Multi-state survey sheds light on HRC vs. Obama on electability (HRC does far better)

[draft_mario_cuomo]

http://www.surveyusa.com/3WayMBwheel062007

This poll excludes Edwards so it should be noted that a previous multi-state survey which included him had him winning 9 out of 11 states against Ghouliani (flipping 5 Bush states and 2 red states, VA and KY), HRC winning 4 states (flipping 2 Bush states, no red states), and Obama winning 2 states (flipping no states). The electoral college count for that survey was Edwards 146, Ghouliani 36; HRC 128 (she wins NY's 31 electoral votes against Ghouliani, neither JE or BO do), Ghouliani 54; Obama 74, Ghouliani 108. The Democrats' electoral vote totals are greatly inflated because of the inclusion of California in this 11 state survey, with its 55 electoral votes going to each Dem. Take California out and things are more telling: Edwards 91, Ghouliani 36; HRC 73, Ghouliani 54; Obama 19, Ghouliani 108. http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_surveyusa_10_state_ge_res.php

On to the current 16 state survey, which pits HRC against Ghouliani, Romney, Thompson (Obama is polled versus only Ghouliani and Romney), with Bloomberg being included in each scenario (Bloomberg, not surprisingly, wins 0 electoral votes at this stage).


Electoral college result

HRC vs. Ghouliani vs. Bloomberg: HRC 179, Ghouliani 62
Obama vs. Ghouliani vs. Bloomberg*: Ghouliani 170, Obama 56 (Ghouliani flips California, NY, even Massachusetts. OH is a tie so I gave no EV's for OH)

The Romney numbers are useless. Romney loses every state to HRC while he loses every state to Obama (except Alabama, where they are tied). Romney's name ID is too low to make any national poll including him meaningful. Does anyone really think we are going to carry Texas, for instance?

Obama is not measured against Thompson so that says nothing about his electability relative to HRC. Obviously, the numbers against Ghouliani--in both this survey and the prior one--show HRC is far more likely to win in the electoral college. Still, I will include the HRC vs. FT numbers.

HRC vs. F. Thompson vs. Bloomberg: HRC 159, Thompson 67

I did not double check the figures but I gave an honest effort. If anyone doubts the numbers, click on the links for the poll numbers and then use this interactive electoral map to calculate the electoral votes http://www.opinionjournal.com/ecc/calculator.htm

[emilyg]

1. Thank you.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[snowbear]

4. If you try posting a poll on here from SurveyUSA showing Obama in the lead..

...you'll be slammed one side up and down the other by a certain HRC'er for posting polls from them.

SurveyUSA does not use live call center employees, but an automated system. Taped questions are asked of the respondent by a professional announcer (usually a local news anchor), and the respondent is invited to press a button on their touch tone telephone or record a message at a prompt designating their selection. Secondly, SurveyUSA uses more concise language, especially for ballot propositions, than competitors. This can lead to diverging results, such as for California Proposition 76, where one version of the SurveyUSA question with a one sentence description, polled significantly differently compared to another version with a three sentence description (which was similar to a version of the question used by other pollsters, which used a five or six sentence question).

And maybe that HRC'er is right..

The machine doesn't know who the hell is answering.

From the Republicans I know --- they are doing everything in their power to see that HRC is our nominee. And I'll bet plenty of R's who receive these calls think along those same lines.

~~~~~

[draft_mario_cuomo]

5. Gee, how dare I introduce facts to the "electability" debate!

It seems "electability" is another faith-based initiative for some...

If we are going to constantly discuss the matter we need to examine the facts, not myths. The apparent fact that right now one candidate would lose California, New York (86 combined electoral votes) and even ultra-blue Massachusetts is something that needs to be factored into the electability debate.

An analysis of facts has nothing to do with promoting or opposing any candidate. :eyes: Yeah, how dare I put facts on the table so we can intelligently discuss the key issue of electability...

The other polls aren't as valid as this. Why? This is a state-by-state poll. The election will be decided in the electoral college. The national polls are not as accurate since a candidate could have an overall lead by racking up big wins in blue states while losing swing state after swing state.

[PADemD]

3. HRC Electability

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3330770