Kevin Drum reels in some new numbers that have Hillary Clinton faring better than Barack Obama against John McCain.
« Edwards on FISA | Main | NY-25 »
Matchups
24 Jan 2008 09:32 am
Comments (34)
SurveyUSA poll says Obama loses to McCain in Massachusetts while Clinton wins:
45% McCain
49% Clinton
6% Undecided
50% McCain
45% Obama
6% Undecided
She does at least as well as Obama against every leading Republican, and in a hypothetical matchup with McCain she wins by 4 points while Obama loses by a point. - Kevin
The margin of sampling error for all adults and all registered voters is plus or minus 3 percentage points. For Democratic-primary voters, it is 4 points, for Republican-primary voters 5 points. For the two random half samples of registered voters, it is 4. For certain other subgroups, the error margin may be somewhat higher. - Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll, page 14
All's I'm sayin' is, if we nominate this woman based on January polling within the margin of error for a November election, and she loses, I am not gonna be responsible for my actions.
I have nursed my hatred of Florida Nader 2000 voters into a slow-simmering stew of perpetual but low-level anger, and I cannot do it again! The Crock-Pot of resentment is full!
General election numbers at this point are completely meaningless.
General election numbers at this point are completely meaningless.
wasn't rudy up like 20 points just a few months ago?
I'm not buying it. If/when Hillary wins the nomination, she will have so alienated Obama supporters, African Americans, moderate Dems and Independents with her disgraceful smear campaign - I predict she loses in a landslide to McCain. The GOP may not like him much, but Hillary is the one figure who can galvanize the entire Reagan coalition against her AND alienate part of her core constituency. Obama should start making the case that he has far greater crossover appeal right now. If it's fair for Hillary to portray her banal photo/ops as first lady as experience that will help her hit the ground running as President, it's fair game for Obama to point out that Hillary has no chance whatsoever at winning.
Leave it to the Democratic Party to always make the uninspired, "safe" choice (and lose).
It will be worse now. I predict Obama (if he wins) will win by a very small margin (2-3%) in SC. The reason is the two Clintons' campaign (race, gender, and ethnicity baiting). Even Dick Morris is onto this. Of course, I predicted from the start that no one can beat the two Clintons. No one has. No one will. Ever. Forever.
The prediction again: The power of the Clintons' attack machine is that you will vote for it, even though you do not want to. The bait (race, gender, and ethnicity) is now in your DNA, especially if you are low-income (or low-education) white woman.
Please see --
I used to be feel sorry that Obama will not win. Now I will sorry for Obama himself. I mean what a way to be destroyed.
I think all we can do is ask people to use their heads. Is a woman who a large portion of the country actively despises -- who has only managed to win the nomination through scorched-earth primary tactics that leave half her own base disaffected -- likely to be able to win in November after months of "Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton?" commentary and Lewinsky jokes? No matter what the polls say ten months out, it seems utterly crazy to me to think that Clinton is in any way the safe bet.
As will all national polls, they mean little compared to electoral counts. A better measure would be to looks at every potential battleground state and add up electoral votes.
eorse, the Zogby tracking poll shows Edwards gaining on Clinton for second, which if it comes to pass changes the conventional wisdom about the post-South-Carolina situation significantly.
What is interesting is that independents and republicans prefer Clinton over Obama when both are matched up against McCain.
Granted this does not mean a whole lot this far out but still it has to give pause to those who falsely claim Clinton is divisive. Although we all heard the claim endlessly repeated I never really believed it and no one I know ever really believed it.
I live in heavily republican Orange County CA and people here remember that almost a quarter of registered republicans in the county voted for Bill Clinton when they had a chance. And they also see that heavily republican upstate New York voted for Hillary Clinton when they had a chance.
I used to suppose that there might be somewhere else that the claim of divisiveness might be true, but I never saw it. Now this poll shows even that is not true.
Hmm... McCain and Obama... I feel like there was some news about those two a few months back....
Oh yeah, I remember. Obama tried to call McCain out on some bullshit, and McCain smacked Obama down like a little bitch*. Yes, I now feel absolutely certain that Obama is the man to beat McCain in November. After all, I dislike the Clintons, so the thing I want to happen must be true.
* Apologies for the phrase, but that's really the best description of what happened. It was pure gender-domination politics, even between two men.
Agree with Mike LeP entirely. If Hillary wins the nomination she'll be so tainted by her appalling campaign against Obama that she'll lose a shocking percentage of his supporters. (If you don't believe me, just read the comments pages at salon, huffpo, politico and swampland, where the rage is palpable.) Furthermore, she'll have absolutely no claim to ethical superiority against the Republicans, least of all McCain.
Hillary is a female Michael Dukakis. Not only do I think she'll lose to McCain, I think it's possible she'd get beaten badly. Furthermore I think nominating her is the only way the Democrats have a chance to lose to Romney.
Howard B.
How do you explain the fact that more independents and republicans actually prefer Clinton to Obama, according to the most recent polling?
Doesn't this negate the claim that so many Obama partisans are making?
(It goes without saying that the polls also show that more democrats prefer Clinton over Obama as well.)
ken: This is one poll. It's certainly interesting and possibly a reason for concern for Obama. The question is how significant it is given that it is inconsistent with previous head to head matchup polls. I'd like to see some more data before deciding whether this is an outlier or indicative of a new trend. It's worth noting that in states where the candidates have campaigned and people actually voted, Obama dominated the independent vote vis a vis Clinton.
We've seen all this before. The wine-and-brie crowd--the "purists"--float into the Democratic Party behind their candidate du jour--McCarthy, Hart, Bradley--sulk when he loses, then sit out the general, and elect Nixon and Bush.
Yeah, these guys are political geniuses all right.
I find the Drum thing believable. My guess: HRC beats McCain and loses to Romney. Obama beats Romney and loses to McCain. I think it's going to be HRC vs. Romney in the end, which sucks.
We've seen all this before. The wine-and-brie crowd--the "purists"--float into the Democratic Party behind their candidate du jour--McCarthy, Hart, Bradley--sulk when he loses, then sit out the general, and elect Nixon and Bush.
Yeah, these guys are political geniuses all right.
**********
I think a better comparison is '04 and to a lesser extent 2000, when the party nominated the "safe" establishment candidate and blew the election. At least I won't have to hold my nose to vote for a repellent harpy. Let's face it - NO ONE likes Hillary. Her supporters back her because they think she's just nasty enough to win. Which strikes me as odd, since she's the least electable candidate left.
Typical loser party.
This thread's responses show once again that Obama's supporters are detached from the land of hope and live solidly in a landscape of thier hatred: scary how mean spirited and content free obama supporters and hillary haters are!
This thread's responses show once again that Obama's supporters are detached from the land of hope and live solidly in a landscape of thier hatred: scary how mean spirited and content free obama supporters and hillary haters are!
This thread's responses show once again that Obama's supporters are detached from the land of hope and live solidly in a landscape of thier hatred: scary how mean spirited and content free obama supporters and hillary haters are!
**********
This from a guy who supports a dishonest, divisive race-baiter because her lack of morals make her a more viable candidate against "the enemy" this fall. How cynical can you get?
Amen, Mike LePosst. Let's not forget -- no Democrat has gotten more than 50.1% of the vote since 1964 (that was Carter in 1976). Even Bill never got a majority, despite the electoral blowout of 1996 against an incredibly weak Dole. I find it very difficult to believe that Hillary could win anything but another squeaker election, which will lead to four more years of politics by soundbite, filibusters by the Republican Senate and nothing getting done. Obama has an opportunity to score a more broad-based victory, plus he certainly has more coattails for down-tickets races. Everytime we have put up the "experienced" establishment candidate, we lose -- Humphrey in 68, Mondale in 84, Dukakis in 88, Gore in 2000, Kerry in 2004. We never win by touting our national security credentials (see Kerry). We win if we can gin up some enthusiasm for something new and untried (Carter, Clinton). Hillary -- Billary -- is not new and untried and will gin up no enthusiasm. If we nominate her, I fear 2004 all over again. And if she wins, I fear 92-96 all over again, when we lost the Congress and healthcare was set back for a generation.
Led, I think your claim about Obama dominating the independent vote is true only in the Iowa caucus.
Since then, not really.
Sadly, many Americans simply will not vote for a black man. Hence Bill and Hillary's clever playing of the race card.
Have to agree with Ron about the fundamental meaninglessness of GE polls right now, particularly since the exact opposite of the purported results is also within the margin of error.
Didn't Drum throw a temper tantrum after Hillary lost Iowa big???
And he wrote he was mad because it meant the fevered swamp of the right-wing attack machine had won, when really a Hillary win would be a bonanza for Limbaugh and his ilk.
I doubt the two's actual policies will be that different as you can see from their records and I bet either will beat the Republican in the national election.
The polls are full of it. They were wrong in Iowa and New Hampshire.
What is know is the record registration and turnout, which due more to Obama it seems like. There's been record registration in state after state.
Robert Reich's writes about his disappointment with Bill Clinton.
The Indie vote is weirdest - split between Obama/McCain AND Hillary/McCain? What this says is that Independent voters are not who we think they are. Many are farther to the left than the Democratic Party, or hate the war and are smart enough to associate McCain with 100 more years of it, or are downscale voters who don't like to be taken for granted by the Democratic Party. Those voters are equally repulsed by McCain and would vote for either Clinton or Obama. The celebrated "true Independent swing voter" is less likely to jump to McCain this year given the overall climate.
So then there's the crossover question. Why would Hillary draw more crossover GOP votes, when her negatives among Republicans are so much higher than Obama's? Is it moderate Republican women?
Even Kevin Drum in his post admits that what he is doing is completely meaningless, although apparently not completely meaningless enough to, you know, not do it.
"For what it's worth, my take is still that these kinds of matchup polls are pretty meaningless this early in the cycle. What's more, there are lots of undecided voters in both matchups, and there's no telling which way they'd jump when they finally entered the voting booth."
This is the horserace nonsense that you were defending yesterday.
We don't know who the strongest Democrat or Republican is yet in their own primaries and the elections are already underway. Why do you think you know who's stronger in the general election.
Projecting a candidates strength in an election 9 months from now is foolish. The polls from 9 months ago were completely off target in every state so far. In fact the polls from 2 months ago weren't very accurate.
Given the complete collapse of Rudy Giuliani's poll over a matter of weeks (not to mention Huckabee's rise, McCain's collapse and recovery, Obama's surge in virtually every state as the election neared), you should realize how little connection such projections have with reality.
Sorry, Ken, but this poll is an anomaly, unsupported by any others.
AS to those who think that Obama's supporters are "purists," let me disabuse them of that fairy tale. You don't get to smear our candidate and then take our votes for granted in November. If Hillary was so interested in our support beyond the primary season, she could have run an ethical campaign of ideas and issues, not a slug fest with innuendo, distortions and outright lies.
Just as the Clintons seem to feel a sense of entitlement to the nomination, her supporters seem to feel a sense of entitlement to our votes.
Howard B.
Instead of being so sensitive about CLintons campaigning against your guy you should thank them.
No candidate is entitled to tell the public only what they want the public to know about them and have that remain unchallenged. Obama has told you what he want you to know. Great. That is what he is supposed to do. But is it everything you or anyone else really needs to make a truly informed decision?
Did you know for example, before Clinton made an issue, that while seeking the endorsement of a conservative editorial board Obama said that over the last 10 to 15 years it was the republican party that was the 'party of ideas'?
How many people knew that part of Obama before the ad came out using Obama's words against him?
Perhaps it is important to some people but not to others. But why shouldn't Obama be held accountable for his words and for is record?
After our knowledge of him is fully developed we will be in a better position to evaluate whether we really want to vote for him or not. You cannot count on Obama to disclose everthing we need to know so it is left to about his oppenents.
Howard B.
Instead of being so sensitive about CLintons campaigning against your guy you should thank them.
No candidate is entitled to tell the public only what they want the public to know about them and have that remain unchallenged. Obama has told you what he want you to know. Great. That is what he is supposed to do. But is it everything you or anyone else really needs to make a truly informed decision?
Did you know for example, before Clinton made an issue, that while seeking the endorsement of a conservative editorial board Obama said that over the last 10 to 15 years it was the republican party that was the 'party of ideas'?
How many people knew that part of Obama before the ad came out using Obama's words against him?
Perhaps it is important to some people but not to others. But why shouldn't Obama be held accountable for his words and for is record?
After our knowledge of him is fully developed we will be in a better position to evaluate whether we really want to vote for him or not. You cannot count on Obama to disclose everthing we need to know so it is left to about his oppenents.
Comments closed February 07, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
At first I was doubtful. The poll was claiming Clinton did better because she was garnering many more Republican voters than Obama. It seemed unlikely. However, there is a good explanation for that.
Posted by Njorl | January 24, 2008 9:46 AM