Making some sense of the electability argument, from new Oregon and Alabama polls

• Purple Alabama?

Confirming Clinton's counter-intuitive strength in the South, a new Rasmussen poll from ... Alabama! Now remember, this is a state that Bush won 63% to 37% against Kerry in 2004. Against Clinton this time, only McCain breaks 50%:

• McCain leads Clinton 50% to 39%. Hillary trails Rudy Giuliani 48% to 42% and Fred Thompson 49% to 43%. She even ties Romney 43% to 43%.
• This actually confirms previous Alabama poll that had shown the state competitive, for example the latest SUSA poll of the state which has similar numbers.
• But take a look at the favorability numbers: Clinton's stands at only 45%, far from Giuliani's 57% or McCain's 59%.

Now in this kind of very red state it will be very hard for Clinton to go from 43% to the high 40s, but the point remains that Clinton typically runs stronger than Obama in Southern polls because the entire Democratic base almost automatically rallies around here and puts Clinton at a level unmatched by recent nominees -- a phenomenon Clinton hopes will carry her to the White House by playing out in more competitive states. But even if Clinton remains in the low 40s, this would force Republicans to pay attention to states that they have no time or money or energy to look at, states that are not supposed to be contested -- and by making them playing defense here Clinton would get a pretty big advantage if she is the nominee.

• And a purple Oregon, though that is more expected
  

SUSA released its latest poll from Oregon, and it has good news for Barack Obama and John McCain:

• John McCain is the only Republican to win a match-up here, edging Hillary 48% to 45%. Obama and him tie at 45%.
• Clinton has a smallish edge against other Republicans tested: 46% to 45% against Giuliani, 48% to 44% against Romney, 50% to 40% against Huckabee.
• Obama runs much much better: 51% to 40% against Giuliani, 52% to 37% against Romney, and 54% to 33% against Huckabee.

Clearly here, Barack Obama runs much better than Hillary Clinton -- remarkably so, even -- and John McCain is the most competitive Republican (something that is very consistent across polls).

But it is very hard to identify a pattern of which Democratic candidate is more competitive in which region. My impression is that we tend to see Obama run stronger in Western states where Clinton seems to be particularly weak (notably in Colorado, Oregon, Nevada), while Clinton run stronger in Southern states or more staunchly red states, as I pointed out with the Alabama example. But in the more traditional battleground region of the Midwest, there really is no conclusion that we can draw. Obama and Clinton go back-and-forth on runs strongest in surveys; for example, Hillary looked more electable in this week's MN poll, while Barack looked more solid in the Iowa poll from the day before.