SUSA about to release Clinton/McCain & Obama/McCain GE polls for all 50 states

[Sam Spade]

Well, it certainly appears that there are no hard feelings against Obama in FL.

There are a good number of states I trust SUSA in - with caveats of course.  Florida is not one of them - for some reason they have a pisspoor record there - too much to the Dem side.  But for my purposes, that's not what I'm interested in right now.

[Alcon]

All entered.

[Mr. Morden]

All entered.

I think you reversed the numbers in Kansas.

[Alcon]

All entered.

I think you reversed the numbers in Kansas.

Thanks.  I'll be happy if that's the only error I made.

(Other than entering them half as 2/2 and having to go back... )

[TomC]

Obama
Kerry states lost: 2
Bush states won: 7

Clinton
Kerry states lost 4
Bush states won: 5

[ottermax]

Obama
Kerry states lost: 2
Bush states won: 7

Clinton
Kerry states lost 4
Bush states won: 5

Obama:
Loss: 36 EV
Gain: 64 EV
Net: + 28 EV

Clinton:
Loss: 39 EV
Gain: 63 EV
Net: + 24 EV

Just felt like adding the numerical values.

[Sasquatch]

Obama isn't winning North Dakota.
Obama isn't winning any EV out of Nebraska.
McCain isn't winning New Jersey.
Also on the McCain/Obama matchup: Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia are all opposite the way I think they will go.

Fixed EV Total: Obama 278  McCain 260

McCain isn't winning Washington or Michigan against Clinton, I think Oregon is possible but not likely. Is Clinton really that popular in Florida, Ohio, and West Virginia? I think Iowa and New Mexico should be switched in the Clinton/McCain matchup.

Fixed EV Total: Clinton 313  McCain 225

[Nutmeg]

Not that it means much but here is  where Obama and Clinton performed better than each other



Ohio is grey because this poll has them both up by 10 over McCain... although it is pretty obvious Hillary would do better there.

Nice work.

Wow.  Basically the worst states in that red belt there.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Not that it means much but here is  where Obama and Clinton performed better than each other



Ohio is grey because this poll has them both up by 10 over McCain... although it is pretty obvious Hillary would do better there.

Nice work.

Wow.  Basically the worst states in that red belt there.

I wasn't aware that suddenly we can be picky about those who vote.

... I do the same when I play P4E - I start leading in a redneck state I stop all ads and visits

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

From the looks of the internals, Democrats should be praying to God that Barack Obama is the nominee—McCain's relative strength against him in most states is due to defecting Democrats.  Obama's strength is largely due to independents.

Hillary, meanwhile, is solid with Democrats, but performs poorly with independents.

Those Democrats should be far easier to consolidate than the indies.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Also, it's very interesting that Hillary and Obama have different strengths in different states.

If I was a Massachusetts superdelegate, I'd be hard pressed voting for Obama when I know he'll lop 10 points off the generic Democratic vote here.

If I was a Utah superdelegate, no way would I vote for Hillary, considering that Obama actually has significant appeal amongst independent voters there.

It's all about keeping your job, folks.

[Sam Spade]

From the looks of the internals, Democrats should be praying to God that Barack Obama is the nominee—McCain's relative strength against him in most states is due to defecting Democrats.  Obama's strength is largely due to independents.

Hillary, meanwhile, is solid with Democrats, but performs poorly with independents.

Those Democrats should be far easier to consolidate than the indies.

That presumes, of course, that those are the types of Democrats who can actually be consolidated behind a black man named Barack Hussein Obama.  Without physical force in the voting booth, of course.  I remain unconvinced.

[Sam Spade]

Bump...

I weighted these polling results to an average of voter turnout 1996-2004.  This is not perfect, but it gets out some high/low turnout issues.  I substituted in some reasonable figures for DC that I thought would approximate other things I saw in these polls.

National Popular Vote
Obama 46.87%
McCain 44.07%
Undecided 9.07%

Clinton 45.75%
McCain 44.49%
Undecided 9.76%

Party Affliation
Democrat 44.00%
Republican 31.45%
Independent 19.20%
Other 5.35%
Observations
1) The higher undecided figure on the Clinton side is almost entirely due to black people in certain states.
2) I suspect the Obama number is only higher presently because of some of the *interesting* results these polls show in the west.
3) Even though I haven't done the party ID breakdown yet, in 3/4 of the states (minimum), Clinton does better than Obama among Dems (even in states where he performs much better than her), and in nearly every state, Obama does better than Clinton among GOPers and Indys.  Now, since I suspect Democratic affliation is a decent bit higher than we'll see come GE time, that's something to keep in mind.  Also important to keep in mind is whether you think it is easier for Obama to consolidate Dems or McCain to consolidate GOPers and pick off more conservative Indies.
4) If you discard the *tied* states (NJ/VA for Obama; MI/NM/TN for Clinton), you come up with:
Obama 267
McCain 243
Undecided 28

Clinton 271
McCain 234
Undecided 33

Considering Obama performs roughly 1.5% better in terms of the popular vote, this is what I mean when I say that Clinton performs better electorally than Obama does in a close race.
Next on the list for me to do is a breakdown of party ID and race and maybe more.

[Mr. Morden]

3) Even though I haven't done the party ID breakdown yet, in 3/4 of the states (minimum), Clinton does better than Obama among Dems (even in states where he performs much better than her), and in nearly every state, Obama does better than Clinton among GOPers and Indys.

This is consistent with national polls from, for example, Gallup and Pew, which show Obama leading to more Democratic defections to McCain than Clinton would, but Obama still outperforming Clinton in total voters because he attracts more Indies and Republicans than she would:

[Sam Spade]

I certainly agree - and I had noticed it before too, which is one of the reasons why I did the above work.

[Nym90]

I must admit that one of the reasons I prefer Obama to Clinton is that I think the country as a whole is better off with a less polarized electorate. If more Republicans and Independents will support Obama, I feel it's worth it to lose some Democrats. Of course, the accuracy of these polls can (and should) be debated, especially with the small sample sizes of demographic groups.

[Sam Spade]

I must admit that one of the reasons I prefer Obama to Clinton is that I think the country as a whole is better off with a less polarized electorate. If more Republicans and Independents will support Obama, I feel it's worth it to lose some Democrats. Of course, the accuracy of these polls can (and should) be debated, especially with the small sample sizes of demographic groups.

Of course.  And it is also merely a "snapshot in time".  But that's one of the reasons why I did the national vote numbers...

Because after hard weighting, the MOE of a sample this size is liable to be pretty low, all told.

[minionofmidas]

Will wait and see what other polls say over the next few weeks and months... either way Obama vs McCain has the potential to radically recast the electoral map in a way that we havent seen for a very long time.

8 years?

[minionofmidas]

After three months (and possibly more) of this primary continuing, how much infighting between Clinton and Obama supporters is going to cause them to think McCain is a second choice to their first option?

I think the only safe assumption about that is that the share will be smaller come election time than the polls now show.
That mostly means the difference between Clinton and Obama will likely be smaller than the polls now show, too.

One might infer from my first sentence that McCain is bound to do worse on balance than polls now show, but (while possible) I'm not making that claim; Reps are hardly united behind their candidate yet either, and quite a few of them, too, are currently supporting an unusual second choice (Obama or Clinton) after not getting their first choice (one of the non-McCain Republicans). Many of them are going to come back as well. And there's the whole "Dems currently more fired up because the campaign's still going; this shows up in polls" line of argument that I'm not sure I'm buying but cannot dismiss either.

[Sam Spade]

After three months (and possibly more) of this primary continuing, how much infighting between Clinton and Obama supporters is going to cause them to think McCain is a second choice to their first option?

I think the only safe assumption about that is that the share will be smaller come election time than the polls now show.
That mostly means the difference between Clinton and Obama will likely be smaller than the polls now show, too.

One might infer from my first sentence that McCain is bound to do worse on balance than polls now show, but (while possible) I'm not making that claim; Reps are hardly united behind their candidate yet either, and quite a few of them, too, are currently supporting an unusual second choice (Obama or Clinton) after not getting their first choice (one of the non-McCain Republicans). Many of them are going to come back as well. And there's the whole "Dems currently more fired up because the campaign's still going; this shows up in polls" line of argument that I'm not sure I'm buying but cannot dismiss either.

I have no disagreements with your statement - I'm just pointing out the differences.

[minionofmidas]

After three months (and possibly more) of this primary continuing, how much infighting between Clinton and Obama supporters is going to cause them to think McCain is a second choice to their first option?

I think the only safe assumption about that is that the share will be smaller come election time than the polls now show.
That mostly means the difference between Clinton and Obama will likely be smaller than the polls now show, too.

One might infer from my first sentence that McCain is bound to do worse on balance than polls now show, but (while possible) I'm not making that claim; Reps are hardly united behind their candidate yet either, and quite a few of them, too, are currently supporting an unusual second choice (Obama or Clinton) after not getting their first choice (one of the non-McCain Republicans). Many of them are going to come back as well. And there's the whole "Dems currently more fired up because the campaign's still going; this shows up in polls" line of argument that I'm not sure I'm buying but cannot dismiss either.

I have no disagreements with your statement - I'm just pointing out the differences.

I was just using the quote as a starting point to say what I was going to say anyhow.

[Tender Branson]

2 Nebraska electors for Obama? Hilarious.

"Obama has coattails in Nebraska,'' said Nelson, who endorsed his Senate colleague two months ago. "Our internal polls show he can win one, possibly two, congressional districts.''

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a0OkW8Ml8ljw&refer=home