JUSIPER

 
The revenge of the Appalachians

Posted by Sini

Obama and Clinton perform more or less equally against McCain in general election polls. Why, then, does our mid-March estimate show Hillary Clinton so far behind Obama when it comes to the electoral map?

Longtime readers of this blog will recognize two of our ongoing theses. First, we point out repeatedly, it's because Clinton outperforms Obama among white voters in states that McCain will win. Obama, meanwhile, makes up for this disadvantage by polling well in states Democrats need to hold. Second, this election will be won in the Midwest and Mountain West, where Clinton, for some reason, is an electoral nonstarter.

This weekend brings us fresh evidence to support both claims. Rasmussen has released new date for Iowa:

Clinton 36 McCain 51
Obama 46 McCain 42

McCain leads Clinton by a two-to-one margin among unaffiliated voters. However, Obama leads McCain 46% to 37% among those same voters.

Another Rasmussen poll comes from Tennessee:


Clinton 38 McCain 52
Obama 31 McCain 58

So in Iowa, Obama outperforms Clinton by 19 points versus McCain. In Tennessee, on the other hand, Clinton outperforms Obama by 13. The difference? Obama wins Iowa. Clinton loses both states.

Watch the pattern. Clinton's relative advantage to Obama below the Mason-Dixon line is irrelevant, because it now appears that she can't even hold Arkansas and Tennessee against McCain--leaving West Virginia's paltry five electoral votes as the only ones she can win that Obama definitively can't. And that too only because the general election hasn't been polled there since Survey USA weeks ago.

12:32 AM |