Over the past few days, the media is returning to a theme floated periodically since the Iowa caucuses, put succinctly by CNN:
Though the fate of the Democratic race to the nomination remains uncertain, one thing is for sure: voters are turning out for the Democratic primaries in number that absolutely shatter previous records  which may be a troubling sign for Republicans looking ahead to the general election.
CQ and the L.A. Times offer more nuanced takes on the turnout theme.
Turnout is certainly key in a divided America. The results of every election from 2000 onward can be said to have turned on it. But the fact that the Democrats were energized and turned out their vote in 2006 to elect a Democratic Congress does not necessarily mean that the same dynamic will play out in a presidential year like 2008.
The RCP average of national head-to-head polls puts Sen. John McCain a few points ahead of Sen. Hillary Clinton and a few behind Sen. Barack Obama — results that do not suggest a Democratic tsunami is imminent.
However, as anyone paying attention in 2000 knows, presidential elections are really 50 state elections, so it might be useful to look at some recent head-to-head polls in various states. Note at the outset that the margin of error for these numbers is almost always plus or minus a little over four percent.
Democrats turned out in larger numbers for the Kansas caucuses, but are easily outnumbered by Republicans in the state. Does anyone think Kansas will go Blue when the GOP has almost 761,000 voters to the 438,000 or so registered Democrats? SurveyUSA has McCain polling at 53% over Clinton (40%) or Obama (39%). That’s pretty good for the Dems, given the registration edge, but Kansas still looks pretty Red.
California seems pretty solidly Blue, but not entirely. Survey USA has McCain losing to Clinton by 57% to 38%, though he could give Obama a run from behind at 50% to 44 percent. The Field Poll, conversely, had Clinton and McCain virtually tied at 45%-43%, but Obama leading McCain by a larger 47%-40% margin. ÂÂ
In Washington state, McCain and Clinton tie at 46%, while Obama romps by 55%-38%. ÂÂ
Given the margin of error, no one would predict McCain winning Massachusetts, but Clinton leads there by a slim 49%-45% margin, while McCain leads Obama with a 50%-45% margin.  Depending on which Dem takes the nomination, McCain might be able to force Dems to spend money they would prefer to spend on swing states.
What about states the GOP may fear are trending Blue?
Kentucky is generally considered a Red state, but recently elected a Democrat governor. However, McCain edges out Clinton there and beats Obama beyond the margin of error. Virginia is another Red state trending Blue, But McCain polled at 52% there with Clinton doing a few points better than Obama.
How about states that voted narrowly for Kerry in 2004 and Gore in 2000?
In Wisconsin, McCain basically ties both Clinton and Obama. In Minnesota, McCain gets 49% against Clinton and Obama, who get 45% and 42%, respectively. In Oregon, McCain leads Clinton 49%-45% and ties Obama at 47%.
What about the swing states of the past few cycles? McCain currently wins them, though Clinton fares better than Obama — something that will weigh on the minds of those super-delegates.
In Missouri, McCain leads Clinton 50%-44% and Obama 51%-40% (a statistically significant lead).ÂÂ
In Ohio, McCain last led Clinton by an insignificant 48%-46%, but leads Obama 50%-43% (still within the MoE, but close to an actual lead).ÂÂ
In Pennsylvania, Rasmussen has McCain over Clinton by 48%-43% margin, and over Obama by a 46%-38% margin. Michael Smerconish thinks McCain’s tussles with the Right help him in PA (another argument against the “shut up” crowd among McCain supporters).
Of course, these polls are far too early to be set in stone. The GOP could suffer from a deteriorating economy or a nasty turn in Iraq. The Dems could have a disastrous convention. Any number of factors could intervene.  Moreover, Dems may argue that the polls above are based on a model that does not anticipate record-shattering turnout of the sort they have had in the primaries. The GOP would likely respond that their primaries and caucuses do not uniformly award delegates in a manner that rewards candidates for driving up turnout, that its voters will be more motivated to defeat a Democrat, etc. There is no easy way to resolve those questions now, but the current data does not suggest that the Democratic nominee is a lock in November.
Here’s another reason why this may not matter….
Good catch. Folks should check that link also.
Now that the GOP nomination seems more in-the-bag, the MSM has returned to running down the GOP. Look for more “troubling” stories, the MSM “worried” about McCain, etc.
Yet the more “enthusiastic” the Dem turnout, in this almost deadheat between oldguard Hillary and New and Fresh(tm) Barry, there is the possiblity of such nasty things being said and done by the time of the covention it may turn off a significant part of the Dem voters who will stay home rather than vote for whoever is the nominee.
The MSM loves blood and scandal first … after that it is speculation and king-making. THEY like to be the story rather than covering it and all the breathless prognostication and puffery pieces puts them front and center in an election year.
The GOP could suffer from a deteriorating economy or a nasty turn in Iraq.
And the MSM will create the impression of such even if its not quite true.
Interesting analysis, Karl, and I like the Willisms’ post as well. I’m not sure that the Willisms’ analysis works in, say, 1980, because it is my recollection that the Democrats had more primaries than the GOP back then and Reagan quickly took control of the race, while Carter got a late challenge from Ted Kennedy that added interest to the Dem side.
I tend to look at InTrade. Compare McCain’s current chance of winning the nomination (94.2%), to his chance of winning the presidency (32.8%); this indicates that the market over there is pricing a McCain win in the general (if he wins the nomination) at about 35%. Doing the same calculations for the HillBama duo reveals that the market is valuing the Democrats at 66%-67%. Of course, the markets are not infallible, but they do reflect the current conventional wisdom, which is that the GOP faces a tough test in November. Of course, had the markets been around then they would have been saying the same thing in 1988; we all remember that poll that showed Dukakis winning by 17 points.
This is one time I’d certainly like to be wrong!
The MSM loves blood and scandal first … after that it is speculation and king-making.
I agree, Darleen. Do you think that their obsession with the Clinton/Obama race will reap benefits for the GOP simply because they’ll ignore us until the Dems choose who to canonize?
Cowboy
I’m hoping so. The longer the dead-heat goes on, the more desparation will grasp each campaign. Michelle Obama, a woman one does NOT want to cross, has declared if Barry doesn’t get the nomination this time there won’t be any ‘next time’. A Hillary nomination may tear the party apart to a point, even a fawning, left-leaning MSM won’t be able to shift gears into it’s usual roll of pimping Democrats fast enough to get the ‘losing’ Dems to the polls.
Brainster,
Reagan may have taken control earlier in ’80, while the Dems were divided, but the head-to-heads throughout much of ’80 would have suggested RR was unelectable. Moreover, the Dems are divided now.
BTW, the Iowa Electronic Market has the race much closer than InTrade. I think you could find bookies who would give you closer odds than InTrade as well. This is not to knock inTrade, just to note that (like polls) there are alternate sources of market data.
Here’s an example from last week.
I think it’s pretty clear that Democrats are energized by their lousy choices (because they basically hold the same positions, which Democrats like) and Republicans are not. I don’t know how well that really translates to the general election, but I don’t see a Republican winning.
That is sort of why I and WILLisms are looking at the data. I assume the establishment media will beat the drum of Democrat inevitability long and hard, just as they did the inevitability of Hillary Clinton as the nominee. I still think she’s the likely nominee, but she’s clearly not inevitable.
Karl, that’s the IEM Vote Share Market. The Winner Take All market has the GOP at about 40 cents versus 60 cents for the Democrats:
http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/graphs/graph_Pres08_WTA.cfm
It is closer than InTrade, though.
[…] second problems with the Kos analysis is the paucity of data supporting it. As noted yesterday, the most recent head-to-head polls show that McCain leads Obama by 51%-40% in Missouri, by […]
[…] of new voters into the process, such that traditional turnout models do not fully capture it (a debatable proposition), McCain’s appeal to “garden-variety” Independents may not be as […]
[…] would have to increase substantially to provide the margin of victory for the Democrats. As noted recently, in Missouri, McCain led Clinton 50%-44% and Obama 51%-40% (a statistically significant lead) in […]