Comments on: Electability

By: Dirk Gently

Dirk Gently — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 18:38:16 +0000

I agree with Alex, and would like to expand it:

I don’t think we can completely discard initial polling in those states, because while there is significant movement between GOP-Dem that is likely, the initial results give us a bit of a coloring of the Obama-Clinton matchups in battleground states. Clinton does disastrously bad in the West, and Obama does significantly worse than Clinton in the Northeast. I don’t see the tenor of that trend changing much, even if the independents swing one way or another in the general.

There is also this (qua Alex): Obama’s ability to charge the youth vote, while blunting the anti-Hillary conservatives, is a greater advantage I should think than Clinton’s advantages among blue collar whites.

By: Alex

Alex — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:38:21 +0000

I have a better idea. I don’t know if there’s much indication that there are many voters who love one candidate and hate the other and will make a point of staying home or vote McCain if their primary candidate loses. The most probable effect is that some enthusiasm and therefore voter turnout will be lost among those whose candidate loses, so your superdelegate should be counting electoral votes based on who won in states where a small drop in voter turnout could end up losing the race. In other words, they should just stick with whoever won in the “swing states”.

By: Dennis Tuchler

Dennis Tuchler — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 17:24:33 +0000

One of the messages from the primaries/caucuses that should disturb is this: Most of the working class white vote in the most populous (and therefore elector-rich) states will probably be influenced by race in a McCain-Obama fight. I will likely goto a white Republican rather than to a black Democrat, wherever the voters economic interests lie. I fear this will be one of the messages from the coming PA primary as it was from the Ohio primary (although that message was tainted by the news of Obama’s reported disclaimer of the promise he made to renegotiate NAFTA)..

By: joreko

joreko — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 16:10:57 +0000

The real issue is not how well Clinton or Obama might do in battleground states, but that we shouldn’t have battleground states in the first place.

We should have a national popular vote for President in which the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states should win. There would be no red, blue, or battleground states. Then, everybody’s vote would be equally important throughout the country.

When the National Popular Vote is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes, these electoral votes (enough to elect a President) would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). This change to a national popular vote can be accomplished state-by-state, and Maryland and New Jersey have already passed this legislation.

By: Justin

Justin — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 00:20:38 +0000

Although you’re reasonably cautious, I think trying to infer the general outcome from the primary data is a crap shoot. You have to take in to account whether the primaries are closed or open. If you don’t have an open primary, it doesn’t tell you enough about general election support. Florida has a closed primary, so far as I know, Michigan’s was open, but I suspect fewer independents/republicans would vote in the democratic primary if they knew the vote wouldn’t count. Ohio was semi-open, so that’s perhaps more telling. Pennsylvania will be a closed primary (also important is that I think Rendell is right that Pennsylvania is likely to go democratic for either nominee). You’d also want to know whether there were simultaneous (competitive) repubblican primaries going on at the same time

Anyway, I think a better way to gauge electability is to look at polling for the general, and/or demographic appeal. As you noted, there’s not much to go on there either.

By: Steve Roth

Steve Roth — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 19:19:06 +0000

Interesting, but–absent an Obama meltdown,

It’s over.

Hillary needs circa 60% of the remaining delegates/votes to claim any kind of lead.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/could-she-ever.html

http://trueconservative.typepad.com/trueconservative/2008/03/the-real-delega.html

Again, absent an Obama meltdown, that just isn’t going to happen.

The superdelegates have never overridden the popular mandate, and they never will. It would cause a nuclear meltdown in the Democratic party.

1. They know better than anyone which side their political bread is buttered on.

2. They care more than anyone about the health and unity (and victory) of the Democratic party.

Obama’s the presumptive nominee. It’s time for him to start acting like it. (Politely) ignore Hillary and her Ferrarogates, and turn all attention to McCain.

Hillary can certainly keep hoping for the meltdown, and her best personal strategy is to campaign to cause it. But Obama should act as if it’s not even a possibility–and not raise to her bait.

http://trueconservative.typepad.com/trueconservative/2008/03/hillary-its-ove.html

The best indicator of electability we have, btw, is the recent Survey USA state-by-state poll, which is of registered, not *likely* voters. Obama leads clearly.

Now on the Hillary/McCain comparison, multiply the McCain number by the number of your choice to account for Hillary turning out Republicans.

Do the opposite for the Obama/McCain comparison.

You don’t need very big multipliers to turn it into a comparison between a landslide and a rout.

As The Economist said, “If what should be a cakewalk in November turns into a rout, the Democrats will know who to blame.”

and:

Hillary: “a one-woman answer to the Republican’s problems.”

By: John Mondragon

John Mondragon — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 17:44:05 +0000

To me, this seems an odd way of figuring out electability. A survey of democratic voters (basically what the primary results can be interpreted as) wouldn’t seem to have that much relation to the voting patterns of the entire (voting) population (which is what would matter in a general election.

At the very least, it would seem that one would have to figure out to what extent the democratic voters who participated in the primaries represent the voter population in general.

My guess would be not very much.