Get yer polls, bets, numbers & pretty graphs! Elections 2008

Ed Rendell, it turns out, was polled by Quinnipiac. The governor said he was at home last weekend when the Quinnipiac pollster called him. One of the questions was whether Rendell's endorsement impacted his vote. "I said 'absolutely.'"

*** Here we go again: A new Quinnipiac University poll has Clinton leading Obama by just six points in Pennsylvania, 50%-44%, down from the nine-point lead she held last week in the same poll, 50%-41%. Exactly two weeks until the primary there, it seems a lot like we saw in the lead up to Ohio: Obama is gaining ground on Clinton almost every day (while racking a superdelegate per day, too). And not only are polls closing, but Obama's financial advantage on the ground is growing, with SEIU dumping nearly a million dollars. Deja Ohio? Yet as we've asked before: Will the result be different this time? Will Obama keep the race as close as some of the polls are beginning to suggest? The answer could very influence whether the Dem race lasts through June (and beyond) or if thing might be over in May.

CHART OF THE DAY: SUPERDELEGATES

No one denies that Hillary Clinton's hopes for the nomination now rely on mass movement of superdelegates into her camp. It's a thin reed, but her supporters have held it close. The graph below tracks the movement of superdelegates since February 5th -- which means, it tracks the movement of superdelegates through Cinton's win in Ohio, through the revelations about Jeremiah Wright, through Clinton's victory in big states like California and New York. But even with all of that, the direction of superdelegate momentum is startlingly clear:





Since February 5th, Barack Obama has gained 69 superdelegates, while Clinton has lost two. And that's continued throughout some big losses and big hits for Obama. Which means it's not only that the math looks increasingly hard for Clinton. It's that the conceivable events that could reverse Obama's momentum aren't substantially impacting elites -- his lead has cemented enough that elite movement has overwhelmingly favored his campaign. Obama could, of course, be caught in bed with a live Arab or a dead Weatherman, but barring that sort of total implosion, it's very, very hard to figure out what could save Clinton's chances.

Posted by Ezra Klein on April 7, 2008

Testing Clinton's Argument: Does Winning a State's Primary Translate to Winning the State in the General Election?

Monday, March 24, 2008

Earlier, I jokingly posted a map that was meant to make the point that there is little support for the notion that winning a state's primary/caucus has anything to do with what will happen in the general election. To put a finer point on the question, I went back and looked at the last three contested Democratic nomination campaigns (2004, 2000, and 1992). In each case, I looked at every state that was contested before the eventual nominee had effectively won the nomination (it doesn't tell us much if a candidate wins a state once his opponents have exited the race). I'll address two big questions with this data:

1) Does losing a state's primary mean that a candidate will lose the state in the general election?

The eventual Democratic nominee lost 12 states in these three campaigns: Clinton lost 9 states, Gore did not lose any states, and Kerry lost 3. Of these 12 states that the eventual nominee lost during the nomination campaign, he lost just three of those in the general election. Kerry lost Oklahoma and South Carolina in 2004 and Clinton lost South Dakota in 1992. That means that since 1992, a Democratic nominee has won 75% of the states that he lost during the nomination campaign.

2) Does winning a state's primary mean that a candidate will win that state in the general election?

Since 1992, the eventual Democratic nominee has won 50 states while the race for the nomination was still being contested. The Democratic nominee went on to lose 19 of those 50 states (38%) in the general election. Kerry lost 8 states he carried during the primaries (IA, AZ, MO, TN, VA, UT, GA, OH), Gore lost 4 (NH, GA, MO, OH), and Clinton lost 7 (ID, SC, FL, MS, OK, TX, KS).

Kerry and Gore's campaigns are particularly instructive. In 2000, NH, GA, MO, and OH could all be considered potential "swing states." Gore lost each of these states in the general election despite winning their primaries. In 2004, IA, AZ, MO, TN, VA, and OH could all have been considered potential "swing states." Kerry lost each of these despite winning their primaries.

The bottom line is that there is little support for a claim made by either candidate (Obama or Clinton) that winning a state's primary is closely related to the candidate's chances in that state during the general election. In fact, the Democratic nominees since 1992 have fared better in states that they lost during the nomination campaign (winning 75% of those states in the general election) than they have in states that they won (winning 62% of those states).

Oh, it was shorter than I expected... I thought it'd be EVERYBODY!

Polls: Clinton's lead down to 4 points in Pennsylvania

I remember seeing over and over again that a lot of Hillary's support amongst the PA-type demographics is that her husband is Bill. Better times, experience, he'll be right there advising her, etc. I wonder, in that context, how his (and Penn's) support for the trade agreement with Colombia will play in PA -- even though Hillary is against it.

"I think we've made a lot of progress with regards to working families and workers generally," Casey said. "I think that's reflected in some of the endorsements he's received from labor organizations like SEIU is a tremendous boost for his campaign. It represents a broad cross section of workers. The Teamsters are another example of a Union that's very concerned about trade."

By why is Clinton so far ahead with those voters, according to polls?

"I do think that time and history play a very big role," Casey said. "I'm speaking to you as someone who has benefited tremendously from the fact that a member of my family ran for office ahead of me. There's no question that I've benefited from that during the time that I've been in public office for more than a decade now and I think that Clinton has benefited greatly from President Clinton's years in government. For example, in Pennsylvania, they've been campaigning here for 15 years. A four-week or an eight-week or a 20-week campaign by Sen. Obama can't overcome that."

Most Important Problem, 2005-2008





The Iraq war and the economy have consistently been the top two "most important problems" facing the nation during President Bush's second term. But the dynamics have changed dramatically over the past seven months.

After near parity in 2005, the war dominated throughout 2006 as far more important that the economy, and with rising numbers of people citing the war as most important. That peaked in early 2007 with concern over the war gradually diminishing through most of the rest of the year.

And then the economy struck. As recently as August 2007 only 8% said the economy was the most important problem. By early September that jumped to 13%, then to 23% in January and now 37% in early April. By contrast the war fell from 34% to 15% over that same time.

It will be ironic if the fall campaigns largely ignore the war to focus on an economy that 12 months earlier had looked fairly good.

-- Charles Franklin