Found the last time FiveThirtyEight ran a simulation with Clinton as Dem nomine

[JRP1994]

From June 5, 2008........

This really makes for an interesting comparison with how the polls are shaping up now.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-mccain-archive/

RESULTS MAP
Grey shade: 0.00-4.99%
40% shade: 5.00-9.99%
70% shade: >10.00%

Clinton: 234
McCain: 166

MAP WITHOUT TOSSUPS

Clinton: 300
McCain: 238


CONFIDENCE MAP
Grey shade: 50.0% to 59.9% chance of winning
40% shade: 60.0% to 74.9% chance of winning
60% shade: 75.0% to 89.9% chance of winning
90% shade: >90% chance of winning

[IceSpear]

What was the Obama map on June 5?

[retromike22]

I think those maps say more about the strength of McCain compared to the 2016 GOP field.

[Bull Moose Base]

That looks like it would have been the point where Hillary had her highest unfavorables among Democrats… which would have kept her down to 300 electoral votes.

[IceSpear]

It could be argued that Hillary was performing better because she was the underdog for the nomination, but I'm also pretty sure the economic collapse would've helped Hillary more than it helped Obama, since she was, you know...white. Plus it would remind people of the good economic times of the Clinton years.

[Vosem]

What was the Obama map on June 5?

This:

McCain wins, 286-252.

[DS0816]

That map was a bunch of crap!

[Mister Mets]

It could be argued that Hillary was performing better because she was the underdog for the nomination, but I'm also pretty sure the economic collapse would've helped Hillary more than it helped Obama, since she was, you know...white. Plus it would remind people of the good economic times of the Clinton years.

This assumes Clinton would have had the same turnout.

[Bacon King]

That map was a bunch of crap!

iirc this was right in the middle of big Obama scandals like Wright, Ayers, Rezko, etc that Hillary's campaign was digging up in the hope of a last minute win

[pbrower2a]

That map was a bunch of crap!

What was the Obama map on June 5?

This:

McCain wins, 286-252.

It was crap only to the extent that it underestimated Barack Obama as a campaigner and failed to predict the economic meltdown in the autumn of 2008 that started to look like a replay of 1929. It was based on some early polls in Michigan that showed McCain winning. Michigan usually looks like an R-leaning swing state until Labor Day, when unions start their GOTV campaigns in earnest. Few people took seriously that Virginia was a possible Obama win. New Hampshire broke late.

This June map, in contrast to the electoral reality of November 2008, showed where Obama was in June. He then campaigned brilliantly. After about July 1 he was behind McCain only just after the Republican convention.

[Bull Moose Base]

This was right as or after the primary ended. There was a lot of resentment between their supporters. (Remember PUMAs?) That's reflected in these maps but it was never going to last after Obama and Hillary inevitably made up. Obama wouldn't have won 365 electoral votes without the financial collapse but he still was always going to do way better than this map. Also, totally irrelevant for 2016.

[IceSpear]

That map was a bunch of crap!

iirc this was right in the middle of big Obama scandals like Wright, Ayers, Rezko, etc that Hillary's campaign was digging up in the hope of a last minute win

That was in March, the maps are for June.

[DS0816]

That map was a bunch of crap!

What was the Obama map on June 5?

This:

McCain wins, 286-252.

It was crap only to the extent that it underestimated Barack Obama as a campaigner ...

It was crap for the fact that no one with real experience of looking at the nature of given presidential elections truly believed the Republicans were going to survive with their bid [John McCain or anyone else nominated] to hold the White House after two terms of George W. Bush.

The 43rd president's party lost both houses of Congress in his Year #06 (the first since a 1918 Woodrow Wilson, whose party lost the White House in 1920), had an aggregated polls' showing of job-approval percentage number which never shot over 40 percent after 2006 (and was frequently in the upper-20s).

It was insulting for there to still be these never-dying proclaims that a state like Michigan—which, like a host of others that carry same-party outcomes as Michigan, left the Republicans after the 1980s (it boasted margins in 1984, 1988, and percentages received by the three candidates in 1992 very close to national results—hence its overblown "swing state" label by outdated media estimates)—was persuadable to flip Republican in a year where that party had the White House and a wave election moving overwhelmingly against them. (Detroit Free Press or Detroit News ran some b.s. thing by Todd Spangler about McCain contesting Michigan because the state was 3.42 percent for John Kerry in 2004. No problem! Never mind the mathematics and context of what it meant for Michigan to have carried by 3.42 on the losing Democratic side and that losing Democrat having been defeated in the popular vote by 2.46 percent. The article talked up McCain's potential to win over Michigan in 2008.)

Anything presented, during the 2008 presidential election year, showing a Democrat failing to hold a John Kerry-carried state (part of the "Blue Firewall"), was absolute b.s. That's why I said it was crap.

[pbrower2a]

Michigan typically breaks late for Democrats.  It swung, all right, in 2008 -- from close to the national average to a Democratic blowout.

Michigan is home to some of the cr@ppiest one-state pollsters, and those showed McCain decidedly ahead in Michigan. If one trusted PPP, the state was close until early September and went quickly out of contention.

There were signs that McCain was in trouble. Virginia, a state that had not gone for a Democratic nominee in a Republican win since 1924, gave plenty of leads to Obama. Several polls showed Indiana really close. Iowa, which Gore barely won and Kerry barely lost, vanished from contention.