Chris Bowers Poll Analysis: Kidding Himself And You

Chris Bowers has a post up that combines several polls and professes to point the way to what would be a Clinton Electoral College (EC) rout over Giuliani. He includes Romney in another analysis, but I'll focus on Clinton - Giuliani to dispatch this latest bit of cheer leading from the Left. It doesn't really add up. Actually, there are a few rather ominous signs in all this for the Dems.

Bowers suggests a 335-203 Electoral rout for Hillary. But, I've added the EC numbers for what are actually toss up states, most of which Bowers gives to Hillary:

States within three points: Florida 27, Missouri 11, New Jersey 15, Ohio 7, Oregon 7, Pennsylvania 21, Wisconsin 10, Virginia 13

There isn't a serious political poll with a margin of error (MOE) under 3 percent and the vast majority of Bower's toss-up states he gives to a politician, Hillary Clinton, with more visibility and name recognition over Rudy and Romney that spans decades. Putting toss-ups where they belong gives us this below as regards the Electoral College:

Hillary: 245 - Rudy: 198 w 101 toss-ups / within the MOE. Hillary is far from a winner, even given the shaky methodology Bowers employs.

But look at what else we find. Where has this new liberal Democrat so-called Progressive Party had the most visibility? Connecticut, thanks to Lamont Lieberman. And what of Connecticut?

New Republican States: Connecticut

Ouch!

Add to that New Jersey, Ohio - given the Republican's current terrible reputation there due to state level scandals, Oregon and Wisconsin - all strong Dem states being in the toss up category and something isn't clicking on all cylinders when it comes to this new Democrat machine.

And as for the Dem adds - good luck with Iowa and I wouldn't be too quick to call them adds given that the bulk of them are actually toss ups, unless you're trying to paint a picture that has yet to materialize in real life.

New Democratic States: Arkansas, Iowa, Florida, Kentucky, New Mexico, Ohio, Virginia.

Comments

[upyernoz]

um, NJ has long been one of the bluest states in the union. it has nothing to do with republican scandals (the dems in the state are scandal ridden too), but rather with the fact that NJ is a liberal state. it has been for quite some time.

and your criticism of bower's post doesn't undermine his basic point: that clinton is widely perceived as the weakest of the front-runner dem. nominees.

the data he posted, the weakest front-running dem vs. the strongest two repubs is the worst case scenario for the dems. and all you can come up with noting the MOE and saying that clinton, while still ahead of giuliani, doesn't necessarily win? not exactly a rousing defense of the republican position. even reading your post my impression is that you recognize that the republicans are extremely weak going into the next presidential race.

[Dan Riehl]

"um, NJ has long been one of the bluest states in the union"

um, thanks for adding emphasis to my point, doh! If its' so "blue," why is it a toss up?

Thanks for playing.

[Phoenix]

Virginia?! Blue? It's got to be that goddamn slogan: Virginia is for lovers. I knew it would turn us all into pussies.

[nowingker]

New Jersey will never go Republican in this election. NEVER.

[Chris]

"New Democratic States: Arkansas, Iowa, Florida, Kentucky, New Mexico, Ohio, Virginia."

The only possibility for the Dems (Hillary! specifically) winning Virginia would be with Warner as Veep nominee. Otherwise, forget about it. NM, sure. The rest--doubtful in a Rudy-Hillary matchup. And NJ is definitely in play for Rep's if Rudy's on the ticket.

[LOL]

I'm from Ohio and have done political organizing since 2004.

Republicans will not win that state in 2008 under any matchup.

[bloodrage bob]

but why would anyone with any sense at all listen to *you*, LOLly? hell, you're the guy who spouted off how wonderful liberal/democrat/blue states were in another post, and then ran away like a little bitch when asked an easy slow-pitch question about liberal democrat-controlled blue state big city crime rates.

saaaaay, isn't cleveland OHIO afflicted with some of the worst poverty & crime & laughably inept schools in the country?? isn't cleveland OHIO now and has always been a democrat machine controlled city? wasn't famed compassionate moonbat dennis kucinich the *mayor* of nightmare shithole cleveland OHIO, once upon a time? what's the main cleveland OHIO school district HS grad rate these days? 10%? 20%?

perhaps y'all just need to raise taxes some more. yeah, that's the ticket! maybe *that'll* finally solve all OHIO's problems.

[TheSpartan]

Republican control of Ohio has worked out very well...*cough* Blackwell *cough*...

[joated]

"Add to that New Jersey, Ohio - given the Republican's current terrible reputation there due to state level scandals, Oregon and Wisconsin - all strong Dem states being in the toss up category and something isn't clicking on all cylinders when it comes to this new Democrat machine."

don't you have the parties reversed in the above quote? In New Jersey, it's scandal after scandal for the Dems. Add Booker's ignorance about the gang (MS-13) relationship to the Newark murders, Corzine's strong arming of the game commission to prevent any future bear hunts--as bear/human encountres become both more numerous and serious, Corzines tax plans that seem to send all types of businesses looking elsewhere (forget those union jobs, folks), the NJ AG finally "getting it" visa-vis "illegal" aliens and reversing a policy that had NJ acting as a sanctuary state to the anger of the small towns administrations who were held hostage.... The hits just keep on coming. NJ voters may finally be awakinging from their stupor. The Dems keep on the current trail and they just might be able to get elected dog catcher but not much else.

[Chiefy]

I'm not sure what all those numbers mean, I might be taking this out of context. But for the record, Ohio has 20 electoral votes, not 7.

I live in Ohio, and I don't see state going huge for Hillary regardless of what the Republicans have done in this state. She has a 50% unfavorable rate, I can't see her ever taking this state. I guess we'll find out in Nov 08.

[seekeronos]

And all this is not counting if Fred! finally gets into the ring.

If I were a wagering man, I'd bet on Fred! wiping the floor clean in some of those toss-up states with Hitlary.

[chris]

The thought of the "Urban Legend" and his wives/cousins becoming president is laughable. That stuttering fool will make Bob Dole look good.

[Fred Beloit]

Here is another legend for you chris. Don't miss it:

http://www.slatev.com/player.html?id=1151557602

[Phoenix]

BB - Bad stats on Ohio. News to me. I'm surprised that sylph Kucinich would show his face.

I've lost interest in Fred. He's like a movie preview that plays over and over during commercial breaks on TV so that it becomes so annoying you refuse to go see the movie.

I could have used finer syntax in the above sentence, but I was thinking about f.

Hi, f. :)

[Fred Beloit]

Sorry about the repetition, P, but I had to ensure that Mr christamfordmum had every opportunity to enjoy that video. He has such a drab, unsatisfying life...I felt I just had to bring a little ray of desperate joy into it. I would have been crushed if he had missed it.

[Fred Beloit]

My syntax is off today too, P. Perhaps one should have written ...a little desperate ray of joy. Or a desperate little ray of joy. Or even ...a desperate ray of little joy. Oh well, too late now.

[Phoenix]

:) A little ray of desperate joy? A laser beam?

A little ray of joyous desperation. OH! That sounds kind of fun......

[LOL]

Bob, such an ignorant and angry little boob it's amusing to watch. Kucinch was a terrible mayor of cleveland, but that was a long time ago (late 70's). If Cleveland was a such a "democrat machine controlled city" than how come it elected Republican George Voinovich as Mayor? and basically helped propel him into governor and now senator? Cleveland is not as hardcore Dem as you think, but once again, you don't think. Nor do you have any facts on your side.

[bloodrage bob]

i expect cleeblin' elected voinovich mayor for the same reason NYC finally turned to republicans: to clean up the stinking messes that teh dems were making. idiot. couldn't help but notice you're still dodging those questions about democrat-controlled high-tax big city crime rates, though. is it because i'm lacking facts? or is it just because
A) *you* don't think so good?
B) you're a gutless wonder?
C) you can't come up with an alibi, an **excuse for the fact that 100% of big cities are democrat controlled AND high-crime** that doesn't destroy your stated premise: that liberalism makes everything wonderful? will you try to blame it all on unruly black folks? or do you somehow dully sense that's what i'm hoping you'll do?

lastly, if even democrat machine-controlled *cleveland*, home of the worst ghettos; worst poverty; worst crime rates; **and** the worst schools in all of ohio, finally turned in desperation to republicans to bail them out of their democrat-constructed nightmarish existence, why then would you have posted earlier that "republicans have no chance in ohio in '08"? were you lying to us, LOLly?

once again, a liberal wants to have it both ways. same ol' same ol'.

[LOL]

"*you* don't think so good?"

Good one smart guy

[bloodrage bob]

can only conclude that your continued cowardly refusal to comment on (liberal, high-tax, democrat-controlled) big city crime rates means that you secretly agree with me, LOLly.

you will undoubtedly deny this, clinging pathetically to the childish liberal doctrine of "get one last lie in and claim victory". in other news, i read where the murder rate in (liberal, high-tax, democrat-controlled) philadelphia and detroit is now actually *worse* than it is in baghdad. "god bless that liberal prosperity!", huh? ah, well. clearly, the problem is that taxes are just too damn low there!

[LOL]

dude this is the internet. Your continued emphasis on thinking of things as "hiding" or "bravery" that occur on here is disturbing. People have lives and don't want to spend all of them visiting a riehl shitty world. Now I come here to tease the wingnuts once in awhile, and you should be grateful for the small amount of time I grant you. It's certainly more listening than any wingnut ideas will get after the 2008 election.

But please, stop acting like you're brave and I'm a coward. It's the damn internet dude, you are not brave. Your emphasis on these ideas are just going to lead any observer to believe you are over-compensating for something.

[seekeronos]

"--- and you should be grateful for the small amount of time I grant you. ---"

Nah, actually, we feel sorry for you.

Lost in your own self-righteously uplifted ego. Really - you're not as smart as you would have us believe you are.

[bloodrage bob]

i never said i was brave, LOLly. i just said you're a hypocrite gutless (that means "cowardly") wonder. your refusal to explore questions that spring from a conversational door YOU opened are what mark you as such. your voluminous lies about exactly that mark you as a hypocrite weasel. but *I'M* the bad guy for pointing this out?? LOL.

your "defense" is amusing, though, i'll give you that. "you're not brave, dude. in fact, pointing out my, like, totally amazing cowardice probably means you're, like, really *short* or something."

*helluva* speech there, genius. did you learn that a harvard? once again, wisdom and good advice for (the likes of) you can be found in the paraphrased words of dean wormer: "cowardly, mendacious and stupid is no way to go through life, son." i'm sure you have no idea what that means, but ask around.