do you think (4.00 / 1)

that you might want to take these maps with a grain of salt, or three?

Giuliani is not going to win Massachusetts from Obama. Sorry, ain't happening. and Clinton is not going to win TN either. And Edwards is not going to lose NY NH WI NJ to Giuliani... sometimes "best available data" is so dubious that it's more accurate to say "Unpredictable at this point." If you think Clinton has a better chance to carry TN than Obama does, well, I don't know what to say (regardless of a name-rec tally to the contrary)

---

by: jforshaw @ Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 13:01:39 PM CDT

Probably (4.00 / 1)

But if I started making exceptions to using latest polling data, then the entire project would be suspect. At that point, if polls are good in some states but not in others, why use polls for any states instead of just picking who I think will win? And if we can't use polls to determine electability, then there is no point in having that argument.

Now, I would actually be ready to agree with that last sentence, except that the argument is out there. It is being used by both bloggers and campaigns alike. So, I figure that if we are going to have it, we should at least use data to support the arguments.

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 14:08:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

But the whole thing is (4.00 / 1)

academic.  It should be taken with a grain of salt.

Mark Blumenthal

Since July we have seen 12 public polls released in Iowa by 9 different organizations, and each appears to define and sample the likely caucus-goer universe differently. To the extent that pollsters have revealed the details, their snapshots of the electorate are poles apart, to say nothing of the candidates that those voters support.

You're looking at numbers that have not all been collected the same way and with 12 polls by 9 organizations, who's to say which one most accurately reflects reality?  At this point, the only real purpose they serve is to drive media storylines.

Blumenthal also links to a story by CBS' Kathy Frankovic that mentions this interesting tidbit:

In 2002, at least 30 countries had legal restrictions on the publication of pre-election poll results. Nine countries had increased their time restrictions since the mid-1990's, while 15 others had decreased or eliminated theirs. Countries with limits on the publication of pre-election polls included Western European countries like Portugal, Spain and Switzerland, and countries in Asia and Latin America, too.

I can get behind that.  But for now, it's all the more reason to support Blumenthal's Disclosure Project.

---

by: corinne @ Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 17:55:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

At this point, the only real purpose they serve is to drive media storylines. (0.00 / 0)

yep

---

by: aiko @ Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 07:05:25 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

there's a flaw (4.00 / 1)

If you look more closely at the SUSA internals, Giuliani does best among pro-lifers when compared to his Republican rivals in the head-to-heads with Dem candidates right now. In other words, even if Giuliani survives a hammering on his pro-choice record in the primary, he ain't going to carry that much of the pro-life crowd in the general.

Join us at the Missouri community blog Show Me Progress!

---

by: clarkent @ Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 13:02:51 PM CDT

be careful (4.00 / 1)

that sucking noise is the clinton machine.

---

by: aiko @ Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 13:08:01 PM CDT

It's sucked this place right up.. (0.00 / 0)

they should call it :

NOT LEFT AT ALL.

---

by: Wilberforce @ Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 00:00:25 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Tennessee (0.00 / 0)

Wow, I have a hard time imagining Hillary winning Tennessee--but that's based only on stereotype, not on actual knowledge of the political culture there.  And it makes me curious to know if Edwards and Obama genuinely poll worse in TN or if fresh data is simply missing for them.

Maybe it would be more clear to leave states without current polls blank, and color the others according to GOP hold, Dem hold, GOP to Dem flip, Dem to GOP flip.

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 13:15:36 PM CDT

Alternately, it would probably be more clear (4.00 / 2)

to leave states within the margin of error green, as they are tied, as far as the polling is concerned.

---

by: Valatan @ Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 13:29:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, green too, when appropriate... (0.00 / 0)

My suggestion was to not use the 2004 election data as backdrop filler when polling data isn't available.  I probably wasn't clear enough.

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 14:26:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

the more i think about it (4.00 / 1)

the more i disagree with posting maps like this.  the polls are all over the place--week to week--state to state--and presenting this level of visual detail based upon questionable, fluid and soft data seems ill advised. imho.

---

by: aiko @ Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 13:57:40 PM CDT

um (4.00 / 1)

Connecticut, Massachusetts, Michigan, and New Jersey? Not a chance.

---

by: taylormattd @ Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 13:59:18 PM CDT

Maybe (0.00 / 0)

this will wake people up about the danger Guiliani poses.

Also, maybe someone in the DNC will wake up and smell the coffee about Florida.  Significant damage is being done to Democratic hopes in Florida - I do not think it likely any of the top three candidates will take the state. 

---

by: fladem @ Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 14:07:03 PM CDT

Why (0.00 / 0)

Are these maps posted? I don't have any faith in these polls reflecting anything except a) a quick snap-shot and b) name recognition.

Certainly, a Giuliani nomination would mean that several states in NE (NY and CT especially) could not be taken for granted, but beyond that, I don't see how these maps should be seen as  an indication of electability, unlesss to disprove the assertion that candidate X is the only candidate that can (will) win.

---

by: thetadelta @ Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 14:36:43 PM CDT

NC (0.00 / 0)

Is the NC district thing a done deal?  I thought they stopped so as not to encourage the Republican grab out in CA.

---

by: AJ MA @ Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 14:51:01 PM CDT

Discouraging (0.00 / 0)

The fact that ANY Republican is polling at the level Giuliani is (100+ electoral votes over Edwards?!?) should alarm us greatly. At the very least, it should put an end to any talk about 2008 being the Democrats' election to lose.

---

by: Jason C. @ Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 15:39:37 PM CDT

This sheds some light (0.00 / 0)

There is clear success by the Clinton machine in establishing a presence in many states that are not the early primary states. She has focused on amassing a broad coalition early.

There is apparent danger that Edwards may not hold California and New York. Presumably he hasn't rounded out a message that appeals to a broad cross section of people or hasn't passed some unbeknownst test for the east and west coast population dense states.

Bottom line: Clinton puts some southern states into play or makes Rudy work hard to win them. Edwards needs to campaign to credible in California and New York. Obama has some trouble in Michigan, a state that isn't southern but nonetheless it is a place where in the 1920's Malcolm X's father was lynched for being in the early civil rights movement.

I you want health care, work hard. If you want universal health care, vote for liberals.

---

by: kazumatan @ Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 17:36:48 PM CDT

Clinton puts southern states 'in play' (0.00 / 0)

Sure, sure...calm down ... the sttaight jacket guys'll be here soon...

---

by: Wilberforce @ Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 23:58:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And your fervent disbelief in the data is based on what? (0.00 / 0)

I you want health care, work hard. If you want universal health care, vote for liberals.

---

by: kazumatan @ Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 06:46:40 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

JRE Beats Guiliani in Ohio (0.00 / 0)

Why isn't Ohio blue for JREs map?

---

by: todaynownottomorrow @ Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 18:11:37 PM CDT

Sorry (0.00 / 0)

Sorr, looked at the poll wrong.

---

by: todaynownottomorrow @ Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 19:01:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What a load of BULL (0.00 / 0)

This is based on name rec alone-that's the only reason either the Ghol or Clinton place well at all.

Both of them have so many negs, that if they do run against each other it's a tossed salad, but for anyone else over Ghol it's a cakewalk. 

This places smells as bad as Kos.

---

by: Wilberforce @ Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 23:57:03 PM CDT

Giulaini is indeed scary; (0.00 / 0)

But not because he has much chance of beating anyone-- the reality is his ties to organized crime, his muliple affairs, his real record on 9/11, and so on aren't known yet to most, but they will be...I hope.  He's scary because, on the chance the media refuses to cover these things he could get his sorry ass elected.

I have little faith though that HRC is any better at all--she's proven it already.

---

by: Wilberforce @ Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 00:05:50 AM CDT