There's another math you need to pay attention to:

26 million votes already cast. Beats the 1200+ sample used by SUSA, don't you think?

and all of the supers, too.

Huh, funny how when the same poll a few weeks ago had Obama way ahead of Clinton versus McCain none of you were making this kind of noise.

Your post is meaningless.

Clinton would definetly carry Flordia.  There are other states she may not.  Unlike Kerry and Gore, the demographics really support her in Flordia, and the Democrats in that state do as well.

When Florida voted, if I am not mistaken, Hillary got more votes without campaigning than all of the Republicans got put together.  I think there is no doubt that Hillary will win Florida in the general election.

If the primary fiasco isn't fixed you can bet Florida will be in the McCain column.

"There are no Red States, There are no Blue States"

Well that's what Barack Obama once told me.

Obama will lose NJ,MA,CT & PA.

It won't even be close!

You are so out of touch with reality.

My folks still live in NJ. My spouse is from MA.

NJ,MA,PA are three of the eight largest population states  with white reagan democratic voters.

You mean you HOPE he is fully vetted. I'm sure you thought that before the Rev. Wright tapes came out. Hannity is already bragging about all the other things he hasn't brought out yet about him. Could be smoke. But you don't know.

"He (Obama) is fully vetted now(?)"  He's fully vetted....my ass.  

Now that Obama has gotten a smidgen of the abuse to which Hillary has constantly been exposed, from all directions, in all shapes and forms, in media, you want the nominating process to stop, because you fear, if a little more of the downside of Obama's past and present, are known, he's history.  Richardson, that pathetic goof, a man with 10 times as much ambition, as he has intelligence, just came out and said the same garbage.  To paraphrase, he said, "It's time for us to stop bickering, and get behind our nominee; we shouldn't allow this Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton stuff to go on."  To see a Governor use such pitful bullshit to advace his case, is disgusting, when all he was really saying was, that now that he had endorsed that candidate that he calculated had the best chance of making him VP, he wanted everyone to shut up now, and go home.

Let's not forget OH.

Oh and Florida, my mistake.

Pelosi is crying right now for speaking out too soon for Obama. Someone might have called her white grandmother:-)

AND - MN went for Obama 67-32 over Clinton, has the endorsement of 5 of 6 democratic representatives, but she's going to win the state over McCain and he's going to lose. Please.

Obama puts TX in play. Not enough that he'll carry it, most likely, but enough that McCain is actually going to have to work here, campaigning, spending money and time.

McCain will probably win but I doubt my more than a few points.

Over my Lutheran dead body?  I love that comment, dont be surprised if you see it again ... plagiarized by me.  =)  

Red = Democrat
Blue = Republican

This is the way they do it on the Leip atlas site.

takes some getting used to. Amazing how the typical red/blue is drilled into our brains.

Actually, it's not very good info.

When I went to the Survey USA data I didn't see all these contests, some of these estimates must be old or they're from somewhere unspecified.  Also, many of these states are called even if the data shows a single point spread (well within the margin of error.)

If you care about meaningful information this diary is not useful because it is manipulated information.  If you care manipulation, then I can see why you would think this is an excellent diary.  Whatever floats your boat, I guess.

AL, CA, IA, KS, KY, MA, MN, MO, NM, NY, OH, OR, VA, WA, WI were polled March 14-16.

This map hasn't been reported because it is an exercise in manipulation rather than information.

A substantial number of these called states are within the margin of error, some with only a one point spread.  This means that these results   indicate the state is just as likely to go to the candidate who is polling slightly lower.

Also, I went to the SurveyUSA website, and I don't see very many of the fifty states with recent data.   The diarist doesn't specify the times, spreads, and margins for most of these polls. So, it is silly to suggest this diarist is providing scientifically meaningful survey data.

You are crazy if you think Hillary will end the war in Iraq.  She is playing you guys for suckers.  

Agreed - NJ going to McCain?  C'mon - I have a bridge I want to sell SOMEONE on this string.   I need the money.  
This is what happens when the DEM primary gets ugly.  From Ras. Reports today ...
On Thursday, Barack Obama's favorable ratings are unchanged for the third straight day--48% favorable, 49% unfavorable.
McCain is viewed favorably by 53% of voters nationwide and unfavorably by 43%.
For Clinton, those numbers are 43% favorable, 55% unfavorable.

55% unfavorable for Hillary?   I hate polls, completely useless ... 8 months before a GE.  But 55%  AINT going to convince the SD's she will help down-ticket ...  I think the Electoral Map exercise is a bit premature ...

Good points all around, Johnny Gunn. A couple of amendments and quibbles:

1a.) Obama tying in MA is based on SUSA's 3/15 poll, which is an outlier. He was up by 7% in the 2/27 poll, and the 3/18 poll by Rasmussen also shows him up by 7%. In 2004, MA provided far and away the largest margin of victory for Kerry of any state: 25 points. And just to show it wasn't the "favorite son" effect, Gore won it by 27 points in 2000. Calling the state for McCain on the basis of one bad poll is silly.

1b.) Don't write off Virginia. With a Democratic governor, a Democratic state senate, and one Democratic U.S. senator (the other is an anti-war Republican) -- the Commonwealth is trending blue. SUSA's 3/15 poll has Obama up by one, with the previous polls showing a tie and up by six. Clinton's tie on 3/15 is her best showing for VA; previously, she lost by 10 and 3.

2.) Don't take Michigan for granted. At 3.5%, it was one of the closest states in 2004: Closer than CO or FL. The last SUSA results I could find (2/27) have Obama up by 1, but Clinton tied. The latest Rasmussen (3/10) has McCain up by 3 on both of them. At 17 EVs, this is a prize, and McCain will be visiting a lot.

3a.) Minnesota is another one of those states that has been "blue" for so long, it's easy to forget how narrow the margins have been. That said, the story here is much like MA -- assuming that one bad poll result will hold. Unlike MA, there are not any newer polls (that I know of) to compare the 3/15 numbers.

3b.)The optimistic results in ND and NE, by comparison, can be explained by the fact that the last SUSA poll was 2/27. Had those states been polled on Obama's worst polling day, the numbers would likely have shown the same pressure as elsewhere.

4a.) New Hampshire is the birthplace (in 2000) and re-birthplace (2008) of McCain's candidacy. It is trending Dem, but McCain is unusually popular there and knows the state very well. Rasmussen's 3/16 poll has both Dems losing, with Obama down 3 and Clinton down 6.

4b.) The NJ numbers are old (2/27) and at variance with other polls that show both Dems with secure leads. I agree that NJ is not a soft target for McCain.

Overall: These maps are a combination of old numbers and poll results from a single day, which happened to be Obama's worst. Good for cheerleading, but totally unserious as a predictor.

If you question, as I do, the award of MA, MN, and NJ to McCain over Obama, that's an exchange of 37 electoral votes -- bigger than TX -- and pushes Obama well over the margin of victory.

On the other hand, the award of FL to Clinton is based on a 2/27 poll which is the only recent(?) poll that awards the state to either Democrat. Rasmussen's 3/12 poll has Obama down by 4 and Clinton down by 7.

Quite a few of the states reflect an isolated best showing for Clinton. She has consistently lagged in OR, and the 3/15 poll is the first one that has her winning that state. It was also deceptively close in 2004, and will be targeted by the Republicans. Her numbers in WI are also soft, and as noted above, both candidates have a fight on their hands in MI.

Its also going to be hard to convince the superdelegates that it is OK to nominate a candidate that will likely cost Mark Udall the senate seat in Colorado as well as several red state Congresspeople their seats.

I don't necessarily mistrust them, but would point out that several states are based on slimmest of margins, e.g. Minnesota has McCain leading Obama by 1%, while Clinton is leading McCain by 2%.  This in context of Wright fallout, and - what I think is most significant - with McCain as as a kind of idealized Republican nominee rather than a flesh and blood candidate who will have to defend not only the Iraq war but also Bush trade and fiscal policies.  Interesting for speculation and making maps, but not necessarily a good predictor of results on 4 November.  

Also, and I know the HRC folks will scream here, Survey USA is a very good firm, nailing CA and OH results for example, but on average has demonstrated slight underestimation of Obama  final vote and very slight overestimation Clinton for same.  Look at Realclearpoliticscom for comparisons, e.g. final Survey USA Missouri Poll had Clinton 54, Obama 43, with final result Clinton 48, Obama 49, and in Alabama final poll had Obama 49, Clinton 47 with final result Obama 56 and Clinton 42.  When averaged out Obama is understimated by about 3 or 4 percent and Clinton overestimated by about 1 percent or 1.5 percent.  That's a very good record, particularly given the impact of undecided split on final result, and additional wildcard of McCain, but should give pause to those who use this as definitive indication of final electoral results.  

Things look a lot different from here on Planet Obama.

On Planet Obama, there's a consensus that Bill and Hillary Clinton were thoroughly vilified by right wing operatives over 20 years. It's unfair that so many people have already made up their minds about the Clintons. But we can't risk the future of the Democratic Party on the chance that we can undo distrust reinforced over decades in the course of a single election year.

On Planet Obama, we're frustrated that Florida and Michigan could not come to an agreement with the DNC before the voting began. We think that our friends from Planet Edwards got a raw deal on that.

On Planet Obama, we don't confuse performance in a state's primary election with performance in the general election. We commend Senator Clinton for her primary victories in Massachusetts, New York and California, but we know those aren't going to be the battleground states.

On Planet Obama, we've got real concerns about Ohio and Pennsylvania. Polls show John McCain running an extremely competitive race against both Democratic candidates in those critical states. And so it is that we're especially proud of our candidate for running a positive campaign in those states, and thereby avoiding giving McCain ammunition for November.

On Planet Obama, we're proud that our candidate understands the complexity of the racial divisions that make our country weaker, and has a vision for healing these divisions. We understand that listening to people with grievances, is not the same as taking up their grievances. We understand that ostracizing such people does not bring us together and does not make our country stronger.

On Planet Obama, we look forward to the end of the primary contest so that we can start working with the inhabitants of Planet Clinton to further our common interests: peace, prosperity and a strong Democratic party.

Why don't you come visit us sometime. You might find it a lot more like home than you would have imagined.

Off topic.