Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
According to Gallup's May 12-25 tracking polling, Clinton is running stronger against McCain than is Obama in the 20 states where Clinton can claim popular-vote victory in the Democratic primaries and caucuses. By contrast, Obama runs no better against McCain than does Clinton in the 28 states plus the District of Columbia where he has prevailed. On this basis, Clinton appears to have the stronger chance of capitalizing on her primary strengths in the general election.
However, just focusing on the swing states in Clinton's and Obama's respective win columns, the two are fairly similar. Clinton beats McCain in her purple states (including Florida and Michigan) by 49% to 43%, while Obama slightly trails McCain (43% to 46%) in these states -- a nine-point swing in the gap in Clinton's favor. Conversely, Obama beats McCain in his purple states (49% to 41%), while Clinton trails McCain by one point, 45% to 46%, in the same states -- also a nine-point swing in the gap in Obama's favor.
Clinton's main advantage is that her states -- including Florida and Michigan -- represent nearly twice as many Electoral College votes as Obama's. However, removing Florida and Michigan from the equation, her purple states are about comparable to Obama's in electoral vote size, and thus the two appear more evenly situated.
What gives Clinton an additional boost in national support -- but is not likely to increase her chances of winning Electoral College votes in November -- is her superior performance over Obama in the red states where she has captured the popular vote in the primaries. These include such typically safe Republican states as Oklahoma, Texas, Indiana, and Arizona.
That's about as interesting and prophetic as the polls that had Dukakis way ahead of Bush senior in the spring/summer of 1988.
Clinging to meaningless polls is soooooooooo lame!
See, now this is an example of being a lying sack of shit.
When have I ever used polls to support anything? Ever?
The answer: I haven't.
If you can find me one single instance, I'll change my signature to read, "I got totally pwned by RGS" in large bold font and leave it up for a week.
lol, you got me there. But if you were intellectually honest, you'd admit you've been pwned.
I disagree.
Even if such a poll existed, it would've been for mindless fun and entertainment, not to support a political candidate or policy position.
Now...if you were being intellectually honest, you'd admit you've just been mani-pwned!
Nope. You said:
When have I ever used polls to support anything? Ever?
You didn't specify to support a candidate or policy position.
PWNED! Time to fix your sig line.
And you call me a dillhole!
The candidate/policy thing was implied based on the context of the thread that you started assclown! I love how you're all about implication and inference when it suits you and then you get all literal when that suits you.
And the signature offer was specifically for RGS and...and this is the important part...specific to my USMB posts.
The only way I can figure out what you say is to take it literally. You're very black and white.
I still say RGS should get his cookie.
