More Numbers Crunched from SUSA State-by-State Polling

Earlier this month, SurveyUSA released state-by-state polling pitting John McCain against either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. In each state, SUSA surveyed 600 voters, so in total, 30,000 voters were interviewed for this massive project. This weekend over at, Professors Robert S. Erikson and Karl Sigman of Columbia University run further statistical analyses on these numbers and come up with some interesting results.

What do our results show? First, we pooled the state polls to ascertain the national vote, weighing each state's percent in proportion to the size of its House delegation. We also assign the District of Columbia as a 436th district and assign each Democratic candidate 85 percent of the vote to McCain's 15 percent. With these assumptions, the national popular "vote" is tight as of late February. Obama wins 51.5 percent versus McCain's 48.5 percent. Clinton also wins by an even razor thin margin, 50.7 to 49.3. With 30,000 cases, both estimates are statistically significant. McCain would be in the actual popular vote lead less than one time in 20.

That being said, our simulations yield a 88% chance of Obama beating McCain (with 306 Electoral College votes on average versus 233 for McCain), and a 74% chance of Hillary beating McCain (with 285 Electoral College votes on average versus 253 for McCain). About one percent of our simulated outcomes were Electoral College ties. (We ignored within-state variation in Maine and Nebraska, which divide their electoral votes by district.)

On the one hand, we find the expected numbers of electoral votes (the average from the simulations) for Obama or Clinton to be slightly higher than SurveyUSA reports. On the other hand, there is sufficient variance in the outcomes, so that McCain wins a nontrivial portion of the simulations, even with Obama as the opponent. Our two million simulations remind us that the popular vote winner is not always the Electoral College winner, although probably due mainly to chance -- the lottery aspect of the Electoral College -- and not any identifiable partisan bias in the 2008 Electoral College.

It would be wrong to think on the basis of these numbers that the Democrats necessarily have a 74 percent or even 88 percent chance of landing the presidency this fall. While SurveyUSA has done a very good job at pegging results in recent years and their numbers largely pass a smell test for validity, these numbers come a long way away from election day. With so many intervening events to come -- we cannot even begin to think what effect a brokered convention might have on the overall populace -- and the great likelihood that voters will become even more interested and knowledgeable about the campaigns, numbers will undoubtedly shift between the early spring and the late fall.

That said, these numbers are at least comforting at a time when a lot of folks are exceedingly willing to write this election off already as yet another in a long series of disappointments for the Democrats. If we do not allow ourselves to be divided, we truly have a great opportunity to win in 2008 -- and in fact to win with more than 50.1 percent of the popular vote for the first time in more than 40 years. So the time is not now to take our eyes off the ball.

Tags: 2008, Electoral Vote, popular vote (all tags)



Re: More Numbers Crunched from SUSA State-by-State

This is probably in vain, but let's remember what the prize is. Forget Clinton or Obama, we're talking about getting out of Iraq, protecting choice, stopping illegal domestic spying, restoring the environment, taking on climate change, making equal pay mandatory, restoring separation between church and state, ending the partisan agendas of government agencies, and so much, much more.

This isn't about us or our preference of candidate. It's about pulling our broken, malfeasant government back from the brink for the sake of future generations.

These numbers show that no matter who wins the nomination, WE WILL BE OKAY.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-03-16 08:50AM | 0 recs
Re: More Numbers Crunched from SUSA State-by-State

Well put.

by Chavez100 2008-03-16 08:53AM | 0 recs
Re: More Numbers Crunched from SUSA State-by-State


by marcotom 2008-03-16 08:58AM | 0 recs
Re: More Numbers Crunched from SUSA State-by-State

Exactly- the enemy is McCain- not or the other of the two Democratic nominees.

by bruh21 2008-03-16 09:50AM | 0 recs
Not an enemy

McCain is the opponent, not the enemy. Sorry so many people in the blogosphere have this emotional need to hate-whether they're for Clinton or Obama or on GOP blogs as well. sure points to the need for universal health care with a mental health component.

by Skipster 2008-03-16 11:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Not an enemy

McCain is the enemy if you're one of the 4,000 people killed in Iraq, one of the tens of thousands injured, anyone who knows them, anyone currently in the armed forces, anyone trying to make a living in this country, anyone in need of health care, anyone interested in civil liberties, anyone interested in Cuba, anyone interested in America's standing in the world, anyone interested in getting this country out of debt, anyone interested in being able to send your kid to college, or ever own a home ...

If you think John McCain is the opponent, not the enemy, you're either a troll or you don't understand the seriousness of the situation. John McCain is the mortal enemy and he will destroy what's left of this country if he's not defeated.

by obsessed 2008-03-16 12:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Not an enemy

McCain is the enemy. Sorry, i am not pc. and not that typ eof liberal.

by bruh21 2008-03-16 05:39PM | 0 recs
Re: More Numbers Crunched from SUSA State-by-State

Thanks, Jonathan.

I've tried, again and again, to drive home the point that we're going to win this thing regardless of who our nominee turns out to be.  Tough to get purchase with that idea, though, in the heat of an acrimonious primary season.

by jonweasel 2008-03-16 09:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Sub prime candidate vs. true and tested

Given the problem we are having with sub prime culture, I see Obama as the sub prime candidate with promise of high returns and Hillary as the true and tested candidate with probability of winning but winning ugly 50.5% to 51%

by meliou2 2008-03-16 09:02AM | 0 recs
Aside from the negative connotations...

...of the "sub-prime" thing, I actually agree with you.

The idea of contesting all states and all congressional districts, which Obama is using, is a shift to a new strategy (actually an old strategy) that is designed to change from "eking out victories" to winning large majorities for progressives.

It's an idea promoted by both Markos and Jerome, by the way.

by jonweasel 2008-03-16 09:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Aside from the negative connotations...

My point, though, is that this far from election day, the Obama meme is very appealing but there is no history (that I know of) in which a non-incumbent election leads to a landslide but this is what is being projected for Obama. I don't think so.

by meliou2 2008-03-16 09:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Aside from the negative connotations...

Uh, Reagan?!?!?!

by Cycloptichorn 2008-03-16 10:55AM | 0 recs
I would argue...

...that 2006 was an excellent test case.

I'd also argue that, for many years, Democrats dominated electoral politics precisely because they didn't leave things uncontested in any area.

by jonweasel 2008-03-16 12:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Sub prime candidate vs. true and tested

The analogy is flawed. A penny stock is a risky investment with the promise of high returns. A sub-prime ARM is when you borrow money that you can't pay back and the interest is inevitably going to kill you.

Sound like anyone we know?

by obsessed 2008-03-16 12:26PM | 0 recs
Re: More Numbers Crunched from SUSA

This is great news.  However, has such an analysis been run before, and if so, what was its accuracy?

by rfahey22 2008-03-16 09:03AM | 0 recs
3d Party

Numbers don't reflect where 3d Party votes might go. Only in Oklahoma with there likely be only 2 choices.

by benmasel 2008-03-16 09:09AM | 0 recs
88% over 74% a no brainer I'll going with Obama

Obama running more strongly against McCain is a very compelling reason for nominating Obama.

Why would Democrats want to go with anyone less than their strongest candidate for the Fall?

by Lefty Coaster 2008-03-16 09:27AM | 0 recs
Re: no brainer going with Obama?

This is March 08 not labor day September 08. Obama is getting his best press and not doing any better than Hillary in the match-up. When Republicans are done with Obama, his vote total will be around 47-48%, no better than Kerry.

by meliou2 2008-03-16 09:33AM | 0 recs
Re: no brainer going with Obama?

Keep on overlooking Hillary's high negatives and you'll wind up with President McCain.

by Lefty Coaster 2008-03-16 09:49AM | 0 recs
Re: no brainer going with Obama?
But Clinton's negatives are already known. By November (or perhaps by April), Obama's negatives will be at least as high as Clinton's. The Republicans haven't yet begun to trash him.
by NJ Liberal 2008-03-16 10:11AM | 0 recs
Re: no brainer going with Obama?

Bull.  The CLINTONS have done plenty of trashing of Obama already, either directly or through their surrogates; what is it you think the Republicans are going to do that hasn't been done?

by Cycloptichorn 2008-03-16 10:56AM | 0 recs
Re: no brainer going with Obama?

Stoke that fear.  "We don't have a chance against the big bad Republicans" even with the country collapsing around our ears, in all sectors and at all levels.  Their party is almost broke and their donors can't see any reason to throw good money after bad.

2004 is gone, and can't be brought back.  HRC missed her chance then.  Her negative campaigning against Obama has hit a wall and is beginning to rebound on her now.  

One thing I will admit, getting the nomination is a tougher fight than we'll see in November.  Clintonistas can take heart that they almost won the championship fight.

Now, she should give it up before her own reputation and political strength diminishes further.  Unless she intends to pull a Lieberman and ally with McCain altogether.

by Carlo 2008-03-16 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: no brainer going with Obama?
Don't ask me what they're going to come up with, ask Karl Rove. Ask the Swift-Boaters. And, by the way, the stuff that they come up with doesn't have to be grounded in fact. It just has to play well on TV. You know, this is the very issue that has solidified my support for Clinton. Obama just doesn't seem tough enough to be president. If he thinks this campaign is getting nasty, what's he going to do when he's facing tough opposition from Republicans in the GE, or from some grizzled old generals while in office?
by NJ Liberal 2008-03-17 04:27AM | 0 recs
Re: no brainer going with Obama?

Of the three Obama is by far the least known. In terms of name recognition, this gap is closing, but in terms of "knowing" what he sounds like when he talks, his mannerisms, his sense of humor, etc., a vast number of the people in those polls are not that familiar with Obama.

Now ... you assume that this means that his negatives are bound to go up, but the conventional wisdom is that the incumbent needs to get over 50% early, i.e., the less-known candidate will tend to pick up more of the undecided votes.

Until after Edwards dropped out, I never listened to Obama. I heard little bits of him talking and he sounded a bit hesitant in his verbal style, leading me to be incredulous that he was being called a great orator. During that period, my main takes on Obama were that he was over-rated as a speaker and not as progressive as Edwards.

After listening to a few debates and speeches, I discoverd that I really like him and have a comfortable gut feeling about him. It took until mid-February, but I'm now an enthusiastic Obama supporter, have contributed several hundred dollars, and have found a number of people in Philadelphia who weren't registered and called the Obama people, who WENT TO THEIR HOUSES AND REGISTERED THEM WITHIN THREE HOURS. It's an amazingly good organization he's running and it gives me a lot of faith in his ability to actually accomplish something once he's elected.

by obsessed 2008-03-16 11:50AM | 0 recs
Re: no brainer going with Obama?

Republicans are trashing him especialy one named Mark Penn.

by Lefty Coaster 2008-03-16 12:05PM | 0 recs
Re: no brainer going with Obama?

I don't think this week can be considered "good press" for Obama. This has been an absolutely horrific week for his candidacy. We have to see how the Wright thing plays out, but I think talking to the Trib editorial board about Rezko put that to bed.

But, ultimately, these results are extraordinarily encouraging. Both Clinton and Obama are incredible candidates, and both would be much much much better President's than John McCain.

Democrats '08!!!

by LiberalFL 2008-03-16 10:38AM | 0 recs
Re: no brainer going with Obama?

You have to be kidding me, Obama is getting awful press.  

by Toddwell 2008-03-16 10:40AM | 0 recs
best press?

rezko, crazy pastor guy, powers?  kind of a bad week for him.

by Doug Tuttle 2008-03-16 11:58AM | 0 recs
Re: best press?

Isn't it interesting though, how he spent a few days cleaning house and dealing with the problems.  The recent Chicago Tribune interview satisfied the concerns of the press, and the preacher thing will blow over, especially in light of the absolutely maniacal preachers that McCain is relying on.

The Clintons could take this to heart and begin to clean their house a bit as well.  But, as we all have observed, they prefer to simply drop a veil of secrecy over everything and pray that nobody pokes through it.  Don't be disappointed on April 15 when no information is revealed by them.  That deadline is a joke and will in no way be honored.

Obama is busy crafting his plan to deal with his short list of negatives, while the Clintons plan to get lucky and hope their negatives just evaporate in the mist.

by Carlo 2008-03-16 12:17PM | 0 recs
Re: More Numbers Crunched from SUSA State-by-State

While you may find this polling to be a good sign, I can only find it to be a very depressing.

Look, could there be an election cycle that might more greatly favor a Democratic Presidential candidate than this one, given the highly unpopular failures of the current Republican President both in Iraq and on economic issues?

Yet essentially McCain runs nearly neck and neck with either Democratic candidate, without the right wing attack machine having yet lifted a finger to damage our candidates.

And what happens when they do? Does anyone who owns a modicum of objectivity not see how much damage can be inflicted on the essentially unvetted candidate Obama over his close association with a spiritual mentor who was taking real satisfaction in the events of 9/11, even adopting a mocking tone, literally days after they took place?

I might feel differently about Obama's prospects if he were up by 15 or 20 points in the polls (as was Dukakis as late as July), and he had some real ground he could give in the upcoming fight. But I've seen nothing to suggest in any polling that that is remotely true.

I don't feel particularly sanguine about Hillary's chances either, given this sort of polling, and given that A-As are not likely to come out in droves if she's nominated. But Obama seems to me to be fatally flawed as a candidate, given only his already discovered baggage.

by frankly0 2008-03-16 09:49AM | 0 recs
Re: More Numbers Crunched from SUSA State-by-State

The US doesnt have landslide elections anymore. For instance, when Reagan won 49 states, he did it with 58% of the vote. Sure, that isnt 51%, or 50.5%, but considering that kind of electoral landslide, his popular vote total was pretty paltry.

by LiberalFL 2008-03-16 10:42AM | 0 recs
Re: More Numbers Crunched from SUSA State-by-State
It would be wise for Obama to pick Clinton as VP should he win.
If that is not possible, I believe his second choices are either Sebelius or Mike Bloomberg.
by DemGenii 2008-03-16 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: More Numbers Crunched from SUSA State-by-State

There is no possibility of him picking Clinton - he will follow his narrative of change and positive campaigning, and I just don't see how Clinton fits that meme.

by interestedbystander 2008-03-16 10:10AM | 0 recs
Re: More Numbers Crunched from SUSA State-by-State

You are correct in saying that a brokered convention would be bad for the party.  That is why Clinton should withdraw immediately.  The empress has lost the support of the party rank and file, and should abdicate for the good of the party and the country.

We are waiting for Clinton in North Carolina and Indiana with much anticipation.  We are organizing the knockout blow.  The whirlwind be breathtaking.  Her slight victory in Pennsylvania will become a distant memory after the defeat she suffers on May 6.  The Clintonistas can kiss goodbye any chance of gaining the popular vote total after we have our say.  

by Carlo 2008-03-16 10:16AM | 0 recs
Re: More Numbers Crunched from SUSA State-by-State

The thing you say at the end is the most important for us all to remember....If we don't allow ourselves to be divided we have a great opportunity to win. This Obama supporter will support Clinton if she is the nominee. There has been too much bullshit thrown around on this site that is hurting which ever candidate comes out of this. Please everybody back off a little---Jerome this means you too....

by wasder 2008-03-16 10:19AM | 0 recs
Obama will lose badly

Clinton not doing that great, but she would at least have the economy as an issue.

Obama will mail down the nomination, but his negatives are already near Hillary's levels.  And all this negativeness from the Clinton camp has only reinforced this.

I hate process driven campaigns as much as Jerome does, but Clinton never adjusted her strategy.

The only good from all this is that we will have to develop a new bench with (I hope) new faces.

by mikelow1885 2008-03-16 10:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama will lose badly

As of Gallup's Feb 2008 polling, Clinton has a disapproval rating of 49%/50% (the line is dim, so I cant really see it). Obama's unfavorability rating in the same poll is 31% (again, dim lines, so it may be more or less, but marginally so)

Obama has 60-61% favorability to Clinton's 50-51%

Those numbers may fluctuate, Obama's unfavorability will certainly increase in the general, but Clinton's numbers have remained more or less steady throughout the primary season. I think they can both win, but Obama may have a better shot at a stronger win. Of course, he carries more risk, but I love livin on the edge =)

by LiberalFL 2008-03-16 10:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama will lose badly

I agree.  Obama's negatives are not in the same ballpark as Clinton's, and never will be.

by Carlo 2008-03-16 10:54AM | 0 recs
Imagine the McCain-Obama debates

There are usually three. That's 3 chances for McCain to:

-lose his temper

-say something stupid/scary about Iraq

-say something that confirms that he's against the financial self-interests of the great majority of the voters

-look old, grumpy and unpredictably dangerous.

I understand your worries about Obama but the more you listen to him when he's under the gun, the more your confidence will grow. The man is calm and unflappable. Can you say that about your boy McCain?

by obsessed 2008-03-16 12:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama will lose badly

The only good from all this is that we will have to develop a new bench with (I hope) new faces.

What do you mean by "bench"?

by obsessed 2008-03-16 11:57AM | 0 recs
Re: More Numbers Crunched from SUSA State-by-State
I posted earlier that Obama is stronger in the western swing states.
He makes Oregon secure when Clinton doesn't and takes Nevada/New Mexico/Colorado.
This is due to doing almost as well as Clinton with latinos and better with moderate whites and independents/
by DemGenii 2008-03-16 10:59AM | 0 recs
Rassmussen has "Big State" numbers out

New York
Obama 51, McCain 38, Und 11        Obama up 13
Clinton 50, McCain 38, Und 12      Clinton up 12

Obama 50, McCain 38, Und 12        Obama up 12
Clinton 47, McCain 44, Und 9       Clinton up 3

McCain 47, Obama 43, Und 10        McCain up 4 vs Obama
McCain 47, Clinton 40, Und 13      McCain up 7 vs Clinton

McCain 46, Obama 40, Und 14        McCain up 6 vs Obama
McCain 46, Clinton 40, Und 14      McCain up 6 vs Clinton

Obama 53, McCain 38, Und 9         Obama up 15
Clinton 46, McCain 39, Und 15      Clinton up 7

by CardBoard 2008-03-16 11:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Rassmussen has "Big State"

Not sure why they include Conn.

by CardBoard 2008-03-16 11:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Rassmussen has "Big State"

Yeah, that's a doesn't-matter state.  Like 30 others.

by Carlo 2008-03-16 01:11PM | 0 recs

Just like the polls re Dukakis were meaningless.

And these were taken before we see the results of the Wright debacle.

by foxx 2008-03-16 11:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Meaningless

If you really think Polls are meaningless perhaps Mydd and Openleft are not the best sites for you - that is kinda how things roll here...Poll Analysis

by CardBoard 2008-03-16 11:41AM | 0 recs

Look, it's a long campaign season, and there are a lot of shifts back and forth that we can count on. There will be press cycles against the Democrats and press cycles against the McCain.  But this is by no means "meaningless."

I think Jonathan is quite clear about the "meaning" behind this analysis:

"If we do not allow ourselves to be divided, we truly have a great opportunity to win in 2008 -- and in fact to win with more than 50.1 percent of the popular vote for the first time in more than 40 years. So the time is not now to take our eyes off the ball."

Having a great opportunity and blowing it....yes, it's possible. The point is, instead of continuing to batter each other, from within the party, let's focus on the goal here, let's start framing BOTH of our candidates in the best possible light. The more we legitimize stupid attacks on surrogates in each campaign, the more we allow the framework for discussing OUR candidates to shift. The hardline supporters of both Obama and Clinton are doing a disservice to the party and, ultimately, to our chances "to win with more than 50.1 percent of the popular vote for the first time in more than 40 years."

The "Wright debacle" is stupid. Call it stupid. Don't legitimize and ratify right wing smear tactics just because the right is going to use them. It's a losing strategy, and it's why Democrats have been losing steadily for 40 years.

Focus, get some perspective, and let's take our eye off the ball. That's the meaning behind this: we have a real opportunity. Are we too fucking hard-headed to mobilize behind our candidate, whichever one it is?

by james c 2008-03-16 11:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Meaningless??

The group with the most delegates and popular vote seems to have no problem mobilizing at all.

by Carlo 2008-03-16 12:20PM | 0 recs

It's even worse than first time in over 40 years.  It's been once since FDR died.  LBJ in '64, that's it.

So it not only would be the first time in 44 years, but only the second time in 64 years.

Which is why I am far from "overconfident" this cycle, whoever winds up being the nominee or how each ticket works out or whatnot.  When it comes to Democrats trying to claim the presidency, we're facing an uphill battle.  The "weather" may be in our favor to displace the party in power (highly unpopular Republican currently in the White House, economy heading downward and negative overall opinion of an ongoing war, all of which works against the Republicans), but still...

by synchronicity 2008-03-16 02:33PM | 0 recs
Re: More Numbers Crunched from SUSA State-by-State

Without looking at the model all we can say is just what we have been saying, it is the Democrats to lose.

But this is just another bit of fun. We sort of need a bit of relief. Nothing wrong with that. Indeed there doesn't seem to be enough fun right now.

What ifs are fun. What if Obama increases AA turn out? What if Clinton steals 1-5% of the women from the Repubs?

Maybe we should organize our own user gamespace.

by Judeling 2008-03-16 12:25PM | 0 recs
Re: More Numbers Crunched from SUSA State-by-State

The thing is, Obama has the option to not pick Clinton and yet still have numerous female options to secure dissapointed woman voters.

Clinton has only Obama as a realistic option to secure dissapointed black voters.

by DemGenii 2008-03-16 12:37PM | 0 recs
Re: More Numbers Crunched from SUSA State-by-State

Interesting - who would say are some potential female VP candidates?

by obsessed 2008-03-16 12:54PM | 0 recs
Can't lump Nebraska's electoral votes

It appears that if Clinton is the nominee, McCain will win the entire state, but if it is Obama, he will win at least 2 or 3 of the state's 5 congressional districts.

by manumoka 2008-03-16 12:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Can't lump Nebraska's electoral votes

To start with, Nebraska has three congressional districts, not five: The representatives are Fortenberry (R-Lincoln), Terry (R-Omaha), and Smith (R-Gering). It has five electoral votes, two of which are assigned by the at-large vote.

In spite of the recent Survey USA poll (42-45 Obama-McCain, with a 4% margin-of-sample-error), I'd be extremely surprised if Obama won any congressional district there. Bush won the at-large vote by 33%, and all three CDs by about the same amount, so the SUSA poll implies a 30-point swing in NE. But surrounding states registered 9- to 21-point swings, which are consistent (or even somewhat more optimistic) than other polls.

Given all polls that have come out, I'd predict the McCain wins 60-40 statewide, 57-43 in the 1st, 56-44 in the 2nd, and 68-32 in the 3rd.

Of course, I'd be happy to be proved wrong by further polls and the official results (and I'd love for SUSA to break down their results by CD in Nebraska and Maine), but I wouldn't hang my hat on a single medium-sized outlier poll in order to argue that Obama will pick up congressional districts in Nebraska.

by bschak 2008-03-16 04:49PM | 0 recs
Re: More Numbers Crunched from SUSA State-by-State

A now-worthless snapshot of pre-Wright for Obama. I have seen the scripts for the ads the Repugs are laying out for that, not good.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-03-16 12:54PM | 0 recs
Re: More Numbers Crunched from SUSA State-by-State

Yeah, those Repugs can sell more war, sacrifice, depression, torture, further implementation of their feudal order, you-name-it, on the backs of a few negative ads.  We should all give up and emigrate to Europe.

by Carlo 2008-03-16 01:03PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA State-by-State Polling
The SUSA polls were conducted the last few days of February and since that time, McCain has climbed up to be pretty much even in the head to head polls against Obama and Clinton. But of course things will fluctuate between now and November.
Obama seems to put a lot of new territory into play that was once considered solid red (Nebraska, The Dakotas, Alaska, etc..) whereas Clinton seems to improve the Dems odds in the South while sacrificing the West.  Looking at the crosstabs, I think it is fair to say Obama-McCain put more Dems and Reps into play whereas a McCain-Clinton contest are much more partisan in nature.  In an Obama- McCain matchup, Western Independents cross over to Obama whereas more Southern Democrats cross over to McCain.  Seems consistent with Obama's message to attract Independents.  I'd imagine the crossover Democrats in the south might be white?  Sad there are still people in this country that are influenced by a person's degree of skin pigmentation.
I hope this fight ends soon and we can focus on the John McCain and the GOP.  Much more of this will drive Hillary's negatives into the stratosphere even within her own party, if they're not there already.    
by Rick in Eugene 2008-03-16 01:33PM | 0 recs
Re: More Numbers Crunched from SUSA State-by-State

Exatcly, McCain is getting a free rein and the democrats are tearing themselves apart. We need to take the 'war' to him. The sooner the better.

by IsaacM 2008-03-16 02:05PM | 0 recs
The big picture

Thank you, Jonathan, for bringing an ounce of sanity back to this discussion.

There is every likelihood that the Democratic nominee -- whoever he or she is -- will win in November, despite short-term bickering and infighting.

Let's not forget that.

by JD Lasica 2008-03-16 07:27PM | 0 recs
Re: More Numbers Crunched from SUSA State-by-State

I can't find the poll data...  Did it take Nader into account in the polling questions?

by PatriotActor 2008-03-17 02:33AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads