50 State Polling and Analysis
Starting to define the "New Map"
By Adam C Posted in 2008 — Comments (29) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
SurveyUSA polled 600 RVs in each state and has head-to-head Clinton-McCain and Obama-McCain numbers. Overall, Obama wins 280-258 and Clinton wins 276-262. However, the overall numbers aren't as interesting as the actual poll results for each state.
To analyze these numbers, I made 3 distinct comparisons. First, I compared the McCain-Obama margins to the McCain-Clinton margins to see which states Obama does better/worse than Clinton in a prospective 2008 general election.
Second, I compared McCain-Obama margins to Bush-Kerry margins in 2004 to see shifts in the map.
Third, I did the same with McCain-Clinton.
My analysis of the comparisons is below the fold.
First, comparing Obama and Clinton in matchups against McCain. In order of significance, these states are where Obama does better than Clinton by at least 10 points in 18 states:
UT (27), HI (26), NE (24), VT, ID, ND, IL (18), AK, WA, CO, IA, WY, NV, OR, MT, CT, NH, VA (10).
Clinton does better than Obama by 10 points or more in the following 7 states:
AR (31), WV (23), TN (16), OK, KY, MA, FL (11).
Other notable states show that Hillary does better in PA (6) and NJ (5) while there was no difference in OH (0).
Second, comparing McCain-Obama in 08 to Bush-Kerry in 04 there are only 2 states where Kerry did 10 points better: MA (18) and AR (10).
However, there are 22 states where Obama improves on the Bush-Kerry margin by at least 10 points:
UT (35), ND (31), NE (30), ID (25), TX (22), HI, WY, AK, IL, SD (18), KS, SC, CO, VT, IN (12), MT, OH, AL, CT, IA, NC, WI (10).
Other notable differences are Obama running behind Kerry in PA (-8) and NJ (-7).
Third, comparing McCain-Clinton in 08 to Bush-Kerry in 04 there is only 1 state where Kerry did 10 points better: VT (10).
Clinton improves on Kerry's margins by 10 points in 13 states:
OK (23), AR (21), WV (18), KS, TX, AL, FL, KY, TN, OH, SC, MS, SD.
Finally, we can see some trends here that are unsurprising and some that are quite interesting. Unsurprisingly, TX will be closer than last time. Clinton does much better in AR, OK and WV than the other Ds.
Also, OH looks bad no matter which D wins the primary when compared to 2004.
Obama improves in a lot of dissimilar places like UT, HI, VT, ID, NH and AK.
And it seems Kerry was remarkable bad in certain places including MS, FL, AL, and SD. These are not likely to be as "red" in 2008 and this could lead to some real changes in the New Map.
Most importantly, the fact that in 25 states either Clinton or Obama improves 10 points compared to the other D means the outcome of the primary will significantly affect which states are competitive and what the ultimate New Map will look like.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Money = Enthusiasm — Comments (1) »
50 State Polling and Analysis 29 Comments (0 topical, 29 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Thanks for the analysis. I think it will be somewhat difficult for McCain in Ohio. Our economy is down and only getting worse, and that is not McCain's strong suit.
I'm willing to bet we'll be hearing the "these jobs are coming back" comment ad infinitum running up to the general election.
Intesting analysis. One major quibble. If McCain wins New Jersey, he's not losing by 22 to Obama. He's winning by 100+ EVs. Deadwood John Kerry won Jersey with 6.6% against a fairly popular GWB. PA I can see as more likely.
If you look at their numbers NJ is a virtual tie with 14% unaccounted for - and NJ often seems hopeful for Republicans until election day when it nearly always disappoints.
If a guy like Bob Menendez, who represents everything people hate about Jersey politicians (corrupt, abrasive, straight from the Union county machine) can beat a candidate with the last name Kean by 8%, that's not a good sign for McCain or any R in the state.
If McCain wins New Jersey, he also wins at least two out of three of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin as well as all of the states that GWB won twice (and probably more). I also seriously doubt there would be reverse coattails (Senate helping pres) from the Senate Race in NJ will help the Democrats. Lautenberg is still favored to win, but he isn't going to rev up the electorate. The states where I think the Democrats are going to benefit the most from reverse coattails are Colorado and Virginia, the state where the Republicans are going to benefit is of course Louisiana (to help keep it for the Republicans).
Not sure I really believe in reverse coattails. If Obama is the nominee, it would be Obama helping Warner in VA, not the other way around.
If I was Obama and I knew today that McCain wins Jersey in Nov, I'd take my $55 mil raised last month and run off to Switzerland tomorrow and not look back. Is that legal?
...will be competitive. I think this is a pretty solid baseline given that the generic ballots overwhelmingly favor Dems.
Second, these polls can easily be WAY off. 600 voters is a very small sample size, and RVs are not near as reliable as LVs.
Anyway, I guess it gives us a VERY hazy, premature picture.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
McCain will not win the election without Ohio. At the end of the day, the map will come back to "normal" and he will need Ohio, Florida and Missouri to win.
Look at 1988 or 1992 and think about the next election. Should Rs have gone for MD? Should Ds have thought GA would be close?
Things change and it's important to try to figure it out before they do so resources can be used efficiently.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Candidates are hugely influential in defining the maps, not parties.
Personally I was fine with the one we won with twice, but McCain's not a loser.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
I believe the Red/Blue state pattern will be with us for quite a while, and elections will turn on the Ohios, Floridas...just like 2000 and 2004.
Sure there is some shifting from time to time (VA -> blue, LA -> red) but it won't move quickly.
Florida wasn't close last time. Louisiana went for Bush both times.
The maps of the last two elections were that way because Bush ran against uncharismatic, incompetent Democrats twice.
Bush isn't on the ballot though. Now we'll find out what McCain vs a terribly incompetent Democrat looks like.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
With LA I guess I was thinking purple-y to solid red.
FL could have gone D in 2004 with a good candidate. Ohio easily considering a stiff like Kerry was only 80,000 votes away.
I just don't see the West coast, NE, and Illinios trending red anytime soon, and I certainly don't see the South, Dakotas, and farm states trending blue. Maybe some slight AZ,CO movement, but that's all demo changes 10-15 years out.
That's the point. People treat Presidential elections differently. You can be as Democratic as the day is long, like Arkansas, and still vote Republican reliably for President. A bunch of people there do that.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
DON'T EVEN TRY TO WIN CALIFORNIA! DON'T WASTE A SINGLE PENNY THERE!
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
These states are trending Republican. This will be the breakout year. Also look for Nader to be on both ballots helping our cause further. Donate to Nader this weekend and help him help us.
As smart as Karl Rove is, I still can't believe he wasted resources in California in 2000 for a state Gore won by 1.3M votes.
On multiple counts.
First, regardless of whether or not he wins the Presidential election he has to consider the downstream affects. Not running in California allows the Dems to refocus money they would spending defending their presumed presidential win to other races in the state. If McCain wins the presidency, he's going to need as many Republicans as he can get to shape legislation. If he loses, the Republican party still needs as many seats as they can get to stop the worst of the dreck that comes flying with either the Communist or the Stalinist in the big house.
Second, you can't win 50 states if you don't run in 50 states. Dean screwed the pouch royally on his Presidential run, but his 50 state strategy is what made the Dem gains in 2006 so spectacular. He had the candidates in the races to capitalize on the change in momentum when it happened. IF, and I will grant it is a big if, Obama and Hillary manage to tear each other apart worse than McCain has torn apart the Republican party, he'll need the people on the ground to take advantage of it.
Third, writing off California in any given election cycle makes it that much harder to take the next election cycle. It's the same effect Crist is using to try to get the DNC to seat Hillary's delegates.
Fourth, McCain and the Govenator are at least amicable allies. I might disagree with both of them on most of their policies, but if their moderation is the model we are to emulate, California is the place where it ought to make a difference. If it doesn't work, we need a new model.
Fifth, well, the Dems are getting cocky about California. That's usually a good time to think about a strategy to hit them where they think they can't be hit and watch the surprise on their faces. In fact, if it might even be good for McCain to make a campaign in Berkley, with camera crews in tow. I'm thinking right in front of the recruitment center where Code Pink gets to park their car. You know, contrast California Dems with a war hero who supports the military.
But regardless, I think I need to go place some more orders for some MREs. It's going to be a long four years.
There were three close races here in 06, all in Republican-held seats: Doolittle (4) and Bilbray (50) won, but Pombo (11) lost. McClintock isn't going to lose in 4,and Bilbray is going to be entrenched now in 50.
Pombo's district is trickier, though. District 11 went for Bush by 9 in 2004, Schwarzenegger by 34 in 2006, and Feinstein by 15 in 2006.
Geographically it's in the outer reaches of the SF Bay area. I really don't think McCain needs to invest in that media market just for one seat. Let the RNC and NRCC do it. If they can't, what good are they?
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
If I was the D nominee I'd be thrilled if McCain campaigned in Cali. Is McCain really gonna make up the 1.2-1.3 million votes that he starts in the hole? Even if the Dems take CA for granted, that's a huge burden to overcome, especially in a state that is so large and media is so expensive.
Worring about downticket is fine if you are Reagan in 1984. Other times, doing whatever you can to ensure your own election is priority.
Unless he can turn the anti-Nafta, anti-free trade argument on its head and use it to his advantage, which I very much doubt is possible. I have debated many of the union types in northern Ohio, and they just are not interested in facts or logical arguments-Bush and the Republicans are helping their corporate cronies outsource U.S. jobs to countries where they can exploit poor workers, and the whole process is bad for the economy as a whole, end of story. You can factually disprove their arguments til you are blue in the face, but it won't get you anywhere.
McCain must not count on Ohio. He should make an effort, but he very likely will need to swing another state to make up for the electoral votes. Luckily, I think there are a few states that are swingable.
The naive forgive and forget.
The foolish forget but do not forgive.
The wise forgive but do not forget.
Do these kinds of surveys take into account the supposed rift that will be left in the wake of Hillary "stealing" the nomination from Obama? I've heard numerous people say/write that if Hillary is the nominee, they'll vote for McCain.
Not as many the other way, although someone did say that the reverse was true as well last night on TV....
I'm just wondering if the polls took into account the disgruntled voter factor after a messy and 50%painful nomination process.
OR is it the contention that the Democrats will rally around their nominee, and this division will never materialize.
If Hillary somehow pulls this rabbit out of her hat, and works some shady dealings and ends up as the nominee, then John McCain deserves to be President. Now sure, hard partisans will be saying that winning is what counts, but to me, if a national party cannot hold a fair and legitimate election for it's own candidates by it's own loyal members, it does not earn the right to have it's candidate win the election.
and one that makes me quite hopeful as well.
Given how long and how low push has pulled and the fact that Obama is this "monster candidate," its good to see that we are only -22 to Obama and -14 to Clinton in Electoral votes.
That's only a state or two in both cases and it shows that this is an election that we can win.