nationally isn't it? (none / 0) (#86)
    by Mike Pridmore on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:36:50 AM EST
    I think the question was about FL specifically?

    Other polling has her (none / 0) (#37)
    by fladem on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:42:04 PM EST
    behind significantly.

    The last poll poll before SUSA have her down 9 (Mason Dixon).


    Florida Moving Dem? (none / 0) (#28)
    by Coral Gables on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:12:44 PM EST
    I'm not sure I completely agree with you saying FL is moving more GOP. Here are some recent statewide results:

    2002 Gov Bush     (R) 56 McBride 43
    2004 Sen Martinez (R) 50 Castor 48
    2006 Gov Crist    (R) 52 Davis 45
    2006 Sen Nelson   (D) 60 Harris 38

    If anything the trend there appears to be leaning toward the Dems although 4 races is not exactly scientific by any means. And Crist as Jeb's hand picked replacement at 52/45 against a little known opponent isn't what I would consider a blowout.


    I will repeat (none / 0) (#38)
    by fladem on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:43:14 PM EST
    we have won two statewide races since 2002.

    Bush was an incumbent in 2002, Crist's performance was in an open seat (you are not comparing apples and orange).  


    Do you think Bill Nelson would help at all? (none / 0) (#49)
    by Shawn on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:26:13 PM EST
    If Obama wins the nomination and he selected Nelson, do you think that would make it close enough to win? I see Obama doing a Lloyd Bentson with his veep nod, and Nelson can't be any worse than Dascle or Sam Nunn.

    No (none / 0) (#77)
    by fladem on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:22:16 AM EST
    Bill Nelson doesn't have a particularly high profile in Florida in my opinion.

    Seems early, unlers they want a trend line, (none / 0) (#6)
    by jeffinalabama on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:47:44 PM EST
    but a trend line of states seems silly, given the dynamics within any given 'moving' state.

    In other words, I wonder about their methodology.

    This is a very fluid race (none / 0) (#8)
    by ajain on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:49:38 PM EST
    The polls aren't up-to-date.

    SUSA's map also was already (none / 0) (#12)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:53:19 PM EST
    out of date when it came out a couple of days ago, part of it conducted before the Ohio/Texas/RI/VT primaries/caucuses.  Who is spending money on polls taken before crucial primaries but published afterward?

    I think its to early Pa 80 Dem not likely (none / 0) (#14)
    by Salt on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:54:34 PM EST

    Almost completely meaningless (none / 0) (#15)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:57:19 PM EST
    These sorts of electoral calculators are always sketchy but they mean nothing when one party has settled on a nominee and the other hasn't.

    While I continue to predict a strong Democratic win we won't start to get a clear picture until we see how the party unifies after the primary.  

    polls certainly mattered (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:05:31 PM EST
    when Obama kept citing his numbers against McCain on a national stage as a reason why he was more electable than Clinton.

    Now that the polls are moving for her, he's stopped talking about them.   Funny, that.


    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:12:41 PM EST
    in that polls are a rough sample for a momentary glimpse in time and things tend to tighten up when it gets closer to voting.

    I do note that a huge share of Obama wins are in the Rasmussen categories of 'Safely Republican' and 'Leans Republican' and are unlikely to be blue in November.

    Thus in the end, the determination (super delegates?) has to be made is which candidate will ultimately perform better and I am sure that an argument can be made in either way at this point.

    My thinking is that Hillary represents solidifying the Rasmussen states that are 'Safely Democratic' and 'Leans Democratic' and that makes her a winner.


    I don't think (none / 0) (#44)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:11:04 PM EST
    you needed a poll to tell you that Clinton has won most of the big deep blue states whereas Obama has won most of the red states.  

    rasmussen v SUSA (none / 0) (#32)
    by p lukasiak on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:17:43 PM EST
    Given the SUSA national state-by-state poll, and the large variation in the state-by-state outcomes depending upon whether Clinton or Obama is the nominee, I think that the Rasmussen poll is basically useless.  

    Louisiana (none / 0) (#50)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:29:52 PM EST
    I think Louisiana looks odd.  It's 32% AA.  It had incredible Dem turnout at 384,000 and Rep turnout at 161,000.  Can someone explain the demographics to me and why Republican turnout is going to increase 250%?  Seems like it should go Dem.  

    AK? (none / 0) (#68)
    by ghost2 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:16:16 PM EST
    If Hillary is the nominee, AK is going to go democratic, and some neighboring states will be competitive.  

    I think you mean Arkansas (none / 0) (#69)
    by Shawn on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:21:45 PM EST
    AK is Alaska, and I don't think it has any neighboring states. :)

    Yes, sorry. n/t (none / 0) (#85)
    by ghost2 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:14:29 PM EST