It seems to me that Obama and Clinton could both beat McCain in November. I happen to think that Obama has a better chance, one of the reasons why I am supporting him. I think the Hillary McCain race would be closer because of a dual turnout problem for the dems- Hillary haters would be energized on McCain’s side and disenchanted Obamaphiles, much maligned for their swooning and deification, wouldn’t much care who won.
One of the reasons why Obama has looked so ineffectual lately is that he is working to hold onto the Clinton voters. He can’t get too harsh on her because he wants these dems to stay home. He has much more to lose. As such, if he survives the primary, I think he is very well suited to stomp McCain.
Strong Dem states are going Dem anyway. The decision will be made by the large contestable states.
The most electoral votes wins. Bottom line. The more you have to parse the numbers to make it “open to interpretation”, the less credible that interpretation is. Right now the bottom line looks like Clinton would do it, but Obama would need breaks.
The low-hanging fruit is the states that could still go either way. You cannot assume that Obama will hold his lead where he barely has one, and will take away McCain’s bare-lead states - just the opposite is just as likely. Look at who’s more solid in the states that are still available, as in where the lead is small whoever has it.
Again, bottom line. To ignore or dismiss it is somewhere on the spectrum of hope, speculation, and handwaving.
That’s true well before the primaries, but ot isn’t that far out anymore. Almost everyone has had theirs by now. A lot of decisions have been made. There are a lot fewer undecideds still undecided. The data is getting realistic by now - especially if the topic is estimating prospects of winning in November, which it is.
Naturally, if you discard the only data there is, that leaves you free to say whatever you like. Airblairxxx, interesting site, but *fractional * electoral votes??? They make one of the same mistakes electoral-vote.com does, too - of including Rasmussen, who has been out to lunch pretty consistently so far this year.
It looks to me as if HRC’s advantage in the electoral-vote.com scenario is due entirely to Florida.
I’m sorry, I’m unclear. Is your site more definitive than mine, even though it includes Rasmussen? Please explain how.
At the very least, explain how you’re so certain of your position using such vague datapoints. I probably should have added a “FWIW” to the data I cited; I agree with Richard Parker’s assertion that the polls right now are too far out to say anything conclusive.
I’d explain more–including how wrongheaded it would be to fight a battle on a battlefield limited to a few small states when one candidate has the resources to engage the enemy on a much wider scale–but I gotta go pick up my kid.
You think the reason polls half a year from the election would be unreliable is only, or primarily, because of undecideds?
As I acknowledged in my post, polls are probably the only direct, objective data. But they aren’t the only data. There is lots of relevant information available about the general battlefield of the upcoming election. Relative party registration, popularity of the Republican President, relative available funds, etc. Most of that information suggests McCain will have a very difficult time.
Even discounting the “only use the last poll” factor, there’s a lot of 30+ day old data in that sampling of states though. Personally, I’d like to see SUSA do another 50-state survey. I’d like it even more if two or more firms did it. Of course, unless someone is paying them to do it, it’s unlikely to happen.
Don’t get me wrong, I dig Electoral-Vote.com and it’s one of my first stops on the web each morning. But the projected general election maps right now are more novelty than data point for multiple reasons.
More or less correct, in any case. More or less, whoever wins FLA in Nov wins the whole thing. It’s the 4th largest state, and the other 3 will nigh certainly go either DNC (CA & NY) or GoP (TX). Fla is almost 50/50 Dem/Rep.
This is why the Dems can’t afford to snub Fla, and why if Obama continues doing so, he will lose in Nov.
As for Swiftboating Hillary? Those boats have sailed. :rolleyes: Every round in Rove’s evil arsenal has already been fired at HRC, and they have done their damage already. He even has some Dems beleiving Hil is so hated she can’t win.
Obama is the likely Dem candidate. Obama should win vs McCain, but he must start trying to win over Florida. If he keeps snubbing them to ensure his Primary win, he’ll lose in the General. Likely his best chance is to beg Hillary to become his running mate, then seat the Fla delegation.
One of the simplest guides I use to who I should be voting for is to go the other way from who the republicans are pushing for. So far the republicans are working to undermine Obama.
I do not think Republicans are stupid. I do not think Republicans just hate Obama more. I think Republicans want the White House and have calculated their best chance is versus HRC and not Obama.
How is he snubbing Florida? This has been debunked a long time ago. Kind of surprised to hear someone here, of all places, continue with that meme.
You know…because the Republicans may have made a calculation that Hillary would be easier to beat than Obama, that this doesn’t mean they are right about it…right? I mean, the Dems made a similar calculation that Kerry had the best chance to beat Bush, and that didn’t work out so well IIRC…
As to the OP…of course Obama can win in November.
Is there any way Ron Paul is still going to be a factor in this election? I’m in NC and within the past week, I’ve seen a ton of brand new Ron Paul signs and bumper stickers being displayed. I’m wondering if he has enough support to be a spoiler for the Republicans, especially since the “real conservatives” are not particularly happy with McCain.
Kerry came close and there is strong evidence of vote fraud in Ohio which had Kerry won he would have won the election.
Also, all that means is Bush beat Kerry. Dems may have decided Kerry was their best chance and unless you are saying Al Sharpton or one of the other Dem candidates would have done better then Kerry was the right choice for the Dems.
There are a number of warning signs for Obama (and Clinton) in the polling data.
First, the Democrats should be blowing out the Republican. In a year when Republicans are getting hammered in house contests, the incumbent president has a 30% approval rating, and 80% of the public thinks the country is on the wrong track, the Democratic candidates should be posting huge margins against the Republican. They aren’t. Both them are tracking pretty closely with McCain in the overall polls right now.
McCain should be a fairly weak candidate himself. He’d be the oldest president in history to be inaugurated. He doesn’t have strong support from his own party’s base. He’s a Senator, and Senators have a poor track record in Presidental elections.
If Obama were the fantastic candidate his supporters say he is, he’d be blowing this thing wide open, because this is a year ripe for a new face to come along and sweep the electorate off its feet. But like it or not, he has major liabilities. He’s very liberal, and that’s going to be increasingly apparent to the voters as the Republicans ramp up their campaign machine against him. He’s got a polarizing wife with a lot of baggage that will not play well in the red states (starting with her Princeton thesis). HIs demeanor can come across as aloof or even elitist, and he’s got to walk a fine line between not angering the radical black caucus (and risk another public spectacle from Reverend Wright or someone else), and winning over independent white votes. It’s a bit of a minefield for him.
Now for the other side of the coin. The Democrats probably look artificially weak right now because the party is divided and friction is high. 25% of Obama supporters say they’d vote for McCain if Hillary wins, and 25% of Hillary’s voters say the same about Obama. But is that reality? Not a chance. Once the rate is decided, I expect the party to mostly rally around the winner regardless of who it is, and probably pull at least 10-15 points ahead of McCain.
So the race is still theirs to lose, and McCain’s got a real uphill battle ahead of him. But I do believe he’d rather run against Obama than Hillary, simply because Obama’s past and the electorate’s relative lack of knowledge of him offers the hope for some kind of meltdown or revelation that will kill his candidacy - and McCain probably needs something like that to win. Hillary’s a known quantity. Obama could rise to soaring heights - or he could crash and burn. Hillary would just plod through, fighting tenaciously, and hang on to enough votes to win.
Almost certainly due to the Dems having all their guns pointed at each other. I expect what you point out to change once the nomination is over and the Democrats take on the Republicans in earnest the Dems will pull ahead.
They’re all senators
HRC and Obama platforms are actually not terribly different. Not sure how that makes Obama more liberal than HRC.
This is just LOL. HRC does not have a polarizing husband who does not play well in red states?
I never get the elitist thing except as perception. HRC is easily the more elitist of the two but I guess perception trumps reality.
I see no reason why Obama must cater to radical black caucuses. If anything I think he has repudiated their messages.
As I showed above the Pubs seem to be doing what they can to have HRC win the nomination. Unless this is some kind of overly clever means of misdirection I think it is safe to say the republican strategists want HRC and not Obama.
Not speaking for myself here, as I haven’t read the full thesis (only excerpts from tendentious sources, so I’m not going to pass judgment), but you can get a feel for where this might go from this article by MediaMatters, which isn’t exactly a Republican mouthpiece organization.
I saw the McLaughlin Group episode on Friday night that they talk about in the article. The question was, “Is Michelle Obama a black militant?” Her thesis, which talks about fundamental differences between whites and blacks, and how she worried that being Princeton educated makes black people think more like white people, will be exhibit A. Then there will be endless replays of her statement that Obama’s campaign was the first time she’d felt proud of America. That’s on video, which means the media will love to play it again, and again.
Actually, here’s an example what I’m talking about - again, I’m not saying that this is a bad statement, but just imagine how her enemies will be able to use this. From the Introduction in part 1 of her thesis (linked here):
You can download the entire thesis, linked to in this article from the Politico web site.
I wonder how it will play in the Red States, when Republicans tell them that they might elect a First Lady who will put the black community ahead of the interests of the nation as a whole or of the white community.
Hitchens attempts to explain the difference between Obama’s character (which Hitchens doesn’t dispute) and his unseemly associates, and blames it on his wife. She’s the true black militant, the angry one who wants to be divisive, and he’s the calm soothing voice of reason. Anything divisive in his past is her fault, not his.
The article makes no mention of her thesis. Did they discuss it in the episode?
I submit that this is a tortured reading of her actual thesis, the bulk of which is a survey of black alumni.
I think you give Republicans far too little credit. A few closet racists will accept your spin, but most people will see it for what it is: a black girl at white Princeton discussing her allegiance to her community. Most Americans are not troubled by organizations like Black Law Students, or historically black colleges whose mission is to help the black community. I’m not that optimistic about Americans in general, but I’m not so cynical as to believe that Americans will hear about Obama’s thesis and conclude that her spouse will therefore privilege black people in his policy. Not swing voters anyway.
Well, do you buy the notion that since Michelle was influenced by black separatism when she was 22 that therefore this will influence the way Barack Obama runs the country? If you don’t buy that, why do you expect unnamed swing voters to?
I cannot speak for Sam Stone of course but I tend to be rather cynical of American voters and the media.
It is not that people could not figure this out. It is that political opponents will use it to deflect discussion of those things that hurt them. In the case of McSame that is pretty much everything these days. So, instead, setup a side show ala Wright and Bittergate to thoroughly focus the media on inconsequential bullshit rather than, say, the economy or Iraq or other fiddly bits that are inconvenient to McCain. Sadly the media will likely be complicit in this effort.
I think she was a young black girl in a predominantly white community, and probably pretty radical in college. LOTS of kids are pretty radical in college. It doesn’t necessarily say anything about their beliefs 20 years later.
Nonetheless, college attitudes have never been off-limits in presidential campaigns - George Bush’s grades, his fraternity association, his partying, and all kinds of other college-era stuff was grist for the mill. Same with Kerry. I seem to remember George Bush I coming under a little fire because of the fraternity he was in.
Opponents will look for unsavory or scary things you said or did, and try to tie it to the candidate today. There’s no question about it. Now, how much traction this stuff gains with the public, I don’t know. Maybe very little. Maybe a lot in some crucial swing states. The point is, an Obama candidacy is a bit of a wildcard as a result of these kinds of things. This is his first time being really scrutinized, and he’s doing it on the biggest stage possible. Maybe he’ll come through with flying colors, with people even more certain of his intelligence, dignity, and good nature. Or maybe he won’t handle the heat and act unpresidential, or more fodder will appear that will make him look more extreme, and he’ll be sunk.
Look at the numbers on that site, the Strong Dem refers to how much advantage the particular candidate has in that state, not some nebulous definition. ACcording to the site you gave Obama - McCain Strong Dem versus Strong Republican is 135-97. Clinton-McCain Stron Dem versus Strong Republican is 109-131.
So you aren’t going to try and look at the numbers more deeply, the delgates do win it, but until they are actually counted you can’t say. What you really need to consider is who has the stronger support and who has a better chance of eroding McCain’s support.
Well that’s my point. Looking at barely Dem versus Barely Republican we get an idea of which delegates are truly at risk. For Obama versus McCain the tally is 57-99 while for Clinton-McCain the tally is 47-17. Clinton has marginally fewer delegates truly at risk, but Obama puts far more of McCain’s delegates at risk.
Only the undecided have not yet decided, right? Is your point that decideds can change their minds? Sure - but not without “something happening”.
Those very same factors four years ago led a lot of people to predict an easy win for Kerry. The polls showed it to be as tight as it in fact was.
You can put your confidence in the bottom-line data, reliability issues and all, or you can put your confidence in the hope that a majority of people (and the majority of EV’s they represent) somehow coming to their senses and learning to see things your way. We already know from experience what happens with the latter approach.
