But please, people. Stop putting so much weight on state by state polls as opposed national polls.
I know I am touching a raw nerve with some people because of the 2000 debacle. The winner of the popular vote lost the Electoral College and the loser became president. You'll note, though, that this was because a recount of Florida was stopped by the U.S. Supreme Court. Were the outcome determined fairly, Al Gore would have won the Electoral College in addition to winning the popular vote.
And even this was a rare exception in the past 130 or so years of American presidential electoral politics.
Now, I am not saying that state by state polls serve no purpose. Particularly as November nears, they can be extremely valuable for resource allocation in case the general election is indeed close enough that the Electoral College results could differ from the popular vote.
However, this far out, national polls are a far better measure of electability. Forget poring over PA, OH and FL results like they were sacred scrolls. And forget about CO, VA and IA, if that's your "counterargument."
The truth of the matter is national margin is a much better indicator this far out than state by state polls precisely because resources can be allocated. Granted, if you are in charge of general election resource allocation, by all means, study those polls, plan targeted ad campaigns, expand certain GOTV efforts, perhaps at the cost of others.
But imagine you're living in Jerome Armstrongland. Hillary's advantage over Obama in Ohio and Florida means everything! Ohio and Florida are going to determine the election!
Unfortunately, even if you accept this premise, IT'S MAY, NOT NOVEMBER. The fact that Hillary is doing worse in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Oregon and Washington means nothing in Jerome Armstrongland -- she still wins them, so she's peachy.
But it means something in McCainland. It means that instead of just worrying about holding Florida and Ohio (from the 2004 map), you can also spend money, time and resources poaching in the Upper Midwest and the Pacific Northwest. You can turn those polls around! And then, all of the sudden, Hillaryland can't just worry about Florida and Ohio. Hillaryland has to allocate resources in those regions. And Obamaland wouldn't have to. Even assuming FL and OH are key, Obama could spend all the time and money in the world in FL and OH. He doesn't have to worry about Washington State.
These particular states are just being used as examples. The truth of the matter is that there's a long list of states Democrats have to defend and a long list of states Republicans have to defend -- these lists are different in Clinton-McCain and Obama-McCain, but if you want a good idea about how long your list of states-to-be-defended is, and how long your states-to-be-poached list is, just look at the top line poll. If Obama stays well ahead in national polls, Republicans will be desperately defending -- in no real order -- FL, OH, CO, NC, VA, NV, NH, IA, MO, NH, LA, perhaps even KS, GA, NE, SC, TX, SD -- and their greater potential to steal PA (and perhaps relative ease in defending FL and OH) will mean precisely bubkes.