Another post on Pollster...

Another of my posts on Pollster.com, continuing the discussion on the SurveyUSA 50-state poll:

The way opinions are presented here on this board, it appears as if irrespective of whether Senator Clinton or Senator Obama is the nominee, each is going to lose. Women will walk away if a man with 20+ years of varied life experience (successful and smart, not a legacy candidate like Bush-43) is nominated, while Obamacans, ABCs and some independents will vote McCain if Senator Clinton wins.

When Senator Kerry was elected the nominee in 2004, I was very unhappy - the Dems kept going for the purported "electable" candidate (I supported Senator Edwards then). That's a crock IMHO - the only popular (= re-elected) Democratic candidate elected in the last 40 years (or, to my knowledge, any full-term, re-elected President since FDR, barring Nixon's shenanigans) has been someone who could connect with *all* voters - men and women, Black and White and Brown. That can be said of only one Clinton.

Sorry, but that's the truth. Nothing against Senator Clinton's capabilities, but Governor Richardson, Senators Biden, Dodd and Gephardt, and a bunch of other very fine, experienced Democrats are just as capable, were directly involved longer in elected and/or accountable positions, and yet were soundly rejected by the electorate, in 2004 and 2008.

Here's a thought experiment - IF Senator Clinton was not running this year, who would the Democrats have voted for? Would we have seen this same "oh, a suave, smart, young, relatively untainted, dynamic person is winning over an experienced person, so we should not vote for him" dynamic?

You can keep thinking that voters are choosing Senator Clinton for her experience, but all those fine, experienced, multiply-elected Democrats who dropped out after getting less than 5% of the vote in Iowa and NH would beg to differ.

Reponses and notes...

The lively discussion on the SurveyUSA 50-state general election poll continues on the pollster.com board. For some reason, I am having trouble posting my response, so might as well use my blog!
__________________________________________________________________
Ciccina [she said I don't consider Senator Clinton as an individual, just as an adjunct of her husband] - I consider the Clintons as equal partners, and pretty much (at this point!) inseparable from each other. My favoring Senator Obama over Senator Clinton has more to do with governing philosophy (Clinton favors attrition) and openness (Clinton's lack thereof). [link, link]

I found a few references directly or apparently attributing the "two for one" or "buy one, get one free" quotes to President/Governor Clinton. That's a March post "Two for the price of one."

Erik Hare [he said - what should Senator McCain do?]:
Apparently, Karl Rove thinks this extended Democratic fight is *bad* for Senator McCain, as it keeps the spotlight on the Democrats... At least, that's what I think I heard on the morning talk shows.

Uri [fails to see my point about Senator Clinton not being any Woman]:
I was trying to separate opposition to Senator Clinton (Obama) from opposition to Women (Blacks). There may be some latent sexism and racism where it matters - among voters, forget TV talking heads - but hopefully not so much.

As for Americans being upset over the Monica Lewinsky thing - maybe it's the purported puritanical history of America, the rise of the Christian Right in recent times, and the fact that President Clinton lied under oath about it. If he had just admitted to having sexual relations with "that woman," I think the repercussions would have been less (not zero.)

Believe me, if Senator Clinton's the nominee, all that baggage - pardons, Presidential library donations, everything - is coming out. If not directly by Senator McCain, then by the 527s.
__________________________________________________________________

Electability in November 2008

SurveyUSA carried out a General Election match-up poll in each of the 50 states in the last week of February, pitting Senator McCain against Senators Clinton and Obama. Mark Blumenthal at Pollster.com went a step further, divvying up the states into strong/lean in either direction or toss-up, based on the margin in each state relative to estimated sampling error (SurveyUSA just assigned states to either candidate even if the candidate won just one more vote.) Really cool.

A lively discussion, of course, has ensued on Pollster.com (and probably other sites.)

Ciccina (of The Lurking Canary) put out a list of scenarios of how Senator Clinton could win:
"1) Florida - 27 EVs, OR
(2) Ohio + NM for 20 + 5 EVs, OR
(3) neither Ohio nor Florida, but a combo like CO (9) + VA (13) for 22 EVs, OR
(4) some constellation of CO (9), VA (13), NM (5), AR (6), NV (5), NH (4), IA (7) or some other state that I missed.
But certainly the simplest scenario is to win the Kerry states except NH, but pick up Florida, or win the Kerry states except NH, but pickup Ohio and any one small state."

Here's my take:

All Senator McCain has to do is pick Governor Charlie Crist as his running mate, and Florida goes Red.

In the "smaller" states, Senator Obama generally runs stronger - and note that Virginia going Blue is apparently not just dependent on African-American voters. The state-wide races - Governor/Senator - have either gone Blue or will, come November. Not sure Senator Clinton will carry Colorado (the Governor is a pro-life Democrat). She could (will) probably win Arkansas, I will give her that.

But essentially, the Democrats - with Senator Clinton as the nominee w/o Obama - are left scraping for the same states they won previously and fighting for Ohio and Arkansas, except the Republicans now have a much better, more moderate-appearing candidate. So the Dems are playing D in many "safe" states.

The point is quite clear - as of last week! - that Senator Obama will take the fight to many more states, and make the Republicans spend money in previously-safe states (freakin' Texas!) That can be important IF there is no public financing constraint (very contestable). Even with, the GOP will have to play D in their "safe" states.

As for the folks who would turn away on the premise of "no experience" - I think that can be solved - in as much as they consider it an issue, which I strongly contest - with *any* other competent person, not just Senator Clinton. Examples - Governor Sibelius (could even win Kansas!), Governor Napolitano (probably still lose Arizona), Senator Biden, Governor Richardson, Governor Kaine, Mayor Bloomberg. There is no shortage of fine, competent, experienced people in the Democratic Party, or outside.

I would even go so far as to posit Senator Obama is essential to Senator Clinton's shot at the Presidency; the other way, not so much.