From the Not Gonna Happen File

Whatever Chris Bowers' state-by-state polling may show, can't we all agree that Rudy Giuliani is not going to beat Barack Obama in Massachusetts? Bush got 37 percent of the vote in Massachusetts in 2004 and, believe it or not, that was a huge improvement over the 33 percent he got in 2000, or the 28 percent Bob Dole got in 1996. What we're learning with that post of Chris' are two things: (1) is that Hillary Clinton is plenty electable, and (2) Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani are better known than Barack Obama and John Edwards. Nothing else.

Comments

I think we're also learning:

(3) that John Edwards is more popular in the Midwest than Hillary Clinton (see the IA and MO results)
(3a) That Edwards may have a shot at the South against Romney, but this is probably due to name recognition gaps.
(4) That Hillary Clinton may be more popular than Obama or Edwards in NM
(5) That Barack Obama is enormously popular in WA

See here for more.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | October 1, 2007 3:41 PM

The number of hours our side spends debating general election matchups blows me away. Polling for primaries is nearly pointless right now, but general election matchups?

It would be laughable if I didn't think there are a few people out there who actually use the information to decide who to vote for in the primary.

I like Bowers' work, but one could point out that he was one of the biggest proponents of the "they are oversampling Republicans" theory in 2004. And that was days - DAYS - before the election.

Posted by cms | October 1, 2007 3:53 PM

>>>can't we all agree that Rudy Giuliani is not going to beat Barack Obama in Massachusetts?

I don't see why we should make that assumption. Massachusetts is a state that as recently as last year had elected an uninterrupted string of Republican Governors for 16 years. John Kerry, judging purely by his approval ratings in Massachusetts in vulnerable to a GOP challenger. The largest political grouping in Massachusetts is Independents, not Democrats or Liberals. Giuliani's political is exactly that of those Massachusetts GOPers who have won statewide office before.

Posted by dry_fish | October 1, 2007 3:57 PM

You know what I learned from this?

Nothing.

Come on guys, we all know that polling this early is al but useless and even more so in states like North Dakota and Oregon where voters haven't received one visit, piece of mail, phone call, ad, anything.

Most of these polls are garbage anyway. We already know that more than half of the voters in early states don't make up their minds until the last month of a campaign. And that's after campaign saturation.

How are we supposed to get anything meaninful out of North Carolinian's voter preferences 6 months away from their primary? Silly I say.

**whew, got that out of system**

Also, is it just me or has anyone else lost a bit of respect for Bowers & company after they did that ad for Richardson? Although there's no evidence to show they are tipping the scales in favor of Richardson, I still can't read anything they post without taking it with a grain of salt.

Posted by willie | October 1, 2007 3:58 PM

Massachusetts' population is 15% italian-american. you'd expect that they'd turn out significantly more for rudy than bush.

Posted by Chris | October 1, 2007 3:59 PM

Actually, what we're learning is something we've known quite well before:

Chris Bowers is as dumb as a suitcase full of rocks.

Posted by Petey | October 1, 2007 4:00 PM

How many people do you think have any idea who Barack Obama is in New Mexico? Seriously, I'd put the over-under at around 600. And that's no slap at Senator Obama or the people of New Mexico. Instead, what I'm trying to say is that it's way too early to extrapolate from this map or from any other polling. Which isn't to say that I don't spend a great deal of time thinking about this data, misleading though it may be. But I'm an idiot

Posted by ANMIK | October 1, 2007 4:03 PM

Put another way (using proper English grammar for a refreshing change): How many people, in New Mexico, do you think have any idea who Barack Obama is?

Posted by ANMIK | October 1, 2007 4:06 PM

"I don't see why we should make that assumption. Massachusetts is a state that as recently as last year had elected an uninterrupted string of Republican Governors for 16 years. John Kerry, judging purely by his approval ratings in Massachusetts in vulnerable to a GOP challenger. The largest political grouping in Massachusetts is Independents, not Democrats or Liberals. Giuliani's political is exactly that of those Massachusetts GOPers who have won statewide office before.

Posted by dry_fish | October 1, 2007 3:57 PM"

When Clinton tried to appoint one of them (I believe Weld) to be ambassador to Mexico, Jesse Helms blocked it because Weld was too liberal. To the extent there is a liberal establishment in Massachusetts, you will find a lot of warm feelings toward Cellucci and Weld (but not Jane Swift or Mitt Romney). Massachusetts also recently elected a liberal Democratic Harvard-educated black man from Chicago to be governor. Something tells me that a state that would elect Deval Patrick would probably lean towards Obama if he's the candidate. Massachusetts went both times for Clinton, which shows that they are probably willing to support Southern liberals (Edwards) or people named Clinton. If Mitt Romney will not be able to carry Mass in the general, what real chance does Giuliani have, not withstanding the 15% of Italians in Massachusetts? It's not like he's Irish and McCain has become a political joke.

Posted by Reality Man | October 1, 2007 4:11 PM

Plus, dry_fish, statewide offices are very different from how states vote in presidential elections. It was nice for the Democrats to get Tester into the Senate, but that doesn't mean Montana will go blue in the presidential election. Mass. hasn't gone Republican since 1984.

Rudy will never beat Obama in Massachusetts. Never ever ever.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | October 1, 2007 4:14 PM

Honestly, if MA is ever in question, we're going to lose by a lot more than 50 electoral votes.

Posted by cms | October 1, 2007 4:15 PM

As in the primary, Obama looks painfully weak in the states where there is a substantial white working class.

Posted by Chris | October 1, 2007 4:15 PM

I'd put the over-under at 1.2 million for Obama's name recognition in New Mexico. New Mexico has 2 million people. Obama has around a 75% name recognition among adults nationwide.

Posted by Zippy | October 1, 2007 4:16 PM

This map seems to have an error on it actually...the state of Massachusetts is colored red, but the pull-out "MA" is blue. So which is it?

Posted by DCeiver | October 1, 2007 4:17 PM

dry_fish, some of the reddest of red states in presidential elections have had Democratic governors for years (Wyoming, for instance). You're ill-advised to use that as an indicator. If you're looking for national voting patterns, look at a state's congressional delegation. MA's all blue.

Posted by Lynn | October 1, 2007 4:17 PM

The only conclusion I'd draw is that nominating Giuliani would make for a more interesting race than any of the other schlubs the Rs could nominate.

Posted by Al | October 1, 2007 4:19 PM

Yes, Zippy, more than 600 people know his name (I was being facetious). But do they know anything about him beyond that? Or beyond the fact that's he's African-American and often doesn't wear a tie? And, by the way, where's the 75% figure for national name recognition coming from? I'm not doubting it; I'm just interested.

Posted by ANMIK | October 1, 2007 4:29 PM

These maps and "analyses" are worse than useless and Bowers should quit doing them.

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | October 1, 2007 4:36 PM

Sorry about that. I'm embarrassed to say that I thought you were serious.

84% of Democrats knew enough about Obama to answer a survey question in August

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=28486

I rounded down a bit since presumably fewer Republicans know who he is.

As a bit of trivia from the Gallup site, Obama is the fourth most admired man in the country

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=1678

3% named him as first or second most admired. Clinton is the most admired woman in the country.

Posted by Zippy | October 1, 2007 4:48 PM

Chris Bowers maps are completely unbelievable. Not only would Obama crush Giuliani in Massachusetts, any Democrat will.

Even more unbelievable is that Clinton supposedly defeats Giuliani by 26 electoral votes while Edwards loses to Giuliani by 116! There's no way the election will swing over 140 votes based on the personalities involved. By the end of the primaries most people will have decided either to vote for the Democrat or to vote for the Republican - regardless of who is on either ticket.

Enough with the poll obsession. We've already seen polls that predicted Lieberman as the Democratic nominee in 2004 and Bush Sr. as the landslide victor for 1992. Has anybody gone back and looked at the polls from 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992. Just how bad are these predictions?

Posted by Jinchi | October 1, 2007 5:11 PM

I suppose someone who has more than my year of college-level statistics, coupled with a brush-up course in statistical methods specific to my discipline while in graduate school, could actually come to a more firm conclusion than what follows, but: I still think, even based on those numbers (and thanks for the links, by the way), that few people in New Mexico know anything about Obama other than that he's non-white and good looking.

The same, I suppose, could be said of HRC: they know only that she's Bill's wife, long-suffering as a result of that, and now holds elected office of some kind or another. Oh, and she's white. But my point was and is that Obama has the potential to make big gains as the election approaches. HRC, by contrast, my not.

More than that, though, I think it's just too early to know anything. That's a boring answer, and doesn't do much to illuminate my personal pathology of following polls so closely. But I think it's true. Too much will happen between now and the primaries, not to mention the general election, to use current polling data for anything other than idle speculation.

Again, thanks for running down the numbers.

Posted by ANMIK | October 1, 2007 5:18 PM

I guess I think that Obama is pretty damn famous as it is. I don't mean that his standing in the polls won't change as the campaign goes on, but Giuliani's lead over him in Massachusetts isn't just a matter of name recognition.

If Giuliani can beat a Democrat by 18% in NYC, he can win Massachusetts in a general election. Don't get cocky.

Posted by Zippy | October 1, 2007 5:39 PM

If you want to know the reason why MA elected 4 straight Republican governors, look at the state legislature. Massachusetts really has 3 parties: the Old Democrats (urban, predominantly Catholic, pro-labor, economically liberal, socially moderate to conservative), suburban independents and Republicans. By and large, the legislative leadership is dominated by Old Democrats. Bill Weld positioned himself perfectly to capture suburban independents, who were looking for a counterbalance to the Legislative leadership. In national politics, they're looking for a counterbalance to Southern Republicans. Big difference. Mass. is just the inverse of South Carolina -- internal state politics indicate absolutely nothing about the way the state votes in national elections.

Posted by Jorge | October 1, 2007 5:50 PM

"If Giuliani can beat a Democrat by 18% in NYC, he can win Massachusetts in a general election. Don't get cocky."

Beating Dinkins to be mayor is not the same thing as winning NYC for the presidency. He won't win the city or the state if he's the candidate, especially against Obama or Clinton. New Yorkers hate Giuliani. People in the surrounding blue states know this and know why. He can't win Jersey, Mass, Rhode Island and is questionable in Connecticut and Pennsylvania. I would have thought he would be ok in the MIdwest, but he's ringing hollow there. Maybe the South and the Rocky Mountains will be more receptive.

Posted by Reality Man | October 1, 2007 11:47 PM

Up to now I've had a fairly high opinion of Survey USA, but there are some REALLY weird -- and huge -- irregularities in its recent statewide polls of different 2-way races. See http://www.surveyusa.com/electionpolls.aspx .

Tht being said, a lot of other polls recently have indicated that the geographical pattern in a race involving Giuliani could be peculiar in one way -- he seems to have an island of extra support in the Northeast that no other Republican candidate has had for a very long time, probably because of local media coverage. This won't be enough to give him NY State; but it COULD perhaps give him Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Connecticut -- at the same time that he's not running any stronger than your usual Republican in other places like Ohio, Florida, Missouri and even Virginia.

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | October 2, 2007 1:39 AM

New Yorkers hate Giuliani. He can't win Jersey, Mass, Rhode Island and is questionable in Connecticut and Pennsylvania. I would have thought he would be ok in the MIdwest, but he's ringing hollow there. Maybe the South and the Rocky Mountains will be more receptive.

I think
1) Obama is the best candidate
2) Giuliani probably won't be the nominee
3) It's legitimate to use past voting patterns and other background information to evaluate the reliability of polls.
4) Name recognition matters

Still: don't get cocky. Surveys have Giuliani ahead of at least one of the possible Democratic nominees in all of the states that you mention except Rhode Island. Surveys have Giuliani ahead against all three Democratic nominees in New Jersey. If you want to find out whether northeastern voters hate Giuliani, the best way to do it is ask a few hundred of them.

Posted by Zippy | October 2, 2007 4:29 AM

It's more than a year before the general election vote. These maps and the polls they're based on are meaningless. Most people haven't even really tuned into the primary election yet let alone the general. Show me these maps again next October then I might be interested. In the meantime intuition suggests this election will be a referendum about Iraq and that heavily favors the Democratic party whoever our candidate is.

Posted by Ron | October 2, 2007 10:34 AM

What confuses me are the strange inconsistencies in the northeast. So Against Edwards, Guiliani is supposed to loose CT and MA, but to win NY. Against Obama, on the other hand, he is supposed to loose NY but to win CT and MA. I can't for the life of me imagine why. Even if we asume that the electorate thinks that Edwards is more conservative than Obama, this is a mystery for me.

Posted by Patrick | October 2, 2007 11:56 AM

New York is 15.7% black. CT 9.0; MA 5.3.

http://www.ipoaa.com/us_black_population.htm

The explanation is presumably more subtle than black swing voters, but it wouldn't be surprising if populations with different racial proportions had different racial attitudes.

Posted by Zippy | October 2, 2007 2:58 PM