Battleground states for November 2008

[Strongbow]

Using the results of the 2000 election and 2004 election, there are 13 states where the margin of victory was 5 percentage points or less. These states will likely be the same states that will determine the outcome of the 2008 election. Some of these states only had that small a margin of victory in either 2000 or 2004, but most of the states had that margin of victory for the winner in both 2000 and 2004. I did not include Tennessee which was won by Bush in 2000 by less than 5 percentage points because it was the state that Al Gore was from and under normal circumstances would not be that close. Without Al Gore in the race in 2004, Bush won Tennessee by 14 percentage points.

Here are the 13 likely battleground states for the 2008 election, first the states that went Blue in 2004, and then the states that went red in 2004.


Blue battleground states:

Oregon
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Pennsylvania
New Hampshire
Michigan

Red battleground states:

Nevada
New Mexico
Missouri
Iowa
Ohio
Florida
Colorado


As for the evangelical vote for the Republican party, the vast majority of them are not present in significant numbers in the battleground states. There are some significant numbers in southern Missouri and northern Florida, but most of them live in states that are safe red in the bible belt.


It will be interesting to see individual state polls of the November match up, as opposed to the national polls.

 

[deep]

This is very useful.

I had planned on posting the actual Red/ Blue maps from 2000 and 2004 (when I have more time)

This is what I have been thinking about in evaluating which candidates will do better in the November election.

Because the trend is for Democrats to do better this year, one might assume that the Blue states stay Blue (vote democrat)

The thing I keep asking myself is what Red states can the Democrats pick up?

And which candidate (Obama or Hillary) is better positioned to get the votes to turn a state from Red to Blue?

 

[onebloodonelife]

Blue battleground states:

Oregon
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Pennsylvania
New Hampshire
Michigan

Red battleground states:

Nevada
New Mexico
Missouri
Iowa
Ohio
Florida
Colorado

From personal experience in both Minnesota and Wisconsin, I'm going to call them both going blue again.

The caucus numbers from Democrats blew the Republican numbers out of the water on Tuesday in Minnesota: around 200,000 to 60,000, respectively. If the Democrats can keep that kind of enthusiasm high, they should have little trouble with Minnesota, especially if the students come out to vote in the high numbers they did on Tuesday.

And, in Wisconsin, I believe it will be a tighter race, but still going blue, simply for the fact that a good chunk of the population are the "progressive" type. But, seeing as McCain looks like he's getting the Republican nomination, it will be a close contest. He appeals to a lot of the older, farming generations, but again, from speaking to my grandmother, who is a farmer and county clerk where she lives, she and many people she knows will never vote Republican in the near future because of what Bush has done.

 

[Strongbow]

Re: Re: Battleground states for November 2008

From personal experience in both Minnesota and Wisconsin, I'm going to call them both going blue again.

The caucus numbers from Democrats blew the Republican numbers out of the water on Tuesday in Minnesota: around 200,000 to 60,000, respectively. If the Democrats can keep that kind of enthusiasm high, they should have little trouble with Minnesota, especially if the students come out to vote in the high numbers they did on Tuesday.

And, in Wisconsin, I believe it will be a tighter race, but still going blue, simply for the fact that a good chunk of the population are the "progressive" type. But, seeing as McCain looks like he's getting the Republican nomination, it will be a close contest. He appeals to a lot of the older, farming generations, but again, from speaking to my grandmother, who is a farmer and county clerk where she lives, she and many people she knows will never vote Republican in the near future because of what Bush has done.

The turnout in the primaries has little to do with what might happen in the general election. First, the party thats been out of the White House for 8 years always has lower turnout in the primaries. For example, in Missouri in 2000, Republican turnout was 56% ahead of Democratic turnout in the primaries. Yet, when it came to the general election, the Republican margin of victory in Missouri was only 7%.

If Winsconsin is tight this year, it does not bode well for the Democrats. Remember, the Democrats have to keep all their battleground states and pick up several Republican battleground states or one of the big ones like Ohio or Florida in order to win.

 

[onebloodonelife]

Re: Re: Re: Battleground states for November 2008

The turnout in the primaries has little to do with what might happen in the general election. First, the party thats been out of the White House for 8 years always has lower turnout in the primaries. For example, in Missouri in 2000, Republican turnout was 56% ahead of Democratic turnout in the primaries. Yet, when it came to the general election, the Republican margin of victory in Missouri was only 7%.

If Winsconsin is tight this year, it does not bode well for the Democrats. Remember, the Democrats have to keep all their battleground states and pick up several Republican battleground states or one of the big ones like Ohio or Florida in order to win.

As I said, if the Democrats can keep that enthusiasm...if not, then there could be a problem. As of right now, the Democrats are far more motivated than the Republicans are in Minnesota.

This is true, and Wisconsin could end up tight, or not at all. The state hasn't gone red since 1988, and does have a history of liberal/progressive candidates. Example: Sen. Russ Feingold-Even people who are pretty hard line Republicans like him because he has principles and isn't willing to compromise them to be popular. He was re-elected with a margin of 12% in 2004, and he won counties that voted for the re-election of Bush. I think that says quite a bit about Wisconsinites in general; for the most part, they aren't going to vote on party lines.

 

[Strongbow]

This is very useful.

I had planned on posting the actual Red/ Blue maps from 2000 and 2004 (when I have more time)

This is what I have been thinking about in evaluating which candidates will do better in the November election.

Because the trend is for Democrats to do better this year, one might assume that the Blue states stay Blue (vote democrat)

The thing I keep asking myself is what Red states can the Democrats pick up?

And which candidate (Obama or Hillary) is better positioned to get the votes to turn a state from Red to Blue?

Iowa and New Mexico would be the easiest red states for the Democrats to pick up from the Republicans since the margin of victory in both states in 2004 was less than 1%. Next would be Ohio and Nevada where the margin of victory was less than 3%. After that Colorado and Florida where it was 5% or under. Missouri was actually won buy 7% in 2004, but I included it because the Republicans won it by less than 5% in 2000.

The Republicans could allow the Democrats to pick up Nevada, New Mexico, and Iowa, and still win the election since they would only be giving up 17 electoral votes with those states gone. But just the single loss of either Florida or Ohio would give the election to the Democrats since those states are worth 27 and 20 electoral votes respectively.

Ohio and Florida are must win for the Republicans and to a lesser extent so are Colorado and Missouri. The Republicans could easily insure that they take Florida if McCain selects Governor Criss as his VP. Then they can put much of their money into keeping Ohio, Colorado, and Missouri.

There are already some reports though that McCain thinks he can win blue states like Pennsylvania, New Hampshire(where McCain has been very popular for nearly a decade) and Wisconsin. The margin of victory was very small in Wisconsin last time and only 2 percentage points in Pennsylvania. McCain would pick up 35 electoral votes from those three states.

 

[Strongbow]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Battleground states for November 2008

As I said, if the Democrats can keep that enthusiasm...if not, then there could be a problem. As of right now, the Democrats are far more motivated than the Republicans are in Minnesota.

What I'm trying to explain is that only a small percentage of the people who vote in November actually participate in the Presidential primaries. After McCains victory in Florida, many Republicans presumed that the race was essentially over which dampens turnout. On the Democratic side however, the race has always been far from over, which increases turnout. Were talking about a much smaller percentage of the electorate, so its rather difficult to extrapolate anything from primary turnout.

 

[phanan]

There are already some reports though that McCain thinks he can win blue states like Pennsylvania, New Hampshire(where McCain has been very popular for nearly a decade) and Wisconsin.

If it came down between McCain and Clinton, New Hampshire would be an extremely tight one, I think. McCain, as you stated, has been quite popular here, yet the Clinton family has done well, too.

It would be extremely close.

 

[onebloodonelife]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Battleground states for November 2008

What I'm trying to explain is that only a small percentage of the people who vote in November actually participate in the Presidential primaries. After McCains victory in Florida, many Republicans presumed that the race was essentially over which dampens turnout. On the Democratic side however, the race has always been far from over, which increases turnout. Were talking about a much smaller percentage of the electorate, so its rather difficult to extrapolate anything from primary turnout.

Alright, I see where you're coming from now.

 

[U2DMfan]

Re: Re: Re: Battleground states for November 2008

Remember, the Democrats have to keep all their battleground states and pick up several Republican battleground states or one of the big ones like Ohio or Florida in order to win.

The Dems need to flip 18 electoral votes from 2004.

here are the counts from the Red States you signified:

Florida 27
Ohio 20
Missouri 11
Colorado 9
Iowa 7
New Mexico 5
Nevada 5

any of these possible scenarios would flip it:

1. Florida by itself
2. Ohio by itself
3. Missouri + Colorado
4. Missouri + Iowa
5. Missouri + New Mexico + Nevada
6. Colorado + New Mexico + Nevada
7. Colorado + Iowa + New Mexico
8. Colorado + Iowa + Nevada

 

[U2DMfan]

Further, looking back on 2004 as to project 2008...

The remorse from Kerry himself was about losing the Midwestern vote when Kerry listened to Bob "0 for 5 in Presidential Elections" Shrum and chose Edwards over Gephardt.

Gephardt's home state of Missouri + Iowa=18 electoral votes. The exact amount needed. Would the selection have made a difference? Most objective analysts say yes because of Missouri being THE bellweather State. No President-elect has failed to carry Missouri in half a century. Of the 18 deciding electoral votes, the Republicans gained 7 votes from the 2000 election on reapportionment alone.

The balance=11 electoral votes=Missouri. Still would have had to make up those reapportioned 7 votes in Iowa or elsewhere. The margin in Iowa was about 10K votes. Easily swayable by the midwestern friendly Gephardt. Edwards didn't win Iowa in 2004, either folks.

The other big point of 2004 was the turnout, in these Red States because of the Crazypants faction. If the Reps can get a ballot initiative with some kind of social issue where they think that God is being strangled, they will turn out in droves. Somehow, I don't see this as something McCain would stand behind. Coupled with McCains apparent lack of conservatism in the 'crazies' eyes, his turnout could be less in these most important areas.

Secondly, we also we have huge Latino populations in at least half of these Red battleground States. While nominating McCain might seem to put some at ease, given his stance on the issue, it will be nullified by the fact that he's going to have to appease his conservative base. He's going to have to select someone with the bare essentials or he's not going to motivate that base.

To sum up, It's a no-win situation for him. If he tries to appease the anti-immigration faction, he could very well lose those Western battleground states. If he doesn't, he could lose his religous base in Colorado, Iowa or Missouri.

 

[U2DMfan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Battleground states for November 2008

What I'm trying to explain is that only a small percentage of the people who vote in November actually participate in the Presidential primaries. After McCains victory in Florida, many Republicans presumed that the race was essentially over which dampens turnout. On the Democratic side however, the race has always been far from over, which increases turnout. Were talking about a much smaller percentage of the electorate, so its rather difficult to extrapolate anything from primary turnout.

Look at the turnouts before Florida then.
Massive disparity. You can't ignore this.

Of course fewer people vote in primaries than in the General. It's state by state, it's generally only voters who are paying close attention and in almost all primaries of the modern era, the thing was decided within the first few. This is hot the case in 2008. What you say is essentially true but misleading.

Look at South Carolina. One of the most important primaries of all, still very much undetermined nominee, the first Southern primary and most certainly a RED state. There were almost 100K more people who voted on the Democratic side.

In New Hampshire where there are more registered Republicans than Democrats and the Independents can vote on either side, with a very pro-McCain base, 280K voted for Dems, 230K for Reps.

Simply cannot be ignored. Anyhow, McCain's win most defintely did not come close to sewing up the nomination after Florida. McCain won about 600 of his 720 delegates on Super Tuesday. This is revisionist history. Romney won Maine a few days after Florida. Both Romney and Huckabee won more States combined than McCain on Super Tuesday 12-9. Romney dropped out because he can't make up the delegates. Had he won a different State or two, he's on his way to the nomination. It was not over before then.

In fact, you could EASILY and justly argue that Super Tuesday was the single most important day for Repubicans (or anyone else for that matter) to get out and vote.

I think I can pin it down quite easily for the Republicans.
APATHY.

 

[Strongbow]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Battleground states for November 2008

Look at the turnouts before Florida then.
Massive disparity. You can't ignore this.

I can because the Republicans had similar massive turnouts in key states in 2000, but it did not prevent those states from becoming Battleground states in the fall.

Look at South Carolina. One of the most important primaries of all, still very much undetermined nominee, the first Southern primary and most certainly a RED state. There were almost 100K more people who voted on the Democratic side.

Thats wonderful, but the Democrats won't be winning South Carolina in November, but I'll hold you to your prediction.

In New Hampshire where there are more registered Republicans than Democrats and the Independents can vote on either side, with a very pro-McCain base, 280K voted for Dems, 230K for Reps.

New Hampshire is a blue state and the party that has been out of power for 8 years ALWAYS tends to have a more active base in the primaries.

Simply cannot be ignored. Anyhow, McCain's win most defintely did not come close to sewing up the nomination after Florida. McCain won about 600 of his 720 delegates on Super Tuesday. This is revisionist history. Romney won Maine a few days after Florida. Both Romney and Huckabee won more States combined than McCain on Super Tuesday 12-9. Romney dropped out because he can't make up the delegates. Had he won a different State or two, he's on his way to the nomination. It was not over before then.

Totally irrelevant. The publics perception is shaped by the media buzz, and most people knew that McCain had it after Florida. Just look at the national polling data at that point.

In fact, you could EASILY and justly argue that Super Tuesday was the single most important day for Repubicans (or anyone else for that matter) to get out and vote.

For the Romney supporters you could say that. But most people knew it was over so the 4 day attempt to change that failed.

Bottom line, higher voter turnout in a party primary does not determine how your going to do in November. South Carolina will be just as red as it was last time.

 

[Strongbow]

Further, looking back on 2004 as to project 2008...

The remorse from Kerry himself was about losing the Midwestern vote when Kerry listened to Bob "0 for 5 in Presidential Elections" Shrum and chose Edwards over Gephardt.

Gephardt's home state of Missouri + Iowa=18 electoral votes. The exact amount needed. Would the selection have made a difference? Most objective analysts say yes because of Missouri being THE bellweather State. No President-elect has failed to carry Missouri in half a century. Of the 18 deciding electoral votes, the Republicans gained 7 votes from the 2000 election on reapportionment alone.

Well, Shrum is not an idiot and although it may have improved their chances of winning Missouri, it does not mean they would have. Bush won Missouri by a comfortable margin in 2004.

The other big point of 2004 was the turnout, in these Red States because of the Crazypants faction. If the Reps can get a ballot initiative with some kind of social issue where they think that God is being strangled, they will turn out in droves. Somehow, I don't see this as something McCain would stand behind. Coupled with McCains apparent lack of conservatism in the 'crazies' eyes, his turnout could be less in these most important areas.

Supposedly, if you believe the same exit polls that also said John Kerry was going to win the election. These people vote in every election. They will be voting in the fall of 2008.

Secondly, we also we have huge Latino populations in at least half of these Red battleground States. While nominating McCain might seem to put some at ease, given his stance on the issue, it will be nullified by the fact that he's going to have to appease his conservative base. He's going to have to select someone with the bare essentials or he's not going to motivate that base.

McCain does not have to do that because the base has no where else to turn to and they will be voting in the fall. There may be some attempts to come closer together on some things, but McCain is not going to be doing a 180 here.

To sum up, It's a no-win situation for him. If he tries to appease the anti-immigration faction, he could very well lose those Western battleground states. If he doesn't, he could lose his religous base in Colorado, Iowa or Missouri.

McCain is from a border state, and despite McCain's position on the issue, its going to stay Red in the fall. So will Texas. Your forgetting that McCain has appeal beyond the Republican party that past Republican candidates have not had.

There are Blue Battleground States that McCain can win with his stronger appeal among independents and Democrats that past Republican presidents have not had.

Gallup just had a poll that showed that 9% of LIBERAL Democrats actually support the war in Iraq. I think McCain can win some of them.

McCain actually has a history of Bipartisanship unlike Obama or Clinton. This will serve him well in November, especially with independents.

 

[Strongbow]

Well this is how the polling company Rasmussen see's the general election matchup in these battleground states currently.


McCain VS. Obama

Blue battleground states:

Oregon: Obama 49% - McCain 40%
Minnesota: Obama 53% - McCain 38%
Wisconsin: Obama 44% - McCain 43%
Pennsylvania: Obama 49% - McCain 39%
New Hampshire: Obama 40% - McCain 36%
Michigan Obama: 47% - McCain 39%

Red battleground states:

Nevada: Obama 50% - McCain 38%
New Mexico: McCain 44% - Obama 44%
Missouri: McCain 42% - Obama 40%
Iowa: Obama 44% - McCain 41%
Ohio: McCain 42% - Obama 41%
Florida: McCain 53% - Obama 37%
Colorado: Obama 46% - McCain 39%


These results show Obama keeping the all the Blue battleground states and picking up the red battle ground states of Nevada, Iowa, and Colorado which is enough for an electoral victory of:

Obama 273 - McCain 265




McCain VS. Clinton


Blue battleground states:

Oregon McCain 45% - Clinton 42%
Minnesota McCain 47% - Clinton 42%
Wisconsin McCain 50% - Clinton 38%
Pennsylvania McCain 44% - Clinton 42%
New Hampshire Clinton 43% - McCain 41%
Michigan Clinton 44% - McCain 44%

Red battleground states:

Nevada: McCain 49% - Clinton 40%
New Mexico: McCain 52% - Clinton 39%
Missouri: McCain 43% - Clinton 42%
Iowa: McCain 47% - Clinton 37%
Ohio: McCain 46% - Clinton 43%
Florida: McCain 49% - Clinton 43%
Colorado: McCain 49% - Clinton 35%


Clinton loses almost every battleground state, red or blue, except for the two blue battleground states of New Hampshire and Michigan, and in those states only a by a small margin.

This matchup shows an electoral victory for McCain of:

McCain 334 - Clinton 204



Rasmussen's national polling has Obama 46% to McCain 45% and McCain and Clinton both tied at 46%

 

[phillyfan26]

These results show Obama keeping the all the Blue battleground states and picking up the red battle ground states of Nevada, Iowa, and Colorado which is enough for an electoral victory

Clinton loses almost every battleground state, red or blue, except for the two blue battleground states of New Hampshire and Michigan, and in those states only a by a small margin.

Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on these polls, deep?

 

[verte76]

Hopefully the Democrats will carry Ohio this time. If Kerry had carried Ohio he'd be president now.

 

[deep]

Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on these polls, deep?

this poll is 8 months before the election


8 months back
in August, Rasmussen had polls, too


most likely they said Rudy would be the GOP nom
McCain was probably in 3rd or 4th?


the same polls said Rudy beats Hillary

I have always said Rudy was a zero






it may disappoint many,
but, I see McCain’s odds going way up.


I still believe McCain can beat Obama,
much more easily than Hillary

 

[phillyfan26]

Where does this belief come from if not from the polls?

 

[deep]

Hopefully the Democrats will carry Ohio this time. If Kerry had carried Ohio he'd be president now.

any rational, objective person should conclude that

Hillary has a much better chance of carrying both Ohio and Florida


and that really is the whole election.


and yes,

I realize the "hate" factor in Alabama against Hillary is real strong
but Alabama, along with SC and a few more states will go GOP no matter.


I wonder what Arkansas polls look like with Hillary - McCain vs Obama - McCain ?(I think McCain, most likely wins both)

 

[deep]

Where does this belief come from if not from the polls?

last August they said Rudy was a lock


I knew he was a zero, had no record, and would not look that good in the debates

but the polls, the polls!!

Rudy will be the nominee!!!

it is a lock!!!

and he will beat Hillary !!!


well, because I am an old bastard, (even though I don't look it)

I have been watching and following these elections for years

I have learned how the process works
and where these things will go


Obama has the ability to get the nomination,
especially the way the Democratic Party has set up the process.

It is far from democratic or proportionately representative.


Should he get the nomination, the emotions and passion from his loyal followers and true believers, will not be enough to get the 271 electoral votes.

Most likely McCain will go over 300.

 

[phillyfan26]

So, all you're basing this off is having seen a lot of elections?

To be honest, all I see is you being frustrated that Obama can stir people into interest. You seem consistently have much less substance to offer than Obama. All you say is, "He's got fanatics, it won't last!" You don't even seem to be anti-Obama as much as you are anti-Obama supporter.

Yet, Hillary consistently shows up as the most polarizing, the much more likely to lose. Yeah, she may win Ohio, but she's going to lose other states that went blue. The polls show it. You don't think McCain will bury her for lack of experience? For a dirty campaign?

Bottom line: McCain beats Clinton. Obama beats McCain. The polls show it, most people believe it.

 

[deep]

You don't even seem to be anti-Obama

as much as you are anti-Obama supporter.

Thank you for saying that

I am not anti-Obama

very good chance he will be a excellent candidate with more on his resume'

there should and will be many more opportunities for him

if he loses to McCain, he will never get a second chance

I do have that concern.





Bottom line: Rudy beats McCain. Rudy beats Hillary. The polls show it, most people believe it. (Aug 2007- Jan 2008)

polls change

voting booth is poll that matters


last week all the polls

said Ohio was even, a toss up?

and Hillary won by 10 %

 

[phillyfan26]

You see, I don't think the Rudy comparison works, though. Ever since he entered, his stock dropped; he lost momentum. Obama has, almost constantly, gained momentum since he started.

What's to say he cannot gain momentum in the general election?

 

[Strongbow]

Bottom line: McCain beats Clinton. Obama beats McCain. The polls show it, most people believe it.

Its far from being that cut and dry. Several national polls have shown McCain beating Obama and the latest poll in Pennsylvania has McCain beating Obama. The polls go up and down, but the basics of what will be important in November are still the same. Florida and Ohio are vital to Republican victory and Hillary is the stronger candidate than Obama overall in those races. For the Democrats, Pennsylvania is a must win state and here again Hillary in general is stronger there than Obama.

Obama's strength is the mid-west and some mountain states, but taking 5 red states in those area's would be completely offset by Republican victories in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

Its close and while I used to think that Hillary would be the easier candidate to beat in the general election, I'm not so sure anymore. She could win by simply holding the blue states and picking up Ohio.

 

[deep]

bingo

or florida

 

[deep]

What's to say he cannot gain momentum in the general election?

the real irony here

is that McCain may barely take your state over Obama,
say by one or two per cent
and that could put him over the 271 electoral votes.

In the polls now
that you seem to have so much confidence in
McCain beats Obama in Penn
Hillary beats McCain in Penn

So give Penn to McCain?

 

[U2DMfan]

What's to say he cannot gain momentum in the general election?

Well, you could argue that there aren't many places to get this momentum from. McCain could easily neutralize this momentum because of taxes alone.

In fact, McCain is a well known politician, very favorably looked upon and while he's in trouble for being in bed with Bush, is still seen as a straight shooter.

We simply don't know what Obama will be in November.
It's a gamble, one the Left has made over and over again and failed.

It's lost on people because of what occured afterwards but Bill Clinton was anything but a liberal in 1992, even if he smoked pot and was a draft dodger. His policies were moderate. Hillary is right there in league with him, she was a Goldwater girl in her youth. Obama is an old fashioned liberal, ala Al Gore and John Kerry.

This country leans right, no matter what you hear or read on FYM.
It's that simple. This said, conservative Democrats do well.
2006 was all about conservative Democrats.

Here in my home state of Oklahoma, we haven't gone Blue in the general election since 1960. Yet our Democratic Governor won 74 of 77 counties in 2006. Why? Well, the Reps were taking it up the ass everywhere, true, but the reason is because he is fairly conservative. In fact there are 53% registered Democrats in OK compared to 37% Republican. It's true in other southwestern and southern states as well. There are plenty of Democrats out there but they are either moderate or right leaning in these states.

Reagan Democrats were Conservative Democrats.
What gives anyone in their right mind the idea that Obama would have a similar following once the Republicans spend a few hundred million dollars expalining to the country how liberal he is?

Understand, I'm not using the term in the same fashion as the right wingers do, I'm a fucking social liberal myself. Proudly.

With the economy going in the tank, it should always benefit the Dems, especially with McCain having (very very stupidly, I might add) said that he didn't understand it, even if he was joking around. They have that sound clip to play ad nauseum.

The big lightning rod issue is taxes though. The easiest way to turn off a bunch of Reagan Democrats is to start talking about raising taxes. True, CLinton and Obama have the same tax policy (more or less), the point is, this idea that Obama is going to pull more from the middle is pretty specious.

He'll get an anti-war 'Reagan Democrat' voter (for one example) who listens to his speeches, who wants to break from the Bush/Clinton dynasty, who's motivated by change and he'll lose them to McCain because of taxes.

It's just one small example among others. While we see the dialogue around this election talk about absolutely meaningless bullshit, about campaign tactics etc. the big fucking elephant in the room is electability. Obama loses out to McCain in almost every moderate case. Immigration is negligible. Most of those Latinos are religous, socially conservative. McCain has the same position, essentially as Obama, what is the win? McCain trumps on abortion.

I could keep rattling on and on, the bottom line for me is, Obama has an electability problem against McCain. No different than Clinton's, so if this argument against Hillary (re: vs McCain) is rather objectively negated, then what else is there?

Polls are whatever you want them to be.
This week:

Newsweek: McCain 45 Obama 46// McCain 46 Clinton 48

 

[Strongbow]

A bunch of new polls are in for key battleground states Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Iowa. New Jersey although not a battleground state is unusually close based on current polling. Here is how these states break down with match ups of McCain vs. Obama and McCain vs Clinton in each state.


FLORIDA

McCain VS. Obama

Mason-Dixon 02/21 - 02/24 McCain 47% Obama 37%
Rasmussen 02/16 - 02/16 McCain 53% Obama 37%
Quinnipiac 02/06 - 02/12 McCain 41% Obama 39%

Average 02/06 - 02/24 - McCain beats Obama 47% to 37.7%


McCain VS. Clinton

RCP Average 02/06 - 02/24 - 47.3 41.7 9.3 McCain +5.6
Mason-Dixon 02/21 - 02/24 McCain 49% Clinton 40%
Rasmussen 02/16 - 02/16 McCain 49% Clinton 43%
Quinnipiac 02/06 - 02/12 McCain 44% Clinton 42%

Average 02/06 - 02/24 - McCain beats Clinton 47.3% to 41.7%




OHIO

McCain VS. Obama


Ohio Poll/Univ of Cin. 02/21 - 02/24 Obama 48% McCain 47%
Rasmussen 02/17 - 02/17 McCain 42% Obama 41%
SurveyUSA 02/15 - 02/17 Obama 47%McCain 44%
Quinnipiac 02/06 - 02/12 McCain 42% Obama 40%


Average 02/06 - 02/24 - Obama beats McCain 44% to 43.8%


McCain VS. Clinton


Ohio Poll/Univ of Cin. 02/21 - 02/24 McCain 51% Clinton 47%
Rasmussen 02/17 - 02/17 McCain 46% Clinton 43%
SurveyUSA 02/15 - 02/17 Clinton 52% McCain 42%
Quinnipiac 02/06 - 02/12 McCain 44% Clinton 43%

Average 02/06 - 02/24 McCain beats Clinton 46.3% to 45.8%



PENNSYLVANIA

McCain VS. Obama


Rasmussen 03/10 - 03/10 McCain 44% Obama 43%
Susquehanna 03/05 - 03/10 McCain 45% Obama 41%
Quinnipiac 02/21 - 02/25 Obama 42% McCain 40%
Franklin & Marshall 02/13 - 02/18 McCain 44% Obama 43%


Average 02/13 - 03/10 McCain beats Obama 43.3% to 42.3%


McCain VS. Clinton


Rasmussen 03/10 - 03/10 McCain 46% Clinton 44%
Susquehanna 03/05 - 03/10 Clinton 47% McCain 44%
Quinnipiac 02/21 - 02/25 Clinton 44% McCain 42%
Franklin & Marshall 02/13 - 02/18 McCain 46% Clinton 46%

Average 02/13 - 03/10 Clinton beats McCain 45.3% to 44.5%



NEW JERSEY

McCain VS. Obama

Rasmussen 02/27 - 02/27 McCain 45% Obama 43%
Fairleigh Dickinson 02/18 - 02/24 Obama 43% McCain 38%
Quinnipiac 02/13 - 02/18 Obama 46% McCain 39%

Average 02/13 - 02/27 Obama beats McCain 44% to 40.7%


McCain VS. Clinton

Rasmussen 02/27 - 02/27 Clinton 50% McCain 39%
Fairleigh Dickinson 02/18 - 02/24 Clinton 43% McCain 39%
Quinnipiac 02/13 - 02/18 Clinton 47% McCain 41%

Average 02/13 - 02/27 Clinton beats McCain 46.7% to 39.7%


IOWA

McCain VS. Obama

Selzer & Co (DMR) 02/17 - 02/20 Obama 53% McCain 36%
Rasmussen 02/18 - 02/18 Obama 44% McCain 41%
SurveyUSA 02/15 - 02/17 Obama 51% McCain 41%

Average 02/15 - 02/20 Obama beats McCain 49.3% to 39.3%


McCain VS. Clinton

Selzer & Co (DMR) 02/17 - 02/20 McCain 49% Clinton 40%
Rasmussen 02/18 - 02/18 McCain 47% Clinton 37%
SurveyUSA 02/15 - 02/17 McCain 52% Clinton 41%

Average 02/15 - 02/20 McCain beats Clinton 49.3% to 39.3%

 

[Irvine511]

these polls are nice and all, but i think they are meaningless until the polled are able to make a direct one-on-one comparison between two candidates, and that won't start until the fall.

elections are about making a choice, about selecting one over the other.

and i do have a feeling that McCain is going to start looking very, very old in comparison to the two democrats.

but we shall see.