Gallup Says Hillary Does Better than Obama Against McCain

by Deb Cupples |   Yesterday, Gallup reported:

"In the 20 states where Hillary Clinton has claimed victory in the 2008 Democratic primary and caucus elections (winning the popular vote), she has led John McCain in Gallup Poll Daily trial heats for the general election over the past two weeks of Gallup Poll Daily tracking by 50% to 43%. In those same states, Barack Obama is about tied with McCain among national registered voters, 45% to 46%.

"In contrast, in the 28 states and the District of Columbia where Obama has won a higher share of the popular vote against Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primaries and caucuses, there is essentially no difference in how Obama and Clinton each fare against McCain. Both Democrats are statistically tied with him for the fall election."

In short, Hillary is doing better against McCain in her 20 sates – while not doing worse than Obama in his 28 states. 

Gallup also notes that the 20 states Hillary won would be worth 300 electoral votes in the fall; while, the 28 states Obama won would be worth only 224.

That, alone, isn't a persuasive argument because some of the solid Blue States (like California and Vermont) would likely go for either Hillary or Obama in November. Similarly, Red States (like Texas and Alabama) likely wouldn't go for either Hillary or Obama.

But that's not where the data analysis stopped.  Gallup also compared swing states:

"Clinton's 2008 swing-state victories include Nevada, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Arkansas, and -- based solely on popular vote (not delegates) -- Florida and Michigan (her swing states total 105 electoral votes). Thus far in May, Gallup has found Clinton leading McCain in these states by six percentage points, 49% to 43%.

"McCain holds the slight edge over Obama in these states, 46% to 43%. Thus, as of today, Clinton is clearly the stronger Democratic candidate in this cluster of states where she beat Obama in the popular vote."

Gallup continues:

"Obama's swing-state victories include Colorado, Oregon, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Missouri (totaling 54 electoral votes). Obama leads McCain in these states by eight percentage points, while Clinton falls one point behind McCain -- a pattern similar to that in Clinton's swing states."

Obviously, the pattern is not exactly the same, because Obama is behind McCain by 3 points in Hillary's swing states; while Hillary is behind McCain by only 1 point in Obama's swing states.

The upshot: Obama's swing states would be worth only 54 electoral votes in the fall -- compared to the 105 electoral votes that Hillary's swing states would be worth.

None of this is conclusive proof of anything, but it does suggest that Hillary's argument about doing better than Obama against McCain have merit. 

Kudos to Gallup for recognizing that.

Note that in a different analysis, Gallup removed Florida and Michigan from its equation. I did not remove those states, because the DNC can wish until the cows come home but cannot stop Florida's and Michigan's votes from counting in the November election.

Memeorandum has commentary.

Related Buck Naked Politics Posts:

* Polls: Hillary Better than McCain & Obama in KY, FL, OH, PA

* Joe Klein Defends Obama & Gets it Wrong

* Who Has Harmed the Democratic Party?

Comments

[Deb Cupples]

Adam,

I found this Gallup just after I wrote the last comment to you. I had you in mind when I posted it, though I STILL question polls and predictions.

[Danny]

Obama is afraid -very afraid- he doesn't win this nomination. You can see it all over him like flies on dog piles - the corporate media is also very afraid

I saw this news story - "A train derailed on the Lower South side of Chicago. It was on an elevated track - when the wreck was caused by the main opperator's error. No one was hurt." - and thought it was great analogy for what is happening to Obama's campaign.

I really believe that Hillary will do more for Women and minorities. That she will do more than Obama to lift everyone up to a more equal level when she becomes President. I don't see Obama doing that - I can't even see him winning in November. I see only destruction if he does. But with Hillary I do see the brighter tomorrow. I do see why a woman becoming President will do a lot more for this country and the rest of the World than for another American Male.

[Deb Cupples]

Hi Danny,

Yes, I too think that Obama (and certain of his media supporters) are very afraid. That's why they don't want FL to fully count (though it should).

That's why those media don't squawk about the DNC's failure to punish Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina for having also moved their primary dates up in violation of the rules.

[Danny]

They should apply all the rules consistently. I'm really sick and tired of the rules of convenience. If Hillary doesn't win this nomination, I'm pulling the plug on my cable - I wouldn't be able to bear to watch another minute of the crap the corporations spew on this nation on a daily basis.

[Adam]

Four quick comments:

1) You don't particularly trust pollsters in general, I know, but Gallup has been one of the weaker ones over this cycle.

2) These aggregated numbers over limited sets of states are sort of meaningless. It makes a lot more sense to look at state-by-state polls since the key number is 50%+1 in any given state.

3) Those two caveats aside, there's nothing fundamentally surprising here. We know that over the last two weeks, Obama's supporters have started saying they would vote for Clinton in a hypothetical general election in greater numbers. There's nothing here that can't be seen in the state-by-state maps.

4) I disagree with the approach they use to define swing states. Not only is the approach sort of weak, but then they arbitrarily add two and only two states - Missouri and Arkansas. It's increasingly clear that Virginia is in play for Obama, West Virginia is in play for Clinton, and Indiana may be in play for either.

[Deb Cupples]

Adam,

I suspect that either of us could competently find flaws in any of the polling outfits' methods or assumptions (if they clearly described them).

That's why I don't put enough stock in polls to actually bet money on them (not that I'm a gambler, I'm not).

But it is fun to look at them, no?

[Adam]

Although I'm not a fan of Gallup in general, my criticism is not really about their methods or their accuracy. It's their presentation of data. They've spent a lot of time grouping and displaying data in ways that just obscures their meaning. It's arbitrary and unscientific.

I would MUCH, MUCH prefer if they just released their state-by-state polling results, preferrably with sample sizes as well. That would be vastly more useful. And more fun, too. ;)

I'm a bit of a gambler, but I only bet when I think the odds are stacked in my favor. You won't catch me playing roulette.

[Deb Cupples]

Adam,

The grouping of data has something to do with the analysis in this case.

Frankly, I've seen a lot of "unscientific" polling results. I don't even think of polling as truly scientific, because so many assumptions go into the results.

My big thing has been that the calculation of a z-score and margin of error rests on the assumption that the central limit theorem is valid where voter opinions are concerned.

I just never did buy it, because we're not talking about throughly mixed, colored gum balls in a jar.

[Adam]

Agreed that m.o.e. calculations are inherently unreliable from pollsters. They would only be correct if the sampling of voters was from a pool that matched the actual voters perfectly, AND if everyone was perfectly honest. Neither of these things are the case. As such, m.o.e. in a poll should always be read as "best-case error window".

That said, some pollsters are better than others at their sampling and polling techniques, so they get closer to that ideal.

I would much rather just get the state-by-state results. The "analysis" here is pretty weak - it makes a lot of arbitrary choices and groups things in a way that denies the reader the important information; i.e. who is ahead in which states.

[Deb Cupples]

Maybe so. I know I don't blindly accept any polls -- even the ons you cite.

[Adam]

Just FYI, the guy who does fivethirtyeight.com has unmasked himself, and is now getting some MSM attention:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/06012008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/margins_of_error_113360.htm?page=0

It's a nice piece about the odd world of polling.