The compromise didn't resolve the matter of which candidate will be nominated -- so it now appears that the decision will be left to the superdelegates.Who's it going to be, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama?
When all is said and done, the Democrats can say that it was a virtual split. Obama has a slight edge in popular vote and delegate support, but timing is everything, as the saying goes.
And that leads, inevitably, to "What if ... ?" questions.
What if Texas and Ohio had voted with most of the other states in early February instead of early March?
What if voters in West Virginia and Kentucky had held their primaries in February instead of May? Would Obama have been able to build his remarkable primary/caucus winning streak?
Obama withdrew his membership from his church yesterday. If he had done that earlier, would it have changed the outcome in some of the states that followed? Would he have been able to secure the nomination by leaving his church?
What's the situation in states that will clearly be battleground states in the fall?
Here's a peek at a few of them.
- Clinton appears to give John McCain a tougher fight for Florida's 27 electoral votes than Obama.
Quinnipiac University says Clinton leads McCain in Florida (48% to 41%) but it says McCain leads Obama (45% to 41%). Rasmussen Reports has different margins but identical outcomes -- Clinton over McCain (47% to 41%) and McCain over Obama (50% to 40%).
- The race for Michigan's 17 electoral votes seems to be favoring McCain, although polls suggest Clinton might be more competitive there than Obama.
Neither Democrat has been leading in recent head-to-head polls.
EPIC-MRA's latest surveys for WXYZ-Action News report that McCain leads both Democratic challengers (44-40 over Obama, 46-37 over Clinton).
According to those results, Obama is more competitive against McCain than Clinton. But it's worth mentioning that EPIC-MRA's survey on McCain-Clinton was completed April 8 and I have found no surveys on that question that are more recent. The survey on McCain-Obama was completed May 22.
But Clinton is tied with McCain (44-44) in the latest Rasmussen Reports while Obama trails by 4 points (41-37).
- It seems likely to me that California (55 electoral votes) will remain in the Democratic column, where it's been since 1992.
Both Clinton and Obama have been leading in every California survey I've seen. The numbers are similar for both candidates -- one may lead McCain by a slightly higher margin than the other, but the polls consistently show the Democrat winning in California.
At this point, I can't see anything changing the outcome in that state.
- In Ohio, there are 20 electoral votes available. Polls are mixed on Obama vs. McCain, with Obama leading the latest Survey USA poll (48% to 39%) and McCain in front in the latest Quinnipiac University survey (44% to 40%) and Rasmussen Reports (45% to 44%).
Against McCain, Clinton leads Ohio by 7 percentage points in Rasmussen (50% to 43%) and Quinnipiac (48% to 41%).
Survey USA apparently is only asking respondents about Obama-McCain, because I have seen almost no results of a Clinton-McCain inquiry since early April (the exceptions to this are Missouri and North Carolina -- see below).
The advantage in Ohio appears to belong to Clinton.
- Pennsylvania, with its 21 electoral votes, appears to be favoring the Democrat, whichever one that is.
Obama's lead in the polls is pretty consistent, generally between 6 and 8 points (46-40 in Quinnipiac, 48-40 in Survey USA, 46-39 in Susquehanna Polling), a little narrower in Rasmussen Reports (45-43).
Clinton's lead in Pennsylvania is consistent as well. It's also consistently a little higher than Obama's -- 11 points each in Rasmussen Reports (50-39) and Susquehanna Polling (49-38), 13 points in Quinnipiac (50-37).
I'd say Democrats can expect to carry Pennsylvania for the fifth straight time.
- Georgia (15 electoral votes) is one of those Southern states in which Obama is expected to benefit from a large black turnout. (Blacks acccount for just under 30% of Georgia's population.)
But the latest surveys of likely voters indicate McCain leads both Democrats by margins in double digits. Rasmussen Reports has McCain leading Clinton, 48% to 37%, and leading Obama, 53% to 39%.
Strategic Vision's latest survey seems to confirm Rasmussen. It has McCain leading Obama, 54% to 40%. Apparently, it didn't ask respondents about McCain vs. Clinton.
- North Carolina (15 electoral votes) is another Southern state where Obama's race is expected to work in his favor. (About 21% of North Carolina's residents are black.)
And the conservative Washington Times says Sen. Elizabeth Dole faces a tough battle for re-election this year.
But, even though the climate for Republicans isn't good in North Carolina, McCain has been leading in most of the recent polls I've seen. And the only exception has been in Clinton's favor, not Obama's.
Survey USA has McCain leading Obama in North Carolina, 51% to 43%, but it has Clinton leading McCain, 49% to 43%.
Rasmussen Reports has McCain leading both Democrats by 3 points in North Carolina -- 48-45 over Obama and 43-40 over Clinton.
And Public Policy Polling reports that McCain leads both Democrats as well. McCain leads Clinton in that survey, 48% to 40%, and he leads Obama, 49% to 42%.
- I've heard talk suggesting that Obama should pick Virginia Sen. Jim Webb or Gov. Tim Kaine as his running mate.
The thinking is that a traditionally Republican state like Virginia (13 electoral votes) is a viable Democratic target in the presidential election -- if only because Virginia rejected incumbent Republican Senator George Allen in 2006 and put Webb in the Senate in his place.
That logic may be correct, but the polls aren't all that favorable.
Obama does run closer to McCain than Clinton in Virginia, but the polls still lean Republican in that state.
Rasmussen Reports says McCain leads Obama 47-44 and he leads Clinton 47-41. The latest VCU Communications and Public Relations survey finds McCain leading Obama 44-36 and leading Clinton 47-38.
In the interest of fairness, Obama led McCain in Survey USA 49-42.
- Missouri (11 electoral votes) is a bellwether state, having voted for the winner of almost every presidential election for a century.
When polls ask voters in that state to choose between Obama and McCain, McCain leads in every survey. Sometimes the lead is slim (48-45 in Survey USA), sometimes it's wider (47-41 in Rasmussen Reports).
But the last time I saw a poll that showed Obama leading McCain head-to-head in Missouri was in a survey from December. That was before the Iowa caucus, which gave Obama the early momentum he needed to overtake then-front runner Clinton.
The results are more mixed when the choice is between Clinton and McCain.
Survey USA apparently asked Missouri voters about Clinton vs. McCain and came up with Clinton 48%, McCain 46%. Rasmussen Reports says McCain leads Clinton, 45% to 43%.
- Historically, New Mexico (5 electoral votes) is another bellwether state.
Rasmussen Reports found that Clinton leads McCain in his neighboring state, 47% to 41%. Rasmussen says Obama's lead is even higher, 50% to 41%, but Survey USA says Obama and McCain are tied in New Mexico, 44% to 44%.
These polls are fun to talk about, but they are meaningless until the general election begins.
ReplyDeleteThe real difference between Obama, the presumptive candidate, and his closest Democrat rival, Clinton, is that Obama puts several states into play for Democrats, while Clinton would have to eek out a victory in only the traditional swing states.
With Obama, Democrats have a chance in Georgia, NC, Tenneseee, Louisiana, Virginia, Colorado, and NM -- solidly GOP for a while -- and a few others. That is not the case with Clinton. It doesn't mean he will win all of them, but I imagine he will pick up a few of these.
Additionally, he wouldn't lose any that would traditionally vote Democrat or that Hillary was strong in: New York, California, Oregon, Washington, the Northeast, should remain strong Democratic states.
This all changes the map, and corrupt states like Florida and Ohio won't even come into play. You can go ahead and count FL and OH for the GOP: They still control the statehouse in Florida, ensuring GOP victory regardless of the vote; and in Ohio, the CEO of the company that manufactures the electronic voting machines, Diebold, guaranteed a Bush victory in 2004 -- even as exit polls showed a strong Kerry win. The paperless voting machines calculated a win for Bush. Nothing has changed in Ohio. So go ahead and shade those states red.
I never suggested that the polls have any more meaning than they actually have.
ReplyDeleteA poll is nothing more than a snapshot of where the public stands at a particular moment in time.
It's impossible to know in June how the voters will vote in November.
The Clinton campaign has been arguing that Clinton is stronger in the battleground states than Obama.
All we have to judge the validity of that statement is what the polls tell us.
That's all I was doing -- seeing where the polls said things stand right now.
It seems to me that your assertions about the electoral prospects for both Obama and Clinton must be based on polls. If they are, I haven't seen the polls that support that position.
If they're not based on polls, then on what are you basing your conclusions?
As a lifelong Southerner, I am not convinced that Obama can win in this region. So far, the polls agree with me.
And, beyond that ...
Tennessee, for example, had an opportunity to elect a black candidate to the Senate two years ago, in a clearly Democratic year. But Tennessee elected the Republican.
Virginia hasn't voted for a Democrat in more than 40 years. Georgia hasn't voted for a Democrat since Carter lost to Reagan in 1980.
Maybe Obama will be more competitive in the South than I think he will. I'm just not convinced.
We shall see...
ReplyDeletebtw, the polls are about as reliable as what I think. basically, just wondering.
ReplyDeleteBut, when you see the crowds, the enthusiasm, the ass-kicking Georgia laid on Clinton, you can see that Obama has a shot.
again, the polls are absolutely meaningless.
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. We should have a national popular vote for President in which the White House goes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states.
ReplyDeleteThe 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—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, 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).
The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule which awards all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state. Because of this rule, candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. 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.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.
The National Popular Vote bill has been approved by 18 legislative chambers (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, Maine, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Washington, and two houses in Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, California, and Vermont). 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 this legislation into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Susan
Kyle -- insurgents always draw large, enthusiastic crowds. When I was 12 years old (in 1972), I went to two McGovern rallies in Little Rock. They were well attended, boisterous. But Richard Nixon won the state by an insanely wide margin.
ReplyDeleteAttendance at rallies and turnout at the polls are two distinctly different things. And the demographic groups that have put Obama in position to claim the nomination haven't been too reliable in the past.
Susan -- I agree with you about the Electoral College. It's a throwback to the earliest days of the republic -- back before there was such a thing as popular vote for the presidency. I think it has long outlived its usefulness. It's time for direct vote.
Susan -- You're not completely right about the electors.
ReplyDeleteThey aren't required to vote as their state did, but they do, most of the time.
Even so, if you look back at electoral vote tallies from past elections, you will see a stray vote or two for someone else.
And there are two states -- Maine and Nebraska -- that have enacted legislation that requires dividing electors if the candidate who loses the state wins one of the state's congressional districts.
So far, that scenario hasn't occurred -- although there was a time on Election Night in 1992 when it was believed that Ross Perot might carry one of Maine's congressional districts.
David, what I'm saying is that these polls are MEANINGLESS at this point. The only reason they have ANY credibility is because they are puffed up by a very lazy press corps that wants what they define as HARD facts. Unfortunately for the press and for the rest of us, these "facts" mean nothing at all. And are equivalent to anyone's rationale, including mine.
ReplyDeleteLet's face it: Had Clinton bowed out on Super Tuesday like any candidate that had faced such a whipping (and obviously it was by enough margin for Obama to win), these polls would be much different. The fact that Clinton stayed in the race when anyone in her/his right mind would have graciously bowed out, has skewed any data collection irrevocably. I get sick and tired of the Clintons claiming they were mistreated by the press: As Maureen Dowd pointed out, one really can't say that if they lose 11 elections in a row and are still considered a viable candidate. If she had left in February, Obama would have had more time to bolster these pseudopoll numbers.
As you state, 5 months is a long time, and I am confident that Obama should be able to make his case vs. McCain within that 5 months. The point again is those polls mean squat.
Of course, Democrats have a long history of blowing elections (Richards v. Bush; Bush v. Gore; Bush v. Kerry; and a myriad of others), so we will see. One thing that would totally blow this for Obama would be Clinton as his VP choice. That would bring Bill back into the picture, the haters would come to the polls regardless of McCain's lack of conservatism, the GOP would use footage of the Clintons bashing Obama relentlessly, and it would totally erode Obama's message of change in Washington.
I do like Hillary Clinton, and none of what I mentioned in the last paragraph is fair at all. But it is the reality of the baggage that comes with her. When I saw her speak in Columbia, MO, in 1992, I came away saying "the wrong Clinton is running" even though I liked Bill. She was -- and is -- an excellent speaker and a great public servant. It is too bad that the weight of the GOP hate machine has tarnished her in such a way.
Oh, one other thing: To compare McGovern with Obama is laughable. We must remember, that election was totally manipulated by Nixon.
ReplyDeleteThe Watergate scandal, most have forgotten, was not about plumbers in the DNC headquaters; that was the tip of the iceberg. Watergate was about infiltrating the Democratic primary process, and manufacturing a win for the most liberal candidate possible to alleviate the paranoia of Nixon.
Besides that, Nixon was an incumbent during a war in that '72 election, and McGovern -- including but not limited to the reasons stated above -- was not going to beat him at all. His "insurgent" campaign was an illusion, and the crowds I hate to tell you were NOTHING like what is going on with Obama this year. They might have been big in a few places, but they pale into comparison with the sustained enthusiasm of Obama's campaign.
Looks like I have to keep saying this until I'm blue in the face.
ReplyDeleteI never suggested that the polls were anything more than what they are. They're the only information we have for the general election. And I was examining them to test the validity of the Clinton campaign's statements that she would be more competitive than Obama against McCain.
Also -- for the record.
I never compared McGovern to Obama. I compared the enthusiasm of McGovern's crowds (enthusiasm that I witnessed first hand) to the enthusiasm of Obama's crowds.
It was the enthusiasm of Obama's crowds that was brought up.
The McGovern rallies are the only frame of reference I have personally.
But I can mention other insurgent candidates in my lifetime who have drawn large, enthusiastic crowds of "true believers" -- Barry Goldwater, George Wallace, John Anderson and Ross Perot. I never attended any of their rallies but I saw the crowds on TV.
The crowds were large and enthusiastic for all of them. But none of them were elected. Only Goldwater and Wallace managed to carry any states at all.
For that matter, I saw a lot of large crowds for John Kerry in 2004 -- although sometimes it was hard to tell if they came to hear Kerry or the free concerts Bruce Springsteen was giving.
My point is simply this.
You can't predict electoral success on the basis of enthusiastic crowds.
Not based on history.
By the way, it seems to me that Gary Hart was an insurgent in 1984 -- virtually coming from nowhere to challenge Walter Mondale.
ReplyDeleteI went to one of his rallies in the spring of 1984. It was very large, very enthusiastic.
But Hart never won the nomination.
And another thing. The original assertion that polls are meaningless until the start of the general election campaign is false.
Actually, the conventional wisdom among political observers is that most people don't really pay attention to the campaign until after the World Series ends in late October.
Of course, all the conventional wisdom may be turned on its ear this year.
Maybe we'll see dazzling turnout numbers from young voters.
Maybe people will pay attention to the campaign all summer and all fall.
Maybe the voters will insist that the candidates talk about the serious issues confronting the country.
Maybe the voters won't get sidetracked by things like swift boats and gay marriage -- or military service (or maybe that should be "absence of military service" -- we all know McCain served in Vietnam but Obama never served in the military -- will it be more of an issue than it was for George W. Bush or Bill Clinton?) or flag burning or race.
Your blog, so you get the last word. Actually, I'm too tired to continue to convince you of the meaninglessness of polls in the heat of an unprecedented primary season attempting to measure who would do better against McCain.
ReplyDelete