Red-Light Cameras Not So Special?
Cubs Combat Casino
PHOTOS: Peaches And Amanda Blank At Metro
The Return of The Chicagoist Reader Meet-Up
County Sales Tax Rollback Vetoed - Here We Go Again
With Democrats hell-bent on dragging their primary season all the way to the convention, and John McCain all but the GOP nominee, the question of who is more electable is weighing on the minds of many voters. SurveyUSA, whose polling is usually pretty good, put together a couple of nice maps.
They interviewed 600 registered voters in each of the 50 states, for a total of 30,000 interviews, asking who they would vote for in a match up of Hillary Clinton against John McCain, and who they would vote for in a match up against Barack Obama against John McCain. It's important to note, per the professionals, that "there are specific limitations to this exercise. The winner's margin in each state is not always outside of the survey's margin of sampling error. Rather than show states where the results are inside of the margin of sampling error as “leaning” or “toss-ups," SurveyUSA for this illustration assigned Electoral Votes to the candidate with the larger share of the vote, no matter how small the winner's margin." They also point out that they polled registered voters, not likely voters.
With nine months left to go, and no running mates yet, there are plenty of unanswered questions. Hope or experience? Broadening the Democratic coalition, or going with a known quantity in big swing states? With more than a month left to go until Pennsylvania, and Hillary and Barack campaigning hard in Wyoming, looking too hard at polls might give you a headache.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I hate to say it, but I have a bad feeling that somehow the dems are gonna fuck up and that map might be a lot more red this fall...
i always question these polls due to the type of person who would answer a junk call and spend time talking to a stranger isn't exactly what i would normal
I love maps, but this is stupid. John Kerry was projected to win the electoral college a week before the election in 2004, and things changed. Why lull us into a sense of security?
Wouldn't that poll mean Hillary would win without winning the popular vote?
Plum: I have that fear, too. The Dems being Dems, they will manage to fuck up the easiest chance they have had since 1976. If they do, what is the point, really, of a Dem party anymore?
But, even if the Dems fuck up, at least we will get a president who doesn't think Jesus is talking to him, who actually has a long history of working with Dems to pass bills, and who seems to have strong notions of honor. That's a vast improvement over the last eight years.
Kevin: No obvious errors or uncorrected factual mistakes, as has been the case previously. Another gold star for your notebook.
So as an honest Spook I'm not going to pretend I know and issue when I do not, such as how the deleget selection process works. But what I'm learning is starting to make hairs on my legs stand up like they are as I read this book "Brothers" about "the hidden history of the Kennedy Years"! What is this I'm hearing about republicans voting in mass for O'Bama just to make sure Hillary dosen't win or states where Hillary won, but O'Bama still gets more delegets? What's going on hear Kevin?
Oh and I'm sure you will be celebrating your "gold stars" tonight. When you grow up maybe you can be smart like FreakTilda
what's the relevance of this? they haven't even campaigned against one another yet.
what's the relevance of this? they haven't even campaigned against one another yet.
Was this a traditional phone poll? If so, it has two problems.
1. Really poor people who do not have a phone of any kind can still vote. When they do vote, it runs about 90-95% Democratic. This caused polls to be off 15-20% in the Detroit Mayor race!
2. Landline phones do not encompass people who use only cellular phones. This is becoming a huge segment of the population, and currently a majority of them vote Democratic as well.
I agree 100%, Jimbo.
Not only have they not even campaigned against one another...what does this have to do with "Chicago"?
I would respect, and actually look forward to, a full blown editorial with Chicagoist formally endorsing a candidate and reasons why...this is nothing more than some spin-cycle survey with cool colors and charts.
I thought Alaska was bigger than that. :-)
Sears Tower: Good points!
irishman1: We don't really do endorsements here, but here in the Chicagoist offices, we have been arguing pretty hard with each other about who the Democratic nominee should be.
The dems screwed themselves by not allowing flordia and michigan to count. These states taxpayers cant afford new elections because of dem incompetence, the dem party wont pay for new elections, the nomination will be cheapened without them it is a joke. I believe obama may have peaked to early and hillary is pissing off alot of his supporters who might stay home in Nov. if she is the nominee. On the bright side for Dems, Mccain is a real moderate not an idiot like Bush but McCain could just not wake up any day now.
Jesus, can you imagine what it would would happen in the Chicagoist office if we all had to agree in the Chicagoist endorsement?
It wouldn't be pretty ... and I suspect the water cooler would get knocked over in the ensuing scuffle.
Fed Up, I know you're a republican lite and all, but honeslty,could you live with McCain's voice for four years? How did the Vietcong put up with that?!
I am actually not thrilled with any of the three survivors, but I am not in the hate column on any either. Obama, is going to flame out he is a pop star, but I really liked him when he was running against Bobby rush because he was differnt than rush. He has gotten into bed with Daley,stroger, blago,e.jones and endorsed D.tilman so all his talk of change rings hollow. maybe four more years in the senate and an actual accomplishment or two would change my view.I was hoping Bloomberg would get in the race. he is a very moderate republican, maybe a dem in disguise. The sad thing is in primarys only the far left and far right seem to matter and both of those disgust me. Spook Im pro choice, am in favor of a limited death penalty, like my taxes low, not an envirmentalist but believe we need to do much more than we have in the past , higher MPG for cars and Suv's is neccasary, am ok with Afganistan war, think we overstepped with iraq, Healthcare I have it through work now but know to many without so we need something there I dont know what though. Im with the dems on some issues and repubs on others but its now 5pm and I will be trying a Hendricks very soon TGIF.
Why don't they have a Republican candidate? I only see a pro-tax, pro-Amnesty guy named John McCain.