Obama has a lot of independent supporters who may not vote Democrat (or at all) if Hillary wins and it is not because of anything Obama said, its because of things her campaign is saying. Hillary had an image problem coming into this election and she hasn’t helped herself by doing what she is doing. If this continues and I feel she won the nomination because of these tactics, I may not be able to find time to vote next November. If she changes her tone then I will vote for whoever wins the nomination but I can’t reward what appears to be Rovian behaviour.
Lets see
NBC has Mccain beating Clinton and tying with Obama.
The LA Times has McCain beating Obama and losing to Clinton.
USA today has McCain beating both of them (beats Obama by two more points than Hillary).
Diageo has McCain beating Hillary and losing to Obama
Reuters Zogby has McCain beating both of them (beats Hillary by 3 more points than Obama)
CNN has Hillary beating McCain by one point more than Obama.
The rest of the polls ocurred last year.
I don’t think anyone can claim an electability advantage at this point over McCain
I left the US when Bush got elected and am planning to return… unless Clinton gets elected. My first choice would be Ron Paul as he is the only one that really understands the economic mess we are in. I don’t think he has much of a chance, but Obama surely does.
I’m sorry but, I am certain that you do not have any evidence or poll or whatnot to back up your analysis. It’s a meme that Obama supporters would like to push but it simply is not true. Obama certainly is pushing that meme - and it’s a divisive meme that is not borne out by any evidence.
It’s a “truth” that is not backed up by anything. It’s simply a meme that Obama came out with. The truth is the rancor has been from the Obama camp. The truth is the lies are coming from the Obama camp.
Can you just imagine if Hillary sent out this divisive meme? Something along the lines of “I don’t think Obama will be able to carry Hispanics in the General Election.”
Obama has been given a pass for too long.
Of course people repatriate on the basis of who’s President. People do it all the time in the US. :rolleyes:
Obama understands the economic mess we are in but Clinton doesn’t? Tell me how you arrived at this.
I didn’t say Hillary had an electability advantage. I was merely responding to your claim that Obama HAD the advantage.
You said:
If you look at the most recent polls - it’s Hillary that has the better numbers. The rest of the Republican field don’t matter - both beat them handily. It’s McCain that they need to beat and Hillary has the better numbers when it comes to him.
Of the seeming dozen aging posts of mine you went through to respond to last night, I’m going to choose this one to respond to. I wouldn’t entirely agree with this characterization. The Democrats, right now, better represent the positions and type of leadership that I want. They aren’t close to perfectly representing them, and I am pretty damn disappointed with most of the ones in congress, after the hope I had from 2006. They seem to do nothing but capitulate to the Republicans.
I wouldn’t vote for a person “regardless” of how they got on the ballot, but I just haven’t heard much to suggest that Hillary Clinton’s campaign has been as evil as Obama’s supporters think she’s been. At the same time, they are extremely dismissive of the things that Obama has done, either to Clinton, or in terms of making appeals to conservatives using conservative themes and phrasing.
Again, I just don’t get how awful, how “Rovian”, Clinton has been. As I’m willing to vote for Obama despite his running to the right and disparaging the success of the Democrats in the 90’s, so too am I willing to vote for Clinton (despite her taking a more centrist approach in her voting and positions over recent years).
If people want to vote for a Republican candidate because they don’t want to vote for Hillary Clinton, are they also willing to vote for what this will do to the overall politics of the next four years? Do they want a president who will be working to support the Republicans in congress? Who will be able to move the Democrats away from more progressive policies through his threat of the veto? It’s almost like people who think that they will vote for McCain over Clinton think that McCain will dictate what the Republicans do rather than the other way around.
You keep saying this, but it’s still not true. Among major polls since Jan. 9th, Obama beats McCain by an average of .3%, Clinton loses by .1%. Cite.
Even the previous cite had Obama winning over McCain in one of the polls and you mis-read it. I think your haste to defend Hillary has made you overlook the actual numbers.
That said, I don’t think the argument can really be settled by polling. The bigger question is not the break down of support (which is close for both Obama and Clinton), but the turnout. I think the evidence shows that Obama gets more democratic and independent turnout that Hillary, and I don’t think anyone doubts that more Republicans will turn out to vote against Hillary–especially when they might otherwise sit out if Obama wins.
The missing part of the analysis, of course, is that the landscape changes once the conventions select their nominees. I agree that the Obama’s “electability” comment was pretty shitty. Obama tends to get arrogant when the polls and delegates swing in his favor. He’s much better running as the underdog. The message should be that the Democratic nominee by him or herself, and with the help of the party, will be able to attract Dems, Repubs, and independents.
For all of the hot air about Hillary’s unelectability, it seems that every week that meme is disproved. But it still exists. Obama is the truthteller, and that’s not always the case, but that meme exists as well.
Having said all that, this week was pretty nightmarish for Clinton and very good for Obama. Super Tuesday is going to give some clarity, no doubt, but there is so much we simply don’t know, and won’t know, until then.
I only looked at the latest 3 - I think I was very clear on where I’m basing my analysis. If you take into account the last 4 - Hillary would still have the advantage.
It wasn’t clear at all that this was your method since if we follow that method, Obama looks better than Hillary according to your original cite. And you’ve got to admit, it’s a pretty ad hoc method to begin with. Don’t pick the most recent, because Obama is winning that. But don’t average them over a 10-day period or longer, because Obama is winning that. Instead include the 3 polls following the Nevada caucus and maybe one more.
Whatever. It’s hardly the point anyway. The fact is that every one of those polls is within the statistical margin of error. The reason people say that the polls show that Obama is more electable is both (1) despite the fact the people favor Clinton over Obama nationally right now, she fares the same or worse than Obama in polls against Republicans and (2) Obama has gotten better turnout statistics. Thus a close poll for him is a win, where it might be a loss for her.
ETA: Oh, and because Obama does better against all the other possible Republican candidates.
It was clear. My original post mentioned that I’m basing on the last 3 polls.
Then you corrected me on that and my subsequent post took your correction into account. Even if you include the last 4 polls it would still show Hillary having the advantage over McCain. On my subsequent post, I explained further than I’m focusing solely on McCain simply because both candidates win handily over the other Republican candidates. And re" turnout - both candidates have very good turnouts over their Republican rivals so I’m not all that worried about that.
But, again, under that method Obama comes out ahead in your original cite. Indeed, he now comes out well ahead under that method on RCP.com as well, they just haven’t posted the Jan. 25th polls in the head-to-head section yet.
Well, I can only base it on the link that was provided. The link provided shows Hillary performing better against McCain.
Really? You can’t base it on the link you originally commented on? You can’t base it on the three most recent polls? You’re simply forced to base it on three to four polls you’ve arbitrarily selected from a link showing Obama winning on average?
I don’t understand your point. I based it on the link that I originally commented on looking at the 3 or 4 most recent polls. I posted the results in another post in this thread. You can check it out.
Here’s what I posted:
From the link (the last three polls):
NBC/Wall Street
McCain 46 Clinton 44 -2
McCain 42 Obama 42 0
LA Bloomberg
McCain 42 Clinton 46 +4
McCain 42 Obama 41 -1
Gallup
McCain 50 Clinton 47 -3
McCain 50 Obama 45 -5
The point is that even under your preferred methodology–three most recent polls–Obama does better than Hillary against McCain. I am assuming you don’t want to repudiate that methodology now just because it runs counter to your position.
FWIW, your chart doesn’t include the second-most-recent poll for Obama according to the mentioned linked page. The one that has him by six points.
Huh? Are we talking about the same link?
We must not be. I was talking about this: WH2008: General
But I think we can agree that the polls are pretty much a moot point, as it’s all within the margin of error. The questions of electability, at least as of now, seem to turn on other factors (if at all).