Obama beats McCain; Clinton beats McCain
SurveyUSA has a couple of interesting maps out today. They did polls in all 50 states and played Electoral College to see who would win in the two potential matchups: McCain v Obama and McCain v Clinton.
Here are the results, with maps and poll numbers:
Obama 280 - 258 McCain
Clinton 276 - 262 McCain
Again, this is state by state, not a standard national poll that would just sort out the meaningless popular vote (don't think it's meaningless? Ask Al Gore), so it's more accurate at capturing the moment in time.
Take a close look at the numbers, and you'll see that Obama has a clear edge over Clinton, and it's not just by those four Electoral College votes.
Look at those maps and compare them to Bush v Kerry in 2004. See how similar the Clinton map is? She picks up FL and OH (handily) but loses WA, OR, and MI. She hangs onto PA by a point and steals NM by less than that. If McCain picks Crist as his running mate, flip Florida and it's over. The Obama map, though, is completely different. He makes inroads into what have been very red states like CO and ND. Colorado! Home of the Family Research Council! Though he loses NJ by less than a point (WTF?), he picks up Iowa and nearly half of Nebraska. He solidifies the trend in VA (if barely) and takes most of his states by good margins. Look at the maps again (and go back even to 2000) and ask yourself which country you'd rather live in.
But it goes deeper than that:
Each poll has a margin of error of +/- 4 points. Take a look at, say, North Carolina. McCain beats Clinton there by 8, which is just inside the margin - a tie is conceivable. But he beats Obama by only 2. Odds are the undecideds break for McCain there, but he's going to have to spend money in NC to do it, and that's going to be hard for him to do, especially if he's having to do triage because of places like NC, FL (up 2%), NE (up 3%), PA (up 5%), SC (up 3%), SD (up 4%), and TX (up 1%). If the GOP is spending money to hold onto Texas, they're in deep, deep trouble all up and down the ticket. And if these numbers hold, McCain still loses. The same logic against Clinton only has McCain in tight races in CO (up 6%), IA (up 5%), MI (up <1%), MO (up 4%), SC (up 6$), and TN (up <1%). See the difference? That's not taking into account McCain beating Obama in NJ or beating Clinton in WA and OR.
Now this doesn't take into account running mates (obviously), so if McCain chooses somebody from Virginia or Michigan, he could beat Obama, and a Floridian or Pennsylvanian helps him beat Clinton. Depending, of course, on the Dem Veep. It's interesting to note that Ohio is solidly Democratic, even with Obama, who got beat like a drum there by Hillary; note, though, that he's only a point back in Texas versus seven for Hillary even though she took the popular vote there earlier this week.
None of this will matter come November, of course, but it's food for thought. Are New Jersey and Texas really in play? Will Clinton really lose Washington and Oregon? Can Obama really take Colorado and North Dakota? Really?
But surveys like this one make it hard for Clinton to say she's a better opponent against McCain. Sure, she'll win, but not as comfortably as Obama would. Obama also makes stronger inroads into Republican territory Clinton won't even bother campaigning in, forcing the GOP to spread their thin piggy bank over a wider area, giving Democrats (with their fat piggy bank) a chance to pick up some downticket seats in Congress and state legislatures. And do Democrats really want to count on Florida again?
Here are the results, with maps and poll numbers:
Obama 280 - 258 McCain
Clinton 276 - 262 McCain
Again, this is state by state, not a standard national poll that would just sort out the meaningless popular vote (don't think it's meaningless? Ask Al Gore), so it's more accurate at capturing the moment in time.
Take a close look at the numbers, and you'll see that Obama has a clear edge over Clinton, and it's not just by those four Electoral College votes.
Look at those maps and compare them to Bush v Kerry in 2004. See how similar the Clinton map is? She picks up FL and OH (handily) but loses WA, OR, and MI. She hangs onto PA by a point and steals NM by less than that. If McCain picks Crist as his running mate, flip Florida and it's over. The Obama map, though, is completely different. He makes inroads into what have been very red states like CO and ND. Colorado! Home of the Family Research Council! Though he loses NJ by less than a point (WTF?), he picks up Iowa and nearly half of Nebraska. He solidifies the trend in VA (if barely) and takes most of his states by good margins. Look at the maps again (and go back even to 2000) and ask yourself which country you'd rather live in.
But it goes deeper than that:
Each poll has a margin of error of +/- 4 points. Take a look at, say, North Carolina. McCain beats Clinton there by 8, which is just inside the margin - a tie is conceivable. But he beats Obama by only 2. Odds are the undecideds break for McCain there, but he's going to have to spend money in NC to do it, and that's going to be hard for him to do, especially if he's having to do triage because of places like NC, FL (up 2%), NE (up 3%), PA (up 5%), SC (up 3%), SD (up 4%), and TX (up 1%). If the GOP is spending money to hold onto Texas, they're in deep, deep trouble all up and down the ticket. And if these numbers hold, McCain still loses. The same logic against Clinton only has McCain in tight races in CO (up 6%), IA (up 5%), MI (up <1%), MO (up 4%), SC (up 6$), and TN (up <1%). See the difference? That's not taking into account McCain beating Obama in NJ or beating Clinton in WA and OR.
Now this doesn't take into account running mates (obviously), so if McCain chooses somebody from Virginia or Michigan, he could beat Obama, and a Floridian or Pennsylvanian helps him beat Clinton. Depending, of course, on the Dem Veep. It's interesting to note that Ohio is solidly Democratic, even with Obama, who got beat like a drum there by Hillary; note, though, that he's only a point back in Texas versus seven for Hillary even though she took the popular vote there earlier this week.
None of this will matter come November, of course, but it's food for thought. Are New Jersey and Texas really in play? Will Clinton really lose Washington and Oregon? Can Obama really take Colorado and North Dakota? Really?
But surveys like this one make it hard for Clinton to say she's a better opponent against McCain. Sure, she'll win, but not as comfortably as Obama would. Obama also makes stronger inroads into Republican territory Clinton won't even bother campaigning in, forcing the GOP to spread their thin piggy bank over a wider area, giving Democrats (with their fat piggy bank) a chance to pick up some downticket seats in Congress and state legislatures. And do Democrats really want to count on Florida again?