Matthew Yglesias (March 05, 2008) - General Election Polling (Politics)

Over the past few months, the Intrade probability that Obama or Hillary will win the nomination has moved around a lot, but the probability that the Dems win the presidency has stayed pretty constant at 60-odd percent. This suggests that the two candidates are roughly equally electable.

Posted by David J. Balan | March 5, 2008 5:52 PM

Polling like this is only "worthless" if you expect your polls to be predictive of the final outcome, which is not a reasonable expectation more than a few days before an election. If you instead realize the value in polls is telling you what people are thinking right now, they are fine for that purpose.

Posted by DTM | March 5, 2008 5:54 PM

Just today I was thinking that maybe the Democratic Party will have to settle for a unified Obama/Clinton ticket in the interest of avoiding a bloobath and forestalling a long and expensive primary campaign. But then I came across the enclosed story, and I'm wondering how we could ever live with that bitch on the ticket. The bloggers have caught the Clinton people over-emphasizing Obama's African features in their TV commercials. They have dramatically darkened his skin tone, and broadened his nose. A number of advertising professionals have chimed in and confirmed the point that this was no accident. Check it out.....

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/5/14345/50395/126/469746

Posted by cajun | March 5, 2008 5:57 PM

"For whatever it's worth, I think the considerable evidence (seen in this poll and elsewhere) that a larger number of people are open to voting for Barack Obama than are open to voting for Hillary Clinton..."

The concept of Obama having a lower floor and higher ceiling than Clinton seems correct core wisdom in looking at electability.

"...is a better indicator of electability than is the fact that Clinton is more popular than Obama among Democratic loyalists in several large states, but I don't think either data point is worth very much."

Well, you don't think either data point is correct because you're not seriously looking at those points. At least here, you'll just trying halfheartedly to score a rhetoric point for Obama.

Obama's got questionable traction among downscale whites that will prove a problem in states the Dems need like PA and MI, and states the Dems want like OH.

He's got questionable ability to take a punch, at this point.

He's got better ability to turn out young folks. He's got better ability to pull in upscale independents.

It all makes the electability comparison a genuine jump ball. The data points are all valid, but at the end of the day, all they really tell us is the axiom we started with:

Obama has a lower floor and higher ceiling than Clinton.

Posted by Petey | March 5, 2008 5:58 PM

Holy cow. Twelve points?!? At that point almost anything is in play: adding 14 points to John Kerry's total gives him a fighting chance at pretty much every state in the nation. even if it's half th, an awful lot of states are now in play: NC, GA, etc.

I think this also shows that people who vote in the general don't think these individual attacks in the primary matter that much.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | March 5, 2008 5:58 PM

Scott Rasmussen has proven himself to be a very reliable pollster in most of the primaries, in Senatorial and Gubernatorial races over the last few cycles, and the last presidential election.

His recent polling available as www.rasmussenreports.com shows that while Obama was doing better again McCain than Clinton up until this last week or so, that trend is now reversed.

I generally agree with the conclusion that early polling means little. And I fully expect supporters of each candidate to continue to cherry-pick the polls that best make their argument. But if we are going to have this debate it's worth noting that the conclusion that Obama is more electable than Clinton is definitely not clear-cut.

Posted by Tim K | March 5, 2008 5:59 PM

The poll was of "1,126 randomly selected adults" - not :likely voters", not even "registered voters".

It's worse than "basically worthless"...but I like the result!

Posted by Robert Earle | March 5, 2008 6:02 PM

That six-point lead Hillary's got over McCain? Watch it vanish if she becomes the nominee. Because in that case, independents will desert the Democrats in droves to vote for "maverick" John McCain. Hillary's appeal among the independent voter is ZERO. It doesn't help her either that her campaign has made regular sport of denigrating independents ever since this primary season began. Hillary's the gift to the Republican party that keeps on giving. She even writes their attack ads against Obama for them! Jesus.

Posted by firebrand | March 5, 2008 6:02 PM

Yeah, Rasmussen's been garbage this election cycle.

Posted by Andy | March 5, 2008 6:03 PM

RealClearPolitics has been posting some state-specific general election virtual polls -- on one hand, even more tenuously meaningful than early general election polls. But a few things are consistent:

* McCain looks very storng in Florida. Partly a function of the fact that the Dems didn't campaign there, I know, but also a function of all the old people.... the one demographic that looks good for Bob Dole v. 2.0

* Obama is far stronger than Hillary (and often stronger than McCain) in recent red states like Virginia, Colorado, Iowa, etc. He also holds onto MN, OR, and WI more solidly than Clinton.

* Clinton is a bit stronger than Obama in recent battleground states like Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

I tend to think that Obama's potential route to the nomination, via newer, red-turning-blue states is both more helpful to the Dems as a matter of general party-realignment strategy, AND (given the woeful history of OH & FL) a better tactical election plan. McCain isn't a strong candidate, but if Hillary has to expend all her energy defending blue places in the Northwest and upper Midwest, he could easily keep the Bush map together for one more year.

Posted by Dr. I Don't Know | March 5, 2008 6:04 PM

I think McCain has some serious intra-party work to do. I can only read Huckabee's strong numbers in Texas (38%) and Ohio (31%) as a message from the Republican base that they are not ready to make up, not without some serious candy and flowers.

If the Republican party base and establishment were really ready to rally around the flag the time to do it was last night and the place Texas, sending him limping out of the state with some long weeks to Pennsylvania with 51% is not much of an endorsement.

Quarterly fund raising numbers will be illuminating. If Republicans are going to get serious here they can't be having no pushback against messages that have Hillary saying 'I raised more than a million a day in February with Obama responding 'Well we raised more than $50 million, we are still counting it up'. If the floodgates of cash really open up for McCain in the next few weeks then we will see, otherwise the Republican monied establishment may join up with the Social Cons and the Movement Conservatives and just sit this one out.

As it is we will get seven weeks of more or less uninterrupted Hill and Barack Show. I think both sides are smart enough to keep this from spiraling out of control, it is always darkest before the dawn, er before primary election day.

Posted by Bruce Webb | March 5, 2008 6:05 PM

Actually, doesn't this show that a drawn-out primary that is mostly positive hurts John McCain??

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | March 5, 2008 6:07 PM

Woot!

Let's cherry pick a poll with numbers we really like!

Why supposedly intelligent political analysts decide the cherry pick polls is beyond me. Left-wingers cherry pick this poll. Right-wingers cherry pick the Rasmussen tracking poll showing McCain beating Obama by 5 points. It's all crap for wishful thinkers.

Look at the poll of polls on Real Clear Politics or Pollster.com. Way more realiable. Obama leads by about 4 or 5.

Posted by Al | March 5, 2008 6:10 PM

November 4 is a long way off, but that can't be good news for McCain. This is his big triumphant moment, and he's STILL down 6 or 12 points? It's hard to see how that gap narrows in the next several months.

I think if Obama is the nominee, he makes a full court press for Ohio and Virginia, make sure he takes Iowa, and we can all forget about Florida for once.

Posted by ChuckE | March 5, 2008 6:10 PM

http://208.122.14.138/thefield/?p=843

Some interesting stuff here from Al Giordano at his blog 'The Field.'

Posted by zorro | March 5, 2008 6:10 PM

I'm with DTM - the polls aren't worthless as long as you aren't using them to determine the likely final outcome. Since the average voter isn't paying much attention, I think it's safe to assume these are basically reputation scores only right now.

What this says to me is that McCain's glowing public reputation is more than offset by the toxic reputation of the GOP - largely based on the economy and Iraq.

The Obama/Clinton sniping has little bearing on either the economy or Iraq, so I suspect there really isn't much of a reason to think that their interactions are going to impact electability much.

The only plausible way that McCain gets elected is if the reputation of the GOP in general and GWB in particular makes a monster rebound in the next 8 months.

Needless to say, it's a grim picture.

Posted by BFR | March 5, 2008 6:13 PM

Ultimately none of these polls are very reliable. If anyone thinks Obama would beat John McCain by 12 percentage points in the general election they are dreaming in technicolor.

This is going to be a close election, no matter which nominee is chosen or how he or she is chosen.

It's not going to be a bipartisan love-in, it's going to be a full out brawl.

Is Obama prepared for that?

Posted by Tim K | March 5, 2008 6:18 PM

I know it's hard to resist early polls, but they are meaningless. Even the ones later in the season, after the convention, can be meaningless. Remember Dukasis' 18-point lead after the Democratic convention?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DEFD7113EF935A15754C0A96E948260

Just think of all the times in this campaign that things have changed significantly *in a week.* Look at the InTrade graphs for Obama and Clinton--they're like yo-yos.

Polls are fine snapshots of the present, but have no use predicting the far future.

Posted by Jason | March 5, 2008 6:21 PM

By the way, the whole "lower floor and higher ceiling" notion is sophomoric at best. It may be true that Obama's probability distribution is spread out a bit wider than Clinton's, although that is not as obvious as people might think. But what is not at all obvious is that Obama's probability curve is centered on the same point as Clinton's (indeed, the polling available strongly suggests that Obama would be starting out in at least a somewhat better position than Clinton). So, it could well be the case that he has a higher floor, and MUCH higher ceiling, than Clinton.

Posted by DTM | March 5, 2008 6:22 PM

Ultimately none of these polls are very reliable. If anyone thinks Obama would beat John McCain by 12 percentage points in the general election they are dreaming in technicolor.

I don't think the number is very reliable which is why you'd see them all over the place.

However, I would expect that McCain would be 'winning' a lot more of them if he had a halfway decent chance. The guy's public reputation is pretty solid, all anyone hears about is him being an ex-POW, straight-talking guy who likes to hold Bush accountable - no one remembers the S&L issue for example.

That being said, I just don't think he's going to wear well over time - it's just way too easy to link him to GWB and the last 8 years, endless expensive and pointless wars, etc. It's just that none of his opponents in the GOP primary had any incentive to attack him from those angles.

Posted by BFR | March 5, 2008 6:25 PM

Re: independents will desert the Democrats in droves to vote for "maverick" John McCain.

It is I suppose possible that after the convention McCain will burnish his maverick image by saying that we need universal healthcare or expressing doubts about the bankruptcy act of 2005, or some such. But so far he's toeing the Bush line right down to the millimeter. How much appeal will that have to independents, a group that has turned solidly and quite ferociously against Bush and the GOP as it stands today?

Re: McCain looks very storng in Florida. Partly a function of the fact that the Dems didn't campaign there, I know, but also a function of all the old people.... the one demographic that looks good for Bob Dole v. 2.0

It also helps that Florida now has governor who is one of the very few non-wingnut Republicans outside the northeast, and who even manages to sound decidedly populist while pursuing gouging insurance companies and seeking ways to extend health coverage to the uninsured. Charlie Crist has somewhat immunized the Florida GOP against the disasters of the Bushes, including the other Bush who until recently was Florida's governor and left at just the right moment before all the digestive residue he created hit the fan.

Posted by JonF | March 5, 2008 6:26 PM

I've heard that if they re-voted with time to campaign, Obama would pwn her in Michigan. Has anyone else heard that, or can anybody up there confirm?

Posted by Tony | March 5, 2008 6:27 PM

DTM:

There is reason to suggest that Obama has a higher ceiling than Clinton, but no evidence at all that he has a higher floor. Clinton has more support among voters who have proven more likely to vote: women, particularly white women, and seniors. You cannot get a more reliable base than older white women. Much of Obama's support is from youth, independents, and people who have never voted before. You could not ask for a less reliable pool of voters by any historical standard. African Americans are, of course, very reliably Democratic and have proven they can show up in large numbers. Yet, does anyone seriously believe that after 8 years of Bush African Americans will vote Republican or stay home in large number just to flip Hillary Clinton the bird? I don't think so.

Ultimately, despite the fantasies of some exuberant Barack supporters, this election is going to come down to states like Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Missouri, and New Mexico. These are all states Clinton looks to be very strong in because of the votes of white women, downscale voters, seniors and Latinos. Clinton even has an outside chance of winning Arkansas in the general election, something I don't think Obama will be able to do. The Democrats need to win states they didn't win in 2004 in order to win this election, and so far I see Clinton being the person to do that.

It's about 270, stupid.

Posted by Tim K | March 5, 2008 6:33 PM

Riddle me this:

"Illinois Sen. Barack Obama leads McCain, who captured the delegates needed to claim the Republican nomination Tuesday night, by 12 percentage points among all adults in the poll."

Why do they say "all adults"? Do they poll children as well?

Posted by lampwick | March 5, 2008 6:46 PM

Tim K,

Older white Democratic women adds up to a tiny floor in the general election. Indeed, any coalition limited to largely registered Democrats has a low floor, because there are far too many independents these days.

For example, Clinton could lose close Kerry states like MI, WI, MN, NH, and OR, simply by failing to appeal to independents in sufficient numbers. Clinton supporters tend to overlook this fact when they make their electoral arguments, apparently preferring to simply assume that Clinton will have no problem winning every single Kerry state.

Posted by DTM | March 5, 2008 6:47 PM

Tim K,

There's a flip side to the scenario you describe. At this point there is no mathematical chance that Hillary Clinton can catch Obama in terms of earned delegates. Therefore, she can only take the nomination if the superdelegates give it to her in spite of the leads that Obama has built in the primaries. If that happens, the sense of alienation and outrage among the African-American, youth, and progressive constituencies in the Democratic Party will be so intense that I wonder if the Party could hold itself together, much less defeat the GOP in November. Democratic voter turnout is breaking every record at the moment-- but it will take a huge nosedive if our nominee does not enjoy a sense of legitimacy. It could take decades for the Democratic Party to recover from such a debacle.

Posted by cousin vinnie | March 5, 2008 6:48 PM

"Ultimately, despite the fantasies of some exuberant Barack supporters, this election is going to come down to states like Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Missouri, and New Mexico. These are all states Clinton looks to be very strong in because of the votes of white women, downscale voters, seniors and Latinos."

Yup.

Obama is stronger in the Lutheran Northern Midwest, states like WI, MN, and IA. But Clinton is definitely in a better position in rust belt and border states like OH, PA, and MI. That comparison is already an argument for Clinton even before you add in Latino heavy states like NM and CO.

-----

And, of course, Obama has consistently shown problems in the closing in the final days of elections. Along with his seeming inability to take even a mild punch without losing his balance, it all adds up to what leaves a low floor despite his high ceiling.

I think it was Charlie Cook who said that only Obama could get 45% or 55% in the general election. No matter how the race played out, Clinton would end up far closer to 50%.

Posted by Petey | March 5, 2008 7:03 PM

DTM:

I don't totally discount your argument about independent voters. I admit I think that is a real concern for Senator Clinton. Her weakness is that inspires a lot of animus among many Republicans and conservatives, and she is seen with great suspicion by many independents. I've never denied that this is the case, or that she doesn't have weaknesses. The difference is those weaknesses are there for everyone to see and they have largely been factored into the polling. So when I see a poll that shows Clinton ahead by 5 points, or dead-even, or behind 5 points relative to John McCain, I have a pretty high degree of confidence that that's a fair reflection where the race stands. Obviously she has work to do but she's also quite competitive. When it comes to Obama I have a very low degree of confidence that his numbers are solid and can be counted on either way. He's not well enough defined for those numbers to be believed with confidence.

cousin vinnie:

I think that's a great exaggeration. The most divisive Democratic nominating convention in recent memory is 1968. In that year that Democratic party nominated a man - Vice-President Hubert Humphrey - who didn't even run in the primaries at all! After that convention there was literally blood on the streets. What happened in November? In the midst of race riots and an unpopular war, and two-terms in office, the Democrats lost by 1%. So I'm not overly worried.

Posted by Tim K | March 5, 2008 7:04 PM

Clinton has proven stronger against Obama among certain core Democratic constituencies.

Obama has proven stronger against Clinton among certain independent and Republican constituencies.

I'd wager the latter is more probative of strength against McCain in the general election than the former, but either way you have to make an argument.

Posted by phil | March 5, 2008 7:07 PM

Petey

And, of course, Obama has consistently shown problems in the closing in the final days of elections. Along with his seeming inability to take even a mild punch without losing his balance, it all adds up to what leaves a low floor despite his high ceiling.

Yeah Obama totally failed at closing in Maine, Wisconsin, Virginia, Washington, Iowa, South Carolina, and so on.

Is is the "everything more than 48 hours ago doesn't count" strategy?

To a majority of the country, Obama is unknown. To a majority of the country, Hillary is already hated.

Pitching out "Democrats" as her rock solid constituency is stupid, because "Democrats" are going to go for Obama as well. Don't even suggest otherwise.

Posted by cd6 | March 5, 2008 7:24 PM

If Barack Obama is the nominee every one of us is going to be up late on election night this November. It will be 12:30 and we'll be waiting nervously for the last precincts to report in places like Cleveland, Cincinnati in Ohio, St. Louis in Missouri, and Philadelphia in Pennsylvania. We'll be waiting because, just like in these primaries, Obama will be relying on unprecedented African-American turnout to pull out narrow victories in these places. John McCain will defeat him in the suburbs and Obama will be absolutely killed in the exurbs and rural counties in states like Ohio, Missouri and Pennsylvania.

Posted by Tim K | March 5, 2008 7:27 PM

And, of course, Obama has consistently shown problems in the closing in the final days of elections.

Willickers! That's one way to look at it.

You might also play up Hillary's talent for occasionally neglecting to completely squander a 20-30 point lead.

On the other hand, you might say that Obama--despite not sweeping--has done tremendously well working from a deep disadvantage. And that with his superior organizing, speaking, and fundraising skills, we can expect him to substantially outperform in a race with McCain that he already leads by 12 points (if you believe the WaPo).

[/Obama bias]

Posted by southpaw | March 5, 2008 7:28 PM

southpaw:

Yeah outspending your opponent 4-1 sure is a deep disadvantage.

Posted by Tim K | March 5, 2008 7:30 PM

"Yet, does anyone seriously believe that after 8 years of Bush African Americans will vote Republican or stay home in large number just to flip Hillary Clinton the bird? I don't think so."

agreed, I also think in the above sentence you could replace "African American" with any component of the dem base, and "Hillary Clinton" with "Barack Obama." I'd be surprised if the base didn't turn out in large numbers irrespective of the nominee.

I don't buy the argument that b/c clinton polled better than obama in a primary in one demographic, clinton's better positioned to take that group in the general.

in fact, the primary results/general election comparison is nonsensical. what the primaries express is a preference among dem voters for clinton v. obama. that's not the same choice as offering all voters in the general a choice b/t obama and mccain or mccain and clinton.

obama's netted significantly more independent and moderate votes in the primaries than clinton. that to me is a better indicator of electability.

Posted by mencken | March 5, 2008 7:33 PM

mencken:

I love how you make one reasonable argument and then totally contradict it in your last sentence.

Independents and moderates won't be choosing between Obama and Clinton in November, they'll be choosing between Obama and McCain. Or, they'll be choosing between Clinton and McCain.

Your argument makes no sense.

Posted by Tim K | March 5, 2008 7:38 PM

"Willickers! That's one way to look at it."

Check out the exit polls in competitive primaries so far. Clinton almost always wins the folks who decide in the last 3 days, sometimes pretty decisively, as happened last night.

I'm not talking about Obama's overall electoral strength. He's indeed been able to make contests competitive even when he starts far behind. I'm just talking about his ability to close the final days of elections, which is one facet of electability analysis.

So far, he hasn't shown very good aptitude at closing. That could change, but if you're looking to make an honest analysis of electability, it's something you have to factor in.

(For example, in the '04 general election, I thought Kerry was the likely victor even when he was down big in September. But the one doubt I could never shake was that I didn't feel confident that Kerry could close against Bush, and as it turned out, Kerry indeed lost the election in the final weekend.)

Posted by Petey | March 5, 2008 7:42 PM

Your a candidate for president. You get to pick which scenario you want: (a) be 20-30 points ahead in the pools 3-4 weeks out from the election; or (b) be able to outspend your opponent 4-1.

I think (a) is the natural pick, because assuming you having sufficient funds to mobilize your own supporters (which Hillary had) you ought to be able to hold onto a substantial lead.

Hillary has not been able to do that. If she had, this race would have been over on Feb. 5th, when she lost a bunch of states where she previously had substantial leads.

Posted by Greg Abbott | March 5, 2008 7:45 PM

Greg:

For one thing, Clinton was never 30 points ahead of Barack Obama in Ohio or Texas. A month before she was about 12-15 points ahead depending on the survey. Yet, despite Obama string of 11 straight victories during that period and his ability to outspend her 4-1 in paid advertising ... Clinton was still 10 points ahead of Obama after that Month in Ohio, and 3 points ahead in Texas.

Posted by Tim K | March 5, 2008 7:49 PM

Check out the exit polls in competitive primaries so far. Clinton almost always wins the folks who decide in the last 3 days, sometimes pretty decisively, as happened last night.

Could you please name 3 states where Clinton decisively defeated Obama amongst folks who decided in the 3 days prior to the election? I'll even spot you Texas and Ohio.

Posted by cd6 | March 5, 2008 8:02 PM

We have to suppose that if Hillary somehow pulls it out, Obama will step up to the plate and endorse her, and work for her to win.

That would assuage some of the pain in black America.

If he pouted, that would hurt his future chances, and might even gain Hillary some sympathy.

Posted by Anderson | March 5, 2008 8:06 PM

Check out the exit polls in competitive primaries so far. Clinton almost always wins the folks who decide in the last 3 days, sometimes pretty decisively, as happened last night.

Right. I tend to think this says more about Clinton's peculiarities than it does about Obama's.

But fair enough, your mileage may vary.

Posted by southpaw | March 5, 2008 8:09 PM

Re: Petey & Tim K: it is about 270. But Obama can get 270 WITHOUT Ohio or Florida. IA, CO, VA will beat McCain just as decisively -- more so if he can nip off NM, NV, or MO. Hillary will NEED to win Ohio. Gore couldn't do it. Kerry couldn't do it. I don't want to count on hilary doing it.

In sum, everybody agrees Obama has a higher ceiling and a better shot at a 55-pt win and larger realignment. I also like his chances better in a 50-50 game -- sick of losing bets in Florida and Ohio. And I don't think the "floor" argument matters much because he's proven he's a minimally competent candidate, he's flush with cash, and it's a Democratic year. There's just no way he (or she) drops to 45% or loses multiple Dem strongholds.

Posted by Dr. I Don't Know | March 5, 2008 8:31 PM

I think this also shows that people who vote in the general don't think these individual attacks in the primary matter that much.

That's a good point and something of a relief. Really the biggest 'problem' from these attacks are the video clips the GOP is saving to use in the general.

Posted by Persia | March 5, 2008 8:48 PM

For one thing, Clinton was never 30 points ahead of Barack Obama in Ohio or Texas.

I'm afraid that's not true. These polls put her up by 34% in November and December 2007. He closed 31 points in three months.

Clinton had a 21-point lead in Ohio with only one month to go in this Quinnipiac poll. Obama closed half of it in four months.

Posted by Marc | March 5, 2008 8:49 PM

Obama closed half of it in four months.

...er, weeks, obviously.

Man, what he could do with four months. Look out, Puerto Rico!

Posted by Marc | March 5, 2008 8:54 PM

Again, the problem with Clinton trying the Kerry + 1 strategy is that Clinton may well get Kerry + 1 - 2 (or -4, or -6). So we might well go to bed earlier on election night if Clinton is the nominee, say when the networks call NH, WI, and MN for McCain.

By the way, Michigan is very different from PA (and only parts of Ohio are similar to either). In fact, I seriously doubt Michigan would end up much different than Wisconsin or Minnesota in an actual contest between Obama and Clinton. Also, I am pretty confident that while Clinton might beat Obama in the PA primary, he would be just as competitive in the PA general. That is because as much as Democrats in PA may like the Clintons, independents and Republicans are a different matter entirely.

Posted by DTM | March 5, 2008 9:08 PM

"But Obama can get 270 WITHOUT Ohio or Florida."

Not if he loses PA or MI.

That's also part of the high ceiling / low floor aspect of an Obama candidacy. He's consistently shown weakness among demographics he'd need to win not just OH, but also PA and MI, states that are just barely Democratic even when the Democratic coalition is held together.

Posted by Petey | March 5, 2008 9:13 PM

Clinton voters are the ones who are the entrenched Democratic establishment voters; they will go for Obama or any Democratic candidate in a general election, esp. one this year when there is so much anger at the GOP.

However, many of Obama's voters do not flow to Clinton in a general. The first time voters, the young people...they will not turn out for Hillary the way they do for Obama. Independents that will go to Obama in a general will go to McCain if he were up against Hillary.

Let's also not forget that Hillary's scorched earth policy is alienating many of Obama's voters. This is especially true with regards to her race baiting and how it is totally alienating the African American community. Many many African Americans will never vote for Hillary under any circumstances.

Hillary also would start the general election with half the country already hating her, and now about half the Democratic party hating her.

Let's also remember that in most political races, it comes down to simply who is perceived as the most likable and trustworthy. Obama wins that against McCain, Hillary does not.

The bottom line is the one we've all known from the very beginning: Obama will beat McCain whereas Hillary would not.

Posted by cm | March 5, 2008 9:16 PM

Tim K.
It's not going to be a bipartisan love-in, it's going to be a full out brawl.

Ohhhh scarrry! Republicans are scary! Just like the world is a scary place and we need Hillary to protect us!

Fact is a Hillary candidacy would galvanize and fire-up the right-wing. They would be more energized, more motivated and McCain's fundraising would go up. Remember how Republicans have been "rough" on her? They don't like her very much.

I think my new favorite is Hillary fans' complaint that the Obama campaign is outspending - i.e. outfundraising - Hillary in various states. That should play well with superdelegates, many of whom are politicians.

Posted by Peter K. | March 5, 2008 9:20 PM

"everybody agrees Obama has a higher ceiling and a better shot at a 55-pt win and larger realignment"

I don't agree with that. I don't think a realignment is even possible with Obama. You have to run on ideology to effect a realignment. You can't do it on personality.

If you run an ideology-free, personality-based candidacy like Obama or Eisenhower, you don't realign no matter how big you win.

Posted by Petey | March 5, 2008 9:21 PM

"If you run an ideology-free, personality-based candidacy like Obama or Eisenhower, you don't realign no matter how big you win."

Conversely, Reagan managed a realignment in 1980 despite only getting 50% of the vote.

Posted by Petey | March 5, 2008 9:25 PM

Poor Petey has been reduced to citing Michigan--never a good sign for a Clinton supporter.

By the way, although I think Obama is much better positioned to win Michigan than Clinton, it actually isn't true he needs to win Michigan. He could, for example, make up for losing Michigan by winning Virginia. Again, though, I think he is well-positioned to win Michigan.

Posted by DTM | March 5, 2008 9:27 PM

"Clinton voters are the ones who are the entrenched Democratic establishment voters; they will go for Obama or any Democratic candidate in a general election, esp. one this year when there is so much anger at the GOP. However, many of Obama's voters do not flow to Clinton in a general."

Of course, all of the recent polling shows the exact opposite.

More Obama voters would stick with Clinton in the general election than Clinton voters would stick with Obama.

But let the facts bother you. If you did, you might have to change your candidate.

Posted by Petey | March 5, 2008 9:28 PM

In sum, everybody agrees Obama has a higher ceiling and a better shot at a 55-pt win and larger realignment. I also like his chances better in a 50-50 game -- sick of losing bets in Florida and Ohio. And I don't think the "floor" argument matters much because he's proven he's a minimally competent candidate, he's flush with cash, and it's a Democratic year. There's just no way he (or she) drops to 45% or loses multiple Dem strongholds.

This is the crucial point. If the Democrats can't win a realigning victory this year, they never will. It is hard to imagine a more favorable situation for them than this. Even if you perceive Barack as a higher risk play, and I don't (what part of 50% disapproval ratings is low risk?), this is a strikingly good year to play that hand. To go for a 50%+1 win this time around smacks of cowardice and a willingness to concede that we will forever be locked into a post-Reagan political alignment that leaves Democrats in a permanent defensive crouch.

Posted by J.B. | March 5, 2008 9:31 PM

Of course, all of the recent polling shows the exact opposite.

More Obama voters would stick with Clinton in the general election than Clinton voters would stick with Obama.

That's simply not a question about which polling is going to be a reliable indicator. Too many variables . . . Who else is on the ticket? In what manner was the victory won?

Also, cite your sources.

Posted by southpaw | March 5, 2008 9:50 PM

@Tim K: "Yeah outspending your opponent 4-1 sure is a deep disadvantage."

I guess I think the point is that Obama was at a relatively deep disadvantage, given that he didn't appear on the national scene until about four years ago, and not substantially until this primary season -- at least not compared with how long Clinton's name has been out there and how long she's been prepping for this run.

It's a bit silly to suggest that his ability to outspend her four to one and not come close to breaking the bank is a quote-unquote advantage, rather than a pretty impressive accomplishment. It's kind of like saying, "Gosh, his ability to connect with people and raise money gives him such an edge."

Posted by moff | March 5, 2008 9:51 PM

Polls have been wrong a lot this campaign.

But let the facts bother you. If you did, you might have to change your candidate.

Polls aren't facts, they're manipulations. Fact is Obama is ahead after a large number of contests. Yes the superdelegates will decide, but they won't go with Hillary unless the Obama campaign has some sort of massive screwup.

And that is unlikely because the Obama campaign has been very effective and has learned, adapted and gotten better as the race has progressed.

The Clinton campaign are making all sorts of obtuse, counterfactual arguments about why superdelegates should choose Hillary, but they're not going to work.

In fact right now some Hillary superdelegates are being pressured by the citizenry in their districts to switch to Obama since their districts voted overwhelmingly for Obama.

Posted by Peter K. | March 5, 2008 10:00 PM

To go for a 50%+1 win this time around smacks of cowardice and a willingness to concede that we will forever be locked into a post-Reagan political alignment that leaves Democrats in a permanent defensive crouch.

JB: And you think that's unlikely from the party that brought you the "FISA Fold"?

Posted by Dave Pooser | March 5, 2008 10:19 PM

Petey, if ideology alone brings realignment, then it doesn't really matter who the Democratic candidate is because their policy platforms are so similar (yes, Hillary has a better health care plan; yes, Obama has a less imperial FP stance, but those are just tips of the iceberg). If you're right, we'll just have to hope their post-Clinton soft techno-populism is enough to push things sufficiently to the left.

Fortunately, you're not right. The most important factors shaping a potential realignment are, in rough order, (1) circumstance and context; and (2) charismatic leadership; with pre-presidential ideology running a distant third. After Bush, with the economy tanking and Iraq burning, I do think we're closer to a leftish (1) than we've been in a long, long time. And it's obvious to me that Obama provides (2) far more abundantly than Clinton. Think about it: did the Reagan Revolution happen because Reagan was the first guy to fall in love with tax cuts? Or was it because the New Deal coalition was falling apart, the country was ready for a new direction, and Ronald Reagan was fucking charming? Could John Connally have led a Revolution? Could Robert Wagner have birthed the New Deal? I doubt it.

Posted by Dr. I Don't Know | March 5, 2008 10:34 PM

a larger number of people are open to voting for Barack Obama

Subject to knowing more about him. And that probably includes a substantial number of those who have already voted for him in a primary, thinking "change" and "hope" and reaching across the aisle, breaking down red v. blue, that sounds good, let's give him a chance.

He has to define himself now for those who expected to see more than the RFK/MLK-influenced speeches, which they liked but which they understood to be an advertisement. Now they want to see what the product that they test-bought is like. He has to define himself in more detail now or opponents, the media, or worse, comedians, will do it for him.

If he gets the nomination, it does not stop, since turnout is part of that equation.

Is Yglesias even sure he will be as excited about him in 6 months time? If he is the nominee and says/does things you don't like, will you be able to muzzle your usual self for the good of keeping McCain out? :-)

Posted by artappraiser | March 5, 2008 10:38 PM

I would put a very large sum of money on Obama in Michigan in the general.

Posted by ZednCu | March 5, 2008 10:48 PM

Petey:

Think Edwards has all along been waiting to see if his 26 delegates will end up being needed for the last round? Do you think he foresaw that Obama would not continue with a bulldozer trajectory?

Was interesting, I can't find any print versionof it, but late last night around the time of the call for Hillary for Texas, Teh Russert on MSNBC was waving around a memo he said was from Obama central from quite some time ago that was their internal polling predictions and it was quite accurate to date (including Hillary's win of TX down to percentages) plus predicted some losses in the future...the whole desk on the show started making jokes about it, as in "Tim, you're not supposed to tell the end of the story ahead of time, put us all out of business..." Anyhew, was thinking Edwards might have similar realistic info. too? The kind of info. you are in denial about while you are in the race, always trying to be optimistic, but look at more realistically once you are out?

Posted by artappraiser | March 5, 2008 10:56 PM

A huge Clinton problem in Florida will be Bill. He did well in Florida in 1996, in part due to getting 70% of the Cuban vote. After Elian Gonzales, he has become one of the most hated figures by the Cuban diaspora. Gore couldn't pick up these voters, which combined with the ballots and the high rate of disenfranchisement of African-American voters over falsely being labeled felons right before the election, cost him the election. Either Clinton or Obama would have trouble in Florida.

Also, the idea that if the superdelegates hand Clinton the nomination even if Obama is leading in pledged delegates won't matter to African-Americans and instead they will be good little Democrats and do as they are told by white people is stupid. A lot of black people I know who used to highly respect the Clintons are absolutely furious with them. They expect this from the Republicans, but to have the Clintons act like this is a real betrayal. There is already some debate in the African-American blogosphere about a protest McCain vote in case Clinton is the nominee. Without the African-American vote, we only win in Vermont. Not only that, but Democrats also rely on a high turnout of the African-American vote. Clinton could get 50% of registered black voters in November, but if, say, 25% are mad enough to just stay home, then she loses. If she has to do that in Maryland, etc., then that is time she won't be focusing on cutting into McCain in purple and blueish red states (Virginia, etc.).

Posted by Reality Man | March 5, 2008 11:15 PM

Tuesday was disappointing. I was ready to close ranks behind Obama. He had everything going his way and was still unable to close out the race with a victory. He couldn't withstand some very minor attacks.

I don't want a candidate backing into the nomination off a loss in Pennsylvania. I think that would foreshadow a loss in November. Whoever wins Pennsylvania should be the nominee.

Posted by Undecided | March 5, 2008 11:24 PM

FLORIDA poll last week, each Dem v. McCain (still had it saved on the hard drive.)

Note the number of Dems that say they will vote for McCain over Obama or McCain over Clinton, they are statistically the same. Both have some negatives problems there, statistically equal, though possibly/probably not the same people with the same reasons.

Poll: McCain looking good in FL Thursday, February 28, 2008 12:57 PM by Domenico Montanaro
McCain leads both Obama and Clinton in potential general-election match ups with either candidate in the all-important swing state of Florida, according to a Mason-Dixon poll out today.

McCain leads Obama 47%-37% and Clinton 49%-40%. The Arizona senator leads the Democrats across the board. About 80% of Republicans are behind McCain. Only 66% of Democrats are behind Obama and 72% are backing Clinton in one-one-one match-ups with McCain. Currently, 17% of Democrats indicate that in a match up with Obama, they'd support McCain; 16% say so in a match up with Clinton. Seventeen percent of Dems also say they are undecided in a match up with Obama; 13% say so with regard to McCain-Clinton. Those numbers though could be a reflection of McCain being the presumptive nominee and Obama and Clinton still engaged in a fight for the nomination....

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/28/713124.aspx

Posted by artappraiser | March 5, 2008 11:41 PM

Tim K, that would be true, except performance in the primary doesn't necessarily predict performance in the general. If you look at the cross-tabs available on the ABC News site, Clinton doesn't perform better than Obama among white women. She beats McCain by 3 points among white women.

But, Obama beats McCain by eight points among white women. There's a huge difference between white women who lean Democratic and the general election. White women broadly are more likely to strongly emphasize values. In the '94 exit poll, white women who voted Democratic were disproportionately concerned about health care. White women who voted Republican stood out from other voters in their concern about VALUES. This is borne out in the cross-tabs. Obama beats McCain by 5 among married women. McCain beats Clinton by 10 points among married women.

That's a HUGE deal. Married women split even in 2000, but went +11 in 2004.

Posted by Dark Heart | March 5, 2008 11:42 PM

*+11 GOP

Undecided: It's hugely important to win PA in the general, but does losing a primary necessarily indicate weakness in the general?

George W. Bush lost New Hampshire and Al Gore won it in the party primaries. Come November, had Gore won New Hampshire, he would have won the White House. Iowa propelled John Kerry to the nomination, but in the general election, it was one of two states to switch to Bush.

Also, as far as Michigan goes, Ann Selzer found last year that Michigan independents were somewhat mistrustful of Hillary Clinton. Those independents were a big part of Kerry's win in 2004.

Posted by Dark Heart | March 5, 2008 11:52 PM

Hillary knows there is no way she can overcome Obama's pledged delegate lead.

Why she is so adamant to continue the campaign and throw mud at Obama, really mystifies me. The cynic in me thinks she wants to damage Obama even if she cannot get the nomination, so she can run again in 2012. To hope that the superdelegates will ignore the pledged delegate numbers and award her the nomination is even worse.

Hillary's desperation is damaging the Democratic party and the party could lose minority and independent voters for years.

Posted by KR | March 6, 2008 12:40 AM

I don't want to see Obama back into the nomination. His continued weakness among some core Democratic constituencies concerns me. I don't trust the indies and definitely don't trust the cross-over Republicans to deliver. They are flirting with him but will likely go home to McCain.

Seven weeks is plenty of time for Obama to make his case and sell himself. He really needs to win Pennsylvania. Backing in to the nomination isn't good enough.

I can't see Hillary being weaker than ultra-liberal John Kerry with independents. Let Pennsylvania decide it.

Posted by Undecided | March 6, 2008 12:47 AM

I'm encouraged that Obama was only down 6 in the latest Penn polls(amazing, isn't it?).

That probably goes down after losing Texas and Ohio, but I think Obama could bring that number back up. My hope: Hillary resigns herself to losing and lets Rendell throw it to Obama.

Posted by Abe | March 6, 2008 12:57 AM

Ugh, the narrative has already started. I just heard some idiot say, "Clinton has all the momentum, she's going to get all the superdelegates. When the going gets tough, Obama can't handle it." Both of which are easily disproven of course.

However, this kid also thought Liebermann would be a fine Vice President, so hopefully everyone knows he's an idiot.

Posted by ZednCu | March 6, 2008 1:10 AM

Ladies and gentlemen, we have reached a new level of stupidity from the Clinton camp: “Let me state it categorically: This party is not going to nominate somebody who hasn’t passed the commander-in-chief test,” said Howard Wolfson, Mrs. Clinton’s communications director. “If he can’t convince Democrats in Ohio and Texas that he can be commander in chief, he is not going to be nominee of our party.”

Yes, because only Ohio and Texas vote in November. Apparently the fact that the overwhelming majority of states so far have voted for Obama doesn't matter.

Posted by ZednCu | March 6, 2008 1:16 AM

Clinton had a 21-point lead in Ohio with only one month to go in this Quinnipiac poll. Obama closed half of it in four months.

First, there were several other candidates in the race back then.

Second, that poll only included "people with a history of voting in Democratic primaries", which would be Democrats only. Clinton won those by 53%, which is about where she was 4 months ago.

As I've said before, Obama made up the slack not with Dem voters, but with independents and Republicans.

Posted by Cal | March 6, 2008 1:38 AM

I think talk of a re-aligning election is overly optimistic. I don't think there is any real evidence that John McCain will be beaten by either Democrat in a landslide.

The prudent question to ask is exactly which states not won in 2000 or 2004 are going to be carried by the nominee this time around.

I don't think the South (with the exception of Florida) is going to be the place to look for the winning margin. The only southern states I see Obama putting into play are Virginia and Louisiana, especially the former. I don't think he'll be able to win Virginia as I think it will break towards the GOP in the end. Clinton should be less competitive in Virginia, but she will make up for that by putting Arkansas into play, and being more competitive in Tennessee.

Florida and Ohio will be must-win for either Clinton or Obama. The other most likely states to bring over into the win column are New Mexico and Nevada.

The reason I say Clinton is the best candidate to bring these four states over is because of her relative appeal to key demographics. I think she will appeal more strongly to Latinos (NM, NV, & FL), Seniors (FL), and downscale voters (OH). I also expect Clinton to appeal to white, suburban women (the famous "soccer moms" on 1996) more strongly than Obama.

While I think an Obama candidacy would inspire more African Americans and young voters to turn out, I think Hillary Clinton will have a similar effect on older women, latinos, and lower income whites. I expect each of these groups to vote Democratic whoever is the nominee, but I think turnout and enthusiasm will be the key factor in either case.

In the quest to win over the key states I believe will be required to win in November, I think Hillary Clinton's voting coalition would be a surer bet.

Posted by Tim K | March 6, 2008 1:38 AM

I'm not sure seniors are a sure bet for Clinton, especially running against someone as old as dirt. Seniors, after all, tend to be culturally like McCain. He's also in a decent place to pick up Latinos and turn the tide of recent Latino converts to the Republicans leaving the GOP since 2006. Clinton has a huge weakness in Florida with Cubans because of Bill. Add in the fact that older voters could easily see more of themselves in McCain and that she could easily lose African-American voters (who, if so many hadn't unjustly been robbed of the right to vote, would likely have handed Gore Florida with at least a 15,000 vote margin). She's weaker about her constituency breaking for McCain than Obama's young voters, upscale voters and African-American voters.

Posted by Reality Man | March 6, 2008 2:53 AM

Hillary supporters are almost 100-percent partisan Democrats, and they do not seem to comprehend that a huge percentage of Obama's following is not. The scenario in which many of the independents, younger voters and blacks who support Obama would stay home in an election pitting two old, white partisans who voted for the Iraq War against one another is not just believable, it is probable and consistent with history.

The notion the Clinton campaign has been selling in recent days in response to this concern - that an equally large number of over-60 and female Democratic partisans would sit out the November election if Obama is the nominee - is frankly preposterous.

Many independents who support Obama, including me, are totally unconvinced that Clinton would be much different than McCain, and that either of them would create a political environment that is any better than what we have under Bush. I can predict with confidence that both McCain and Clinton would make decisions just as disasterous as those made by Bush, especially on foreign policy. Both McCain and Clinton strike me as incredibly naive about people and too easily swayed by the latest opinion polls.

Posted by T.K. | March 6, 2008 4:09 AM

Obama is leading this contest because of his overwhelming support among independents and Republicans. Hillary's people will vote for her in November. Will Obama's when the other choice is a Republican?

Republicans have won those making over 50K in every election since 1980. Are you sure those upscale voters will stick with Obama once McCain starts screaming about taxes? Obama is winning them now by running to the right of Clinton on economic policy and healthcare. How is he going to outflank McCain?

Posted by spin is fun | March 6, 2008 4:34 AM

Remember Micahel Dukakis? Well in 1988 in primaries he defeated Al Gore, JJ. He won all the 'big' state. Yet he was defeated in a blowback in the GE. Let's not kid ourselves. 50+1 by the Clinton is not enough to defeat McCain in the general.
Obama can defeat McCain.

Posted by Kathy Millet | March 6, 2008 6:20 AM

Obama is winning them now by running to the right of Clinton on economic policy and healthcare. How is he going to outflank McCain?

Clinton is running to the right of Obama on foreign policy, how is she going to outflank McCain ??

In fact with the comment about her and McCain having more experience (i.e. both are safer bets in the white house ) and the use of the "3am" ad ( in the general election McCain can easily replace her answering the phone with himself since he has way more experience).

Another thing is that I don't think she has much in the way of coattails for dems.

Posted by blank_stare | March 6, 2008 6:56 AM

Why did Obama win South Carolina, Louisiana, Alabama and Georgia? Black people. Nebraska, Kansas, North Dakota, Colorado, Maine, Alaska and Washington State? Caucuses. Illinois and Hawaii? Obama’s home states. Washington D.C., Virginia and Maryland? Damn, more black people! Delaware, Vermont and Connecticut? Affluent liberals. Iowa? Corn-loving hippies. Utah? Ah shucks, I don’t have a reason for that. Let’s just blame it on the Mormons. The fact, which they do not want to realize, is that Obama is the more appealing candidate to the majority of voters.

Compare that to Hillary, who is only appealing to traditionally liberal big state voters. Case in point: California, New York, Massachusetts and New Jersey. These are states that Obama or Clinton would win quite easily in a general election. The irony there? I just named nearly a third of the states Hillary has won. The states that Obama has won (namely Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Colorado, Missouri, Virginia and Georgia) Hillary does not have as good of a chance, according to all the polling done to date. In fact, while John McCain will put Minnesota, Wisconsin and even Michigan in play this fall against Hillary, Obama would put Colorado, Virginia, Missouri and Georgia in play. Hillary could not do that.

Posted by Sonny L. | March 6, 2008 7:08 AM

The point the Clinton supporters seem to consistently ignore is that Clinton cannot win the general election without significant support among independents.

Independents aren't just one more demographic that can be balanced out with some other Democratic demographic in the general election: they now comprise roughly 1/3 of the general electorate. So if the Democratic nominee does not at least keep it close among independents against McCain, that nominee will lose. That isn't spin, that isn't a close call, there isn't some alternative way to win: it is a completely obvious and unavoidable fact.

Which is why the way in which many Clinton supporters approach these conversations is frankly ridiculous. Consider arguments of the kind that Obama is winning his primary contest against Clinton on the strength of independents, and maybe some of them will vote for McCain in the general even though they preferred Obama over Clinton.

Let's think about that, shall we? Again, Clinton would need independents just as much as Obama to win the general election, and she would also be competing for independents with McCain. The premise of this argument is that some independents who prefer Obama to Clinton might prefer McCain to Obama. But that strongly implies those independents are even more likely to prefer McCain to Clinton. So this argument actually implies that while Obama MIGHT lose the general election if too many independents defect to McCain, Clinton almost certainly WILL lose the general election as independents defect to McCain. And so even if the premise of this argument is true, it is actually an argument for nominating Obama, since he at least has a chance to beat McCain whereas Clinton does not.

Now, of course I sympathize with these Clinton supporters: math and reality are conspiring against their candidate, so they have no choice but to ignore both math and reality to make their arguments. But sympathetic as I may be, I sincerely hope everyone recognizes the ridiculous nature of their argument.

Posted by DTM | March 6, 2008 8:32 AM

CW says that this protracted nomination fight is going to hurt the party and whoever comes out on top but I think it could be just the opposite. As long as this thing goes on, the media will be focusing all their attention on it. John McCain will be off on the sidelines begging to be noticed and taken seriously. It could dwarf him and make him look unimportant.

Just food for thought.

Posted by jj | March 6, 2008 8:43 AM

I love them black women. You know what they say, "The darker the berry, the sweeter the juice".

Posted by Tim K | March 6, 2008 8:45 AM

But Undecided, Jimmy Carter won 77% of registered Democrats and captured the presidency, whereas John Kerry won 89% of registered Democrats and still lost. Core democrats aren't as important as swing voters.

Also, Tim K, you talked about soccer moms. Interesting, they're a myth. Gary Langer wrote:
But we've seen it before: Take soccer moms, the
group du jour in 1996. We found, when we analyzed the exit poll, that they made up a
fragment of voters - six percent - and voted like all other moms - essentially like all other
women.

In contrast, Bill Galston and Elaine Kamarck did a multivariate analysis of the past 4 presidential elections. They found the shift of married women towards the Republican party is one of the most important political stories of our time. Galston and Kamarck are Clinton supporters by the way.

They go on to write that for married women, "Moral concerns clearly trump security concerns."

Republicans won married women by 2 points in the 96 Congressional elections, but 8 in the '98 congressional elections. Clearly, Monica was a factor for them. They're unlikely to vote for "two for the price of one."

Posted by Dark Heart | March 6, 2008 9:08 AM

DTM:

In your two-dimensional view of electoral politics you would be right that Obama's apparent appeal to independents make him a more attractive general election candidate.

First of all, independents are the group most likely to partially sour on Obama the more they get to know him, particularly realize that he is very liberal and not the post-partisan hope he makes himself out to be. Both Clinton and McCain have more of a record of bipartisanship than he. He has a distance to fall with them, and I expect that to happen. On the other hand, independents are increasingly in sync with both Democrats more than McCain on issues like ending the war, health care and the economy. That's why I think either Democrat - who both offer a stark contrast to McCain on these issues - will ultimately win over independents, or at least evenly split them. While Obama may do better among independents than Clinton, that different will likely be marginal. Incidentally, John Kerry narrowly won independents over Bush in 2004 and that did not guarantee victory.

Secondly, despite what Reality Man has said it is not preposterous that certain groups would not turn out as strongly for Obama has for Clinton. It's further evidence of the myopia of some Obama supporters that they simply cannot imagine how some voters would prefer somebody else over their candidate. I fully expect Barack Obama to win marginally more African American and young votes than Clinton, and to inspire slightly more turnout among them as well. Having said that, John Kerry inspired a lot of African Americans and young people to turn out, and I have no reason to expect Clinton to do any worse. Clinton too has groups that would identify more with her than with Obama. Older women, and white women in general, would be making history by voting for Clinton just as African Americans would be by voting for Obama. And among older voters in general, who value experience and issues moreso than youth do, Clinton is likely to hold up better compared to McCain than Obama. And finally, Latinos have shown an affinity for both Clintons based on years of a special relationship that has held up solidly in this contest so far; Unlike African Americans, they have no reason to abandon the Clintons for reasons of ethnic or cultural pride. Obama will probably carry Latinos anyway in November, but perhaps by no greater a margin than Bush did over carry, especially considering McCain's moderate stance on immigration. The Clinton name, however, it bound to carry greater weight in that community. I expect Clinton to carry Latinos 2-1.

Finally, I have greater confidence in Clinton's ability to appeal to white, blue-collar Democrats in places like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan. I also have greater confidence in Clinton's ability to follow her husband's lead in appealing to white, suburban women not just because of her gender, but because of her focus on issues and capacity to triangulate.

Face it, there are plenty of reasons to believe Hillary Clinton will be just as strong this November, if not stronger, than Barack Obama.

Posted by Tim K | March 6, 2008 9:09 AM

Obama will barely turn out more black people than John Kerry did. Right.

Posted by ZednCu | March 6, 2008 9:25 AM

Me: Clinton had a 21-point lead in Ohio with only one month to go in this Quinnipiac poll. Obama closed half of it in four months.

Cal: First, there were several other candidates in the race back then.

No, the "four months" was my typo--the poll was taken around Feb. 11, after Edwards dropped out. It was a two-candidate race by then, unless you think Mike Gravel was pulling a lot of support away from Obama.

And in any case, it disproves Tim K's claim that Clinton never had large leads. Even if we limit the numbers to Democratic voters, Obama closed to within 14 in Ohio and 7 in Texas. He cut deeply into Clinton's leads in the last month of campaigning, but he was starting at a serious deficit in both places.

Posted by Marc | March 6, 2008 9:42 AM

Face it, there are plenty of reasons to believe Hillary Clinton will be just as strong this November, if not stronger, than Barack Obama.

If you make the assumptions that everything we know about Obama's charisma and Clinton's unpopularity is wrong, then your analysis is excellent.

Back in reality, however, Obama is a talented, charismatic figure with broad appeal, while Clinton is deeply unpopular outside of the Democratic base.

Also, this analysis that you offer where independents should be assumed to be Democratic voters while actual Democrats should be regarded as the swing vote borders on ludicrous.

Lastly, John Kerry didn't inspire young people for shit. He was depressing for young voters.

Posted by J.B. | March 6, 2008 10:00 AM

but Tim K, Hillary doesn't appeal to white women more than Obama outside the Dem base.

I think Clinton supporters vastly underestimate the importance of personal qualities. In an AP Poll last year, 55% of voters said being honest and trustworthy is more important than views on issues.

Honesty is, as Stuart Taylor put it, Hillary Clinton's "glass house."

White women in the democratic base don't necessarily reflect the concerns about values that gen election women have.

As for her husband's "appeal to white women", consider the drop married white women support after Monica:
Dem Congressional Vote among married white women
1990 50
1992 48
1994 46
1996 45
1998 39 (!)
2000 43

Her knowledge and XX candidacy won't matter as much as her character. Also, the idea of a co-presidency is especially unappealing to them.

As for independents, Pew Research found a class of independents in their typology: Upbeats. They voted for Reagan, because they were drawn to his optimism, despite the fact that he was quite conservative.

Posted by Dark Heart | March 6, 2008 10:08 AM

In your two-dimensional view of electoral politics you would be right that Obama's apparent appeal to independents make him a more attractive general election candidate.

How many dimensions do you need in a general election, especially with independents and the undecided ? The candidate must be appealing to people as a first step. Obama appeals with rhetoric and authenticity, McCain appeals with his war record and his "straight talk", Clinton appeals ...

Actually when it comes to the economy the Clinton name has some sway so to the extent that people will be looking at her vs McCain she might do a marginarly better there and I will definitely concede and hope that sisters will be doin' it for themselves come November if she is the nominee. Her recent appeals to fear and experience are both McCain's strong points and she does not project well. I do not look forward to her shaking her finger at McCain saying "Shame on you McCain" or using cribbing off of Dole's line: "Annoy the media vote for Hillary".

John Kerry inspired a lot of African Americans and young people to turn out,

Seriously ? Those are anti-bush votes not pro Kerry votes. People WANT to vote for Obama and all Obama needs to do is make sure he give them a reason to do so. What makes him eligible to break out of the 50+1 state mentality is the fact that people project on him since he is a bit of a tabula rasa. If they can sell themselves on voting for him then it will take a major screw up on his part to change their minds. Hillary's negatives a re pretty much set in stone so her only chance is to bring up McCain's negatives. She could do it but I think that it will not help her get more dems into congress. If you want to see Hillary's policies actually enacted Obama might the candidate to do it.

I have greater confidence in Clinton's ability to appeal to white, blue-collar Democrats in places like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan. I also have greater confidence in Clinton's ability to follow her husband's lead in appealing to white, suburban women not just because of her gender, but because of her focus on issues and capacity to triangulate

To the extent that blue collar workers see Hillary as more like themselves than a black senator from Illinois with the middle name "Hussein" then sure I can't argue people's prejudices. I don't think Obama needs to triangulate he just needs to do what he has been doing, giving people who don't share his views the feeling that they are being heard and valued. The Clintons need to compromise and dodge around because they touch off the reactivity of reactionaries way too easily.

Posted by blank_stare | March 6, 2008 10:23 AM

If personality is so all important than how did Nixon some within a hair of beating Jack Kennedy, and then defeat the Happy Warrior Hubert Humphrey eight years later?

On the subject of Clinton's leads in Texas and Ohio, some people were mentioning leads of 30 points or more, which is a total exaggeration. I grant there were probably polls that had her 20 points ahead (at the high end) although as we have learned time and time again early polling is not very accurate.

As for the electability issue, this is just irresolvable. I'm not going to agree with all of you about Obama, and you all aren't going to agree with me about Clinton. As much as you would like to think your reasons are evidenced based while mine is based on ignorance, the same could be said of you all. The truth is there are reasonable arguments to be made on both sides. It's also true that a lot of this comes down to intuition and ones view of how campaigns work in practice.

In the end - even if all the demographic arguments made by myself or you all prove to be wrong - I just have more confidence Hillary Clinton is going to be able to take a punch, get knocked down, but not out, and get right back up again. I still fear Barack Obama has a glass jaw.

Regardless of other arguments that's the bottom line for me.

Posted by Tim K | March 6, 2008 10:31 AM

Tim K,

To sum up your argument, you are assuming away Clinton's enormous and consistent problem when it comes to attracting the support of independents and disaffected Republicans. Having assumed away by far her greatest political liability, you then restrict your analysis to comparing likely margins among various Democratic subgroups, with the possibility (although not certainty) of Clinton ending up doing a bit better than Obama among registered Democrats.

But here is the thing: you really have no foundation for assuming away Clinton's problem with independents and Republicans. Your best effort at this is to claim Clinton has a legislative history of bipartisanship which will somehow turn all this around. As an aside, you are wrong about Obama: he has a track record of successful bipartisanship in both Illinois and the U.S. Senate. But more importantly, as others are pointing out, something like a bipartisan legislative history simply does not address the sorts of value and character issues that matter to many independents and Republicans.

And we already know your approach failed: Clinton established that legislative history in anticipation of running for President for this very reason. And it didn't work: her popularity is still largely limited to core Democrats. So, you are basically hoping that something which is unlikely to work in theory and hasn't worked in practice will miraculously start working just in time to wipe out this enormous weakness. Oh, and all against McCain, who like Obama and unlike Clinton actually does have a track record of appealing to independents.

Look, I know you won't admit any of this, but frankly you just made my argument for me. If the miracle you are expecting to occur with independents does not occur, Clinton could well lose, and lose badly, to McCain. That is precisely why her floor is lower than Obama's. The worst case for Obama is that he does marginally worse than Clinton among some (but far from all) of the core Democratic groups, and thus does a little bit worse in general among registered Democrats. The worst case for Clinton is that McCain crushes her among independents while also holding onto disaffected Republicans (who might otherwise consider Obama), and that indeed Clinton will help drive up Republican turnout. And if you do the math, that makes the worst case for Clinton much, much worse than the worst case for Obama. Again, you won't admit this, but your own arguments actually prove it.

Oh, and if Clinton loses the pledged delegate contest by a large margin and yet the superdelegates swing her the nomination? Say goodbye to your miracle with independents, goodbye to your marginal advantages among Democrats overall, and hello to a repeat of the general election of 1984.

Posted by DTM | March 6, 2008 10:47 AM

If personality is so all important than how did Nixon some within a hair of beating Jack Kennedy, and then defeat the Happy Warrior Hubert Humphrey eight years later?

A bloody convention fight didn't help :-)

As for the electability issue, this is just irresolvable.

Point taken that the future is a mystery. Say if Iraq tanks then McCain gets hurt but he always seem to say "I screwed up" and many people seem to forgive him. Whether or not the general public will is an open question.

I still fear Barack Obama has a glass jaw.

Well we don't have much data here. Hillary's "come back" is only a few days old so assuming that because Obama hasn't attacked her in kind at this point doesn't tell us much just yet. If he has a glass jaw she will break it.

Posted by blank_stare | March 6, 2008 10:53 AM

DTM:

If Clinton is so deeply unpopular outside of core Democrats than how do most polls show her even or beating John McCain even though she has 100% name recognition, and nearly everyone has a vivid and clearly defined opinion about her? It's not as if what you are talking about is anything new or just became true in the last year. Hillary Clinton and her husband have evoked strong and sometimes negative reactions for 15 years. The argument you make has been made for years and if it were anywhere near as true as you suggest Clinton never would have been elected to the Senate, won re-election 6 years later in a landslide (including in conservative upstate New York) and never would have gotten as far as she has in this presidential race. People who share your view have consistently underestimated Hillary Clinton and her husband and look where it has gotten you. Consistently wrong. Hey, maybe you are right this time. Just by the law of large numbers the Clinton-haters you would have to get it right one of these days.... it just hasn't happened yet.

As much as many of you want to believe this is going to be a Big Picture, re-aligning election, I really do believe it is going to come down to key battleground/swing states as it has in every presidential election in the last 50 years, with the exceptions of 1964, 1972 and 1984 (all involving incumbent presidents seeking re-election). This election most resembles 1960, 1968, 1976, 1988 and 2000... and all but one of those were razor thin contests. 1988 should have been too, had it not been for a particularly incompetent Democratic effort in the fall. Democrats are favored, but it will be close. Make no mistake.

Also here's concrete prediction about demographics that I don't think is marginal or of little importance. I think Hillary Clinton will appeal to Latino voters more than Barack Obama. Mostly this has to do with relationships and name recognition, but also has to do (unfortunately) with some real tensions that exist between latinos and african americans to some degree. Coupled with McCain's mainstream views on immigration that are unlikely to lead to a massive and automatic Democratic vote by hispanics my guess is Obama will carry the votes of roughly 55-60% of Latinos. Hillary Clinton, however, should be able to do substantially better. I predict she will win between 65%-75% of the latino vote. Just think about that: Florida, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado... that's an election.

Posted by Tim K | March 6, 2008 11:10 AM

southpaw:

I fully accept the possibility that you are correct. But remember this isn't the first time in this campaign (let alone her public life) that Hillary Clinton has taken a punch and gotten up to fight again. Iowa and South Carolina and the February defeats now make it three times in two months! I doubt Barack Obama will prove so strong an attack dog that she will simply fold, since there's no reason to believe that, but anything is possible.

Posted by Tim K | March 6, 2008 11:14 AM

sorry I meant blankstare, not southpaw (pardon the oversight)

Posted by Tim K | March 6, 2008 11:17 AM

Tim K,

The answer to your question is that any Democrat currently enjoys a huge fundamental advantage over any Republican because the Republicans are associated as a party with positions that are deeply unpopular with the American people.

But you are being a bit selective in your use of history. For basically the same reason, people like Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry were at one point winning head-to-head polls with their respective opponents. But what tends to happen in campaigns is that over time, individual character and values issues become as important (or even more important) than the policy issues, and that is what eventually sunk all of those prior Democratic candidates.

Now, I understand it is a standard Clinton talking point to claim that all the possible damage on character and values issues has already been done to her at this point, so this is nothing to worry about. This, of course, is a horribly naive proposition. For example, Clinton is providing new ammunition on these issues as we speak during this campaign, including with the ways in which she has financed her campaign, her tactics, and the various statements she has made. But Obama is using very little of that ammunition, because his strategy is to erode her base in the primaries through persuasion (and it is largely working, so he probably won't stop taking this approach).

Meanwhile, right now McCain and the GOP in general are also using very little of that ammunition, largely because they want Clinton to win. But if by some chance Clinton won the nomination, the gloves would come off and Clinton would get hammered with all this. And this is just the stuff I know about--we really have no idea what else might have been accumulated since 2000.

And one more time, all this is why your Kerry + 1 strategy, using Clinton as the nominee, is a horrible idea. Right now, that strategy already looks risky if you examine the head-to-head polls in several states Kerry barely won. And this is all with everybody currently pulling their punches. And no, the fact that Clinton can win elections in heavily-Democratic New York (and as I always admit, she is indeed quite popular among Democrats) is not somehow proof that she will win elections in swing states across the country.

But look, I get you will never, ever admit that Clinton is a terribly risky general election candidate. But I don't think it is going to be lost on people like the superdelegates that arguments like yours depend on simply assuming way all the very obvious liabilities Clinton has, and assuming away the need to actually hold onto the close Kerry states despite McCain's strength with independents.

Posted by DTM | March 6, 2008 12:16 PM

DTM:

I understand your disstate for the Kerry + 1 or + 2 or + 3 strategies. However, I think the naive proposition is thinking there is any alternative to that strategy. The Democrats have to plan for the worst, and how they can best win a 50/50 race. If the fundamentals continue to favor Democrats so strongly then either candidate should be able to prevail in the end.

I don't think it's a conceit to offer the suggestion that Clinton's public image has been pretty well tested and held up fairly well. I would think that somebody as maligned and attacked and she has been would have 70% unfavorable rating, not 45-50%. There are politicians I can think of who have been through less and yet are much more unpopular... for instance, Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich.

As I said before, there are arguments on both sides. You can't prove you are right and neither can I.

Posted by Tim K | March 6, 2008 12:51 PM

Tim K,

Oh, it is quite obvious the Democrats should go with a Kerry + N strategy, where N is the largest number possible. That is truly "planning for the worst", where the worst means losing one or more of the Kerry states. The problem is that to make N as big as possible, they need a candidate with the widest possible appeal and the greatest potential coaltion, not just the same sort of appeal as Kerry (or less), and the same potential coalition (or less), that got to the Kerry lineup in the first place.

Fortunately for the Democratic Party, this extended primary is doing a pretty good job of determining which of their remaining nominees has the broadest possible appeal and greatest potential coalition. And that is why it ultimately doesn't matter whether I can get you to admit the sky is blue and that 2 + 2 = 4. The delegate contests are doing all the necessary work, and in the end it is the delegate vote that will count.

Posted by DTM | March 6, 2008 1:11 PM

Tim K, here's you why I think you're wrong in thinking this election is sure to be super-close -- seems to me you overlook a huge data point: the historic unpopularity of the Bush administration.

You cited elections over the last 50 years in making your case that only popular re-elected incumbents have yielded outsize results. I'll stretch your argument a bit to reach to 1952, since I think that's actually a fairly strong parallel to this year (hugely unpopular incumbent, seemingly attractive-enough successor candidate facing off against -- assuming Barack -- a towering figure with cross-party appeal).

Going back to and including that time, we've only had four elections where the incumbent was hugely unpopular -- '52, '68, '80 and '92 (Ford in '76 was mildly unpopular, with approvals just under the 50% mark; Bush in '04 also hovered around that mark). In two of those negative years -- '68 and '92 -- a major middle-range third-party effort masked the level of incumbent rejection (and also brought disaffected voters out to the polls, keeping Congressional change slender). But in the other two -- '52 and '80 (where the third-party guy drew almost exclusively from the incumbent in the end) -- the vote margin was wildly larger than polling had predicted right up to election day. The fact that voters were virulently unhappy turned out to have deeper implications than the linear thinkers of the time had imagined.

This year is far more in line with those last two than any other election you can cite. Tremendous voter unhappiness has already brought us things most didn't foresee: the massive turnover in Congress '06, huge Democratic fundraising and turnout disparities this year. I think it's far more likely we'll see continued steps along that "dramatic shift" path than a return to the split-down-the-middle quality of the 2000 and '04 elections (which feel like they took place in a different country).

And I think it's important Dems PLAY for that, in the same sense that I'd rather a baseball manager play for a big inning -- a conservative, play-for-one-run manager is likely to score just one run, and play himself out of a better result. Just two years ago, had the Dems not expanded the field to compete in unusual places (against the advice of many Dem consultants), their gains would have been more limited (quite a few of Rahm Emmnauel's targeted seats were, in fact, lost -- it was winning some of the longer shots, like McInerney over Pombo, that made it such a successful night). I see the concentrate-on-those-double-digit-states strategy as the equivalent of what the party would have done in '06 had not forces pushed them into competing in other, less promising spots. The moment is here for Dems to assert themselves -- to not, as someone said, remain in their post-Reagan defensive crouch. My difficulty with Clinton -- despite my liking many things about her -- has all along been her seeming belief that the landscape is precisely the same as it was for Bill in '92. If she can't grasp what's changed, she has no hope of taking advantage.

Posted by demtom | March 6, 2008 2:44 PM

Most polls don't show her beating McCain. Three in the real clear politics average have her up, three have her down, and one is a tie.

Posted by Tim K | March 6, 2008 7:32 PM

General Election Polling

Comments (101)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories