MORE BAD NEWS FOR OBAMA: Electability Versus Shmelectability

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

Last week I posted about Shmopular Vote totals, and how by all reasonable accounting of the Vote totals Obama only leads Clinton by a million or so votes in the Popular Vote. As we all know, Democrats have always chosen their nominee by Shmopular Vote, however, and I think it was obvious by my analysis of the Shmopular Vote Totals that Obama's days in this race were numbered.

Of course the equally as compelling argument for choosing our nominee based on Shmelectability is making the rounds this week, after the Clinton's camp's successful maneuvering to get the delegates from Florida and Michigan shmeated. For those who don't know, Shmelectability is a much more sophisticated look than Electability at how candidates stack up in their quest for a majority of votes in the Electoral College. Here, again, fellow Obama supporters, the news is dour.

I tried to condense Shmelectabilty and its various complex permutations into this handy reference table below. Here you'll find all the reasons, caveats, asterisks, and qualifications that explain why a candidate who seems mighty Electable is nonetheless completely Unshmelectable. For Obamatrons, it's time for our Party to join hands and rally around the candidate who won fewer actual votes, states, pledged delegates, and supers, because--as will be obvious to anyone casting an unbiased eye over the chart below--not only has Hillary Clinton captured a Shmopular Vote victory, but in the general election Barack Obama will be utterly Unshmelactable.

A few people might be wondering about states not mentioned on the table below, like NM, with its 5 electoral votes (where Obama polls evenly with McCain), or MI (with its 17 EVs), where Obama surely will win the union vote once he campaigns actively there. Or SC and Mizzou, where Obama's within 3% now, or FL, where he's rapidly closed the gap to 4%. I think you'll see by the table below, however, that such queries belong to Old School Electability Models--not state-of-the-art models that demonstrate the power of Shmelectabilty.

[Arugula Latte]

1. Schmexcellent and schmbrilliant!

K & R :kick:

[suston96]

2. You are close but I prefer these maps - updated daily........

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/Jun02.html

And here is how Hillary Clinton would do:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/Jun02.html

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

8. the ought to use the most recent polls, then, don't you think?

[smoogatz]

3. Great shtuff.

:kick:

[Coexist]

4. wonderful!

[K Gardner]

5. Schmecomended !!

[myrna minx]

6. Minnesota is Canada Jr.

:rofl: Uff da. K&R

[berni_mccoy]

7. SchmK&SchmR! Schmawesome!

[Growler]

9. Love it!

K&R

[cliffordu]

10. RE: "Here you'll find all the reasons, caveats

asterisks, and qualifications..."

I think you are off about .0005 of a point from the mean in that one asterisk..

Other than that, this is one of the most schmeaningful posts I've seen in a while..

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

12. nice catch. shmanks.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

11. Electability further debunked: Obama puts NC in play

He's down 3% there in the latest according to PPP (Clinton down 5%)--and PPP underestimated Obama's margin of victory over Clinton in the primary by 5% or so. As Shmelectability teaches us, however, NC is red state, and does not count toward any democratic EV totals.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/north_carolina.html

[suston96]

13. The links I provided show McCain beating Obama but losing to Clinton.....

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

But, Hillary won't be the nominee, so..........

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

14. I did my own addition based only on the most recent polls.

That changes the map. RealClearPolitics and Pollster.com are my sources.

At this point, the polls don't tell you who will win anyway. They do punch holes in the baseless assumptions that one candidate CAN'T win, though, which was the point of the whole OP.