home

The Electoral Map

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:51:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The most recent electoralvote.com electoral map provides a picture of the election that I largely agree with. What it means in my opinion is what I have been saying for a while now - this election will be decided by Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan (now add Missouri.)

Right now, the map shows McCain holding the Solid Republican South and Obama holding the Gore/Kerry states (plus Iowa, Colorado and New Mexico). Obama's ability to take his electoral vote number comfortably over 270 depends on a showing of a 1 point lead in Ohio, a 3 point lead in Michigan, a 1 point lead in Missouri and a 5 point lead in Pennsylvania.

To get to 270, McCain needs to hold Ohio and take Michigan and/or Pennsylvania from the Gore/Kerry column (assuming he holds Virginia, if Obama wins Virginia, then he won in a landslide and all of this is moot). More . . .

I think Obama's idea of contesting as many states as possible is terrific. He certainly has enough money to do so. The more McCain is defending in Virginia and North Carolina, the less he is on offense in Ohio, Michigan, Missouri and Pennsylvania.

But make no mistake, if this is a close race, as I suspect it will be, those are the four key states that will decide the election.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< How To Read A Poll: Part X | SCOTUS: Gitmo Detainees Have Constitutional Habeas Rights >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Electoral Map | 202 comments (202 topical)
    The (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:38:57 AM EST
    chances of Obama taking MO are slim to none. The Rev. Wright fiasco make him drop double digits in that state. If his support is that soft then the GOP can easily throw something out before the election to make sure Obama can't win there.

    PA is a big question mark. He might be able to eke out Kerry's numbers there.

    OH? Who know but the latest debacle with his new economic advisor and the unions in revolt over it certainly won't help there nor in MI.

    missouri (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:58:55 AM EST
    Rasmussen released numbers from Missouri and finds Obama edging out McCain 43% to 42%. This is a great trendline for the Democrat, as he trailed by 5% last month and by 15% in March.

    [ Parent ]
    This is great? (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:02:25 AM EST
    Um, no it's not. Look at Obama's numbers over all. I don't think that he's topped 45% in that state since Rev. Wright showed up.

    [ Parent ]
    ok (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:55:15 AM EST
    so you project a loss and I project a win.  I will be sure to repost this win or lose come November...

    [ Parent ]
    trend lines are not irrelevant (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:24:04 AM EST
    what's great is the trend line . . . I'd rather have an upward trend line than a downward one.  And McCain's not above 45% either

    [ Parent ]
    What does it tell you (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:25:14 AM EST
    that Hillary Clinton as VP almost always puts him above 50%, but that he can't ever seem to get there himself?

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly. (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:27:11 AM EST
    Latest projection on Hominid Views was Hillary winning 325 EV all by herself.

    No "shoring-up" VP necessary.

    [ Parent ]

    We are seeing the slow light of ancient stars (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by dotcommodity on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:07:54 AM EST
    when we look at hominid views and electoral map.com.

    The Rasmussens, Quinniapacs, and SUSA polls are from the trailing past, state matchup polls dating from May 19th, May 27th...folks we are not looking at current realities.

    HAVE NOT GOTTEN TO MAY 31st YET.
    The DNCs RBC treatment of HRC is unaccounted for, as yet.

    [ Parent ]

    Very good point, (none / 0) (#114)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:10:28 AM EST
    although Hominid Views takes new polls into account, AFAIK.

    [ Parent ]
    nope. Rasmussen is slow. (none / 0) (#193)
    by dotcommodity on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:59:18 PM EST
    like 3 states a day. So both Hominid and e college.com lag. Check the details: dates are latish May.

    [ Parent ]
    You're right (none / 0) (#197)
    by Y Knot on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 01:23:09 PM EST
    Obama's numbers should shoot up at least 5 points in most of these states, now that the primaries are over.

    Good catch.

    [ Parent ]

    that's absurd. (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:31:55 AM EST
    McCain will alomst certainly win Missouri.  Obama should be hivering around 50% already with McCain at 40% there.

    [ Parent ]
    That's all why (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by BrandingIron on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:16:23 AM EST

    I think that entire map is cr@p.  Sorry, but it just is.  NH won't go for Obama.  They're the northern red state and I know the kind of people there, from Nashua in the south to Lyndesborough up further.  They're conservative.

    [ Parent ]
    MO (none / 0) (#2)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:58:12 AM EST
    is closer than you think.  SUSA largest and most recent poll had McCain up by three (within the margin of error).

    [ Parent ]
    So? (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:00:58 AM EST
    Is losing by three points now defined as winning? My point being is that if he's already losing and the GOP dumps something then he's guranteed to lose the state.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm just left thinking about (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:05:27 AM EST
    how Clinton unravelled on a state by state basis.

    I checked that link to McCain's ad and I was surprised to see it had about 180,000 hits. Qasi Viral ad that's being seen on local TV.

    Under the radar.

    [ Parent ]

    I live next door to MO (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:10:13 AM EST
    I would bet my next paycheck Obama will not win MO.

    [ Parent ]
    It's hard to tell... (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by dianem on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:16:40 AM EST
    ...but right now Obama is cominf off of a wave of good feelings about his winning the primary. He should have a 3-5 point bump everywhere, as Clinton's supporter's rally to him and people decide to go with the "winner". McCain has had nothing really going on, is only marginally campaigning, and has had some nasty press about his treatment of his first wife and comments made about his current wife.

    Being barely within the margin of error right now is not good. Obama should have a solid bump on his pre-Clinton withdrawal numbers. He doesn't. Most of his increased margins are based on McCains numbers dropping. It's possible that people who previously said they'd vote McCain if Clinton dropped out have changed their minds, but we can't know if their intentions will hold as the memory of Clinton's speech fades, or if they will become, once again, reluctant to vote for Obama the next time a scandal or pseudo-scandal hits.

    [ Parent ]

    McCains nasty press (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:22:54 AM EST
    this is changing.  this morning on Joe Mickey Mouse Mica, to quote Joe, was shocked, SHOCKED that the Obama campaign was engaging in politics by suggesting McCain was a confused old man.
    her quote was something like this (please imaging vacuous annoying pseudo intellectual valley girl voice)
    "it just seems, um, I dont know, um, CLINTONESQUE"
    the Obama campaign is getting into the weeds with these attacks on McCain and I wonder if that is not just where McCain wants him to be.

    [ Parent ]
    As time goes on (none / 0) (#179)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:44:55 AM EST
    The Clinton supporters who accept the Obama nom could easily be disillusioned by what keeps coming out on Obama.


    [ Parent ]
    I'm Surprised That Obama Is Doing This (none / 0) (#10)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:04:06 AM EST
    well in MO. What poll puts him up by 1 here? Can't imagine the conservative Dems voting for him in the non-Democratic strongholds. Just goes against their normal tendencies.

    [ Parent ]
    That's Because (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Blue Jean on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:12:46 AM EST
    KC, St Louis, and to a much lesser extent, Columbia, tend to skew the results.  The two big cities and the small college town are blue islands in a sea of red.

    Whether that holds up now that Matt Blunt and the GOP gang have gotten their claws into voter id remains to be seen.

    [ Parent ]

    If Winning St. Louis, KC And Columbia (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:42:21 AM EST
    big were enough to win the state, MO would be a blue state. It is not. Jefferson City is now controlled by Republicans. More often than not the conservative Dem and Indie voters vote for Republicans. To win MO, you have to win St.Louis, KC and Columbia (a given) and win over the conservative Dems. Would be interested in seeing the turn out and distribution models the current polls are using to come up with these percentages.  

    [ Parent ]
    True (none / 0) (#198)
    by Blue Jean on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 01:30:16 PM EST
    MO went blue twice for Bill and probably would have done so for HRC,  but the odds are against it for Obama.  He's just too new and the state's too conservative.  I'm just saying that KC, St. Louis's, and Columbia's combined populations are roughly equal to rual MO, and that's what's skewing the polling right now.  I'd be VERY surprised if Obama took MO, and as MO goes, so goes the GE.

    [ Parent ]
    I thought Kerry would take (none / 0) (#55)
    by standingup on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:08:42 AM EST
    Boone County (Columbia) in 2004 and he lost.  The governor's race is probably going to be very important here for getting Republican's to the polls.  I wouldn't feel very comfortable about Missouri at any point.  

    [ Parent ]
    Eke is the right word (none / 0) (#192)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:52:36 PM EST
    Election night 2004 it was questionable in PA till late. I have a big worry about the Dems holding PA. Hillary is needed there.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama has slim (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by DaytonDem on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:34:46 AM EST
    to no chance of winning Ohio. The NAFTA wink to Canada plus his troubles attracting rural voters dooms him here.

    What effect (none / 0) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:40:37 AM EST
    do you think the new economic advisor will have there?

    [ Parent ]
    I personally (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by DaytonDem on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:48:10 AM EST
    don't care for Furman, but Krugman has his back . As a practical matter I doubt anyone on his team will help or hurt. Hillary might pull him through, but even that is no sure thing. imho

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks for the Krugman link (none / 0) (#43)
    by Nike on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:03:08 AM EST
    Agree with the centrist concern, which also shows up in the Chicago religious meeting earlier this week.

    [ Parent ]
    And it's absolute nonsense, (none / 0) (#175)
    by Landulph on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:29:24 AM EST
    as some have alleged, that Sibelius as running mate will help him on iota here. Her dad, John Gilligan, was a one-term governor back in the '70s--no one under the age of 55 remembers him, and no one of any age cares. He somehow managed to lose re-election to Jim Rhodes, of Kent State Massacre infamy--what does that tell you (other than that our state's voters have a long history of odd decisions).

    [ Parent ]
    what did Hillary say after winning Ohio after (none / 0) (#191)
    by thereyougo on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:42:28 PM EST
    having been outspent 3:1 by Obama's bottomless money pit?

    As Ohio votes so does the country, IIRC

    so, yeah Obama has quite a steep hill ahead.

    Unless Hillary stumps for him there.

    [ Parent ]

    Nate's numbers (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by 1jane on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:40:39 AM EST
    Obama has 5 pt. bounce since Clinton withdrew.

    In WI Obama leads McCain by 13 pts.

    In WA Obama has 18 pt lead.

    In MA Obama has a 23 pt lead.

    Nate is predicting WI and PA could go Obama if his bounce continues.

    Nate calculates Obama's chance of winning at 54.4 on this fine day.

    Whoo-hoo! 54%! (5.00 / 0) (#170)
    by goldberry on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:23:44 AM EST
    Hominid Views had Clinton as unbeatable against McCain and Obama can only get to 54%? And that's today before the GOP beast gets hungry and starts playing with its food.  
    He is non-viable and the Democratic "leadership" needs to be kept away from sharp objects.  They are a danger to themselves and others.    


    [ Parent ]
    I guarantee (4.66 / 3) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:07:04 AM EST
    Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota go Obama.

    Pennsylvania is a tight race. As is Michigan.

    I am wary of Ohio for Obama.

    Florida is gone.

    [ Parent ]

    Sorry BTD- (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by kenosharick on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:18:31 AM EST
    Wisconsin was the closest state in 2004, and rev wright, ect. has sunk Obama in my home state. Everyone seems to be pretending that these vicious 527's and their tens of millions do not exist. They will really hurt him once they get up on the air.

    [ Parent ]
    Doesn't seem "sunk" yet. (4.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Pegasus on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:33:08 AM EST
    Various polls since the end of the primaries have him up anywhere from 7-13.  If that's sinking, punch some holes in my boat.

    [ Parent ]
    Florida was gone when (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by befuddledvoter on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:16:47 AM EST
    DNC threw the voters away.  Rules Comm. made matters worse.  So very stupid.

    [ Parent ]
    Only time will tell (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:56:11 AM EST
    Iowa, particularly, is reeling right now under the pain of natural disasters. Obama cancelled a planned trip there this week using the reasoning "he didn't want to distract them from the work they had to do". Imagine the points he could have made by going anyway, cancelling his campaign speeches, but touring the area, offering his empathy and calling on FEMA. What he did looks more like a Katrina rerun.


    [ Parent ]
    No... (none / 0) (#190)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:37:57 PM EST
    ...the last thing that the people of Iowa need is to be a background from political stumping--by either side.  Unless, the candidate can magically make the rain and twisters stop.  

    Right now they are more worried about getting sand bags filled and in place and keeping the water supply, their homes and possessions safe.  And rightly so.  They don't need FEMA, they don't need empathy--they need Federal disaster funding and they have a compentent Governor to take care of that.  

    Iowans are proud and self-relienat people and don't exactly like outsiders to begin with.  They sure as heck don't like to be used as political props.  

     

    [ Parent ]

    Do you think Minnesota would go with Obama (none / 0) (#56)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:09:07 AM EST
    even if Pawlentey is MCCains VP choice?

    [ Parent ]
    YES (none / 0) (#108)
    by DFLer on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:04:23 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Last week on PBS NewsHour (none / 0) (#119)
    by zyx on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:18:12 AM EST
    there were a couple of pollsters talking about the electoral map. They talked about the "new states" that Obama wants to contest--Colorado and Virginia, but conceded, pretty much, that in November we probably will be talking about Ohio and Florida, etc., again.

    Also, they did say there is a quite-possible scenario where Obama wins the popular vote and loses the election.

    Oy!

    [ Parent ]

    How could the bounce possibly continue? (none / 0) (#123)
    by dianem on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:22:48 AM EST
    The very term "bounce" indicated that the numbers go up as a result of press, and then go down again. If numbers stay up or increase, then it isn't a "bounce", it's a trend. I don't see how Obama's numbers could go much higher than they are barring a complete meltdown by McCain. This is not impossible, but unlikely - he was pretty thoroughly vetted during the Republican primary. There are some outfits out there who really hate him, but they tend to be a bit wacky and they will have the weight of the Republican machine going agaisnt them, not for them. Obama isn't going to increase his numbers by getting his name and face out there. Everybody knows who he is. The rest of the race is about holding onto the votes he has and maybe converting a few in the middle.

    [ Parent ]
    one can't overestimate (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by ccpup on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:18:28 AM EST
    the anger or disappointment people feel over the WAY he "won" the Nomination.  

    Celebrating a "winner" who threw the last sitting Democratic President under-the-bus in addition to having the DNC twist the rules to give him what he didn't earn (MI, precisely) may not be sitting well with many people.  In fact, for some it must be an embarrassment that he became our Nominee the way he did.

    Add to that the fact that post-February many more voters chose Clinton over him in an obvious "wait, we've changed our minds and DON'T want that guy after all" effort -- conveniently ignored by the DNC -- and we're looking at the probability of another stinging loss in November.

    [ Parent ]

    I guess that's because he *didn't* win (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by goldberry on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:28:59 AM EST
    If FL and MI had been fully counted from the beginning, the race would have been over on SuperTuesday.  No one in their right mind could look at Clinton's wins in FL. MI, CA, NY, NJ, MA as anything but a triumph.  
    Maybe that's why they were deliberately excluded and then only accorded half of the delegates when Obama's inflated wins were just barely enough to give him the edge with the superdelegates.  
    You know, in order for Clintonistas to flock to Obama en masse, you have to believe that they are really as stupid as the Dean Democrats think they are.  You have to assume that they saw the shenanigans of this primary season and will just say, "Well, alright then,nothing shady going on there.  so much for NJ voting early.  Obama it is!"
    Nah Gah Happen.  

    [ Parent ]
    certainly not with this Voter (none / 0) (#178)
    by ccpup on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:40:04 AM EST
    who will -- for the first time since 1992 -- not vote for the Top of the Ticket.

    If the DNC thinks they can win just fine without my vote, then I wish them the best of luck doing so.

    It just ain't gonna happen.

    [ Parent ]

    Talkleft isn't the world (none / 0) (#183)
    by dianem on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:03:08 PM EST
    I know that you know that, but when we get involved in a community it is easy to start believing that the norms of that group are the norms everywhere. Talkleft is one of few havens for Clinton supporters on the web, and I think that a lot of people who feel strongly about Clinton but were reluctant to get involved in more Obama hostile sites were drawn here. That would mean that most of us feel more strongly about not voting for Obama than the general public.

    That said, it's going to be very interesting to see what happens to Obama's poll numbers when he doesn't name Clinton as VP, as I am quite sure he won't. If he does, then that will prove that many of my assumptions about him were wrong, and I will seriously consider voting for him. I suspect that his bounce will end on that day. But there is every possibility that we are wrong - that anger toward Bush and the GOP in general will save the day and people will vote for Obama in spite of their misgivings.

    [ Parent ]

    I just don't see OH and PA going to Obama (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by kempis on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:55:46 AM EST
    ...unless McCain seems utterly out-of-it. I'm surprised that Obama polls as well in PA as he does.

    Kerry barely won PA--and that was being married to Teresa Heinz Kerry, a pretty-much universally respected figure in PA since the days she was John Heinz's wife.

    If war hero Kerry, married to a PA icon, squeaked out a win here, I don't know how Obama overcomes his 20 year membership to Rev. Wright's church and his "bitter-cling" remarks to defeat  McCain. It's telling that Obama did NOT win Allegheny County in the primary--Pittsburgh and suburbs.

    But stranger things have happened....

    Exactly (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by Mrwirez on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:09:42 AM EST
    I just posted this about 7 posts down. I am from Pittsburgh, and Clinton won 61 out of 67 counties. Obama has his work cut out for him. The "T" in PA, which is the rural republican voters will come out hard for McCain. I think Obama may win Allegheny county and definitely win Philadelphia county, but that will probably be it.... Again Clinton would have cleaned McCain's clock here.

    [ Parent ]
    Hi neighbor :) (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by kempis on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:46:07 AM EST
    Yep, the T will turn out HUGE for McCain and though Allegheny County will probably go to Obama, I don't think he'll carry it by huge margins.

    The Philly and Pittsburgh suburbs are probably going to go for McCain by much larger margins than a lot of folks would expect.

    I think too many people assume that all educated, upper-middle class folk are warm to Obama. Not so. That may be the case in the Democratic party, but in the general population, a lot of those folks are more inclined to vote for conservatives. This is why the Dems ran so many Blue Dogs in the suburbs in 06.

    Obama is not a Blue Dog.

    [ Parent ]

    I think the Philly suburbs (none / 0) (#111)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:05:15 AM EST
    will go for Obama bigger than they went for Kerry. That should make up for being weaker in the west.

    [ Parent ]
    He didn't do well in the 'burbs in the primary (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by kempis on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:17:36 AM EST
    And there are a lot of conservatives in the suburbs around Philly and Pittsburgh....so I dunno.

    Also, there seems to have been a real big difference between what the exit polls showed (a big victory for Obama in the Philly burbs) and the results: Clinton winning.

    link

    [ Parent ]

    you still lose PA (5.00 / 0) (#169)
    by ccpup on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:20:47 AM EST
    if you're losing the rural vote as Kerry did in 2004.

    And Obama has REAL issues with rural voters, yet another Demographic Clinton did extraordinarily well with, but will -- in a heartbeat -- flip to McCain in the General.

    [ Parent ]

    That is what I am talking about (none / 0) (#186)
    by Mrwirez on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:09:17 PM EST
    with the blue collar/union labor men. We make over $50,000/year and love the Clintons. With our decent income and benefits and retirement packages, McCain is not that bad of a pick for some guys. They are afraid Obama will cater to the blacks too much and not pay attention to labor problems and or affirmative action. I have had these very discussions with the guys I work with, and therefore will vote for McCain. As a matter of fact, I was extremely surprised how many guy's voted for Clinton in the primary in PA. She really would have smacked McCain in the GE too.

    [ Parent ]
    Yep, this is what my cousins have told me (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by goldberry on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:53:43 AM EST
    They're all in Pgh and they were Clintonistas.  They think McCain is going to win big time.  They were no fans of Obama.  
    The amount 0f damage Obama has done to the Democratic brand name can't be underestimated.  I think he has lost a lot of support this election season that will not be coming back until Howard Dean is gone.    

    [ Parent ]
    Clinton won PA (none / 0) (#195)
    by r15 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 01:10:08 PM EST
    in large part because Rendell had the Democratic machine out working for her nonstop. That same machine will be working for Obama in the fall, so he has an excellent chance in PA.

    [ Parent ]
    No PA (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by Athena on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:19:52 AM EST
    I don't see Obama winning PA.  He was fading by April 22, as revealed by losing Bucks Co. and environs.  PA is not Wisconsin or Iowa.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree. n/t (none / 0) (#98)
    by kempis on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:47:44 AM EST



    [ Parent ]
    first you have to consider the (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by hellothere on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:24:29 AM EST
    actual polls. are they in the tank like the media? that is a strong consideration. who asked for the poll and paid for it. how good is their history? in my opinion the polls have been almost worthless this whole season. to rely on poll numbers as THE ANSWER is a gamble that can be easily lost. for the obama campaign to assume that this and that is so doesn't fly with me. i don't like polls being used as propoganda. color me very cynical.

    [ Parent ]
    Primarys Do Not Equal General Elections... (none / 0) (#126)
    by Mouthful of Politics on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:23:30 AM EST
    It's like comparing apples to oranges. All the recent polling shows Obama picking up virtually all of Clinton's supporters. He even leads among hispanic voters by over 30%; weren't they one of his problem demographics?

    I think he certainly stands a chance in MO. For McCain to win, he has to get large turnout in the "T", and at this point in time, Republican voters just aren't looking terribly enthused. Also, if Obama chooses either McCaskill or Sebelius as his running mate, both conservative, and both local, then his odds increase further.

    Bottom line: Anything is possible, but don't be shocked to see an Obama victory there in November.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't think so. (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:28:50 AM EST
    All the recent polling shows Obama picking up virtually all of Clinton's supporters.

    If that were the case, he'd be crushing McCain in the swing states BTD mentioned.

    [ Parent ]

    Just wait... (none / 0) (#200)
    by Mouthful of Politics on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 01:58:27 PM EST
    Those states haven't had recent polling done. The other states mentioned have. The only demographic group he's behind with is white males, which is the norm for every Democrat.

    BTW, Another poll was just released showing Obama within 2 points in North Carolina. Most of the anticipated swing states are looking very blue, and some of the red states are now looking like battlegroudn states.

    [ Parent ]

    "Virtually all of Clinton's supporters"? (none / 0) (#201)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 01:59:24 PM EST
    I'd say that a lot of Obama's current "support" in the polls is virtual.

    [ Parent ]
    thwarting republican skullduggery is the key (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by pluege on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:58:56 AM EST
    the dems better figure out what all the republican opportunities are for voter suppression and vote tampering in the 4 key states, as well as any others where Obama isn't polling at least a 5 point lead.

    excuse me, appealing to the base (none / 0) (#129)
    by hellothere on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:25:37 AM EST
    on their way out the front door just might be the key. but let me deter you in your analysis especially since you are enjoying it.

    [ Parent ]
    prior to the 2004 election (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:04:20 AM EST
    How many points was Kerry up in OHIO and he ended up losing it?

    Umm, yeah... (none / 0) (#177)
    by phatpay on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:36:38 AM EST
    and nothing funny went down in Ohio.

    [ Parent ]
    When it's too late to do anything about (none / 0) (#182)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:00:16 PM EST
    it, I'd love to see such an analysis of TX, WA, IA and all the other caucus states. IN primary would be interesting, as well.

    [ Parent ]
    Ohio, New hampshire and Virginia (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Mrwirez on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:04:53 AM EST
    will probably be red. I have doubts about Colorado. In PA there are serious questions about Obama's ability to win here too. He will not get the blue collar/union voters- PERIOD. I work with these guys and they are rejecting Obama. Kerry barely won PA 51-49 in 2004, and NO Offense..... he was white. If Obama does not win at least one of these states FL, OH or PA he will not win the Presidency.

    Btw... I still think Clinton would have won more easily.

    Virginia is in play (4.00 / 1) (#82)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:29:42 AM EST
    Demographics are changing rapidly.  Larger black vote than many other states.  And, let's not forget: they elected a Dem senator two years ago, a Dem governor three years ago, and will elect another Dem senator this year.  Also VA-11 Congress is going to flip to Dem.

    Virginia is in play and both candidates know it.  McCain and the GOP are going to be forced to defend it, which will help Obama out elsewhere.

    [ Parent ]

    The GOP may have to defend VA (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by kempis on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:55:44 AM EST
    but they'll win it. Webb barely beat "Macaca" two years ago--and Webb appealed to three key demographic groups: liberals who wanted end GOP rule, the Navy, and Appalachians. McCain will get the Navy and Appalachian vote--and the conservative vote in the suburbs. Certainly not all of the denizens of the DC suburbs are liberal.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:04:55 AM EST
    I don't buy Virginia for a second. Maybe it's because of my stepmother being involved in local politics there.

    The Republican machine is awfully strong in VA - and don't forget the voting shenanigans. Webb only won after he forced a recount.

    [ Parent ]

    there was no recount (none / 0) (#161)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:06:50 AM EST
    And, again, it's not only Webb -- also a Dem governor, and also a popular former Dem governor is heavily favored to win a GOP Senate seat this year.  VA-11 is going to flip to Dem this year, too.

    The Republican machine is awfully strong in VA

    Also, the GOP lost seats in the state House and Senate last time, too.  The GOP machine is not strong in Virginia anymore.

    I live in Virginia. What I see is that Virginia could be in play depending on turnout of Northern Va, Richmond, and Hampton Roads area.

    [ Parent ]

    You are right - there was (none / 0) (#164)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:12:43 AM EST
    the threat of a recount.

    We'll see what happens, but Presidential races are not as Party-dependent as Congressional races. I think history bears that out pretty well.

    [ Parent ]

    Once again, it's all about Ohio (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:23:47 AM EST
    I think this election will hinge on whether Obama can trick McCain into trying to defend NC and VA. He will not be stupid enough to make a play for CA, no matter what his "Strategy Briefing" says.

    Ultimately, I agree with you, this is going to be a close race.

    Agree There (none / 0) (#84)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:32:03 AM EST
    As the most recent California poll has Obama up by 17, and that was before Clinton suspended, I think any day McCain spends in California is a total waste of time and money.

    In addition, Obama is up 14 in New York. Unless McCain thinks he has a shot in New Jersey, he can stay completely away from the two largest and most expensive advertising states in the country...how's that for a way to save money in a McCain "less than 50 state strategy".

    [ Parent ]

    I think the (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by BrandingIron on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:34:19 AM EST

    electoral map is largely irrelevant right now.  The candidates are just barely throwing down with each other, Obama still breathing heavily after fighting so long with Clinton (and his Obamatrons are STILL harping on and on about the evils of Hillary Clinton all over the place).  Wait until after Denver.  Then we'll see some action.

    Certainly most of the PV nat'l (none / 0) (#147)
    by brodie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:47:57 AM EST
    polls are mostly meaningless or at least misleading if taken either in isolation or too much to heart one way or the other.

    Traditionally if a party has been in power for several terms and if the economy is not in good shape, voters will vote change.  Period.  No matter the NS issues at play or how long the incumbent party's nominee acted heroically in an enemy pow camp.

    Doubly true if the incumbent party's prez is an unliked incompetent with approval ratings in the dumpster.

    PA, OH and possibly MO will go Blue this year.  I have no worries about IA, WI, MN and MI.  NM and maybe CO will be icing on the cake.

    [ Parent ]

    true, but . . . (none / 0) (#162)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:07:59 AM EST
    even though they don't mean a whole lot, I'd still rather be ahead at this point than behind.

    [ Parent ]
    Connecticut in play? (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by HenryFTP on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:38:25 AM EST
    I read this map and my jaw dropped -- the GOP has lost all but one of the House seats in CT and even Chris Shays, the Congressman for Greenwich and Darien, is in trouble. If I were McCain, I'd welcome Obama to spend time in North Carolina while I was getting plenty of free New York national media while campaigning in New Jersey and Connecticut.

    The Obama guys can talk 50-state strategy all they like but if they lose Ohio they're in the deep yogurt. They're doing none too well in Wisconsin and Michigan, too, although maybe the Wisconsin polling data used for the map is an outlier. I also think the GOP won't bother using McCain to shore up the Deep South base -- they'll use more reassuring surrogates and anti-Obama propaganda there, and throw in some Navy photo ops of McCain in Tidewater Virginia at Newport News Shipbuilding. It worked for them in 1988, and it should be enough this time around.

    It would be dumb for McCain to waste money advertising on DC television when the DC media gives him so much free favorable TV. If you keep thinking McCain is Bush, you're making a big mistake -- he still has favorable perceptions running for him even if the reality of his positions is very different. After all, that was just as true in 2000.

    Although I wouldn't begin to suggest that I understand the complexities of Missouri politics, the rest of the map starkly tells me that the general election is going to be fought over a lot of the people who voted for Hillary Clinton in the primaries. I think it's great if we can get Colorado trending blue, but not at the expense of losing the heart of Democratic Electoral College majorities -- New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Illinois, with Missouri solidly in play.

    Why complicate things when this should be simple? Win these states, you've won the election. Do that, and you can worry about realigning the country in 2012.

    Wisconsin? (none / 0) (#154)
    by Mouthful of Politics on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:56:28 AM EST
    The latest poll shows Obama up by 13 in Wisconsin. Not even close.

    All the recent national polling and state polling also suggests Obama is already picking up the majority of Democratic support. You can expect his margins in PA and OH to have received a similar bump once new polling data is released.

    Don't underestimate the ability of Democrats to come together in a year like this. It may have been a contentious Primary, but the differences between Obama and McCain are enormous, and in reality, McCain will pick up few of Clinton's supporters.

    With the exception of white males, which is the norm, every demographic is now trending toward Obama, and in the same or greater numbers than they were for Clinton. He leads with women by the same margin as Clinton did now, and his lead among hispanics is currently over 30%, as McCain is getting just 28% of hispanic support.

    I also think he stands a real chance in places like Virginia if Democratic turnout is as enthusiastic as expected. McCain will have to defend Virginia, and other close races, or he could easily lose them.

    [ Parent ]

    You have now made the claim (none / 0) (#157)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:02:49 AM EST
    that Obama is picking up virtually all of HRC's supporters several times.

    I have yet to see one link in support of this statement.

    Do you realize how huge Obama's margins of victory would be in the swing states if that were true?

    [ Parent ]

    oh, you know how this goes (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by ccpup on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:26:06 AM EST
    if you repeat something often enough and loud enough, it'll eventually be true.  Or at least low-information Voters will believe it's true.  Or something.

    Are we going to have to send you another "Guide to How To Think Like Obama" with your monthly shipment of Kool-Aid?

    Sheesh!

    :-)

    [ Parent ]

    Funny, isn't it (none / 0) (#184)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:03:18 PM EST
    The growth of Clinton supporters organizing into protest groups hasn't even started to show the impact they might be able to have on the election.


    [ Parent ]
    Check This Link for the Polling Data... (none / 0) (#202)
    by Mouthful of Politics on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 02:19:56 PM EST
    http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/poll_obama_leads_mccain_domina.php

    From this article:

    More importantly, Obama is ahead with key demographics where his electability had previously been questioned. Obama leads among women 52%-33%, with Catholics 47%-40%, among independents 41%-36%, and even 47%-42% with blue-collar workers.

    And contrary to the idea that his poor primary performances among Hispanics reflected an electability problem, he now leads 62%-28% with that group -- well ahead of John Kerry's 53%-44% advantage in 2004.

    John McCain's big advantage is with white men, where he leads 55%-35% -- the only reason the race is as close as it is, according to the pollster's analysis.

    Those numbers show him now with virtually the same support she had before she left the race. Most of her supporters seem to be getting firmly behind him.

    This is very good news for Democrats. Of course, there will always be a few sour grapes.

    [ Parent ]

    Not only is it close... (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by goldberry on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:38:42 AM EST
    ...but it depends on all of the Democratic party getting in line.  That is a big assumption and at this point, I think it is wishful thinking.  Even having Clinton leave the race wasn't enough for the Dean Democrats.  They still haven't made any attempts to win the Clintonistas back.  They just assume we'll all fall in line.  
    I see no evidence that would justify this confidence.  In fact, I see this split solidifying.  
    Whnn 20 of my Democratic relatives in PA were asked recently who would win in the fall, the overwhelming majority said McCain.  
    Make no mistake about it, Obama is going to have a CERY steep hill to climb in OH and PA.  The loyal Democratic base there really doesn't like him.  Not even a little.

    They claim they are unified (none / 0) (#188)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:12:24 PM EST
    This morning's article on MSNBC online makes some very bold statements about how women have no choice but to vote for Obama. These people clearly don't understand the women who are not falling in line.

    "We're not running against Hillary Clinton any longer, and that's not the choice women have to make," she said yesterday. "They're choosing between two candidates who have dramatically different records on women's issues, neither of whom are a woman."


    [ Parent ]
    I'm actually stunned (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by smott on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:46:21 AM EST
    ...by the 5-pt lead in PA. I wonder how the polls are weighting the Philly area vs my areas here in Pgh. I"m sure Obama will be strong East, get creamed Central, and West will be the decider...But we're pretty white/euro-ethnic/catholic/working class in this area, so we'll see. HRC would have creamed McCain here, but I don't know about Obama.

    So many of us typical white women who are bitter, or clinging, or...whatever....

    And how many points was Dukakis ahead? (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by smott on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:47:57 AM EST
    Like 17 pts in Aug-Sep?
    And one Snoopy-in-the-tank photo and that was it.

    Good thing Obama isn't gaffe-prone.

    Potential for a Landslide? (4.50 / 2) (#31)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:49:08 AM EST
    Interesting to me is in those key states, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Missouri...In the most recent poll out of each state Obama leads all of them. I am of the mind that this may be a large smackdown before it's done, with Obama in the 330 range or higher.

    After seeing Michigan tip towards Obama in the latest poll, I look forward to seeing the long term effect of no revote in Florida in their next poll. I suspect the backlash in Florida may be a bit stronger than in Michigan and an Obama/Hillary poll in Florida could be quite helpful to see if that combination puts Florida back in play.

    Taking just the most recent poll from each state, Obama leads in EV 328-210.

    Clinton suspended recently. (none / 0) (#39)
    by Fabian on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:58:43 AM EST
    There will be a bump from that, but how long that will last is uncertain.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, um... (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:25:41 AM EST
    I think this figure is a bit more realistic than 324 EV for Obama.

    A 277-vote squeaker is optimistic too. Wait till the August swiftboating starts.

    [ Parent ]

    The assumption seems to be... (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by dianem on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:25:40 AM EST
    ...that the recent incrases aren't a "bump" or a "bounce", but are a trend that will continue to increase Obama's popularity as he finds the people who have been hiding under rocks for the past 6 months and explains who he is, thus convincing them to support him, as well as winning over all of those fundamantalists and disaffected Republicans who have been looking for an excuse to vote Democratic this election cycle.

    [ Parent ]
    This strategy is so wrong-headed. (none / 0) (#140)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:40:18 AM EST
    I mean, why not go after the Democratic base? That's where the real electoral prize lies.

    But Obama has never been about that. He's always been about kicking the "bubbas" to the curb. So, he is trying to get the Republicans instead.

    Sorry if I just can't get excited over a candidate whose mission is to infuse the Democratic Party with evangelicals and disaffected Republicans.

    [ Parent ]

    I disagree with you BTD (2.00 / 1) (#15)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:14:27 AM EST
    I don't think this is going to be a particularly close race.  I think that Obama will win handily.

    McCain has been given a free pass for the past 3 months while Obama was engaged in a tough fight with Hillary.  Lots of negative stuff came out about Obama.  McCain spent most of his time chatting with the media and going to fund raising dinners.

    Right now McCain needs to be winning.   The country is swinging towards the Democrats.  That is the momentum.  And barring a massive catastrophe or a major scandal against Obama, there isn't much McCain can do about this.  

    I predict Obama gets about 330 EV when it's all said and done.

    The different view is (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:21:11 AM EST
    based on how the media interacted with the Dem primary.

    Without a Clinton to "pile on" on, they will be forced to divide more time.

    Example: When talking about Obama's many associations, the media was inclined to push that back on Clinton and accuse her of "going negative."

    When running against McCain, what will they do?

    I guess we're going to find out.

    What I do think is important is that, with Obama, we find ourselves more at the whim of the media.

    [ Parent ]

    Right now. (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by Fabian on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:28:20 AM EST
    My take is that Obama versus McCain is going to be a contest to see who can discredit the other side in order to poach voters from them.

    I prefer two candidates competing to see who can do the most for the country and its citizens, but it doesn't seem to be trending that way.

    [ Parent ]

    I know (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:32:11 AM EST
    In the contest you describe, the "discredit contest," you are left to the whims of the media to taka a side and drive the character attack memes.

    In the second contest you describe, the media is less powerful to make a determination.

    [ Parent ]

    Issues are the High Road. (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Fabian on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:50:18 AM EST
    Image attacks are the Low Road.

    I don't expect any politician to be Polly Pureheart, but I do expect them to tell me why I should vote FOR them, not just why their opponent is a lying, no goodnik, sleazy pol who doesn't deserve my vote.

    In other words - what do you plan on doing when you get into office?  Dishing dirt doesn't do that.

    [ Parent ]

    when was the last time that happened? (none / 0) (#38)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:58:21 AM EST
    I would love to see policy only campaigns.  The last president that campaigned and debated policy extremely well was Bill C in my opinion and even those elections were fraught with attack advertising. I am not sure if Willie Horton was the start of it all, but it sure does stick with me as the turning point.

    [ Parent ]
    Its earlier than Willie Horton (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:03:34 AM EST
    Check out this 1964 LBJ commercial called confessions of a Republican.

    If you have time check out presidential election commercials from the beginning of TV

    [ Parent ]

    thanks molly (none / 0) (#47)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:04:52 AM EST
    will do.

    [ Parent ]
    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#60)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:14:38 AM EST
    I wasn't able to play the commercial this time. But the transcript is there and readable. Imagine a nervous (like an alcoholic needing a drink bad) Republican trying to lite a cigarette explaining why Goldwater makes him nervous and how he has always voted republican before.

    Hopefully it will be working again soon.

    [ Parent ]

    Lest we forget (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:04:08 AM EST
    Willie Horton was a slimy, racist attack, but the ad was ostensibly about an issue - Dukakis' prison furlough program in Massachusetts.

    [ Parent ]
    I am realistic. (none / 0) (#41)
    by Fabian on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:02:24 AM EST
    But I think part of the Obama/Clinton divide was the image/issues divide.  Images can be ephemeral, issues have more staying power.  IMO image is shallow, issues are deep.  

    [ Parent ]
    I think it is the reverse. (none / 0) (#53)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:07:13 AM EST
    borad issues build the party, but images win elections.

    [ Parent ]
    It's about branding. (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Fabian on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:13:41 AM EST
    I want a solid Democratic brand and I think the Democratic presidential candidate should represent that brand, own that brand, love that brand.

    That means supporting progressive principles, ideals and issues.   I expected Obama to run to the right, but I never expected him to run to The Right!

    In the words of the immortal Charlie Brown "AUGH!".

    [ Parent ]

    Obama Will Not Be Running Under The (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:28:19 AM EST
    Democratic brand. He has IMO run under the Obama brand during the primary and he will continue to do so during the GE. I don't see much difference between the Obama brand and the proposed Unity08 party. Based on this week emphasis on courting the fundies, it will be interesting (though depressing to me) to see how much farther he goes right he goes on other issues that are important to me.  

    [ Parent ]
    I know, I know. (5.00 / 4) (#91)
    by Fabian on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:38:38 AM EST
    The only feeling Obama inspires in me is deep cynicism.  

    [ Parent ]
    Thank you (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:07:19 AM EST
    I'm already tired of the negative stuff (on both sides)and we have just started.  

    We need high turnout, and this is not the way to get it.

    [ Parent ]

    In the primaries (