Swing State Polls Give Hillary Last-Minute Boost

A Gallup Poll released on May 28 gave a last-minute boost to the central claim of the Hillary Clinton campaign that she would make a stronger general election candidate than Barack Obama against John McCain, prevailing in swing states that have twice as many votes as those in which Obama trounces her.

In a conference call for reporters, Howard Wolfson, Clinton's strategist and communications director, read key paragraphs from the Gallup report entitled "Hillary Clinton's Swing-State Advantage"

The Gallup report found:

"In the 20 states where Hillary Clinton has claimed victory in the 2008 Democratic primary and caucus elections (winning the popular vote), she has led John McCain in Gallup Poll Daily trial heats for the general election over the past two weeks of Gallup Poll Daily tracking by 50% to 43%. In those same states, Barack Obama is about tied with McCain among national registered voters, 45% to 46%.

"In contrast, in the 28 states and the District of Columbia where Obama has won a higher share of the popular vote against Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primaries and caucuses, there is essentially no difference in how Obama and Clinton each fare against McCain. Both Democrats are statistically tied with him for the fall election."

The Gallup findings were music to Wolfson's ears, so much so that he reread the first graph aloud to make sure it sank in.

Gallup presented the survey findings in a set of charts:

The Gallup analysis becomes more complex when it focuses only on "swing states" - those that George W. Bush or John Kerry won by less than five percentage points in 2004.

Clinton won primaries or caucuses in eight swing states, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Arkansas, and disputed contests in Florida and Michigan. In surveys of those states, which have a total of 105 electoral votes, Gallup found that a hypothetical general election matchup put Clinton ahead of McCain by an average of six points, 49 to 43, while Obama runs an average of three points behind McCain, 43-46.

Conversely, in the swing states that backed Obama -- Colorado, Oregon, Minnesota, Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Missouri with a total of 54 electoral votes - Obama holds a solid eight point lead over McCain, on average, while Hillary is nearly tied, 45-46.

The Gallup report concluded: "Clinton's main advantage is that her states -- including Florida and Michigan -- represent nearly twice as many Electoral College votes as Obama's."

Comments

[MNfreeze]

One thing people don’t seem to take into account is Hillary is still in the race. As long as her supporters think she “has a shot”, they are going to be much less enthusiastic about Obama. Conversely, Obama supporter know he will win, and thus it’s easier for them to support Hillary in these same polls.

Once the nominee is established, the choice will be clear. I expect Obama will open up a sizeable lead in many of the swing states once Hillary drops out.

If I was a Repub, I would be nervous as hell why my candidate is only tied in polls with two candidates who have been tearing each other apart the last four months. If he was a good candidate, McCain would be up +10 -15 pts right now.

The only way the Dems screw this up is if they take it to the convention.

[ntmessage]

One of the reasons that Obama has spent so much on polls is that Axelrod and his team have been seeing this trend for many weeks now. In addition, many smaller pollsters are unreliable and skew numbers both ways. When looking at purely empirical numbers, (not emotion) Clinton runs 43 Electoral Votes stronger against McCain than Obama in the general.

If I slant against McCain, I can only get Obama to a 269-269 tie at best. Using the same methodology with Clinton, she gets into real landslide numbers around 385 Electoral Votes for example. Indeed, it is likely that if Clinton is nominated, the Democrats can legitimately think Mandate for the first time in many years. On the other hand, Obama is a quite risky bet to run, if the goal is to get a Democrat as POTUS.

Truth be told, Obama is already behind McCain by quite a bit and Clinton is ahead, so she is definitely more electable in the general, and getting more so in the past six-weeks. Probably because she has won just about every primary since Super Tuesday.

[ATLiberal]

If you want real analysis of this and not BS, go to:

http://www. fivethirtyeight.com

[ntmessage]

Well, I know that site and they have Obama running weaker than my best case. Proves the point, ATLiberal is the BS'er.

[mvy]

The real issue is not how well Clinton, Obama, or McCain might do in the closely divided battleground states, but that we shouldn't have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. And, every vote should be equal.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes. Then all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

With the current system in the general election, candidates have no reason to worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. Two-thirds of the visits and money are focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money goes to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people are merely spectators to the presidential election.

The National Popular Vote bill has been approved by 18 legislative chambers in small and large states. It has been enacted into law in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring the law into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

[Kantinflas]

Polls matter to the candidates. Clinton's spent $5M on polling. Obama $10M.

Electoral vote implications? Start with the Bush-Kerry distribution. Then, go to RealClearP­olitics.Co­m (Election 2008 Latest Polls). For months, it's listed polling results by various organizations* for PAIRS of head-to-head match-ups, McCain-Clinton and McCain-Obama, now in 27 states**. For each state, take the latest of the PAIRED outcomes and plug the commensurate apportionment of electoral votes into the Bush-Kerry template. As of May 29:

M - C - Tossup = 199 - 312 - 27. M - O - Tossup = 292 - 246 - 0. Victory = 270.

In McCain v. Clinton, John flips no states; Hillary flips AR, FL, KY, MO, NV, NM, NC, and OH from red to blue. In McCain v. Obama, John flips MI from blue to red; Barack flips CO, IA, and NM from red to blue.

Other projections at Electoral-­Vote.Com and FiveThirty­Eight.Com as of May 29:

M - C - T = 194 - 327 - 17. M - O - T = 248 - 266 - 24.

M - C - T = 252 - 286 - 0. M - O - T = 267 - 271 - 0.

Average of projections:

M - C - T = 215 - 308 - 15. M - O - T = 269 - 261 - 8.

Pre-November polling is diagnostic unless a campaign cannot sufficiently increase/decrease diagnosed strengths/­weaknesses­. Then it becomes predictive.

[MessageForceMultiplier]

Polls can matter to the candidates but they have no bearing on the race for the majority of delegates, which Mrs Clinton had lost months ago because of sexist math.

[obamanation31]

Oh by these results, we should all stop everything, McCain should concede and let's all make Hillary our president.
To use this poll at this stage as a yardstick is ridiculous.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24875101/

[McFlipFlop]

The conclusion of the Gallup report was actually not that rosy.

"Clinton's main advantage is that her states -- including Florida and Michigan -- represent nearly twice as many Electoral College votes as Obama's. However, removing Florida and Michigan from the equation, her purple states are about comparable to Obama's in electoral vote size, and thus the two appear more evenly situated.

What gives Clinton an additional boost in national support -- but is not likely to increase her chances of winning Electoral College votes in November -- is her superior performance over Obama in the red states where she has captured the popular vote in the primaries. These include such typically safe Republican states as Oklahoma, Texas, Indiana, and Arizona."

[ntmessage]

So by removing 1/6th of the total EVs necessary to win from Hillary's column, it is not so rosey for her? In the general FL and MI will count, so you must include them. This means that Obama is way behind.

[JJeff88]

A major flaw in Wolfson’s argument is that the issue of whether Hillary does better than Obama vs. McCain is irrelevant – what’s important is whether or not Obama is competitive with McCain.

Using that parameter, here are the most recent battleground numbers from Real Clear Politics. What you get is a mixed bag. Obama is behind in North Carolina, Florida and Nevada; with Hillary ahead in those states. Michigan, Wisconsin and New Mexico are tossups with one or the other candidate slightly ahead of the other one. Both candidates are getting waxed in Georgia. Other than that, Obama does just fine and, in most cases, leads Clinton vs. McCain:

Ohio - Obama +9
Penna – Obama +2
Florida – Obama -4 (Clinton +7)
Wisc. – Obama and Clinton -4
Iowa – Obama +9
Minn. – Obama +13
Mizzou – Obama – 3 (Clinton +2)
NM – Obama +0 (Clinton -3)
Nev Obama – 6 (Clinton +5)
Colo – Obama +6 (Clinton -3)
Mich – Obama -4 (Clinton +0)
NH – Obama +5
NJ – Obama +24 (Clinton +14)
Va. – Obama +7
NC – Obama -8 (Clinton +6)
Ga – Obama -14 (Clinton -11)
Oregon – Obama +14 (Clinton +6)
Wash – Obama +11 (Clinton +5)
Calif – Obama +7 (Clinton +3)

We are looking at polling results which at best are mere snapshots and at worst unstable in their methodology. These results will shift as the dynamics of Obam v. McCain begins to take shape.

[ntmessage]

Cherry Picking Polls, or mixing apples and oranges is really not empirical. You, or the polls picked (looks like different ones in each state) are way off in OH, MO, NM, NV, NH, NJ and GA. For example, a group of Rabid College Student Obama supporters ran the Monmouth poll in NJ. NJ will be single digits this election.

[obamanation31]

What Senator Clinton and her supporters fail to consider is what happens if she takes this all the way to the convention and the Superdelegates will the will of the people and give her the nomination, how the people who voted for Senator Obama feel.
They make a phony argument about how she has most of the popular vote whereas in reality, there’s no way she can have the most votes, because she’s not counting the states where they had caucus election, and the system is the rules of democratic nomination is based on the total number of pledged and super delegates.
Everyone knew or should have known the rules before they entered in this contest. To try to change the metrics in the middle of the game is stupid.
Senator Clinton should do what’s good for the party and country and follow the will of the people and party rules and not take her fight to the convention and risk loosing this election to 4-8 years of George Bush’s failed policies.
If she really cares about the people, she should not let her ambitions get in the way of party unity.

[MessageForceMultiplier]

It's all about the polls*. I know everyone thought this was a delegate race but you were all just inexperienced, naive, and out of the loop. Now you're puzzled, I bet. This isn't the Democratic primary season you knew. Why weren't these concerns raised before?

Remember Zimbabwe!

* The primary season is also all about fulfilling feminist dreams for the older folks, reforming the Democratic primary season rules in process, exposing the unconstitutional and inherently sexist enterprise known as caucuses, recognizing the electoral worth of Puerto Rico, the right to vote for African Americans and women, and Zimbabwe; offer not available in caucus states or primary states that didn't go for Clinton.

[AMJordan]

I have found when readi.ng polls that there is an interesting number, called "The Keith Number" after it's inventor, you can use to give a better look at the variables of the numbers.

In any poll add the margin of error to the undecided and you get a number that can be applied to either side.

There have been polls (WV for instance) where the Keith number added to Obama's numbers still showed he was going to lose.

However, you need both the undecided AND the margin of error. It doesn't help that for these polls we have only the undecided

[bygollymissmolly]

Ok, let's imagine you are a Hillary Clinton supporter and you get a phone call from Gallup. They ask you, "If the election were held today and you had the choice between Obama and McCain, who would you vote for". Now, in reality you will vote for Obama because you are, in the end a loyal Democrat, but you really want Hillary to be the candidate and know that she needs something to hang on to. So, how would you answer that poll? Truthfully or would you lie and say you would vote for McCain to skew the poll?

Besides, polls five months before the election mean next to nothing. Just think about how accurate all the polls were for the primaries. They were all over the map and very few of them were close to right.

[hussein]

It cuts both ways so your argument is self defeating

[mahoner]

Homer Simpson had a great line close to this issue:

"Statistics? Cmon Kent, you can find any stat that will support your position. 63% of all people know that."

Classic.

[AMJordan]

Mark Twain said it best, "There are lies, d@mned lies and statistics­." About 38% of all American's know that one..lol.

[db08]

If we listen to the Clintons, why would we vote at all. Why not select a President based on the polls? Then we can have daly polls and have a new President everyday. Why are we giving credence to these so called arguments?

[XME]

I know. Their argument is that polls show her winning some "key" states, so we should vote for her. I've found it interesting that she urges people to "vote for the person who has a better shot at winning in November", which to me is debatable, but when asked, Obama always urges people to vote for the person they feel best represents them.

Here's a though...i­f you vote for Obama YOU CHANGE THE POLLS!!

They are meaningless, as are the arguments she makes.

[Truthfighter1]

Most of Hill's supporters have Lan Lines, their older and more stable. Alot of Obama supporters use cell phones, you can't poll those. The young folks these days use cell phones. Furthermore polls don't decide the Dem' nominee but Delegates sure do, and that's all that matter. Hillary is polling higher in those states because of some of the bitter women that she has created by spreading un truths, she in my opinion will have alot of work to do to bring these ladies back to the Party since she manage to divide it so well. If Dem's don't win it will because Hillary didn't bring her constituency to the table out of selfishness.

[bygollymissmolly]

Plus they poll "likely voters" meaning people who have voted in the past. Thus they don't consider all the newly registered voters who are overwhelmingly for Obama.

None of this means anything anyway. It is a poll six months from the election. People need to remember that six months ago Hillary was a shoo-in. She lead the pack by 20%. She had 70% of the black vote. And look where she is today.

It's all moot anyway because short of a coup of some sort Obama is going to be the candidate.

[Qban1029]

Yes, but these "new, young voters" you talk about don't actually GET TO THE POLLS come November. It is those old lan lines users that do.

[RThM]

Which is why millions of old lan line users registered to vote for the first time and swelled the turnout in many Democratic primaries to record levels. Bless those old lan line users.

[SaskiaStars]

So WHAT!! We determine who our candidates are by counting delegates - Senator Obama will be the one with the requisite number of delegates to make him our nominee. This whole "popular vote" issue or referring to the polls to make some kind of argument in favor of over turning the will of the majority of the Democratic voters is completely ludicrous. Every one of those people like Davis, McCollough, Wolfsen, Bill and HRC lose credibility every single time they talk about it- they are actually publicly promoting HRC steal this election. This is beyond ridiculous - this is scorched earth. How in hell can they not understand that if the Supers do what they want then that will end it for not only HRC but for the Democratic party.

[hussein]

It is possible to win the battle and lose the war. The goal of the whole process is to have a democratic president in Nov.