The Electoral Map: NBC News's take

Chuck Todd and Tim Russert take a stab at electoral combinatorics today -- read here before you read on.

In general, I think that NBC's analysis is as good as it gets here.

Note that McCain's base is larger if Clinton is the nominee, but his route to victory is a little thornier. With Obama as the nominee, Virginia and Colorado are tossups; with Clinton as the nominee, they lean to McCain. Clinton keeps Florida as a tossup, while Obama seems less competitive.

I agree that New Jersey is less solidly in the Dem column if Obama is the nominee.

I'd quibble with the placement of Pennsylvania: Chuck and Tim believe it to be a tossup for both Clinton and Obama matchups, but I'd give the edge to Clinton (i.e., by making it a lean Clinton state), although McCain could certainly make it competitive. I also think that New Mexico is a pure tossup regardless of who the Democratic nominee is; I do agree with Clinton as the nominee, Nevada leans toward McCain, while with Obama as the nominee, it's a tossup. Provocatively, Chuck and Tim make Mississippi only a McCain-leaning state if Obama's the nominee. I think that's probably right.

What do you think?

Comments

I think it is useless to make these kind of conjectures at this point in time.

In all likelihood, either Obama or Clinton could win a lot more states than is currently projected. McCain (the real one not the one most people think of) is an unknown quantity at this point. Once he gets defined by whomever the Dem nominee is all current projections get thrown out the window.

Posted by john m | April 3, 2008 12:57 PM

Useless indeed as these conjectures are, I think all of this is about right except for NJ. I really don't see how NJ votes Republican, whoever the nominee is. One week of reminding people of McCain's stance on abortion and the war and we are done.

As of now, Obama does not look competitive in FL at all indeed but we have to wonder what would happen after he would campaign there. I am not optimistic but we have to remember he is, in FL, in the situation he was nationally before IA. A not very well-known entity most people had never had up close.
So while I agree the assessment is right, right now, I am not convinced the map won't look different in two months (if he is the nominee by then already which I can only hope for)

Posted by benjamin | April 3, 2008 1:01 PM

The best electoral analysis that I've come across is at:

www.fivethirtyeight.com

Posted by MTK | April 3, 2008 1:08 PM

I think FL belongs in the "Lean McCain" column, whoever the nominee is. Clinton has a better shot at flipping it, but it's still a pretty long shot. WI, on the other hand, leans Obama, but Clinton comes short there in poll after poll. I would call it a toss-up for Clinton. Same goes for OR.

In summary, I think NBC's analysis is a little generous to Clinton. McCain is going to be a tough opponent for either candidate, but perhaps tougher for Clinton given that due to vulnerabilities in a number of "barely blue" states, she is going to be leaning heavily on the meager prospect of FL. Obama, on the other hand, mostly needs to keep PA and OH in the blue column: not easy, but I'd lay better odds on that than flipping FL.

Posted by baudelairien | April 3, 2008 1:14 PM

"Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran"

"We could be in Iraq for a hundred years"

"I don't know much about the economy"

McCain is in trouble.

Posted by Alex in Harlem | April 3, 2008 1:14 PM

My head hurts when I read these kinds of state polls. This is exactly why we have GOT TO GET RID of the Electoral College. We're talking about the same seven or eight states every four years and the conversation barely changes. Given that you've got about 42 states that get screwed by this system, I can't believe that a popular movement to oppose it is impossible.

Posted by Howard B. | April 3, 2008 1:17 PM

Still think that 99% of Dem voters will end up voting for their nominee in the end - whomever it may be. Like the Romney GOPers: No more talk that they'll boycott McCain.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | April 3, 2008 1:20 PM

i think all this hand wringing over the closeness of the GE and the play of these particular states ignores, perhaps moreso than in any other prior election, the generally dynamic nature of this election cycle. more to the point, iraq will continue to serve as a troubling chain around mccain's neck...bringing redoubled anguish to his campaign between now and november. i also think that Dems, when this primary is settled, have it within them to mount a national campaign (with so many national voices/surrogates, including the clintons) that confronts the realities of GOP rule these past 8 years and makes plain that the source/potential for change is a progressive shift, i.e. vote Dem.

Posted by pkoso | April 3, 2008 1:21 PM

Florida has been trending red since at least 2000. However I wouldn't put too much stock in current polls showing Obama behind there since he hasn't actually campaigned there so far due to the state's violations of the DNC rules while McCain fought in a vigorously contested primary in the state. It's a state he'll probably lose but it could be very close in the end and force McCain to divert a lot of resources to holding it instead of pushing into blue and purple territory.

I laugh at any idea that McCain puts Gore and Kerry states into contention. Pennsylvania and New Jersey will vote Democratic by a comfortable margin.

Also the idea that Obama will have even half a chance in states like Mississippi is ridiculous.

Posted by Ron | April 3, 2008 1:23 PM

If BHO is the nominee, the blue color democrats/conservative democrats will write in HRC/vote McCain and vote for the rest of the ticket.

There is no way BHO will win this GE whatever the Blogs or MSM wants you to believe.

Posted by Indus | April 3, 2008 1:29 PM

Marc:
do you read what your co-workers write?

Hillary Clinton is doing everything she can to detroy any possibility of any democrat winning in Florida and Michigan

I have posted many time here the truth about the florida situation - Florida and Mich were the only 2 early primary states where more Rep than Dems voted - and in Fl more than 466.0 people who voted for the property tax amendment (which was the big draw) did not even bother to check off a pres nominee

Personally I think Florida goes to McCain with either Dem candidate - he practically grew up in Jacksonville - the I-4 corridor is a scene from deliverence and the old dems are dying in broward and palm beach

plus don't forget we still suffer from the Jeb Bush/Katherine Harris voter roll purge - Charlie Crist may smile but he hasn't reinstated anyone;s voting rights

The Clinton camp is truly disgusting in what they are doing in Florida - I get the emails (as a former supporter) all the time - the most recent today below

---------------------------------------

Dear Alison,

Please take the time to listen, as I have, to the voices of our fellow citizens in Michigan and Florida.

A supporter from Marion, MI put it simply: "We want to have our voice heard! We want to vote!" Another in Delray Beach, FL reminded Americans of what we all believe, "Our votes should count. We went to the polls in good faith that our votes would count and our voices would be heard."

Tens of thousands of people in Michigan, Florida, and all over the country are standing up and speaking out, urging that we live up to our democratic ideals. In our hearts we know that voters everywhere deserve the chance to make their voices heard.

Hillary Clinton respects all voters and their right to participate in this historic contest. Their votes, along with all the others, will and should determine when this contest is at an end. It's the American way -- everybody counts in this country.

I know you will join with Americans everywhere who are proudly standing with their fellow citizens in making sure the great states of Michigan and Florida have a voice in this race -- along with all the states who will cast their ballots in the upcoming months. Today is the day to step forward for democracy. Today is the day to sign on to make sure that all American voices are heard.

Click here to show your support for seating Florida and Michigan delegates at the convention.

Thank you for all you are doing for our country and for our campaign.

Sincerely,

Maggie Williams
Campaign Manager
Hillary for President
--------------------------------------------------

nothing like no facts and pandering to piss people off

when florida dem turn out is depressed anyone with any knowledge of the truth will know the blame SQUARELY is on Hillary Clinton's shoulders

(also wanted to mention the smear anti semetic rants down her from Clinton supporters trying to destroy any Jewish support for Obama)

What a gal-- that Hillary
This is the woman who wants to lead her party?

Posted by alison | April 3, 2008 1:31 PM

This all assumes the nominating process is perceived to be fair. If one candidate or the other is perceived to have "stolen" the election, the solidly Democratic constituencies represented by either will likely stay home or vote McCain, which leads to an utter blowout. Given that Clinton's only path to the nomination is pretty murky looking, I'd suspect she has absolutely no chance of winning the presidency.

I also think Obama may (or may not) actually rewrite the electoral map, driving African American and youth turnout. If that's the case, move VA to lean Obama (I actually think regardless VA should probably be lean Obama) and GA, LA, and NC to toss-up, or even -- particularly in the case of NC, lean Obama.

And anyone who thinks NJ is really in question should compare the 2004 polls to the results. NJ could go Republican in an 84 style blowout, that's it.

Posted by Seth | April 3, 2008 1:35 PM

Obama, on the other hand, mostly needs to keep PA and OH in the blue column: not easy, but I'd lay better odds on that than flipping FL.

When I watched this AM, Russert said that the interesting thing is that Obama doesn't really need OH. He has a different path available than the traditional ones available to McCain and Clinton (who is toast anyway).

And as mentioned in the first reply above, it's WAY too early to make predictions. Hillary has yet to be savaged by the GOP smear machine, and if you think they'll be tough on Obama, just imagine all the things they've got ready for Hillary. (One GOP strategist said months ago they wanted to run against Hillary, and that he had an entire folder of attack points ready to go.) And how will her 1990's NAFTA support play to OH now that it's out in view?

McCain has said some dumb things over the past year or so that he'll have to answer for when Obama is up against him. He's going to look like an old man that has trouble keeping his facts straight. I saw an interview with McCain, and he acted just like George Bush who, after watching "now and then" speeches, I think has lost a bit of gray matter since he first ran for governor of TX. McCain blinked a lot, smiled too much, and nervously laughed at the wrong places, like when talking about other people's views on deaths in Iraq. Not good. When discussing death or war, a presidential candidate should be serious.

Posted by LFC | April 3, 2008 1:39 PM

MN & OR should be base Obama, IA should be lean Obama (McCain came in third, fcol). I'd also probably put MO into lean McCain. Let's see how Obama does in IN, but I don't think lean McCain for it is out of the question (as opposed to base). The rest I pretty much agree with, even though I find it scary to see MI in the toss-up category and FL lean McCain. But that's what a screwed-up primary will do.

Clinton can't win the nomination, so her map is irrelevant.

Posted by evie | April 3, 2008 1:42 PM

Let's see here.

The big one is I think you're overstating Clinton's strength in the Upper Midwest and Pacific Northwest. For her, Oregon and Wisconsin are probably toss-ups, at least going by recent polls. For Obama, Iowa is either lean Obama or safe Obama ... he has polled through the roof there. There's also SUSA's results for Obama that suggest somehow he could put the plains states into at least Lean McCain if not toss-up status. I don't know what to make of those.

Missouri is tough. In February, Obama polled better than Clinton; lately Clinton has polled better than Obama. We'll have to see when the polls settle. I would just call it a toss-up for both candidates right now.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | April 3, 2008 1:46 PM

Aren't there SurveyUSA polls today with both Dems leading strongly in NJ, already. Dude there is no way. Even Corzine is opening the door today to back Obama if it's politically expedient for him.

Given the level of democratic voter turnout in Virginia, I think you can assume it leans quite heavily toward Obama. He won more votes than McCain and Huck combined in the primaries. I think with Warner leading strong as a senate candidate, and his strong support there that he's got it.

I think Iowa and Colorado go to lean Obama, whereas they'd be strong, not lean, McCain in a Clinton fight.

I also think people make FAR too much of Florida as a swing state at this point. It's really so much more of a Republican state now and the only reason Clinton could possibly take it is because of pandering to its very very specific demographics -- old peope, Latinos and Jews. I think this one is easily McCain and that the democrats should just say fuck it, with Florida. H8 America's wang anyway.

Posted by Arabella | April 3, 2008 1:46 PM

Indus, who are these blue color Democrats? Are they Picts, or have they ingested too much colloidal silver? Perhaps it's merely Dr. Tobias Funke and his co-workers?

Posted by Alexis | April 3, 2008 1:49 PM

Clinton has actually shown serious weakness in Oregon and Washington - she would lose Oregon by double digits against McCain, and she would have to fight to keep Washington blue. For some reason they really do not like there, but I am not sure what the demographic reason is.

On the other hand, all indications point to Oregon and Washington being easy wins for Obama against McCain.

Posted by Ruth | April 3, 2008 1:57 PM

I live in Washington State and the last poll I saw (a week ago) showed Obama up 5 on McCain and McCain up 8 or nine on Hillary. At any rate, McCain was much closer to Obama than Hillary was to McCain. Oregon is coming in about the same.

Posted by linda | April 3, 2008 2:04 PM

I also think people make FAR too much of Florida as a swing state at this point. It's really so much more of a Republican state now.

On what basis do people make this claim (namely, the one that Florida is trending more red)? I must say I find it hard to believe. Florida's growth has slowed down some in the last year or two, but still, overall the state has grown significantly since 2000. Surely most of that growth is driven by immigration -- both domestic and foreign. Such trends ought to make Florida trending more blue, just as such trends are tending to do in places like Texas, Arizona, and Georgia. Indeed, given the Democratic party's newfound and increasingly dominant strength with the Latino vote (and surely the Latino cohort is one of Florida's prime population growth drivers), I'd expect Florida should be more competitive for the Democrats in 2008 than in 2000, when the Democratic nominee basically fought Bush to a draw. Oh, and all of this is amidst the backdrop of a very weak economy, in a state that has been particularly severely impacted by the real estate bust.

Posted by Jasper | April 3, 2008 2:14 PM

Washington Post has a electoral college tool. I played with it. You can see my map at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/electoral-college/?dList=ia,nh,ca,co,ct,de,il,nj,ny,ore,pa,ri,mi,wa,me1,me2,md,va,wi,hi,ma,mn,vt,nm,ks,dc&rList=nv,sc,fl,al,ak,ar,wy,ga,mo,nc,ok,tn,ut,la,az,nd,oh,tx,ms,ind,ne1,ne3,wv,ky,id,mt,sd&uList=me0,ne0,ne2

I see Obama winning Washington, Oregon, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Kansas, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Pennsylovania, Vermont, New Hampshire, Virginia, Maine, Rhode Island, Connetticut, Deleware, Maryland, Hawaii, and DC. That's 290 electoral votes for Obama.

I see McCain winning Nevada, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Alaska, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, and West Virginia. That's 243 electoral votes for McCain.

I've said for a long time that Clinton vs McCain is just a repeat of Kerry vs Bush. I think Obama really brings new states into play. I may have been overgenerous in some of the states I give to Obama but I do believe that in the general election he'll carry all of the states Kerry won and that he'll also Virginia, Colorada, and Kansas. That would give Obama 280 electoral votes and give McCain 258. I think this a realistic scenario and I don't think I more optimistic scenario is completely out of bounds.

Posted by Keith Hood | April 3, 2008 2:14 PM

Here's my analysis of seemingly competitive states:

Clinton looks to be stronger than Obama in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, and Florida. General election polling does not support the argument that she does better in Michigan (and PA, really), despite her primary strength there. Similarly, a poll of New Jersey was released yesterday showing both Obama and Clinton ahead of McCain by 5.

Obama looks to be stronger than Clinton in Colorado, Virginia, Wisconsin, Iowa, Nevada, Mississippi, Minnesota, Washington, New Hampshire, and Oregon.

Obviously PA, FL, and OH are hugely important. Clinton's electability argument hinges on winning at least two of those states. But what good are victories there if she has trouble holding blue states like Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, etc?

I think either Dem can win PA and that OH will start leaning towards the Dems over economic concerns. Clinton is definitely better positioned than Obama in FL, but I expect McCain to win there.

Obama's candidacy will deemphasize the importance of OH and FL, and instead will expand the playing field greatly. Colorado and Virginia in particular will be potentially decisive. McCain's resources will definitely be stretched thin against Obama.

Posted by Bo | April 3, 2008 2:17 PM

Bo's got almost the exact map I have ... I gave Nevada to Obama, but that's it.

It would be nice if he could flip NC or OH to get to 300 electoral votes.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | April 3, 2008 2:33 PM

Given that there are polls, particularly Alaska, that put Obama in right competition with McCain in many of the states that Russert and Todd concede to McCain (see the 50-state SUSA poll last month), I don't buy into this much. An Obama campaign would be a national campaign because he'd put enough states in play (and, conversely, have to work a little harder than Clinton to win some states and wouldn't really have a shot in Arkansas) to use national advertising. This sort of slicing/dicing is much better suited to the kind of campaign that Clinton would run.

Posted by Zach | April 3, 2008 2:35 PM

I think we need to bear in mind Obama's well-established track record at closing the deal when he has time to campaign in a state. In nearly every instance, he significantly outperforms expectations. Which is why I want this primary to end sooner than later. Let's turn Obama loose and let him work his magic now...

Posted by genghis bong | April 3, 2008 2:39 PM

I would like to know if these projections take into account the increased democratic turnout. The huge Dem turnout really seems to change all of these projections.

Isn't this really going to be determined by turnout? Hillary gets out the Republican base which is why they want to run against her. McCain is anemic when it comes to having Red votes flowing his way and is more likely to get moderates and independents.

Hillary really only gets old white women and old diehard Dems.

Barack is the best for turnout for several reasons. He will still get the traditional Dem votes, cuts into the moderate and independent votes of McCain, and gets the excited new voters to turnout.

Turnout will rule.

These poll figures are inherently invalid. They don't address the key issue of turnout. You can go with these kinds of polls all you want, but it won't matter at all if you don't factor in the turnout likely. Let's see some research on this issue.

Better yet, give me the data and I will do it for you.

Posted by Mike in Sac | April 3, 2008 2:44 PM

Look at that. Somebody posted McCain's new campaign slogan.

Posted by LFC | April 3, 2008 2:45 PM

Doesn't this have to do with campaign strategy? It seems very clear that Obama's strategy has been superior to Clinton's thus far. Her campaign screw ups will be documented in the "how not to run a campaign" primer: financial spending, fundraising woes, not paying attention to caucuses, not campaigning in certain states, etc. Obama's ability to raise more money, register new voters, and start a grass roots momemtum in key states is impressive. I realize the general is a different ball game, but I believe the Obama camp is superior - both strategically and intellectually. Will McCain be able to compete?

Posted by SN | April 3, 2008 3:09 PM

McCain will NOT be able to compete financially. That's for sure.

Posted by Kristen | April 3, 2008 3:17 PM

If I were running John McCain's campaign, I think this might make me more than a little nervous. These, after all, are his golden days: the press still loves him, the Democrats, distracted as they busily gouge each other's eyes out, are largely leaving him alone and wayward Republicans appear to be drifting home.

For John McCain, this is as good as it's going to get: yet, according to the poll numbers, at least, things actually aren't going nearly as well for him as one might have expected, given all of the circumstances. Put another way (and I like putting it this way), for John McCain, it's all downhill from here.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/106108/Gallup-Daily-Democratic-Race-Steady-Obama-49-Clinton-46.aspx

Posted by Sally M | April 3, 2008 3:26 PM

Obama supporters can blame Clinton all they want for being divisive... but isn't that a rather divisive thing to say? LOL!

Anyway, Obama cannot win the general election.

I live in New Hampshire.
If Clinton runs, newly blue NH will go into her.
If Obama runs, NH will be back in the red.

Do the math. I do not believe Obama can win without NH.

Posted by Jan | April 3, 2008 3:33 PM

Yeah, can't win without NH... That is one of those big states that matter so much. Wait, you guys are puny. Hillary doesn't care about you. NH doesn't matter at all. After all, she thinks she can win without you guys.

Obama turns Red states into battle ground states. That is the ticket to winning. Contesting every state like he has done will win. Hillary won't even compete, given her past performance, in states that don't matter. That is the majority of states and will just concede the election to McBush because he will clean up all the states that don't matter.

All you puny states should be voting for Obama. Every state matters to him. He wants your vote while Hillary doesn't seem to care.

Posted by Mike in Sac | April 3, 2008 3:56 PM

This is a direct quote from one of the posts above:
"Hillary really only gets old white women and old diehard Dems."

And with that sort of disrespect for the base of the Democratic Party, somehow you still dream that those "old white women" and those "old diehard dems" are now going to want to be on a team with YOU? Dream on.

Obama's "magic" only works with those who need "magic."
I remember Bill Bradley calling Al Gore a liar and an exaggerator in 2000.
I just heard Bill Bradley call Hillary Clinton a liar and an exaggerator last week.

When the Democrats lose in 2008, they can blame Democrats like Bill Bradley... and the guy who believes that "old white ladies" and "old diehard dems" are votes that BHO doesn't need to be POTUS.

With rude comments like that, you may actually push us right over the edge. Instead of just writng in Clinton's name on our November ballots, we may actually need to vote for McCain to teach you some respect for us.

For those of you who have NH in the Obama column, I would be very curious about how you came up with that.

Posted by Jan | April 3, 2008 4:02 PM

A meme I've seen emerge from certain prominent pundits over the last several days is that if Hillary Clinton stays in the Democratic primary and fights through the remaining 10 contests (whew), she will likely pull ahead of Barack Obama in the popular vote.

At that point, according to neutral observers like Bill Clinton, the NY senator will have a strong moral case to make to the remaining undecided superdelegates that she should be given the Democratic nomination, regardless of Barack Obama's pledged delegate lead.

As both a small "d" and Big "D" Democrat, I would certainly agree with her. It is an absolute must that Barack Obama retain his popular vote lead, in order to have a legitimate claim to the Democratic nomination.

That said, why don't we take a look at the popular vote numbers, and see how they stack up against the notion, most prominently floated by famed conservative pundit and political statistician Michael Barone, that Hillary is poised to claim a popular vote lead by the time we reach Denver?

Like so many of the stats in this race, there is no one single hard popular vote number. However, all of the variations show Obama with a current lead. As always, we look to RealClearPolitics' numbers crunching to light the way. I'll order them from the most generous margin to the least for Senator Obama:

+827, 308
Includes all of the primaries and caucuses that have participated, and excludes the illegitimate, DNC-discredited contests in Florida and Michigan.

+717, 086
Includes all primaries that have participated, all caucuses but Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington, and again excludes Florida and Michigan. The reason an estimate exists that excludes IA, NV, ME, and WA? These caucuses did not report official popular vote numbers—just which candidate won their states' various caucuses. Popular vote estimates for each of these states have been gleaned by comparing turnout estimates with the percentage of delegates won at these caucuses.

+532,536
Includes all legitimate primaries and reported caucuses, plus the vote from the unreported caucuses, plus Florida. There is at least a glimmer of an argument to include Florida, as at least both Clinton and Obama were on the ballot. Like I said: just a glimmer.

+422,314
Includes Florida and all the legitimate primaries, and excludes the unreported caucuses.

+204,227
Includes Florida and Michigan, as well as the unreported caucuses. Being that Sen. Obama was not even on the Michigan ballot, this estimate merits not even a glimmer of legitimacy.

+94,005
The ultimate pro-Clinton estimate, this includes Florida and Michigan, while excluding the unreported caucuses. It's complete bullshit.

With these varying tallies laid out, let's look at the path Michael Barone carved for Hillary Clinton to win the popular vote over the next three months. After all is said and done after the remaining ten contests, he sees Clinton ahead in the popular vote by 106,186. How does she do it?

"I have her carrying Pennsylvania by 20 percent—a 60 percent to 40 percent margin of the two-candidate (Clinton and Obama) vote. That's better than she did in Ohio, where she won 55 percent of the two-candidate vote."

OK, this is a possible scenario, albeit an overwhelmingly optimistic one for Sen. Clinton in Pennsylvania. It envisions no movement whatsoever over the next three weeks for Obama, despite his recent endorsement by PA Sen. Bob Casey, his outspending Sen. Clinton 5-to-1 in the state's media markets for the next 20 days, and the potential effect the "Bosnian sniper scandal" will continue to have on the Clinton campaign.

In fact, in spite of the Rev. Wright scandal, the latest PA Rasmussen poll has Obama closing a 10-point deficit there to 5, and the latest Survey USA has him climbing from 19 points down to 12, within the last few days.

"Those results have also influenced my projections of even bigger percentage margins for Clinton in Indiana, West Virginia, and Kentucky (20%, 40%, and 30%, respectively)."

Now these are simply lazy projections by Barone. It is extremely risky to assume that just because one state is demographically similar to another, and neighboring, the vote margins will be the same or better. It is even worse to do as Barone has done with these three, which is to in effect say, "I like the really optimistic odds I gave Hillary in PA. I like them so much, I'm going to double-down on them in neighboring West Virginia!"

Really? Hillary's going to win by 40% in West Virginia? Even with neighboring Virginia next door, which Barack won by 25 points? Even with a sustained, well-funded media campaign like the one he's running in PA—which Clinton simply does not have the cash to compete with?

"I projected a 10 percent margin for Obama in North Carolina; the Realclearpolitics.com average of recent polls has him ahead 57 percent to 43 percent in the two-candidate vote."

I think this is a fair enough, if rather conservative prediction for Obama's looming win in N.C. However, I find it interesting that Barone has no problem using his "neighboring state" methodology when it suits Clinton, but not when it might suit Obama. I mean, didn't Obama win South Carolina by 28 points? He repeats this bias again with Oregon.

"I have Clinton losing also by 10 percent in Oregon. That’s roughly comparable to her showing in the nonbinding February 19 primary in next-door Washington, where she got 47 percent of the two-candidate vote."

Awfully odd of Barone to predict Oregon's results by using neighboring Washington's non-binding party primary, when he could have gotten a much more accurate reflection with Washington State's binding caucuses. In those, Obama score a 36-point victory over Clinton. Not 10 percent. 36 percent. Oh, did I mention they were binding?

"I have Clinton winning Montana and South Dakota by 20 percent margins, when the conventional wisdom seems to be that these states lean to Obama. It’s true that Obama did very well in caucuses in Minnesota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Idaho, and Wyoming. But my hunch is that the wider primary electorate will go the other way."

I think you get the idea here. In Barone's defense, he did say at the outset that he was deliberately giving Clinton a more optimistic edge in these contests. But with many of them, he didn't just lean towards her—he completely reversed what the polls, conventional wisdom, and the actual voting trends thus far have shown. Barone posted an unintentionally humorous defense of his predictions today, stating the following:

"I was making projections that were optimistic from Hillary Clinton's point of view, and I found, to my surprise, that the results showed Clinton ahead of Obama in popular votes."

Do we need any further evidence that we, as a species, are doomed?

All kidding aside, I really don't see how Hillary pulls ahead of Obama in the popular vote. With Barone's ridiculously inflated, even utterly impossible Clinton victories, she still only nets just a 100,000+ popular vote margin. That means even in Fantasy Land, she barely bests him. And we're not in Fantasy Land.

Posted by Will | April 3, 2008 4:45 PM

Polling this early means nothing. Even Bill Clinton noted this the other day, when he pointed out that even later in the cycle he was trailing both Bush and Perot in the polls.

I remember at one point Reagan was getting trounced by Carter, and the first Bush was losing to Dukakis.

So this is all blather designed by the media to keep us watching them.

As for NJ, there is no way that the state does not go Democratic. Every election cycle the GOP hopes that NJ is in play, but it really is not.

As for FL, once Obama gets to campaign there he will be very competitive.

In fact, the one thing to take away is this: Obama will only go up from where he is now once he is the nominee and has the party united behind him, as well as the name recognition factor. Hillary would only go down; people already know her and in any general election the GOP would have a field day with all of her negatives and scandals. Rush Limbaugh would have a party.

McCain too will only go down. Right now he is enjoying the fact that the Democratic race is still going on. Once Obama is settled upon, then his honeymoon is over. He too like Hillary is very well known, and so he will only go down.

Posted by cm | April 3, 2008 6:09 PM

BHO will not win Kansas ( sorry it is not a caucus in GE).He is behind in VI and MO when he previously lead McCain after the Rev Wright issue.
Michigan(blue collar democrats is a tossup like NJ(Jewish Vote crucial)

My bet is BHO will be worse off than Kerry.

Good luck to the democratic party if BHO is the nominee.

Posted by Indus | April 3, 2008 7:54 PM

Agree Obama will not win KS. He polls consistently behind by about 10 points. Also agree the dems are toast with Obama as the nominee. Sadly, this election won't be about Iraq or the economy. It'll be about "patriotism" and perceived "elitism." This is the RNC strategy for victory and it works every time. Obama will be their easiest victim yet. I predict he'll win all the Kerry states except PA and NH. He picks up a couple of states Kerry lost - maybe NV, NM, CO, VA (though I think he may have a tougher time than people think in NM and NV because he'll lose a lot of the latino vote to McCain). But even if he picks up this handful of red states, he really can't win if he loses OH, PA, FL.

Posted by lex | April 3, 2008 10:48 PM

cm 2 posts above makes great points. Comparisons to 2004, 2000, or 1988 are just silly for at least 3 reasons. Assuming Obama is the nominee:

1. He is a much better candidate than Kerry - connects with people better, to the extent that he is said to have a "messianic" following. How often did you hear that about Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, or even Bill Clinton?

2. The economy is in the tank under a Republican president (different from 1988 and 2004). "It's the economy, stupid". Easy meme for the democrat to spread: "Republicans cut taxes for the rich which was supposed to trickle down to you. How's that working for you?" and McCain has no plan to change Bush policies

3. McCain has supported the Iraq war since the beginning and says he believes it was the right thing to do even in the absence of WMD's. This will be pointed out by the Dem candidate and goes against the opinion of 70+% of the American people. The war is much more unpopular now than it was in 2004, when memories of 9/11 were also fresher and people more worried about terrorism.

Obama will win many states that haven't been won by a Democrat since 1964.

Landslide

Posted by bvs | April 3, 2008 10:53 PM

See, bvs, the problem with your post is that it's filled with hope rather than facts.
Again, how are you going to get New Hampshire in his column over John McCain?

I pointed out the comments by the Obamaniac who told us all that "old white ladies" and "old diehard Dems" should just go away, because we're puny and completely unnecessary to Obama's "landslide."

Just a warning:
We've taken that message to heart.

Posted by Jan | April 4, 2008 6:42 AM

Way to miss the boat- the idea that you're a "puny state" is something spread ONLY by the Clinton campaign, with her rhetoric of "these states count" and only campaigning in states with tons of delegates (evidenced by her complete lack of a post-Super Tuesday strategy). Whereas Obama has contested every vote in every state, even when he knew he would come up short.

And, um, bvs did indeed have facts in his/her post. But I guess the new thing to do this cycle is to dismiss any facts that disagree with you as "just hope."

Posted by Tony | April 4, 2008 11:15 AM

So, let's get this straight, Tony --

These are now "FACTS" for Obama supporters???????

1. Obama is a better candidate than Kerry? That's called an OPINION, Tony.

That's also called "hopeful."
Candidate John Kerry didn't have any Jeremiah Wright tapes lurking in the background, yet the Slime Machine was able to make him into a traitor with friggin' purple hearts and a silver star on his chest!

How do you think "God DAMN America!!!!" (with Obama's congregation cheering and clapping in the background) is going to play next to John McCain's POW ad?

2. It is a fact that the economy sucks under Bush.

One of Clinton's best lines is, "What part of the 1990's Peace and Prosperity doesn't Obama like? The Prosperity part?"

The Democratic House can take care of the economy for us. We don't need to vote for Obama to get that.

3. FACT: What you fail to realize is that about 80% of the American people feel like Clinton does -- screwed by Bush's 451 LIES about Iraq in 2002.

Is Obama going to publicly question Gen. Colin Powell's judgement, the way he has questioned Hillary Clinton's judgement?

Sec. Powell had a personal meeting with Clinton and with the Armed Services Committee in 2002.
Did Obama sit in on that meeting?

Oh, that's right --
FACT: Barack Obama has no U.S. foreign affairs experience.

As far as CLINTON being the one to call New Hamsphire "puny"...? I believe you have your FACTS wrong yet again, Tony.

Clinton campaigned in New Hampshire and she won it. Do you recall that part, or have you had too much of the Hopeful Kool-Aid today?

Tony, one of the things I think Barack Obama supporters should understand is the difference between fact and opinion. It is now obvious that Obamaniacs are a bit of a cult. Cults think things are facts that are simply their own hopeful opinions.

Is anyone ever going to explain to me how in the world they put New Hampshire in the Obama win column?
It is NOT going to happen. Bank on it.

Posted by Jan | April 4, 2008 12:25 PM

I could not access that link, but you can put Arkansas and West Virginia in Clinton's column.

Posted by SouthernDEM | April 4, 2008 1:03 PM

I think that without the black vote in Philly PA is non-competitive for the democrats.

If Clinton in the nominee (with the superdelegates pushing her past Obama) will the black vote anywhere turn out for her?

Posted by Erik in Maine | April 5, 2008 11:31 AM

Clinton will never win more then 44% of the popular vote in the general election. Americans know her, almost everyone has an opinion on Hillary. People that love her will continue to love her, and the people who dislike her are not going to change their opinion of her either. 2/3 of Americans don't trust her.
Obama was unknown and had a great message of hope. The Rev. Wright and William Aires situations have forced many Americans to reconsider how much a "uniter" he is.
Obama will win the nomination but he will only pull about 70% of the Dems,35% of the independents, and 12% of Reps.
McCain will pull the majority of Reps and independents, and about 20% of the Dems.
John McCain will have the largest landslide victory since Reagan won reelection.

Posted by Glen Stokes | May 6, 2008 5:10 PM