The horse race numbers are interesting and probably reflect some independent and moderate dem crossover, but they are meaningless. The big (and very interesting) question is how they match up state by state. That is, how does Hillary match up vs McCain in Ohio, PA, Florida, NM, MO... As in most of the recent presidential elections, this one will come down to those and a few other important swing states. So how do they stack up vs. McCain in the swing states?

Where is today's coverage? Is the media finished with this contest?

Eweiss is right.  National polling data is not nearly as important as swing state polling data.  We need head-to-head numbers from FL, OH, MI, PA, AZ, CO, NM.  That information would be valuable to all Democratic voters, even in non-swing states, because it would give them valuable electability info.

As I wrote on another thread, I feel that 20 years of Bushes and Clintons are enough, and I suspect that there are many other voters who feel the same way.

Has there ever been a blog post here at TNR about Hillary's consistent lead in the national polls? If you look at RealClearPolitics graph of the Hillary vs. Obama national polls you will oberve something very striking--the lines never cross: Hillary has always been ahead of Obama, throughout everything that has gone on in this campaign. Never once dipped below. This is a major trend in this election and a noteworthy story. You think it might mean something about support for Hillary in this election? It elicits no comment here. Instead, we are once again treated to a tendentious reading of the available data to torture out an arguable advantage for Obama. Nice work, TNR. You've done it again.

Let me give you a head's up on a post you haven't written yet. During this next two week period, as the caucuses and demographics favor Obama, there is a good chance that Obama may for the first time beat Hillary in the national poll averages, and the graph lines at RealClearPolitics will cross. Hillary will probably again move into the lead when the primaries move to elections rather than caucuses and to larger, more diverse states. But here's your head's up: During the next two weeks you should get a chance to post something about how Obama is surging in a way that is different from all of his other surges, and that he has now passed Hillary for the first time in the national poll averages, and that this is an ENORMOUSLY meaningful moment. You can do this without ever having commented on Hillary's long-standing domination in the national polls. You may have to be quick, because an Obama lead, if it occurs, may not last.

But I'm sure you're up to it.

"larger, more diverse states"

So....Virginia isn't diverse? Maryland isn't diverse?? Hawaii isn't diverse???

not even close to the way that California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania are diverse. Leave aside New York and Illinois as home state advantages. This is really an obvious and uncontroversial point.

MO isn't diverse?

The "obvious" point, pcostello, is that Clinton's national poll lead is reflecting name recognition among voters where the candidates have not yet actually campaigned.  So, with over the half the states having already voted, is it your position that it's just a crazy coincidence that Obama has actually received more votes than Clinton?  How do you explain the disappearance of Clinton's huge lead among people who have actually voted?  Is it a good sign that the more the voters learn about the candidates, and the closer election day comes, the more Clinton's lead disappears?  Or is it that those 29 states just happen to be the "non-diverse" ones that we shouldn't pay attention to?

eweiss and glacialspeed -

You can find many such match-up polls on state level on the sites of:

* Survey USA - www.surveyusa.com/electionpolls.aspx

* Rasmussen - www.rasmussenreports.com/.../most_recent_articles

* Quinnipiac - www.quinnipiac.edu/x271.xml

Thanks for the links, jobeek2!

pcostello:  Even if TNR is biased toward Obama as you allege, what's the problem?  TNR is an opinion magazine, not a newspaper.  If you don't agree with them, tell 'em they're wrong.  But I don't think TNR is under any obligation to be objective.  

thanks jobeek. that's a ton of data. i skimmed through the surveryusa polls and while they are now a month or more old, most seem to show McCain beating both HRC and Obama by sizable margins in the swing states. appreciate it. I generally place little stock in electability given the difficulty of actually determining it. that said, if we are talking about electability, seems like the state by state polls have a lot more value than the nationals.

That's nice, pccostello, that Hillary remains ahead in the national polling among Democrats. But what does that tell you about her prospects to win a national contest? I'll tell you what it means: zilch. By this point in 2004 John Kerry was polling better than any other Democrat, and look where that got him. (And that was against a deeply unpopular president, not a war hero who is generally liked by the press.) I frankly don't care one bit that Hillary has retained her edge among regular Democrats, because these are people are useless at picking a winning candidate.

That's an interesting strategy, to suggest that only the states Hillary has won or might yet win are diverse. Aside from not being true, it also glosses over the degree to which Hillary's victories are based on maximizing majorities among white voters, particularly white women, while Obama's victories are based on assembling coalitions that cross racial and ethnic lines. But, no, the rich celebrity white lady is the diversity candidate!

Anyway, the national McCain versus Dem polling isn't particularly revealing right now, and wouldn't make up my mind if I were I superdelegate on the fence. I'd be looking for state-by-state breakdowns to see what states Hillary and Obama are more likely to win versus McCain. Hillary might make a better race of it in Iowa, but turning Iowa doesn't win the election for Democrats. Obama stands a better chance of turning Missouri, Tennessee, Virginia, Nevada, New Mexico, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Kansas. The wild cards are Ohio, West Virginia, Colorado and Florida. But as things stand right now, Hillary can run a perfect campaign and still fall short in the electoral college, whereas the Electoral College is a target-rich-environment for Obama.

So right now, Hillary is in a good position to win 258 electoral votes, 12 shy of victory. Obama is in good position to win 310 electoral votes, 40 more than required for victory.

That math, not the national popular-vote polling, is what would persuade me one way or the other.

hi Chris.

Thanks for your comment. I don't quite accept the name recognition argument, as you might suspect. Let me argue two reasons why: While name recognition was important before other candidates were really identifiable to most voters (this was the period when Giuliani was up, and before his visits to his mistress were paraded), we are long since past that point now, and we have been since Iowa and New Hampshire. This is a long, long campaign with a huge number of debates. The political news is avidly followed. Voter turnouts have been in record numbers, reflecting intensity and widespead interest. People know who these candidates are. This is especially true among primary voters. I don't think name reognition is a factor under these conditions. Secondly, "name recognition," at this late point in the campaign, is really a perjorative way of describing one candidate's greater experience and longer record.; to call a track record simply "name recognition" is in itself, I would argue, a form of spin. Hillary is better known in the sense that more is known about her record. Part of Obama's weakness, in my view, is that so little is really known about him. He's a projective screen. I don't think we get good presidnets out of candidates who are projective screens. Jimmy Carter and George Bush come to mind. The NYTimes called Obama "undefined." This is not a matter of his campaigning more; it is a matter of his becoming more known by doing and accomplishing more that will then define him more fully. I think he should run for president in 2016, when he will be younger than John Edwards is now. Let him build a record for eight years, before he wants to become our president.

One other thing--can't resist, forgive my self-indulgence--just tonight saw "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly." While the movie completely caught me up and fascinated me, it seemed like the film--and the "locked in " syndrome itself--were perfect expressions of a man whose life was only about what other people could do for him. A viewer could see that, but I thought the film didn't intend to play it that way and romanticized him. Anyway, a fascinating movie to watch.

Obama's strengths aren't hidden.

The Cintons have a difficult problem. Insiders don't like them because they know them well. Outsiders held one view of them, and now it has changed, because the Clintons have changed. They acted one way when they walked with an air of inevitability, pre-Iowa, but when in a competitive race, post-Iowa, they look ugly.

Look at Huckabee this morning. He's in a very tough spot, but he's funny, strong, gracious, and is respectful of McCain.

I think any objective observer would say the Clintons, when cornered, are a turn-off.

Now that's changing. The Clintons have figured out they have to show a kinder, gentler face. Not faces, Wild Bill is gone, Annie Oakley is being defended by her mom, Hillary's crying again, and she's trying to get debates with her new buddy Barack so she can be flirty/friendly with him.

But that's an act. The real Clintons were in South Carolina.

What seems to being ignored is that Mrs. Clinton's core constituency are the former "Reagan Democrats"... they are the very electorate most likely to abandon the lady for the guy who comes across as his own man and a genuine war hero that can't be swiftboated... the question becomes who can turn on voters who are less likely to be swayed by that?  Surely not the less educated, white, female vote who will find McCain at least as "reassuring" as they do Mrs. Clinton.

Looking at the electoral map, I guess you could tell any number of stories at this point, some favoring Obama in the general, others Hillary.

On Obama's side, you have his appeal to independents (a group that will also like McCain), the inability to beat McCain on experience or readiness (Hillary's arguments in the primaries), the possibility of blacks and other groups enthusiastic about Obama not turning out (especially if Hilliary "steals" the election with superdelegates and/or Florida or Michigan), Obama's appeal increasing with familiarity, his relative flip-flop charge immunity on things like the war, his relative integrity (another McCain plus), Obama's possible ability to present a sharper policy contrast with McCain, his youthful "vigah" v. and old and grumpy McCain, irrational (and sometimes rational) dislike of Hillary as calculating and conniving and her resulting ceiling and unified GOP, Obama's inspirational appeal and grassroots "movement," the tentative sense that Obama could put some unlikely electoral votes in play, the "co-presidency" problem, whatever sexism may be out there, and polls showing Obama outperforming Hillary v. McCain if they stay that way.

(A couple of things to note about the polls, it seems to me:  If the margin is big, it means something.  It's highly unlikely that the electoral vote winner will lose the popular vote by a wide margin.  If the margin is close, it means nothing.  Also, we're far away.  But, my sense is that Obama's appeal grows with familiarity in a way that Hillary's does not.  I also have just a gut feeling that McCain's high numbers now are largely due to a "maverick" independent image that will be hit hard in the general election.  Positive views of McCain among independents can only go down, I think, and they will.)

On Hillary's side, she outperforms Obama in the primaries among Hispanics and working-class voters, she may be able to reach a threshhold on experience and commander-in-chief material that would neutralize those issues vs. McCain in a way that Obama might have trouble doing, racial prejudice that may hurt Obama among those same Hispanic and working-class voters, her negatives are known and so she's less susceptible to a surprise swift-boating (I don't buy this -- not all negatives may be known, and old ones can be made new again), and the sense that she would fight tooth and nail in a way that perhaps Obama would not (don't really buy that either -- she's a tough campaigner, yes, but, as we've seen, harsh attacks can backfire, so excelling at those kinds of games is not necessarily a plus, especially when she is disliked in part, fairly or not, for the sense that she'll do anything in the service of her ambition).

I personally would like to see Obama win Ohio (though I'm not sure it's necerssary).  I don't think it's fair to view working-class voters as incapable of being brought along by Obama in the general because those voters tend to prefer Hillary in the primary.  My bet is that he can bring along those voters vs. McCain.  Still, I bet many a superdelegate would want more comfort on that point.  A win in Ohio would go a long way toward making that case.

p.s.  Another plus for Obama, in my book, is his no-mandates health care reform proposal which looks smarter and smarter to me every minute.

He does have mandates for children, jhildner. Which I can't argue with, although I like not having them for adults.

psantillana:  So he does.  I had the adults in mind.  I'm not entirely convinced by the policy argument in favor of mandates (bringing costs down) when you have automatic enrollment through employment -- something that 15 million number does not take into account.  There seems to be a lively policy debate with many experts concluding that adult mandate vs. no adult mandate is not the cental issue it is sometimes portrayed as.  I'm not an expert.  One thing I do know, though, is that major health care reform will be difficult to pass, and more difficult if folks can be frightened by it and not unified behind it, and far more likely to be frightening with adult mandates.  I think a no-adult-mandate approach for now is the more appealing alternative in the general election and after.  If Obama gets elected and gets this done, we may yet look back and view his approach to the mandate issue as a key strategic decision (and a somewhat unexpected one at the time) that allowed it to happen.

I disagree with the idea that Obama's no-mandates health plan can be a plus for him. He keeps repeating that the reason why people don't have health insurance is because they can't aford it, when in fact about half of the uninsured are young adults whose household income is over $75,000. There's clearly a problem of adverse selection in the health insurance market in this country, which is part of the reason why the premiums are so high and why a mandate would go a long way in keeping insurance costs from going up so fast, and I don't have the slightest piece of evidence that Obama even understands this, let alone have an explanation for why he doesn't think a mandate will alleviate the adverse selection --or why it will for children, and not for adults. It just doesn't make sense, but it doesn't seem to worry anybody. Most of the support for Obama seems to be the result of an emotional response (on the part of young people, especially) to the form of his message and not a reflection on the substance of his politics, which to me just boggles the mind. So, however problematic his health care proposal might be, people only seem to want him to give even more of those grandiloquent but ultimately vacuous musical speeches of his. Oh well.