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

[Colingavignet]

polls can only reflect how results evolve, positive or negative.
Obama's polls are positive whereas Clinton's are negative.

[eurydice]

As a feminist, I appreciate the need to have a woman as President as much as any of you.

However, the fanatical ambitions of feminism in this campaign are going to ensure the election of a Republican in November, by hamstringing the Democratic Party, and crippling the path to a democratic victory.

This planet and its fragile ecosystem cannot take another four years of Republican stewardship of our environment and our planet.

So I have to take a stand. Am I a feminist first or an environmentalist first?

When the fate of our Planet stands in the balance, and stands in the crosshairs of fanaticism,
I stand for the Planet.

I am sorry, Hillary. Ambition is not enough. It's time to unite behind the Frontrunner.

[barryscott]

Eurydice:

Hurrah! Thank you for your well expressed post.
After all, what good is a dying Earth to feminism or any other worthy causes?

[useyourbrain]

Please, you think Obama doesn't have ambition? Why else would a freshman Senator, less than two years on the job run for the Presidency of the US? He even said when he got into the Senate that he would not be a candidate in 2008 -- that he was too inexperienced. Obama himself said this.

[olivia]

The presidency is too important a position to be used as some vehicle for affirmative action.

We need to elect the most competent person to lead us out of the Bush Dark Ages - without regard to gender or race.

Electing a woman or a person of color simply cannot be the overarching goal. America is in trouble. We cannot just give the presidency away to make some affirmative action statement.

[Vern58]

"afirmative action"?
Race problem? Hmmm.

[blaqntelligence]

olivia: "The presidency is too important a position to be used as some vehicle for affirmative action."
" We cannot just give the presidency away to make some affirmative action statement."

So if Obama win the election that is an affirmative action statement?

The millions of voters who has voted for him are irrelevant because he actually won due to "affirmative action"?!?!?!

Un-freakin-believable.....
For the first time I am literally speechless.....

[pupbayer]

Check out the general election polls at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

[johnwinner]

Thes graphs are meaningless;he primaries ar not indicative of the general elecion, ecxcpt to he extent that they have demonstrated that the record numbero those turning out - largely thanks to the Obama organization - may turn out for the Democratic candidate in November - who must be Obama, or they will not turn out. Frankly, I don't think the Democratic Party needs the Clintonistas aymore, and I think they can leave the Party and Obama will still win.

[JackND]

http://electoral-vote.com/evp2004/oct/oct31.html

One week before Election 2004...

[ObamAtomic]

4 years ago!

[barryscott]

CAUTION:
electoral-vote is not unbiased.
All electoral college projections are, however, sketchy at best if they depend too heavily on 2000 and 2004. This Obama/Hillary contest is unprecedented, the electoral map will be rewritten.
Poblano's fivethirtyeight.com is my recommendation for GE projections. Some may disagree.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Shall we talk electronic thievery, or merely imply polls are fickle and electoral-vote is worthless?

http://bellaciao.org/en/IMG/gif/exit_poll_5_2.gif

[JJK]

It's way too early to draw any cosmic conclusions from polls, but we'd have to have our heads in the sand not to be a little concerned about what they are saying. Given the economy, the war, the price of gas and the unpopularity of the President, it's not unreasonable to expect the prospective Democratic nominee to be well ahead of the Repbulican at this juncture. The failure of both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama to put any meaningful distance between themselves and McCain is, therefore, worrisome. Voters might be saying that both candidates are flawed and that they aren't ready to jump to either at this point. The five point swing in the most recent Gallup Poll between Clinton and Obama is not a good sign, though it could be ascribed to the prolonged contest on the Democratic side, which should finally be resolved next week. We'll have a lot clearer picture of where things are going in 60 days.

[Rose52]

Obama hasn't campaigned against HRC in about 3 weeks. That might be why there's only a 5 point spread between them.
Obama 08

[olivia]

The Republicans have not campaigned against HRC in months. One, they are trying to help her get nominated. Two, they know she won't be.

If Hillary were nominated, somehow, the Republicans would finish her off in a week. They haven't even begun to open their Pandora's box which they've had several years to fill.

Republicans desperately want to run against Hillary. Let's disappoint them. Why should we give the right wing what they want - an easy victory?

[JJK]

That's as good an explanation as any. As I said, it's way too early to draw conclusions but we're foolish not to be a little concerned.

[KQuarksSuperKollider]

These polls mean absolutely nothing with Hillary still in the race. The fact is no has been attacking Hillary for over a month now, while Obama has been attacked on both sides and is still ahead in most states over McCain. It's interesting that Obama is holding a 10 point average lead in the Democratic polls so when did an election come to who did better in the national polls for a hypothetical election anyway. In the only real election going on now people are starting to climb on Obama's bandwagon.

[useyourbrain]

WRONG! The poll was conducted from May 12 - 25th. She made the RFK remark on the 23rd. You just have to check the polling methods linked in the article. Try learning some facts. They come in handy at times -- especially before opening one's yap.

[HWNA]

Polls in December had her beating Obama by a wide margin in Iowa and some of the other primary states, but we all know how that turned out.

Clinton's anti-logic and irrational arguments don't need to be celebrated by those in the media; the problem with her candidacy has been that she hasn't really had to answer for these crazy arguments.

Some examples include:

1. That she has or will win the popular vote if you don't count (read: disenfranchise) the caucuses.

2. That the FL and MI delegate situation is akin to the civil rights or suffrage movement (even though she signed the pledge and said herself that those states would not count)

3. That she is more vetted than Obama (although not a peep has come out in the mainstream media about the lawsuit against her involving a breach of campaign finance laws, among other things).

So let's not continue this pathetic charade that Clinton is the stronger candidate than Obama, because all of those Republicans that voted for her in the open Democratic primaries would be out in full force against her (and her husband) if she were to steal the nomination.

[BeyondTheBull]

I couldn't have said it better!

[JackND]

The funny thing about disenfranchising caucuses is that, to not be a hypocrite, you'd also have to disenfranchise the convention!

[useyourbrain]

No one is disenranchising the caucuses -- but don't do that to FL and MI -- it's ethically wrong and just plain stupid. The Dems will lose those states along with Congressional and local seats.

The caucuses should be eliminated from future primaries since they are undemocratic for a number of reasons that have been listed on blogs before.

[JJK]

Obama has won, so the debate is academic. However, you just can't say that Clinton's view is "crazy," "irrational" or "pathetic." You might reasonably disagree with her view and point out Obama's appeal to first-time voters or others who traditionally don't show up on election day, but her argument is not nuts. Putting aside Florida and Michigan, Obama, according to RCP, has beaten Clinton to date by around 450,000 votes out of the 33 million cast. However, that margin is built almost entirely in 13 states where Democratic Presidential candidates typically don't set foot after Labor Day, where he won by over 804,000 votes in total. We don't need PhD's in Statistics to know that this means he lost the rest of the states by a combined total of over 350,000 votes.

So, as an Obama Primary Voter who wants to WIN in November, I ask you and others to be a little more respectful of what Sen. Clinton has accomplished and give her supporters, whose help we will need, a little credit on this point. The air out here right now is so poisoned that I wouldn't blame them for staying home in November.

[KGinSanFrancisco]

Remember that poll that said Obama would win Oregon by 4 points the day before the vote? Well, they were WRONG by a lot because he won by a whopping 18 points. Don't trust the polls, specially with 6 months to go.

[alleykat]

Come on Super D's. Put an end to everyones misery! It's bad enough that Obama has to be nice to HRC but she is still allowed to pull crap and he continues to have to fight McCain and Clinton! Enough Already!

[Zoolie]

Hillary has no one challenging her outrageous remarks anymore. She's still undermining Obama, plus he's being challenged by McCain.

None of it matters anyway. Polls & popular votes won't change the inevitable. Obama has the delegates.

[JackND]

Yep...McCain hasn't bothered with Clinton since Wisconsin. He knows what everyone but the Clinton camp knows...that Obama is his November rival.

[useyourbrain]

But he doesn't have the votes in November -- he should be HRC's VP.

[olivia]

You don't know that. It is not November yet.

[magnitude]

Why do we even pay attention to polls this far ahead of November? By this yardstick since Hillary was way ahead in the polls in December 2007, she should already be sworn in as president. Yeah, in her dreams. The Clintons are drowning in their own lies and this is the straw.

[Peteyman]

It is ironic that she says she will win the GE now even though it hasn't begun. Kind of like she said she'd win the nomination by this time.

[cubs325]

i guess that is why we play the game - the clock is winding down and Obama is winning by a insurmountable margin

[ThunderclapNewman]

Polls taken six months before the election have ZERO meaning for November.

Polls are a snapshot in time---nothing else.

Polls are not predictive of the future.

Edsall should know this. It's basic first semester political science.

[mcole]

hear hear

[Heaphy]

You are completely correct, ThunderclapNewman (loved the band). The real lesson of these polls and of Clinton's primary victories in some important states is that Hillary and Bill have a very important job starting the moment that Barack Obama clinches the nomination. They must campaign their hearts out for Obama in those very states, and explain to all those famous lower income, working class whites and older white women that it would be idiotic to vote for John McCain, and that they must vote for Barack Obama.
- Jim Heaphy

[hillarysupporter]

No they don't. Its up to Obama to convince the voters to vote for him. He already has the media, his grassroots network, Oprah, Kennedy and more money than any other candidate... if he still can't manage to win against McCain-- its no one's fault but his own.

[abby4ever]

Bill and Hillary know as well as anyone that polls are just a guide and not reliable enough to be used as a basis for choosing a nominee. And just as Hillary would not be hounding us to seat the FL and MI delegates, were she ahead and not behind, so also, if these polls were in Obama's favor, she would be saying what I just said above about polls.
One of the things that bugs me most about Hillary is her apparent assumption that we are too thick to see her opportunism and hypocrisy. Her selective facts. As if she is talking to a kindergarten class.

[edwarvir]

Aren't they sad, it's not to late for them to get some much needed help.