Ellen Malcolm In Chicago

According to an Obama campaign source, Emily's List founder Ellen Malcolm visited Barack Obama's campaign headquaters in Chicago today for meetings with campaign manager David Plouffe and others.

Malcolm has been a Clinton stalwart from the start; a few days ago, she formally announced her support for Obama and warned him that he had work to do with blue collar women.

The ABC News / Washington Post poll suggests that McCain is trouncing Obama among white women; among all women, Obama has a single digit lead.

Comments

White women are key swing voters in states like Ohio. But Obama might be able to make up this gap with a lot work or the right VP choice, such as Hillary Clinton or possibly someone similar.

Posted by John | June 17, 2008 6:05 PM

Define "trouncing" please???

Posted by Joe Justice | June 17, 2008 6:08 PM

You had better double-check your claim about McCain "trouncing" Obama among white women. I don't believe what you are saying, as this is very different from reports of other polls.

Posted by Theda Skocpol | June 17, 2008 6:09 PM

It will be like the Primaries. McCain will "trounce" Obama among white women by about 55% to 45%. On the other hand, Obama will enjoy "the majority of support" among black women by 95% to 5%.

It's all in the way you look at it.

Posted by robert ethan | June 17, 2008 6:18 PM

But Obama might be able to make up this gap with a lot work or the right VP choice, such as Hillary Clinton or possibly someone similar.

Or, more likely, Kathleen Sebelius. Hillary is badly damaged goods. Actually, with her negatives, she's been badly damaged for a long time.

Posted by LFC | June 17, 2008 6:27 PM

Marc:

I wish everyone in the media would at least give themselves a framework before they compare one candidate or the other doing well or poorly amongst certain subgroups. At least compare those numbers to the '04 and '00 exit polls. Once one does so it becomes clear BHO's numbers amongst women of all groups are better than Kerry and Gore's:

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/obama_and_white_women.php

And, as fivethirtyeight.com points out, a 6 point win would lead to a very comfortable electoral win:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/06/popular-vote-v-electoral-vote.html

With this in mind I'm not sure why everyone wants to treat this poll as a danger sign for BHO.

Posted by Ross Fulton | June 17, 2008 6:45 PM

Ambinder, you appear to have transposed "white women" and "all women" in this post.

PREDICTION: I expect you'll note this latest fuckup of yours in a separate entry without bothering ever to correct it here, guaranteeing future readers of this post will note neither your correction nor your admission of error. Not such a grievous omission in this case, but befitting of your hapless style, you unbelievable tool.

Posted by xx | June 17, 2008 7:15 PM

The great thing about the "No comments" era was that this was robert ethan free zone.

Posted by Coltrane | June 17, 2008 8:01 PM

The notion that female Clinton voters are going to flock to John McCain in November is nothing but wishful thinking by the McCain camp, especially as videos like this one from a year ago where McCain has to wipe the tears of laughter from his eyes after a supporter asks him how he's going to beat the bitch go viral.

Posted by katerina | June 17, 2008 8:27 PM

To Ross Fulton:

I agree with you that comparisons are needed. But we should definitely NOT be comparing '00 and '04 exit polls to '08 pre-election polls. Exit polls have no undecideds, they are all voters. Pre-election polls, especially the ones today, have large %s of undecideds, especially in certain groups. And undecideds don't always split 1/2 down the middle. I've read too many comparisons lately of '08 pre-election polls and '04 exit polls. No more!

But you are right, comparisons are needed. I'd say let's compare to June pre-election polls in '04 to have the proper baseline.

Posted by John | June 17, 2008 9:52 PM

To LFC: Most Hillary Clinton supporters in the undecided or McCain camps aren't going to come over to Obama because of Katlheen Sebelius. Obama might get a few white women, but not many--Sebelius is like a warmed-over, less interesting version of Hillary Clinton.

And the other supporters, such as white working-class men and Latinos will probably be turned off by Sebelius. It will appear like affirmative action, choosing Sebelius over the 18-million vote getting Hillary Clinton.

Posted by Anon | June 17, 2008 9:54 PM

Following up in response to Ross. You are right that a +6 margin is healthy, but we need to look into the polls. Who are the undecideds? Will most break one way or another (we can predict some of this based on demographics)?

Pre-election polls don't match exit polls from past elections. Comparing margins from a poll yesterday to the '04 exit poll isn't really comparable because of the 20% plus of undecideds, who may very well break all in one direction.

Posted by John | June 17, 2008 9:58 PM

Note that the NBC poll had Obama up 20 among women (including a big lead among white women), but losing by 20 among men. The ABC poll had both genders much closer. So, Obama did much better among white men in the ABC poll but worse among white women compared to the NBC.

What does this mean? Probably nothing.

Posted by Elrod | June 17, 2008 10:43 PM

Sebelius would be a great choice. And you're right everyone intelligent, woman or man, would flock to her.

Unfortunately the usually insane, loud, vocal minority of Hillary Clinton supporters who insist on behaving as if the election is entirely dependent on them would rule Sebelius out. They woudl do so, theoretically, on the grounds you were just trying to choose another woman over Hillary.

In point of fact they'd be doing what they always do best: finding and attacking anyone who represents even the slightest threat to Hillary Clinton. Kathleen Sebelius is preceived to be a threefold threat: 1) as a qualified Vice Presidential pick THIS time around, 2) as another qualified woman who could take away the "history" mantle they have specificallly and solely chosen for Hillary and 3) as someone who would clearly be a frontrunner for as the Democratic Party's possible nominee in either 2012 or 2016 depending on how things work out this time around.

Hence they'll do everything they can to stop her. But for my part, I'm with you. I hope Sebelius gets it. There would be no better or more qualified Vice Presidential pick Obama could make.

Posted by John | June 18, 2008 1:20 AM

Kathleen Sebelius is fine, but she's not the amazing pick you are claiming. I definitely don't agree with your statement "There would be no better or more qualified Vice Presidential pick Obama could make."

As the moderate governor of a small state with a bland speaking style, she's not the best candidate for VP out there. She's not bad. It's just that you are over-selling her. She's one of many good, possible candidates.

She would be an o.k. veep choice, but it would look a little like female affirmative action--if Obama faced only male opponents and barely beat a male opponent in the primary, would she be in the running? Definitely. Would Sebelius get it? Probably not.

Also, I take issue with one part of your post in particular. You cliam that "another qualified woman who could take away the "history" mantle they have specificallly and solely chosen for Hillary." This is over the top and wrong. The "history" is Hillary Clinton's because she made history this year. She is the only woman to ever win ANY presidential primary. That is historic in and of itself, even if Sebelius or someone we don't even know gets elected president in 2012 or 2016. You're overdoing it and it is unlikley Sebelius would garner more than some occasional VP speculation had Hillary Clinton not won so many primaries and so many votes.

I still stick by the idea that we have democracy for a reason. The delegates technically select the Prez. and VP at the convention, so why not make it simple? Obama-Clinton is the obvious choice. Though other choices are palatable too.

Posted by A different John | June 18, 2008 1:22 PM