The pro-Clinton map that concerns me.

[Toucano]

Electoral Votes: Obama 266 McCain 248 Ties 24

Dem pickups (vs. 2004): CO IA NM OH
GOP pickups (vs. 2004): MI WI



Electoral Votes: Clinton 327 McCain 194 Ties 17

Dem pickups (vs. 2004): AR FL KY MO NV NM NC OH WV
GOP pickups (vs. 2004): WI

I know, polls don't have much meaning this early out (at least the ones that don't favor your preferred candidate:)), but this data does make me take pause.

As you may or may not know, I love Obama and think he will make a great president. I don't hate Clinton, and think she would make a very good president.

The questions is: Have Democrats bought in to the time-honored Republican practice of vilifying the Clintons at the expense of an electoral victory in November? Have Democrats forgotten that they alone have a difficult challenge electing a president, without independent voters?

Discuss.

Edited to add states picked up by each candidate

[nichomachus]

1. Please explain what these maps mean and where they came from

[Toucano]

2. Sorry. That would be nice wouldn't it?

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

[Elspeth]

65. This map explains Clinton's leverage with the superdelegates

We'll see.

[roguevalley]

69. for a moment, I read leverage as cleavage.

I need new glasses. :P

[Bleacher Creature]

3. This map is about as useful as

this one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6169675

[Name removed]

4. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RooferDem]

5. Clinton is polling so well because both candidates are ignoring her.

Obama is dealing with crap on two fronts. This is a natural occurence. Once Obama is the "presumptive nominee" he will get his natural bounce.

[Toucano]

8. That's probably true.

The other thing is that polling doesn't reflect the tons of recently registered voters who are solidly pro-Obama.

[Aloha Spirit]

12. Precisely. The RNC stopped attacking her in MARCH.

A comparison of the Number of negative press releases against the three candidates....
The dark red is the number of negative press releases by the RNC against, on the left, Obama, and on the right, Clinton.
No dark red in Clinton's column in April or May.
From fivethirtyeight.com

[paulk]

6. Hillary has a stronger "electibility" argument than Obama

It's a given that polls don't mean much this far out, but what is really striking, to me at least, is how much of a difference there is between Obama and Hillary in some of the key battleground states.

If the map still looks like this at the end of August then we need to really start worrying. People predicting an Obama blowout while ignoring the polls need to take a hard look at the last several presidential races.

[Hippo_Tron]

19. The only consistant difference I see is Clinton doing better in Florida

I think any polls showing Clinton carrying West Virginia and Kentucky are not giving us a clear picture of what will happen in those states when McCain starts hammering her on guns, god, gays, and the environment. West Virginia also hasn't been polled since February.

Likewise, I don't see Obama actually being competitive in Indiana and North Carolina will probably be a stretch for either of them.

Nevada is all over the place for both of them. Obama does consistantly better than her in Colorado and Iowa. I think he will get closer in Florida but I honestly would rather not have to win this election by pandering to Cuban-Americans and hoping that they don't rig the votes down there.

[paulk]

48. WV, KY, FL, AR, NC

I think Hillary can take 3 of those 5, while Obama takes none of them.

I'm just surprised how poorly Obama does in those states - there's clearly a demographic that he's not going anywhere with involved.

What do you think Obama's chances are in the mountain west? A lot of people seem to feel that NM, CO, and NV are in play. I think McCain negates any "western strategy".

McCain is a westerner himself, and I think that gives him an advantage, especially with the independent vote (which is the largest bloc). I've posted that several times and no one seems to want to answer it.

[Hippo_Tron]

73. First off, I think Hillary competes in Florida, none of the others you've mentioned

They're simply too socially conservative to vote for someone who is pro choice pro gay rights and pro gun control. I have yet to see an explanation as to how you get socially conservative people to vote for someone as liberal as Hillary Clinton. Maybe right now the electorates in those states think she's conservative next to Barack Obama but up against the GOP she won't be seen that way.

McCain is from a western state but he represents Arizona, not Colorado, Nevada, or New Mexico. As much as Arizona has progressed, it's still the home of Barry Goldwater. McCain didn't exactly have to woo over swing voters with down-home charm to get his senate seat. Just because he represents a western state doesn't mean he's more culturally in tune with the region than Obama is.

Obama is going to gain a lot of ground when he campaigns and people get to know him better. His convention speech should be worth at least 10 points alone. The question is whether the GOP smear machine can take all of that way from him in the fall with scare tactics. That's the only way Obama loses this election.

[Hippo_Tron]

7. These maps indiciate that VA and IN are tied, therefore McCain should be shitting his pants

I know I know, he does that on a regular basis anyway. But these states were comfortably red in 2004. Indiana will probably trend back to th red, but Virginia is a serious problem.

Also, Obama leads in Colorado which was a red state in 2004. The Michigan poll on that map has 22% undecided, which means that Obama will win a lot of that vote becuase he is the better campaigner. Wisconsin will be close as always.

[Toucano]

11. Those would be great pick-ups.

But Clinton is getting FL, KY, NC, OH, and WV.

That's pretty remarkable, too.

[Occam Bandage]

15. It's hardly remarkable. Nobody's attacking her. She's getting a free ride, just like

McCain had during March and April. Obama, on the other hand, is being battered by both Clinton and McCain.

[VotesForWomen]

76. NOBODY"S ATTACKING HER??? what planet are you on?? she's being attacked by all sides, and yet O stil

still can't seem to close the deal..

[Hippo_Tron]

21. You can forget about WV and KY if McGramps were hammering her on social issues

And Obama is also pulling ahead of McGramps in Ohio.

Clinton has demonstrated significantly more strength than Obama in Florida, I will certainly give her that. But as I said above, I'd rather not win by pandering to Cuban-Americans and hoping that they don't steal the votes.

[Oregone]

9. Some perspective...Wasn't Kerry more electable, than say, Dean?

And we all know where that got us.

If we want to win 100%, we should be drafting a running Dick Cheney for the Democratic Nominee.

Otherwise, if values take more precedence over electability, maybe we should run with our hearts, and that just might change the country?

In 2004, I thought, Id rather lose with Dean than {maybe} win with Kerry. (but both possibilities were by no means guaranteed). Maybe the Democrats need to stop looking at polls and start listening to their base (as well as educating and inspiring a new block to bring them into the tent).

[Toucano]

16. Maybe. Do you think that's what Dems did in the 2006 midterms?

In some cases, yes, but in others (Sen. Casey, for example), the more moderate candidate got the victory over the Republican.

[Oregone]

26. No, my opinion is that 2006 was finally a reaction caused from Bush blowback

The country finally became reactionary, not intelligent. :)

Just my two cents.

[Occam Bandage]

10. Thank you for your concern.

Also, lol@WI going red for both of them, and at NC and KY going blue for Clinton.

[truedelphi]

13. A map structured around the central idea of this map would have shown George Walker Bush handily

beating Bill Clinton back in 1992.

Right now the Dems are in disarray and it has to do with The fact that we are squabbling over which of our two candidates will be the nom.

IF we could get that selection squared away (Let me repeat: If we could get that squared away) we could start putting real pressure on McCain and the logistics of the map would change pretty dramatically.

[Oregone]

14. A big problem with this concern: Hillary is not going to be the nominee.

You might as well draw up maps of Al Gore, Reagan's animated Carcass, Brad Pitt, and George Clinton. :) I mean, seriously. What would the electoral map look like if Jesus ran against McCain? Well, despite him probably being assassinated in June, we don't know and frankly, its irrelevant to the discussion at this point.

[Toucano]

18. That's not relevent to the discussion.

It is possible to do a postmortem on the primary for the sake of discussion, is it not?

A discussion board is not merely a place for advocacy of a candidate, but also for uh..discussion.

[Oregone]

29. Well, just for discussion sake, no problem. BUT, no one has a crystal ball.

It makes it really difficult to determine with confidence at any point in time (other than the future), what the outcome is from selecting one of multiple possibilities. People can argue ad naseum, till they are blue in the face, but no logical, sound conclusion can be reached--its all a guessing game if its not a strict math/logic theoretical question.

One thing I will tell you, is that if Obama loses, Hillary advocates will say we should have chose her. OTOH, nothing can prove (at that future junction) that she could have won when he could not. A lot of this "discussion" is really just people constructing framework to feel self-important (for advocating the "proper" choice) or to also cast doubt and shadow upon the current choice.

[Toucano]

44. That's true.

As I said, these polls are not a reliable prediction. Hell, Jean Dixon could have probably done the same thing.

But just taking them for what they are, the concept that Democrats have become so poisoned on the Clintons may be the result of Republican reverse psych-ops makes for interesting discussion.

[mckeown1128]

17. Those maps are missleading...

they pick all the Pro-Clinton and Anti-Obama polls. ex. Hillary was ahead in a single NC poll and it lists it as strong. Obama has been ahead in 1 NC poll and tied in another.. yet it doesn't reflect that.

Hillary has been well behind nearly every Oregon poll...yet it isn't reflected there.

Obama was behind in 1 Wisconsin poll but WELL ahead in the several others...yet it puts it in McCain's column.

Obama has at times polled ahead in ND...yet it is in McCain's column..

Need I go on?

The map is bullsh%t. It is GOP propaganda meant to make Dems rethink the presumptive nominee. Rove wants this to go to convention... thus the BS poll.

[Toucano]

22. That's possible.

I think it uses the most recent poll to generate the map, so that may not be the most reliable methodology.

But it is an equal measure across all states, at least.

The question might also be is the the GOP propaganda that vilified Clinton and lead to the nomination of Obama? You know how they love to do double-reverse psych ops.

[mckeown1128]

32. Hillary vilified herself...

I liked her generally. I had only become a "Hillary hater"(as her supporters would put it) after her "shame on you Obama" and "The light will poor down from the sky" spectacles... it's been down hill ever since.

The GOP is part of the reason she is still getting decent press and not getting the deserved Huckabee treatment. The GOPers are the first to argue for full seating of FL and MI(they want Hillary to get a boost in delegates) and they GOP has been complaining that the "liberal" media has been unfair to poor Hillary. They want her to stay in. They want this to be close enough to got to the convention.

[Toucano]

46. But there's the rub!

We know the media is not "liberal". The portrayal of Clinton's gaffes as high crimes is largely owed to them.

That doesn't mean they've been easy on Obama, but the gaffes that they harped on by Clinton were sort of the "push a liberal's buttons" type thing. They knew we wouldn't abandon Obama over Rev. Wright (because on some level, we know the message isn't 100% incorrect even if the delivery was not ideal).

I'm not sure if I'm being clear. It just seems possible the the media manipulated and accentuated Clinton's gaffes to alienate her support in the primary.

"The GOPers are the first to argue for full seating of FL and MI" I'm not sure I agree with that, but if we assume it's true for the sake of discussion, it makes sense that they would do that at this point. It benefits them if we're infighting, obviously.

I don't think Clinton is getting decent press. I think the press is painting her as a harpie and a spoiled loser.

[FatDave]

58. I disagree wholeheartedly.

Clinton's gaffes were actually the bigger ones. The sniper business was a flat out lie, and there was video to prove it. The RFK business, even giving here every benefit of every doubt, well, you just don't go bringing that shit up regardless of who your opponent is. Obama had bittergate, which was a gaffe (though not nearly as big as RFK), and a handful of guilt-by-associations. If the media payed more attention to Hillary's fuck-ups (an assertion that itself is not beyond debate) it's because they were bigger fuck-ups.

[mckeown1128]

64. I am sorry but Hillary has and still is getting favorable press.

Only VERY recently has that turned into what your claiming.

She was declared the inevitable nominee since the beginning.(which is what the Clinton campaign wanted)
She complained that Obama wasn't being vetted(and the media declared the quest to "vet" Obama)
She said that this race is still wide open(and the media backed her up despite the mathematical facts)
She said it doesn't matter how far behind she is because "she's a fighter" (God knows the media picked up that line from her)

She has owned this press since the beginning. Every previous contest where a candidate has stuck around after they obviously lost the nomination, the media starts (what I've come to call) the Huckabee treatment. They start giving less press to the "can't except reality candidate." They did this to Huckabee and no one complained. But instead of treating Clinton like Huckabee this year or Brown in 92 they have declared that it's still up in the air because the "Clinton's are fighters." Now I don't' think the media is doing this because they have some secret GOP agenda(well fox actually does) I think the media likes the ratings that the Clinton's bring. The Clinton's make interesting News Stories.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mckeown1128]

33. The most recent polling date... that's not very accurate.

Why not do polling averages? Listing a bad analysis of the polls does not make it true.


Sorry, about the Rove confusion. I ASSumed that these were the Rove maps that Clinton supporters have started treating like sacred texts.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

41. Those Maps Have Been In Use Since 00

There is no bias...They employ the latest available poll in each state...I question the methodolody also but it is not a question of bias...

[Jim Lane]

71. The maps aren't misleading, just not carved in stone

The current methodology at http://www.electoral-vote.com is to use the latest poll for each state. This sometimes means that a state is assigned on the basis of an outlier poll that contradicts numerous others. As the election nears, the site will probably include a map like the one it had in 2004, averaging several recent polls. In 2004, its last pre-election map was pretty accurate.

The site is not affiliated with Karl Rove, the GOP, or the Clinton campaign.

Polls this far in advance don't mean much. That's why the site isn't yet bothering to average.

[WeDidIt]

20. Your "concern" is duly noted.

[Toucano]

23. That's a ridiculously useless comment.

Thanks for your contribution.

[Occam Bandage]

34. In a ridiculously useless thread.

[Toucano]

47. Thanks for the kick!

:P

[WeDidIt]

37. Your ridiculously absurd comment on my ridiculously useless comment

is duly noted in the same bucket as your "concern".

[AllentownJake]

24. Prior to the Primaries the Clinton Primary Map

Was all Clinton with the exception of Illinois. The more she campaigns the worse she does. In opposed to Obama who makes up ground everywhere except Appalachia.

[Toucano]

27. Good point. Except the primary maps us polls of Democrats

and democrat-leaning voters.

Support of independents and cross-over republicans isn't included.

[AllentownJake]

30. Give her time

I'm sure she would burn bridges with them too and her drinking buddy McCain would unleash his 1200 pages of oppo research.

[FatDave]

59. And independents and crossover republicans will largely go to Obama.

Don't think for a minute that Hillary's operation chaos primary supporters will come rushing to her in november.

[abburdlen]

28. I question the vaule of polls

that show Clinton winning NC and Obama losing it when she did so poorly in our primary.

[Toucano]

51. Be that as it may...

That's what the polls say.

That's the point I was trying to make about the value of Independents and cross-over Republican voters.

One important thing to remember: a lot of newly registered voters who support Obama won't show up in the polling company databases for awhile.

He could still have a blow out.

[SaveAmerica]

31. I can tell you at first glance that map for Clinton is wrong because of NC

NC has more chance of going blue with Obama than with Clinton. Did you see by how much he won NC over Clinton? How are we supposed to go blue with Hillary if she can't even get Democrats to vote for her here?

Did I help you even a little with your concern poll? Or are you concerned because someone's floating a map that's so wrong?

[Toucano]

50. There's absolutely no reason for your condescending, snot-faced

tone.

If you don't want to contribute anything to the discussion, don't reply. Or ignore the thread. Or ignore me.

I don't give a shit.

Others here are having a conversation that I value.

The NC data is based on a SurveyUSA poll from May 19th. 49% Clinton, 43% McCain - McCain 51%, Obama 43%

THE POINT YOU'RE MISSING in your effort to snark and snide is that DEMOCRATS VOTE IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY. Everyone votes in the general election.

Read the OP again if you want. Do you think it's impossible that Clinton attracts more Independents and cross-over Republicans than Obama does? These polls seem to suggest the opposite.

"How are we supposed to go blue with Hillary if she can't even get Democrats to vote for her here?"

Over 650,000 Democrats did vote for her.

[SaveAmerica]

60. I'm in North Carolina and I am trying to help you with what I have seen, saw before our primary and

am still seeing. What I'm getting ready to tell you is why I had to drop my hopes for Hillary Clinton as the first woman president; many people hate her in North Carolina. I thought she'd be OK with "just" Republican hate, the kind we're used to seeing from the conservative big mouths whose hate drives them to the polls. Some of my Democratic neighbors and associates told me (back in the beginning of the primaries) that they hate her, would never vote for her. One of them is my neighbor who is a fairly conservative Democrat (senior citizen) who was behind Kerry 100% but called Hillary names I won't repeat here.

So, election day 2008; Hillary's on the ballot. Will that lunatic hate (which I don't understand) get more Republicans and conservative Democrats to vote for McCain? Or Obama's on the ballot; will young and new voters and moderate republicans tip NC into his column?

Why would you leave out the number of North Carolinians who voted for Obama? Wouldn't that difference in who came out to vote for each one and what brought them to the polls make a difference in the General Election? Yes it will. The black people who've been watching the candidate they supported first dis the candidate they're supporting now - will they vote for her if she's the nominee?

That map showing that Hillary has more of a chance to win North Carolina does not reflect what is happening in North Carolina.

Please go back and read what I posted and then read what you wrote, especially your subject and first couple sentences. I don't think what I wrote warranted your response.

luego, toucano

[gcomeau]

35. Clinton's map only went there...

...after it became abundantly clear she would not be the nominee and any campaigning against her effectively stopped. chuck Todd mentioned this on MSNBC a while ago, that kind of bump after that happens is pretty normal.

If she was actually a serious contender for the nomination still and there was still active campaigning against her then she would not be getting those levels of support.

[gcomeau]

36. To further illustrate...

...one month ago when she was still considered by some to at least have an outside shot at the nomination, this was her map:



With Oregon, Washington, Iowa, Ohio, Florida, Missourri and New Jersey all hovering on the brink of flipping red.

People answering questions about whether they would vote for her more recently are doing it in the context of knowing they won't really have to make that decision since she's not getting nominated, so hey why not?

Of course even that map, like the current one, is pretty meaningless as a predictor of what will actually happen several months from now.

[Toucano]

56. To keep the comparison,

Obama's map from April 29.

Obama 243 McCain 269 Tie 26
Clinton 291 McCain 247

The point about her not being a serious contender anymore might have a lot of merit, although I have to confess I find it counterintuitive.

[Toucano]

53. I'm not sure that's true, but it's possible.

What date do you reference for when it became clear?

Was it super Tuesday?

[phrigndumass]

38. Vilifying the Clintons? Who?

The questions is: Have Democrats bought in to the time-honored Republican practice of vilifying the Clintons at the expense of an electoral victory in November?

The slime machine is coming from the Clintons and the repubs. Hillary is no victim, she's the shit-stirrer in the Democratic party, as this graph plainly shows.

It's funny also that, as Hillary's electoral vote outlook rises, the strength of overall projection has dramatically decreased. This means that a great many of the polls used to make those maps at Electoral-Vote.com are either outdated (beyond a month old) or have an extremely high number of undecideds (double-digits). Eighty percent of the polls on Hillary's map are useless.



P.S. Hillary lost. Discuss.

[LSK]

39. how the fuck is WI a red state?

[muryan]

40. Obama has a much chance in of winning NC than Hillary does

Also, I'm pretty sure Michigan/Wisconsin are going to be solid blue regardless of who runs.

[goldcanyonaz]

42. Obama will win all 57 states!

[apocalypsehow]

43. Who are you trying to kid?

[indimuse]

45. K&R!

Exactly WHY Hillary has to go to Denver...If Obama doesn't drop out. More drama from his on of his spiritual advisers...not good for the GE! SYATC! :)

[nichomachus]

52. Yes, she needs to go to Denver

and bring her spiritual guru Doug Coe -- so he can explain his plan to make the entire country bend its knee to Jesus.

[Prophet 451]

49. The maps are meaningless

For the simple reason that, as you say, , we're still around six months away from the General. Secondly, while American presidential campaigns normally turn on personalities, I think the backlash against the Rethugs this time around is so great that people will vote for party above person. Finally, the map assumes states are up for grabs when I don't think they are. For example, Clinton beats Obama in Florida. Fine but I strongly suspect Florida is going red if the Repubs nominate the ghost of Hitler.

[Toucano]

57. You lost me a bit.

McCain is the ghost of Hitler?

I hadn't heard that yet!

[Prophet 451]

63. LOL, not quite

I can't stand McCain but he's innocent of that one. No, what I'm saying is that in Florida, who is nominated matters less than which party they belong to and I suspect Florida will go red regardless.

[pnorman]

54. "the time-honored Republican practice of vilifying the Clintons"

Ya mean like Rush, Scaife, and Murdoch do? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

pnorman
PS:

[smiley_glad_hands]

55. Look at the pretty pictures. LOLZ. She lost. move on.

[IsItJustMe]

Damn Rove, you get around.

[IsItJustMe]

61. Dup

[IsItJustMe]

62. Dup

[rove karl rove]

66. both maps are too early and too skewed

these aren't ever a good predicitive method this far out - wait till both conventions are over for a week. Just for the record, neither would win in NC.

[carpetbagger]

67. It's not real.

Let's assume Clinton wins the nomination. No scenes of Obama in handcuffs, or saying "I am a gay American". Just hardball politics resulting in the narrowest plausable victory (let's say a good showing June 5th, a Gore or Pelosi endorsement, an unexpectedly favorable seating of the rogue states, and second-ballot madness and deal-making). Give the GOP a fortnight to throw back her "kitchen sink strategy". Then take some polls in places like New Jersey, Michigan, Washington. The map will take a dive.

I suspect the Obama partisans will be pretty lit. Call 'em up, they'll say "McCain". They'll mostly show up, vote for Clinton, but it'll take time. But once the attack machine goes into motion, like it has against Obama, watch Clinton's soft support go undecided, watch the undecideds go McCain.

Would Clinton win? I'd take even odds, I'd even give her an advantage over McBush. However, the slope suddenly becomes steeper, and the advantage she appears to have turns out to be based on the lack of recent negative attention (other than the apparent desperation).

Edited for a pair of typos at the end.

[VotesForWomen]

68. exactly. nt

[LordJFT]

70. Who's won more independents in the primaries?

hint, it's not Clinton

[FlyingSquirrel]

72. I wish people would stop accepting Electoral-vote.com as the gospel truth

Here's a better map for you:



http://journals.democraticunderground.com/FlyingSquirrel/27

I'll be updating it tomorrow night or Sunday.

[DesEtoiles]

74. that is because you are a concern troll, peddling Karl Rove's shit

[dkf]

75. Its nice to win, but its even nicer if the winner has principles and

will do the right thing.

I don't see that coming from Hillary. I'd rather risk it all on Obama than buy a pig in a poke.

[Political Heretic]

77. The GOP is not getting WI in 2008. Period.