The 2008 General Election
SUSA, which has been having a very good cycle (in each state where they and Zogby had wildly divergent numbers (Ohio, California, and more), SUSA nailed the real result to a point), and who consistently puts out the most useful and interesting polling, does one of the electoral map come November 2008 for both Democratic nominees.
It’s, of course, March, but it’s still worth a look. Both candidates win, Obama by a slightly larger margin, but both do it in different ways.
All in all, Obama outperforms Clinton in 33 states. Clinton outperforms Obama in 15.
In the “swing states”, Ohio, Missouri, and Michigan have both candidates doing equally well.
Obama has a significant advantage over Clinton in CO, IA, NH, MN, NV, NM, OR, VA, WA, and WI.
Clinton has a significant advantage over Obama in FL, TN, NJ, WV, and PA.
If you want Demo-centric spot-on analysis of this, kos does it for you.
It strikes me that which one you’d favor depends largely on perspective. Clinton does a better job of nailing down the key “big” battleground states, but basically the map is Kerry’s (just a bit better job of it). She does great in the rust belt, in particular.
Obama smears blue all over the place (and even where it’s still red, tends to elevate the Democratic vote substantially), which might be a riskier strategy in the traditional sense (the battleground game of parsing down to just 6 important states), but if you’re a Democratic activist, it must sure look nice to lock down the Northeast, the upper Midwest, and start moving into the South and Mountain West.
This, incidentally, is such a microcosm of the kind of Democratic support and electoral strategies of the two main Democratic camps.
If you’re interested in just playing to the center and parking it in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania election cycle after election cycle (as the DLC and Clintonian crowds always argue anyway), Clinton’s your gal.
If you’re a 50-state strategy kind of Democrats and are interested in spreading the brand outside of its traditional strongholds, Obama’s the man.
Both arguments, to my mind, have much merit, but—no surprise—I’d be a 50-state guy.
And yes, Obama TIES McCain in Kansas.
All hail SUSA, your polling overlords.
Comment by Brad — 3/6/2008 @ 5:40 pm
Obama or Clinton certainly start as favourite. That said, it’s not that long ago that Giuliani was favourite for the Republican nomination (and wasn’t Mondale in the lead at one stage?), so it is, as you say, rather early.
What I find interesting is how close Clinton and Obama are; from that data, there’s no significant ‘electability’ argument in favour of Obama, which is a change from what I recall.
Comment by Adam — 3/6/2008 @ 6:19 pm
Also, and I’m no expert, isn’t that tied state actually Nebraska?
Comment by Adam — 3/6/2008 @ 6:20 pm
Shut up, you.
Comment by Brad — 3/6/2008 @ 6:21 pm
Actually, that map gives me a lot more hope for McCain than I would have had. Ohio might be gone (although I’m not sure they like Obama enough to vote for him in a postitive sense compared to, say, Clinton, the Ohio GOP are a shambles), but Nevada and Colorado could be within his reach and picking Pawlenty as VP might help with Minnesota.
Comment by Adam — 3/6/2008 @ 6:23 pm
Nebraska and Kansas: so boring, not even Kansans can tell them apart.
Comment by Adam — 3/6/2008 @ 6:24 pm
Well, they also have to hold Florida, New Mexico, Iowa, and New Hampshire, and if you think it’s likely that McCain does, in fact, pick off Pennsylvania against Obama, you’re a bigger optimist than I would have thought (I also seriously doubt Clinton loses Washington).
At least in Obama’s campaign, the battleground spreads considerably. Nevada and Colorado are ALREADY, mind, red states.
Comment by Brad — 3/6/2008 @ 6:36 pm
This is the first poll I’ve seen with the Dems winning Ohio or Florida over McCain. In fact, it’s the first poll I’ve seen in which Florida was even CLOSE.
Comment by Rojas — 3/6/2008 @ 8:09 pm
Bowers:
Comment by Brad — 3/6/2008 @ 10:34 pm
Brad: I’m not optimistic, I’m just surprised if the situation at the moment is only as bad as that poll suggests.
Comment by Adam — 3/6/2008 @ 11:00 pm
I think the safer map is the one with a red Florida. That is, don’t count on Florida and therefore go with Obama.
Another factor is that Obama’s fund raising is off the charts. I don’t think Clinton could match it. McCain will certainly not be able to.
If they do go with the 50 state strategy (i.e. Obama) I think the Republican slaughter in the house and senate will be so vast, so sweeping, that the definition of Holocaust will be replaced with the 2008 election.
Oh, and Karl Rove, in his attempt to kill the Democratic party, will have in fact, killed the Republican party. Of course, he had lots and lots of “help” (read: bad advise) from the neocons.
Comment by daveg — 3/7/2008 @ 3:31 am
I’ve long favoured a fifty state strategy for either party. I also said, whilst people were mocking Howard Dean for mooting the idea, that I thought he was a lot smarter than people liked to think.
Comment by Adam — 3/7/2008 @ 9:02 am
Absolutely agree with Adam @ 12. A 50 state strategy also places you in a much better position to capitilize on unexpected events, campaign errors, and scandals that impact senate and house races.
- Having a solid organization in place in BFE Red State allows you to push a Dem to victory over the emergency GOP substition for Congressman Chickenhawk, when he gets busted selling Meth to naked minors while dressed as wonderwoman. As an example. A few years ago I would have said, yeah right, how often does something like that happen?
- When you have a major strategy/policy/program/Iraq War that is divided along party lines, and that event goes South, a 50 state strategy allows you to pick up seats in states in which you would not otherwise be competitive.
Comment by Jack — 3/7/2008 @ 10:00 am
Which is, I think, a large part of the take-away message here. The bottom line is Obama turns out more Democrats in more places (and gets more non-Democrats voting Democrat).
Comment by Brad — 3/7/2008 @ 1:19 pm
That map won’t persuade people that it’s necessary, however, given that there’s only four electors in it between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. In fact, the reasons for a 50-state strategy are entirely independent of Obama, or Clinton, or NameYourCandidate.
Also, Brad, regarding your earlier comment about McCain picking off Pennsylvania, I didn’t make the maps, I was just discussing them. There are plenty of debateables on that map; the ones we’ve already mentioned, plus Virginia, North Dakota, Nevada, etc. My point is that I am surprised that current polling has it so close; to pick your example, I’d have thought that Pennsylvania was a lock for Obama over McCain in any current poll, but apparently not. I think that McCain has some chance — polls in the present don’t mean much — but I would say that he’s up against it more than that map suggests. If I believed the map, I’d be genuinely optimistic of McCain’s chances against either candidate. I am also surprised that Obama’s advantage over Hillary is so relatively small; sure, he has some states in odd places (in the poll) but Hillary hasn’t plunged as much as I’d have thought.
So, sure, it’s interesting, but it’s less gloomy for me than I believe the actual truth to be. So, I hope it’s true, but, therefore, I suspect that it’s not.
Comment by Adam — 3/7/2008 @ 1:35 pm
On Pennsylvania, I also strongly suspect that, come May, Obama will be way up against McCain there (one benefit of having 7 weeks of a PA primary, which has been the biggest reason WHY this extended primary thing has been great for Democrats (though now, like I said, jumping the shark)). At which point, the electoral difference between HRC and BHO IS pretty significant. She wins by turning two of the PA/OH/FL corridor. Obama does that, and turns a lot of other (some new) places blue as well, while drawing a lot more Democrats to the polls essentially everywhere.
Comment by Brad — 3/7/2008 @ 1:40 pm
Well, that map has Clinton winning all three, not two, of PA, FL and OH. That’s pretty much a lock on a win without the need for fancy nipping of smaller states out from under the GOP.
To me, that map helps Clinton more than Obama if the Superdelegates believe it, because they’ll see for Clinton a relatively traditional road to the Whitehouse.
Comment by Adam — 3/7/2008 @ 1:45 pm