That scenerio has McCain winning PA. and NJ.

No way he wins NJ

Typo: I think you mean "276-262"

278 > 276 = Obama Wins!

But seriously, this is nuts. I mean, no one is going to pick their candidate based on this, are they?

The Hillary scenario, of course, is purely hypothetical, because Obama is virtually certain to be the nominee.

Hillary would win by 275-262 (not 282 for McCain)

http://opinionjournal.com/ecc/calculator.htm

Well, it's interesting that Clinton would win in VA, while Obama would not, even though Obama soundly won that primary. Similarly, NH seems to have flipped for Obama.

The moral of this is that it's too early for these maps to be meaningful.

The difference I think is that Hillary has no where to go from here. This is the max she can win, where as Obama can make gains and put other states in play. Obama can make gains and possibly get PA, NJ, MO maybe even KS if he campaigns more there. I also think Dems lose FL no matter what, it has been trending Republican more & more each year so I am not sure Hillary's lead there will hold.

Oppps! I misread the map. Ignore my comment about VA. However, NH does seem to have flipped.

What the map really shows is that Obama puts the western states in play. That's what the Democrats have been trying to do. That's why the convention's in Denver. So Hillary, it's time drop out.

Hows that again? None of those wins for Hillary reflect the majority of polls. (also none of them reflect surging anti-Hillary GOP turnout)

http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/post/26659785

I would also add that the PA polls are especially premature because Obama has only just started campaigning there.

How does McCain get Michigan? That makes no sense.

While I think Obama is a stronger general election candidate than HRC, I also think that both HRC and Obama lose a general election to McCain.

McCain blunts HRC's "experience" argument, since he actually has experience. Plus HRC has proven to be a relatively weak campaigner.

While Obama is a much stronger politician and campaigner than HRC, he will likely have a hard time with uneducated white voters, not through any fault of his own, mind you, but because of his race.

You can't tell much from hypothetical polls this far out. I think a lot of people are under-estimating McCain. He will be formidible.

As I would have suspected, Hillary loses my state of OR and WA, and relies on the unreliable FL. Why does this matter? Because WA and OR are two extremely liberal states! We also have other important races that would be harder to win down-ticket in our states with Hillary on the ballot. In WA - Governor, in OR Smith's Senate seat and the soon to be vacated Hooley seat for the House.That doesn't begin to even cover the state house and other races that would become so much harder for us on the local level.

Obama doesn't get Michigan or New Jersey against McCain?

Puh-lease.

Wow...in an
Obama v. McCain matchup,
there are a LOT of 'red' states
that Obama would have a shot at
due to their large AA community:
(i.e.-AL, GA, NC, SC)
as well as 'neighbor states:
(i.e.-IN, MO).
and I agree,
NJ will NOT go for McCain.

Even if he didn't win them, he'd
make McCain spend a lot of resources
to defend them.
This is BIG and I do NOT see
this problem for McCain, re: Hillary

Why is everybody so stuck on the assumption that NJ would remain blue if given the chance to vote red for McCain? They elected GOP governors many, many times in the recent past; the GOP in NJ specializes in vote-caging, vote suppression, racist intimidation.

Based on this map, and this map alone, a good VP choice for Obama may be an individual from PA.

Blown-up version of Obama vs. McCain:

http://www.surveyusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/map-mccain-vs-obama.png

Remember, they BOTH beat McCain. These are not just based on "make up shit for every state," they are based on thirty THOUSAND new interviews with six HUNDRED voters in EACH of the fifty states.

But the surveyors admit limitations:

"There are specific limitations to this exercise. The winner’s margin in each state is not always outside of the survey’s margin of sampling error. Rather than show states where the results are inside of the margin of sampling error as “leaning” or “toss-ups,” SurveyUSA for this illustration assigned Electoral Votes to the candidate with the larger share of the vote, no matter how small the winner’s margin. The Democratic nominee is not yet known. Running mates on neither side are known. These are not surveys of likely voters, these are surveys of registered voters. Those caveats stated, the exercise is a remarkable foreshadowing of how contested, and how fiercely fought, the general election in November may be, regardless of who the Democratic nominee is. And the exercise speaks to which states may vote one way or the other, depending on who the Democrats nominate."

http://www.surveyusa.com/

What strikes me here is that these are the states Obama could win today. Think about the states he could win with a decent, nation-wide campaign. This is why I think he's the best candidate by far: he won't settle for second place anywhere.

First and foremost, it's way too early for this little game, but fun nevertheless. I think it's likely Obama takes MT. They have 2 D senators and D governor. They love progressives.

She loses WA and OR?? I have a hard time believing any R wins those states.

However, the big picture here is, as someone else pointed out, they really do draw from different blocs of voters. I never liked the idea of a unity ticket and I don't see how it works in reality, but I am quite, quite convinced that such a ticket would kick butt and take names in the election and bring A LOT of downticket dems with them.

We are tearing ourselves apart here people. Try to pull up a bit and witness the looming destruction.

Tuesday's big winners - John McCain and the press.

Given that the results were based on a sample of only 600 voters in each state, it's pretty absurd to take predictions about a given state with any seriousness.

This is especially so since, clearly, what SurveyUSA has done has been to force many states into one column or another based on results very far within the margin of error -- indeed they must be as slim as possible in many cases.

YES!! I agree.
Obama AND Hillary are amazing and both are better than McCain by far.

I'm an "Obama Supporter" but I'm behind Hillary 100% if she wins the nomination. She's incredible.

This is a win-win year...unless we shoot ourselves in the foot with all of this useless bickering.

(well, I'll qualify that: some of the "bickering" that is actually healthy, intelligent debate is good. Some might call it democracy. But the mud-slinging is stupid)

I would like any Hillbot to show us any evidence that Hillary has attacked McCain like Barack has attacked McCain (McSame). And, if we're using "Hillbot" don't we have to say "Barackaton?" Or we could say "Obama-maniacs" and "Clintonistas." Symmetry, people, symmetry.

I think McSame will be easy to beat, its the GOP and their surrogates and their secret 527s that will be the problem. I want to vent mean things about Cindy McSame, but I would probably just be accused of being misogynist. Like whenever anyone says Hillary has never handled a foreign policy crisis in her life so she was completely making shit up by running that "3 AM phone call" ad.

Was this survey done before or after Hillary endorsed McCain over Obama? Perhaps that endorsement of McCain by Hillary is what turned New York and California into McCain States. Senator Hillary Clinton making a difference for America, by making sure that those 3.00AM Red Phone calls will have to be answered by a guy so old that most families would not allow him to have control of the TV remote, let alone the Nuclear trigger.

Frog Leg is right. The Republican base hates Hillary more than they hated homosexuals in 2004. With Nader in the mix to siphon off 2% - 3% of her vote, we'd be saying President McCain in Jan 2009. They hate this woman perhaps more than the left hates Bush.

I'm sure the powers that be in the Democratic party understand this as well. If Obama has more pledged delegates come convention time, there is absolutely no way she can get enough superdelegates to overcome her negatives. They just won't risk alienating the most energetic wing of their party and toss the nomination her way, simply to have the Republican base rallied to defeat her.

Stop wasting everyone's time with nonsensical hypotheticals about what would happen if the general election was held in early March. It isn't. The election is eight months away.

In the summer of 1980, Jimmy Carter was up by a comparable margin over Ronald Reagan. In 1988, Mike Dukakis led George H.W. Bush by 17 points in July. In 1992, the alpha dog until summer was friggin' Ross Perot, of all people!

Therefore, this poll is as meaningless as a promise from Dick Cheney to end the war in Iraq and divert the funds to fight poverty in urban America.

Put 'em together, and you have a mandate.

If Obama gets the nom. and Tony Zinni is his VP, he will win Missouri, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.

"Put 'em together, and you have a mandate."

Exactly. I know this is dreaming but here goes. They both agree to a unity ticket and that the race is about the top. Ugly campaigning goes away. The people would eat it up. We'd clean up in November - big time.

Look, I don't even like Hillary and I want Obama-Webb. Maybe I'll still get it if the supers come over (net +3 in the last two days). Plus I have no idea how people like this could campaign or govern together. But it could very well be the only way to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

I don't think there's much reason to think that Clinton would not win Washington State (as Survey USA indicates) -- which, after all, Bill Clinton, Gore and Kerry all carried. Plus, it is a state in which women have had no problem winning statewide elections -- both Senators are female as is our governor (the 2nd of two woman to be elected as governor in the last 21 years).

How do you rid yourself of a political pariah? Especially one as high profiled as Hillary.

Obama would probably lose a portion of the blue collar voters to McCain as well.

I think what both these maps really say is how competitive a Republican nominee is, even in a strong Democratic year. This actually should hearten the Republicans that they made the right choice in McCain. I'm absolutely confident if this survey was done with Huckabee, Romney, etc., the map would look decidedly more blue.

As for some of the polls, there's some obvious fallacies in the results that anyone can see. Hillary can and should win Washington, and Obama can and should win New Jersey. North Dakota going to Obama is a head scratcher; I'd like to see the internals for that one. I do agree that Florida is probably an easier get for Hillary than Obama.

Also, note that with good turnout, Obama could put Texas in play. There goes $5 million of Republican cash to defend Texas.

It is positively fascinating that Hillary loses Michigan while Obama carries it. You gotta wonder what Gov. Granholm thinks about THAT!

Of course these polls are early and will change, but this is a great tool to use to keep track as time goes by this summer before the convention, if the Obama-Clinton race does last that long.

Also it tells me that a long primary season will keep McCain off guard as to which states to focus on.

I really don't know how seriously to take this at this point, however, I do believe that turnout is the critical part of this. What happens to Clinton in Illinois if a larger than normal amount of African-Americans sit out this one in Cook County and Chicago? I suspect nothing good...

Most Democrats did vote like them, because Obama will have the lead in pledge delegates at the end of the nimination period.

She will never win florida, ohio or pennsylvania in a general election matchup with mccain.

Except for the part where the Republicans in that state voted for Romney over McCain this year. I'm not sure McCain does that well when Dems aren't crossing over to mess with their side (a la 2000), and in a general election, with a real Dem on the ballot, that's not happening.

I think this poll is actually very troubling for Obama.

--We've already seen that he has a problem with late-deciders. So impulse voters don't pull the trigger for him, even if they'd entertained the idea.
--We've also seen that he's extremely susceptible to doubts related to nat'l security and experience issues. He was up in TX 4-7 points 2/28-ish, and Hillary dropped him 7.5-10.5. He had pulled to within 1-3 points in Ohio, same drop. Nat'l security arguments aren't supposed to be that successful in a primary, with all those "heart voters" running around. So, if these arguments are that effective against him now, I would have to believe that the contrast would be even starker 1) against McCain, who'll be running full bore on those issues and exudes nat'l security from his pores, and 2) because people are presumably generally more inclined to factor those issues into their vote in a general.
--So, I can't imagine that his numbers would all hold up over a general.

OBAMA
This poll has him winning VA with 47-47; comparatives would work very well there, and probably drop his numbers closer to Hillary's. (And remember, that VA had an even more popular Democratic governor when Kerry lost it 46-54, and during that whole race you heard the same thing about "VA is the new blue."). He's down in NJ, PA, and MO. I would also think he might underperform in both NV and NM.

CLINTON
I think this poll shows some good arguments for Hillary, that she can use to convince the supers: This far out voters in Tennessee, of all places, are evenly split between Hillary and McCain, while Obama's down 14 points. She's ahead of McCain in PA, WV, and MO. And MI is not at all out of reach for her (44-44).

I think there's two scenarios from this:

--Hillary comes out on Aug 29th, has vastly more resources than McCain, can outspend him and hold her own or possibly even make her case and move numbers up in some states, because their attrition affects each of them roughly equally, and the maps stand roughly where they were going in.

--Obama comes out on Aug 29th, has vastly more resources than McCain, and outspends him 3 or 4-1 on ads in all the important states. McCain's 1/3 spending (like Clinton's in TX and OH) are still enough to shift the voters and eke out wins in some of these places, especially ones that aren't traditionally open to voting for Democrats anyway. Obama loses Virginia (and others?), for a total of 267 or less, and Helloooo, President McCain.

Hillary Clinton = John Kerry, entrenched on the beltway but not particularly charismatic or popular with the general public.

Barack Obama = Bill Clinton, not yet well established on the beltway but charismatic and popular with the general public.

Thank goodness the Dems are not going to present another John Kerry this time. While John McCain is beatable, he has some respect as a war hero and many moderates still think of him as honest.

This will be a long post with no spell or grammar checking. I apologize ahead of time.

There is no way that Hillary or Obama wins Florida. Republicans in Florida cheat. Remember in 2000 a truck carrying ballots got lost.

There is a good chance that Obama carries the Carolinas. He is within 3 points in South Carolina, and he is within 2 points in North Carolina. Both states have large African-American populations that will be extremely motivated and most likely over-vote if he is the nominee.

Obama wins New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.

Somebody up the thread said that Hillary will not win Arkansas. They are wrong. Hillary will win Arkansas in a landslide.

According to this Obama puts Texas in play, and frankly Hillary does also, 7 points 8 months out is within play. I questions that.

We have to consider the effect of the current campaign on these polling numbers. For instance the coming race in Pennsylvania likely has the people there in a Hillary vs. Obama frame of mind. That would explain why Obama is polling poorly there now. Once Hillary vs. Obama has passed over Pennsylvania will turn solidly blue again. The same thing should apply to Texas.

Obama and Hillary were just advertising hard in the state. Once the primary passes over and the advertising pattern return to normal then Texas should turn solidly red again. If it does not then the Republicans are in serious trouble.

Assuming for a moment that either Hillary or Barack can beat McCain - why wouldn't I choose the Dem with better judgment (the Iraq war), who isn't in bed with lobbyists, and who is better at bringing people together, and who represents a whole new chapter and vision? OBAMA.

Here's a little somethin' not to forget, too:
Clinton scandal primer
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-k-wilson/a-clinton-scandal-primer_b_87792.html

Rove, Hume and Fox News (last night) have it a little different:
"Now, an electoral map has been done based on current polling in the 50 states suggesting how McCain would do against either Obama or Clinton....
McCain would get 282 electoral votes to Clinton's 172, with 82 in a tossup—would win it would seem based on current polling only handily.
Now let's look at McCain versus Obama state by state, same color coding — Obama, 252, McCain 216, 70 tossup.
So it would appear if the election were held today, which it won't be, that there is a real difference for John McCain's fortune in whom he ends up running again."

Interesting maps, but I agree with those who say it means little at this stage of the game. I do have a little anecdotal bit to throw in. I live in the northern part of Mi-not the UP- that usually goes red. However, I work in a social services agency. That tends to skew my work environment towards blue, so there are only a handful of people there who are Republicans.

Yesterday morning the place was buzzing about Clinton's wins and all the buzz was on the hopeful side. By the way, none of them read the blogs. Their only news comes from MSM. Take it from me folks, that is the norm out there in the real world.

Back to my story: Knowing I'm a political junky, one of them asked me who I thought was going to win the nomination. I told them there was still a chance for Clinton, but it did look like Obama was doing to come out ahead. There was a collective moan from the group and at least two said, much to my dismay, that they would vote for McCain if that happened.

That, my friends, is a small picture of our more conservative Democrats. Now, balance that off against Detroit and Ann Arbor. I think Michigan is a toss up-at this particular moment.

assume these polls are true they are done before the republican attack machine goes after obama just think what they do with rezco buying the lot next door and selling obama one sixth of it so obama can have a bigger yard i can see this being a regular fare on leno and letterman for weeks

Winning without the South.

As re Obama's NAFTA "lies": To my understanding (as reported on TPM), it looks like there are mis-statements from both Clinton and Obama on that.

One thing to note about these polls is they presently have Obama winning the popular vote by 12 points while Hillary only wins by 6.

Neither will actually win by those amounts once the RNC attack machine gets rolling. Obama will win by about half that, Hillary may lose.

McCain will attack either candidate on security. Hillary's security credentials are similar to McCain's but she has less and switched on Iraq. McCain will take security Indies and anti-war Indies won't turn out for Hillary.

On the economy she has the same problems. She supported NAFTA for over a decade, a policy her husband wrote and championed. Now she wants to run away from that and claim to be a progressive. Again, McCain will get Wall Street Indies, and Progressive Indies won't turn out for Hillary.

On Healthcare McCain will attack the mandates as big government and point out the disaster in Mass, a liberal state. He'll get the Republicans, the Reagan Democrats and laissez faire Indies and Libertarians on that issue. And again, Hillary will have a hard time winning support for her healthcare plan once it's actually debated vigorously by opposition, just as in 1992 with a similar plan.

Hillary is Kerry all over again. Same strategy, same supporters, same problematic record, same candidacy destined to fall apart and be haunted by flip flops during the GE campaign.

WOW! Look at Nebraska:

NE-Pres
Mar 6 SurveyUSAMcCain (R) 45%, Obama (D) 42%
NE-Pres
Mar 6 SurveyUSAMcCain (R) 57%, Clinton (D) 30%

This is simply unbelievable.

I realize you're arguing against Hillary, but how can you say "Hillary's security credentials are similar to McCain's"? Even aside from his military career, he went to Congress in 1983 and the Senate in 1987, and I believe has been a member of the Armed Services Committee that entire time. If we make this just about "experience", we lose to McCain.

"NE-Pres
Mar 6 SurveyUSAMcCain (R) 45%, Obama (D) 42%
NE-Pres
Mar 6 SurveyUSAMcCain (R) 57%, Clinton (D) 30%

This is simply unbelievable. "

Wow. Amazing.

He could truly put red states in play, even if he can't win them it forced the RNC to spend money and time to hold them.

I hope those superdelegates are taking note.

Far superior to HRC's 14 state strategy.