home

AP Poll: Clinton Runs Better Than Obama Against McCain

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:02:00 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

It is too early to look too closely at GE head to heads but I must admit that recent events are making my Obama electability argument, particularly the Media darling Teflon argument, look weaker. The latest bit of evidence is the AP-Ipsos poll:

Hillary Rodham Clinton has a better chance than Barack Obama of beating Republican John McCain, according to a new Associated Press-Ipsos poll that bolsters her argument that she is more electable in the fall than her rival for the Democratic nomination. . . . Clinton . . . has gained ground this month in a hypothetical head-to-head match up with the GOP nominee-in-waiting; she now leads McCain, 50 percent to 41 percent, while Obama remains virtually tied with McCain, 46 percent to 44 percent.

These results put Obama and Clinton within the MOE versus McCain. But Obama needs to change the narrative. Racial politics from the likes of Clyburn and Wright is NOT the answer.

By Big Tent Democrat

Update(TL): More on the AP Poll:

When pitted against McCain, Clinton now wins among independents, 50 percent to 34 percent, when just a few weeks ago she ran about even with him with this crucial group of voters. Clinton also now does better among independents than Obama does in a matchup with McCain.
< Clinton Camp: Time To Move On Past Wright | A FL/MI Solution >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    AP Poll: Clinton Runs Better Than Obama Against McCain | 105 comments (105 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    What is the MOE? (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Lil on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:05:07 PM EST


    margin of error (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Josey on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:05:39 PM EST


    Parent
    I know that (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Lil on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:06:58 PM EST
    what I meant is what is the number

    Parent
    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by angie on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:10:50 PM EST
    that was a funny bit of confusion.

    Parent
    And don't call me Shirley (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:32:37 PM EST


    Parent
    I thought MOE (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by cmugirl on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:15:03 PM EST
    was with Larry and Curly (and Shemp and Curly Joe)? :)

    Parent
    double LOL (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Josey on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:07:43 PM EST
    I'm sorry. Flying around the tubes too fast.


    Parent
    This made me laugh too. (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Lil on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:17:54 PM EST


    Parent
    Ohhhhhhhhhhhh (none / 0) (#63)
    by AnninCA on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:07:10 PM EST
    Thank you.

    Parent
    If and when (5.00 / 9) (#4)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:08:24 PM EST
    And even if it's mostly if, if and when BTD's electability argument gets turned on it's head, I still won't embrace it.

    The media should NOT be choosing our president.

    Hear, hear! (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by chrisvee on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:13:52 PM EST
    Personally, I don't think we're going to win by trying to outsmart the MSM at their own game -- especially since they change the rules at the drop of a hat.  We need to change the game by making the media irrelevant.

    I think I may sound like an Obama supporter. :-)

    Parent

    Wish I could give you a 50 for that. (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by ghost2 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:15:12 PM EST
    Corporate media is the same crowd that gave us the War.  Let's never lose sight of that bit of history.

    Parent
    same crowd that spent the 90's (none / 0) (#90)
    by dotcommodity on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:38:07 PM EST
    trashing Clinton, then Gore. They are never going to support a Democrat period. They are only pushing Obama down our throats because he is the one offering to be "bipartisan", till they can fall in line with the one they want a beer with: McCain.

    Parent
    Disagree slightly (none / 0) (#106)
    by Lou Grinzo on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:39:25 PM EST
    My take is that they love Obama now vs. Clinton simply because he's the better story.  If/when it's the young, inexperienced dude against the codger who survived hell in Viet Nam and was slimed by Bush in 2000, then guess who the "good story" will be.

    Parent
    If Hillary wins the media loses! (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by hairspray on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:29:03 PM EST


    Parent
    Breakup Big Media (none / 0) (#23)
    by pluege on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:22:51 PM EST
    The media should NOT be choosing our president.

    Amen!

    ...but they are. They have this year, they did in 2004, and they did in 2000. They also led a crippling campaign of impeachment of a popular president thereby thwarting the will of the American people... much as they will again distract and disrupt if the democrat wins 2008 - all of a sudden, all of the horrors and FUBAR of the bush years will be the Democratic president's fault.

    The media's personality cult-based "reporting" leaves us with the worst possible choices every time and who knows how many talented people don't even consider politics, let alone running for POTUS because they have too much integrity and no desire to be smeared endlessly and irrationally (you can simultaneously be in awe of HRC for her tenacity to stick with public service, while also wondering about her ego to do so given the obscene smearing for no reason she has been subject to for at least 15 years).

    The real question is what to do about Big Media's ruination of American political discourse, i.e., how do we break the lock the cult of republicanism has vis-a-vis US corporate media on destroying our national dialog on the important issues of the day.

    Parent

    Need To Make The Media Irrelevant (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:12:20 PM EST
    See some small signs of that happening. The people have pretty much ignored the media on staying in Iraq even after a lot of spin about how well the surge is working. Had the Democratic voters completely bought the  media spin, Hillary would have been out of the race months ago. Yet, she is still getting the majority of Democratic votes even with the AA community going 90 - 10 to Obama. Also, after viewing hours of Rev. Wright and getting more information about Ayers and clinggate , the American public has to be thinking what did all those talking heads ever see in this guy. To me, all those bubble heads that gush all over Obama now have egg on their faces.

    The more the public ignores the current spin of the media the more they lose influence. If that trend continues, they might just have to change in order to survive. Maybe, this is wishful thinking but IMO this is the only avenue to success.

    Parent

    Obviously their not, we are still here and (none / 0) (#49)
    by Salt on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:46:17 PM EST
    Kicking for Clinton while it's been painful for sure, I believe the DNC's foot on the scale has been worse without that Obama would not have the delegate counts that could doom the Party chance in Nov, even with the GE and Washington Post Company's being in the Obama bag.

    The thing we must all ensure is once Clinton is nominee all should not be forgiven do not cuddle up and forgive the HP KOS TPM KO crowd, GE NBC MSNBC WaPO and Newsweek Pelosi, Clyburn, McCaskill, Kennedy, Kerry, JJJR, Dean, Brazils they will be waiting to turn on her later and withdrawal support closer to Nov for their own agenda again send them packing not trust it was personnel with these folks not politics.


    Parent

    How many (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by cmugirl on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:11:22 PM EST
    more polls do we need to see like this where it actually gets MENTIONED in the MSM? I can't even imagine it if it actually drove the media narrative!  :)

    I heard it on FOX (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:17:21 PM EST
    at the car wash a little while ago!  Does that count? ;-)

    Parent
    MSNBC too (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by waldenpond on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:30:20 PM EST
    On MSNBarackChannel

    Parent
    There is no such thing as a (5.00 / 9) (#10)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:14:57 PM EST
    Democratic Media Darling given the make up of the current media environment.

    I remember the media being pretty damn friendly to Kerry right up until the time that they slaughtered him along with the Swift Boaters.

    Bill Clinton was "teflon" with voters, but never with the media as I recall.  The media set out to destroy him and were extremely frustrated that they never could exact the coup de grace - he just kept coming back and so did his numbers.

    So the question is really not about the media being nicer - because they won't be to a Democrat - but whether or not either Dem candidate has built up enough good will with the voters to minimize the impact of a slandering and irresponsible media.

    My recollection is that the MCM actually (none / 0) (#51)
    by jawbone on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:49:18 PM EST
    treated Bill Clinton fairly well early on.

    Whitewater was raised by Jeff Gerth and the NYTimes, but not effectively. The Gennifer Flowers card was played, which may have helped Clinton not be painted as a whuss. Hard to be emasculated when they're also calling you a womanizer!

    In general, I think the MCM (and especially the C part) wanted Poppy gone and saw Clinton as a reasonable Dem. Perot didn't hurt with his emphasis on debt and deficit.

    I recall the press being absolutely adulatory during a round table conference Clinton held with both supporters and those opposed to his programs in December '92.  He would listen, summarize his opponents' views, then explain where they could come together.  It was written about as an intellectual tour de force.

    Something happened with his inauguration--almost immediately he was trashed and attacked.  At the time, I had blamed Sam Nunn and his kneecapping of Clinton over Clinton actually moving to implement his campaign promise to allow gays to stay in the military.  Nunn, with others, especially in the military, came out foursquare against Clinton, forced him to back down, and Don'tAsk/Don'tTell emerged from this power play against Clinton.

    It was all downhill in the MCM after that (well, they also hated Hillary's hat at the inauguration).

    Why they turned? I have no idea--I've never quite understood.  But, in retrospect, the MCM did not want Poppy, so gave the Dem a fighting chance.  Once in office, the voters could see that Clinton was not as the MCM painted him.  The MCM's huge effect is in dissing Big Dems during elections.

    Still, why?

    And why stick with a truly awful president, BushBoy? Which is why I wonder if they really want to fluff McSame, really want him to win.

    Parent

    Good review and I agree with your history, (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by hairspray on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:38:05 PM EST
    however, I think the Arkansas project was already grinding away. It may not have been evident during the early days with all that inaguration buzz, but the Mellon-scaiffes of the US were working overtime to bring this reformer down.  That scenario never changed.  I think the election knocked them down a bit, but Lee Atwater and his gang were never going to let his presidency be a success. Once the stories started (Hunting of the President) they took on a life of their own.  You know all those "scandals"

    Parent
    Something happened? Hmmmm. (none / 0) (#73)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:17:14 PM EST
    Even before the election, as you may recall, there was Gennifer Flowers.  And media loved it.  The die was cast.

    Parent
    Racial politics specially deadly with Independents (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:15:05 PM EST
    Racial politics from the likes of Clyburn and Wright is NOT the answer.

    Yup.  I'll add that if Obama is counting on Independents to flock to him in the GE, he is doomed. Independents hate racial politics above almost all else - in a lot of cases they would be declared Dems if not for the Dem toleration of racial arguments. The short term gain he got from painting the Clintons as racists before SC is going to cost him dearly in the long run.

    In my personal experience, (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:25:53 PM EST
    the people I have encountered who call themselves "Independents" have largely been people who have an innate aversion to conflict - so they don't "pick a side" and they tend not to like issues that cause passions to inflame.  That is not everyone I know who is IND, but that does describe the large majority of the people I know who have chosen what to them is a more "neutral" position in the political landscape.  Obama has run his campaign in such a way that he has gone out of his way to be as appealing to that personality as possible and then he dives into the issue of the racial divide - head first.  

    If I had been advising him, I would have had him do a speech in Philly about religion - it would have been the best of the two bad options imo.  But religion would have given him the opportunity to dive into his hope and change message in an area where I think the average voter - and particularly those averse to confrontation - would have been able to take the leap of "faith" with him - pardon the pun.  Race relations, on the other hand, seems daunting to most of us - even those of us who care deeply about the issue and would like to change this country for the better.  People who don't like conflict, however, are not going to want to have to face such a huge issue in selecting their president.

    The bits and pieces that I saw of Wright this morning are going to make a lot of people really uncomfortable which is not how we get Obama into the White House I am sorry to say.

    Parent

    all the more reason (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Lahdee on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:16:51 PM EST
    for Obama to move on to policy questions. Sharpening the policy focus may help to distract from the noise.   I hold out little hope that policy will distract because it's not part of the narrative. That darn narrative that modern America has decided it really can't live without. Does this candidate make me look fat?

    This is important (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by coolit on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:24:50 PM EST
    The Obama surrogates are on every network all the time representing him.  Every single time, they say he is trying to bring about a new type of politics.  Change in the culture.  Hope.  etc.

    Why aren't the talking heads in the media pressing them on this.  If he is such change, why are they race baiting with Hillary?  Why they drudging for mud with Bill and his foundation?  I think there needs to be some serious questions about whether Obama is more of the same or a real change.

    He is eventually going to be exposed for this hypocracy against McCain.  If the Clinton people can get this point out there on the talk shows, she could surge in the polls even more than she is now.

    Get out the message Clinton people!!  Obama is more of the same.

    Parent

    How do you (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by AnninCA on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:28:45 PM EST
    attack Hope?

    LOL*

    It's like attacking apple pie.

    People don't get deluded by these talking heads, anyway.

    I never watch any of these guys you all talk about.  I finally watched one show.  Good lord....it was all "fill the air" stuff.

    Frankly, Entertainment tonight does a better job.

    Parent

    It Is Very Easy To Attack Hope And Change IMO (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:28:35 PM EST
    if there is any will to do so. If the media really wanted to do its job, they could make Obama's talking heads give more details on exactly what types of change Obama plans to enact and EXACTLY how he plans to accomplish it.

    There have been a few hints by the Republicans on how they are going to use the change and hope mantra against Obama. Even a person who is not a member of the "creative class", could come up with an effective ad to turn change and hope into a negative.  
     

    Parent

    Hope is not a Strategy (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by cymro on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:54:09 PM EST
    That is a well-known fact in the world of Sales.

    Parent
    It is not attacking hope (5.00 / 0) (#101)
    by facta non verba on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:35:23 PM EST
    but rather challenging them to define what that means. What does change mean? And when they point to healthcare, energy and war of terror proposals, they fall fall far short of Democratic proposals.

    Parent
    Change 4 Me Is What I USED To Get Back (none / 0) (#102)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:35:51 PM EST
    at McDonald's!  Basically, obama is full of hot air.  How about some substance?

    Parent
    I am the MOE. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Marco21 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:18:29 PM EST
    Oh, you guys weren't talking about the gay guy? Ok. :)

    Anyhoot, I've always considered Hillary to be our best chance in the fall. She still is and I agree it's too early to be taking November forecasts so seriously.

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:20:40 PM EST
    very cute!

    Parent
    Kudos (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:20:01 PM EST
    for admitting you may be wrong, BTD.

    You are one of the few reality-based Obama-supporting bloggers around.

    Hillary Will Still Win Nomination (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Buckeye on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:22:17 PM EST
    This is just my opinion, but I think Dean and the Democratic Party knows this.  When I watched Dean on Tim Russert yesterday, he has changed the narrative describing this nomination.  He called the race "essentially tied" which is a very different narrative than that postulated by the media (such as "Obama has an insurmountable lead" and the "will of the people is with Obama based on his lead," and that "the math is tough for Hillary").  Saying it is essentially tied is like saying Obama does not have a genuine lead (which I have always believed but never heard stated publicly before).  Dean also kept harping about the fact that superdelegates are in no way required to vote for the candidate with the most pledged delegates.  Dean made sure he was very clear on this.  He also said that the winner of delegates will be something like 51% to 49% and the loser is the only one who can unify the party.  Dean finished by saying that Florida and Michigan will be seated and their delegates will be able to vote and have an impact on the results.

    I could be wrong, but I sure seems to me that Dean knows what the supers and the delegates in FL and MI are thinking - that Hillary will win the nomination.  Just my gut instincts, I could be wrong.

    Even I agree (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Serene1 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:34:25 PM EST
    After Pelosi declared that the SD's instead of exercising their mind should endorse the leading candidate and DB literally threatening that anything other than endorsing the leading candidate  by the SD's would not be valid, Dean's contention that it is upto the SD's comes as a pleasant surprise and hopefully an indication of Change in thinking up there.

    Parent
    I was impressed by his calm and (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Joan in VA on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:37:35 PM EST
    reasonable demeanor. Not at all agitated, as he often seems.
    Very impartial. Though he used the word "overturn"(re: the superD's vs. the pledgedD's) on Saturday which is a loaded word that he should not be using.

    Parent
    FL and MI (none / 0) (#26)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:24:53 PM EST
    Impact on results?

    Or impact on narrative?

    Does Dean concede what the narrative would be right now if FL and MI were added to the totals?

    Parent

    He was very dismissive (none / 0) (#32)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:29:48 PM EST
    to FL and MI.  Insulting, I thought.  He kept repeating that they aren't any more important than any other state, they broke the roolz, etc.

    This was in an interview I heard yesterday on MTP.

    Parent

    I would have liked to have seen (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:31:00 PM EST
    that.   I'll look for a youtube or something.


    Parent
    Yeah, it got me a little (none / 0) (#40)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:37:24 PM EST
    exercised.  I was listening to the cspan radio replay of the morning shows in the car on a long drive - that's how I remember which show it was on.  It was around 12:30, so it must have been MTP.

    Though he did not say so specifically, I think he was referring to the arguments that FL and MI are swing states in the GE, so it is extra bad for Dems to not seat their delegates. He was saying they are no more important than other states.

    Parent

    Everything Dean does to insult Floridians galls us (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Mark Woods on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:18:16 PM EST
    all the more, with each day that passes without our votes being counted.  Howard Dean and his henchman Brazile will never hold a place of esteem in my mind, since they caused another situation where Florida became a national punching bag.

    This is really kind of stupid and lacks perspective, since the projections on Democratic growth among Latinos in FL are impressive during the next 5-10 years.

    Why does the DNC want to make permanent enemies out of 'natural' Democrats?

    Parent

    I think he was just covering his bases (none / 0) (#30)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:28:10 PM EST
    And trying to lay the ground in case Clinton does somehow win.  The DNC has gotten Obama's donor list and are going to use it send out fundraising letters with his signature.  Sounds like they expect him to be the nominee, or at least want to tap his donors.  Actually, that could make your argument - they are tapping his donors while there is still a chance he will be the nominee, since they may not get them later!

    I'm going to go with your theory, if it gets me through the next month!

    Parent

    Problem with this (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Buckeye on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:34:50 PM EST
    If Dean really believed Obama was going to be the nominee, then why would he call the race "essentially tied?"  That would be insane.  To me, characterizing the nomination in that manner was unprecedented and not something one would say if the nomination was over like Dick Morris and other want people to believe.

    I have got to believe that the supers know Obama is a sure loser in November.

    Parent

    Love him or hate him - Dean does (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:51:41 PM EST
    tend to tell the truth and the reality is that they are essentially tied.

    I don't think anyone ever anticipated this possibility when they put together our delegate allocation metric.

    I don't think the winner take all system is appealing, but I do think that we should give more than just a small percentage of delegates to the candidate who wins a healthy majority.

    Parent

    What else is he going to say? (none / 0) (#84)
    by cymro on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:04:50 PM EST
    If he's trying to avoid saying "Obama is in the lead", then what else can he say, while remaining relatively neutral as party chair.

    He can't very well say "Clinton is leading in the GE polls", can he? He would get attacked by Obama supporters and hounded by media people arguing that "polls are all over the map in this election", "which poll is he looking at," etc. It would be a disaster. He's smarter than that.

    Parent

    Perhaps they need to tap his donors (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by esmense on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:57:26 PM EST
    because all the "old ladies" have been, or are threatening to, cancel their automatic monthly donations. Sure hope all those college students, independents and moderate Republicans are ready to step up to the plate.

    Parent
    Hillary raised (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by AnninCA on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:02:39 PM EST
    money to fund a primary revote in MI and FL.

    We don't need the DNC to win the Fall election.

    Dean is irrelevant.

    Parent

    I agree Ruffian. (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by felizarte on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:12:09 PM EST
    Dean is not stupid.  They (the DNC) made the mistake of jumping too soon or deciding beforehand that they want Obama.  Now that Clinton is about to stage an almost miraculous comeback and win in actual votes and delegates, they see a great possibility of an obvious win by Clinton and they would be foolish not to support her.  In the event there is a violent reaction from Obama supporters (as has been intimated) there is a foundation laid to try and cool it down.

    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Buckeye on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:26:22 PM EST
    What I believe is happening.  Dean is slowly setting the stage for Hillary pulling this thing out.

    Parent
    Take Heart (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by AnninCA on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:26:43 PM EST
    BTD....

    It really is too early.  

    And Hillary could also have another case of sniper fire.  :)

    She's got her own personal flaws, obviously.

    At this point, I don't have any doubt (5.00 / 6) (#33)
    by stillife on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:29:50 PM EST
    that Obama is unelectable in November.  If the Republicans could swift-boat Kerry, a decorated war hero, imagine what they will to do Obama, who has actual baggage and very little experience to counteract it.  The Repubs don't even have to invent anything - just play Rev. Wright videos round the clock, which is happening as we speak.  And then there's Ayers, and Rezko, and PingPongGate, and heaven knows what else will turn up between now and November.

    Is Hillary a sure thing?  Absolutely not, but she's a fighter (unlike Obama) and (also unlike Obama) has been thoroughly vetted.

    I wish the poll (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by DaytonDem on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:36:21 PM EST
    would release state by state polling. It would give us a better idea of how the candidates stand. I think Clinton would be well ahead there too, but that's just guessing.

    What I would like to see (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:54:54 PM EST
    - if there were a way - are polls that compare the numbers now to the results in states that have already voted; I would be really interested to know whether the much-vaunted victories in red states would hold up if the primary/caucus were held today.

    If I were an unpledged delegate, this might help me make my decision.

    Parent

    Agreed (none / 0) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:41:12 PM EST
    These national polls are pretty meaningless right now.

    Parent
    Hopefully SUSA will do another 50 state (none / 0) (#47)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:42:40 PM EST
    head-to-head. No idea if or when they will.

    Parent
    BTD - the bloom is off the Obama rose (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by scribe on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:39:07 PM EST
    sad to say for all those fans of him.

    The point is, to my eyes anyway, he was the political equivalent of a sugar high, or maybe of pounding a couple of those "energy drinks" really quickly.  All energy, all the time, and then a sudden, deep crash.

    I looked at the Electoral vote analysis posted here over the weekend, which had HRC winning with something like 330 EV, and that pretty much made up my opinion for me.  For this week, anyway.

    The opinion being that the Obama rush we saw earlier this spring had (and I thought this at the time) all the hallmarks of a mass frenzy - no different in nature from a Hula Hoop craze -fed and nurtured by advertising and cool-hunting and wanting to be part of the Kool Kids.  But, once people started to look under the hood, they decided they weren't comfortable.  Just like that hula hoop was gathering dust within 3 months of being bought.

    Good thing, to my eyes, that he peaked when he did - before the last round of primaries before he hit Pennsylvania's Shoo-fly Pie Trail and found that eating too much of that, weighs you down.  (Sorry, I'm looking for a sort-of witty/funny phrase and that's the best I could find on short notice.)  The teflon is flaking off and the press is picking at it.  He's not helping matters by getting "bored" with the campaign, especially since the nomination hasn't been awarded to him yet.  

    If his weaknesses with the electorate hadn't come apparent until after sewing up the nomination, the Dems could have been stuck with a really weak choice in a year that is theirs to lose, and no way to get out of it.

    I still don't know how it will all turn out, but since HRC decided to stay in and still conceivably has a chance, we may come out of this all right.

    He took a big gamble running with (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:40:37 PM EST
    so little experience, and it looks like the gamble will not pay off. He should stay in politics though. He does have a lot to offer.

    Parent
    It wasn't his experience, or lack thereof (none / 0) (#54)
    by scribe on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:53:15 PM EST
    Rather, I think it was (sad to say) that many white people feel more comfortable voting for a white woman (who admittedly does have several decades more experience - starting with the Watergate hearings) than for a black man.  That, and she's shown time and again she can take a punch.  I don't think he's shown that.

    I think - assuming Obama does not win this time - we are not likely to have a black president until a major part of the generation that experienced the Civil Rights revolution of the 60s and the white backlash of the 70s has moved off the electoral map.  Because those oldsters will too much see a black face and think thoughts which, if written, would set off the filters.

    Parent

    Nonsense (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:11:14 PM EST
    We will have a black president when we have a good candidate.  Obama is not a good candidate.  You do not have to be a racist white to see that.

    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#95)
    by abfabdem on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:08:18 PM EST
    I am volunteering for a black candidate for our U.S. Representative district to get the incumbent Republican out to bolster Congress for our new President.  I just never felt about Obama the way I do about this candidate.  I wanted Obama to show me he could be an effective U.S. Senator first.  He has not been able to do that so him being President is really a crap shoot.

    Parent
    Thing is (none / 0) (#100)
    by DaveOinSF on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:00:47 PM EST
    if he had been less impatient and served in the Senate for a few more years, he could have become a good candidate.  What a waste.

    Parent
    I'm honestly not sure (none / 0) (#105)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:56:19 PM EST
    I thought that back in the beginning, but this campaign has revealed character flaws in Obama that I find incredibly troubling, and those won't go away four or eight years from now.  If he manages to lose the nomination, we will be very lucky.  I don't believe he has a ghost of a chance to win the GE.

    Parent
    Phooey! (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Molly Pitcher on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:17:08 PM EST
    I am one of those oldsters, and so is my sister.  In the first place, we identify with Hillary; my sister says that this is probably the only chance she will have in her lifetime to see a woman president.  But she will vote for Obama rather than McCain.  I, on the other hand, am increasingly confident that Obama does not deserve my vote (which won't count, anyway).

    Many people from the era you mention worked hard for equal rights. I experienced not only the 60's and 70's, but the 30's, and 40's, and the 50's. I want Hillary to win, yes, but it is not because the other candidate is black.  Black faces don't scare me, nor do they cause me think or say really stupid things.

    Parent

    Obama torched every assist he had in this run (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Ellie on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:44:22 PM EST
    He wasn't even careful about what he'd need in the GE.

    He torched through valuable political assets -- accumulated by OTHERS -- for little or no longterm gain.

    He's as bad at campaigning as Bush is at governing: someone else will pick up the tab. (Look at what Obama spent in PA to lose.)

    I believe Michelle was honest about one thing: waking up to Obama means being greeted with the reality that he really does stink.

    Parent

    I Have To Agree To Disagree (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:46:11 PM EST
    I'm one of those old timers and I can think of several black politicians that I would gladly work my heart out to get the nomination and the WH. They all have experience, vote and talk like Democrats and have been willing to work hard and stand firm even in the adversarial environment of DC. They are not great orators like Senator Obama but they know what they are talking about.

    Also, it is my opinion that there didn't have to be this division on race. Obama and his supporters did not help him with all this talk about how Clinton and her supporters are racist or how the AA community will leave the party and disrupt the convention.

    I was never an Obama supporter but back in January I thought even if it was a mistake to nominate Obama, it would be a good thing if the racial barrier was broken. Don't really care now and it was Obama, not Clinton, that changed my mind.

    Parent

    actually right before Ohio, a female reporter (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by dotcommodity on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:51:07 PM EST
    interviewed lunchbucket Dems in factories saying they wouldn't vote for a woman, and nobody reacted...not on blogs, the MSM not the interviewer, nobody...I think its about even between those who won't vote for a woman and those who won't vote for a Black person,...I really don't think that is the issue with them.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#68)
    by AnninCA on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:09:58 PM EST
    And Obama gave an avenue for people so angry at Bush to express themselves.

    That's no small contribution to our country, in my opinion.

    They needed an outlet.

    Now, we need to ground ourselves.

    We need to turn the tide nationally.  Nevermind HIllary's numbers.  

    We need to turn this country around.

    And a big "sugar" rush isn't the solution.

    But mashed potatoes and gravy are.

    Parent

    Oh, how the Kos turns (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by scribe on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:09:12 PM EST
    in the aftermath of Obama's kowtow to Faux Noise, Kos has a lot to say, including this (which kinda looks like my own comments):

    Yet I suspect that much of the erosion in his momentum of late comes from people realizing that Obama can't possibly deliver what he's promising. If he promised to be a good president, one who delivered for people and improved their lives and restored America's standing in the world, then great. That he can deliver.

    But "rise above politics"? His refusal to acknowledge the political reality may very well be his greatest weakness. I hope it's all an act. I can take cynical political rhetoric. I expect it. And it's not like Clinton is offering anything different in that department. But if Obama actually believes it, then the Republicans will chew him up and spit him out. And either way, his campaign -- never good at setting expectations -- shouldn't have promised something that Obama is apparently incapable of delivering.
    Kos trying to make a save... (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by white n az on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:31:53 PM EST
    of whatever credibility he hasn't already tossed out the window.

    I think he finally sees the handwriting on the wall and how much his guy has been damaged by the past few weeks...but he's not letting go of his guy, only recalibrating his words so he's got an escape hatch.

    Parent

    Kos Will Not Be Able To Restore His Credibility (5.00 / 4) (#83)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:55:19 PM EST
    with me. I'm O.K. with a blog having a known bias but when you make stuff up to fuel a feeding frenzy of hate, you have crossed a line that IMO loses you all credibility.

    Parent
    Yep there are several (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by abfabdem on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:13:53 PM EST
    websites, one certain radio station and a major TV network that I will never, ever support with my time and/or money again. They lost me for good and showed their true (and very ugly) colors.  I am not even tempted to check them out as I don't want to give them the clicks.  They became what they always lampooned (Right Wing World morphed into Left Wing World).

    Parent
    too funny, and the second today: (none / 0) (#93)
    by dotcommodity on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:56:15 PM EST
    I commented freely with my usual realitybased commentary in the smintheus one and was not even trollrated, for a change...seachange begins over there....?

    Parent
    It Is NOT Pretty in DKosLand Right Now (none / 0) (#103)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:42:28 PM EST
    But there are still too many obamans who are trying to spin to save obama's political life.

    Parent
    They've had a demonization (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:09:50 PM EST
    campaign going against her full-bore since the early ninties, when while remaining centrist on almost every other issue, she had the effrontery to suggest something known to the thank-you-Jesus-may-I-have-another crowd as "socialized medicine".

    The question is, has the twenty+ year mantra/drone
    Hillary=liberal witch been planted so deeply, particularly amongst swing-state white males that it'll be impossible for her to beat the ex-war hero, "moderate", white, male, repug candidate?

    Rational, informed, thinking have little to do with the way most people cast their votes in this country; if it did we wouldnt have had to endure the result of the essential masochism of the repug base for the last eight years. The majority of the citizenry should be marching in the streets by now; that they aren't isnt exactly a positive indicator for the future of "change".

    I Started Out In The Anyone But Hillary Crowd (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:14:31 PM EST
    and she won me over. Still disagree with her on some issues, but I think she will make a good president. In fact, more and more I think that she is the type of president the country needs right now. A "fixer" and not a "dreamer."

    Before Obama entered the race and Dems were divided on racial lines, Hillary had one of the strongest winning coalitions imaginable. For the sake of argument let's look at the coalition that she would have had if Obama had decided to wait.

    Women
    AA Community
    Latinos
    Seniors
    Working class men
    Unions
    Creative class men (kicking and screaming maybe but still there)
    Youth Vote (More likely to vote for any Dem)

    She would have also cut into the Republican vote with moderate Republicans and Indies by attracting more women and latinos. Two groups that the Dems need that tend to be independent swing voters. She also had the collective memory of the Clinton economy. Most people were really better off financially then they are now and she can really talk about the issues in an engaging way if people really listen with an unbiased ear.
     

    Parent

    Which just goes to show... (none / 0) (#92)
    by sweetthings on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:52:42 PM EST
    How badly her campaign had to screw up in order to let Barack in the door. She really should have been invincible. Then she let Penn run things into the ground, and now here we are.

    I just hope we can heal this rift before November.

    Parent

    Part Of Her Original Coalition Was The AA (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:11:14 PM EST
    Community. In some states it is hard to overcome a 90 - 10 vote from that community. Clinton made mistakes in the first half of the primary season. Obama is making them in the second half. Obama, Axelrod, Rev. Wright, Brazile and Clyburn are running his campaign into the ground now.

    Clinton and her supporters have been branded as racists and Obama and his supporters have been branded as elitists who distain white women and working class people.

    Not sure if this dog can be walked back at this point. Only time will tell.

     

    Parent

    Exactly. (none / 0) (#99)
    by sweetthings on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:21:45 PM EST
    We're split right down the middle. Neither candidate is strong enough to land a KO on the other, so it's almost certain to go the judges, and that's almost certain to be a split decision. And that guarantees a lot of unhappy folks no matter who gets the nod.

    A unity ticket seems like the only answer, and even that seems more a stretch every day.

    Parent

    Hey (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by cmugirl on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:20:40 PM EST
    Even TPM has this story on the front page. (No, I won't go there, but I can see the computer screen of  the guy who sits ahead of me and this story is in bold.) This must be serious.

    As a side note, for a laugh, look at this

    http://thepage.time.com/

    RE (1.00 / 1) (#7)
    by az on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:12:57 PM EST
    You don't know what the MOE is , do you ?

    I have never heard of an MOE of 9%

    Hmm (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:16:03 PM EST
    Do you know what MOE is and how it is applied?

    From your comment, I doubt you do.

    Watch your tone.

    Parent

    Re (none / 0) (#21)
    by az on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:21:54 PM EST
    I haven't seen the MOE of the poll anywhere " yet " so its a wonder why you would state both numbers are within the moe.

    Parent
    That is a better point (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:32:15 PM EST
    I believe the MOE for this poll has been 4.

    I am assuming it remains 4. But that could be wrong.

    Your first comment was ludicrous.

    Parent

    I was going to ask about MOE too (none / 0) (#48)
    by Klio on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:45:53 PM EST
    but with a pleasant tone, of course.  Ambinder says Clinton's outside the MOE vis-a-vis McCain, but the story he links to doesn't actually say anything about it.  So I dunno ....

    Parent
    If 4%. . . (none / 0) (#50)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:46:54 PM EST
    Clinton is outside the MOE vs. McCain.

    Parent
    It's safe to say that no poll (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:58:02 PM EST
    would even attempt to go forward with an MOE even approaching 9%, and definitely not an AP/Ipsos poll.  That means AP paid a pretty penny for it, meaning for its members -- thousands of media outlets, who would not be amused by such a waste of subscriber fees (especially with the economic state of the print media, the majority of members, today).

    So questioning whether a 9% margin is inside or outside an MOE, even if unstated, is just . . . well, reason to review stats classes. :-)

    Parent

    I'm unfraid (none / 0) (#62)
    by AnninCA on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:06:40 PM EST
    to be uncool.

    What the heck is MOE?

    Parent

    Margin of Error (none / 0) (#66)
    by wasabi on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:09:36 PM EST


    Parent
    She's 9 Points Ahead of McCain (none / 0) (#8)
    by No Blood for Hubris on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:13:03 PM EST
    How can a nine point spread be within the margin of error?

    He means the difference (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:18:29 PM EST
    between the Clinton lead v McC and the Obama lead v McC is within the margin of error.

    Parent
    Never mind (none / 0) (#24)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:24:25 PM EST
    I was doubly wrong.  I'll myob now.

    Parent
    MOE of +/-4 for example (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:19:27 PM EST
    Applies to both candidates' numbers.

    The better argument for you is that Clinton might be up by 17.

    Parent

    OTT but found this link (none / 0) (#43)
    by Serene1 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:39:28 PM EST
    from riverdaughter. Interesting read on the racial politics being played by the media

    http://journals.democraticunderground.com/McCamy%20Taylor/203

    Electoral Vote not popular vote (none / 0) (#45)
    by HeadScratcher on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:41:08 PM EST
    I hate national polls and the media that report them because there is ZERO relevance in the presidential election (see 2000 for example). This is a republic and the president is chosen by the states - that is the number to be looked at.

    You can look at electoral-vote.com (none / 0) (#55)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:54:21 PM EST
    as noted here previously, as it has daily updates on how each of the three candidates is doing toward the  EC vote.  Actually, it's about the same result as the AP poll now, correct as you are that it sadly is not always that way (cough, Gore won, cough:-).

    Parent
    Thus, (none / 0) (#60)
    by HeadScratcher on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:06:25 PM EST
    There should be no reporting of nationwide polls without the mention of the corresponding electoral vote tallies.

    Parent
    There Are Several Electoral Maps That (none / 0) (#81)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:50:43 PM EST
    show that Clinton can beat McCain and Obama loses to McCain.

    If you look at the data behind them, Clinton has a better chance to win. Obama still has chance but it is much more a roll of the dice.

    Parent

    About that "race-baiting" (none / 0) (#53)
    by wmr on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:52:48 PM EST
    I seem to recall reading somewhere (sorry to be so vague) that Bill Clinton's statements comparing Obama to Jackson were made in response to a question about Jackson and that all the video clips have been edited so that the question is not seen.

    Does anyone know more about this?

    same polls said (none / 0) (#61)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:06:39 PM EST
    Kerry would not only do better than Dean but would beat Bush.  Worked out real well for us last time.

    So when Dean demands one of them drop out (none / 0) (#94)
    by nellre on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:02:45 PM EST
    So when Dean demands one of them drop out by June, does which one does he mean?

    "We want the voters to have their say. That's over on June 3," Dean said in an interview on ABC's Good Morning America.

    But FL and MI don't get their say until the convention. Is this his way of seating them, but without them actually having any meaningful vote?

    Not this one....I think he means obama (none / 0) (#104)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:48:25 PM EST
    http://markhalperin.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/superncgov.jpg?w=360&h=235

    Parent
    AP Poll: Clinton Runs Better Than Obama Against McCain | 105 comments (105 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment