Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
PRINCETON, NJ -- In the 20 states where Hillary Clinton has claimed victory in the 2008 Democratic primary and caucus elections (winning the popular vote), she has led John McCain in Gallup Poll Daily trial heats for the general election over the past two weeks of Gallup Poll Daily tracking by 50% to 43%. In those same states, Barack Obama is about tied with McCain among national registered voters, 45% to 46%.
Quote:
In contrast, in the 28 states and the District of Columbia where Obama has won a higher share of the popular vote against Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primaries and caucuses, there is essentially no difference in how Obama and Clinton each fare against McCain. Both Democrats are statistically tied with him for the fall election.
Quote:
All of this speaks to Sen. Clinton's claim that her primary-state victories over Obama indicate her potential superiority in the general election.
The results are based on aggregated data from Gallup Poll Daily tracking from May 12-25, including interviews with more than 11,000 registered voters nationwide (including Alaska and Hawaii). Across this period, Gallup has found Clinton performing marginally better than Obama in separate trial heats for the general election against McCain. Clinton has led McCain by an average of three percentage points, 48% vs. 45%. Obama has trailed McCain by an average of one point, 45% vs. 46%.
Clinton's popular-vote victories thus far include the three biggest Electoral College prizes: California (a solid Democratic state), New York (another sure bet for the Democrats), and Texas (a solid Republican state). (Although Obama won more delegates in Texas, Clinton's vote total exceeded Obama's by nearly 100,000 votes.) However, her victories also include several of the largest swing states that both parties will be battling to win in November: Pennsylvania and Ohio, as well as wins in the disputed Florida and Michigan primaries. As a result, Clinton's 20 states represent more than 300 Electoral College votes while Obama's 28 states and the District of Columbia represent only 224 Electoral College votes.
As the Gallup analysis shows, Clinton is currently running ahead of McCain in the 20 states where she has prevailed in the popular vote, while Obama is tied with McCain in those same states. Thus, at this stage in the race (before the general-election campaigns have fully engaged), there is some support for her argument that her primary states indicate she would be stronger than Obama in the general election.
The same cannot be said for Obama in the 28 states and D.C. where he prevailed in the popular vote. As of now, in those states, he is performing no better than Clinton is in general-election trial heats versus McCain. Thus, the principle of greater primary strength translating into greater general-election strength -- while apparently operative for the states Clinton has won -- does not seem to apply at the moment to states Obama has won.
Quote:
Clinton's 2008 swing-state victories include Nevada, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Arkansas, and -- based solely on popular vote (not delegates) -- Florida and Michigan (her swing states total 105 electoral votes). Thus far in May, Gallup has found Clinton leading McCain in these states by six percentage points, 49% to 43%. McCain holds the slight edge over Obama in these states, 46% to 43%. Thus, as of today, Clinton is clearly the stronger Democratic candidate in this cluster of states where she beat Obama in the popular vote.
Quote:
Bottom Line
According to Gallup's May 12-25 tracking polling, Clinton is running stronger against McCain than is Obama in the 20 states where Clinton can claim popular-vote victory in the Democratic primaries and caucuses. By contrast, Obama runs no better against McCain than does Clinton in the 28 states plus the District of Columbia where he has prevailed. On this basis, Clinton appears to have the stronger chance of capitalizing on her primary strengths in the general election.
However, just focusing on the swing states in Clinton's and Obama's respective win columns, the two are fairly similar. Clinton beats McCain in her purple states (including Florida and Michigan) by 49% to 43%, while Obama slightly trails McCain (43% to 46%) in these states -- a nine-point swing in the gap in Clinton's favor. Conversely, Obama beats McCain in his purple states (49% to 41%), while Clinton trails McCain by one point, 45% to 46%, in the same states -- also a nine-point swing in the gap in Obama's favor.
Clinton's main advantage is that her states -- including Florida and Michigan -- represent nearly twice as many Electoral College votes as Obama's. However, removing Florida and Michigan from the equation, her purple states are about comparable to Obama's in electoral vote size, and thus the two appear more evenly situated.
What gives Clinton an additional boost in national support -- but is not likely to increase her chances of winning Electoral College votes in November -- is her superior performance over Obama in the red states where she has captured the popular vote in the primaries. These include such typically safe Republican states as Oklahoma, Texas, Indiana, and Arizona.
That's interesting, but as we pretty much agreed earlier, these kind of polls 5 1/2 months before the election have little, if any meaning.
If Democrats band together like they should after convention, they'll do just fine.
__________________
Here's to the Army and Navy and the battles they have won; here's to America's colors, the colors that never run. May the wings of liberty never lose a feather. ....
For someone who claims he'll sit out this election should his candidate not get her rightful nomination, and considering you're about the only person who is supporting said candidate on this board (the rest are Pubs or Obama supporters) then why should ANYONE care about this?
Obama supporters still look to come out with a win for their candidate --the better candidate in their minds-- and Pub supporters wouldn't want the more challenging candidate from the Dem party. Do you think this affects anyone's opinion or is enlightening in any way?
For someone who claims he'll sit out this election should his candidate not get her rightful nomination, and considering you're about the only person who is supporting said candidate on this board (the rest are Pubs or Obama supporters) then why should ANYONE care about this?
Anyone interested can "click" on the thread..y'know, the people who are interested in how their candidate is doing against her....it got your attention...right? If you didn't care and I believe you don't, why did you go into it? The said candidate I support is boldly written on the title of this thread...right?
Quote:
Obama supporters still look to come out with a win for their candidate --the better candidate in their minds-- and Pub supporters wouldn't want the more challenging candidate from the Dem party. Do you think this affects anyone's opinion or is enlightening in any way?
Absolutely not but I thought it would be something trivial and interesting and along the lines of what I AND OTHERS have been saying. Sorry if I stepped out of bounds for posting something the majority on this board would not care about. I didn't read the part about abstaining from posting anything that might make some feel indifferent. Make sure you PM me and send me a list of what not to post on this board.
__________________
If your sword's too short, add to its length by taking one step forward.
I have a little problem with them avg. the 8 swing states, I would like to see the acutal breakdown of each individual swing state. I personally think the avg. total is a little scewed because of probable large margin diffrential in a couple of the states. But I think states like Nevada are with in the margin of error for both candidates vs. McCain.
This shows Hillary has the potential to win the election,but Obama has potential too, so reallly its pretty much a wash IMO. Obama is only losing to McCain in FLA by the margin of error without really campaigning in the state yet. I honestly believe he will win Fla by 3 or 4% come November. I also believe he will Carry every state Kerry did plus Colorado and Nevada. And once Hillary supporters are don pouting, the will coalecee around Obama in FLA...
May 30, 2008
She claims recent national polls "consistently" show she'd win in November. That's not true.
Summary
The debt-strapped Clinton campaign is appealing for money with an e-mail telling potential donors that polls "consistently" show she would beat McCain in November, and that she's leading Obama in the popular vote. We find both claims are misleading.
A number of recent polls actually show Clinton tied with McCain, or even trailing. For most of 2008, polls have shown McCain ahead.
She can claim to have won more votes than Obama only by counting Michigan, a primary where Obama was not on the ballot and which Clinton once said "isn't going to count for anything."
Analysis
Have You Seen The Polls?
Sen. Hillary Clinton's fund-raising appeal is titled "Have you seen the polls?" It leads with a claim that "lately" polls "consistently" show she would win the general election:
Clinton:Have you seen the general election polls lately? They consistently show that we'll beat John McCain in November. In a national head-to-head match and in the critical swing states, the numbers show I'm the best candidate to take back the White House for Democrats.
Clinton exaggerates. Most recent national polls do show her doing better than Obama in head-to-head match-ups against Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee-to-be. But they do not "consistently" show her ahead of McCain.
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll had Clinton exactly tied with McCain for 10 of the last 16 days, and leading on only 5 days. Furthermore her lead was never more than 4 points, while the poll's statistical margin of error is plus or minus 4 points. The poll had McCain leading 47 to 44 on May 22.
The Reuters/Zogby Poll released May 21 showed Clinton and McCain "essentially tied." Clinton led by 41 to 40, but that one-point lead was well within the poll's three-point margin of error.
Clinton would have been correct to say that some recent polls consistently show her leading McCain. The Gallup Daily has put her ahead of McCain throughout the month of May, for example. However, even in the most recent Gallup poll, for May 29, her lead had dwindled to only 2 points, which is also the poll's statistical margin of error. The same poll showed Obama also slightly ahead of McCain, 46 to 45.
And of course, even if all the polls did consistently show Clinton leading McCain in recent days – which they do not – she still would not be justified in saying that they "show that we'll beat John McCain in November." No poll can predict the future. And in fact, the polls show she's often been behind McCain in the past. The Web site Pollster.com tracks a variety of political polls and keeps a chart that attempts to consolidate the results, and it shows Clinton has actually been behind McCain for most of 2008. Obama isn't doing as well against McCain recently, but that hasn't always been true. Like Clinton, Obama has gone up and down, sometimes leading McCain and sometimes trailing.
"Our Popular Vote Lead"
Clinton's e-mail also repeats her frequently stated and misleading claim that she's winning the popular vote in the Democratic contests so far. She appeals for money saying, "We can win the nomination if we extend our popular vote lead." The problem with that statement is that Obama has gotten more votes than Clinton when totaling up all the contests in which they have both been on the ballot.
The political Web site Real Clear Politics has an excellent tally, with links to official reports from state election authorities. Those show that even counting Clinton's win in Florida, where the two were on the ballot but did not campaign due to the state's violation of party rules, Obama leads Clinton by 163,655 votes, or 0.5 percent nationally. Obama's lead grows to 273,877 votes, or 0.7 percent, when estimates are included for Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington, which have not released official totals of popular votes.
Only by counting Michigan, where Clinton was on the ballot but Obama was not, can Clinton claim to have won more votes. Counting only officially reported results, Michigan puts her total ahead nationally by 164,654 votes or 0.45 percent. But even that lead shrinks to 54,432 votes, or 0.15 percent, once estimated votes from the four non-reporting states are included.For the record, Clinton hasn't always been so eager to count Michigan votes. On Oct. 11, 2007, she said of Michigan, "It's clear, this election they're having isn't going to count for anything." But that was when she was wooing New Hampshire voters, who cherish their first-in-the-nation primary and who were upset that Michigan was violating party rules designed to protect it. She was responding to an interviewer for New Hampshire Public Radio who asked, "So, if you value the DNC calendar, why not just pull out of Michigan? Why not just say, Hey Michigan, I'm off the ballot?" Clinton went on to win the New Hampshire primary.
-by Brooks Jackson
Sources
"BATTLEGROUND 34," results of poll conducted for George Washington University May 11-14, 2008 by The Tarrance Group and Lake Research Partners, released 22 May 2008.
For a candidate that has absolutely no chance of winning the nomination according to "Diac Morris" , here is the kicker:
National
Obama +1.8
Clinton +2.0
* averages from real clear politics
Hillary is doing better than the presumptive nominee...go figure.
Pretty good for a candidate that has no chance of winning the nomination.
Crowing some sort of victory over 2 tenths of one percent (assuming NO margin of error)? Oooooooookkkkkkaaaaaayyyyyy......
Moving right along.....
__________________
Here's to the Army and Navy and the battles they have won; here's to America's colors, the colors that never run. May the wings of liberty never lose a feather. ....
Crowing some sort of victory over 2 tenths of one percent (assuming NO margin of error)? Oooooooookkkkkkaaaaaayyyyyy......
Moving right along.....
but remember my dear friend, she is going to lose the nomination while beating Obama in the National polls against the Pubs. I just find it simmmply AMAZING!
...and its not crowing its stating a counter argument against a blogger's bogus article. That blogger was trying to spin her ONE WORD ( "consistently") as if it was some humongous revelation. If that ONE WORD is all she could come up with
to somehow discredit what is for the most part correct, I wonder how she got her part-time job blogging. Diac Morris fell for it too.
__________________
If your sword's too short, add to its length by taking one step forward.
For a candidate that has absolutely no chance of winning the nomination according to "Diac Morris" , here is the kicker:
National
Obama +1.8
Clinton +2.0
* averages from real clear politics
Hillary is doing better than the presumptive nominee...go figure.
Pretty good for a candidate that has no chance of winning the nomination.
This is an ingnorant and purposefully misleading statement LannyJoe... When have I ever said Clinton has no chance of winning the national election should she somehow get the nomination?
I say she has no shot at winning the primary because Obama is too far ahead IMO.
Your polls mean squat, both of these candidates can and will beat McCain in the GE IMO. It is not a strong argument to give the nomination to Clinton simply because she has a shot at beating McCain by slightly more than Obama.
Keep reacing Lanny in your typical convoluted and desperate fashion...
__________________ Goin' "Double Maverick!"
Last edited by LoyaltyisaCurse; May 31st, 2008 at 10:31 AM.
but remember my dear friend, she is going to lose the nomination while beating Obama in the National polls against the Pubs. I just find it simmmply AMAZING!
...and its not crowing its stating a counter argument against a blogger's bogus article. That blogger was trying to spin her ONE WORD ( "consistently") as if it was some humongous revelation. If that ONE WORD is all she could come up with
to somehow discredit what is for the most part correct, I wonder how she got her part-time job blogging. Diac Morris fell for it too.
Its not a blogger, its a well respected, non-partisan institute that lays out facts without predisposition, unlike yourself.
I love how you always attack the source rather than the facts in your typical psuedo Republican fashion. So now that it does not suit your argument taking the literal meaning of that one word from Clinton isn't good enough? Very interesting... I thought "words matter" Lannyjoe.
You are sull full of bologna that Oscar Meyer is thinking about rebranding to LannyJoe...
Underlying data indicates a close race regardless of the nominee
Mystery Pollster
By Mark Blumenthal u
pdated 8:10 a.m. PT, Thurs., May. 29, 2008
WASHINGTON - I spent a few hours this week digging through the statewide polls and trend estimates on Pollster.com -- and the electoral maps created by others -- to try to resolve the polling argument of the moment: Which of the Democratic candidates for president makes the strongest candidate in the fall?
I come away with a warning: Although it is easy to make states light up as red or blue on a map depending on whatever poll, polling average or estimate you trust, the underlying data indicate a close race regardless of the Democratic nominee. Hillary Rodham Clinton may have a slight advantage for the moment, but the inherent shakiness of horse-race results at this stage of the campaign should give us all pause about reading too much precision into the current poll numbers.
Consider a few important cautions:
1. Lots of variation in national polls
Two recent high profile surveys -- from Newsweek and Gallup -- show Clinton doing slightly better than Barack Obama against John McCain in the national popular vote (as does the Rasmussen Reports automated survey). But other surveys conducted earlier in the month by ABC News/Washington Post, Quinnipiac University, Reuters/Zogby, IBD/TIPP, GWU Battleground and National Public Radio show Obama doing slightly better than Clinton against McCain.
Our trend-line estimates on Pollster.com, based on all national polls, show Clinton leading McCain by three points (47 percent to 44 percent) but Obama in a virtual tie (45 percent each). The RealClearPolitics averages, based on the seven most recent national polls, show Obama leading by 3 points (47 percent to 44 percent) and Clinton ahead by just one point (46 percent to 45 percent).
With individual national polls producing conflicting results within sampling error of each other, and with different methods of averaging producing slightly different results, we ought to be especially careful about seeing any clear advantage for either Democrat.
2. Incomplete state level data
Of course, we choose presidents with the Electoral College, not the national popular vote, and a close contest nationally makes the state-by-state math even more important. Do the state-level polls show one candidate with a pronounced advantage?
One big challenge in this regard is the sparse number of polls in individual states. Even in traditionally competitive “battleground” states like Florida and Ohio, where polling is most plentiful, we still have just two new polls each in May. Moreover, in many states, the only available surveys come from SurveyUSA and Rasmussen Reports, two companies that use an automated methodology rather than a live interviewer.
Whatever your judgment of automated polls, the bigger issue may be placing too much faith in just one survey from just one pollster. In Colorado, Nevada and Arkansas, for example, the only public polls since March all come from Rasmussen Reports.
3. Offsetting advantages?
The Clinton campaign is trumpeting its candidate’s stronger polling performance against McCain than Obama in Ohio and Florida -- two states that George W. Bush carried in 2004. However, the available polls point to similar advantages for Obama in Iowa, Colorado and Wisconsin.
In a report released this week, the Gallup organization found similar evidence. Data from the last two weeks of the Gallup Daily tracking survey showed Clinton running six points ahead of McCain (49 percent to 43 percent) and Obama trailing by three (43 percent to 46 percent) in the swing states where Clinton received more popular votes in the primaries (Nevada, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Arkansas, Florida and Michigan).
However, Gallup also found Obama with an 8-point advantage over McCain (49 percent to 41 percent) and Clinton at a 1-point disadvantage (45 percent to 46 percent) in the swing states Obama carried in the primaries(Colorado, Oregon,Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin and Missouri).
Give Clinton the edge here, if only because her potential advantages extend to more electoral votes than Obama. However, polling shows both candidates as competitive as they need to be, for the moment, in states that can provide the 270 electoral votes needed to win.
4. Snapshots change
The biggest limitation of this exercise is that we are poring over horse-race numbers in May for an election still more than five months away, but the current numbers are far from meaningless. As political scientist Tom Holbrook shows us, polls from May of 2004 were reasonably accurate as predictors of the winner in November. However, not all years show as much stability in vote preferences as 2004.
Consider 1992. At this point in 1992, six different national polls (found in the archives of The Hotline) showed Bill Clinton running third behind both George H.W. Bush and Ross Perot. Clinton received an average of 26 percent of the vote in late May and early June. He was elected president five months later with 43 percent of the popular vote.
And the big caveat to keep in mind is that the Democrats are still in the midst of a highly contentious nomination battle. I cannot put it any better than Hotline editor Amy Walter in her
April 2 column:
"Asking Clinton supporters whether they'd pick Obama in the fall is like asking a couple in the middle of a divorce whether they think they'll be friends next week. This question will be much more relevant after the summer is over and everyone's had a chance to, as Bill Clinton would say, 'chill out.'"
(ABC's Gary Langer made essentially the same quote in his column on Tuesday).
So can polls tell us definitively who will be stronger in the general election? As a concise reader on Pollster.com puts it, “Nobody knows, it's freakin' May.”
u