Electability VA Style

SUSA says Obama beats McCain:


Obama 49
McCain 42

No Clinton polling. Still, this is good news.

By Big Tent Democrat

< Clinton Conference Call On FL/MI | Obama Blog "Shocked" That Politics Is Being Practiced >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    PsstCmere08... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:50:06 AM EST
    she still doesn't win VA according to Hominid Views.

    Of course, she still manages to trounce McCain with an average of 301 electoral votes.

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Steve M on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:53:46 AM EST
    If Obama wins VA then he certainly will be President.

    I Wish (none / 0) (#21)
    by talex on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:00:42 PM EST
    the premature coronation of Obama on these front pages would wait until we had an 'official' nominee.

    Yeah. (none / 0) (#26)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:02:41 PM EST
    The media definitely has too much of a role in this process.

    Well (none / 0) (#31)
    by Steve M on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:08:31 PM EST
    SUSA is the only one doing a premature coronation here.  If they had polled Clinton numbers, it surely would have been part of this post as well.

    I assume whoever paid them to do this poll didn't ask them to poll Clinton-McCain numbers, which I guess is their right since it's their dime.


    It's so hard to tell this far out (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:54:03 AM EST
    In 2004 at this point, electoral vote predictor had Kerry at about 300 ev (IIRC). Then it flipped in the end.

    There are too many variables in any election...and this one is even worse.

    It was loaded up with Zogby (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:57:29 AM EST
    I think EVP uses a (none / 0) (#16)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:59:47 AM EST
    whichever is the most current poll, so it changes daily.

    This may be a bounce because, rightly (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by TomP on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:57:01 AM EST
    or wrongly, people in Va. think Obama will be the nominee.  A unity bounce, so to speak.  It si good news, but we are very far from November.  I think Va. is a difficult state for either Obama or Clinton.

    I think McCain will win it easily. (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:58:45 AM EST
    My family lives in VA. No way either Obama or Clinton takes it.



    How big (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by cannondaddy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:59:48 AM EST
    is your family?

    LOL! (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:03:35 PM EST
    They are Obama supporters, so if it were up to them, he'd win in a landslide!

    They are actually pretty knowledgeable about VA politics because they've participated at a local level.


    Lots of military there (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:00:33 PM EST
    plus Quantico, etc.

    Sorry, I don't buy don't it... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by cosbo on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:00:21 PM EST
    McCain will probably clean up on the military vote. Add in 527s with Wright and Rezko...eh.

    Why would McCain clean up the (none / 0) (#29)
    by JoeA on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:06:54 PM EST
    military vote?

    The biggest recipients of donations from members of the military were Ron Paul and Obama if I remember rightly.


    Are you seriously asking me why would... (none / 0) (#33)
    by cosbo on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:09:40 PM EST
    a former POW clean up on the military vote?

    I'm asking if there is any evidence (none / 0) (#35)
    by JoeA on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:13:52 PM EST
    for your assertion that he would do better among the military?

    I can see why many in the military might respect McCain's service,  I can also see why many might prefer not to vote for his 100 years in Iraq policies as well.


    Actually (none / 0) (#36)
    by CST on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:16:33 PM EST
    There was an interesting article in Newsweek about why he might not win the veteran vote.  I know Newsweek is pretty blatantly pro-Obama but they still made some good points.  A lot of vets are pissed that he is trying to block the new bill giving college and housing benefits to vets.

    And frankly, he doesn't have that great of a record for voting for vet funding, something like 30% vs. Obama at 90% (although granted he has taken fewer votes).


    It's unlikely he won't win the military vote. (none / 0) (#38)
    by masslib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:21:02 PM EST
    I suspect you are right (none / 0) (#39)
    by CST on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:22:04 PM EST
    But he may do worse than he would otherwise due to his record.  Which frankly, isn't very good.

    It wasn't Newsweek, ooops (none / 0) (#49)
    by CST on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:35:31 PM EST
    The article was in Time - slightly less pro-Obama and therefore more believable.

    You (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:26:24 PM EST
    don't understand the military. I imagine that Obama's support within the military was mostly from minorities (if what you say is true) not due to his policies. The military doesn't trust Obama from what I've heard.

    I live in SWVA (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by cawaltz on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:41:29 PM EST
    and I still don't see Virginia turning for Obama. Webb won by 2000 votes, a bare win.

    But don't you think (none / 0) (#58)
    by Dr Molly on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:31:36 PM EST
    that the political climate now is much more anti-republican?

    For Now...Won't Expect Those Numbers To (none / 0) (#1)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:46:52 AM EST
    hold and would appreciate a more complete picture with how Clinton factors into the equations.

    MSNBC 's pushing Obama Dem-state weakness (5.00 / 0) (#32)
    by andrys on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:08:37 PM EST
    It's so strange that on every single MSNBC hour today, they make much ado over Obama not doing well against McCain in large Democrat states while Clinton does very well.  First, Morning Joe's crowd, and now Andrea Mitchell

    Here's a less-mentioned but amazing electoral college analysis and simulation updated each day that there are new polls to include - done by Darryl Holman, and here's his Simulation FAQ that explains how all the info is taken and his bio is interesting.

     Add a visit to this site to the usual list - such as Electoral-Vote.com's Clinton vs McCain page and their  page for Obama vs McCain and the Real Clear Politics pages.


    Clinton and McCain are vetted, Obama is not (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by Lisa on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:25:20 PM EST
    Right now he's getting the benefit of anti-incumbent (Bush) / "generic democrat" sentiment.

    Once everyone in the country (and believe it or not, not everyone has been paying the same amount of attention we have to the Democratic primary) gets to know Obama and his background, those numbers will be lower.

    The other thing that sounds like just fallen off the political turnip truck is when people think now = November.


    But it's still good news right? (none / 0) (#6)
    by sarissa on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:54:14 AM EST

    Tweaking goes both ways, (none / 0) (#2)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:48:36 AM EST
    doesn't it? :-)

    I'd be much happier about his chances if I hadn't seen this already.

    (Unfortunately, VA is red in this scenario.)


    FYI (none / 0) (#14)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:58:49 AM EST
    They have not added the poll BTD is talking about yet, instead using two other recent polls.

    Thanks... (none / 0) (#18)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:00:00 PM EST
    but even if we give VA to Obama, it still doesn't swing the election to him.



    Oh wait...maybe it does. (none / 0) (#23)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:01:39 PM EST
    My bad. ;-)

    Whomever is the candidate (none / 0) (#24)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:01:43 PM EST
    we have to figure out how to make it happen for the Dems somehow.

    Why is SUSA (none / 0) (#8)
    by cannondaddy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:57:09 AM EST
    leaving Clinton off as a VP choice?  Even though personally I don't like the idea, it would still be interesting to see how it polls.

    Because Obama is leaving her off (none / 0) (#15)
    by dianem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:59:19 AM EST
    The word is that Clinton isn't on the short list. There is no reason to include her.

    Gawd. (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:03:17 PM EST
    I hope the "word" is wrong.

    And Edwards says he doesn't want it (none / 0) (#22)
    by cannondaddy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:00:59 PM EST
    but he's there.

    Edwards doesn't want it? (none / 0) (#56)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:12:43 PM EST
    How could he not want it?

    This is indeed good news. (none / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:57:48 AM EST

    virgina will probably go red. (none / 0) (#11)
    by hellothere on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:58:02 AM EST
    are there any particular groups that could swing them a different way?

    Second Poll With VP Choices That Listed (none / 0) (#12)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:58:06 AM EST
    Hagel as a choice for VP. Arrrh

    According to this poll, Obama loses votes from women if he picks Sebelius as VP. Edwards polled strongest as VP in this and the NM poll.


    The VP polling... (none / 0) (#25)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:02:34 PM EST
    ... consistently shows swings that just cannot possibly be how people will actually vote. It's kind of silly to take it at all seriously.

    What I Find The Most Interesting Is (none / 0) (#48)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:34:11 PM EST
    that Hagel has been listed as an Obama VP choice in two state polls. Someone is pushing this idea or it wouldn't be on the polls.

    Also, to me this shows the first reaction of women in VA to having a not-Hillary woman on the ballot. Right at this moment it does not appear to be a popular idea. Sure they could come to love her in the end and think it was a great idea, but at this moment no.


    I wonder why Rendell polls so (none / 0) (#34)
    by JoeA on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:11:32 PM EST
    poorly as a VP choice in VA?

    That (none / 0) (#57)
    by sas on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:29:19 PM EST
    Hagel thing is interesting.  He's also on the Republican sites as possibly McCain's running mate.

    Really, that adds to the fuel that Obama really isn't much of a Dem....


    I don't believe this result (none / 0) (#30)
    by frankly0 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:07:02 PM EST
    for a moment.

    The fact is, VA was lost by Kerry by 8%. Does anybody seriously believe that Obama, at this stage of the game, having so clearly lost the support of white working class voters, is going to do massively better than Kerry?

    I don't really think he'll win there either... (none / 0) (#37)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:20:42 PM EST
    ... but a poll is what it is. It only really tells us what the voters think today, and today they seem to like Obama. I suspect he'll struggle to hold onto the share of white voters he's got in this poll as the campaign gets nasty, though.

    Look, I really just don't (none / 0) (#47)
    by frankly0 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:33:09 PM EST
    believe that the poll is an accurate representation of what people in VA believe even today.

    How many times do polls have to be demonstrably off by 10% or more before we stop taking their results seriously?

    Of course the other point is true as well: that what people may say today about their preferences has often little relation to what they believe after they have been "reminded" by campaigns by negative ads, etc., of who and what they are really voting for.


    Sure. (none / 0) (#43)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:28:53 PM EST
    He'll do better with affluent independents in NoVa than Kerry and turn out the AA vote at a much higher rate.  

    Plus, Kerry was running against an incumbent and the Republican brand was not so damaged there.


    I don't (none / 0) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:30:19 PM EST
    know about VA but Obama has been hemorraghing independents nationwide post Wright.

    Hence the limitation to (none / 0) (#51)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:43:54 PM EST
    "affluent independents"

    This sounds like the creative class rationale (none / 0) (#52)
    by Lisa on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:45:09 PM EST
    As in "Dems can win without working class, women, minorities (non-AA), and the elderly."

    I'm not from the "show me" state, but I've got a math degree.  I need to see some kind of basis for this theory.


    See Virginia primary. n/t (none / 0) (#53)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:46:25 PM EST
    And the cited poll. n/t (none / 0) (#54)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:47:01 PM EST
    Where did I ever say (none / 0) (#55)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:49:42 PM EST
    that Dems can win without any of those contstituencies?  I just noted that there are constituencies where I think Obama can outperform Kerry.  He'll otherwise have to do at least as well as Kerry amond the constituencies you identify in order to win.

    Kerry wasn't exactly the candidate of the working man though, was he?


    Look, what (none / 0) (#60)
    by frankly0 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:01:26 PM EST
    you're obviously claiming is that Obama does so much better with the AA and "affluent independent" that he makes up for what he might lose to Kerry with the white working class. Indeed, you are claiming that he'd do so much better that he could make up the 8% gap in the 2004 election.

    That strikes me as pure fantasy, based on little more than wishful thinking. And the primary result for Obama was when he was riding high, namely before Wright etc., and was doing much, much better with whites in regions like VA. The current poll is just that: a poll, subject to what should be obvious is by now a very real unreliability that goes way past so called margins of error.


    No. (none / 0) (#64)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:26:03 PM EST
    I'm suggesting that Kerry didn't do particularly well among southern, white working class voters and that Obama will do much betterthan Kerry did among African Americans both in terms of turnout and share.  I am also suggesting that Obama has done surprisingly well with affluent white independents.  These are facts.

    Does they mean Obama will win Virginia?  No.  Does it mean Obama can win without improving his standing among working class white voters (and really Oregon tells us that the problem is more of a geographic one)?  No.

    But if he manages it, it explains how.


    Other polls (none / 0) (#61)
    by Fultron on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:16:11 PM EST
    VCU poll released yesterday has McCain up 8%. Previous Rasmussen and SUSA show roughly the same...so unless a major shift occured overnight, this latest SUSA seems to be an outlier.

    And (none / 0) (#62)
    by Fultron on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:18:56 PM EST
    as someone mentionned up or down thread, the fact that Clinton vs. McCain was not included in this latest poll is surely a sign that the methodology/questions have changed.

    Nevada (none / 0) (#41)
    by ajain on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:25:29 PM EST
    Hillary beats McCain 46-41, McCain beats Obama 46-40.


    I figured (none / 0) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:29:04 PM EST
    this. With Obama's problems with hispanics I find it unlikely that he'll do well in states like NV.

    I hope (none / 0) (#59)
    by nell on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:51:38 PM EST
    BTD will do a post on this at it debunks his idea that Obama can win in the west while Clinton cannot. She may have a tougher climb in CO, but he will have a tougher time in NV, and I think he has to win both of these if he is going to lose OH and FL, and I don't even know what happens if he loses PA, though that doesn't seem to be the case at the moment.

    All of these polls are meaningless (none / 0) (#63)
    by s5 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:47:01 PM EST
    It cracks me up that the commenters here get fired up about close polls that show Clinton winning the all important "swing states" from 2004, but express intense skepticism about polls like this one. Suddenly "it's too early to know" or "wasn't Kerry ahead by this time in 2004?".

    Folks, the general election hasn't started. Campaigning will change all of these polls no matter which democrat gets the nod. The landscape even in a month from now is going to look entirely different. Anyone who says otherwise needs to put down the candidate koolaid and remember that there's a long slog ahead of us, no matter which democrat we have running against McCain.

    McCain will get 52% of the vote in Virgninia. (none / 0) (#65)
    by AX10 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:22:03 PM EST
    There are enough military people who feel a closeness with McCain.
    Clinton and Obama will come close, but will not close the deal in VA come November.