Polls Show Hillary And Obama Competitive Against McCain In Different States
A new set of SurveyUSA polls is a mixed bag for both Hillary Clinton's and Barack Obama's arguments about electability. Obama does better than Hillary against John McCain in some states — Kansas, Minnesota, New Mexico and Oregon — while Hillary does better in Massachusetts and, perhaps most importantly, Ohio. And they run about the same in Alabama, California and Missouri.
Either one of them could beat John McCain in Ohio, a state that could potentially decide the presidency, but Hillary does quite a bit better. She tops mcCain 52%-42%, while Obama wins by a narrower 47%-44%.
But there's good news for both of them and their supporters: Before he actually clinched the Republican nomination, McCain was much stronger against both Democrats in practically all these states. But with McCain now leading the unpopular GOP, and with the Dems getting more attention as their primary continues, they have risen and he has fallen.
The full numbers are available after the jump.
Alabama:
McCain (R) 57%, Clinton (D) 37%
McCain (R) 58%, Obama (D) 34%
California:
Clinton (D) 58%, McCain (R) 35%
Obama (D) 61%, McCain (R) 34%
Kansas:
McCain (R) 59%, Clinton (D) 35%
McCain (R) 50%, Obama (D) 44%
Massachusetts:
Clinton (D) 52%, McCain (R) 43%
Obama (D) 48%, McCain (R) 46%
Minnesota:
Clinton (D) 49%, McCain (R) 45%
Obama (D) 55%, McCain (R) 40%
Missouri:
Clinton (D) 51%, McCain (R) 44%
Obama (D) 49%, McCain (R) 43%
New Mexico:
Clinton (D) 50%, McCain (R) 45%
Obama (D) 55%, McCain (R) 40%
Ohio:
Clinton (D) 52%, McCain (R) 42%
Obama (D) 47%, McCain (R) 44%
Oregon:
McCain (R) 49%, Clinton (D) 41%
Obama (D) 48%, McCain (R) 47%
I cannot prove this, but as a Missourian born and bred, I know that Obama can carry Missouri and Clinton cannot. I do not blame anyone who doubts me on this point, because I freely confess that I cannot prove my case, but I have not the least doubt about the correctness of my contention.
February 22, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Refresh my memory please. Which state is the show me state? I say this with a teasing wink.
February 22, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, I'm going to ask David Kurtz, who is a Missourian, too, about this, and see what he has to say about it...
February 22, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good deal. I do not know if anyone can change my mind on this, but I would still be interested to know if my fellow Missourians agree or disagree with my argumentum ad intestinos.
February 22, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, Greg. There is simply too much angst about Hillary in this state and she will not, repeat not, carry Missouri.
February 22, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
If it is not too nosy of me to ask, what part of the state are you in? I ask because I live in St Louis and if your opinion represents just another St Louis opinion, that is less compelling a reinforcement of my contention than if you live in Independance or Springfield or Scotland County or some such.
February 22, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm in the most conservative ward in the city. It reliably votes Republican--and put Bush into office twice. After a lot of ground work, McCaskill won this ward by 56%. In the primary, Obama won this ward with 53%.
I think Obama will show the same pattern as McCaskill in the general election...although it will be after a lot of hard work.
Now, do we want to speculate on how much work will be done for Hillary versus Obama? I think Obama wins that hands down here in Missouri. We saw the volunteer effort for Hillary--and it was fairly non-existent.
February 22, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
No argument there. Clinton's campaign was banking far too heavily on its own inevitability in MO. Bill McClellan said it best
I had a beer and then left for the Barack Obama party at the nearby Moolah Theater...I wandered through the crowded lobby and looked into the theater. All the seats were taken and people were standing. How many people? I'm bad at estimating crowds, but St. Louis Alderman Joe Roddy made a guess of 500. Speaking of aldermen, I saw a number of them, including Marlene Davis, Jeffrey Boyd and Steve Conway. Counting Roddy, that's two white and two black. I saw two congressmen, Lacy Clay and Russ Carnahan. Again, black and white.
There were plenty of other elected officials. And plenty of people I didn't recognize. Black and white, young and old. Everybody seemed excited. A local television station was on the big screen. A live report came from Clinton headquarters a couple of blocks away.
"It's quiet here," said the television reporter. "There are about 30 people here."
The crowd at the Moolah laughed and cheered.
February 22, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Last night there was a Missouri call-in conference of Obama volunteers with Senator McCaskill. The guy setting up the call started with 20 lines and was over a hundred before the call started. He said there were well over 100 activists calling in from all over the state.
And our primary was on Super Tuesday.
:)
February 22, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you going to be at the keep-in-touch meeting at Uncle Bill's on Friday? If so, I will likely see you there.
February 22, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm originally from St. Louis, but I live in Springfield now. I completely agree with you that Obama will carry MO. My opinion is probably a little biased considering that I'm a college student and therefore am surrounded by ardent Obama fans, but I think that students will really be getting out for him here and elsewhere around the state.
February 23, 2008 1:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Overall Hillary would obviously lose to McCain. She can't carry many states, like Iowa, Washington, Oregon, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Colorado, Minnesota, and Virginia, while Obama easy beats McCain in all of these matchups. Hillary also almost loses New Hampshire and Michigan to McCain, while Obama does better.
http://thepersonalispolitical.tumblr.com/post/26659785
February 22, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, how can you characterize this as a mixed bag? Yes, there are a couple isolated states she performs "better," as within the margin of error.
But as a whole, the disparity is striking in Obama's favor:
Kansas - 24 point lead vs. clinton, 6 point lead vs. Obama
Oregon - Clinton LOSING to McCain, vs an Obama victory
New Mexico - 5 point Clinton victory versus 15 point Obama victory
Minnesota - 4 point Clinton victory versus 15 point Obama victory
I mean, there's really not a mixed bag here. Statistically, there is no real difference in the states she's "better" in, while Obama makes a huge impact in the states he leads.
February 22, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Overall, Obama's numbers are better. There was a Hillary supporter at Daily Kos who actually compiled all these recent head-to-head numbers, did the electoral mathm and found Obama would win the election while Hillary would lose.
February 22, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do the Massachusetts numbers have anything to do with the perception that Obama is another Deval Patrick? My guess is that they are pissed at Patrick right now and that in November they will put their grudge aside and vote Obama anyway, but what do I know.
February 22, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do not know what the explanation for the MA numbers is, but I dare say that whatever it is, it does not matter. MA is going to go for the democrat regardless of whom we choose and the margins there do not matter because the electoral votes are winner take all. Any argument for Clinton's superiority premised on her outperforming him in MA is bogus a priori.
February 22, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, why is Oregon so close? The polls have both Dems winning in Missouri and only Obama winning in Oregon (by +1). That is straight up odd.
February 22, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
After last night -- I would also like to look at her negative numbers.
To have a Democratic audience boo a Democratic Presidential audience does not bode well if we have Clinton either as our candidate, or on our ticket.
February 22, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
billy, I think it is because Obama hasn't campaigned there, so they don't know him well enough yet. It is typical of every state he hasn't been to yet, as soon as he sets foot there, his numbers will jump big.
February 22, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad to see Hillary now ahead in my old state of MN. Everyone someone calls it a purple state I get a rash. It would be interesting to see what would happen if he took "Texas Timmy" Pawlenty, but I think he'll take Crist anyway. Though using the same incredibly scientific method as Greg DL, I think it would be a lot closer in the general if Hillary is the nominee. I think some voters there will respond to the "maverick" thing (in his PANTS).
Those California numbers are interesting, too. Good defense for the "Obama can't win the big states" meme. I'm wondering if those OH and OR numbers will go up for him in a couple of weeks.
February 22, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep -- her name recognition advantage and her strategy to be elected by the elites not the people, and by using only establishment, special interests and issue money -- just isn't working.
...the Democratic leadership needs to step in v. soon...
February 22, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary will not listen to them. Keep in mind the Clintons do not care about the greater good of the national party. That is why Hillary would not even take input from Senate and Congressional Democrats in 1993 on her Health Care Project.
Even if Senator Obama wins both Texas and Ohio it will not be over, because it is not in Hillary or Bill's nature to concede gracefully for the good of the party.
Hillary is the Black Knight, in Quest for The Holy Grail.
February 22, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain will not be their nominee. Newsweek caught him on something from his point by point denial---there will be a steady drip drip, and he will step down for the good of the party.
Gingrich? I don't know.
February 22, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Has anyone looked at the internals of these polls? They're RIDICULOUS. They have a Democratic advantage beyond belief - far greater than anything suggested in the 2006 exit polls. Most of these polls are just plain dumb.
February 22, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can someone explain that VT number to me? Why should Obama's lead be so great there--is it al Bernie Sanders, or something about VT politics?
February 22, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe it is the Sen Leahy endorsement?
February 22, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Leahy, not Sanders. Sorry.
February 22, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Oregon will go much stronger for Obama than even this poll suggests. While the key take-away is that Obama does better than Clinton here v. McCain (which I believe is correct) I think that Oregon will not be near as fertile for McCain as it does suggest in this poll. I see this polling as the zenith of McCain support in head-to-head match ups and he has nowhere to go but down and Obama is the opposite.
February 22, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I lived in OR for 13 years. Portland and Eugene are very liberal overall. The rest of the state—not so much. We often had republican senators (Packwood and Hatfield for many years). Obama probably excites the affluent liberals and college students far more than Hillary, which may explain part of the disparity. But if you look at the totals closely, McCain pretty much gets the same against either. The disparity seems to be largely due to Obma voters currently selecting undecided or perhaps a third-party candidate rather than Hillary. So, they are not running to McCain in this poll, they are just sitting it out. Its kind of disturbing that the main reason Hillary would lose in the GE seems to be the petulance of Obama's supporters. Either they get what they want or they refuse to play.
Personally, I am one of those rare Dems who does NOT like the presidential field. I never liked a single one of them at heart and only Edwards "spoke" to me, but I thought he was lying. Whatever happens, it'll be way better than the Bushes and Reagan, so that's something. But this race does not give me "hope," it further motivates me to become an expatriate. It has revealed sever fracture points not only between Dems and Repugs, but within those two groups as well. Anyone who thinks any candidate is going to overcome these fractures and somehow unite us all is delusional. That's the answer to Obama's question at the debate.
February 23, 2008 6:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Taking a look at the electoral map and the most recent surveys for states Obama is the difference between a Dem or Rep president.
I used the most recent surveys or for those without one, I went with the 04 color (most states without a survey are strongly red or blue.
With Obama: Dems win with 322 EC votes
With Clinton: Repubs win with 298 EC votes
Most states that Clinton does better in are Dem either way. Obama does better in swing states or even some red states.
Statistical ties I gave to the Dems based on turnout.
States Obama is carrying that Clinton isn't:
(82 EC votes)
Colorado
Nevada
Iowa*
Minnesota
Michigan
New Hampshire
Oregon*
Wisconsin
Virginia*
The average swing in these states from Clinton is more than 15 pts.
* states are close with McCain. Virgina not as close but there are conflicting surveys.
Additionally - New Mex is solidly Obama but is within margin of error with Clinton and Kansas is solidly Red with Clinton but within the margin of error with Obama.
Granted a lot can change between now & November but Obama seems to start on much better footing.
February 23, 2008 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know the answer to this, but has there been any analysis to a Clinton vs McCain match-up in Illinois? If she were to lose Illinois, I am not seeing exactly where she would be able to make that up
I suspect that she might have a problem there. Sen McCain is exactly the type of Republican candidate that would excite voters in the collar counties of Chicago and in downstate Illinois. There seems to be a misnomer out there that Illinois is solidly Democratic. That simply isn't true. Yes, they did vote against Pres Bush twice, but that was more of a statement on the current President than it is to the general attitudes about the Republican party in this state. If someone like McCain, Pro-Defense, alleged fiscal conservative and a partial social conservative (but one that has never really been known to make that a central issue for himself) is served up in the general, I believe a lot of folks in Illinois will be more than happy to oblige.
If you couple that with a large African-American voting block in Cook County that may not be exactly motivated to come out and vote for Sen Clinton after the entire SC debacle (They have long been wary of people taking their votes for granted), I think she would have a serious problem here. Add in that most of the few down state democratic strongholds are either college campuses or areas with a large African-American (which based on exit polling so far won't fair too well for her), and the fact that the current Democratic Governor and legislature (both chambers) are wildly unpopular at the moment... Well... It could be a complete disaster.
February 24, 2008 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink