Pollsters! Emerge From the Shadows

A recent poll by Quinnipac University has Clinton slightly ahead of Obama, in general election matchups with McCain in the big swing states--Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania. Given the last two elections, the basic consensus has been that a democratic candidate cannot win the general election without carrying either Ohio or Florida.
That assumption is--at least with Obama--entirely false. Consider the following: George Bush won the presidential election in 2004 with 286 electoral votes to Kerry's 251. Bush carried Colorado, a state with 9 electoral votes that looks be trending democratic this year, particularly if Obama is the nominee (a recent Rasmussen poll had him beating McCain by 7%, with Clinton losing to McCain by 10%). Lets assume Obama manages to carry all of Kerry's states from 2004. Its not a great assumption, but useful for the purposes of this analysis. A win in Colorado brings Obama's total electoral votes up to 260 and McCain's down to 277.

Lets also assume that Obama wins Iowa's 7 electoral votes. Iowa was one of the only states in 2004 to vote for Bush after having voted for Gore in 2000. Obama has spent lots of time there. The voters know him and like him, as evidenced by his solid margin of victory there January 3rd. There are also a large number of evangelical Christians there (remember Huckabee's blowout) a group that McCain has real problems with. So chalk up a hypothetical victory for Obama in Iowa, bring the electoral totals squeakingly close; 267 for Obama, 270 for McCain. If this is how the electoral map actually looks late into the night on November 2, 2008, heaven help us. McCain would barely win, but all hell would break loose.

But there are other states that look to be trending democratic and this is where the pollsters--shamed by their lack of clairvoyance in New Hampshire and numerous other states following--could really influence Obama's electability argument. How does Obama do head to head against McCain in Virginia? What about Missouri? Any of these would all put Obama over the top.

Right now a presidential race is going on and the voice of pollsters is surprisingly absent. This is at a time when many democratic voters--despite their affiliations with either Obama or Clinton--are trying to decide who is more electable. Lets be clear: national head to head matchups between a democratic and a republican candidate basically mean nothing. Obama's using them to make his electability case, and it may work, but we've learned in 2000 that popular vote does not equal electoral victory (especially when the Supreme Court gets involved). Head to head match-ups in individual states, however, have quite a bit more relevance. For example, what if--god forbid--a poll showed Obama losing a head-to-head matchup with McCain in California? That would be cause for concern. But what if head to head matchups showed Obama beating McCain in a number of typically red southern states due to unprecedented black voter turnout and a lackluster showing for McCain among hard right voters?

I am not a pollster, but right now I kind of wish I was. Because there is a field of un-mined polling territory that is emerging in this election and pollsters are too afraid to touch it.