home

Gallup on Hillary's Swing State Advantage

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:51:54 AM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John McCain (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Gallup has a new analysis out on Hillary Clinton's swing state advantage over Barack Obama.

In the 20 states where Hillary Clinton has claimed victory in the 2008 Democratic primary and caucus elections (winning the popular vote), she has led John McCain in Gallup Poll Daily trial heats for the general election over the past two weeks of Gallup Poll Daily tracking by 50% to 43%. In those same states, Barack Obama is about tied with McCain among national registered voters, 45% to 46%.

In contrast, in the 28 states and the District of Columbia where Obama has won a higher share of the popular vote against Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primaries and caucuses, there is essentially no difference in how Obama and Clinton each fare against McCain. Both Democrats are statistically tied with him for the fall election.

....All of this speaks to Sen. Clinton's claim that her primary-state victories over Obama indicate her potential superiority in the general election.

Superdelegates, are you listening?

< DNC To Ignore Florida's Safe Harbor In Delegate Meeting | Clueless >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Gallup on Hillary's Swing State Advantage | 80 comments (80 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Some are listening. Some of those are (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by tigercourse on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:59:24 AM EST
    feeling sheepish. But it's too late. They cast their bets and the horses are out of the starting gate.

    Is it by design? (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Salo on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:16:07 PM EST
    Or just learned helplessness in rats?

    Parent
    I'd say a little bit of both. Clinton haters (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by tigercourse on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:29:35 PM EST
    like Brazille, Dean, Kennedy, Daschle and Kerry certainly led the way. Others followed. The early and consistent argument that African Americans would go crazy if Obama didn't win certainly scared alot of people into towing the party line.

    Parent
    and the democratic base going crazy and (none / 0) (#79)
    by hellothere on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:19:25 PM EST
    maybe heading for the exit is what? a big yawn it seems.

    Parent
    Not yet -- But everyday Obama makes the case (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by katiebird on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:03:31 PM EST
    that He's just not ready.  

    I don't see any reason why anyone has to drop out before the convention.  

    I find the threat of black violence to be (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by athyrio on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:05:41 PM EST
    not only offensive but totally against the Democratic values that I originally marched for with Dr. King those many years ago...If the Obama supporters would bother to read the rules they would find that the Super delegates have the authority to support whichever candidate they feel has the strength to win...No rules are being broken and to use the phrase "stealing the nomination" is so totally misdirecting and just being used to stir  up trouble...Disgraceful!!!

    Their own ignorance (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:14:11 PM EST
    will be their undoing. The threat of violence is just that, a threat.  And a stand needs to be made that threats are not to be considered and if made will have only the opposite affect.

    AND since Obama won't take the lead, there should be an AA leader who should step up and reiterate the positions/duties of a superdelegate.

    But alas, there is a vacuum in leadership:  from Dean, Brazile, Pelosi, Reid...nobody's the grown up.

    Al Gore, sir, your silence is deafening.

    Parent

    Tension Building Phase (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by janedw420 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:50:55 PM EST
    While Obama's CHANGE platform has energized many, lack of life experience and a clear understanding of U.S. elections history has created another toxic arena. It is certainly not their fault. Most Americans don't know basic American history, and since MSM has woefully under-reported the dynamics of the numerous reports of voter fraud, questionable caucus results, failed attempts to remedy the MI & FL fiasco, all the while fanning the flames of the "isms" in our culture, it is no wonder we are beginning to feel the inevitable backlash either side may unleash. Blogs are filled with one blast after another. Claims the election is being stolen are coming from some of the most disenfranchised, from those who rightfully feel they have been abused, ignored and neglected for generations.
    I think it would be enormously helpful for many of them to read more of the articles and legal documents surrounding voter's rights, DNC RULES AND REMEDIES. Understand that if a state breaks a rule, NEW rules come into play, in order to allow a state to get back into compliance. As passions run high in the coming weeks, a true foundation of the facts will help us understand the complications. While we all hate to lose, either way, it's always good to know why we lost. Instead of a simple, "it was bought" "they stole it from us" or other knee jerk reaction.
    I was born in Appalachia, educated north of the Mason/Dixon, and  enjoyed ten fabulous years in Oregon before moving to Michigan. So I speak with some understanding of the regional likenesses and differences this melting pot is trying to stir to a smooth blend.  

    Parent
    just a question here that has crossed my (none / 0) (#81)
    by hellothere on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:22:30 PM EST
    mind. considering the fact that the dems want more and more voters, what chance do you think a new immigration bill will have of passing? yup, me too! so let's say they pass it and it is signed. mccain would do it i think. it seems to me that the aa base might not be thrilled. i am not commenting here on the worthiness of such a bill but supposing based on what i see of the democrats and the expressed feelings of many in the aa community.

    Parent
    Superdelegates are listening (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by DaveOinSF on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:07:30 PM EST
    But are too cowardly to act.

    Let's hope their comes a point where they HAVE (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:29:14 PM EST
    to listen...the electorate is smart enough to figure out what is going on.  AND, it don't mean a thing til the convention!

    Parent
    Some points (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by flyerhawk on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:09:41 PM EST
    from the article...

    However, just focusing on the swing states in Clinton's and Obama's respective win columns, the two are fairly similar. Clinton beats McCain in her purple states (including Florida and Michigan) by 49% to 43%, while Obama slightly trails McCain (43% to 46%) in these states -- a nine-point swing in the gap in Clinton's favor. Conversely, Obama beats McCain in his purple states (49% to 41%), while Clinton trails McCain by one point, 45% to 46%, in the same states -- also a nine-point swing in the gap in Obama's favor.

    What gives Clinton an additional boost in national support -- but is not likely to increase her chances of winning Electoral College votes in November -- is her superior performance over Obama in the red states where she has captured the popular vote in the primaries. These include such typically safe Republican states as Oklahoma, Texas, Indiana, and Arizona.
    the foundry states (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Salo on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:13:20 PM EST
    and border south should be our base.  Colorado and New Mexico won't make up for that scale of loss.

    I'm tempted to think there's a massive disinformation campaign going on somewhere in the bowels of the party.

    Parent

    Texas (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by DaveOinSF on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:14:51 PM EST
    I thought the Obama crowd was claiming he would turn Texas purple.

    In any case the swing states that Hillary has won in the primary have a lot more EVs than the swing states that Obama won in the primary

    Parent

    At one time or another, the Obama crowd (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by tigercourse on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:17:52 PM EST
    (and sometimes Obama himself) have claimed that he would be running in all 50 states, competitivley. At one time, he claimed he had a chance in Georgia and Alabama. Some said he would put Kansas on the map. Rational thought seems to have been one of the first casualties of this campaign.

    Parent
    yeah well! i don't think so! (none / 0) (#82)
    by hellothere on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:23:11 PM EST


    Parent
    No, they're too busy (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:10:44 PM EST
    "sending a message" to:

    Clinton Supporters
    Women
    Latinos
    Asians
    GLBT
    AA's who vote Clinton
    Men
    The Middle/Working class... of ALL races

    we got the message now have they? (none / 0) (#83)
    by hellothere on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:23:32 PM EST


    Parent
    Sadly, as expected, this is NOT the real finding (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Tano on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:12:21 PM EST
    AS outlined in the piece itself, this topline analysis doesnt really speak to possible November results because it includes safe states on either side (Obama will not lose CA, McCain will not lose TX etc)

    Gallup redid the analysis focusing only on the swing states - y'know, the ones that might actually effect the outcome - looking at those that Hillary won, and those that Obama won.

    Conclusion:

    "However, just focusing on the swing states in Clinton's and Obama's respective win columns, the two are fairly similar. Clinton beats McCain in her purple states (including Florida and Michigan) by 49% to 43%, while Obama slightly trails McCain (43% to 46%) in these states -- a nine-point swing in the gap in Clinton's favor. Conversely, Obama beats McCain in his purple states (49% to 41%), while Clinton trails McCain by one point, 45% to 46%, in the same states -- also a nine-point swing in the gap in Obama's favor."

    In other words, no advantage here for Clinton in any state that could make a difference.

    And yes, it is sad to realize that one would completely miss that bottom line conclusion from just reading the post here.

    Can you and flyerhawk (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by frankly0 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:20:33 PM EST
    possibly put together enough of whatever it takes to quote the true "bottom line" -- which immediately follows the passages you two conveniently quote?

    Clinton's main advantage is that her states -- including Florida and Michigan -- represent nearly twice as many Electoral College votes as Obama's. However, removing Florida and Michigan from the equation, her purple states are about comparable to Obama's in electoral vote size, and thus the two appear more evenly situated.

    What gives Clinton an additional boost in national support -- but is not likely to increase her chances of winning Electoral College votes in November -- is her superior performance over Obama in the red states where she has captured the popular vote in the primaries. These include such typically safe Republican states as Oklahoma, Texas, Indiana, and Arizona.



    Parent
    For the politically impaired, I highlight the (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by frankly0 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:24:20 PM EST
    real bottom line from above:

    Clinton's main advantage is that her states -- including Florida and Michigan -- represent nearly twice as many Electoral College votes as Obama's.


    Parent
    however (none / 0) (#47)
    by dogooder on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:49:33 PM EST
    Obama hasn't campaigned in either state yet, I think he first visited Florida just last week. His poll numbers are sure to go up. And in any event, he's polling better than her in Michigan right now (see 538), so it's misleading to group Michigan and Florida together.

    Parent
    His (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:55:53 PM EST
    poll numbers in FL are not going to improve. He has severe demographic problems and the demographics in FL do not favor him.

    Parent
    He has demographic disadvantages there, (none / 0) (#52)
    by dogooder on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:14:25 PM EST
    but McCain is only up 6.3 points (according to 538), so the state is definitely within reach.

    Parent
    Doubt it (none / 0) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:28:51 PM EST
    Obama's numbers keep going down not up and the GOP hasn't started their ads yet.

    Parent
    All the Obama-McCain polls (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by dogooder on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:42:31 PM EST
    this year are as follows, in reverse-chronological order (from pollster): McCain +4, +10, +1, +15, +9, +11, +4, +2, +10, +16, +2, +6. There's no pattern there.

    Yes, the GOP hasn't started their ads yet, but Obama hasn't started his either, and he first stepped foot in the state only last week.

    Parent

    In the (none / 0) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:50:10 PM EST
    end the way he has treated the FL voters will cause him to lose. He has done everything to deny them participation in the Dem nomination. McCain will remind them that Obama is so wimpy he can't even stand up to the DNC. Already 25% of Dem's in Fl are saying they won't vote for Obama. I'm sure part of that is due to his problem with Jewish voters.

    Parent
    How has he treated the voters badly? (none / 0) (#86)
    by dogooder on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:54:34 PM EST
    He agreed not to campaign there, according to the DNC rules (even Clinton agreed to that), and now wants them seated at 50% according to the primary vote. He didn't do anything to deny them participation, it was the DNC and the Florida leadership. I don't see how you can blame the problems on Obama.

    Parent
    he wrote (none / 0) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:40:28 PM EST
    a whole memo to the press trashing the state back in Jan. He has repeatedly dithered around and left them hanging the entire primary. He's played a game so that they will have no say in who the nominee is. If he really wanted them to count then he should be advocating for the full slate to be seated.

    Parent
    It is not intirely certain that Texas (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by The Realist on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:42:52 PM EST
    will go for McCain.Our illustrious Senator Cornyn is in deep trouble and Hillary could be the coattails the Dem. Rick Noriega could ride in on. Obama will not.

    Parent
    you have anything on that beside your opinion? (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Tano on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:39:40 PM EST
    Rasmussen has McCain beating Clinton by 9, beating Obama by 8.

    Parent
    in answer to oyur question (none / 0) (#99)
    by The Realist on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:37:39 AM EST
    nope. just the fact that Our Republican Governor won with less than 50% of the vote with three people running and the fact that our Junior Republican Senator is in an extremely close race in Nov.

    Parent
    of course i'd love to see cornyn go down. (none / 0) (#84)
    by hellothere on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:25:41 PM EST
    i think however the repub base will rally. it there is a turnover it will be down to the wire.

    Parent
    EVs (none / 0) (#24)
    by DaveOinSF on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:16:58 PM EST
    How many EVs are in the swing states that Hillary won?  How many EVs are in the swing states that Obama won?

    Parent
    Oh and (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by DaveOinSF on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:24:13 PM EST
    Oh and Hillary's swing states are also red-to-blue conversions, for the most part.

    Obama's are mostly blue holds.

    Parent

    DaveOinSF - the best site for EVcounts is (none / 0) (#93)
    by dotcommodity on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:11:36 PM EST
    electoral-vote.com

    today
    Clinton 327 McCain 194 electoral votes


    Parent

    Thank you Jeralyn for another (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by zfran on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:14:18 PM EST
    superior post. Love TL!

    We'll be together (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by MonaL on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:48:38 PM EST
    if the process is perceived as fair, which it hasn't been so far.

    Obama is not "way ahead" try slightly ahead, and if you count MI & FL, then he's behind.

    If McCain wins in the GE, the country will it come apart at the seams.  However, if Obama and the DNC continue on this path to diminish and dismiss Hillary and her supporters, the Democratic Party will lose at least one member.

    SDs have more than electability on their minds (3.00 / 2) (#57)
    by pluege on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:40:27 PM EST
    winning the GE is not likely to sway superdelegates looking for a slice of that Obama funding raising pie. The bottomline in politics is money: whoever has the money, has the power and influence. Obama has money to throw around, HRC doesn't - that is the mountain HRC has to overcome. Obama is in a position to buy the dem nomination.

    but the rich spoilt kiddies are giving it to Obama (none / 0) (#92)
    by dotcommodity on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:07:51 PM EST
    cause they want a King - they won't give it to boring old congress people with their tiresome old policy...

    Good luck with your shiny new coalition Donna....

    Parent

    Unfortunately we've been over this (1.00 / 0) (#1)
    by Jim J on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:58:04 AM EST
    and over this. I don't see the point in rehashing it continually.

    The numbers clearly indicate that both Democrats are likely to win in November, but Clinton is polling better with regards to the Electoral College. Unfortunately she is highly unlikely to be the nominee, therefore this whole discussion approaches moot status.

    In the event that Obama wins the popular vote but loses the EC, I suspect we'll see the same MSM dynamic we've already seen so much of regarding Obama vs. Clinton, i.e., who dares stand in the way of the First Black President (TM)?

    I find the whole assumption of mass black violence to be absurdly retro, not to mention offensive and stereotyping, but that will be the subtext in the nightmare scenario of a split decision in November.

    In any case, your next president is almost certainly Barack Obama.

    You seem to think the entire electorate (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by masslib on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:03:56 PM EST
    suffers liberal white guilt.  I suggest you think again.

    Parent
    Clinton's not going to be the nominee... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Salo on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:05:58 PM EST
    ...and obama has at best a 50/50 chance at winning in November.

    It's all going according to the DNC plan.

    Parent

    that's your opinion (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:07:12 PM EST
    please don't state it as fact. The electoral map and past elections don't back you up.

    Parent
    If Obama were polling (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Salo on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:10:29 PM EST
    in the mid 50s i'd feel a bit more comfortable predicting a win in novemeber.

    it's not like there's going to be much dramaatioc movement in an electorate that gave the Dems a complete stalemate.

    Parent

    Umm, he agrees with your position n/t (none / 0) (#41)
    by rilkefan on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:40:25 PM EST


    Parent
    Your (none / 0) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:14:31 PM EST
    last paragraph is really indicative of what it would take to squeak by in Nov. Fact of the matter is, that Obama has shown no such compunction for hard work and neither have his supporters for the most part. And then you add in the people who are leaving the party on top of that and you are pretty well guaranteed a loss in Nov. The only way Obama would win would be in the unlikely event of a McCain implosion.

    Parent
    It's a blog, Jeralyn (none / 0) (#89)
    by Jim J on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:01:35 PM EST
    Of course it's my opinion. As all your posts are your opinions.

    Parent
    and then theres facts (none / 0) (#94)
    by dotcommodity on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:16:24 PM EST
    facts like this

    Clinton has a 99% chance to win.
    Obama does not.
    http://hominidviews.com/?p=1551

    Clinton would win 327 electoral votes.
    You need 270 for the White House.
    www.electoral-vote.com/

    Parent

    As I've said in another post, (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by zfran on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:11:54 PM EST
    the women and their vote may have been called many names, but we do not forget, some forgive on occasion, we do not forget!

    Parent
    Jim J - I have no place for (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by nulee on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:13:21 PM EST
    cynical, throw in the towel attitudes - what Jeralyn has posted is a fact based analysis - there are no SD votes until the convention - no matter how much the MSM and Obama wish it were otherwise.  

    The point is that Obama is likely to lose in the GE - I care about that, I want to work to see that the DNC and the SDs also wake up and start to care about that.

    Parent

    Come on, people (none / 0) (#43)
    by rilkefan on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:45:15 PM EST
    Jim J agrees with the thrust of the post - that HRC is polling better than Obama - but the likelihood of her winning the nomination is small.  That's just plain true.  Maybe you think it's overoptimistic to believe, as I do, that McCain is toast because of Bush/the economy/the war, his age, and most importantly the superiority of the D candidate, but that's the opposite of cynical etc.

    Parent
    But, Obama (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:19:39 PM EST
    as the Dem candidate is NOT superior. He is by far the worst candidate we had this cycle. He has no accomplishments, no experience, is condescending and arrogant, women can't stand him etc. His wife is bitter and angry. He's a big city machine pol. If you think these things don't matter then you don't knwo much about politics.

    In 1976 Jimmy Carter was polling 20 pts ahead of Gerald Ford. If Obama was doing those numbers then I would agree with you but he's not. He hasn't polled above 45% for the most part since Wright and it seems that might be his ceiling. The electorate seems resistant to him. Heck, 50% of the population thinks that McCain represents change from Bush. And McCain has been getting the better of him in the debate so far. He's John Kerry with more baggage and no experience.

    Parent

    Thanks but don't bother (none / 0) (#88)
    by Jim J on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:59:55 PM EST
    Nobody thinks before posting here anymore. It's all knee-jerk reaction all the time at this point. I could just cut and paste a comment about Obama losing 49 states to McCain into every thread and everyone would love it.

    Parent
    I would correct you. (none / 0) (#95)
    by dotcommodity on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:19:23 PM EST
    because its not 49 states.

    Parent
    Obama is less (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by pie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:17:22 PM EST
    popular than he was in February.  I don'tsee him winning the popular vote or the EC if he's the nominee, especially once the repubs get done with him.

    Parent
    Obama peaked in early March. (none / 0) (#61)
    by pluege on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:48:25 PM EST
    Its been all downhill since and will continue to be so.

    Parent
    Respond to the post (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Cream City on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:24:18 PM EST
    and the Gallup polling results.  Your comment is not relevant to that.  Save it for spewing on an open thread.

    Parent
    Actually (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:29:57 PM EST
    he's unlikely to win the general election. I would agree if he had a 20 pt advantage over McCain but he does not. He is polling behind McCain and that is not likely to improve those numbers. He's right now getting 70% of Dems and 40% of independents. It's not enough to win and those Dems are not coming back either no matter how arrogantly he prances around and announces that they are. His lack of experience or accomplishments is something that too many voters can't get past.

    And the media is not helping him. It creating a backlash against him.

    Parent

    Mhmm. (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by masslib on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:48:58 PM EST
    "His lack of experience or accomplishments is something that too many voters can't get past."

    That's my problem with him.  It's possible he could win because it's a bad year to be a Republican, but I don't think he's qualified to be President.  He's hasn't the resume yet, IMO.  It worries me, electing someone without the qualifications.

    Parent

    well (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:54:59 PM EST
    it has happened before. See Carter, Jimmy. And see what that set off. Is winning this election worth that kind of thing happening again? Obama has shown himself to be completely inept on policy.

    Parent
    I think Carter had slightly (none / 0) (#51)
    by masslib on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:58:10 PM EST
    more experience thatn Obama, and was clearly more knowledgable of the issues, but point taken.  Yes, that's my worry.

    Parent
    IN addition, Barack Obama (3.00 / 0) (#27)
    by independent voter on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:18:32 PM EST
    is not runnning against Hillary Clinton anymore. Of course her numbers are strong. 2 candidates are running against Obama, yet he still polls strong.

    Parent
    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by pie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:20:20 PM EST


    Parent
    Almost huh? (3.00 / 2) (#28)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:19:41 PM EST
    We almost won that football game.

    I almost got that job.

    I almost bought that house.

    Almost doesn't pay.

    And there is no certainty to anything right now.  Especially if the alleged damaging video tape of Mrs. Obama and Rev Wright comes out in October before the elections.

    There is one thing that is certain. The republicans will play to win, and the rules will not be the DNC's.  It will be played on completely different turf.

    Parent

    hardly likely, (none / 0) (#80)
    by cpinva on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:19:47 PM EST
    In any case, your next president is almost certainly Barack Obama.

    even if he should be the eventual dem. nominee. something the polls haven't (and really can't, at this point) taken into account is the likely affect of what will surely be an onslaught of republican 527's, excoriating sen. obama for everything from his wife's "finally proud to be an american" comment, to his relationships with rezko and wright.

    sen. clinton has been about as vetted as a human being can possibly be; subject to an unremitting stream of vile accusations for the better part of the past 16 years. we've all been there and done that, the 527's won't have all that much to work with.

    sen. mccain has also been subject to public scrutiny since entering the political sphere, though the general public is probably not as familiar with some of the less savory aspects of his personal & political resume. however, he enjoys the adulation of the MSM, and his legitimate status (whatever you think of his flying skills) as a "war hero" gives him an instant notch up over sen. obama.

    the bottom line, with respect to sen. obama: these polls should be taken with a grain of salt, until such time as the real games begin.

    when they do, i fully expect his numbers to take a nosedive, because the entire electorate won't be all that impressed by him.

    Parent

    please post that comment in november. (none / 0) (#85)
    by hellothere on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:26:35 PM EST


    Parent
    Simple: (none / 0) (#9)
    by sarissa on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:09:12 PM EST
    Put Hillary on the ticket.

    At the top! (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by nulee on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:14:07 PM EST


    Parent
    HRC as VP helps, but... (none / 0) (#59)
    by pluege on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:45:47 PM EST
    how many voters actually vote based on the VP - not too many would be my guess. It especially won't help with those voters not voting for Obama (IF Obama is the dem candidate) for racist reasons. HRC could help with women voters that aren't completely turned off by the sexist/misogynist treatment HRC has received, but its real hard to tell what the affect of the sexism has been and how much Obama will be the focus of women's ire.

    Parent
    LOL (none / 0) (#63)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:51:35 PM EST
    Obama will not carry MO. You guys need a new talking point. Wright killed his candidacy there. He's losing WI in the most recent polls.

    Clinton losing WI in ALL polls (none / 0) (#64)
    by Tano on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:59:43 PM EST
    Obama winning in all but the latest Rasmussen.
    RCP avg is up by 1.6

    Ras has Obama down by 2 in MO. CLinton down by 6. Doable for either.

    Parent

    I'm (none / 0) (#66)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:10:13 PM EST
    not saying Clinton would win WI either. Both probably would lose the state.

    There's no way Obama is going to win MO with his severe demographic problems. He couldn't win much outside the cities in a primary so he'd be lucky to get as close as Kerry did in 2004.

    Parent

    I think the descriptions fit (none / 0) (#70)
    by thea2b on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:16:12 PM EST
    Gallup ALWAYS slides republican and every time I see Rasmussen he is taking a republican slant. (Not to mention he does have the physical characteristics of a slob.) John McCain has been feeding at the public trough for his entire life and never held a job outside of the federal govt. He was a POW due to his own incompetence. He did not know how to fly!!! (See the 2 crashes on his aircraft carrier before he could even get in the air) I know people will take great offense to this but it is fact. He was 4th from the bottom at the academy on a scholarship his admiral daddy got him. He has been knee deep in lobbyists his entire career and sold his soul and any self respect he had by agreeing to support Bush on the surge (after being against it) in exchange for Bush's campaign and fund raising organization for his own run. he is the lowest form of politician, one who will say or do anything to get elected while the media fawns over him and his "straight talk express" crap. Shall we speak of what he did to his first wife or what he called his second when she made fun of his ever disappearing hairline. I do not think it is name calling when the descriptions are so apt.

    watch it Thea (none / 0) (#75)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:54:54 PM EST
    your insults are not compatible with this site. Stop or take your comments elsewhere.

    Parent
    Thea2B is a new user (none / 0) (#76)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:56:28 PM EST
    the comment limit for new users is 10 in a 24 hour period. You are at 8. After that, you will be suspended until tomorrow.

    Parent
    I deleted it (none / 0) (#77)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:57:54 PM EST


    I give up (none / 0) (#87)
    by Jim J on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:57:38 PM EST
    People have become so laughably thin-skinned on this blog. I wonder how much of this is trickle-down from the proprietors.

    You guys seem to have incredibly little tolerance for any post that doesn't simply repeat how bad Obama is and how badly he will lose to McCain. It's not that you're necessarily wrong -- who can know right now either way? -- but it's really getting boring.

    I'd love for Hillary to be the next president, but ain't gonna happen, mmmm-kay?

    They are just too timid (none / 0) (#90)
    by zyx on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:21:01 PM EST
    I was talking to my BFF last night when the San Antonio Spurs were playing, and I said the coach should take Tim Duncan out when he is not having a good night, and play Udoka and Barry more.  She said that may be true, but nobody ever got fired for playing Tim Duncan, y'know?

    The safe thing for the SDs to do is throw their lot with Obama.  It isn't safe for the fall election, but it is the safe thing for each individual SD, and guess what the most of 'em are going to do.

    That is the way the world works, and if you don't know that by now, you will soon find out.

    How many times (none / 0) (#98)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:56:48 PM EST
    did you celebrate Thanksgiving with the Gores?  I think that's pretty arrogant thinking.

    I don't make those kinds of assumptions.  He could be mad at Bill for the Lewisnky thing and hold him responsible for his own loss...

    The theories are boundless.

    Gallup on Hillary's Swing State Advantage | 80 comments (80 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment