Articles and Analysis


POLL: Rasmussen Florida

Rasmussen Reports

McCain 50, Obama 40... Clinton 47, McCain 41



Yes... the polls in Florida have been very consistent... McCain beats Obama ... and Clinton beats McCain.

I do not see anyway that Obama wins Floriday... The demographics work against him there.



Florida holds the key to the white house.
Obama has to hold Florida against McCain.
This is a big warning sign for Obama this early
in the game. he has work to do.



Obama doesn't need Florida to win. He can even win without Ohio OR Florida, although Ohio would certainly even the odds a bit.

He wins so many states in the midwest, west, and southwest that he doesn't need to maintain the old "Ohio and Florida" style of Presidential politics.



Florida has been trending republican for a long time, Charlie Crist is going to deliver Florida for McCain in a big way. Florida is an uphill battle for either democrat. Florida is like the Pennsylvania of the Republicans; they can't win the presidency without it and their opponents think they have a shot at capturing the state but in the end the repubs win it. We also have to remember that Obama hasn't even stepped foot in Florida, we have seen that when Obama starts to campaign in a state he gets a bump of around 10 points (PA, OH, TX, WI etc)




The midwest will stay red in my humble opinion.
Even if Obama does win a couple of states
there, that won't be enough to offset the
lost of an FL or a PA.

The Dems will have problems defeating McCain
with Obama at the top of the ticket. The signs
are every where. Obama would have to move
to the center quick..But he cannot lest he might
piss off the left wing of the democratic party.

November will be interesting...




What are these signs? Pretty much everything I see shows a tight race. fivethiryeight.com, frontloading.blogspot.com, gallup polls, the new Reuters poll (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2034087120080521?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true) which has Obama ahead of McCain by 8, etc.

I haven't seen any evidence that Clinton would do better that isn't directly contradicted by evidence that Obama would do better.



I suspect the patented Obama arrogance, in this case directed towards Florida voters, has turned off far too many for things to turn around there.




Obama only needs "a couple" (as you put it) states to win. He is going to win Iowa and after Iowa he only needs Colorado + New Mexico or Colorado + Nevada, either of the two combination is going to give him victory. And there is no way a democrat is losing PA this year and the latest polls have shown both Clinton and Obama miles ahead of McCain. Even Ed Rendell; a clinton supporter admitted that if Obama is the nominee he will probably will PA.

The best part is with Obama democrats have a plan B and plan C. With Clinton if something goes wrong in Ohio and Florida it's over but with Obama you have hope with states like Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and perhaps even Montana and one of the dakotas.



Couldn't it have anything to do with Obama's strength among young voters and weakness among old voters (against Clinton AND McCain)? Florida is, after all, the oldest state in the union in terms of average age.



sounds like even though the snowbirds are gone and hillary has essentially lost her bid, florida is still tracking consistent with the florida election. maybe 20 percentage points now.

no wonder obama doesnt want to seat the delegates. but if he wins by cheating he's a loser and destroys the party to boot - plain and simple despite what his holiness says.

in fact, for the GE he'll lose more votes because he's so desperately drooling for the presidency at any price. so what's the diff between him and bush's third term? the same desperate shennanigans characterized the recount fiasco. right??

here's a curious quote from cnn, "The Democratic candidates agreed not to campaign in the state because its primary violated party rules, and Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan."

so decrees obama's camp. they want to keep mixing it up with michigan to avoid the reality of the florida loss. michigan aint florida. are we that stupid? guess the elitist and his Crimson cabinet think so.

michigan has nothing to do with forida. and btw: this guy was the only one to jump the gun there and buy CABLE TIME, google this. i dare ya.

it wasn't clinton and it wasn't edwards. so he's sour graping like crazy about his loss and wants to invalidate it. that's courage with a big 'C'. that's a new kind of politics with a big 'P". i'd call it snake bite.

bottom line: this guy is as slithery slick as a two bit ambulance chaser. and just as desperate. he's closer to wright than even he thinks. now there's a guy spewing hate at free enterprise and hard work and making money while he's building a saddam hussein type palace. wash his mouth out with lye, i say. both of them!!

ME THINKS OBAMA DOTH PROTEST TOO MUCH. a rock star maybe, a man of integrity, not too sure anymore.



Claude & Geek

Go to electoral-vote.com to see the latest national electoral polls and click on Obama-McCain or Clinton-McCain match up.



Contrary to what many of you would like to believe, if one candidate or the other wins both OH and FL, they will almost definitely win the White House. This has been true for several election cycles now and there aren't realistically enough states for Obama to turn from "Red" to "Blue" to make up for that, esp. since there are a few other states more likely to go from "Blue" to "Red" if Obama with Obama as the nominee. (Remember, McCain is a moderate, not a scary conservative. He will do very well in both traditionally Red and swing states). The demographic reality is Clinton has a much better chance of carrying FL and OH (not to mention PA, which added to FL and OH makes the presidential election a "slam dunk" for either side) than Obama. Wake up and deal in reality.



Actually, Pennsylvania gets the award for elderly... not Florida.... and guess who are the MOST RELIABLE voters? Yep!

Ask Kerry about the youth vote who did not show up like they did during the primaries... or even McGovern when the newly registered first time voters (minimum voting age changed from 21 to 18) broke for Nixon.




You have to give Obama credit though for finding
the loopholes in the Dems nominating process
and exploiting them to the fullest.

He is one of the best politicians I've seen
in a great while.

Bottom line, Clinton ran in the primaries
as if it were the General election. She is
losing it all. Obama, on the other hand, will
run in the General election as if it were
the primaries. MCCain will take advantage of that.

In my humble Opinion, Clinton is the best chance
the Dems have of Winning in November. Too
bad she fumbled her chances in the primaries!

This is going to be an exiting GE race.




For the last time, Florida and Ohio are NOT the only swing states. Just as close (either for Obama or Clinton, not necessarily both) are: Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Colorado, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, New Hampshire, etc.

Obama can win without Florida or Ohio. In fact, he has a really good chance of winning without Florida or Ohio. I'd say his chances of winning without Florida or Ohio are roughly equivalent to Clinton's chances of winning with Florida AND Ohio.

Don't just read the Ohio and Florida polls and ignore the rest of the country. Check out websites like frontloading.blogspot.com or fivethiryeight.com that show the whole picture.

I think Obama can compete in Ohio, and, if he wins Ohio, he wins the presidency. Nonetheless, there are backup plans. He can win without it. Clinton can barely win with Ohio AND Florida.


Where is your evidence behind PA? I've heard PA has the 3rd highest concentration of elderly. PA is also a solidly Democratic state now, and, despite the age issue, it will go for Obama.

Part of the issue is that, while Obama's support is from younger voters, these "youths" are not necessarily the 18-21 year olds we typically think of. Obama gets stronger support than McCain or Clinton basically from any group under 65.



The exclusion of FL & Mi has definitely changed the dynamics of nomination outcome for democrats by leaving the 2 untested. His shortcoming in OH, FL, PA, KY, WV, MI, and other swing states, as well as having to make up for the heavily red Southern States (those had helped him in the primary but largely republican registered) are making the DNC real worried even before the Republican's 527 blitz.



That statement about PA was made many many times in the run up to the PA primaries.

PA also has a very large Catholic population which could just as easily go for McCain because of his pro-life stance... especially if he is perceived as moderate/centrist on other issues.

You misinterpreted my 18-21 comment... and also the fact that older voters are most reliable. McCain also does not do so well in Florida because of older voters. Add in military, and religion, and Cuban Americans.



In a true vote in Michigan, Obama would be a contender for beating Clinton. He also does better than Clinton does in general election polls.

Kentucky is hardly a swing state.

I'll admit, he doesn't stand much of a chance at winning WV or Florida, and that he polls worse than Clinton in Ohio. Still, you've got to keep in mind that Iowa, Colorado, Oregon, Nebraska, Nevada, Wisconsin, North Dakota, Minnesota, etc. are also all swing states. Obama has a better chance of winning all of these, and others, than Clinton vs. McCain.

Also, it wasn't Obama's call to punish Michigan and Florida, and it wasn't his call to take the next step and entirely take away their delegates. These were the rules set by the DNC which CLINTON AGREED TO! In fact, there is evidence that her campaign manager would do the same thing if he was the head of the DNC. This is not Obama's work or Dean's work. This is an attempt to prevent electoral chaos in the primary system, which has, unfortunately, failed in its goal.

Obama would compete against Clinton in a Michigan re-vote. Even if you took the delegates as they are now, Clinton still has no chance to win this nomination.

For the love of God, move on and find a new inane complaint to pin your hopes on.



The last three polls have Obama head of McCain in PA by 7-9 percentage points. This before Clinton properly exits the race, and before true contrasts between McCain's unpopular policies and Obama's begin to come out.

PA is not even a swing state.



killias2: Obama will win PA, but he'll loose OH & FL and not pick up enough states to make up for it...go check the current state of the electoral map on electoral-vote.com and click on Obama-McCain and Clinton-McCain. Clinton would crush McCain...Obama might do what has never been done before and flip red states. However, the polls don't support him doing that. Even in NC in today's poll...Clinton wins Obama looses. Obama leads in the national polls because of large support in certain areas. The areas just don't happened to be in the right places. KY and WV ARE swing states. The other Clinton won both of them in the 90s.



"You have to give Obama credit though for finding
the loopholes in the Dems nominating process
and exploiting them to the fullest.

david axelrod .. not obama.



Its good to have the built in name recognition Clinton has in Florida. Especially with Puerto ricans, hispanics, old voters and Cubans. She benefits from that. Obama hasn't even step foot there the entire last 15 months. I expect Florida to be closer against McCain but I do think Obama will lose Florida. If they didnt break the rules there and Obama campaigned and ran ads, I dont think McCain would have a double digit lead against Obama there.

Obama doesnt need Florida, but he sure as hell need Ohio. Hes only down a few points there to McCain. He has all summer to compete there. Ohio is the state that will decide it all.




My sources (frontloading.blogspot.com and fivethirtyeight.com) show both have a strong chance to take McCain down in November, and, well, so does yours. The big difference is that your site has Clinton doing better in Wisconsin and Michigan than Obama. The information I've seen shows the opposite. If you're curious, Pollster.com also shows Obama doing better than Clinton in both Michigan and Wisconsin. Your site is kind of the outlier there.

If you add those to Obama's electoral votes, which is likely or, at the least, possible, you get a virtual tie: 269 to 271. If Obama can pick up a vote in Nebraska (which is likely, he polls better in Nebraska than Clinton does as well) then we have an exact tie. If that happens, the Democrat wins.

There you go, there's a perfectly reasonable (even likely!) scenario where Obama wins without Ohio or Florida. Heck, that's without New Hampshire, Nevada, Indiana or any of the Southern states that are -possible- pickups for Obama.

If Clinton wins Ohio AND Florida but loses Michigan and Wisconsin, then she liekly loses. She can't come back. For Clinton, Ohio and Florida aren't even the swing states, Wisconsin and Michigan are.

Basically, both candidates would probably need Michigan and Wisconsin to win, and they are both really close to each other and to McCain there. Most sites give Obama slight advantage in both over Clinton, but, if he wins Ohio, then he would only need one of them. If she wins Missouri, then she, too, would only need one of them. All of this assumes New Hampshire is solidy GOP this presidential cycle, which I really can't imagine will hold.

As for Kentucky being a swing state, you've got to keep in mind that, in 1992, the Republican vote was divided between Perot and Bush. In 1996, Dole was a God awful candidate going against a popular, centrist, Southern Democrat. 2008 is not 1992 or 1996. Neither Hillary nor Obama can compete with McCain in Kentucky.



Here are not less than 7 different scenarios of a Obama win without FL and OH, and one withour FL,OH,PA and CA.
I am using my rebuilt version of the 538 Spreadsheet (my baby).

First, an Obama landslide:

Arizona ( I know, unlikely, but he has a long shot at winning there, about 25:1),
Delaware ,
Indiana (competitive this time),
Nebraska, just not CD-03,
all "New" states,
Rhode Island,

=331 EV

Now, a nailbiter.



or add Virginia and Pennsylvania, Michigan, Indiana, take away SC and SD and NH and NM and NC and one of NEs CD�s, and he almost gets to 300 EV.

You could change this by taking Wisconsin and ND, Indiana away,adding NH, NM again, giving him 4 NE EV again.

Or give him CA-DE, HI,IA, IL, MA-ME, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OR, PA, RI, TX, VT, WA, WI.

Another landslide: Ill list the McCain states. All others are Obama.
AL-AZ,FL, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, 3 EV of ME (!), MO, MS, MT,,ND, all of NE, NH, OH, OK, Sd, TN, UT, WV, WY.

Or give Obama CA-DE, HI, IA, IL, IN, MA-MI, MT,NE CD-01,NJ, NM, NV, NY,
OR, PA, RI, VT, WA,- an Electoral Tie.

I could add more, but this is boring.
Just one more- without OH, FL, PA, CA


=287 EV.
But ok, this is just playing with the numbers, he won�t win without PA, OH, FL and CA.



What exactly are you trying to say Rasmus?

I still think the mostly likely win for Obama is:

WA, OR, CA, HI, CO, NM, MN, IA, WI, MI, IL, PA, NY, DC, MD, DE, NJ, CT, RI, MA, VT, ME, and NH or (instead of NH) a tie with Obama receiving one EV from NE.

If he wins Ohio, then he doesn't need NH/NE and either Michigan or Wisconsin.

I think Nevada and Indiana are also in play, but I don't think they're the most likely to turn to Obama.


The problem with these far-fetched scenarios of an Obama win despite a Fl + OH loss is this: If things are going so badly for him in Ohio and Florida, what makes you think North Dakota or Indiana voters will flip blue? A blue ND or IN is very unlikely - all the more so if Obama is doing poorly elsewhere. Seriously, if he can't sell it to Reagan (swing) Dems in purple states, what on earth makes you think he can sell it to non-swing voters in red-land?



Wisconsin is a very different state from Florida. Case-in-point: While Clinton won the Florida primary by 17%, Obama won Wisconsin by 18%.

And these aren't solidly red states. Obama has a better shot of winning North Dakota, South Dakota, Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Indiana than he has in Florida. Different states are.. well.. different.

It's not far fetched. Look at the data, and you'll see he is either expected to win or strongly competitive in Iowa, Colorado, Wisconsin, Michigan, 1 EV from Nebraska, etc.

There are 50 whole damn states in this country, not just Florida and Ohio. Just because those two made the difference in 2000 and 2004 doesn't mean they have some special place in political contests.



Obama did not care about Florida voters and wants to talk to Raul Castro. It is no wonder Floridians dislike him



Obama doesn't need florida


look at the maps, he currently wins the west coast, NM and colorado, Iowa, minnesota and illinois, and then from MD up north to maine, except NH

At this point he only needs to win a couple of states to secure the election, in fact since all he needs is 269, since he'd win in the house, if he gets Michigan and wisconson the race is his


Cyril Washbrook:

People have got to stop thinking in the same mindset that the Dems went with in 2004 - i.e. the idea of "Gore states plus Florida" which work SO well for Kerry. The Dems can win in November without Florida, and while the modelling currently predicts a knife-edge race, the fact is that the electoral conditions we see now will be vastly different in six months' time - McCain won't have had three months without any competition, and we might actually have got some real policy debate by that time. That should favour the Dems.


Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.