Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg
(Times story, release; Bloomberg story)
Obama 46, McCain 40... Clinton 47, McCain 38
It's evident that these eletions won't be as tight as the past two. Obama, according to polls, will beat McCain by a comfortable lead.
Posted on May 9, 2008 7:24 PM
He'll definetly win the popular vote, like I said he's teflon and McCain has been treated by kid gloves up to this point, but the concern is the electoral college, Electoral-vote and 538 both have him trailing McCain in the electoral college, so we have to see if his numbers improve in some of the BG states
Posted on May 9, 2008 8:02 PM
538 also has him trailing in the popular vote, so that's not really supporting your idea that he'll win the pop. vote but lose the EC. If Poblano's projections change to the extent that Obama is predicted to win the PV by 3 points, you wil see states like PA, OH, MI, NM, and CO move from roughly tossups to Obama favored, giving him a solid projected EC win (around 300 EV, I think).
Posted on May 9, 2008 10:27 PM
What is this "538", and, does it include the Diaego/Hotline and Bloomberg polls released today? If not, you are using outdated data.
Posted on May 10, 2008 9:50 AM
Kingsbridge77: Check out http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/
Poblano's work is very interesting and attempts to model various scenarios for the general election based on demographics and poll data.
It isn't without weaknesses and Poblano is admirably candid about his/her methodology. The conclusions should not, of course, should not be taken as gospel, but neither should they be dismissed for failing to include particular polls.
Posted on May 10, 2008 10:54 AM
P.S. I'm inclined to be skeptical of Poblano's results primarily because of the heavy reliance on Rasmussen results in various states. My strong impression is that Rasmussen tends to overestimate the GOP share of the vote at the state level by several percentage points; most recently in 2006.
That's not a criticism of Poblano, of course, since Rasmusssen is by far the most prominent and comprehensive source of state-by-state polling data. There is no alternative to relying on their results in many cases.
Posted on May 10, 2008 11:00 AM
Actually, Rasmussen has performed quite well according to Poblano--I believe they rank second in accuracy only to SUSA, and this matters esp. since he weights by pollster.
Especially cool is his non-poll weighting, which comes into play when polling is scarce...not that it's infallible, but that it's a quantitative expression of an interesting analytical perspective.
Posted on May 10, 2008 11:04 AM
these poll results must be really scary for McCain, considering ~25-30% of Clinton supporters say they will vote McCain in the GE over Obama in these polls. I'm betting less than 10% of Clinton primary supporters will vote McCain in the GE, and that swing would likely give Obama a ~10% bounce, which would stretch his lead to a ridiculous size.
I know it's early, but these polls look awful for McCain and he knows it. There's just no way the election will be close in the fall.
Posted on May 10, 2008 12:17 PM
Obama supporters really shouldn't start celebrating yet. In fact, we are probably in for a major deja vu situation this year:
In July 1988, Michael Dukakis, the Gov. of Mass., was ahead by George Bush (a self-proclaimed conservative) by 17-19% in all national polls. But Michael Dukakis wasn't that well known nationally and many Democrats behind the scenes were worried about his demographics because polls showed that to many swing voters he seemed "urban" and "elitist" and didn't seem to 'connect' with the working class white voters that had decided the last several presidential elections (i.e. the "Reagan Democrats" as they came to be known at that time). And what happened? The Republicans and 527 groups used his relative inexperience, the "liberal" label, and Willie Horton (the black man he'd let be released from prison) to retain those voters and Bush beat Dukakis in Nov. 40 states to 10. Those voters swung back to Bill Clinton in 92 and 96, but they swung back to Bush in 2000 and 2004.
Obama isn't very well known nationally, was named the most liberal senator in Congress by a non-partisan political group, and has the Rev. Wright scandal (along w/ Rezko and Ayers) so far to be used against him. Plus he is running against a moderate Republican (who appeals to working class white much better than Bush) who is an American hero and former prisoner of war. Then there's the built-in racism, specifically in the big swing states. So the reality is unless Obama is really able to swing that groupd of voters to him, he will ultimately lose in Nov.
I know Obama supporters don't like to hear this. I guess it's human nature to always think things will be different this year. That's why history always repeats itself. And that's why the Democrats have won 3 presidential elections the the last 40+ years. And Bill Clinton is the only 2 term Dem since FDR.
Posted on May 11, 2008 11:23 AM
"Obama isn't very well known nationally"
Did you write this post 12 months ago? You do realize that Obama has campaigned in basically every state now and by June 03 every state will have had held their primaries. How can you possibly say he isn't known nationally when he is known in every single state now? In fact, he has been campaigning in more states than McCain and more voters have come to Obama events in this primary than have seen any other candidate during a primary season. Saying he is unknown nationally is a bit absurd at this point.
McCain might be more well known... but both are most definitely well known. You know a person that everyone in the country knows very well? President Bush. Does that mean Bush could win re-election if he was up? Not a chance. It's not about name recognition, it's about positive name recognition.
This election will be about a few things, the main one being turnout (which derives from voter excitement). The democrats have this one in spades and the republicans are anything but excited to vote for McCain.
As far as issues, the economy is the major issue now and McCain actually admitted that isn't his strong suit. Polling shows people actually feel dems would be better for the economy than repubs now, that's how bad things are for republicans these days.
The war is another major issue and it just so happens that McCain is on the side of continuing it and possibly launching a new war. So the majority of voters who think we made a mistake in Iraq are not likely to be avid McCain supporters.
If McCain cannot gain a lead when the democrats are tearing at each other day after day then he will never do it. I'd be extremely worried if I was advising McCain... as I would have no clue how I'd ever be able to take the lead over Obama or Hillary in the general based on current trends.
Posted on May 11, 2008 2:04 PM
Posted on July 8, 2008 9:02 PM
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)
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.
Please email us to report offensive comments.
See our comment policy here. Note that we require commenters to share their email address via Typekey. We will never share your email address with anyone without your explicit permission.
MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR