home

New McCain vs. Hillary and Obama Polls

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:18:19 PM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John McCain (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Big Tent Democrat wrote earlier about the Quinnepac poll showing Hillary leading Barack Obama in Ohio, and PA. From the same poll, via MyDD, about a contest between McCain and Hillary and Obama:

  • Florida: McCain 44 percent - Clinton 42 percent; McCain 41 percent - Obama 39 percent;
  • Ohio: McCain 44 percent - Clinton 43 percent; McCain 42 percent - Obama 40 percent;
  • Pennsylvania: Clinton 46 percent - McCain 40 percent; Obama 42 percent - McCain 41 percent.

In Georgia, an Insider Advantage poll today shows:

McCain: 47 percent, Clinton: 40 percent
McCain: 48 percent, Obama: 40 percent

In both contests independent voters said they would vote for McCain by a 52 percent-to-30 percent margin. Among Democrats, 75 percent said they would vote for Clinton. Sixty-nine percent of Democrats said they would vote for Obama.

More...

MyDD contributor andrewalker08, a Georgia diarist adds to the post:

More than likely Georgia is lost for the General Election....I'm starting to ascribe to the belief that Barack Obama may not win a single state in the south, which contains at least a third of the 270 electoral votes needed to capture the White House.

< House Votes to Hold Miers, Bolton in Contempt | Signs of the New Hillary: Attacks on Special Interests and Obama >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    New McCain vs. Hillary and Obama Polls | 100 comments (100 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Um (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:21:20 PM EST
    duh? the South is lost.

    the argument Obama DOES have is for Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico maybe. And some others PERHAPS.

    In essence the more important metric with Obama is he is a MEDIA DARLING. He can run better than Hillary because of that.

    IMO of course.

    Apparently not so much, though. (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:24:50 PM EST
    I think you might as well go ahead and vote for HRC in the primary!

    Parent
    Hillary will do better (none / 0) (#3)
    by BigB on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:24:54 PM EST
    Hillary will win at least Arkansas and Florida and could win even Tennessee. With Obama South is lost and Ohio, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania are suspect. Hillary also has a very good chance of taking New Mexico while Obama will lose it to McCain.

    I don't see how Obama can win 270 electoral votes.

    Parent

    Pennsylvania (none / 0) (#8)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:29:35 PM EST
    is the only state with recent polling that Hillary does markedly better than Obama.

    Parent
    cannondaddy (1.00 / 1) (#56)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:13:10 PM EST
    Well,  no.  

    Quinnipiac  has  Hillary  55/34  in Ohio---21 points  ahead.

    Houston  Chronicle  has  Hillary  10-12 points  ahead in  Texas.  

    Same  Quinnipiac  has   HIllary  52 /36  in Pennsylvania.  

    It  appears  she's  leading in  all  3.  

    But  polls  are  just polls, eh?

    Parent

    You're confused (none / 0) (#103)
    by Siguy on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:53:52 PM EST
    He's referring to the general election head-to-head polls posted above, not the Hillary versus Obama primary polls.

    Parent
    I honestly think (none / 0) (#7)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:28:53 PM EST
    that because of Obama's wide margin among aa's in southern states, people (mostly newbies) actually believed that he might have a chance of taking it back for the dems.

    Those of us in Georgia tried to dissuade them from this line of thinking, but it still persisted.  I remember folks quite clearly pointing out the proportionately small percentage of aa's as compared to whites; ditto registered dems vs repubs.  And still, they rallied on about sweeping the south.

    There seems to be a disconnect about what wins the primary vs what wins the general election.  Interesting that so many independents went to McCain, though.

    Parent

    If All It Took Dems To Win Deep Southern States (none / 0) (#40)
    by BDB on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:33:35 PM EST
    Was high African American turnout, all those states would have African American governors.  

    The reason the percentage of AAs in the democratic party is so high down South isn't just because there is such a large concentration of AAs there, it's also because most whites are Republicans.  While it has improved a lot in the last 30 years, the South still has a lot of old wounds to heal.

    Parent

    Very good point BDB (none / 0) (#42)
    by athyrio on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:39:04 PM EST
    Hillary with the inclusion of Florida and Arkansas might have a better chance in the south than Obama.

    Parent
    It's really not possible... (none / 0) (#48)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:45:52 PM EST
    ... to get more African American votes than Al Gore got, and he didn't win anywhere in the South.

    Parent
    Dems have it (none / 0) (#73)
    by PlayInPeoria on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:41:06 PM EST
    tough in the Bible due to their stance on gay marriage/civil union and Pro-Choice.

    McCain supports legal benefits for same-sex partners and opposes a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

    But he is Pro-Life....voted yes for Prohibiting Funds for Groups that Perform Abortions amendment in 2007..... and this is the real battle ground .....Believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned.

    That last issue wins the South for McCain.

    Parent

    BTD (none / 0) (#71)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:35:18 PM EST
    It  does  seem to indicate that  Obama's  appeal  to Independents,  while  it  may help in  primaries,  it  doesn't  in the  general.  

    And  reinforces  that all those  "new"  red states  he wins  in  small  caucuses   won't  go his  way in  November.  

    As  I  said,  3  weeks  ago.  And you did, too.  

    Parent

    New Mexico (none / 0) (#78)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:44:15 PM EST
    BTD,   Clinton  won   New  Mexico.  Announced  today.  

    Parent
    ah yes... (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:35:09 PM EST
    to know him is to love him
    and that is why I say
    Oh, Lord, it's hard to be humble
    'cause I get better lookin' each day!

    Lookit, the same holds true for Clinton.  When people meet her, when they hear her talk and realize how brilliant she is on the issues that really matter to them, they are swayed.  You should take a look at the other side sometime.  She's not pulling in arena crowds, but she can get anywhere from 8-10,000 people per event, and they leave feeling good and energized.  This is why she gets debate bumps.  This is why she did so well in states with large populations where she knew how to speak their language.

    Believe it or not, people actually like her.

    Pulling in crowds (none / 0) (#53)
    by hairspray on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:05:58 PM EST
    Since Hillary's supporters are older the high of a crowded stadium with rock star lights doesn't appeal so much.  The young like these venues.

    Parent
    True (none / 0) (#59)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:18:01 PM EST
    But   the young  aren't  as  reliable  on  voting  day  as  the  "older"  folks.

    Parent
    Everything Will Change (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by xjt on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:50:49 PM EST
    I think it will be a nearly unrecognizable Barack Obama after the Republicans get through with him in the general election. Like those "before" and "after" pictures of dieters who have lost 300 pounds. Only in his case it won't be a positive improvement.

    I do not believe Clinton would be anywhere near as vulnerable to general election attacks as Obama. I believe that if Obama is the nominee in November he will certainly lose to McCain.

    Be suspicious of predictions (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by GV on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:53:50 PM EST
    People are fickle.  The fact that someone polls well now has little bearing on whether they will poll well 9 months from now.  Look at the volatility of the polls in the primary.  Polls can easily swing ten points in a couple of weeks.  

    When bloggers (or pundits on tv) try to made predictions on how the general election will turn out based on today's polling, you can safely ignore most of what they say.  No one knows who will win the swing states.  A million and one things will happen between now and the election.  

    If you're voting for Hillary or Obama solely because you think one is more electable than the other, you're naive.  Period.  

    True, GV (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:28:38 PM EST
    And  the  rightwing  hate machine  hasn't  even started  in on  Obama  yet.  

    It'll  change.

    Parent

    Pretty stong argument for NM (none / 0) (#4)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:25:17 PM EST
    for now.

    The difference (none / 0) (#6)
    by s5 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:28:27 PM EST
    Obama will contest the states he's currently behind in. Clinton will consider them lost, and go for the Kerry "swing states". Regardless of what you think of the two approaches, it should be clear by now that Clinton will absolutely not run on the 50 state strategy.

    You really do not believe that do you? (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:39:55 PM EST
    You know how many days Obama will spend in Idaho, Alaska, North Dakota, Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, Tennessee, Kentucky, etc. in a GE?

    The same as Clinton. Zero.

    Parent

    He's already built a presence in those states (none / 0) (#31)
    by s5 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:54:51 PM EST
    Clinton has chosen to ignore the states that "don't count" or "won't count". Obama has built a presence everywhere, with legions of activists and supporters. This can only help downticket races, and it will help build up his popular support in states that he loses, so he can govern with a wide popular mandate.

    Clinton is going for 50%+1 to squeak out a win for the presidency, only to spend the next four years trying to govern a country that will be largely suspicious of her. Obama is going for broad support.  That's the difference.

    Of course it's all conjecture because no one can predict how the public will vote in November, but that's what he's going for. She clearly is not. We'll see which one the voters prefer.

    Parent

    If Obama's Best Electoral Argument (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by BDB on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:35:22 PM EST
    Is that he's going to win Idaho and the Deep South, then he'll never be president.

    Fortunately, I don't think Obama believes any of that crap.  I think he just likes to try to get others to believe it.  

    Now, I think Democrats should absolutely run a 50-state Congressional and state office strategy, but it's a waste of time to spend resources on Utah in a presidential.

    Parent

    Regardless (none / 0) (#43)
    by s5 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:42:27 PM EST
    The fact remains that he has enthusiastic supporters and activists in all those "red states", and Clinton does not (or at least, nowhere near as much). Even if he doesn't spend another dime in those states, they do exist. That part isn't up for debate.

    What is up for debate is whether or not it will help him win. It's definitely a risky strategy, since Democrats have been running on the same "swing state" strategy for the last decade. It's definitely "safer", and there's a case to be made that if we can push the margins in the swing states just a little bit, that we can win. There's also a case to be made that winning broad support among the people is a bigger win, even if the electoral college numbers end up the same, since people talk to each other. States aren't walled gardens or gated communities, after all.

    Parent

    s5 (none / 0) (#57)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:16:07 PM EST
    Those  "red  states" will stay  red,  s5.  

    But if  he  offends  Florida  and Michigan,  he's  toast  in  the  general.

    Parent

    I would prefer she not dump money (none / 0) (#10)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:31:49 PM EST
    winning Utah and Alaska when she can spend it in states with higher electoral votes that are really in play.  Even Obama would not waste time on a solidly red state with low electoral votes.  It is a foolish way to campaign.

    The 50 State Strategy works incrementally, where you get one district in one state, then go for the next, then go for the next.  You get enough blue spots and the state turns purple.  In the ge, you don't have the luxury of time.  You can only pour resources into states that are seriously in play.

    Parent

    50-state strategy (none / 0) (#16)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:42:03 PM EST
    IMHO, is way more applicable to local races, and to senate and house races than to presidential elections.  Some states are simply unwinnable at the presidential level.

    Parent
    Oops (none / 0) (#11)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:35:00 PM EST
    I was thinking of Nevada.

    My friends if I may make a comment (none / 0) (#14)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:40:42 PM EST
    Having lived and worked with Democrats here in the south (I live in North Fl close to the Ga border) I have found that as far as being racist and bigoted they are no different in general than the Republicans from here.  That in it's self is a disadvantage to both Obama and Hillary remember (for those who are old enough or read history) George Wallace was a Democrat.

    FLorida Resident (none / 0) (#61)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:20:25 PM EST
    I'm  not  even  sure  it's  a  "racist" thing,  Florida.  

    Those in the  south  are more  traditional,  and  won't  see  Obama  with enough experience  to  be  Commander in Chief.  They'd  feel  the same  way  about  a white guy/white girl  with his  resume.    

    I'm  stunned  by   the numbers  of Independents  that  will  go   McCain  instead.  

    But  I've  been  saying  the  same about  Texas  for  weeks now on this  board,  so  I shouldn't  be  surprised.  

    Obama's  ability  to  win "Independents"  won't  help in November.

    Parent

    Maybe Auntmo but (none / 0) (#70)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:34:53 PM EST
    I listen to them and their views are not much different than the Republicans here.  At least in my area they are not ready to vote for a woman or a black person.  Just the way they have expressed themselves to me in conversations.

    Parent
    Fair enough (none / 0) (#72)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:38:56 PM EST
    I   get  the  same  with  my  moderate  Repub  friends  here in  Texas.    

    But  the bottom line is  they  are NONE of  them leftwing  like  Teddy  Kennedy,  and  they're  not  really  "racists"  at  all.  

    They're  centrists,   and  want  experience  and competence after  the last  8 years.  

    For  them,  Obama  doesn't fill those  needs.

    Parent

    uhm... (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:47:41 PM EST
    in my experience, a republican from California is a democrat everywhere else, just like a democrat from Texas is a republican elsewhere.

    Rose by any other name and all that.

    Parent

    good one (none / 0) (#84)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:49:29 PM EST


    Parent
    Touche, Kathy! (none / 0) (#87)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:52:48 PM EST
    And so  true.  

    Parent
    I have a question (none / 0) (#90)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:00:02 PM EST
    I'm a registered Republican albeit one who voted for Kerry in 2004.
    I will be voting Dem this year not because of the candidates but because I fear another Republican administration.  Means no matter who wins I will still vote Democrat.

    My question is; why are so many bloggers in so called progressive Blogs attacking the Clinton Administration with the same talking points as the Republican Right?

    Parent

    the more the corporate media and (none / 0) (#94)
    by athyrio on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:11:31 PM EST
    others keep attacking Hillary, it tells me she is feared and must be on to something and I send her more support...at the same time, the more the same entities promote Obama, the more suspicious I become of his presidency....also getting endorsements from republicans doesnt make my heart go pitty pat either....

    Parent
    True but my fear is that (none / 0) (#79)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:44:59 PM EST
    some might not vote.  I have a friend that was enthused about Edwards but now he is talking about staying home.  His problem he uses the N and B words too much.

    Parent
    I really don't know but I'm just worried (none / 0) (#80)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:45:43 PM EST


    Parent
    They'll vote for them (none / 0) (#88)
    by SandyK on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:56:55 PM EST
    but on the issues that matter to them.

    The Dem party has sifted too far left, and doesn't reflect their values. This is the only reason those good o' boys switched to the Bloody Shirt party (have to be something serious to switch to the party that stopped the succession in 1861). It became too alien. When Zell Miller spoke at the Republican convention, it was desperate. Same goes with Sam Nunn and even Carter. It's not they're not Democrats, it's that the Democrat party left them.

    As it stands I couldn't be a Dem on the platform of late, even though I'm not a Neo-Con. Change more to reflect the values at home, and I might consider it.

    Parent

    Zell Miller (none / 0) (#95)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:18:55 PM EST
    is a traitor to his party.  He fell for Bush's cowboy posturing and decided he wanted to follow the macho man.  

    Both Clintons have been here several times.  I met Hillary at the Jefferson-Jackson dinner.  I met Bill at a private home in Buckhead.  They have done many events in the state and still continue to do so.  

    Carter is still firmly a democrat and would never consider backing a republican.  Helping the poor, providing a social safety net, strengthening government, protecting jobs, building new jobs--these are core democratic values Carter believes in.

    If you don't value the democratic platform, then I'm not certain you really understand what it means to be a democrat.  I'm not saying that in a slanderous way.  I really don't understand.  Can you tell me what specific positions you do not agree with?  Are you just a republican making a stand to vote against whomever the republicans run--a protest voter?

    Parent

    Nope (none / 0) (#98)
    by SandyK on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:44:36 PM EST
    Zell Miller has been the same (he angered both, why the Republicans nicknamed him "Zigzag"). Same as Nunn and Carter. They just weren't flaming liberals.

    The reason Ted Kennedy (and the far left) went after Carter, was he was a moderate. Same goes with Clinton, by his own party, 12 years later.

    Folks see enough of the values that don't represent their culture and traditions, they bolt. I don't blame them, there's no bond left.

    It's not that folks aren't or can't be Democrats, it's because the Democrats left them. See it even here, the Dem headquarters has been a run down office out in the middle of nowhere. It wasn't always like that, that office used to be the most powerful in the state of GA. Richmond County used to rule GA politics, Kathy. Today, if anyone can find it, it's a miracle.

    Parent

    you didn't answer my question (none / 0) (#99)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:54:54 PM EST


    Parent
    Oh enough with the polls.... (none / 0) (#17)
    by doordiedem0crat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:42:29 PM EST
    If the polls were ever anywhere near accurate this far out, Guliani and Hillary would already have the nomination.

    This post has no basis for anything.

    Colorado (none / 0) (#18)
    by magster on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:43:07 PM EST
    from Monday.  Biggest disparity I've seen between Obama and McCain.

    From the link (none / 0) (#19)
    by kid oakland on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:44:29 PM EST
    Despite her losing streak, Sen. Clinton remains far ahead of Sen. Obama among likely Democratic primary voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

    "But in some of the earlier contests Obama has closed similar gaps and gone on to win."

    The results out of Virginia were striking. Bill Clinton worked that state up and down. Barack Obama won almost every last demographic, taking 64% of the vote in a primary that set records for participation.

    Senator Clinton's "inevitability" campaign has been entirely based on polls for primaries and caucuses that are weeks away.  Of course that favors the candidate with name recognition. I am not going to argue that every poll is favorable to Barack Obama...however...I think Senator Obama makes a powerful case for himself. That's a map and a total count that WILL HAVE TO change if Clinton comes back and does well. That's the real battle.

    Let's let the voters decide.

    (Btw, I think the new Talk Left comments policy seems odd given BTD's consistent personal attacks on me in thread after thread. I comment here because I think the readers here are smart and engaged and would like to hear an alternate viewpoint. I try to convey respect even when I am not treated with it by a site moderator here.)

    BTD (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by magster on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:49:43 PM EST
    helps me make arguments for Obama more coherent, kind of like a mean law school professor.  It's good having a front page poster mix it up in the comments, too.

    And I'm glad you, KO, chime in here too.

    Parent

    I've never changed the comment policy (none / 0) (#44)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:42:41 PM EST
    from day one. Sorry about any attacks on you. I haven't seen them. There shouldn't be any.

    Parent
    Nevada (none / 0) (#20)
    by Tano on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:46:24 PM EST
    Rasmussen:

    Obama 50
    McCain 38

    Clinton 40
    McCain 49

    Colorado (none / 0) (#21)
    by Tano on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:48:16 PM EST
    Rasmussen:

    Obama 46
    McCain 39

    Clinton 35
    McCain 49

    Didn't Rasmussen (none / 0) (#26)
    by Shawn on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:50:11 PM EST
    say that Obama and Clinton were tied in California?

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#64)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:22:56 PM EST
    Rasmussen  and Zogby  have  been wrong  from  the  gitgo.

    Parent
    Sums it up nicely (none / 0) (#22)
    by SandyK on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:48:58 PM EST
    It'll take a lot of changing of the Democrat image to cause voters in Georgia to vote for a Dem candidate. Zell Miller and Sam Nunn, and even Jimmy Carter should tell the Democrat party, that the radical left won't work here.

    Even my sis says if Obama gets the nomination, she's voting for Huckabee. For me if that's so, I'm writing in for Buchanan.

    Why? Because scream "CHANGE" and the worst comes to mind. CHANGE in the South is on par to the mess in Vietnam; the Civil Rights era; and even the Civil War. It's a 100% guarantee that voters will shift a hard right to prevent it.

    All politics is regional, and when Northern and Western ideals come crashing down here, it's going to be repealed.

    I don't want radical change. Thoughtful and well meaning change, but not what's being proposed on either side this election. If Hillary gets the nomination I'll vote for her. Obama, count me out.

    and if enough Hillary supporters do you you do.... (none / 0) (#38)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:22:59 PM EST
    ... you'll come off as spoil sports.

    Oh, and we could kiss Roe v Wade, and a whole slew of other Constitutitonal rights, good bye.

    Parent

    The only reason I'm even here (none / 0) (#47)
    by SandyK on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:02:16 PM EST
    or even thinking for voting for a Dem IS Hillary.

    Take Hillary away, and I have no reason to vote Democrat. It's the same for any crossover. We crossover for the candidate that fits, as the other ones running don't.

    That "less of two evils" vote.

    Parent

    Taxes too... (none / 0) (#46)
    by SandyK on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:58:27 PM EST
    let alone jobs at home. Give them credit for one thing, is promoting jobs at home (even if it's the $5/hr variety).

    But either way, if the Dems want to get a foothold in the South again, they need to get some prioties straight -- overt liberalism, of the type preached in Cali (like giving lighter terms for drug dealers, and legalizing pot) simply will never sale here. Innocence Project? Yes, that'll work. But needle exchanges and host of other issues of rewarding bad elements, no way. This even rings true with Democrats, as some of the most law and order types I know, sure won't give a robber at 3am in his house his Miranda rights! It's shoot first, ask questions later.

    And, Kathy, you know that's darn true as well.

    Parent

    Amen, Sandy (none / 0) (#65)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:25:39 PM EST
    I've  been trying  to  tell the  board  what you've  just  said  more  clearly.  

    A  Teddy  Kennedy  protege   will NOT  fly  in  Texas,  either.   Reagan  Democrats  won't  return  for   any of  that.  

    CENTRISTS  win.   Not  leftwing  liberals.    

    Parent

    Absolutely... (none / 0) (#76)
    by SandyK on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:42:29 PM EST
    More meat and potato politics that affects folks at home.

    Jobs, education, healthcare, getting the criminals off our property -- and yes not raising our taxes more.

    If Dems would concentrate on those issues, the South would welcome them again.

    I liked Bill Clinton because that is what he concentrated on (and why the GOP hated him like no other politician in 20 years -- he stoled their thunder...hehehe).

    Parent

    Bill Clinton (none / 0) (#81)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:46:50 PM EST
    Yes.  Clinton was  actually  a  moderate  Dem....didn't  do  all the   Teddy Kennedy liberal    hoo-hah.    

    It's  why   Kennedy   hates  Bill and  Hillary.

    Parent

    I never said (none / 0) (#77)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:43:40 PM EST
    that there weren't folks down here voting on the three G's (God, guns and gays).  During my tenure doing the Lord's work for the democratic party, we continually ran into folks who voted against their interests because they had this irrational fear that their daughters would be turned into lesbians and given abortions.  Crazy stuff.  We won them back by reminding them of all the great democratic policies that helped them earn their way to the middle class: free and reduced lunch, public assistance, the TVA pulling much of the northern part of the state into the 20th century.

    This is why I think what Clinton is saying works best--she's talking about reviewing all trade agreements to make sure that the American worker is protected, cutting tax breaks to companies that move jobs overseas and creating new green collar jobs as well as boosting blue collar jobs vis-a-vis the federal government investing in repairing our infrastructure.  She would also do well to remind folks that Walmart's "Made in America" scheme was a direct result of her lobbying the company to keep jobs in Arkansas.

    That kind of talk, in my experience, is what brings the sheep back into the fold.

    Parent

    Agree completely. (none / 0) (#83)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:47:52 PM EST


    Parent
    But the message has to get here... (none / 0) (#93)
    by SandyK on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:06:35 PM EST
    Anything about Hillary I had to follow from Columbia.

    Nothing locally, period.

    Not a sign. No literature. No TV ads. Nothing -- and it's the bluest county outside metro Atlanta.

    Come on.

    Hopefully Hillary gets the message to get the word out, and d-e-e-p. Can't afford passing over states.

    Parent

    New Hampshire (none / 0) (#23)
    by Tano on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:49:18 PM EST
    Rasmussen:

    Obama 49
    McCain 36

    Clinton 43
    McCain 41

    Rassmussen's numbers (none / 0) (#24)
    by dmk47 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:49:25 PM EST
    Out today:

    Nationally: Obama 49/Clinton 37 (also up 46-41 among women and 47-44 among whites)

    GE matchups:  
    Obama 46/McCain 42
    Clinton 41/McCain 48

    Kinda interesting, no?

    GE Matchup (none / 0) (#34)
    by Shawn on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:01:20 PM EST
    "In a head-to-head matchup, Kerry beat Bush by 52 percent to 43 percent among registered voters in a Washington Post-ABC News poll released Feb. 12."

    President Weighs in On Kerry

    Parent

    Rasmussen (none / 0) (#66)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:27:10 PM EST
    doesn't  have  a  good  track record.  They  showed   Clinton  and Obama  TIED in California.  

    Parent
    Wisconsin (none / 0) (#28)
    by Tano on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:50:54 PM EST
    Strategic Vision:

    Obama 46
    McCain 45

    Clinton 43
    McCain 48

    I blame Stellaaa (none / 0) (#30)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:54:25 PM EST
    because the "Obama Talking Points" drinking game started with her last night, and now, after reading your posts all over this board, I am completely toasted.

    Listen-- This is not pistols at dawn.  This isn't a death match.  This is about the democratic party taking the torturers and the thieves and the liars out of the White House.  Everything you seem to post has a certain scorched earth tone to it, and even with drinking involved, it's getting a little old.   It's fine to be passionate about your guy, just like it's fine for others, like me, to be passionate about Clinton, but winning by stepping on people's faces is not really winning, okay?

    I left the other blog site (none / 0) (#58)
    by hairspray on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:16:54 PM EST
    because I wanted to get away from the "winning is everything crowd" and here they are.

    Parent
    Kathy (none / 0) (#68)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:29:30 PM EST
    I liked  the  way   Whoopi put it  after  the  SOTU  "snub:"

    You  don't  have  to put your  boot on people's  neck   when you're  winning.  

    Parent

    Argument is a little flawed (none / 0) (#32)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:55:24 PM EST
    That made sense when he was relatively "unknown." At this point you have to have been under water or in outer space not to know who he his and how he has "momentum."

    If the polls don't move they won't jump just because he visits. Granted he should do better once he holds rallies (makes perfect sense). But it is in no way comparable to the initial introduction phase.

    Again I am not saying it won't change (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:32:00 PM EST
    And I am not talking any one poll. I believe as Sen Obama focuses on the state the race should tighten. Its just that "the wave" didn't really appear on Super Tuesday, and still really has not shown itself. It very well may. But so far its not clear its there outside of being an MSM creation.

    Parent
    The issue with Ohio and Pa are (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by hairspray on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:21:12 PM EST
    the voter demographics. The Hillary supporters are mostly blue collar workers, non college whites and more Catholic than protestant.  Not all of course, but these demographics go to Hillary and if Obama comes to town it is not sure he will sway them anymore than Hillary will sway the Obama supporters.

    Parent
    Well said about electibility!! (none / 0) (#33)
    by athyrio on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:58:36 PM EST
    Alot will depend on the who the VP choice is of each candidate I think...For example if McCain choses Huckabee that might frighten alot of people but win over the "moral majority"....

    Intersting about Georgia. (none / 0) (#37)
    by BrandingIron on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:18:24 PM EST

    "Among Democrats, 75 percent said they would vote for Clinton. Sixty-nine percent of Democrats said they would vote for Obama."

    Especially considering the exit polls for the primary.  Perhaps Obamadems are beginning to see what the MSM has kept from them?

    I'd like to see one of the Obama fans spin this one.

    I think Clinton makes a big mistake (none / 0) (#45)
    by fuzzyone on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:48:30 PM EST
    if she pays any attention to the polls, good or bad.  She paid too much attention to the good polls early and was overconfident.  She had no strategy for not locking it up on Super Tuesday.  If she is to have a chance she needs to fight for every remaining state as if she can win it.

    One thing I don't understand is all this "Hillary can take a punch and Obama can't stuff."  Punching bags can take a punch, that does not seem like a great recommendation for one as President.  They both seem tough and smart enough to handle what is coming.

    I'd like to see... (none / 0) (#49)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:49:37 PM EST
    A poll of California. Because I'm pretty sure Hillary ought to win there easily, but if Obama has to sweat for it, it could put his campaign in a fair amount of trouble.

    Ridiculous (none / 0) (#52)
    by dwightkschrute on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:04:04 PM EST
    The thought that any Democratic candidate would have to sweat CA is delusional. Anyone that knows CA and politics will tell you that the Dems could run a ham sandwich and carry the state.

    Parent
    Ham Sandwich (none / 0) (#75)
    by MO Blue on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:41:13 PM EST
    That's funny. That is one name I never heard applied to Arnold Schwarzenegger. Seems Republicans do get elected in California.

    Parent
    For President (none / 0) (#92)
    by dwightkschrute on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:02:07 PM EST
    Again, it takes an understanding of California politics. The factors in the Davis/Schwarzenegger situation were nothing like the ones for CA voters in a Presidential election.

    Parent
    We'll see (none / 0) (#100)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:33:44 PM EST
    I think people tend to assume that how it's been recently is how it's always going to be, when in my lifetime the Republicans carried California six straight times (the last of those in 1988). The state has changed, and I don't really think Obama is likely to lose it. But McCain ought to run better there than any Republican in a while, and if Obama really needs to expend a lot of time and money locking it down, that will impact the whole race.

    Parent
    1984 (none / 0) (#50)
    by mouth of the south on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:49:43 PM EST
    Let me remind you of the 1984 Democratic convention.  Gary Hart was the Barak Obama of that campaign, going into the convention with the lead in the popular vote and the pledged votes about even.  The super delegates, representing the party establishment, gave their votes to Mondale anyway, even though Hart was polling to be a better candidate against Reagan.  How did that work out?  Mondale won one state and Reagan won 49.  This is what happens when the super delegates get to decide between a party insider and a party outsider.  They pick the insider every time.  I am afraid that is what is going to happen this time too.  The Democrats will back a loser every time, but this time if they vote against the clear leader and best candidate against McCain, there will be a terrible split in the party and our candidates who are running for the House and the Senate will suffer.  Many will not make it because Hillary is heading the ticket.  Her negatives are way too high and they will be even higher if the super delegates give this nomination to her even though she hasn't won it.  Beware of trusting the super delegates!  They will stab us in the back again.  The party hacks don't like inspirational candidates and will not vote for one.  Heaven only knows how JFK made it.

    Interesting, but (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:59:42 PM EST
    There are a lot of assumptions here. First, I don't view the democratic establishment as the enemy. Mind you, I know some Obama supporters do, which is funny, but off point.

    I think Sen Clintons negative are as high as they will ever be. This is her ceiling, she has been battered by the republicans forever. But I believe Sen Obama is at the BOTTOM of his negatives. If he is the parties nominee then we will see what happens when he is put through the Repub grinding machine. To assume the current state is representative of the general election is a big mistake.

    Of course this is not saying that Sen Obama wouldn't hold up, just that this whole negatives number is a large error imo.

    Parent

    Interesting, bu (none / 0) (#54)
    by mouth of the south on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:07:41 PM EST
    I don't hate the establishment of our party either.  I just don't think they should have the right to give the nomination to a candidate who is not ahead in the pledged delegate count.  And as for 1984 when they did just that, how did that little gift to Mondale work for our party?  A disaster!!

    Parent
    You do hate the Dem party (none / 0) (#104)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:12:17 PM EST
    it seems, as you entirely disagree with its processes.  So how do you do with its platform?

    Parent
    Interesting, bu (none / 0) (#55)
    by mouth of the south on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:09:57 PM EST
    Oh,and one other thing,you think her negatives are at their ceiling?  Oh, you are so very wrong there.  They will rise if the super delegates give her the nomination when she is behind in the pledged delegate count.

    Parent
    I may be wrong (none / 0) (#60)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:18:25 PM EST
    I don't think so. I was talking about the GE. I really hope that WHOEVER wins the democratic supporters will support her/him. And I hope the losing candidate joins in the fight for GE.

    And having the edge in pledged delegates in just a line from the Obama campaign. That is one part of a complicated equation. It may be enough to seal the nomination for Sen Obama, but it may not be. If it isn't nothing was stolen, its part of the rules of the process.

    Would you agree that is he loses the popular vote then the pledged delegates are nothing more than a anomaly of the system? Would that make his getting the nomination invalid?

    Parent

    Interesting, bu (none / 0) (#91)
    by mouth of the south on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:01:54 PM EST
    I believe that in the GE, the winner will be the one who gets the most electoral votes.  Pledged delegates are comparable to the electoral vote.  Remember that Al Gore won the popular vote but not the electoral vote.  That is why our party assigns pledged delegates to each state.  The popular vote overall does not tell the complete story.  What happens if she wins the popular vote by a few hundred thousand but loses more primaries?  For instance, what if Obama wins 29 primaries and she wins 21?  Should we discount the pledged delegates in those states that he won and just go by the combined popular vote?  In that event, how do you count the popular votes in caucus states?  It is too complicated to go with just the popular vote because that does not give the clearest picture of who won the most delegates in the most primaries.

    Parent
    Doesn't make sense (none / 0) (#101)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:49:09 PM EST
    The popular vote gives the clearest indication of who has the support of the MAJORITY of the primary voters. Count of states is irrelevant. For example LA county alone in CA has more voters than many many states (and a number of smaller states put together).

    So you don't agree that the majority of voters would be the most clear indicator? If no and delegates are a distortion of the vote why not also include the SDs?

    I am assuming you are interested in an honest discussion and not the one that favors your candidate.

    Parent

    Super Delegates (none / 0) (#63)
    by BloggerRadio on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:22:47 PM EST
    If the Super Delegates give it to Hillary, this Yellow-Dog-Democrat votes for McCain. And, I am fairly certain I am not the only one.
    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:33:32 PM EST
    Bit  dramatic,  don't you  think?  

    You'd  vote  for  100   more  years of  war  and permanent  tax  cuts  just  because  you hate  Hillary?  

    Seems  a  tad  foolish  to me.

    Parent

    Seems That According To An AP Poll (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by MO Blue on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:49:54 PM EST
    about 33% of Obama's voters will vote for McCain if Hillary is the nominee. OTOH 30% of Hillary's voters will vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee.

    So if supporters like you and others who will not support the nominee if it is not THEIR NOMINEE follow through with their threats, we will all watch McCain sworn in as the next president and probably a 7-2 SCOTUS.

     

    Parent

    Ok I am going to go bang my head into the wall now (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:49:56 PM EST
    What you say is true, that is why.

    Parent
    Are you suggesting that is (none / 0) (#105)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:15:48 PM EST
    typical of your Yellow Dog Dems?

    If so, then they're not really Dems.  They may be dogs, they certainly may be yellow, but Dems vote with the party -- because of its platform.  So you must disagree with the Dem platform, too?

    Parent

    picking and choosing (none / 0) (#74)
    by diogenes on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:41:07 PM EST
    Of course, these are states where Hillary runs way ahead.  How about the same poll using Virginia, Illinois, or other states where Obama polls ahead?  All this shows is that as of today Hillary, who is "20 points ahead" of Obama in Ohio, retains only one point of that advantage when juxtaposed next to McCain.
    diogenes (none / 0) (#86)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:51:02 PM EST
    But is  she  wins  all those  pledge  delegates,  she  wins,  right?  

    Isn't  that  what  Obama  said?

    Parent

    While I am a very liberal voter, and I cannot (none / 0) (#89)
    by athyrio on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:59:46 PM EST
    stand Obama, I would NEVER vote for McCain...However, in my opinion, Obama's biggest weakness is his lack of support from women...that is gonna kill him in the fall if he cannot turn it around....and I am not sure he can....if this thing appears to be "stolen" from Hillary I know alot of women that will stay home....also I am amazed at the number of republicans around here that are falling for the muslim rumors that were spread about him....Never underestimate the ignorance of the average voter...it is astonishing...I just keep hoping they will come together as a team...with her as president...any other way, probably wont work...

    this is going to be the problem: (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:20:00 PM EST
    Not democrats crossing over to vote for McCain, but democrats who stay home rather than vote for the candidate they did not choose.

    Parent
    That could happen with my wife (none / 0) (#97)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:42:01 PM EST
    She is a registered Democrat but feel belittled by the Party on the primary thing.  She is already talking of staying home.

    Parent
    New McCain vs. Hillary and Obama Polls | 100 comments (100 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment