Electoral-Vote.Com: Is Clinton or Obama's Map Better?

This will be a quick diary because I just want to hear what people think about this.  I was just taking a look at one of the websites that I haven't visited for awhile, Electoral-Vote.Com, and I realized that the maps show me something that I (an Obama supporter) don't want to believe.

Obama's map has the following as the final result:  Obama 243     McCain 269     Ties 26

Clinton's map has the following as the final result:  Clinton 291     McCain 237     Ties 10

.
.
.

When I saw that, my first thought was...   what?!!

So my question is, can anybody reassure me about Obama's prospects for November?  Because I'm feeling a little shaky about them right now.

Let's say Clinton's map actually turns out the way it looks right now, except for the fact that she wins Wisconsin (not too hard to imagine, I think):  At that point, she beats McCain by 301 to 237.  That's a shellacking!!!

Meanwhile, let's say Obama's map turns out the way it looks right now, except that he wins Pennsylvania and and loses Indiana and North Carolina (not too hard to imagine):  At that point, he loses to McCain 264 to 274.  I don't like that result.

Fellow Obama supporters, please assuage my concerns!  

(Note:  Although I have concerns, I am not a "concern troll."  If you label me a concern troll then you must believe that no one on this site can ever voice concern about a preferred candidate.  So please don't do that.)

•  There are no ties in electoral votes

  by 8ackgr0und N015e on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:08:16 PM PDT

  •  no there are

    but not this election.

    by bythesea on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 02:20:57 AM PDT

•  Whoa..take a deep breath

  Something that you should remember, time has passed since Clinton won some of her states.  In fact, if there was a revote now, I almost guarantee you that some results might have changed.  If you look at any national poll (which too are not that valid until we have a true general election campaign, dems are pretty divided and passionate right now)they are both running within the margin of error.  Try not to read too much into these arguments because they do not take into account the very passionate intentions of his/her supporters.  Unfortunately, you will not get a very clear picture until we actually have a nominee. I think that once we get a dem nominee, the media and the public will take a very close look at McCain and we will truly vote our interests, not just temporary passions.

  by rainyskip on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:10:05 PM PDT

•  wow

  that site is quite a throwback :)

  things I see but don't believe:

  Hillary will not win Iowa, Missouri or Florida, and she risks losing Oregon, but she will win Arkansas

  Obama will not lose Pennsylvania, Nevada, or Ohio and he has a good shot at Virginia and picking up some of Nebraska's electoral votes (proportional)

  Did you notice on Obama's map that Texas is "barely GOP"? lol

  by nwodtuhs on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:12:06 PM PDT

  •  Thanks

    Thanks for your response, although I remain just cautiously optimistic - not sold.

    I think Clinton could very well win Iowa, Florida, Missouri, and Oregon.

    And I'm definitely not sure Obama will win Pennsylvania and Ohio.

    Of course, I love Obama's "map-changing" ability to bring states like Texas into play, I think you have to admit that the polls right now seem to show Clinton with a slight advantage in November.

    by Benjaminwise on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:18:40 PM PDT

    •  again...

      polls this early are no reflection of what will actually go down in November.  I know I can't possibly be the only remembering the polls this time of 2004.  Kerry was beating to pants off of Bush, then November rolled around and it didn't happen.  We see how fast the news cycle goes now....look at how much time we have till November.  

      Its pretty hard to gauge these matchups because we are still in the heat of the dem primary battle.  Once we pick a candidate then turn our focus on the GOP with no distractions I think you will see a different picture. Sure it doesn't help in the who is more electable argument, but that is/was a silly means to pick a candidate anyway.  They are both electable.  They both have the ability to beat McCain so lets just pick the best candidate for the job of POTUS and not just the candidate we think can better get there.

      by littleHalo on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:11:21 PM PDT

•  Best hope for a unity bounce

  In the Obama map McCain wins a lot of states by 1-3%.  Give Hillary and Obama each that much of a boost and things look a lot better.

  by jbelac on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:19:25 PM PDT

  •  Great point!

    That is exactly the kind of insightful comment I needed.  I do believe that Obama will get a bounce once he wins the nomination and starts making his case for the general election.  And you're right - once you give him an extra 3% points across the board things look a lot better!

    by Benjaminwise on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:39:30 PM PDT

    •  It's also worth noting

      According to electoral-vote.com, giving Clinton 3% more ties her in New Mexico and wins her in Kentucky.

      Giving Obama 3% more wins him PA and NC, brings him within 1% in Ohio, and ties him in NH.  Oh, and wins him TX.

      Many of the polls relied on there are out of date by now, so your mileage may vary.  I'd take this not as a sign that one candidate is better than another, but as a sign that McCain's really in trouble once the nomination's settled.  

      by jbelac on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:56:20 AM PDT

•  WI -

  WI-Pres
  Apr 28 Univ. of Wis.Obama (D) 47%, McCain (R) 43%
  WI-Pres
  Apr 28 Univ. of Wis.McCain (R) 47%, Clinton (D) 41%

  by ZappoDave on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:19:50 PM PDT

•  not relevent anymore

  Obama, barring a disaster in his campaign is almost certainly the nominee.  He only needs 29% of the remaining uncommitted supers to seal the deal.

  As soon has he kicks the ankle biter off of his heals, we will be able to focus on the real race against McCain.  The fact that he is basically tied with McCain without yet campaigning against him says that he is likely to do very well against him by November.  The long primary has helped to energize a strong ground infrastructure which will still be in place into November.  

  As an added bonus his coattails will bring a very good chance of turning over Senate and House seats in red states such as mine (AK).

  by because on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:20:29 PM PDT

  •  Well said because

    because ... well just because.

    by ZappoDave on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:21:50 PM PDT

•  Here's a little nice site:

  linky dinky

  by nicejoest on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:26:42 PM PDT

  •  little "nicer"

    by nicejoest on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:26:58 PM PDT

•  I don't think Democrats will win FL

  by adamchaz on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:26:48 PM PDT

•  both maps are a snapshot of NOW

  not of november 2008. that being said, look at the margins of the various states, and i think obama's map looks like a much better place to start out from than hillary's.

  additionally, when you look at which states are currently set to get extra congressional districts in 2010, obama's map looks very, very good.

  by wu ming on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:28:23 PM PDT

•  Forget that. See fivethirtyeight.com

  DKos's own poblanohas his own blog devoted to parsing the polls of all 50 states in far greater depth than the ultra-shallow electoral-vote.com (which assumes EXACTLY THE SAME as Bush-vs-Kerry when it has no recent polls in a state, which is most of them).

  Ignore electoral-vote.com, they're not worth the electrons they're printed on. Check out fivethirtyeight.com by poblano, and you'll see the difference in depth of analysis right away. Check out his FAQ and his blog postings. He's the man.

  by Keith Pickering on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:29:26 PM PDT

  •  Thanks for the heads up

    I remember seeing that awhile back and wanting to check it out in detail... have not had the chance yet, but definitely will soon - especially since you give it such a high recommendation.

    by Benjaminwise on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:42:40 PM PDT

  •  I looked, but you must have to be an expert

    at polling and pollsterishisness to get it....  I don't think I understood a single thing on his site...  It just looked dismally like McCain would stomp both Obama and Clinton?

    Sigh. I am never so frustrated as when I can't understand something.  Drives me crazy.  I'm probably going to spend the next two weeks learning how to read those stupid graphs.

    by yamanote on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:46:57 PM PDT

    •  Take a deep breath. Chill. Let me explain.

      On fivethirtyeight.com, Poblano looks at one state at a time. He averages the polls, but it's not a straight average, it's a weighted average. More recent polls get more weight, as do polls done by historically better pollsters. With the weighted average (and deviations) you can compute the probability that a candidate will win any given state. The polls for each state, and the probabilities, are listed on the right-hand panel.

      Currently, McCain is winning against both Obama and Hillary, but that's after two months where the Dems have been pounding each other instead of the GOP. Once the primary season is over and we have a nominee, it's gonna flip back. Also on the right-hand panel, you can see the predicted winning percentages over time, and you can see that it does move as time goes on.

      Don't panic. Mostly harmless. And thanks for all the fish.

      by Keith Pickering on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:50:48 AM PDT

      •  (deep breath) wheeeeeewwwwwwww.

        Thanks!  Now I won't go crazy :-)    Plus you gave me a Hitchhicker's reference!

        by yamanote on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:31:00 PM PDT

•  Concern troll

  Sorry but you deserve that.  Because there have been about two hundred hand-wringing diaries here in the past two days.  The fun project, I guess, is trying to tell the ones made by Hills shills pretending to be Obama supporters from the ones by Obama supporters not bright enough to see through the intentional panic being spread by Hills shills.

  Either way, this is just a fucking stupid thing to put up when the top stories on the rec list and about a thousand comments express the fact that everyone is sick of the Concern.

  Just on a personal note, you sound like a liar to me.  I may be wrong but that's what happens when you jump in on a Concern fest.  You sound like a total liar.  

  I realized that the maps show me something that I (an Obama supporter) don't want to believe.

  Fucking classic.

  by Sun dog on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:31:40 PM PDT

  •  Well

    I would say something along the lines of "eff you" to express my true feeling upon reading your comment, but that wouldn't be appropriate given that this is a "public" place.  Suffice it to say that you don't know what you're talking about and with that being the case, you probably shouldn't be talking.

    I've been here a lot longer than you, so don't try to tell me that "everyone is sick of concern."  I've been a regular reader and occasional poster for years now, so I'm as much a member of this community as anyone.  And to me, that means I'm allowed to post whatever the heck I want, and tonight I wanted to post this because I'm actually concerned - really and truly concerned - about Obama's map.

    I want him to be our next president.  But I'm not going to simply take it on your (or anyone else's) word that it will happen.  Sorry.

    by Benjaminwise on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:49:43 PM PDT

    •  Been here longer than me

      Well, that settles it.  Geesh.

      Ok, I won't say 'everyone' is sick of it.  I'll say I'm sick of it.  You might not have intended to be a concern troll and I acknowledge that.  My point is that under the circumstances, you look just like one.  

      Here's the thing about what you're doing that really sucks.

      I want him to be our next president.  But I'm not going to simply take it on your (or anyone else's) word that it will happen.  Sorry.

      It's not about taking it on anyone's word.  This isn't a spectator sport.  When he was here in Iowa we knew that if he was going to be president we had to walk our neighborhoods and talk to everyone we could for months, for most of 2007.  

      Don't take anyone's word that he's going to be President.  Make him the President.  If you're not a Hillary supporter just trying to discourage people with her talking points, then I'm telling you, and I stand by it, this fretting is totally counterproductive.  That's why concern trolls do it.  So, if you're a supporter, why do you spend your energy doing exactly what the opposition is doing?  

      by Sun dog on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:32:05 AM PDT

•  Thank God we still have a campaign to run

  Seriously - it's way too early to start getting cold feet.

  There are many more brown states (Obama does better) than pink states (Hillary does better). And some of McCain's states are close - and closer with Obama than with Clinton.

  We can do this.

  by Pacific NW Mark on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:37:34 PM PDT

•  Real math

  Start by taking Florida from Hillary- the republicans are way too organized and efficient there for a Dem to win now.  Then give Obama Pennsylvania which he will definately win with Rendell and all the new dems.  Right in the heat of his loss to clinton and all the angry older women there he is statistically tied with Mccain. No way are they voting republican this year.

  That gives you Obama 264 and Hillary 264 also.  This is even with her winning MO, OH, and West Virginia which Kerry lost by 13 points.  Where does she get the extra state?

  Obama has to win any one of these states: MO, OH, NC, NV, VA, IN to win.  With the right VP pick he can get one of these and lock it up.  With a little post convention momentum and the wind at his back, he could pick them all up.

  by secretidentityx on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:45:40 PM PDT

  •  Good!

    This is perfect.  I think your analysis is right on, and I you've helped to erase much of my worry that was induced by that map.

    I think Obama has a great chance to take Pennsylvania and probably at least two of the other states you mentioned.

    As for Hillary, you may be right that she can't win Florida.  I'd like to think we could win it this year, but perhaps that's not realistic.

    by Benjaminwise on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:52:52 PM PDT

  •  Nope

    Add Arkansas to Clinton's side and put Florida back in the mix.  When Quinnipiac, Rasmussen, and SUSA all put Clinton ahead there, it is farcical to say she can't win.  Also, everybody might be in love with Five ThirtyEight, but it clearly has an agenda.  It reaches all the way back to early February to add in two much older Rasmussen polls, even though at this point they are ancient and they are rebutted by a much newer poll that says the opposite.  

    Obama can win Indiana?  On what planet?  Do you really think he's going to pick Evan Bayh as a running mate?  North Carolina?  Not a chance.  Ohio?  If you're counting on Ohio, you need to go with Clinton.  

    Will either candidate get a bounce after the Convention?  Sure.  The thing about bounces, though, is they go up, then down.  McCain will get his own bounce after their convention.

    by dhonig on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:06:39 AM PDT

    •  Well

      You seem to ignore polls when it hurts your case and over emphasize them when it helps.

      Florida has become substantially more red than in the past and Crist is a very powerful and popular governor.  I think it is pretty unlikely we win there.  If we do, we won everywhere.

      Arkansas is possible for Clinton, but she runs behind in most polls and the republicans wont be shy about beating up on her with Tuzla et al, a deep south state is a hard one for a northern liberal woman, even if she lived there.  But, could be.

      Obama could pick Bayh as VP.  Why not?  Polls in IN have him ahead or close lately.  I have been calling IN and lots of republicans say they are voting Dem this year.  

      He could pick McCaskill and win MO.

      He is likely to win NV.

      The polls have him tied in NC - the state is heavily AA and democratic in state elections.  Say he pick Edwards?

      Remember also, these polls are being done while Obama is under full scale attack.  No one has laid a glove on Hillary yet.  She has more baggage than Imelda Marcos and Obambi has been too polite to hit her at all on it.  Can you see the 527 ad mocking her in Sniper Gate.  Ouch.  

      by secretidentityx on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:26:34 PM PDT

•  New Badger Poll: Wisconsin

  McCain 47% Clinton’s 44%.
  Obama 48% McCain’s 41%.

  http://uwsc.wis.edu/...

  Sample Size: 521
  Dates in Field: April 15 to April 24, 2008

  by ben masel on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:50:28 PM PDT

•  Did you watch Colbert?

  He had Dean's quote about electability being a consideration.

  Then he goes through news story after news story.  "Dems pick candidate based on electability."  Four or five of them.

  And they were all about Kerry beating Dean in 2004.

  Really, everyone needs to shut the hell up about "electability."  We pick the person who will make the best president, and we fight to get him elected in what looks to be a good year.

  If the super delegates were to do something as obtuse as pick Hillary because they think she'll be "more electable", they're going to make an even worse mistake than picking Kerry over Dean.

  by Anarchofascist on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:06:06 PM PDT

•  Try USA Today map instead

  Primary votes aren't the same as general election votes.  The USA Today map, showing red/blue states for last 4 general elections, shows that Obama only needs to win states surrounding Illinois to win the General, and can flush Ohio & Florida down the drain.

  Hillary is strong only in traditional blue (not including Arkansas).

  Also, MUCH MUCH MUCH depends on VP choices.  This isn't over.
  http://www.usatoday.com/...

  by obamagramma on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:31:11 PM PDT

  •  Only?

    ONLY win the states surrounding Illinois? As in, Indiana?  Obama will not win Indiana in November.  Clinton can only possibly win because she might put Bayh on the ticket (though I think at this point, if she's the candidate, she has to put Obama there now).

    by dhonig on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:08:33 AM PDT

•  Get thee to CSPAN...

  ...and listen to McCain speak. He's going to be a very tough candidate to beat.

  Now, ask yourself: Where do you want to fight McCain to a decision? If Clinton is the nominee, it's going to come down to Florida. If Obama is the nominee, it's going to come down to Pennsylvania. To my sensibility, electoral-vote.com leans towards Clinton, just as fivethirtyeight.com  favors Obama. But both of them present scenarios which hinge on these two states.

  I like Democrats' track record in PA a lot better. I like the demographics better too, at least as long as half of the Democratic party isn't being played against the other half.

  A few words about electoral-votes.com:

  I don't think Clinton stands a chance in IA -- electoral-votes.com gives it to her on the basis of a single Research 2K poll, but every other poll on the site awards the state to Obama but not to Clinton. MO and OR are similar, although not quite as definitive, cases.

  On the other hand, electoral-votes takes away NM and NH from Obama on the basis of a single poll, despite a consistent run of positive results beforehand. I don't believe that IN and TX are serious pickup opportunities for Obama -- but electoral-votes presents them as such: I think that's a pretty clear indication of the vulnerability of electoral-votes.com's methodology of using the most recent poll to draw the map. Poblano's fivethirtyeight.com developed a regression model in order to avoid such distortions.

  by baudelairien on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:53:32 PM PDT

•  Many Caveats To Electoral Vote.Com Maps

  1. Methodology Issues:

  In this thread, Wu Ming called the map "a snapshot of NOW," which is correct in the sense that things this far out are seriously susceptible to change.  But the analogy is still too generous.  Electoral Vote.com uses an algorithm that generally takes the most recent polls for each state provided by a range of pollsters.  So it isn't even a "snapshot" like the SUSA 50-state survey done in early March --it's more like a collage with a whole bunch of pictures taken at different times by different photographers glued together.

  2. Toss-Up/Lean/Likely Distinctions:

  You have to ignore the "final" score numbers because they are so heavily influenced by slim wins or losses in the "barely" (toss-up) states.  Not only are those states easily flipped over time, but the differences are clearly within the margin of error, so there's no real basis even to say which candidate is "winning."  Again, even the snapshot analogy is misleading.  It's more like your camera has taken a picture without sufficient resolution to clearly define the boundaries of objects, so you're just making guesses based on the shape of blurs.

  Both because of time and the margin of error, people don't go by a current win/loss chart, but by general categories, such as toss-up (generally within 5 points), lean (5-10 points), and likely (10+) (that's crude, but you get my drift).  This is more useful because it gives a better idea of how strong a candidates base is, and how broadly he or she can compete -- that is, how many state can the candidate easily defend, and how many states can the candidate put in play.

  3. Application to Obama/Clinton:

  So, using these categories, if Obama's base is bigger than Clinton's, and he puts more states -- particularly "Red" states -- into play, then Obama is in a better position, even if under the map, Clinton is "winning" by large margins.

  I haven't done the break-down for this particular map, but that's what others have done at this site (see Keith Pickering's comment) and you can find a similar analysis here demonstrating Obama's electoral strength.

  by phaedrus on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:16:16 AM PDT