Hillary beats John McCain by 5, while the "more electable" Obama loses by 2.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107488/Gallup-Daily-Clinton-Maintains-Lead-Over-McCain.aspx









Hillary performs better in national polls. She performs better in the big states that we need to win like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida. She puts many states in play that Obama doesn't (West Virginia, Arkansas, Kentucky). In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find a state that Obama puts in play that Hillary doesn't.

What is Obama's electability argument again?

Are we hoping for all those young voters to show up like they did in 2004 to put Kerry over the top? :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

Hillary has been left for dead, counted out by the media and the pundits, and she still leads in national polls and in important states we need to win?

What does that say about our "presumptive nominee"? In political lingo, he is what we like to call a lightweight.

Look at the Ohio map in 1972 for an idea of what Ohio will look like in the general election if Obama is our nominee:

your Chosen One.

I used to try and debate with him but he isn't reasonable anymore. Polls change between May and November and yet certain Clinton supporters like NJSecularist refuse to acknowledge that fact. They also refuse to acknowledge that states like West Virginia aren't going to be won by Clinton or any other Democrat because they are trending red and that has nothing to do with Obama and everything to do with guns, gays, and the environment.

Obama hovers around 45% to 45% with McCain in most swing states when you average the polls together. That leaves 10% of undecideds who haven't been scared shitless by the Reverand Wright crap and genuinely have yet to make up their minds about whether they will vote for Obama or McCain. Obama is a far better campaigner than McGramps and will do better with the undecideds. He has improved almost everywhere he has campaigned.

I don't mind reasoned criticism of the "chosen one" and by that I mean the guy I chose out of all of the other candidates who happened to be running (my first 3 or 4 choices didn't run). I mind unreasonable concern trolls who can't possibly understand that Obama is polling even with McCain right now which indicates he definitely can win this election. If they want to argue that Hillary has a better shot, I certainly don't mind that. What I mind is these repetitive predictions of doom and gloom despite all evidence to the contrary.

Thank you for taking the time to explain your very reasonable position.

My issue was with the FAIL. I see it in so many threads instead of a reasoned argument.

I don't doubt that Obama will be the nominee. I worry about his ability to win the general.

People are suggesting a "dream ticket" with Hillary. I think that would cost him votes relative to other candidates without her baggage and high negatives, and without her proven ability to inspire -- REPUBLICANS to vote against her.

Some could and do point to polls like this to suggest otherwise, but I think that is misleading -- in part because the rolling average of ALL polls at RealClearPolitics has been CONSISTENTLY showing Obama running stronger against McCain than Clinton.

Now Gallup is a major poll. Does this suggest Obama would do better with her on the ticket? I STRONGLY don't think so. I think Obama almost HAS to pick a woman to run with him as VP, or there will be a lot of pretty sore women out there, who might indeed mostly end up voting for the ticket, reluctantly, but who would flock to the polls in greater numbers to vote the first woman into an Administration. Here's the trick -- we need to get that POSITIVE dynamic without HILLARY'S high negatives and baggage.
My solution is pretty obvious -- a woman NOT Hillary. Plenty of others have also suggested this.

But WHICH woman? Sebelius and Napolitano have been suggested. I think either, over time, would help more than Hillary. But I think CA Sen Barbara Boxer would fill the bill just like a charm. She is VERY VERY popular in CA, is anything but "charisma deficient", has LOTS AND LOTS of foreign policy 'resume', voted NO on the Iraq War resolution (which I consider urgently important, both as a point of principle and a point of electoral realpolitik. The reason for the latter is that the press and others could constantly point to that vote and distract the campaign. This way, as Obama has said about his own candidacy, the lines are clearly drawn -- Obama always opposed this now unpopular policy travesty, and McCain has always strongly supported it and still does. McCain's solution is to promise victory by 2013. Gee, that's real comforting to a public that wants out.

OK, back to Boxer -- lots of foreign policy, no on IWR, charismatic -- and no high negatives among moderates or liberals and progressives, and no serious baggage AFAIK. She is strong on the Greenhouse, for a pol, (actually activists as well as pols are deficient on this issue), might help in Florida (where Obama is lagging), and is the kind of candidate who would generate the virtually universal enthusiasm among female Democrats (and some others) to put Obama over the top.

Sen Stabenow of MI has also not been talked about much for VP, but she voted no on IWR is from a region where (WI, OH, PA and possibly WV) where, if Obama is able to solidify support further, he could really blow the Repugs out of the water.

As for males, Brian Schweitzer is thought by many to be a political master stroke choice, and always supported IWR, and Bob Graham voted no on IWR and could help carry Florida. Graham has lots of BOTH foreign policy experience AND experience being a (popular) governor. Also in this category is Bill Richardson, w/strong foreign policy credentials and experience as a (popular) governor, and he might help (this is electoral realpolitik not bigotry) boost Obama's strength among latinos; of the candidates who ran against Obama in the primaries, neither the widely discussed Edwards OR Clinton are as good as Richardson as a running mate.

But I still say that a woman who never supported IWR (which would also include Sebelius -- I don't know where Napolitano was on that back when, but at least she didn't vote for it) would be best, and Boxer meets the criteria for a strong running mate with flying colors.

NJsecularist is not a legitimate Clinton supporter, he's a one-note wonder. He does not even attempt to engage in substance, and in the four months he's been here, he hasn't dealt seriously or in earnest with other legitimate political issues.

It's very frustrating watching Obama supporters (and others) judge otherwise decent, thoughtful, considerate Clinton supporters based on the polemical interjections of schills.

I'll just be glad when it's over.

Just as I worry about any Democrat's ability to win the general election. The majority of this country voted for George W Bush in 2004 and that is what we are up against. Winning over the American electorate is no small task and not one that I take lightly.

NJSecularist consistantly refers to Obama as "McGovern-esque" or refers to his coalition as "The McGovern Coalition" which is a not so subtle way of implying tha the will lose in a landslide. If Obama really had only McGovern's coalition, he would be polling in the high 30's capping out at 40% at most. Right now he's polling in the high 40's and low 50's in some polls. Both Bill Clinton in 1992 and Al Gore in 2000 were polling significantly lower at this point in the year than Obama is right now.

Additionally white blue collar workers don't make up the percentage of the electorate that they did 30 years ago or even 10 years ago and they particularly don't make up the share of the Democratic base that they used to. Yes it will be important for Obama to improve with them in places like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. But West Virginia isn't a blue state anymore and his weakness there is indicative of the fact that white blue collar workers have gradually left the Democratic Party as the Democratic Party became progressive on social issues. Hillary Clinton polls well in West Virginia from a poll that was taken in February but if she were the nominee, McGramps would hammer her on gays, abortion, guns, and the environment and she wouldn't stand a chance in West Virginia. You simply can't convince a very socially conservative electorate to vote for a liberal Democrat in this day and age.

Obama has every advantage that Kerry didn't in 2004 and that's why I'm confident that he can beat McCain (although it's not a sure thing by any means). Obama has more money, he can tie McCain to the very unpopular Bush, and the electoral map has expanded and Colorado and Virginia are now definitely in play and North Carolina may be as well. Remember, Kerry didn't win Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania in a walk. He had to work his ass off to hold those states and there were times when Bush was polling ahead of him. Obama will have to do the same. But he is an extraordinary campaigner and he has a fundraising machine the likes of which we have never seen before.

Moreover, you underestimate the effect that "the Reverend Wright crap" will have in the general election.

Because that is exactly what the Party made him as far as the nomination process is concerned.

and it is pretty clear who it will be; it has been clear since WI.

cause many won't vote for her after all of her insults and
finally her assassination remarks.

Every other poll has him tied or ahead...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

His average margin in all the polls is +3 against McCain. Hillary is +1.4 against McCain.

Don't just cherry pick one poll.

they have to have "evidence" that their delusions are right

and, even though at least some Hillary Clinton supporters may indeed merit it (I speak on the whole of those who are nastier than NJSecularist), Obama supporters at this point need to look to the GE, and questions like who should Obama pick for VP, and other issues going forward in time.

That does NOT preclude expressions of authentic offense, eg at the truly odd (and false) RFK remark -- false in that it suggests that the RFK campaign ran as long if not longer than this year's when in fact it was a mere FOUR WEEKS from RFK's first primary (May 7) until his assassination. It's pretty amazing to consider the kind of enthusiasm he generated in that short time (as a Kennedy in the 60s after Nov 63, when the feelings about the Kennedies understandably became VERY passionately supportive for millions and millions of Americans).

The people behind the RFK assassination well understood that they couldn't stop him at the ballot-box, so they resorted to bullets.

"Rasmussen Reports believes the race is over and that Barack Obama will be the nominee of the Democratic Party. We will stop tracking the Democratic race in the near future to focus exclusively on the Obama-McCain match-up."

"The Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Calculator shows Democrats leading in states with 200 Electoral Votes while the GOP has the advantage in states with 189. When “leaners” are included, the Democrats enjoy a 260-240 Electoral College lead. Rasmussen Markets data gives Democrats a 63.0% chance of winning the White House in November (results are updated on a 24/7 basis by market participants). "

link: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

------------------

----------------------------------------

Average of National Polls:

Obama 47.0/McCain 44.0 = Obama + 3.0

Clinton 46.1/McCain 44.7 = Clinton + 1.4

The general election polls averages the latest polls from Gallup Tracking, Rasmussen Tracking, Quinnipiac,ABC News/Wash Post, Democracy Corp, LA Times/Bloomberg, IDBB/TIPP, Battleground

links:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html

What part of "She lost months ago" are you having the hard time with, Hillbot?

We make fun of you because you deserve it until you face reality and stop whining and spinning like the candidate you still cling to.

Let. It. Go.

She. Lost.

Kapeesh?

will stay home in November.

If you cannot understand this in the loose material between your ears, just follow your leader. It is Obama who is trying hard to be nice to Hillary supporters.

but you really aren't that important in the scheme of thing on this anonymous board. 99% of Hill supporters don't go on DU,
I know I'm not that important as an anonymous Obama supporter either. I'm amazed if you think this board has that much power.

They are the Hillary crazys who are in complete denial. They have already stated loud and clear that they will vote for McCain if she wins. We will not give you carte blanch to act foolish. The reasonable and logical hillary supporters know who they are and we stay off of them.

who participated in Democratic caucuses to be there in November?

30% of WV Dems voted for Bush in 2004. The same number, at least, will go for McInsane this time.

You've accomplished one of the most meaningless missions of internet political debate: Finding polls that support your candidate!

or was that only when Obama was winning them?

In most polls he does better than her. But right now it's useless. Polls at this early stage don't even matter. They really become important after the conventions when you see the bumps each one gets etc. And then when those even out a bit you see how things will actually end up. Right now, polls can't take into consideration turnout or other factors like that, and Dems have been killing Republicans in turnout. That's something any Dem candidate would have had an advantage on in November.

You could still win this thing

:evilgrin:

My support is the silent majority who never heard of me. They are out there, waiting. :)

I described your platform and asked some people if they would vote for a candidate like you. They said yes. I think you've got a good shot with that silent majority.

So... since we're on the subject how about that job as National Security Advisor?

But yeah, you're in, even if I have to have like 3 or 4 NSAs. :)

... while the "more electable" Hillary is in debt and on life-support.

I'm still waiting for an answer to that question.

If all you're going to consider is electability, does that mean you'd vote for McCain over Hillary if the polls turned in that direction?

Or does what the candidate stands for count at all?

including the average. He beats her too. You can't just pick one poll and base your whole argument on it, that's intellectually dishonest at best. You can't just reject reality because of your bias to a candidate, it doesn't matter which candidate either. I like both Hillary and Obama, but he's beaten her fair and square, he beats her and McCain in most polls, he's cultivated a huge base of donors and has galvanized record voter registration and primary turnouts. Not to mention that after only a few years of being on the national stage, he's beaten one of the most famous people on earth in a primary fight and is beating another famous senator in a general election that hasn't officially started.

Plus, it's a huge Democratic year, even more so than in 2006. The recession. The war. A deeply unpopular president. The GOP is in disarray. It's shaping up to be a historic Dem victory, and to think that in all of that, for some reason, Obama might not be electable is ludicrous. Plus, he has one big factor over her. The GOP hates her. They've spent the last few years uninterested in the presidential campaign. The GOP wasn't satisfied with their candidates, much of the party hates McCain, they know they're going to get stomped so they've been staying home. The only thing that would get them excited is the thought of voting against Hillary Clinton. Obama is significantly less polarizing. His race is not as big a factor as the hatred that the GOP has for her. They've wanted her all along, now they aren't getting her and that's a big problem. Probably should have beaten McCain anyway, but Obama is virtually a sure thing.

If Hillary is such a terrific candidate, how come Obama beat her?

How's Hilly doing these days?

Oh, she's out of the race, you say?

Okay.

Well, thanks for posting your insignificant bullshit, then!

Ciao, bello!

Yes we can

is a terrible human being. I think Hillary would be the greatest president since Harry Truman while Obama would be the worst president since Herbet Hoover.

Steve

the fact that you were alive during the hoover administration?

FAIL

Obama squeeks barely by in some polls in some states.

This has a Kerry written all over it.

Those numbers are reversed now.

Not that I give polls a lot of credit anyway.

She went from about 47%-23% against Obama through the fall to 47%-53% now. She closed the deal with every one of that last 30%.

Hey Shillbot, who is more electable now?

!

There is a recent SurveyUSA poll that has BO ahead, but it is weighted 2:1 Dem voters over Repubs.

Delegates. Delegates. Delegates. Hillary and Biden are on equal footing as far as your polls go; neither Biden or Clinton has the delegate count. All the hypotheticals in the world won't change math.

The only chance of defeating McCain is Obama. Do you really think the republicans are playing clean? Wake up America they are poised to steal the third election.

n/t

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

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May27.html

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/May27.html

My problem is simple: will Obama have the coat-tails to win the Congress and increase the precarious lead in the Senate?

ALL the super super-delegates, committed or not, should be asking themselves that question.

stronger, too. Why not give it up. Hillary will soon.

:shrug:

Just go to freepland and profess your undying love for McSame, your schtick is so over here.

and smart Dems focus on winning against McCain, not trashing fellow Dems and dividing the party.

Which are you?

p-r-o-j-e-c-t-i-o-n

Look it up, when you can stop crying.

:eyes:

Obama supporters ignore facts. Instead of HOPE, they are hopeless..

Thanks for posting.

The fact Is Obama Is the nominee.Again Hillary supporters bash Obama and his supporters and Ignore
reality and cherrypick polls just like Electoral Vote.

Obama WILL take Vermont!!!!

Polls are meaningless right now...

All they reveal is current trends...

Look at polls from one year ago.. much different, eh?

We have much work to do, and being realistic in one way we must grow
before we clutch to closely 'data' that is meaningless to our future.

Thanks for playing

Time to focus on beating John McCain with our nominee, Barack Obama.

Time to unify and support our nominee.

Barack Obama.