Obama with 299 electoral college votes and Clinton with 279 is simply the 2004 outcome (Dems with 252 votes) plus Florda (27 ec votes) and Ohio (20). We were projecting those outcomes as “what ifs” on election night 2004 on beer napkins without the rigors of a Monte Carlo simulation. And to say that Obama’s lead is 3X Clinton’s is non-sensical: electoral college votes are not discrete, they come bundled. Obama’s lead in the model’s outcome is simply “one state.”

The electoral college imposes a harsh reality and can distort national data:

(1) As impressive as Obama has been, can there be any doubt that his standing in national polls and resulting competiveness vs McCain has been significantly enhanced by his “wins” in Democratic primaries in states which are quite peripheral to the needs of Democrats in the electoral college;

(2) With an Obama nomination, the Democrats will undoubtedly attract a disproportionate share of first-time voters (younger and older) but this will occur mostly in states already “safe” for Democrats; the vast majority of Republcan electoral votes are impervious to cohort changes in voter turnout. The “tunrout” effect attributed to Obama, and his attractiveness to independents/non-voters on a national level are quite different to electoral college impacts.

(3) the ticket will matter: McCain will undoubtedly choose a VP on his “right;” Obama will choose a centrist; and Clinton can pick a VP on her left. Advantage to Clinton who can move to the center and pre-empt space McCain needs to be competitive in. This is why party professionals want the “dream team” ticket of “Clinton/Obama.”

As arcane as it is, the EC works in mysterious ways.

The problem is that Obama has never been through the wringer in the way that Clinton has. Taking their current polling as an indicator of their FUTURE appeal without even considering this difference seems to me bad modelling.

Just look at today’s story about Obama’s Pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright. That’s a taste of things to come.
Oh, here’s another: “One of Obama’s Earmarks Went to Hospital That Employs Michelle Obama”

You’re going to see the evidence very frequently.

david w, I’m not sure how good such a “coattails” effect will be if Obama ends up covered in mud.

Um… I think it is. Virtually every poll shows Obama performing better than Clinton in a contest with McCain. Most Republicans regard Obama as the more dangerous opponent. They would much prefer to run against Clinton, who unites and galvanizes the Republican base far better than any other Democrat, and who also has relatively little appeal to independents.

But a lot of even middling technically sophisticated analysis I’ve seen seems to me very flawed by projecting the current state of Obama-love into the indefinite future.

Maybe. And maybe not. None of us can predict what will happen between now and November. There is, however, no good reason to assume that Obama’s ratings can only go down while Clinton’s cannot drop any further.

If you have any evidence to the contrary please provide it. Much of the commentary from Clinton’s supporters seems to consist of wishful thinking unsupported by any evidence.

“Perhaps someone might say that this is probable:
Many improbable things happen to people.”

That’s because what’s improbable happens, so that what’s improbable is probable [in a certain way]. But it is not simply probable.—-

It is not at all clear which Democratic candidate will fair better. But a lot of even middling technically sophisticated analysis I’ve seen seems to me very flawed by projecting the current state of Obama-love into the indefinite future. He’s gotten a gushing, very uncritical, press-ride for a few months, and that’s not going to continue forever. Moreover, I’m no expert on politics, but the idea I see a lot that the Republicans don’t know how to handle him because gosh darn it, he’s just so shiny and new, seems to me to be ludicrous.

Nor am I sure that having pro-war Hillary running against pro-war McCain is all that good a bet.

Further, you might as well choose a distribution for the random variable that models your beliefs about reality better than the normal; you don’t need normal’s nice analytical properties if you simulate.

Ah, if only there were a number of simulations you could run that would remove modelling error!

Obama stands out and is unique. He is an attractive (figuratively) candidate for many because he not only represents newness, but is the only credible alternative (to either of his opponents) to changing the status quo. Clinton and McCain represent the staus quo.