Seeing these two sentences together in one post is a fairly good indicator that both are false.
-FrL-
Really? Seriously? You don’t think Hillary will be absolutely flattened by any Republican candidate whatsoever?
I’m telling you, there will be Republican centenarians clawing their way out of their nursing home beds to go vote against Clinton. There will be comatose Republicans miraculously recovering so they can vote against Clinton. Hillary will engender the largest Republican turnout since Reagan. We are DOOMED if Hillary is the nominee. DOOMED!
I just cannot understand what it is that keeps Clinton supporters from recognizing this fact. It is a fact. She is possibly the single most hated woman by Republicans in the WORLD. People will be camping out at the polls starting sometime in October in order to have their chance to vote against her. It is mind-boggling how half the Democratic electorate seems to be willing and eager to commit political suicide for at least another four years.
It’s unfortunate but if you read my post from this morning up thread, it supports this assertion. Republicans will come out in force against her. And like I said upthread, there are those republicans voting for her now because they know she will lose to McCain and Barack wouldn’t.
Personally (and I say this as no great fan of Hillary Clinton), if she won the nomination in a way that was widely perceived as the clear choice of Democratic voters, fair and square, then I think that she would probably win a moderately close contest with McCain. The out and out rabid Hillary haters are often the same people who wouldn’t ever vote for a Black man, who still approve of George Bush, and who still think going into Iraq was a good idea. They may be as much as a third of the electorate and they will vote for whoever the Republicans put up. For them the enemy is the Democrats. Period. I think Obama would do better and be a better President but that is another question. If she won straight up she’d win. People like me would be disappointed, make noises about maybe McCain, but then he’d disgust us pandering to a lunatic fringe and we’d end up voting for Hillary. And she’d be a decent enough President.
Hey, weren’t you to unplug for a while Phlosphr?
I haven’t read the polls you referred to, but if there are such polls (done by professionals, with careful methodology etc) which indicate the “I hate hillary” effect isn’t that strong, I tend to trust those polls more than my own intuition. For they take more into account than I can by myself, and they are performed based on a methodology much more careful and well-developed than any I could bring to bear on “how it seems to me”.
You just can’t generally say “the carefully researched numbers show X, but I see more clearly than all that so I say not-X.” You have to have a good reason for claiming not-X. Without such a good reason, then despite your claim, it is probable that you are not seeing clearly at all.
-FrL-
bolding mine
Calm down jayjay. Here’s why.
I have good news for you.
The latest Washington Post/jABC News Poll of March 5th
I agree with this, but to be fair, DrDeth was raising a different question, which I’d transmute somewhat into the following question:
Were the FL/MI ‘beauty contest’ votes a reasonable measure of how the residents of those states would have voted in a real primary?
I’d answer in the negative, for the reasons I gave to DrDeth. And for that reason, I think it’s unreasonable to lump their vote totals in with those from actual primaries and caucuses.
Yeeees…good point.
I am very pleased to hear you expressing such a reasonable position. You scared the crap out of me a few weeks back.
FWIW, I’ve recently come to see enough from the Clinton campaign recently to agree that her campaign is in fact engaging in more unsavory tactics than Obama’s. Not enough that I would, in opposition to her, support a candidate who would really be bad for the country, but enough that I’m really turned off her. (On the other hand, there is still enough being slung about her that I evaluate each new charge as a separate piece. (Did you see the Anne Althouse thing about the pajamas of the kid in her 3 am video? I’m hesitant to even bring it up here.)
I did. And all I could think when I saw it was, even if it’s true (which I think is unlikely), who cares?
Well Hentor, that was before McCain indeed went for the lunatic fringe vote. But remember even back then, I was making my “I’ll go for McCain over HRC” noises contingent upon her winning in ways that I’d feel were dirty pool. I still believe that her winning the nomination right now is highly unlikely without fracturing the party … unless she wins Pennsylvania so big that the supers really honestly do have to question Obama’s viability at the top of the ticket and then pressure him to accept a number two spot else it goes to an ugly floor fight. And honestly I’m coming round to the position that if it did reach that point that he’d be the one playing the spoiler. He needs to be able to keep Pennsylvania close enough to prove that he can pull off a general election in battleground states. Not win it per say, but keep it close. Or he won’t get even the relatively minimal super delegate support he needs.
He might flub this yet.
I know people keep talking about winning states like this (either for Obama or Clinton), and maybe I just don’t get it, but I don’t think winning any state in a primary has anything to do with one’s chances of winning it in a general election. I think Clinton’s and Obama’s chances of winning any given state in the general election are about equal.
I can only note that polls this far out are about as accurate as cartomancy.
Obama supporters want Obama to win. Clinton supporters want Clinton to win. The difference seems to be that Obama supporters want to somehow get the win without having to compete. They feel that the other competitors should acknowledge that Obama deserves to win and hand him the victory.
You don’t think that her solid win in Ohio should be interpreted that she has a better chance of winning a close election there than he does? I understand your point if it’s within 5 but a solid win is another thing.
(And now I’m arguing that she’ stronger - at least in this narrow sense - and you’re the other side? Strange world.)
Ok, Ok, Ok - I’m not really here right now, but I must invisibly post this:
Clinton’s win in Ohio and other large battleground states could easily go to Barack in the general, he would only need a fraction of the votes cast for Clinton to jump to him as the nominee. And he would more than likely get a lot more than a fraction of her votes when he does secure the nominee. Does this rationale stick with anyon else?
Oh and here is a brand new Analysis from someone outside the Obama camp saying Clinton’s odds are VERY much against her, and she is further behind than previously thought. Read the whole thing, it’s quite long.
As an Obama supporter I like this analysis. It mirrors what Pelosi and Dean have been saying for some time.
No. Even a solid win in a primary does not mean that you can make a stronger inference about the result of the general. It is a heroic assumption no matter what the margins of victory are.
It is incredible that people will instinctively disbelieve polls, which actually are random samples, but infer based on primaries, which very decidedly aren’t.
Could easily go Obama? Sure. Even probably will. But slightly more likely to be won by Hillary? Yes, and that may be enough to make the case arguable if she wins Pennsylvania big. Maeglin the randomness of polls is part of their limitation. Coming out to vote isn’t random. Who bothers to come out for a primary is a better marker for who’ll come out to actually vote in a general than any of the pollsters metrics for “likely voters” (IMHO).
Oh I have been aware of those numbers for a long time Phl, from before WI I’ve pointing out how Obama’s pledged delegate lead was already becoming nearly insurmountable, and WI iced it. But would enough supers buy that argument to make for a very ugly floor fight that brings down the party with her? Quite possibly. And she’d do it. Knowing that she would may force others to cave.
This is your opinion.
Amazingly enough, “did you vote in your primary” is a useful metric for estimating voter likelihood in surveys. But these are still drawn randomly.
Apropos of…something, a top Clinton staffer has compared Obama to Ken Starr.
From here:
Isn’t that almost like a Godwin thing or something?