Hillary's Case
I've posted this electoral-vote.com site before, but I think it's worth reminding TPM readers that someone is actually trying to make sense of state opinion polls as they relate to the electoral map.
It seems to me that this model is a good representation of the case the Clinton campaign is making to the super delegates.
Public opinion changes on a daily, if not hourly, basis, but right now this model makes a strong case for Obama moving closer to Clinton on the issues.
I haven't seen one like this that makes the case for Obama. I've heard speculation about him somehow changing the electoral map, but haven't seen a model based on polling that backs the speculation up. I'd like to see one.
It seems to me that this model is a good representation of the case the Clinton campaign is making to the super delegates.
Public opinion changes on a daily, if not hourly, basis, but right now this model makes a strong case for Obama moving closer to Clinton on the issues.
I haven't seen one like this that makes the case for Obama. I've heard speculation about him somehow changing the electoral map, but haven't seen a model based on polling that backs the speculation up. I'd like to see one.
Advertisement
Take a look at:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/05/black-youth-and-latino-turnout-and.html
It's speculation just as polls today are speculation about what happens in November.
May 14, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
538 has been an awesome discovery for me in recent weeks. That model is nothing short of brilliant.
May 14, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bah. That site takes things like statistics into account. Hillary has no truck with economists, and apparently none with statisticians either.
Here's the site that matters:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
It provides a decisive although statistically bogus argument for Hillary. Yes, they have a page explaining the color coding on the map, magins of error, statistical ties, blah blah blah just a lot of statistical mumbo jumbo. But you have to click on a link to see all of that, so obviously they don't think it's very important. Hillary certainly doesn't!
The superdelegates didn't fall for the bogus arguments that tried to project primary results to general election results. And they haven't fallen so far for the bogus electoral map argument. But today could be the day! Today could be the day!
May 14, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I recommend this site for playing around with the electoral map:
http://www.270towin.com/
I think basing the likely outcome in November on current polling is extremely flawed, but can be a general guide to candidates' strengths and weaknesses across the country.
May 14, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great site but just be realistic with it. Learn from 2000 and 2004 what is probably going to happen. Saying that things are going to change and he is going to win NM/CO/VA are not historically valid notions for Democrats.
May 14, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I don't think we should view only one route of victory. 2000 and 2004 didn't work out for us so well. 4 presidents in my lifetime. 1 Democrat. Not great odds. Seems to me we need to rethink viable ways of winning the White House, rather than resorting to the old conventional wisdom.
It's that whole definition of insanity thing.
May 14, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think blue sky experiments with the electorate are great. I don't know if we can afford to experiment this time, though. Why take a chance on a new model working, if we can win with the old one? Clinton is a much better candidate than Gore or Kerry. At a time when both campaigns are arguing on the basis of the states they won, why not go with the model we understand and can have some confidence in? The only reason that Obama is cooking up new strategies is that he can't win Appalachia the way Bill Clinton did in '92 and '96.
May 14, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
No way. She's gotta go and Obama needs to stay as far away from her as possible.
She and Bill have been in league with the Tan family since 1995, the infamous Marianas sweatshop owners.
Sen. Clinton, Guam and Sweatshop $$$: A Stain on the Democratic Party
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/27/33526/9800/199/504235
May 14, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Chuck Todd on NBC did a really detailed analysis of the rewriting of the electoral map issue several weeks ago. I've not seen anything like it since. I don't know if anything was written about it on the MSNBC Web site, but might be worth a search.
May 14, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Electoral-vote.com is a joke. It makes its projections by cherry-picking single polls (usually the most recent SUSA) as if they were oracular. There are, no doubt, good arguments to be made for Sen Clinton's electoral strength, but Electoral-vote.com is not one of them. It is simply a poor model.
May 14, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's a poor model, and they know it and they essentially say so if you click through to the explanations. They could improve the model and/or they could make the explanations more prominent.
It's not quite true that they pick single polls, BTW. They pick the most recent poll, then other polls (if any) within one week of that one. Sometimes a single poll, sometimes not. The way they select polls definitely creates a bias toward pollsters who release poll results frequently, which might explain why SUSA shows up so often.
May 14, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like it because they are trying to use real polling data instead of projecting on the basis of possibilities, or, in some cases, fantasies.
May 14, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't seen a model for it either. Where does this new electoral map come from (I mean other than from the Obama camp rhetoric)? The Obama-supporting commentators practically have a nuclear meltdown on CNN when, god forbid, Anderson Cooper mentions the old electoral map. They really seem to hate "swing states," too, unless you agree with them that Virginia is one (it isn't, especially for Obama).
Is it also being pushed by Republican commentators? I haven't paid close enough attention. If it is being pushed by them, I'd be even more convinced it's bogus.
May 14, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink