"That blog isn't called Smart Politics for nothing."
- POLITICO
"Smart Politics is by far the best Minnesota political blog.
I check it every day and encounter much good information
and analysis that I can get nowhere else."
- Steven E. Schier
Dorothy H. and Edward C. Congdon
Professor of Political Science
Carleton College
Hillary Clinton's few remaining arguments for why she should be the Democratic nominee include:
1) She will have won more popular votes during the Democratic primaries and caucuses (the "Al Gore 2000" argument); this assumes Puerto Rico pays off big for Clinton.
2) She will have won more "Electoral College" votes, when states are so weighted, and
3) She is in a position to do better than Barack Obama against John McCain in several key battleground states.
Recent polling data suggests Clinton can indeed make that third argument. For example, all the battleground states Clinton won during the Democratic primary are still leaning towards the junior Senator from New York in general election matchups, while Obama generally struggles when matched up against McCain.
While Obama maintains his relative advantage over Clinton in some of the battleground states he won during the primary season, that advantage is much more narrow.
However, Clinton has also surpassed Obama in general matchups against McCain in several states that Obama won during the primary season:
In short, polling data is almost unanimous in demonstrating that Clinton is currently better poised to win the states Obama won during the Democratic primary than Obama is poised to win the states in which Clinton was victorious. Whether Clinton can successfully demonstrate this to undecided superdelegates is another matter.
Comments
This assumes that, somehow, an Obama 2 point win in Pennsylvania is somehow less than a 9 point win for Clinton. It's not. The question isn't X advantage over X, it's the electoral map (as it stands today) for each candidate.
Posted by: NorthStarPolitics | May 29, 2008 1:38 PM
Except a 2-point lead today by Obama over McCain in Pennsylvania puts that state much more in doubt for the Democrats (as of today) than it does if Clinton was on the ballot. (Not to mention a 2-point lead is actually within the margin of the poll's error, whereas Clinton's lead is not).
So, without getting into the internals of the polls, this is another way of measuring 'strength of support' within a state, rather than simply saying "Obama and Clinton would both win Pennsylvania."
Posted by: Eric Ostermeier | May 29, 2008 7:18 PM
So, who is going to win?
Posted by: Kentucky Website Design | May 31, 2008 12:51 AM