Electability

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:59:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

By Big Tent Democrat

Want to argue about electability? SUSA, the new world's best pollster, has a new set of head to heads that you can argue over. My view is that Obama is generally more electable but I am worried about his performance in OH, PA and Florida. Below the flip, the new polls.

OHIO

Clinton 52
McCain 42

Obama 47
McCain 44

Missouri

Clinton 51
McCain 44

Obama 49
McCain 43

New Mexico

Clinton 50
McCain 45

Obama 55
McCain 40

Minnesota

Clinton 49
McCain 45

Obama 55
McCain 40

Massachusetts

Clinton 52
McCain 43

Obama 48
McCain 46

California

Clinton 58
McCain 35

Obama 61
McCain 34

Wisconsin

Clinton 42
McCain 49

Obama 52
McCain 42

Oregon

Clinton 41
McCain 49

Obama 48
McCain 47

There are others if you are interested. Obama clearly runs better in many states but he still has problems in Ohio and Massachusetts in these polls and in Pennsylvania and Florida in other head to head polling.

My concern remains to be assuaged, can Obama compete and win in must win states like Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Florida? Oregon, Iowa, and Wisconsin are nice, but to win this election, Dems must win in Michigan and Pennsylvania and SHOULD win in Ohio and Florida.

Still the unanswered question regarding Obama.

< Chuck Todd's Take On The Debate | Obama Parties to Flood the TX Caucuses >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Electability | 67 comments (67 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Look at those Massachusett's numbers! (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Robot Porter on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:07:41 PM EST

McCain's within the margin of error in Massachusetts?

My guess is that's fed by the growing unpopularity of Deval Patrick. They've seen how an Obama-like candidate governs.

Anyone have any other explanations?

I take these with some salt (5.00 / 3) (#2)
by andgarden on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:10:47 PM EST

but still, I think we can read the tea leaves on the Ohio poll: Hillary is stronger there.

Obama will poll better after the Ohio Primary (none / 0) (#29)
by MKS on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:25:06 PM EST

Obama is still an unknwon quantity to many....He generally improves as he campaigns....


: Obama is now polling worse in Missouri (5.00 / 2) (#30)
by tigercourse on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:31:02 PM EST

then he was awhile back. Which suggests that while he may get a bounce from campaigning there, that bounce fades over time.

Florida (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by oldpro on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:18:33 PM EST

could be real trouble for Obama vs. McCain.

Oregon is Oregon.

Wisconsin is probably a reflection of the primary vote impact. It may not mean a lot with a general months and months away...8 to be exact. That is a lifetime in any campaign...we'll be in another world.

Ohio...Michigan....Pennsylvania.....worrisome.

He'll have the money to make the case, though. The junk mail will pile up and TV and radio will be 'all Obama all the time.'

What's up with OR (none / 0) (#8)
by cannondaddy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:31:53 PM EST

: See below..."it's Oregon!" (none / 0) (#10)
by oldpro on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:36:16 PM EST

The one that worries me there is Oregon. I (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by tigercourse on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:19:26 PM EST

know Obama is weaker in Ohio, Penn and Flordia but to be only 1 point ahead of McCain with all of the great press he's had?

It's Oregon. (none / 0) (#9)
by oldpro on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:34:16 PM EST

Repeat after me: "It's Oregon!"

A maverick state and proud of it...just like John McCain. It doesn't follow any pattern except the non-pattern pattern.

Quirky ... and not just politically!

There are a million Oregon stories worth retelling but my personal favorite is about Portland's barkeep/flasher/mayor Bud Clark and one of the most famous poster images ever produced in the USofA..."Expose Yourself to Art!"

Look it up.

Yup. Quirky.


I grew up in Oregon (none / 0) (#25)
by marcellus on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:17:38 PM EST

Once Obama campaigns there in person, I'd wager a lot money that it'll go Dem. Most similar, state-wise to Minnesota.


: Bobby Kennedy lost Oregon (none / 0) (#33)
by oldpro on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:36:13 PM EST

so you never know...

Ramussen had Obama (none / 0) (#20)
by cannondaddy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:05:10 PM EST

up by nine on their poll.


C'MON! 'electability' is a thug meme to (none / 0) (#3)
by seabos84 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:10:48 PM EST

get Dems to start thinking they're

running the yalta conference with churchill, stalin and roosevelt !

If I had a dollar for every dweeb who told me Dukakis or Kerry was 'electable' I'd have enough money to run their campaigns and freaking win.

electable is one of the most BS concepts going - unless you are the thugs, and get the talking heads all chatting down someone cuz 's/he isn't electable'. whatever.

RayGun and BushII are and were OBVIOUSLY boobs,

and they got elected!

Anyone is 'electable' with the right confluence of money, lies, GOTV and media

AND

the mix of those 4 needed for success (getting elected!!) isn't constant.

did anyone notice McSame slither outta yesterday's cheating scandal?

Howard Dean went after McSlime and the rest of the Dem party of DC is busy ... writing more tomes? press releases dense with big sentences and big paragraphs?

EVERYONE is freaking electable, and, everyone is beatable.

rmm.

I agree - electability should not be an issue (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Prabhata on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:16:20 PM EST

Go with the best candidate. In 2000 Gore was the best candidate and lost to G W. In 2004 Kerry was chosen because he was electable and lost to G W. To predict who is going to do well on the basis of polls is to predict the future by reading tea leaves. Go with the best and do the work to get the Democratic candidate elected.


Gore did not really lose in 2000 (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Kathy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:48:36 PM EST

the problem was that Florida's votes were not properly counted and the Bush camp (aided by the media) spun Gore into being a whiny baby for not "bowing out." Add to this the fact that Gore had the popular vote and, my goodness...

It's deja vu all over again.


: and not only that... (none / 0) (#31)
by A DC Wonk on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:33:10 PM EST

even with the faulty counting, let's not forget that Gore did get more votes that Bush

Significant not for 'worrying,' (none / 0) (#4)
by Ben Masel on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:15:52 PM EST

but as a roadmap for the work ahead.

: and certainly (none / 0) (#11)
by A DC Wonk on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:36:47 PM EST

the huge money advantage that Obama will have over McCain (and the Dems generally) will help.
As will the fact that it's beginning to look like there will be another massacre in the House this year (with, what 28 GOPers retiring?) . . .

OH, PA and FL... (none / 0) (#12)
by mike in dc on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:43:41 PM EST

...happen to be three states where Obama hasn't campaigned much. I expect his electability numbers will go up there over time.

Massachusetts may be weak for Obama because of the association with Gov. Patrick. But of course, if Gov. Patrick's numbers improve, by implication Obama's numbers there might improve as well.

McCain has not campaigned in OH and PA (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:54:35 PM EST

either.

There is this blind faith that says "once they see the Him they will come."

Certainly not true in MA, where McCain did not even csampaign.


: But it is true in (none / 0) (#28)
by marcellus on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:19:59 PM EST

California. Will you admit that the early ballots had an effect on the wide margin there?

: McCain has been... (none / 0) (#52)
by mike in dc on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:21:03 PM EST

...a national figure for a lot longer than Obama has.

: Hadn't heard that Obama (none / 0) (#63)
by oculus on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:48:15 PM EST

was on the ground abroad, but it didn't seem to matter.

Electability is always an issue. (none / 0) (#13)
by oldpro on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:44:46 PM EST

This year may be a fascinating walk on the wild side of electability if it's McCain vs. either Hillary or Obama.

No. Standard. (Government Issue) Candidate!

An old-guy war hero whose zigs and zags keep the press interested. If they don't abandon him (NYT story vs. their endorsement of him...WTHell?) and he can corral the base...he's electable!

Hillary and Obama? Both question marks...neither the standard Democrat for the top of the ticket. Yes, Democrats love them...but will 'the country' vote for a woman or a black man this year? It hasn't been tested and it's a good year to test it with McCain.

I hope Florida isn't "must-win." (none / 0) (#19)
by scoutfinch on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:57:11 PM EST

Sorry, posted too soon.

The buzz down here is that Governor Crist is the likely Republican vp pick. If that happens, I think it's unlikely that either Hillary or Obama will win Florida. I will volunteer my heart out to prove my prediction wrong, because I want to believe that the Democrats are still alive in Florida, but I think that either Democrat will win the election but lose Florida.


Then Ohio, MI and PA are (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:14:43 PM EST

As you must know, this delegate business has hurt us terribly in Florida.


: No - (none / 0) (#51)
by Lena on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:18:45 PM EST

There's (I think) too much bitterness towards Obama here in Florida. If he were to win the primary, all the Repubs would have to do is air ads showing Obama marginalizing our vote. I don't think he could pick Fla. up.

: I don't beleive that . . . (none / 0) (#61)
by Same As It Ever Was on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:28:05 PM EST

there's quite a bit of upset within the higher ups in the state party. But I think that rank and file dems are more upset with the legislature.

It's not must-win (none / 0) (#22)
by cannondaddy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:13:32 PM EST

Here's were Dem. stand generally


: That link is actually not great for us. They (none / 0) (#26)
by tigercourse on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:18:03 PM EST

have Pennsylvania as a likely win for us. With Obama, I think it goes into toss up. They have Ohio as a tossup. I think it's going to stay red.

Crist as VP pick? (none / 0) (#35)
by ruffian on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:45:04 PM EST

I don't think Crist will be the VP pick unless the Republcian party has a "don't ask, don't tell" policy we have not heard yet.

Minnesota's Gov. Pawlenty is a much likelier choice - what would that do to those Minn. poll numbers?


: LOL (none / 0) (#62)
by Same As It Ever Was on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:31:04 PM EST

Well the Florida contingent certainly appears to :). The rumor on the ground here is that Crist was promised the VP nod in exchange for his endorsement, which had been expected to go to Rudy.

I live in Tampa and I agree. (none / 0) (#59)
by Same As It Ever Was on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:26:39 PM EST

The demographic shifts in the last several years do not favor Dems. Clinton would have a better time of it because of her ties to the state. But we're probably going ot have to win without it.


Polling in swing states where they have all (none / 0) (#15)
by LiberallyDebunked on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:49:59 PM EST

campaigned and had primaries/caucuses might give a more accurate picture.

It looks like with Obama as the candidate (none / 0) (#16)
by tigercourse on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:52:44 PM EST

Mass will become a swing state.


a swing state?? (none / 0) (#32)
by A DC Wonk on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:34:41 PM EST

When was the last time Mass voted for a GOP Prez?


When was the last ime VA voted for a Dem? (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:41:49 PM EST

Va? Mass? (none / 0) (#38)
by A DC Wonk on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:49:28 PM EST

Well, Va voted for a Dem Senator in 2006. I think that, and other data, shows that Va is turning purple. Furthermore, the AA population is not insignificant. Va is "in play", imho.

But I was responding to an assertion that Mass was a swing state. I see no evidence at all that Mass is nothing but the deepest of blues.

Perhaps the person who suggested that Mass is a swing state could provide some logic or evidence to that assertion?


: The fact that in polls Obama either (none / 0) (#42)
by tigercourse on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:56:40 PM EST

loses or wins by a small number.

: Oh (none / 0) (#43)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:57:21 PM EST

Ok, then Nebraska is in play you think? North Dakota?

: Tigercourse (none / 0) (#44)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:58:06 PM EST

references the poll discussed in my post.

Mass. went red in 1984. Virginia last (none / 0) (#36)
by tigercourse on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:47:07 PM EST

went blue in 1964. So, anything is possible.


Why? (none / 0) (#17)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:53:12 PM EST

This is the snapshot now.

Of course campaigning might change that in some states and of course McCain gets to campaign too.


Because results seem to skewed (none / 0) (#21)
by cannondaddy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:10:03 PM EST

by supporters of a given candidate prior to a primary. I've noticed it as a pattern before. You can also take the GE head to heads and get a sideways inkling on how the primary votes will go (see Ohio).


: So McCain will win MA? (none / 0) (#23)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:13:58 PM EST

Interesting polling (none / 0) (#27)
by Korha on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:19:03 PM EST

Dunno why Obama is doing so bad in MASS, though there's clearly no chance he would lose it in the general election.

Electability (none / 0) (#37)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:47:42 PM EST

OBAMA: You know, I've heard from an Army captain who was the head of a rifle platoon -- supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon. Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24 because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq.
And as a consequence, they didn't have enough ammunition, they didn't have enough humvees. They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief.

Saying stuff that doesn't pass the laugh test won't help with electability.

You've got a point there (none / 0) (#49)
by RalphB on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:10:25 PM EST

Pretty pathetic.


This has already been fact-checked... (5.00 / 1) (#53)
by mike in dc on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:23:07 PM EST

...and confirmed as accurate. The captain in question was a lieutenant at the time of the events he described in Afghanistan.


What did they do for ammo? (none / 0) (#57)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:09:05 PM EST

Fact checked? By who? John (Christmas in Cambodia) Kerry? Was the fact check that BHO was in fact told the story, or was it the facts of the story were true?

The AK47's the TB uses won't fire out ammo. Was his platoon so kick-butt they could without weapons and ammo take out the TB and use theirs?

Soldiers are sometimes given to a bit of puffery.

BTW, did you that the sound of firing an enemy weapon can draw friendly fire on yourself? Thats an extrordinary claim and deserves extrordinary confirmation.


Jake Tapper, ABC... (none / 0) (#68)
by mike in dc on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:53:18 PM EST

...followed up on this and confirmed it.


confirmed (none / 0) (#69)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:35:53 AM EST

The only thing "confirmed" was that the conversation took place. Tapper did not confirm that our troops had to scrounge enemy weapons to fight with.


: dude... (none / 0) (#70)
by mike in dc on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:51:40 AM EST

...with respect, it's happened in virtually every lengthy war the US has been in at some point.
Why would this be so hard to believe with respect to this incompetently run administration?

Chris Bowers did a good one (none / 0) (#41)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:56:18 PM EST

Obama wildly overperforms caucus state polling but does not do so well in primaries.

Any caucuses in November?

I say leave Florida alone... (none / 0) (#45)
by sar75 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:59:19 PM EST

...I think Democrats shouldn't pin their hopes on Florida at all this year. In fact, I'd say skip it entirely and focus money and time on Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Virginia, and especially Ohio. There are plenty of ways to get to 270 without Florida, which may be a lost cause this year. In fact, all we need to do is pick up Colorado and New Mexico (and keep everything else from 2004) and we're at 273. I think we can do better than that, but I just don't want to see the Democrats waste resources on a lost cause when they can pick off easier states.

I haven't seen any polls out of CT in a while (none / 0) (#47)
by tigercourse on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:02:40 PM EST

but I remember that they used to show both Clinton and Obama losing to Giuliani and I think McCain. I'd like to see a more recent poll because that is 7 electoral votes we are dealing with.

Raises lots of questions (none / 0) (#48)
by esmense on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:03:18 PM EST

Obama has not yet faced harsh attack. It is just not possible at this time to say how effectively the Republicans will be able to raise his negatives. But we know they will pull out all the stops to do so. "He improves as he campaigns" is true -- he has become a better campaigner over time. But campaigning against a female candidate in a Democratic primary is in no way a test for how he will fare against a traditional candidate in the general election.

Those states where Obama tends to poll best are states with unusually high numbers of Independents -- states that gave Perot the largest percentages he received when he ran in '92. For Democrats, these are some of the least dependable voters.

It will be interesting to see how Obama's numbers hold up once Clinton is no longer in the race, and people, especially independents, stop comparing him to her and start really focusing on the differences between him and McCain.

Also, what will Obama's campaign theme be in the general election. Catch phrases like "Yes we can" and "We are the ones we've been waiting for" may sound "inclusive" to a relatively liberal, relatively homogeneous Democratic electorate -- but they can as easily sound exclusive in the context of a much more diverse, less partisanly committed, general election audience.

: Yes, let's do remember Wisconsin's (none / 0) (#55)
by Cream City on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:41:16 PM EST

open primary antics in past -- a state where everyone essentially is an Independent with no registration by party, no requirement to vote a straight ticket, etc.
That was good for Dems in 1960, when Wisconsin launched JFK on his way. But the next time, George Wallace won second place in Wisconsin's primary.
And a lot of those voters went to the polls again this week. This is one reason why all the attention to Wisconsin's primary by media with no historical memory should NOT be influencing this campaign now.

SUSA? (none / 0) (#50)
by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:13:33 PM EST

Since when does SUSA have credibility? Isn't SUSA the poll that has been all over the place?

Nope (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:28:39 PM EST

It has been the most accurate.

The world's new best pollster.


Where... (none / 0) (#56)
by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:52:41 PM EST

... was that site that looked at all of the polls and how well they have done?

I can't find it.


That would be (none / 0) (#64)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:56:06 PM EST

SUSA.


link? (none / 0) (#65)
by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 04:53:20 PM EST

do you happen to have a link?

I can't find it. What I am looking for is the chart that listed several polls, and the average deviation from the actual results in each state.


I think (none / 0) (#66)
by Shawn on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:55:09 PM EST

This is what BTD is talking about.


: Thanks... (none / 0) (#67)
by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:05:45 PM EST

... that is what I was looking for.

In the same breath (none / 0) (#58)
by Baal on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:22:24 PM EST

you will argue that Obama's appeal to independents and the fact that they can vote in Democratic primaries in some states is the root of all evil and evidence that Obama is a right wing trojan horse.

If Obama (none / 0) (#60)
by sas on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:27:09 PM EST

really wants to win, he better start courting all of Hillary's women. Without them, he doesn't stand a chance.

Electability

The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

Menu

Search

Login

Creator and Principal Author

TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections

Site Credits

Legal

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment