Obama is MUCH stronger than Clinton in the general election, and here's the proof:

[milkyway]

The exceptional poblano at dailykos has done a statistical analysis of all 50 states, and summarized the data in a chart that is fascinating. It uses the Survey USA's 50-state poll released a couple of days ago along with other state polls. I urge everyone to take a look at it to see how radically Obama can permanently change the political landscape.

Poblano currently has Obama with a 63.9% chance of beating McCain, while Clinton has a 43.9% chance. But what's most interesting is the format of the chart, comparing poll results with Kerry in 2004, letting us see just how deeply Obama is striking into red territory.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/6/212016/8597

On the same point, the Survey USA poll on the surface shows that Obama performs only slightly better than Clinton against McCain. Obama beats McCain 280-258, while Clinton wins 276-262. But looking deeper at the numbers, it is clear that Obama has many more safe states than Clinton does. Chris Bowers at openleft.com shows Obama with 163 electoral votes that are Solid (11+ margin), and 66 that lean Obama (6-10 points). Clinton has 77 Solid, and 126 Lean.

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaxryId=4374

Here's the links to the original Survey USA polls:

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-obama-280-mccain-258/

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-clinton-276-mccain-262/

The inescapable conclusion from all of this is that Obama greatly expands the potential democratic electorate, while Clinton fights on a much narrower battlefield, leaving us endlessly chasing after Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, always needing to win three of four to win the nomination.

What is also noteworthy is how weak Clinton is in the plains states and the west, beating McCain in only California and New Mexico. Along with those states, Obama also wins Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Colorado, North Dakota, and splits Nebraska. Even more striking: in the SUSA poll, he loses Texas by only one point!

One argument that has been heavily pushed by the Clinton camp is that the superdelegates should give her the nomination because she has beaten Obama in the states the Democrats need in order to win in November. Most of these states, however, will support any Democrat--NY, MA, Cali, etc., so the argument is irrelevant for these. But in states like Ohio it is not. Looking at the SUSA data, we can see that the Clinton argument is flimsy at best:

Ohio: Obama beats McCain by 10, and Clinton beats him by 10

Michigan: Obama +1, Clinton Even

Pennsylvania: Clinton +1, Obama -5

Florida: Clinton +9, Obama -2.

These states are her big arguments. But in two of the four Obama and her are the same, and the other two are very much winnable for him. These are Clinton's most important states, yet in two of them she is essentially tied with McCain.

While Clinton beat Obama by ten points in the Ohio primary, in November Obama won't be running against another Democrat. He'll only be running against McCain, and he does just as well as Clinton. While he may not have been the first choice of the majority of Democrats in Ohio, he is certainly the second choice.

Also, the Clinton campaign has unwittingly made a good case for Obama by complaining that states with open primaries are unfair because up to 25% of the voters are independents or republicans. But in November they will all be allowed to vote. And in 2004 independents and republicans were 63% of the electorate.

But the four states mentioned above aren't the only swing states of recent election cycles. Let's look at some others, listed in order of Obama's advantage over Clinton, with the grouping in the middle being essentially the same:


Washington state: Obama +14, Clinton -2

Colorado: Obama +9, Clinton -6

Iowa: Obama +9, Clinton -5

Nevada: Obama +5, Clinton -8

Oregon: Obama +8, Clinton -5

New Hampshire: Obama +2, Clinton -8

New Mexico: Obama +7, Clinton even

Wisconsin: Obama +11, Clinton +4



Minnesota: Obama +7, Clinton +4

Missouri: Clinton -4 Obama -6



Tennessee: Clinton even, Obama -16

West Virginia: Clinton +5, Obama -18

Arkansas: Clinton +11, Obama -20



And look at these states that also come into play with Obama, expanding the playing field and making the republicans spend their resources trying to defend them:


Virginia: Obama even, Clinton -10

North Carolina: Obama -2, Clinton -8

Texas: Obama -1, Clinton -7

North Dakota: Obama +4, Clinton -19

South Dakota: Obama -4, Clinton -12

Nebraska: Obama -3, Clinton -27 (and Obama wins a split of the electoral vote)



One last point--I have seen analysis of the upcoming Congressional races that will be contested, with the Democrats looking to gain many republican seats. These seats are almost all in states that are much more favorable to Obama than Clinton. Not only does Obama look much better than Clinton in the general, he will also undoubtedly bring with him a much more democratic Congress, solidifying and expanding upon the gains of 2006. Clinton will be a heavy drag on the many down-ticket races in the plains states and mountain west.

The Democratic party has made tremendous gains in these regions recently and have the potential with Obama of taking control of it, leaving the republicans a regional party, railing against the "browning" of America and the young who embrace it, a party confined to the southeast and to a past it cannot escape.

[frogcycle]

1. fine, lots of data

just a minor quibble: it isn't "proof." It is "evidence." You cannot "prove" a future event. You can have overwhelming supportive evidence, compelling evidence, persuasive evidence, whatever. You can be convinced of the validity of the premise. But 'taint proof.

Not attacking your data; I just tend to be a stickler for precision in language.

[milkyway]

2. I agree.

[milkyway]

3. late night kick.

[Ichingcarpenter]

4. "But I never did well at math."

Hillary Clinton myspace


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4998216&mesg_id=4998216


http://www.myspace.com/hillaryclinton

[ORDem]

5. Yeah, but you're wasting your breath. The HRC supporters are not reality-based.

And they think Obama supporters are delusional. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

:kick:

[fujiyama]

6. I'd caution against looking too much into state by state polls this early

And many of the spreads for both candidates are not that large in some of the states. Obama beats MI by one point in a poll. I don't consider that a huge victory. And likewise I think for Hillary to start chasing TN because of a poll showing it within five points wouldn't necessarily pay off. I think both would take MI, mainly because women are much more likely to go with a Democrat. That's how Granholm won and let me say she was NOT popular. Then again, McCain is a much stronger candidate than DeVos.

Both Obama and Clinton have their apparent strengths and weaknesses. Obama clearly outperforms her in plains and mountain states. His support is seemingly more solid on the "Left" Coast.

Hillary does better in the South and some larger battleground states like WV, OH, FL, and possibly PA. I say this not based on just the the polls, but the primary outcomes as well (Obama has some real work to do to get seniors, lower educated and/or blue collar whites to come out for him). The polls do indicate that race will play in issue in the south, but I believe less so in mountain and plains states.

What I personally like about the Obama map is it is much closer to a 50-state strategy. It allows for congressional and senate seats to be picked up in states we may not win. It expands westward into libertarian leaning mountain states. No we won't necessarily win them all, but we could force McCain to throw money at those states. His prospects in NV and CO look especially good (while very poor for Hillary) and he seems to have a stronger chance at holding OR, WI, and IA. He looks to have a fighting chance in VA as well. Unfortunately, Hillary looks to be playing to a more familiar map - throwing lots of money at FL and OH, while playing defense in PA, WI, OR...and possibly ceding IA. Yes polls show WA state close, but I'll give her the state since it has two female senators...and major liberal urban centers...

Either way, it's obvious this will be a close race. It shouldn't be this way considering the disaster Bush has been. But McCain is no Bush, will have even more media support than Bush, and has some advantages with independents.

[Awsi Dooger]

8. Excellent summary

I was posting a lengthy reply to this thread at the time you posted. You covered many of my points.

There's no doubt a Hillary candidacy would be similar to 2000 and 2004. But this time we have a generic edge.

An Obama race is more volatile but I'm admittedly nervous as hell trying to manage 270 electoral votes minus a good shot at Florida or Ohio. Obama backers thrill to emphasize "the math" right now in delegate relationship to Hillary, but somehow the math to 270 minus Florida or Ohio doesn't bother them at all.

[Awsi Dooger]

7. LOL! I wish poblano made the betting lines

Easy money. Just like taking Hillary in Ohio at slightly less than even money last week. I played that steadily for two weeks on Intrade, and mentioned it on MyDD and elsewhere. That was bizarre misapplication of so-called momentum to Ohio demographic realities.

Obama faithful are very admirable but it's high hilarity how they are willing to put on blinders and over reach in terms of his November potential. Obama down 1 point in Texas? The Texas on what planet?

You've don't rely on a handful of state polls and make assertions in a general election, this far out. Particularly when those state polls assert bizarre deviation from known partisan index tendencies. Partisan index is the relationship between statewide percentage and national margin. I've used it since '96, primarily for betting purposes. There is no way two Democrats will fare that differently against the same Republican opponent. It will be a natural tightening, just like the states where Hillary supposedly led Obama by 20 or 25 points, or whatever, a few months ago in primary polling. And that's also true of the states where Hillary fares much better than Obama vs. McCain.

I'm surprised at Chris Bowers. He knows better, and it verifies his pro-Obama agenda. Bowers began posting a partisan index on MyDD in early 2004 and he has referred to those numbers dozens of times. He is well aware state polling is not as reliable as relationship to national margin, particularly when the state polling is so sparse and this far removed. There's no doubt factors like first black or first woman will tilt the partisan index this year and some of the numbers will look strange compared to the norm, but we're talking a handful of points, not the dozen or more that pablano is foolishly relying on.

This is the interesting aspect, and something I mentioned in a DU post earlier tonight: How far does Obama need to be ahead of Hillary in the national margin vs. McCain, to offset his weakness in Ohio and Florida, the two most vital swing states? It certainly can't be evaluated with zero as the baseline. That's remarkably foolish. At 50/50 Hillary vs. McCain and 50/50 Obama vs. McCain, there's no question Hillary has the edge, via superior demographic opportunity in Ohio and Florida. The electoral math in those two states is the ultimate trump card, and it's an uphill scramble to 270 electoral votes minus either of the biggies. I would say Obama needs to be at least 2-3 points better than Hillary in national polling vs. McCain, simply to be even.

Here's a link to the statewide chart I posted on DU in mid 2003. I'm sorry I can't find the link that includes the 2004 presidential results, but I'm in Florida due to a family concern and plenty of my stuff is in Las Vegas, including my political numbers. I'm sure I posted it on DU in November or December 2004, with the partisan index updated to include 2004.

You'll notice how far out of reach many of the states have been, and how consistent the partisan index can be in state after state. Obama may be a phenom but he's not going to overcome long held blatant partisanship in a polarized era. Always remember it's much simpler to make huge gains in a primary, in a playing field with everyone more or less thinking the same way, than it is to slant an electorate with 40-45% firmly locked against you from the outset.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=5453&forum=DCForumID22

[VotesForWomen]

9. meaningless. the two candidates haven't even faced each other yet. nt

[FlyingSquirrel]

10. Here's the part that really sticks out for me:

However, unlike in the Survey USA "winner-take-all" model, she still rates as the slight underdog to McCain. This is essentially because, as kos and Chris Bowers have pointed out, she has many fewer safe states than Obama. Obama has 22 states in which he's at least 70% to win, and collects 242 electoral votes from those states, almost enough to win the election by itself. But Clinton has just 14 safe states and 178 electoral votes by this definition, making her task considerably riskier.

----

And let's not forget that Clinton consistently loses the matchup on Rasmussen when both she and Obama are pitted against McCain.

It's worth repeating a few more thousand times at least.

:P

[donheld]

11. Kick and recommend

[BringBigDogBack]

12. Excellent post.

Pretty neat to see a state-by-state breakdown.

[BzaDem]

13. Why can't people understand that hypothetical GE matchups in March are never accurate?

They have never been accurate, and they will never be accurate. The negatives of unknown candidates always go way up after long, negative GE campaigns (especially with swiftboating).

I guess no one here will ever believe this until June, when Obama is down 15 points.

Time will tell.