Tuesday polls: Obama pulls ahead in OH and is competitive in NC, while Franken and McConnell are in trouble

Finally, after weeks of being bombarded by polls from New York, Kansas and Washington State, someone thought to poll the presidential race in Ohio – and it brings welcome news to Obama’s campaign:

• Public Policy Polling released its first survey in quite a while and it shows Barack Obama trouncing John McCain 50% to 39%. As usual, Obama is weaker among registered Dems (73%) than McCain is among registered Republicans (83%). Obama is leading by 13% among independents, however. As for potential VP picks, respondents seem more inclined to be swayed by Hillary Clinton than by their governor Ted Strickland.
• Update: A commenter points out that this survey was in the field on the 17th and 18th of May. This is very strange indeed, as it represents more than a 3 week delay... Did PPP not even poll Hillary Clinton against McCain then? At the time, most pollsters did.
  

A long series of polls showing Obama weak in Ohio or at least significantly underperforming Clinton (including PPP's most recent survey released in March, repeated waves of Quinnipiac's polls and Rasmussen's May poll) was interrupted by SUSA's showing Obama comfortably ahead of McCain mid-May. PPP's poll is the first since then. Given how much care the Obama campaign is putting in cultivating alternative electoral maps that do would not require victory in Florida and Ohio, the state's 20 electoral votes almost seem like they would be a bonus that would all but ensure the Democrat's victory -- though with McCain's apparent strength in Michigan, it is essential for Democrats to contest Ohio to offset a potential disaster in Michigan.

The day's other important presidential poll is the much-discussed ABC/Washignton Post national poll:

• Barack Obama leads 48% to 42%, a margin that is little moved since ABC's previous poll, suggesting there has been little movement since the Democrat wrapped up his nomination. The WaPo is emphasizing the fact that the two candidates are tied among independents.
• Another national poll, released by Cook/RT Strategies, shows Obama leading 44% to 40%.

Last week, after the NBC polled found Obama leading by 6%, I criticized the obsession with pointing out that Kerry had never led in NBC polls in 2004 and that Bush had never beeh ahead by that much either. I pointed out that, in many other polls, Kerry had a clear lead in the early summer and that Bush was repeatedly ahead by 9-11% in September. The ABC poll is a case in point: Now, everyone is pointing out that John Kerry had the same lead in an ABC poll taken at this time four years ago. So which is it? Is an Obama lead significant because Kerry never led or significant because he was the favorite? It is important to look at a pollster's trendlines because of methodology and turnout models, but the pollster-specific comparisons of surveys that are four years apart does not seem to me to be particularly helpful.

What is somewhat significant in recently released national polls is that predictions by strategists from both camps that Obama could open a double-digit lead in the weeks after becoming the nominee have not come true, though the Democrat is consistently ahead. But it is the electoral college, of course, that will determine the winner and two important state polls were released today besides Ohio’s:

• In North Carolina, polls are now consistently showing McCain’s leading hovering around the margin of error. The latest Civitas poll finds him barely ahead 45% to 41%, with Bob Barr polling in at 2%. Last month, McCain was up by 5%.


• In Minnesota, SUSA finds Obama struggling to pull ahead, coming in at 47% against 46% for McCain. He was ahead by 5% in a poll taken two weeks ago, though that swing is within the margin of error. The big difference is the flip of the indie vote.

It is difficult to imagine North Carolina flipping if a state like Virginia does not, underscoring how close to a blow-out victory Obama would get if he keeps NC this close through November. As for Minnesota, so much for my speculations that Obama might be putting away the “Dukakis 5,” though it’s worth pointing out that most other recent MN surveys finding a more comfortable lead for Obama. But it is SUSA’s Senate poll from this state that has got to worry Democrats:

• Norm Coleman has opened up a significant lead against Al Franken, 52% to 40%, though this is stable from last month's poll that showed the Democrat trailing 52% to 42%. Franken loses the independent vote 60% to 33%.
  
• If Jesse Ventura jumps in the race (it is the second time this week this match-up is polled), Franken trails 41% to 31% with 23% for Ventura. In a sure sign of trouble for Franken, Mike Ciresi, a Democrat who dropped out of the race in February, polls slightly better than him against Coleman: 50% to 40%.

• Also today, Rasmussen released a survey of Alaska's Senate race, finding Ted Stevens surviving 46% to 44% against Mark Begich, who was narrowly ahead 47% to 45% last month. Other surveys have found larger leads for Begich.

Al Franken has been suffering through months of bad press, as controversies over tax disclosures, a 2000 essay in Playboy and a 1995 joke on rape erupted in recent weeks. Yet, polls found little movement in this (very often) polled race. But SUSA's survey is obviously bad news for the Democratic challenger as it goes along the narrative of a sinking campaign. That Franken polls roughly at the same level as a candidate who has not been campaigning for 5 months suggests that he is now underperforming the level of a generic Democrat.

Update: SUSA just released a fascinating new poll from Kentucky:

• In the presidential race, John McCain leads Obama 53% to 41%. This is a huge progression from a May poll in which Obama trailed by 24%. Look no further than the vote of registered Democrat, Obama has gone from... 48% to 59%! Still a very low number, but one that is now in line with what you would expect in Kentucky.
• In the Senate race, however, Mitch McConnell is only ahead of Bruce Lunsford 50% to 46%!

I for one have long remained unconvinced that Lunsford would be a real threat to McConnell, and given how nightmarish he would be for progressives, it is certainly my top wish among GOP-held seats. But this now the second poll that finds Lunsford to be very competitive and there is no doubt that unseating the Minority Leader would be a huge upset. Given that the DSCC is looking for second and third-tier seats to make competitive to have a shot at 60, this is not the last we will hear of Kentucky.

Changing electoral maps, from Appalachia to the West

Barack Obama is now traveling to general election battleground states with increasing frequency, and his exchanges with John McCain are starting to generate as much press as his disputes with Hillary Clinton. Today's topics included the RNC blasting Obama for falsely claiming that his uncle liberated Auschwitz and McCain's proposal that Obama and him travel to Iraq together, a proposal Obama quickly rejected as nothing but "a stunt."

Still recovering from months of delegate calculations, proportional allocations, even-and-odd delegate districts and Excel spreadsheets, the Obama campaign is now turning to an altogether different sort of calculation: the electoral college. Here, there is no proportionality as it is (almost) all winner-take-all. And there is less of an opportunity to change the message depending on which states votes, since they all vote at the same time.

As I have been exploring in recent weeks, Obama's electoral map differs from that of Al Gore and John Kerry, which placed heavy emphasis on Eastern states in general, and Ohio and Florida in particular. Hillary Clinton would have relied on a similar map, and polls suggested that she was in a position to be more successful than her predecessors in both these states. But there is ample evidence that states might not be Obama's safest bets and that he should look elsewhere for his top-tier opportunities.

Naturally, Obama will have enough resources that he will compete in all states in which he could have a chance. The same could not be said of Kerry and Gore, and this is the Democrats' main advantage this election year. Gore, for instance, sacrificed Ohio; Kerry gave up on places like Missouri and focused on Ohio. But it would not be correct to conclude that Obama will not have to prioritize an electoral map. For one, he has limited time and he will have to choose the combination of states that he believes will get him to 270. Second, the way in which he frames his messages will have to be targeted at specific constituencies: Will Obama aim at capturing working-class white voters or more upscale independent-minded voters? Trying to keep a balance in the themes that are emphasized can end up satisfying no one. As long as he does not need a majority of both to win the election, Obama could be better-advised to pick a path and largely stick to it.

Finally, there is the very simple problem that, no matter how much Obama is campaigning there, Appalachia is not warming up to him at all. Obama outpsent Clinton in Ohio, in Pennsylvania and in North Carolina. By the time Kentucky and West Virginia voted, the nomination's competitive stage had long been over. Yet, Obama got trounced in all the Appalachian counties in these states -- including in the all-important states of Ohio, Pennsylvania and North Carolina. Obama can spend as much money in WV and KY as he wants, but both states look to be as safe as it gets for John McCain. A new Rasmussen poll of Kentucky released yesterday shows Clinton leading McCain 51% to 42% in this red state (confirming that the Kentucky GOP is in bad shape, which we started seeing in the fall) but Obama is crushed 57% to 32%! That's a huge differential between the two Democrats. In Pennsylvania and Ohio, Obama will have to make up in urban and suburban areas his weakness in rural counties.

While this does not mean that Obama will give up on OH and PA -- he certainly needs the latter if he wants to get to the White House and he certainly has the potential to boost Democratic turnout and appeal to Republican-voting upscale voters in places like Philadelphia or the Ohio suburbs -- it does suggest that Obama will make an effort to turn to the Mountain West and replace the emphasis on the East and the Midwest with an all-out effort in Colorado (9 electoral votes), New Mexico (5 electoral votes) and Nevada (5 electoral votes). With all the Kerry states, these 19 electoral votes would get Obama to an electoral tie; add Iowa, the only 2004 Bush state that polls now suggest is leaning Democratic, and it is an electoral majority for the Illinois Senator.

Furthermore, Obama seeks to replace the Florida-Ohio strategy (which could lead to a more disastrous result this year than in cycles past) by replacing their 47 electoral votes with those of states that have not been in the map at all in past cycles, states like Virginia, North Carolina, Alaska and perhaps even an electoral vote in Nebraska! Note that polls do not show that Obama would be stronger than Clinton in North Carolina, but it seems safe to say that he will make a bigger play for that state than she would have.

In brief, Obama's changing the map is due to his relative weakness in the states that past Democratic nominees have put the emphasis on and his relative strength in places which they gave up on.

What makes the 2008 election particularly unpredictable is that McCain also changes the electoral map for Republicans, as his strengths and weaknesses are different from those of Bush
and those other Republicans would have brought to the table. Unlike his former nomination rivals, McCain can keep the Hispanic vote competitive and thus contest the 3 Western states (CO, NV and NM). Unlike Republicans who would have had more difficulty differentiating themselves from Bush, McCain can hope to convince independents who have given up on the GOP to still vote for him, allowing him to compete for independents in places like New Hampshire, upstate Virginia, Oregon and Washington.

And unlike Bush's strategy of turning out the base by polarizing the electorate, the trust McCain inspires among moderate Democrats could be higher than the one among conservative Republicans, which explains why McCain is confident that it can take advantage of Obama's weakness with blue-collar votes in the must-win Democratic states of Pennsylvania and Michigan. He just started airing ads in those two states, focused on economic issues. Polls have shown McCain to be surprisingly competitive in Michigan in particular, making it that much more important for Democrats to find a resolution to the delegate mess.

In other words, Obama and McCain both believe that their strengths make it imperative for them to focus on the Mountain West and on states like Virginia and New Hampshire; meanwhile, McCain will make sure to put in play Michigan and Pennsylvania because of his appeal to conservative Democrats and Obama will attempt a push in the deep South because to see whether he can boost black turnout. All of this at the expense of Florida and Ohio.

Southern polls: North Carolina and Virginia will be battlegrounds

The West Virginia primary feels very much like Mississippi's on March 11th. It comes the week after a major Election Day and there is no suspense, hardly even on the margin of victory. 24 hours from polls opening, a new poll from WV combined to a poll from Kentucky (which votes next Tuesday) confirms how difficult the Appalachians region is for Obama and how disastrous those two states' results could be:

• In West Virginia, Suffolk University shows Clinton leading 60% to 24% for Obama. That's 71% of the two-person vote, more than what Clinton got in Arkansas.
• While Clinton has a favorability rating of 70%, only 44% of Democrats have a favorable impression of him.
  

• In Kentucky, Research 2000 finds a slightly 'smaller' Clinton lead, 58% to 31%.

• Update: SUSA has released a new poll from Kentucky as well, finding Clinton ahead 62% to 30%, a 2:1 margin which is actually a 2% progression for Obama! In Eastern Kentucky, the Appalachian region bordering West Virginia, Clinton gets 84%! Could Obama fail to reach the viability level in a district?
  

Those numbers might seem excessive but they are certainly realistic. Not only are they confirmed by other polls but they also conform to what we have been seeing in districts surrounding West Virginia in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania and in which Clinton routinely got 70%. Of the 5 counties of Ohio that border West Virginia, Clinton crossed 70% in 4 of them and got more than 77% in 3.

Obama's difficulty in winning these regions -- whether linked to racism or whether due to the primary's class-divide, with blue-collar voters dominating these regions being Clinton's base -- probably make West Virginia and Kentucky lost causes in the general election: With only 44% of Democrats having a favorable impression of him in WV, Obama has no path to a majority. That's not a concern in Kentucky but Democrats might have been looking to put West Virginia in play, as it had long been a blue state before increasingly turning red starting in 2000.

Note, however, that a series of polls taken this fall had Clinton and Edwards looking stunningly competitive in Kentucky, often leading Republicans, while Obama struggled (for example this one). As I have noted many times, both Democrats have regions of the country in which they would be clearly stronger than the other, and this is one Obama is weaker in. The Research 2000 poll referenced above also included some general election numbers with Clinton struggling but performing 13 percent better than Obama in Kentucky:

• McCain leads Clinton 53% to 41% and leads Obama 58% to 33%. Bush beat Kerry 60% to 40% in 2004.
  

Meanwhile, three new polls today show that Democrats would be very competitive in Virginia and in North Carolina, two states the GOP has not thought about in recent elections but which it could now have a lot of trouble defending:

• In Virginia, Rasmussen finds McCain leading Obama 47% to 44% and Clinton 47% to 41%. That's a great improvement for Dems since the end of March where their numbers had fallen to trailing by double-digits.
  
• Obama's favorability rating (51%) is lower than McCain's but he has more viewing him "very favorably".

• In North Carolina, Rasmussen finds similar results, with McCain leading both Democrats by 3 percent, 47% to 44% against Obama and 43% to 40% against Clinton. That's an improvement for Clinton but actually a slight drop for Obama who was tied with McCain in the last poll.
  

• Finally, Public Policy Polling released a poll from North Carolina as well, confirming that hte race is competitive without being quite as positive for Democrats than Rasmussen: McCain leads Obama 49% to 42% while Clinton trails 46% to 38%.

Virginia has been expected to be a swing state given the state's rapidly changing demographics and the Democrats' statewide success in recent years (Kaine, Webb). North Carolina is more of a surprise, after Democrats failed to put it in play in 2004 despite picking Edwards as their vice-presidential candidate. There is no question that forcing the GOP to defend both would be a great victory for Obama, but we should soon move beyond surprise that the state is competitive and start giving McCain credit for still being ahead. After all, Virginia and Colorado are two states who think of as red that the Obama campaign puts at the top of its priorities.

Two Senate surveys came with the polls listed above and they both bring good news for Democrats:

• Rasmussen confirms that Mark Warner is heavily favored to pick up Virginia's senate seat, as he leads Jim Gilmore 55% to 37%. 37% have a very favorable impression of Warner, and 29% have a somewhat favorable one (Gilmore's numbers are 15-33). It's hard to beat those numbers.

• More interestingly, PPP released numbers from the North Carolina Senate race. They find Elizabeth Dole leading 48% to 43% against Democrat Kay Hagan.

PPP's numbers are better for Dole than Rasmussen's shocking survey last week finding Hagan leading by 1%. But every poll that shows Dole this vulnerable is still a surprise. Hagan is considered a second-tier candidate at best, and few signs pointed to Democrats making it this tight this quickly with this little effort. Given that NC is (was?) about 10th on the Democrats' priority list, they will certainly take any poll that shows Dole under 50% and leading by single-digits.

SUSA releases wave of general election polls, with both Democrats displaying their usual weaknesses

On March 19th and March 20th, SUSA released 16 general election polls that recorded public opinion in the aftermath of the Wright controversy; in many states, Obama was found to be plunging due to his continued weakness among registered Democrats and to the departure of independents and registered Republicans.

A month has passed, and SUSA released 14 general election polls from some crucial contests today; there is some good news for all candidates in these polls, but the first thing that jumps at me is the extent to which McCain is holding strong, putting a number of Democratic states in play. Obama leads McCain by single-digits in Massachusetts, New York, and California -- including a toss-up (once again) in Massachusetts.

The two Democrats are exhibiting their usual weaknesses that we notice in poll after poll. Obama has regained some of the ground he lost last month, but his at times stunning weakness among registered Democrats in places like Ohio and Missouri leaves him distanced by McCain (and Clinton). This is also also what is making states like MA and CA competitive. This weakness has been picked up over and over again by SUSA -- but also by other institutes (check the most recent Quinnipiac poll from FL, OH and PA with McCain picking-up a significant number of Dem votes when he faces Obama). However small this problem might seem, it is wrong to simply assume that registered Democrats will come home; the ease with which many Dems cross-over is exactly what Clinton is talking about when she questions Obama's electability and McCain has demonstrated his appeal among Democrats.

Meanwhile, Clinton has her own major problems. First, she comes in at dismally low number among African-American voters in most of these states. I do not always mention the results here since in many states the sample of black voters is too small to be statistically significant, but the trend is too consistent to not be revealing. In places like Virginia, Clinton cannot hope to remain competitive without rallying the African-American vote. Obama supporters, of course, contend that for Clinton to win the nomination would take such an ugly scenario that there is no way the New York Senator could regain the black vote. Second, Clinton does not as well as Obama among independents and registered Republicans in many states; in places like Oregon and Wisconsin, we have been seeing this trend for a while, as independent voters in a number of states (particularly in the West) seem to be among Clinton's harshest critics.

And here is the run-down of the numbers:

• The most important state polled by SUSA is undoubtedly Ohio, where Clinton opens up a very significant lead against McCain, 53% to 42%. But McCain leads Obama 47% to 45%. That's a 5% shift towards both Democrats compared to last month, when Obama trailed by 7%.
  
• Almost all the difference is due to registered Democrats, Obama carries 65%, Clinton 82%. Also, Obama loses the white vote by 12% while Clinton leads, though she underperforms among blacks (73%).

• In Missouri, Clinton edges McCain 48% to 47% but McCain comfortably is ahead of Obama, 50% to 42%. McCain gets a full 27% of the vote of registered Democrats when paired up against Obama... which accounts for his trailing the Republican despite performing better among independents. This is actually a 6% improvement for Obama, however, compared to last month.

• In Virginia, Obama performs better than Clinton but suffers from a significant decline: After tying McCain two straight months, he is now behind 52% to 44%. Clinton is crushed 55% to 39% -- she is also tied McCain last month. This is due to Clinton's dismal performance among blacks (60%) while Obama comes in much stronger among independents.
• Obama's decline in the past month is due to McCain's closing the margin among registered Democrats by 17%.

• In Kentucky, which is not supposed to be anywhere near the list of purple states, Clinton defies the odds by statistically tying McCain, 48% to 46%. She gets 73% of the Democratic vote. Obama trails 63% to 29% and loses the Democratic vote by a point.
  
• It's hard to believe, but that is actually an improvement: Obama lost the Democratic vote by 7% last month, at least suggesting that this is not a complete outlier.

• In New Mexico, McCain narrowly beats both Democrats: 49% to 46% against Clinton, 49% to 44% against Obama.
  
• The two Democrats are equally strong among Hispanics.
  

• In Minnesota, Obama leads McCain 49% to 43%; Clinton edges him 47% to 46%. That's a 7% improvement for the Illinois Senator.

• In Iowa, Obama polls much better -- as usual: He beats McCain 49% to 42%, while Clinton trails 48% to 42%. The difference comes from independents, among whom Clinton trails by 26%!

• In Oregon, another bluish swing state, Clinton and McCain are in a toss-up, 47% to 46%. Obama comes in much stronger, 51% to 42%. Here again, the difference comes from independents.

• In Wisconsin, one of the tightest states in the country, Clinton and McCain are tied at 46%. Obama edges McCain 49% to 44%. The difference is very clearly due to independent voters: Obama leads by 1%, Clinton trails by 17%.
  

The next category are staunchly blue states that are essential to a Democratic victory -- and there are signs of troubles for Democrats, particularly in case of an Obama candidacy. The Illinois Senator looks weak in three states that constitute much of the Democratic base:

• In Massachusetts, especially, poll after poll have shown Obama weak against McCain: This survey shows the Illinois Senator barely edging out the Republican, 48% to 46%. Clinton crushes McCain 56% to 41%. Most of the difference comes from registered Democrats: Obama gets 65%, and Clinton gets 84%. Believe it or not, this is actually a slight improvement for Obama, who was tied with McCain last month.
  

• In California, Clinton beats McCain 53% to 40%; but McCain keeps Obama in single-digits, 50% to 43%. The difference here is first among women (Clinton has a 18% lead, Obama 8%) and both Democrats and independents (McCain actually leads Obama by 2% among the latter group!). That's a 7% drop for Obama over the past month.
  

• In New York, the story is very similar: Clinton crushes McCain 55% to 39%, Obama is held to single-digits, 52% to 43%. Most of the difference comes from registered Democrats (McCain trails by 17% less). Obama already led by single-digits last month.
  

SUSA also released a few polls from red states that aren't competitive at all:

• In Alabama, McCain predictably crushes both Democrats. He beats Clinton 60% to 34% and Obama 64% to 32%. Only 65% of black voters vote for Clinton, while Obama gets only 15% of white voters.

• In Kansas, McCain beats Clinton 57% to 36% and Obama 54% to 37%. That's an improvement for the Republican against both Democrats.
  

McCain rises and Obama plunges in series of 9 catastrophic polls for Dems

Rarely have I seen this consistent a turnaround in general election polls: In 9 general election polls released today, McCain is on the rise and Obama declines due to his (1) continued weakness among registered Democrats and (2) the departure of many cross-over Republicans and independents who had come to support his candidacy. Also, Clinton's position generally remains stable, suggesting that it is Obama who is weakening more than McCain who is improving.

Obama's plunge looks particularly vertiginous because of how high he was riding in the last two weeks of February, looking competitive in every poll and beating McCain in many reddish states; so some of the trendlines have to be taken with a grain of salt, since they follow an Obama progression. Also, it looked likely that Obama would not keep up his strong levels of support among registered Republicans and independents once the general election campaign began, the GOP nominee was chosen and the two sides became polarized. But the consistency of the numbers suggests that March belongs to McCain.

All the polls I am about to cite follow PPP's Florida release yesterday that showed McCain up 11% in Florida against Obama. Today, two polls from Ohio show the Arizona Senator strengthened in the red state that until recently looked the most promising for Democrats:

• SUSA shows Clinton leading McCain 50% to 44%, but McCain leads Obama 50% to 43%. Compared to the previous SUSA poll from late February, that's a 4% Clinton drop and a 17% Obama plunge.
• In a pattern that we will find in most of these polls, Obama is weak among registered Democrats (he gets 66% to Clinton's 80%) and Clinton is weak among blacks (64%). But the shift in numbers is due to independents deserting Obama (down from 60% to 45%) and Republicans moving home (the margin is 12% better for McCain).

• PPP's poll also brings good news for McCain, who trails Clinton only 45% to 44% but is ahead of Obama 49% to 41%.
• Here again, Clinton is very weak among blacks (47%) and Obama among registered Democrats (60%).
  

The same internals and trendlines can be found in other polls from other states:

• In Kentucky, SUSA finds McCain leading Clinton 53% to 43% and trouncing Obama 64% to 28%. In the past three weeks, Clinton has dropped by 1% and Obama by 15%.
• McCain actually wins among registered Democrats when paired up against Obama (48% to 41%); Clinton is up 60% to 31%. The gap among registered Republicans has increased by 18% -- with Obama down to 8%. Independents have shifted by 11%.

• In Missouri, McCain is leading Clinton 48% to 46% -- a 2% improvement for Clinton in the past 3 weeks. But Obama is trailing 53% to 39%, an 8% decline.
• Obama is winning only 62% of registered Democrats, versus 83% for Clinton. McCain has closed the gap by 17% among that group against Obama.

In all three of the SUSA polls (MO, OH and KY), Obama and Clinton are now running roughly even among registered Republicans and independents, and the difference in their showing is coming from registered Democrats. That suggests that Republicans are starting to look at Obama as an adversary, and no longer as the candidate who finally defeated a Clinton.

Furthermore, the fact that Clinton is weak among blacks but running so far ahead among registered Democrats confirms that it is white Democrats who are right now deserting the Obama, meaning that it is the racial controversies of the past week have taken a toll on him. This is not good news for the hope that the general election could be civil, for this will likely encourage Republicans to not shy away from racial attacks in the coming months. Whether or not Clinton was actually attempting to do that in the past 2 months, it did not work against the Illinois Senator in the primaries (where Democrats were voting, after all) -- which should give comfort to the Obama supporters.

There are more polls showing the same trendlines:

• In Colorado, Rasmussen released a new poll showing McCain gaining against both Democrats: Obama and McCain are tied at 46% (Obama led by 7% last month) and McCain leads Clinton 50% to 38% (he was up 6% last month).

• In New Hampshire, Rasmussen shows McCain edging out both Democrats, 46% to 43% against Obama and 47% to 41% against Clinton. A month ago, both Democrats led the Republican, +2 for Clinton and + 7 for Obama.
  

And add to this two national polls:

• Gallup's tracking poll finds McCain's posting his largest leads yet, 47% to 43% against Obama and 48% to 45% against Clinton.

• And Zogby's numbers are particularly depressing for Democrats, as McCain is leading against both Obama 46% to 40% and Clinton 48% to 40%. Last month, Zogby had Obama leading McCain 47% to 40% but McCain trouncing Clinton 50% to 38% (a slight improvement for Clinton, therefore).

The Rasmussen surveys as well as well as Gallup's tracking shows that Clinton is also losing ground against McCain, and while she on average declines much less than Obama the Democratic primaries is taking its toll on both Democrats. Clinton's numbers were disastrous throughout the last weeks of February, which also explains why she is not collapsing that much more.

These numbers should therefore pull Democrats in two direction in the primary context: On the one hand, they undercut Obama's electability argument and support Clinton's claim that there is just much less that could suddenly shift the election against her. On the other hand, the long primary is proving a huge boost for McCain -- an argument against extending the process further and against giving another chance to Clinton. Which argument is the most convincing?

The electability question revisited, with new general election polls

The electability debate has been raging for months now and has served as an important subtext of the Democratic primaries. In fact, electabilty arguments were invoked far less in the GOP primaries, surprisingly so given that the polls were much more consistent in who would be the strongest Republican in a general election. And now that McCain is the presumptive nominee, we will probably no longer see general election polls from very red states in which Democrats manage a tie or even lead (a poll even had Clinton competitive in Texas some time in the fall!).

In the Democratic race, however, it has been much more difficult to find a pattern of electability. I have addressed this question many times in the past few months, the first time at the beginning of September when an Ohio poll had Clinton running significantly better than Obama and a Colorado poll had her much weaker than her rival.

Over the next few months, I attempted to find some pattern, some consistency and the only conclusion I have been able to reach is that (1) Clinton polls better than Obama in red Southern states (which Clinton often looked competitive in) and in the Northeast (Obama often struggles against McCain in polls from New York and Massachusetts) and that (2) Obama is stronger in the Southwest and Northwest. That hypothesis is usually confirmed by surveys and, as we will see, this week's SUSA surveys give more evidence for that. I first stated this theory in November, after a poll of Alabama showed Clinton surprisingly strong and a poll of Oregon showed Obama outpacing her.

In the rest of the country (especially in the Midwest) it has been seemingly impossible to find a pattern of electability. That same day, I also wrote , "Hillary looked more electable in this week's MN poll, while Barack looked more solid in the Iowa poll from the day before."

Today's new polls show that it remains very difficult to judge the electability case of the two Democratic front-runners. First, there is Time's national poll that will likely be often cited in the coming days:

• Time has Obama leading McCain by 7%, 48% to 41%, while Hillary is tied at 46%.
• Commenting on these numbers, Time's pollster says, "Independents tilt toward McCain when he is matched up against Clinton But they tilt toward Obama when he is matched up against the Illinois Senator."

We also got this week a series of three state polls from SUSA. They all tested Romney, whose results I am including as an indication of McCain's relative strength:

• A Kentucky poll has McCain leading Clinton 53% to 43% and crushing Obama 61% to 32%. Clinton manages a lead against Romney, 48% to 46%, while Romney trounces Obama 55% to 38%.


• In Indiana, the two Democrats poll equally. Clinton trails McCain 51% to 42% and Obama is behind 50% to 40%. Both also lose against Romney, albeit by smaller margins: 49% to 44% and 47% to 44%.


• Finally, in Washington state, it is Obama who does much better, as he destroys McCain 55% to 38% while Clinton is forced into a tie at 46%. Against Romney, Clinton leads 51% to 41%, but that's far weaker than Obama's 61% to 31%.

These results do not contradict my theory of which regions Obama and Clinton are strong in; Kentucky in particular has been a state in which Clinton has been consistently competitive. Despite this, the media inexplicably keeps running with the story of Clinton hurting down-the-ballot Democrats in those states.

The internals of the SUSA polls have a few other interesting clues relating to the electability question. First, on the gender gap:

• In Kentucky, Clinton runs 20% better then Obama overall. And that margin entirely comes from the female vote. Among men, both candidates are running roughly equal (Obama trails 62-30 and Clinton trails 60-36); among women, Obama trails 60% to 34% (no gender gap whatsoever) while Clinton actually leads 49% to 46%, 29% better than Obama.
• In Washington, on the other hand, it is the male vote that makes the difference between Clinton and Obama. Both candidates have a slight lead againt McCain among women, but look at the male vote: Clinton trails 47% to 43% while Obama leads 62% to 32%. That's a 34% swing.

A third characteristic that holds across those polls is that Clinton is much stronger among registered Democrats than Obama, who gets more cross-over votes from Republicans:

• In Kentucky a full 44% of Democrats vote McCain if Obama is their nominee, versus only 28% if the nominee is Clinton.
• In Indiana, McCain takes 18% of the Democratic vote against Clinton, and 30% against Obama. On the other hand, Clinton takes 9% of the GOP vote and Obama gets 19%. (Clinton does a bit better among indies).
• In Washington, Clinton does better among registered Democrats but she only takes 6% of Republican votes, while Obama gets 25%.

Obama and Clinton both will have significant strength and weaknesses in a general election. Obama is stronger among men, but Clinton causes female voters to massively vote to Democrat. Obama attracts the center and can get votes from the right, but what use is that if he cannot hold is his base? Clinton does that holding very well, but she needs to appeal to independents to get to the White House.

The Latino vote will also be very interesting to look at. They have gotten Clinton out of trouble many times over the past few weeks, starting with Nevada and ending with New Mexico and California. On the GOP side, John McCain is the only one who potentially could appeal to Hispanics given that he never fully followed the lead of fellow candidates towards nativism and immigrant-bashing. Will a McCain-Obama showdown help the GOP attract more Latino votes than they were expecting to this cycle? Can Clinton offset McCain's strength among the Hispanic community? Or will the GOP's increasingly harsh and nativist language on immigration doom any chance McCain has of winning the Latino vote? Given that immigration will be a big issue in November, it is unlikely that McCain will be able to distance himself from those in the party who Latinos justifiably will reject.

SUSA comes out with 7 general election polls: Dems strong in VA and KY, and McCain as solid as always

Everyone obsessively tries to compare the electability of the different Democratic candidates, which I've tried to argue over and over again is an absurd exercise because there is no coherent data. There are dozens of polls showing Hillary more competitive than Obama and vice-versa. The one thing that holds consistently is Clinton running better in the South/deep red states. Why is no one talking about electability in the GOP race? The data here is very consistent: McCain is the best Republican to save the GOP from an electoral disaster. That may not be true down the line, but since we're basing ourselves on current perception and current polls, most of them remarkably show McCain running stronger than the other GOPers.

Today's massive SUSA poll release is an ideal example. Apparently looking to release as many polls as is humanly possible before Christmas, SUSA came out with seven general election polls last night and this morning. The main lessons: Democrats (almost) sweep Virginia, remain competitive in Kentucky, but Obama would have trouble holding New York or Massachusetts against McCain or Giuliani, and McCain is (by far) the most competitive general election candidate.

First up then, Virginia -- which is probably the most interesting poll:

• Hillary Clinton demolishes all GOPers: 52% to 42%, Romney 53% to 40%, Huckabee 54% to 40%. McCain keeps it a toss-up, 48-46.
• It's closer with Obama, who beats Rudy 48-45, Romney 50-43 and Huckabee 51-42. But McCain comes out on top 50-44.

This confirms previous polls that have had Democrats leading in Virginia, and it is a marked improvement from SUSA's last poll from the state. Remember: No Democrat has won Virginia since 1964 -- though Kerry held Bush to 9% in 2004. And the state has 13 EVs. If Democrats get it and a state like Iowa, they wouldn't even need to win Florida or Ohio.

The second state which has had Democrats strong throughout the fall -- and surprisingly so, is Kentucky:

• McCain is the only candidate to beat Clinton, 50% to 44%.
• Clinton comes out on top against Giuliani 47-45, Romney 48-44 and Huckabee 47-46.
• Obama, however, is demolished by all Republicans: 50-40 against Rudy, 46-40 against Romney, 51-38 against Huck, and 53-35 against McCain.

Kentucky has been one of the states that has the most consistently shown a blue drift in presidential polls over the past few months -- in a state Bush won by 20 points in 2004. The previous poll from SUSA had Democrats a tiny bit stronger, but this survey can in no way be consider an outlier: Obama might be weak here, but Clinton's competitiveness shows Democrats have a huge opening here.

A lot of this is due to the local situation in Kentucky, which is more toxic for the GOP than in other places due to the ethical trouble the state party was in that led to the ouster last month of Governor Fletcher. However stunning it might be, Republicans will have to prepare for Kentucky and its eight electoral votes emerging as a very unlikely battleground state in 2008. (In case you're wondering, Kentucky and Virginia together would give Democrats a victory,if combined with all the Kerry states).

SUSA then has polls from three of the most reliable blue states in the country -- NY, CA and MA:

• In California, Democrats never tremble and have some massive leads. Clinton demolishes Rudy 58-36 and even McCain 57 to 38. Obamais a bit weaker but he stays within double-digits: McCain holds him 52-39, but Obama gets 56-36 against Giuliani.


• New York is a bit more interesting: Rudy Giuliani gets Clinton down to... 55% (to 40%) and locks Obama in a toss-up in his home state (48% to 46%). McCain is also very competitive against Obama: 47% to 43%, but stands no chance against Clinton: 57% to 37%.
• The Democrats demolish the two other GOPers: Clinton hits 60% and 59% against Romney and Huckabee, while Obama beats them both 54-36.


• Finally Massachusetts, where Clinton crushes Rudy 57-37, Romney 60-34, and Huck 63-30, but beats McCain only 53-43.
• Obama stays on top but sometimes with difficulty: He crushes Romney 55-36, Huck 60-28, but it's only 50-41 against Giuliani... and a 47-45 toss-up with McCain.

Don't forget that Massachusetts is the state of which Romney was governor -- so he has no excuse for his stunning weakness there. Clearly, McCain has the potential to put very blue states in play, which is supposed to be Rudy's central campaign argument. Why is no one pointing out how BS Rudy's electability appeal is when McCain does as well as him in New York -- Rudy's home state -- and up stages him in Massachusetts? It goes without saying, naturally, that no Democrat will be elected in 2008 without carrying New York (and certainly also Massachusetts). So however much Democrats stay in a great position now, they should be afraid of McCain.

And SUSA closes it off with two polls from red states: Alabama and Kansas. The previous polls from these states by SUSA had Clinton very very competitive in states that Bush won more than overwhelmingly. Democrats today stay competitive: the GOP has the upper-hand, but remember how less than red than normal these states are performing (Bush won Kansas with 62%

• First up, Alabama, where Clinton holds all GOPers to single-digits: 49% to 42% against Rudy, 49-44 versus Huck and 50-43 versus McCain. She forces Romney into a toss-up 46-45.
• Republicans perform better against Obama, who holds Romney in single digits 48-39 but is then crushed by the the three others -- 54-36 by McCain and 52-36 by Giuliani.


• In Kansas, Giuliani leads Clinton 51-39 and Obama 52-38. McCain does better, 58-35 against Clinton and 56-36 against Obama. Huckabee leads a bit more weakly, but it is Romney who has trouble: ahead of Clinton 49-43 and of Obama 44-43.

Democrats did better in last month's SUSA poll where they led four out of eight match-ups, but the bottom line is that McCain is the only candidate not massively under=performing on his party's strength.

Morning polls: Clinton leading in yet another Kentucky poll

New support for the hypothesis I tried out the other day that Clinton polls better than her rivals in traditionally red states (whereas the advantage is generally reversed in the Southwest). A new poll from Kentucky released this morning by SUSA shows Hillary Clinton winning all four of her match-ups in a state Bush won by 20% in 2004:

• She is ahead 48% to 47% against McCain, 48% to 44% against Rudy Giuliani, 54% to 39% against Romney and 55% to 36% against Huckabee.
• Obama polls much more poorly, losing 52% to 38% against Giuliani, 44% to 43% against Romney, and a massive 56% to 34% against McCain. He does edge out Huckabee 44% to 42%.

There have been many polls of Kentucky at this point in the past few months, and all have shown a very similar result. The first poll that had Clinton had seemed like an outlier -- but it has since been confirmed, and cannot be easily dismissed. However stunning it might be, Republicans will have to prepare for Kentucky and its eight electoral votes emerging as a very unlikely battleground state in 2008.

A lot of this is due to the local situation in Kentucky, which is more toxic for the GOP than in other places due to the ethical trouble the state party was in that led to the ouster last month of Governor Fletcher. Now, Senator McConnell is feeling the heat -- and Democrats are sure to go after him with everything they have if Republicans continue to appear this strong.

Clinton is strong in red states because she rallies Democrats against her, something Obama cannot do. The reason she runs so well appears precisely to be the polarization of the electorate -- something that is much less prevalent in the Southwest or even the Midwest. And the key test for her will be whether she can break 50% and get that extra few points needed to carry these red states. And she does reach 50% against Romney and Huckabee, testifying to the fact that there is not an anti-Clinton majority here.

• Biden in toss-ups!

In a sign of just how difficult this election is for Republicans, a new Rasmussen poll has Joe Biden able to tie much better-known Republican candidates. He trails Rudy Giuliani only 42% to 40%, and ties Mitt Romney at 39%.That the top GOP candidates cannot muster a clear lead against a little-known distanced in the polls Democrat indicates that the electorate is just unwilling to go for Republicans again. Though the GOP's hope to victory will be to create a foul, and make the alternative unacceptable, which is exactly what Bush did with Kerry in 2004.