General Election – Comparing Clinton and Obama through Maps

Since I wrote my last diary ...
http://www.dailykos.com/...

... almost a week ago, a number of new state general election polls have come out matching Hillary and Obama against McCain.

At this point polling is available for literally one-half of all the states, including almost all swing states.  It is obviously too early to make any sort of general election predictions from these polls.  Instead, I feel that they give a good gauge of where things stand today and, in particular, give us a good idea geographically of which states the Hillary and Obama campaigns should concentrate on if and when either happens to win the nomination.  For example, it may be futile for Clinton to campaign in Colorado if she becomes the nominee, as McCain appears to have a huge starting advantage there.  Obama, on the other hand, would be wise to target Colorado if he becomes the nominee.

The polling not only covers a large number of states, but for a number of them two or three separate polls are available.  In those instances, I have averaged the available polls.  You can see all the raw data at the bottom of the diary.  It should be noted that all polls here are from the month of February.

I have noticed several patterns to the numbers.  Other than the obvious fact that, as of right now, Obama has a significant electoral college advantage, there appear to be some regional trends.  Obama seems to perform better than Hillary in virtually every state west of the Mississippi; in most of those states his advantage over Hillary is strong (10 to 21 points difference).  In most northern states east of the Mississippi Obama also performs better, though not by as large margins as in the western states.  Hillary seems to be doing relatively better in several southern states (though she still loses them to McCain), as well as in Ohio – albeit only by two points better than Obama in that state.  

This brings me to another point – namely that its seems that Obama does better virtually everywhere he has already campaigned and/or where primaries and caucuses have already been held.  Out of the five states in which Hillary is performing better than Obama, two (Ohio and Kentucky) have not yet held their primaries; one (Florida) had a primary but both candidates did not campaign there; one (Alabama) is a deeply southern state where racial animus may still be a factor (can anyone think of another explanation ?); and one (Massachusetts) seems to be a weird case which I really can’t fathom.  Massachusetts may simply be an outlier ?  One thing in the cross-tabs seems suspect in the fact that according to the poll, 16% of African-Americans in Massachusetts would vote for McCain if Obama were our nominee (vs. 15% of African-Americans who would vote for McCain if Clinton were our nominee).

In one of the Florida polls, Rasmussen acknowledges that their numbers may be somewhat of a "temporary outlier" (my quote, not theirs) of sorts  – "... the poll contains hints that suggest the controversy over Florida’s convention delegates may be hurting Obama. Most notably, just 55% of Sunshine State Democrats say they would vote for Obama over McCain. Thirty-one percent (31%) say they would vote for McCain. These results are especially striking given that Obama leads McCain among unaffiliated voters in the state ... In the end, if Obama is the Democratic nominee, it is likely that most of the Democrats currently unhappy with him will come home and vote for their party rather than John McCain ..."

One interesting regional pattern formed by these polls is that in the case of Obama, he seems to be tapping in to what perhaps may become a new re-definition of the traditional red-blue divide.  Back in 2004 the "Retro-Metro" concept was proposed as a possible framework by which the red-blue divide may become redefined in future elections -- you can read more about this here:  http://images.google.com/...

The following map was included in the analysis:

It is encouraging that perhaps Obama is now somehow making a connection with new-found Democratic strength in parts of the west – states like Nevada and Colorado (with McCain as the nominee, Arizona may be out of reach for this election) as well as in Virginia.  By doing this, Obama may make it more likely that we win in November, as Ohio and Florida are no longer the "make or break" states.  Ohio and Florida, ofcourse, continue to be very important for us; but other possible newly-Democratic states like Virginia, Colorado and Nevada may also play a role.  Obama truly seems to be expanding the playing field for us.  It does not appear, however, that Hillary is taking advantage of this possible new paradigm.

Again, because of the idea of outliers as well as constant change over time, these polls should not be interpreted as some sort of prediction for November; but only as a gauge of how things may turn out and, most importantly, a gauge of just how much work is ahead of us before we reach our ultimate goal at the end of this year.

Alabama:

http://www.surveyusa.com/...
Obama 34 – McCain 58
Clinton 37 – McCain 57

California:

http://www.surveyusa.com/...
Obama 61 – McCain 34
Clinton 58 – McCain 35

Colorado:

http://rasmussenreports.com/...
Obama 46 – McCain 39
Clinton 35 – McCain 49

Florida:

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/...
Obama 39 – McCain 41
Clinton 42 – McCain 44

http://rasmussenreports.com/...
Obama 37 – McCain 53
Clinton 43 – McCain 49

Florida average:
Obama  38 – McCain 47
Clinton  42.5 – McCain 46.5

Indiana:

http://www.surveyusa.com/...
Obama 40 – McCain 50
Clinton 42 – McCain 51

Iowa:

http://www.surveyusa.com/...
Obama 51 – McCain 41
Clinton 41 – McCain 52

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/...
Obama 44 – McCain 41
Clinton 37 – McCain 47

Iowa average:
Obama  47.5 – McCain 41
Clinton 39  – McCain 49.5

Kansas:

http://www.surveyusa.com/...
Obama 44 – McCain 50
Clinton 35 – McCain 59

Kentucky:

http://www.surveyusa.com/...
Obama 32 – McCain 61
Clinton 43 – McCain 53

Massachusetts:

http://www.surveyusa.com/...
Obama 48 – McCain 46
Clinton 52 – McCain 43

Michigan:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/...
Obama 47 – McCain 39
Clinton 44 – McCain 44

Minnesota:

http://www.surveyusa.com/...
Obama 55 – McCain 40
Clinton 49 – McCain 45

http://rasmussenreports.com/...
Obama 53 – McCain 38
Clinton 42 – McCain 47

Minnesota average:
Obama 54 – McCain 39
Clinton 45.5  – McCain 46

Missouri:

http://www.surveyusa.com/...
Obama 49 – McCain 43
Clinton 51 – McCain 44

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/...
Obama 40 – McCain 42
Clinton 42 – McCain 43

Missouri average:
Obama  44.5 – McCain 42.5
Clinton  46.5 – McCain 43.5

Nevada:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/...
Obama 50 – McCain 38
Clinton 40 – McCain 49

New Hampshire:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/...
Obama 49 – McCain 36
Clinton 43 – McCain 41

New Jersey:

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/...
Obama 46 – McCain 39
Clinton 47 – McCain 41

New Mexico:

http://www.surveyusa.com/...
Obama 55 – McCain 40
Clinton 50 – McCain 45

New York:

http://www.surveyusa.com/...
Obama 57 – McCain 36
Clinton 52 – McCain 41

http://www.siena.edu/...
Obama 47 – McCain 40
Clinton 49 – McCain 42

New York average:
Obama  52 – McCain 38
Clinton 50.5 – McCain 41.5

Ohio:

http://www.surveyusa.com/...
Obama 47 – McCain 44
Clinton 52 – McCain 42

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/...
Obama 41 – McCain 42
Clinton 43 – McCain 46

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/...
Obama 40 – McCain 42
Clinton 43 – McCain 44

Ohio average:
Obama  42.7 – McCain 42.7
Clinton  46 – McCain 44

Oregon:

http://www.surveyusa.com/...
Obama 48 – McCain 47
Clinton 41 – McCain 49

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/...
Obama 49 – McCain 40
Clinton 42 – McCain 45

Oregon average:
Obama  48.5 – McCain 43.5
Clinton  41.5 – McCain 47

Pennsylvania:

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/...
Obama 42 – McCain 41
Clinton 46 – McCain 40

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/...
Obama 49 – McCain 39
Clinton 42 – McCain 44

http://www.wgal.com/...
Obama 43 – McCain 44
Clinton 46 – McCain 46

Pennsylvania average:
Obama  44. 7 – McCain 41.3
Clinton 44.7 – McCain 43.3

Rhode Island:

http://www.insidepolitics.org/...
Obama 42 – McCain 30
Clinton 43 – McCain 32

Texas:

http://www.cnn.com/...
Obama 44 – McCain 52
Clinton 42 – McCain 55

Virginia:

http://www.surveyusa.com/...
Obama 51 – McCain 45
Clinton 45 – McCain 48

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/...
Obama 44 – McCain 49
Clinton 41 – McCain 51

Virginia average:
Obama  47.5 – McCain 47
Clinton  43 – McCain 49.5

Washington:

http://www.surveyusa.com/...
Obama 55 – McCain 38
Clinton 46 – McCain 46

Wisconsin:

http://www.surveyusa.com/...
Obama 52 – McCain 42
Clinton 42 – McCain 49

•  Wowser!

  Incredible work.  Great mapping.  Thank you.  Now I have to go back and peruse again.

  by gchaucer2 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 05:49:26 PM PDT

  •  Recommended

    excellent analysis yet again

    Can I ask what mapping tool you use to generate the graphics?

    by Rorgg on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 06:17:39 PM PDT

    •  just good old ..

      "paint" (paintbrush) !

      by silver spring on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 06:33:12 PM PDT

  •  rasmussen is a GOP pollster

    don't believe him

    by Beet on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 06:42:36 PM PDT

•  Fun facts

  People think Ohio and Florida will decide things again, but consider this:

  Missouri has picked the winner in every presidential election (save 1956) since Teddy Roosevelt.

  No Democrat since Woodrow Wilson has won the White House without Wisconsin.

  Obama's Midwestern appeal may mean a lot more than we think it does.

  by Nathaniel Ament Stone on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 05:53:24 PM PDT

  •  Kennedy lost Wisconsin n/t

    by nrafter530 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:34:00 PM PDT

•  I think Deval Patrick is

  hurting Obama in MA.

  by Hope08 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 05:54:08 PM PDT

  •  Lucky for Obama

    Nobody else cares about Massachusetts.

    by Alice in Florida on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 06:01:26 PM PDT

    •  Unless it proves to be in play

      if this comes down to one or two states, forcing him to spend money to save Massachusetts is not good for us

      by nrafter530 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:33:17 PM PDT

      •  No way

        Patrick can't be doing that bad.

        by Alice in Florida on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:54:00 PM PDT

  •  Agreed

    That's the only explanation I can come up with.

    by Scoonie on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 06:05:50 PM PDT

•  Barack's Answer To Every ? From Hillary In Ohio

  "Hillary, have you SEEN those maps in silver spring's diary?"  Rec'd.

  by tkmattson on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 06:08:22 PM PDT

•  Massachusetts . . .

  I think part of the reason for McCain's strong performance in the state is that he is perceived as a political moderate tough guy.  Part of the challenge in the election will be demonstrating that McCain is not in fact a moderate.  Highlighting his Washington DC insider status is also a pressure point.  

  In the west I think there is probably even more hostility to "Washington politicians" -- Obama is winning the battle of the independent voters in those states.  As you point out Obama's numbers are also stronger in places where he's campaigned.

  I hope that Obama's able to effectively wrap this one up March 4th, because he can't afford a two front war in the nomination battle.  He needs to be able to pivot and start defining McCain without the added distraction of having a Democrat amplifying McCain's attacks on one side -- and in some cases feeding McCain lines of attack.

  by NotGeorgeWill on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 06:12:39 PM PDT

  •  Interesting analysis

    Why do you you think MA is so cool on Obama?

    by badger1968 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 06:28:02 PM PDT

    •  I term it "Weld Effect"

      Massachusetts voters, many of them, have this feeling McCain is like William Weld, whom they reelected with 71% of the vote in 1994. Weld even carried Boston in that election. He was a really popular governor, ran for Senate and kept it close against John Kerry in 1996.

      Massachusetts will elect Republicans it deems moderate, even if it's not true (i.e. Mitt Romney). While it is hesistant to vote Republican, it will. Reagan won there twice.

      I'm 99% Obama will carry Massachusetts in the end, but a 55%-45% win would be disastrous PR-wise for the Democrats.

      by nrafter530 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:31:50 PM PDT

    •  I don't know that they're so cool . . .

      as they are hot for McCain (right now).

      An Irish name itself probably doesn't hurt McCain in a place like Boston.

      As someone pointed out up-thread the Deval Patrick connection might actually hurt Obama as well (Patrick has had some missteps in his first year -- he hasn't entirely delivered -- even though he did win his election 56-44%).

      Obama has never really campaigned in the state either.  It was just one stop in Boston during the crazy run up to Super Tuesday.  

      McCain spent more time in the state in the run-up to Super Tuesday.

      The key in the general election, if Obama wins the nomination is to knock McCain out of the political center -- to put to rest this notion that McCain is somehow a "moderate" Republican.  

      by NotGeorgeWill on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:19:45 PM PDT

•  this is a great analysis.

  thanks for all the work you put into this.  consider it recc'd

  by ejpoeta on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 06:19:16 PM PDT

•  Ohio

  Good diary.  Still way too early. The point I want to make is that I'm tired of Ohio being make or break.  I was born in Dayton and have plenty of family there.  It is a funny state.  Not ha-ha funny.  I'm talking most conservative city in the country Cincy paired with a congressional district that elects Dennis Kucinich.  And my relatives in Ohio they are all over the place too--Some pro-life one issue Catholic Repubs--some well-educated humanistic Dems--some "bleed the beast" evangelicals.
  But, back to my point.  This crazy state has given the Republican candidate the Presidency in 2000 and 2004 (electoral malfeasance notwithstanding).  As a progressive I'm so tired of kissing Ohio's ass!  "Oh please Ohio, please, please, let us win this time!"
  This is one of the many reasons I support Barack Obama.  He will be a credible candidate in many more states than Hillary--as this diary suggests.  So, if Ohio wants to bend over for Republicans who send their jobs over seas in order to save every last sperm, egg, and zygote--let them!  Ohio--you won't be pandered to anymore.  If you want McVain, so be it, but your days as king maker are numbered.

  by badger1968 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 06:24:13 PM PDT

•  California is stronger for Hillary

  How do you take California and get an Obama win relative to Hillary that beat him in the primary by 10 pts?

  Who's votes do you think these are?

  I think Obama will have real trouble in the following states

  Ohio, Florida, Michigan, California and possibly Pennslyvania.

  Florida and Michigan for obvious reasons.  He didn't want them to count and they will remember that come election time.  Also Michigan needs big business as part of their turn around.

  California because the Clintons are loved here and the my supporters won't vote for you threat of Obama will backfire more here than elsewhere.   Also California will be the first state in the counter Obama movement.  Arizona is a neighbor and its known that McCain and Hillary have respect for each other and that McCain has credibility in the hispanic community.

  Pennslyvania just because racism exists and it will be a close race.  I am from California and as a white person I don't hear any blatant 60's style racism in my daily life but I bought some property in PA and oh boy....there is some racism out that way.

  by sonofdonkeykong on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:14:03 PM PDT

  •  Uh, Obama having trouble in CA? In MI?

    Every Candidate on both sides will have trouble with the big three swing states (OH, FL, and PA).  That's just the way it is.

    But did you notice the 27 point lead Obama has over McCain in CA, the 15 point lead in MI?  I don't know what data you are using to come to your conclusions, but ummm...no.

    by SaintCog on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:28:16 PM PDT

•  Great stuff...

  Another point to keep in mind with all these McCain Match up polls is that we're still in the middle of a primary where Democrats are still pissed off at their candidate's opponent, and that is artificially dragging the numbers down for both BHO and HRC.  If this thing is settled fairly soon, the hard feelings will have time to settle and BHO's or HRC's support will reach a higher level.

  by SaintCog on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:23:19 PM PDT

•  Excellent analysis

  Although I think at this stage of the election, we should take GE head-to-heads with a pinch of salt.
  Two things in Obama's favor long-term:

  1. He is much more popular among independents.

  2. He can present a much clearer contrast against McCain which will help him with general election arguments:

  - change vs. more-of-the-same - no lobbyist vs. lobbyists doing business on straight-talk - clear distinction on Iraq War - young and energetic vs. old

  Because Kerry voted for the Iraq war in 2003, he was never able to draw a clear distinction with Bush. The voters never saw a clear choice.

  by NewAmerican on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:23:22 PM PDT