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

[veteran1964]

There goes Hillary and Bill. Now they have threatened Gallup to immediately change the polling data to suit them before Saturday. This is bunk! Like Democrats will not vote for Obama when he runs for President. Do you people think that we are stupid? I think you need to understand the Clintons and their power over certain events. POWER HUNGRY IDIOTS.

[jrterrier]

that's right. remember, hillary is winning dems by large margins even after the MSM and Obama operatives­/supporter­s have declared the campaign over.

and as the economy continues to tank, she will look even better.

when he's not reading from a teleprompter or prepared notes, he's pretty ordinary, hems and haws and puts his foot in the mouth not unlike the present inhabitant of the White House.

[WFV]

Oh, yes. Hillary will look even better as the economy gets worse.

Look better to whom? Her creditors?

The only enterprise she has run herself is this campaign and she has done an absolutely miserable job of it, not the least of it being her fiscal management. Yes, Hillary just looks better and better every day. Particularly in the rear view mirror.

[Trollstakeyourmeds]

As I posted yesterday. I saw him speaking on national security. He was rambling on about how "National security is directly connected to the economy. If people feel that individually they aren't doing well economically then national security is threatened". Ummm.....WHAT???? I still don't get the connection...but as his supporters say...he's brilliant and so far above the rest of us.

[eshalom]

The Washington Post just published an article exposing the Obama campaign's co-director in Puerto Rico as a Washington-based lobbyist for the Puerto Rican Government The WaPo article also points out that Obama's rules for his organization elsewhere are not what you'd call airtight.

Obama's really having a tough week after his Auschwitz gaffe.

[obamanation31]

Too Bad for Hillary the polls will change every 5 minuted.
The only polls that matter is the voice of the voters in Novemebr. If we decided presidents or Nominee's based on polls, she should have wrapped this up back in Dec of 2007.

[Dane1911]

Oh please we are still in the tiresome primary,..­.lol....wh­o cares Hiliary just drop out for crying out loud...She is going to reunion her chances to run in 2016......

[PuppaX]

From the report:

"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."

[magnitude]

Exactly! The desperado clintonistas cherry pick any report to boost their losing cause.
Wake up! It is over for Hill and Bill! I voted for Bill twice . I do not want to see him around the white house as self proclaimed VP!

[LittleSanityLeft]

There has never been a question about Hillary's ability to win the general her problem is winning the primary and considering 30% of voters are independents and the majority of those voters go to Obama. Besides the biggest issue as far as winning in November goes is bringing out the vote. Obama simply has a stronger, hungrier coalition of voters. Blacks will show up in droves as well as young voters. That's the one thing these polls can't or don't provide; an accurate guesstimate of voter turn out.

Simply put, the fact that Hillary can win doesn't mean Obama can't and the sooner she becomes a political footnote the better it is for Obama and the Democrats chances of trouncing McCain in the fall.

[marijam]

Nope, I'm an Independent, my son's a Democrat, my husband is registered Republican. We all want Hillary and we don't want Obama. We certainly don't want a person for President who won't consider a member of his own party as potential V.P., too hard to handle, too untrustworthy, too up-staging; but expects us to believe he can handle Chavez, Amadinejad, Kim Jung Ill, etc.

[LittleSanityLeft]

Independents preferring Obama is a matter of fact rather then supposition. The fact that you are the exception that proves the rule doesn't make my statement any less true.

As for not considering Hillary for VP...she gets exactly what she deserves. She could've gotten far more out of dropping out of the race before WV and Kentucky, trouncing Obama in those states without even running and then putting the pressure on Obama to except her as his VP. Instead she stokes racial animosity, has gaff after gaff, and looks like a sore looser. Instead of catching flies with honey she chose to catch them with a mallet. Why is it Hillary is never at fault for the things Hillary does? Sigh...

"too hard to handle, too untrustworthy, too up-staging;"

So Hillary is more trust worthy then Obama? You are most certainly in the minority amongst democrats, as for independant and republicans it's not even a contest, Hillary definately loses in the trust catagory.

Obama's too upstaging? So upstaging your political opponent is seen as a negative now? I could be wrong but you seem like a "it's her turn" voter who is upset that the young upstart didn't or wouldn't wait his turn, that he didn't acquiesce to the inevitability of the Clinton legacy. It's a common sentiment among the nonsensical as if 'free and fair elections' is a statement best left for bumper stickers and 10 dollar T-shirts, rather then the very foundation democracy.

[RThM]

Since Obama will most likely be the actual nominee and the Democratic presidential candidate, you had had better reassess what you think important because Hillary won't be part of the equation. You will have to choose to continue the past eight years of utter incompetence by voting McCain or make a decisive strike to return to some semblance of sanity by voting Obama. To remain frozen on an issue of whom to consider for a position that most likely never even break a Senate tie seems silly when we have so many outrageous issues facing the country. Take Teddy Roosevelt's advice. You've seen the trouble that politicians who swagger about "handling" foreign leaders with their big sticks can get us into. It's time to choose one who can also speak softly.

[Grannysue]

How about you do a poll with just Obama and McCain, because Clinton isn't going to be the nominee!

[Trollstakeyourmeds]

See the above poll numbers. McCain was compared with Clinton. Then McCain was compared with Obama. Did you skip that part?

[marijam]

Wave your wand and make it so, campaign fairies!

[bigbingtheory]

Yippee skippee. a couple of percentage points better than the presumptive nominee. good thing we use delegates to choose a nominee and not polls.

[robXdion]

Nothing to see here. This always happens with the fading candidate. It's more pronounced with the Clintons because of the nostalgia.

[greejambri]

SO???!!! The Democratic nominee is chosen based on delegates, pledged and super, NOT polls about an event that is over 5 months away in the future!

[marijam]

And that's why the Democrats may lose yet another election. They never learn.

[magnitude]

Democrats actually won in 2002. The supreme court SELECTED the moron in the white house.