Obama comes in 3rd in swing states - new polls

There was a rec'd diary up for a while dismissing Hillary because of some new polls in Colorado, Oregon, Wisconsin, Iowa and Michigan.  The states involved carry 50 Electoral Votes.  Hillary  is within the margin of error, close to McCain when they run against each other in those states.

There were some other interesting numbers in the swing state polls of matchups between McCain/ Obama, and McCain/ Clinton.  In the six potential swing states fully matched and reported May 21:

Obama wins one,  beating both Clinton and McCain in COLORADO.

McCain wins two, beating Obama and Clinton in polls in UTAH, VA.  Clinton wins three, beating McCain, and Obama loses against McCain.

Clinton wins FLORIDA, MISSOURI and NORTH CAROLINA.

So for May 21:

Obama  - 9 electoral votes
Hillary - 53 electoral votes

How about new polls out May 22 on potential swing states:

There are new polls fully matched in five states.

Polls show both Clinton and Obama  ahead of McCain in CALIFORNIA and PENNSYLVANIA, and if either wins there are 76 electoral votes.

In the other three states fully matched with new polls:

Clinton beats McCain in FLORIDA and  McCain beats Obama.
Clinton beats McCain in OHIO and McCain beats Obama.
Clinton beats McCain in NEVADA and McCain beats Obama.

In the new, fully matched potential swing state polls new on May 22, Clinton wins in states that Obama loses, netting 52 electoral  votes.

So on the new matched polls of matchups between Clinton/McCain and Obama/McCain we look to see if there are any states in which one Democrat wins against McCain and the other Democrat loses against McCain. Florida was repeated on both days with new fully matched polls.

May 21:  Obama 9  and Clinton 53 electoral votes
May 22: Since both Democrats beat McCain in CA and PA, set those 76 votes aside.  So the net for the day is Obama 0 and Clinton 52.

Total electoral votes in potential swing states over the new polls May 21 and 22 at RCP.

Obama: net 9
Clinton: net 104 (minus the second FL poll 104-27=78 net)

Clinton is clearly gaining in the state matchup polls.  And most of her wins are in states with more electoral votes than the Obama wins, putting her in better shape to win the Presidency.

There was chatter around the diaries last week about Obama bringing in a lot of states that the Democrats could not otherwise win.  There was hope that western states like Nevada and New Mexico and Colorado, Oregon and maybe others(some even argued Utah and Arizona for Obama!) would only go blue if our nominee turned out to be Obama. There was also suggestion that he would put some southern states in play, mentioning Obama being able to rally the Black bloc to beat McCain in North Carolina, Georgia, Virginia, and others.

This week it does not look as hopeful.  Georgia is polling heavily for McCain, as are other Deep South states.  Maybe there is something in VA.  The west may offer Colorado, but New Mexico is polling for Clinton and McCain.  Nevada polls for wins by Clinton and McCain, Arizona polls for McCain.  Utah is polling for McCain by 40 points. Clinton is 0.3 of a point below McCain in Oregon.

And then there is North Carolina.  The state where many said Clinton's fate was sealed. The state that double counted absentee/early ballots in the precincts and again in the county totals of urban counties like Wake and Mecklenburg, boosting the apparent margin of Obama's victory by tens of thousands of votes.

The new SurveyUSA poll on North Carolina:

NORTH CAROLINA May 17-19

McCain 51   Obama 43

CLINTON 49  McCain 43

So we can have a highly recommended diary written in such a way as to leave the impression that Senator Clinton is not growing in electability and strength and that Senator Obama was rising in a sweep of new polls.  Not true.

Since March 1 Clinton has won more of everything - races, delegtates, people voting, electoral votes and individual state matchups in states where McCain beats Obama. What she hasn't won more of is superdelegate announcements and media awareness of her victories and growing strength.

Wonder what this race would look like if it were fairly reported?

For those not onto poll and electoral sites try:
Real Clear Politics

Electoral vote

Election Atlas

270ToWin

538

We can look at the different versions, including the one on this site, and see which states are thought to be swing or in play and which are thought to be brought in by each candidate. There are even maps you can set up and save and add to with your own notions of which states will go with which candidates.

The state matchups are a little more helpful than the national polls right now because the area is smaller and more keyed to the individual differences voters will take to the booth.  Also in many cases it is closer to voting time and more in mind than more distant November.  Also McCain has had much less exposure and is still running formidably very early.  All polls have their fans and detractors, so let's not devolve into nit picking.

We could go to the the average of the polls for the last couple of months ending May 20, if you would rather, and Clinton walks away against McCain with jumbo electoral votes.  McCain beats Obama and Obama comes in 3rd in the averaged polls of swing states, like he does in the last two days.

In all of the swing states averaged on RCP on May 20:

Hillary against McCain ended with HILLARY 175 McCain 85

Obama against McCain ended with Obama 145  McCainN 164

In states where Clinton beat McCain but Obama did not - 63 EV's net

In states where Obama beat McCain but Clinton did not -33 EV's net

Any way we slice it Hillary is the clear winner among the three potential nominees when the time comes to count the electoral votes for President.

When we decide to get really serious about winning the White House, we're going to have to find a way to get behind Hillary as our actual, eventual nominee.

Note: CNN reported on an exit pole from May 20th:
71% of Obama voters said they'd vote for Clinton if she is the nominee.
23% of Clinton votes said they'd vote for Obama if he is the nominee; 43% would vote for McCain, and the rest would stay home or skip voting for President and vote down ticket.

To test the credibility of these statements, the reporter looked at the same question in exit polls in the last 2 elections, and found that primary voters who said they wouldn't vote for a particular Democratic candidate if he became the nominee actually voted for Bush in greater numbers than indicated during the exit polls.  If we really want the White House, we've got a lot to think about.  And Hillary as VP won't cut it.



Display:


One point (2.00 / 1)

You probably should not be citing SUSA's North Carolina poll... they just massively failed in north carolina like 2 weeks ago.. vastly underestimating Obama and underestimating Hillary.

Polls this far out are fairly useless unless they show a huge gap...  I'm feeling good about any state where the gap is under 10 or so for our canidates


by CaptainMorgan on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:47:44 AM EST

Re: One point (none / 0)

Particularly when considering that McCain is now likely receiving the most goodwill that anyone is willing to give.


"Tell me about your work ethic." "Well, I don't think ethnics do no work. I mean, that's they problem, really." "Overt racial prejudice. Impressive."
by vcalzone on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:57:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One point (none / 0)

By November, people will be looking at more than just the witty humor and outspokenness. They'll be matching up statements and weighing truthfulness.


"Tell me about your work ethic." "Well, I don't think ethnics do no work. I mean, that's they problem, really." "Overt racial prejudice. Impressive."
by vcalzone on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:59:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

you're about to get attacked now. (2.00 / 4)


"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg
by canadian gal on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:47:52 AM EST

Re: you're about to get attacked now. (1.50 / 2)

Ahh, I love your new rules! I'll print a bunch of inaccurate information on Senator Clinton, and when I get called on it by well reasoned Clinton supporters like sricki, VAAlex, Jarhead, Rummahazit, etc, then I'll cry "I'm being attacked! Meanies!", and it'll all be okay.

Or did I miss something there?


Serious question- Is This Snark?
by ragekage on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:59:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

rage... (2.00 / 3)

frankly i would not call you well-reasoned.  sorry.

dissension is a good healthy part of democracy. but you are part of a group of bullies that have descended here that want to shut anyone up here that does not agree with you.  amongst other things you spam diaries that mention nothing about the candidate you support and really frankly - do not elevate the discussion here.

but i have good news for you - what you are doing is working - the level of discussion has gone down here tremendously and you and your ilk can take credit - well done!


"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg
by canadian gal on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:10:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

If you can't take the heat.... (1.00 / 1)


by dystopianfuturetoday on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:20:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What does your comment... (2.00 / 1)

...have to do with this diary?


by bobswern on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:53:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: rage... (1.12 / 8)

Don't worry, young lady, I wouldn't call you well-reasoned- and I'm glad you wouldn't give me that designation, either, since if I was well reasoned to you, I'd worry.

Dissent is absolutely an integral part of democracy, but dissent doesn't include factless smear jobs on a foreign politician you've decided you don't like for whatever reason. Sorry to burst your bubble; I'm sure you'll continue to "add" to the discourse here, instead of sites like Hillaryis44.org, or Taylor Marsh, where your "unique" view would certainly be more appreciated.

Really, though, I guess the worst thing about this is you were, until recently, fairly even minded. Now, you've turned into a characterization of yourself, trying to further the divide in our party and generate animosity among Clinton and Obama supporters- and you don't even live in this country? Truly, how despicable can you get?


Serious question- Is This Snark?
by ragekage on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:50:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Nasty, personalized crap. n/t (2.00 / 3)


by bobswern on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:56:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nasty, personalized crap. n/t (1.33 / 3)

What d'you expect from the most sanctimonious and hypocritical blogger on MyDD, Bob, really? I only wish I could live up to your high standards.


Serious question- Is This Snark?
by ragekage on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:59:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I expect nothing more from you, sadly. (2.00 / 1)

How low do you go? I'm getting a perverse thrill seeing just how much of your nastiness this blog's administrators will tolerate before you get 86'ed.

Keep on doing what you do and you'll keep on getting what you've got.

Your comments here in this diary--particularly to cg--were quite awful.


by bobswern on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:08:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

So many personal attacks, so much... (1.50 / 2)

...hypocrisy...from someone who constantly gives lip service--only--to comments about "facts" and "reasonable discourse," only to be (perhaps) the grossest offender on this blog when it comes to attacking people, personally, and then engaging in ongoing loghorrea and picture posting of irrelevant material, on top of everything else.

Do you even realize how many times I've seen you personally attack people--this time its for cg being from Canada--whenever they write something you don't like?

How can you talk about facts when you make it so personal? How can you engage in such gross hypocrisy, with your track record (in your comments' archive, alone) being the strongest argument in support of my comments in this paragraph?


by bobswern on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:26:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So many personal attacks, so much... (2.00 / 1)

Again, Bob, I wish I could live up to your high standards; what can I say?


Serious question- Is This Snark?
by ragekage on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:28:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yo, bob, you're a champion! You have him/her (none / 0)

pegged.  It seems that the point is to prevent any discourse. They are afraid of what will be revealed or examined  They don't want any of us to say anything about Obama that might weigh on how godd a president he might be or how he appeals or doesn't appeal to which voters, where.  They don't want any part of the process he benefited from (or the thworting of it)discussed in case we may conclude that he should not have bennefitted or it was not the truly defined process.

They really don't want to look at the race baiting and so they try to make us look at them and at all of the straw men they can create out of the nearest haystack. Don't you find that they cannot stand to look at the center of a point or deal directly with the issues raised.  It is always about distracting the discussion to themselves.  We can surely see where they get the notion from since Obama has been distracting the media with all his wild accusations whenever they need to focus on something he doesn't want people to see or ask about.Wonder what they are all so afraid of and why we just can't count the votes and see who comes out of the convention and the general the winner.?


by itsadryheat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:04:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

despicable? (2.00 / 3)

i think this will be my last response to you EVER.

please stop with the lies.  smears?  what exactly is it that bothers you so?  that i am continuing to call out the media for its treatment of a democratic candidate that you don't prefer? yesterday when i wrote a non-candidate specific call out to the media, you didn't seem to mind.  i have never once said anything inaccurate or unfair about BO.  but that's the problem, see?  you and your crew are now the self proclaimed arbiters of what's allowed to be said at mydd. and sorry you bullying and childish behaviour do not work with me.

anyway as i said in the diary (about the media treatment of HRC) that you call a smear , you have certainly earned you negative reputation - goodbye and good luck.


"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg
by canadian gal on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:06:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Ragekage,... (2.00 / 1)

That you are xenophobic in addition to your other shortcomings should surprise nobody.


by Ed J on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:24:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: rage... (2.00 / 1)

No, there is a group that objects to fact-free diaries, or even worse wilfully distorted diaries, such as those by Alegra, linfar and socaldarlin that regularly clog up the rec list.  Many Obama posters patiently point out the lies, smears and distortions, for which they are rewarded with comments like yours.  It really is depressing, because it is pretty much a one-way street.  There really is no Obama equivalent of those sorts of diaries here.


by interestedbystander on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:56:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: rage... (2.00 / 3)

please.  there have been a bunch of thugs, mostly BO supporters bullying people here for a week now.  do you want to see the diary your pal calls a smear.  here, take a look.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/22/2320 1/9012

so yes - the nonsense has got to stop on both sides - but people like the above are the culprits.


"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg
by canadian gal on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:11:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: rage... (none / 0)

Please point me to any Obama equivalent of the fact free diaries that I referred to, that has made the rec list.  Because we are treated to two a day from Alegra, and they are insulting to our intelligence. What you consider bullying, most would consider responding in kind.


by interestedbystander on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:14:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: rage... (none / 0)

I did take a look - he made one comment in that diary, and then a further response to yours.  You are mischaracteristing what he said.  It is not bullying to respond forcefully to untruthful diaries.  


by interestedbystander on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:20:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: rage... (2.00 / 1)

lost cause.


"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg
by canadian gal on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:45:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: rage... (none / 0)

Maybe you arrived late in the game. After certain Clinton supporters on other sites decided they couldn't live without attacking Barack Obama, they flooded here. This site devolved into nothing but hit pieces on Obama. The worst of those people are mostly gone, and many others have relaxed their tone. But only recently has it been the case that Obama supporters could gather any support at all.

Besides that, if anything, the arguments about something as intangible as Obama's electability only serve to create rancor. Of course, maybe it wouldn't if they weren't so clearly propaganda pieces.


"Tell me about your work ethic." "Well, I don't think ethnics do no work. I mean, that's they problem, really." "Overt racial prejudice. Impressive."
by vcalzone on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:12:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

admittedly - (none / 0)

i did arrive late in the game, around mid-march.  but what i have seen here since then is disheartening.  smear jobs have no place here, but that being said i observe 2 problems recently.

1 - any dissension on BO/anything positive on HRC is being labeled a smear and as such, the commenters (mostly BO supporters) spam diaries, add sarcastic and smearlike remarks about HRC and do nothing to add to the discussion

2 - when did a group (these bullies) become the arbiters of whats allowed to be discussed?  i dont condone lies and generally preach a conciliatory tone but this ridiculous.

sadly - i see what happened at kos being replicated here, meaning bullying to shut up those that disagree with you. v. sad.


"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg
by canadian gal on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:32:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Given the character of the bullies we should (2.00 / 1)

be verry  concerned about what sort of person they would flock to and select as their favored presidential candidate.  What is it about BO that would attract so many of these people unable/willing to function in society.

I'm beginning to think we really need to look closely at what it is about supporting BO that makes people believe that they can and they have to act so disruptively, so cruelly and so constantly disrespectful of the persons and views of the posters they pick to attack.  This behaviour, if deliberate is so close to fascistic that we can sometimes not see the difference and we can we that it is often abusive.

 If it is deliberate, then we need to know why? The only scenario I can see is that they know/fear that Obama cannot win on his merits and for some reason they are unable to do without his winning. Maybe it is, as some have said, for money and they only get paid if they are this rude and disruptive.

If not, maybe it is like what makes some people into stalkers and bullies in physical reality, but collected in a group and focussed on Obama. Maybe it is just a bunch of juveniles getting kicks in sophmoric ways gone mega on the web.  What attracts them to Obama?

If this is not calculated but sincere and they don't recognize what they are doing as unacceptable and unhealthy, we have really got a problem.  If this is what Obama's message appeals to or if they see themselves in him, then they are looking at something the rest of us had better pay attention to, and fast, before we make a collossal
 mistake.

You have been a stalwart champion of reasoned discourse and courteous treatment and respect. And you have been more judicious and restrained than I have.( I admire you for it).  You have been abused for that.  I think you are very wise to stop engaging them.  If they insist on inserting themselves in a thread to disrupt it or bring straw man side arguments, or attacking posters, we should just talk around them and as my old granny used to counsel, give them the attention their rudeness deserves.

We know they don't want anyone to hear that Hillary is doing well in swing states and constituencies that we need in order to win the general and they don't want us to say more actual voters went to the actual poll and voted for her than for any democrat in a primary ever.  Because that sounds too much like, whatever some leaders and others want, most of the voters who actually voted want Hillary to be their President.

Nobody is supposed to talk about his background, his credentials, his flaws and vulnerablities, his campaign tactics, his divisiveness, his policies, his legislation, his political attachments and their problems, his obvious lack of preparation for the presendency, his lack of substance and his refusal to expose himself to thorough questioning from reporters and voters, the refusal to debate and his poor performances, the plagerism of policies and speeches, the inventions in his autobiography, his Chairmanship in the Senate and how a freshman got it and why he refused to work at his committee or travel to the countries involved, the difference in his lack of foreign exposure compared to Hillary's extensive travel to 80 countries and engagement with their leaders and their challanges, his character and his fitness to lead on democratic values.

We don't talk about much of any of that , with all of the words spent.  We just don't much discuss it, with all the blogging and all of the daily media attention, much of all this is a mystery to most. Most of the posting Obama supporters I run across don't want to talk about any of this and are not well versed enough on Obama to carry on the discussion.  But they know the memes and have the ready talking point attacks..

They don't seem to know how much they don't know and if they won't engage on the subjects and create distractions instead, they won't learn much or be inspired to study for themselves.  That ready retort always protects them from questioning they might benefit from.  And if you don't talk with them, they are losing a main chance.  But you don't have to volunteer to be abused just to help them or stand up to them.

I don't think their purpose here includes learning anything, at least not the bullies. Our morality in the party is shifting to a place I don't recognize as reflecting democratic values, as some leaders, since 2006 don't look like what we elected and don't do what we elected them to do.If Dean and enough of the committees are in the tank, this whole thing can be thrown away and we might as well be talking about a New Democratic Party operated on the Real Democratic values.  Maybe that is where we need to go from here if the delegates don't fix this situation fast.  At any rate, a canadian gal would be a most valued member and anybody who can't see that would not.

Still, I wonder what they are so afraid we would discover about Obama if they behaved themselves?


by itsadryheat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:19:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

thanks for the heads up, c'gal, nice to see you (2.00 / 2)


by itsadryheat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:01:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama comes in 3rd in swing states - new polls (2.00 / 2)

Wow, this diary is full of fail. But I'll save the picture, and try to combat it.

You've cherry picked a helluva lot of polls. It looks like to me you took the ones you liked, ran with 'em, didn't source them individually (instead listing a whole host of sites to make it look like you did real research) so we could determine this, and make faulty arguments.

For instance, the crosstabs on the SUSA polls where Clinton won over McCain in North Carolina had two things skewing it; first, SUSA set the African-American turnout at a percentage which would garner a number less than in the Democratic primary. That, and Obama had quite a few Hillary deadenders either eschewing the poll, or throwing in with McCain against Obama.

He's currently polling one point under McCain, and now only 1.9 points in an aggregate poll with data all the way back from February against McCain in Ohio; he's polling up to seventeen points over McCain in PA; he's the only one polling a win in IA, CO, WI, and MI from Poblano's aggregates. Even with the "disenfranchisement", he's winning Michigan and Clinton is not? How interesting.

But I loved this gem.

When we decide to get really serious about winning the White House, we're going to have to find a way to get behind Hillary as our actual, eventual nominee.

Yes, blackmail the superdelegates, and use intellectual dishonesty in cherry picked and totally inaccurate talking points to do so. Bravo, sir.


Serious question- Is This Snark?
by ragekage on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:58:12 AM EST

Re: Obama comes in 3rd in swing states - new polls (2.00 / 1)

"first, SUSA set the African-American turnout at a percentage which would garner a number less than in the Democratic primary."

You do realize that the AA vote was twice as large in the Democratic party than it will be in the GE, right?  Because almost all AA's a registered Dems, Democratic primaries doube their voting strength.  

I wouldn't put too much stock in that NC poll.  Frankly, I see it going red regardless of the nominee.  


Lifelong Democrat, civil rights advocate, former volunteer for Dem candidates. Now Independent.
by BPK80 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:52:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama comes in 3rd in swing states - new polls (2.00 / 1)

I'd tend to agree with you in re North Carolina being red- I think Obama can make it more competitive, but close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades- but I wasn't talking percentages, I was talking raw numbers. As in, less African-American voters show up for the GE by the numbers than in the primary.


Serious question- Is This Snark?
by ragekage on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:01:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Thank you , all Kudos appreciated. You are (none / 0)

apparantly not familiar with the polling available to interested researchers each day at Teal Clear Politics.  That is, for the uninitietedm the RCP link shown in the diary.  And no, the other links are not polls.  Wrong again.

If you get familiar with these electoral college map sites listed, you can educate yourself in the electoral votes assigned to each state and something of the election history of each state and the systems each site uses to aggregate the data and show the likely winners in matchups - McCain against Obama - McCain against Clinton.

These maps have been updated daily for the last few months so that people interested in the elections can see how they look each day.  They have shown since Feb. 6 that Hillary had won states with enough electoral votes to be president.  Obama has yet to reach the 270 votes needed to win.  

This is what everyone meant when they talked about must win states for democrats and why the usually republican states would for the most part not go for Obama even though he got the most democratic votes in the primary or caucus, as it usually was.  It wasn't fantasy, it was demographic and electoral data.  A lot of Obama supporteres liked to call it insulting states and liked to say that Obama had won more states.

By studying this stuff people know that it  is possible to win 30 something states and not get 270 and it is possible to win 13 states and get enough votes for the presidency.  Just like five cocunties could give Obama Missouri even though Hillary won 105.

 This stuff is not made up.  It is about evidence of electability.  Now you can dismiss this diary as made up, but if you were one of those who cared about how elections work, you might find some of the links useful  RCP is not a poll or polster.  It is a collector of polls and it organizes data for researchers.

You can see the latest polls published on Virginia, learn how many electoral  votes they have, how many polls have been taken in the last few months, how they average and the results and dates of the most recent polls and you can link to all of the polls, study the data and the assumptions and the sample make up and draw your conclusions.

We don't draw conclusions based on who wins a poll.  Some polsters are better than others and at diffenent times. Some tabs tell us a lot and some are questionable.  So there are two kinds of links, the poll site to see various polls and select the ones that interest you. Electoral maps, several sites with different methodologies.  My dd has at the top of the page the two matchups of electoral votes and tends to be more generous to the prospects oof both democrats than the sites in the links.

There are even interactive maps linked that you can fill out according to your own notions of how heach state is going at this time and then let the software calculate and save it for you to refer to later and change.  You would probable like that one if your got into research, because you can make it say what you please.

There was no cherry picking as you accuse.  The diary included every poll listed at RCP that was fully matched..you know what that means?  That means that the polls had to be about swing states, meaning states that some of the electoral researchers say could go either dem or rep in the fall.  

They had to be matched, meaning if there was only one matchup of McCaim and a dem we didi not include it.  Fully matched would be any poll of a swing state that matched Clinton to Mc and Obama to McCain.  They are all listed for May 21 and again all out on May 22.  The polls before then are averaged, except in the cas of averages that wen so far back as to be useless  like Feb.  In that cas the most recent poll was used, otherwise the average of polls calculated by RVP was used.

This stuff is actually interesting and useful in understanding what is happening.  You might like getting into it if you were not already so busy trashing diaries and poster.  But hey, I guess I thought there was hope for you or I could have beeing doing something useful with the last thirty minutes of my life.  But this is it.


by itsadryheat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:00:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama comes in 3rd in swing states - new polls (2.00 / 2)

Behind Bob Barr?  Oh noes!!!one!


John McCain: Healthcare for Kids? In America? No way
by bosdcla14 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:20:27 AM EST

Re: Obama comes in 3rd in swing states - new polls (none / 0)

this is another Hillary dead-ender.  I use to wonder why the Iraqi people didnt find a way to come together for the common purpose of a better life like the average person would have more in common that differences. However, the Hillary dead-enders explain allot about how this happens all to often as people get so caught up in TINY differencs they lose sight of everything else.


by affratboy22 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:21:39 AM EST

Re: Obama comes in 3rd in swing states - new polls (none / 0)

i sound like Bush?  This has notbing to do with Bush.
FACT: Iraq has a new chance to come together and make their lives better but their small differences keep them blowing each other up
FACT: Obama is nominee and the difference between him and Hillary are small and both are much better thah McBush but Clinton dead-enders seem to want to cut ther nose off to spite their face and allow McCain to waltz inro the white house because they cant get the hell over their person lost, and she has lost.
by affratboy22 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:15:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama comes in 3rd in swing states - new polls (2.00 / 4)

I feel reasonably confident that if Obama is the nominee, he will finish no worse than 2nd in the GE.  Disagree if you must.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:36:01 AM EST

Re: Obama comes in 3rd in swing states - new polls (2.00 / 2)

Excellent diary with a lot of work put into it.  Rec'd.  


Lifelong Democrat, civil rights advocate, former volunteer for Dem candidates. Now Independent.
by BPK80 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:49:34 AM EST

Massive mojo for this diary! Kudos! n/t (2.00 / 2)


by bobswern on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:58:27 AM EST

It's only May and the GE is not until November (2.00 / 1)

Obama can win more votes in the GE because he will appeal to more voters in the GE when it happens in November.

Five months ago Obama was 30 points down to Hillary. Look where we are now. Obama has shown that he can destroy big leads in polls and Hillary has shown that she can blow big leads.

The Democratic party has made its choice through the primary caucus process. The sooner that is understood the sooner we can get on with beating McCain.


We shall overcome. Yes we can.
by Sam Wise Gingy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:17:39 AM EST

Re: It's only May and the GE is not until November (none / 0)

No. It's Hillary that has alienated big chunks of the  Democratic party as evidenced in the most recent polls.

What the SDs care about most is getting someone elected president who will promote the ideals of the party, not just their own interests.


We shall overcome. Yes we can.
by Sam Wise Gingy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:11:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's good that Hillary as VP won't cut it, (none / 0)

because she's not going to be on the ticket at all.

As many times as people explain to you that these polls are meaningless as long as it's still a 3 person race you still don't get it.


John McCain supports privatizing Social Security.
by Travis Stark on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:48:05 AM EST

Re: Obama (2.00 / 1)

the "bitter" comments will be played over and over in states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, kentucky, and out west like Nevada and New Mexico.

A lot of gun-enthusiasts live in those states, who may be Democrats but are conservative-leaning Democrats. They will reject a little pencil-neck skinny guy know-it-all like Obama. And will choose the veteran John McCain.

Do the Washington insiders ever get outside the beltway?  If Kerry could be painted as "weak, probably shot himself in Vietnam, etc...." just wait for the caricature of Obama.

Even when he defends himself, as he was defending his wife, over at Redstate they were calling him "Macho Bambi".

Maybe in Boston or Seattle they don't understand this.  But out here where the "real people" live, the people who eat ground beef and don't know what a "latte" even is, it is obvious Obama is a terrible candidate for the GE.  Same as it ever was.


by WolfmanJack on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:44:45 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.