Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

On "Defectors" and Independents

Topics: 2008 , Barack Obama , Hillary Clinton , John McCain , Newsweek , Pew Research Center , Rasmussen , SurveyUSA

Downstairs at The Hotline, my colleague Matt Gottlieb caught a finding in the general election presidential trial heats in the latest Newsweek poll that confirms some analysis in the most recent survey from the Pew Research Center:

In the Newsweek general-election matchup between Clinton and McCain, Clinton leads overall by 2% but leads among Obama primary voters by 51%. In a matchup between Obama and McCain, however, Obama leads overall by 1% but leads Clinton primary voters by just 36%.

The Pew Research Center's analysis on their most recent national survey notes a similar pattern:

The vast majority of Democratic voters say they would support either Obama or Clinton over McCain. But in an Obama-McCain matchup, 14% of Democratic voters say they would support McCain, compared with 8% who would do so if Clinton is the nominee.

While the measurements differ, both show essentially the same thing. In match-ups against McCain, Clinton does slightly better among Democrats than Obama. But keep in mind that on the Pew poll, Clinton's advantage among Democrats appears to be offset by Obama's greater advantage among independents and Republican identifiers, as both Democrats are preferred by 50% of registered voters. The Pew report has full details on the demographics of the independents that Obama attracts and the Democrats that defect. On the Newsweek poll, Clinton's advantage is slightly greater, since she wins 48% of the registered voters compared to 46% for Obama.

Of course, the slight Clinton edge on both the Pew and Newsweek polls is at odds with most of the other recent surveys, although the more recent Newsweek survey is consistent with two automated surveys conducted by SurveyUSA and Rasmussen Reports in recent days.

03-10 national.png

All of this is a good way to point out that we have just put up tables and charts on the national general election polls (Obama-McCain and Clinton-McCain) and will be rolling out charts for individuals states over the coming days and weeks.

PS: The complete results for the Newsweek poll are not (yet?) posted online, but Newsweek has posted unweighted subgroup sizes something new: A helpful demographic profile of registered voters and the Democrats and Democratic "leaners" that answered primary vote questions. Thank you, Newsweek.

Update: The Pew Research Center's Scott Keeter emails to the observation that "defectors" from Clinton and Obama essentially cancel each other out in their late February survey. In match-ups of Clinton vs. McCain and Obama vs. McCain among registered voters, 8% were for Clinton not Obama, 8% were for Obama not Clinton, 40% favored both Clinton and Obama and 35% were for neither Clinton nor Obama. It would be useful to those debating the issue of "electability" to see the same computation for other surveys.

 

Comments
Not Bree:

[comment deleted by the management. Folks, again, if you can't keep it civil, take it somewhere else.
--Ed.]

____________________

Anthony:

What a wise contribution, Bree. Very insightful.

____________________

I'd like to issue a protest, for I believe "Bree's" comments to be a work of political satire. I mean, nobody *seriously* quotes Dick Morris, except perhaps as a negative example in a scary but useful cautionary tale.

Rock on, "Bree."

____________________

michael:

This is very interesting. If McCain attacks Obama for being "too liberal" he may end up winning independents, while losing Clinton Democrats.

____________________

Andrew S. in California:

Funny enough if McCain attacks either Clinton or Obama for being "too liberal" I think they can easily quip back that he's voted with them with quite a few policies making him "to liberal"

____________________

Patrick:

I think these polls are starting to reflect what an awful lot of Democrats (and Independents) are starting to realize: Maybe this first term junior senator a lot of us got "swept up" with just really isn't ready to be Commander in Chief, especially compared to a Republican candidate who's a true moderate and war hero, and a former First Lady who is not only extremely intelligent and capable, but whose husband was the only 2-term Democratic president since FDR, and a very successful one at that. Poll after poll shows that more Clinton supporters would vote for McCain over Obama than the reverse. And now that Hillary has as good as said she'd offer the VP slot to Obama (which she'd have to anyway), I really think she's well on her way to the nomination. By June, she'll have wins under her belt in PA, FL, WV, KY, PR, most likely IN and MI, and possibly NC and 1 or 2 others. Plus she'll have an edge in the popular vote, including at least 1 million+ more votes from registered Democrats. Obama will just have to settle for #2 this time. But he'll most likely be the next president after her.

____________________

Steve:

It's simple, Clinton supporters are upset now because they are losing. Come November that will fade. One shouldn't look at polls and disregard causes.

____________________

akclsm:

i haven't posted anything? why did you block me?

____________________

Bree (the real one):

I'd just like to point out that it wasn't me who wrote the above deleted message. Someone is using other people's names when posting. I believe it is the same person who used Bob Evans's name earlier and seems to have the IQ of a retarded chimp.

Anyway, I think it is the Republican racist who used to go by "the general" and was banned awhile back. I speculate he is trying to create discord within the Democratic community with his obviously inflammatory hate speech.

So here is my message to him:

Hey dummy, your pathetic attempts to fracture Democrats is childish and will not work. Democrats will be united in November to win back the White House - no matter what. So STFU you POS! Thanks!


Bree (the real one)

____________________

The General:

The General never goes away. Banned? Not quite sugar!

____________________

The General:

Bree-You girls sure look united today! Remember your history little girl. 1968, 1976, 1980, 1984- all messy primary seasons that resulted in the winner losing by a landslide in November. History repeats itself again.

McCain/Romney 08

____________________

cinnamonape:

Patrick~ I'm not sure how you extracted your assessment from the data? Could you explain your logic a bit further as to how the SURVEY allowed you to arrive at your conclusion (rather than your own opinion...that has nothing to do with the survey)?

"on the Pew poll, Clinton's advantage among Democrats appears to be offset by Obama's greater advantage among independents and Republican identifiers, as both Democrats are preferred by 50% of registered voters"

I think it odd that Clinton supporters will defect to McCain when it's clear his positions on health-care, environment, Choice, letting tax cuts expire on the wealthy, etc. are far closer to Obamas.
About the only issue I can see Clinton and McCain share is that they both voted for the Iraq War Resolution...so are these defectors in favor of maintaining the US in Iraq, or something? Maybe there is some sort of racial issue occurring here? Or maybe they really DO believe that Obama is a Muslimchurian Candidate? It beats me why voters would cut off their nose to spite their face?

____________________

Anonymous:

i shall try this post one more time. when i was working the phones in ohio - the anger level was so intense against the media coverage of clinton - that the impending defection level would be acute - more in the range of 20-25% towards mccain if obama wins. either that -or they would sit out the general election.

____________________

tony:

i think media coverage (trashing clinton, now trashing obama), the campaigns (divisive on BOTH sides), an inept dnc (stripping fl/mich of delegates and not educating voters that 2024 = victory, rather than winning more states/delegates), and blatant attempts to overly influence voters by some people in the party (kennedy, daschle) have caused this mess. incredibly, the dems might lose with either candidate. i think obama is a definite crash and burn candidate, but i cannot see him running second to clinton. many of his supporters are young, the kind who do not do compromise.

____________________

Cinnamonape, I was pondering the same thing - why would twice as many Clinton supporters defect to McCain if Obama were the nominee - and I think there are two big factors at work. Go to the Pew study, to the toplines...

http://people-press.org/reports/questionnaires/398.pdf

... and scroll to page 38, to the question "what one word best describes (this candidate)?"

For Clinton, the top word choice is "experienced" (34). Next comes "strong" (16), and perhaps tied for second, "untrustworthy" (16). However that's followed by "intelligent" and "smart" - combined (which they should have been, unless someone at Pew can explain the distinction) they were chosen by 29. Rounding out the top ten are "determined," "bitch," "knowledgeable," "capable" and "competent."

For Obama, the top word choice is "inexperienced" (45), a negative. After that comes "charismatic" (32) which could be interpreted as a positive or as neutral, and "intelligent" (25), indubitably a positive. The top ten is rounded by "change," "inspirational," "young," "new," "enthusiastic," "hope," and "arrogant."

Then there's McCain. He's starts with "old" (55) (ouch), followed by honest (32), experienced (29), patriot, conservative, hero, liberal, good, integrity and leader.

Even if you are a dyed in the wool Democrat, if experience, competence and strength are the top characteristics you look for in a president, its easy to see how you might choose Clinton first and McCain second.

[I believe a separate factor driving the defector rate is the anger women like myself feel towards Obama, his campaign and many of his supporters, including that boys brigade in the media, but I think I've said enough about that.]

You can also find numbers in this study that indicate voters (including Dems) feel Barack hasn't explained his policies enough relative to Clinton or McCain; and concerns that he will be too "soft" on security issues. Neither Clinton nor McCain have this liability.

But there's also plenty of great news for Obama in this study.

I think the take home message from the Pew study and others like it is that both Dems show certain strengths and liabilities; sometimes they are shared and sometimes they are complementary. The study can inform speculation about each campaign's message strategy, but as for "my candidate is better than your candidate" or "this is what will happen in November," its really pretty useless.

____________________

tony:

i fear that if it isnt a joint ticket, the dems are doomed. only the dems could lose after bush.....

____________________

Chris G:

younger voters are also a lot more likely to be Independent than older voters are, even though they are also more liberal. the analysis should tease out ideological ID, otherwise it gives a vague and potentially false impression to some (re michael's comment towards top) that Obama is weaker among liberals. if Clinton is in fact performing better among working class Reagan Dems, then this far from true.

____________________

Obamaforeverandaday:

Ciccina, your anger as a woman toward Obama is the same anger I have over Hillary as a African American. I'm angry because Hillary as a woman is not playing by the rules. She seems to recreate them every chance she gets. And the Democrated party is letting her get away with it.

Let's start with Florida and Mich.
Everyone agreed to the rules, period. NOW of a sudden, the rules don't really apply because the two states would benefit Billary. IS THIS FAIR?

Next, 11 in a row...
If Billary would have won 11 in a row, Obama would been out of this race, period...IS THIS FAIR?

Finally, throwing the kiten sink...How fair would it be if Obama brought up ALL Billaries garbage? Peter Paul, Mavel Comic, Monica, the Clinton library donors, etc...the reps are gonna have a field day with this Monster if she becomes the democrate nominee...not mention all her little dirty tricks they get to add from this campaign...She is a hypocrit and I can't believe you people can't see the truth...

____________________

Sharp147:

As much as I hope this wouldn't be true, I think this is where race comes back into play. Obama might have a harder time winning over Clinton's voters because I think there is still a significant portion of the white and Latino electorate that unfortunately will never vote for an African American man. Although, I have been pleasantly surprised with the people I have encountered who have voted for Obama (some of whom are in my own family). But I'm not surprised with the findings discussed above at all.

____________________

RS:

Let's see... someone with "untrustworthy" in second place against someone who with "honest" in 2nd place; also a patriot, hero, experienced... The choice really seems a no-brainer ;-)

But - the survey shows the respondents do not associate Senator McCain with "strong." Someone who has been through far worse horrors than the competition... and not strong? Are you friggin' kidding me?

____________________

Anonymous:

This isn't just Clinton supporters being upset. There are a number of reasons (bad or good) one might vote for Clinton:

1. Experience
2. Racism
3. Because she is a woman
4. Because you support her platform
5. Because you think Obama dislike Obama's style (or some other personal dislike for Obama)

If Obama is the nominee, reason 1, 2 and 5 favor McCain. Reason 3, a reason to vote Democrat disappears, leaving only reason 4.

Ideology and partisan affiliation is not the only marker that matters in American politics.

____________________

Eric:

I would argue that while the Obama/McCain and Hillary/McCain polls are likely to be decently accurate (for polls), that the Obama supporters who would vote for McCain over Clinton and vise versa numbers are not accurate based on the following reasoning (it would be near impossible to find numbers to prove it):

The Democrats being polled are no fools, they know the answer to their questions will be published and that the polls will get media attention. Therefore Obama supporters would say they would vote for McCain over Hillary and Hillary supporters would say they would vote for McCain over Hillary.

I find it hard to believe someone who classifies themselves as a Democrat would not vote for the Democratic nominee.

____________________

Andrew S.in California:

If anyone here read the Newsweek story on presidential experience you'll find that Obama is quite "average" for a president in government experience for the previous century and "above average" for all combined presidents. In fact he has more experience than FDR did when he ran for president. So I don't really get this whole "experience" argument.

Anyways a 6% spread in democrats going to McCain. Hmm fine but McCain actually loses his strongest base, indpendents, to Obama. I'd honestly say who cares since both Obama and Clinton would both win under the Pew survey.

I honestly have to say if it was Obama vs. McCain and Obama JUST has to answer to McCain's experience that seems too simple of a political strategy to counter. Rezko is a minor pock mark as well I guess.

Clinton? How fun it would be to look into that closet. I wonder how popular she'd be after someone actually unloaded on her since Obama is not interested in that type of politics.

____________________

There are two new polls out in Mississippi, a new ARG (3/9-3/10) and a new IA (3/9). And they have both swung back to the Rasmussen result. I predict on EI that Obama wins by 10-20%.

____________________

The General:

Looks like a unified party to me!

LMFAO!!!

Tony is right. Your have the party that could lose after Bush. You find two white liberal guilts, blacks and women, and you managed to pit them against each other. LMFAO!! Both candidates are mediocre quasi-socialists, but now the only way you can eek out a 51-49 win is to put the two morons on the same ticket. If not, you will lose 55-45, minimally. Face it. Dumbo and Connie together, white and black, is the only way you fools can win. Us Republicans, true Americans, know you are too stupid to join forces, and will instead do a 1968.

____________________

The General:

Bold prediction xstryker. Who could ever predict an Obama win in Mississippi? LMFAO!

Bambi by 25

____________________

Obamaforeverandaday, your anger is NOTHING like my anger and the anger of women like me. You have a problem with the Democratic party trying to figure out how to get itself out of the mess they created by thinking they could disenfranchise the voters of two major swing states without any repercussions. Obviously that was the height of stupidity, but it has nothing to do with you being African American or Hillary being a woman.

Based on what you've written, you, like many Obama supporters, have created a convenient boogeyman in Hillary Clinton, one on which you can pin all the evils of politics. If its bad, she's done it, right? She's a monster, a beast, subhuman. Why, The General is probably Hillary posting in disguise! And I'm sure every day you yammer on about it, because doing so makes you feel oh so superior, oh so ethical. Because what are really doing is implicitly comparing your high morals to her low ones, someone who personifies all the things that you are not. Its nothing more than a cheap way to boost your own self esteem.

And that's really the core of Obama's message. Its "look at how low and foul she is; whereas we are pure and noble and right." He's been beating this drum since day one and inviting people to join him on his ego trip. And why not? Most people like to have an "other" to look down on. Most people enjoy being told they are superior to that "other" group of people. Hey, it worked like a charm for Ronald Reagan.

My anger is based on the fact that Obama sees the misogyny directed at Clinton, but because it works to his advantage, he refuses to denounce it. Even McCain, whom I consider the least ethical of three, had the decency to make a strong statement saying that the GOP nimrod who tried to link Obama and Al Qaeda was morally wrong. But Obama? He's happy to accuse the Clintons of racism, an absurdity, but sit idly by while his people denounce Hillary in terms that are not only degrading to her, but to her supporters as well.

When you get down to brass tacks, in his entire background this man never did a thing for anyone but himself, never made a sacrifice for anything, has never had to take a hit and keep going. He clearly doesn't care about voters like myself and in my opinion he has gone out of his way to show it. (I also suspect he has a glass jaw). And every day this perception is confirmed by obnoxious Obama supporters who somehow think its clever to parade their ignorance and insecurities in public fora.

The fact is that the worst thing that could happen to Obama would be for Hillary to drop out of the race now. If that happens, he would have to campaign on his merits and make a substantial case for himself. He'd have to stand up to the press on his own, not buddy up with them over their shared disdain for Hillary. As long as she's in, he can take the easy road of tearing her down to make himself look good by comparison.

So thank you for reminding me why I decided to not vote rather than vote for Obama in November. Any person who delights in calling Hillary "Billary" is a person with whom I have nothing in common.

____________________

Mark Lindeman:

Ciccina: great analysis of the Pew study upthread. As for not voting -- if you find a candidate who manages to disavow all his or her obnoxious supporters, let me know. In the meantime, I question whether it ultimately makes sense to be 'too hip for the room.' (Also, I think Clinton pretty well whiffed on her chance to spike the "Obama = stealth Muslim" attack. But I have no idea how one would calculate the candidates' High Road Quotients. McCain has been far from perfect.)

I have personal reasons for despising misogyny directed at successful women. I don't think the Obama campaign is to blame for it, and it certainly doesn't characterize the Obama supporters I know, but it's depressing regardless.

____________________

Carol:

As a HRC supporter I would in fact vote for McCain over Obama. I am not prejudiced. I would consider voting for him with a little more experience and some real evidence that he will do what he says. Right now I feel Obama is way too cocky. He wants to jump to the top without paying his dues. I don't feel comfortable with him running the country. I do think national security is a big issue and I think Obama is too big a pacifist.I have questions about his Rezko ties and his church.
I think McCain is the safer choice over Obama.

____________________

jsh1120:

Both Obama and Clinton face challenges in appealing to their opponent's supporters. But it's important to keep in mind that neither faces the challenges McCain faces; how to conceal his party affiliation from independent voters and how to translate his relatively strong popular support into electoral votes.

If forced to choose between the strengths/weaknesses of either Democratic candidate versus challenges McCain faces, I'd be more than happy to run either Democrat's campaign.

I suspect there's little question that Clinton can capture a greater share of "Reagan Democrats" than Obama, an advantage that would give her more decisive wins in blue states. By the same token, it's obvious why the GOP would rather run against Clinton. In a campaign hamstrung by limited resources, the fewer battleground states the better.

____________________

Andrew S.in California:

You're not voting Obama because of some of the people who post here? Pathetic and a cop out if I ever heard of one.

____________________

illinoisindie:

Geeze you democrats on here consistently remind me why I chose the Republican party. You guys would cut off your noses just to spite your face. At least I have an excuse that if Obama does not get the nomination to flip to McCain.I am an Obamacan
Unbelievable, do you guys not believe in the principles that made you Democrats in the first place? universal healthcare, focusing on the middle class? Blah Blah Blah. I have heard it said that Republicans fall in line and democrats fall in love.I guess that explains the democratic mentality on this board of I love my candidate and cant see myself with any other. In 2004 I said that it was the Democrats election to lose and my goodness it is like Deja Vu in 2008. Here we go again.

@ Ciccina: No-one has created Hillary the Bogey man? she needs no help in glorifying that persona herself. Although Barack has sidestepped calling her out for the most part on her (and by association her husband?s) misdeeds my favorite party will not be as nice. Mc Cain will oppose it from the north but his surrogates will push on from the south.

Whoopie HRC will win Blue states... see if we all can follow this logic... the reason that they are called blue states is because they likely will vote blue in the GE. Which means that either blue candidate will carry them. What matters are swing states and purple states.

Anyway, In the event of a HRC nomination, at least the general election would not be boring, all the dirt and fireworks will fly at the Clintons and we will all have popcorn moments while glued to our TVs.

While I dont prefer Hillary, personally I was hoping for a Democratic president but oh well, upward and onward with the 100 year war we are winning right???

____________________

Paul:

I couldn't agree more with illinoisindie above even though I don't share his affection for the Republicans. They will have a field day with Billary in the GE if she gets there. All the crazy people who've dreamed up Obama misogyny from somewhere should really get brace themselves for what the Republicans will throw at them.

These polls have already been very easily explained above (especially considering the differences between Obama and Hillary are quite small) - Hillary supporters are still bitter and angry that they are losing. The old guard is not yet ready to fall in behind the new guard and McCain as a prehistoric politician helps this by being reassuringly old for those who value experience. BUT ultimately the country is tired of yah-boo politics and factionalism and the old-school Democrats and their corruption-mired traditional standard-bearer isn't going to cut it in Nov.

As an aside - for RS who wonders why people don't see McCain as "strong" perhaps it is because despite his years as a POW he decided in 2000 to buckle instantly under the pressure of Bush, Cheney and Rove. He's fallen into line like a well-healed puppy dog and I think "strong" isn't likely to be a useful adjective for him this year.

____________________

Andrew S. in California:

These latest Ferraro Comments are not helping the Clinton campaign. Hillary keeps bringing this whole election back to race and she isn't repudiating her staff's comments unlike Obama. She'd better act quick or look like a bold faced racist.

____________________

Dewrdeye:

Ciccina & Carol,

YOU ARE NOT DEMOCRATS - JUST HILLBOTS

What is a hillbot?

A person who is blinded by their support of Hillary - usually because "they want to see a woman in the white house".

Poor Hillbots, so blinded by radical feminism that you don't even see what is so painfully obvious to everyone else. HILLARY IS NOT A STRONG WOMAN! Does a strong woman cry when things get tough? Does a strong woman have Bill do her dirty work? Does a strong woman stay with a chronic adulterer? No, no, and NO!

Really, "100 years" McCain over a Democrat?

Remember this Hillbots, Obama and Hillary have nearly identical policy stances. Hillary and McCain certainly do not.

Carol - your arguments against Obama could easily be thrown at Bill Clinton in '92. What was HIS foreign policy experience again?

AND, by the way, Rezko donated to Hillary as well. If you have a problem with devious fund raisers - WHY ARE YOU SUPPORTING HILLARY????? Or did you conveniently forget Peter Paul, Norman Hsu and others??? Just google their names.

And a little tidbit for ya - McCain is just as dirty (if not more so) - remember his "affair" with a lobbyist? And his lying about knowing cetain people involved with her, in addition to writing highly unusual letters helping her out. Or did you forget that too???

Here's a NEWSFLASH (no really, it is a story that just broke) -

McCain's advisers supposedly were advocating for that Euro company that just got that lucrative Air Force deal over Boeing! OOOPS!

Way to go McCain, sending jobs overseas while weakening national security AT THE SAME TIME! Nice one, old man!


Another tidbit for ye uninformed -

Virginia and other red states are going blue for Obama in November. Sorry, it is true. Just check out poll snapshots of him. Have you ever in your life seen a candidate skyrocket like that? No. And it is just the beginning. Wait until he campaigns in smaller settings with extended time. No one is going to vote for an ugly, handicapped dinosaur who has rather disturbing fixation with starting random wars.

Obama changes the map in way that no one else in politics could have (and many people STILL haven't heard a lot about him). That is why poor McCain has no chance.

All the Dems know that with her, conservatives will come out of the woodwork to vote against her, but with Obama conservatives will vote FOR him. (How do you think Bill Foster just won Hastert's seat in a heavily Republican area?)

If they were smart, they ALL would have endorsed him some time ago. But who ever said politicians were smart *cough Spitzer* ?

Mississippi -

65 - Obama
35 - Clinton

By the way, Obama is going to win Pennsylvania - you heard it here first folks.


General - you are pathetic. Why don't you go grab your bedsheet now and get ready for your KKK meeting?

____________________

Bryan :

Some people have too much time on their hands.

____________________

David West:

Dewey said -

"Here's a NEWSFLASH (no really, it is a story that just broke) -

McCain's advisers supposedly were advocating for that Euro company that just got that lucrative Air Force deal over Boeing! OOOPS!

Way to go McCain, sending jobs overseas while weakening national security AT THE SAME TIME! Nice one, old man! "


WOW! Looks like he just lost Washington!

____________________

Christo:

I used to support McCain - way back in '00. Now he is just a beaten down, broken old man who does whatever Bush wants him to do. What a joke.

Only an idiot would vote for him this November. I'd rather vote for that retard, Nader, than McCain.

Luckily, we'll have a decent candidate on the Democratic side in Obama. I am uncomfortable with his experience level too - as many have posted - but he is fresh and young with a bipartisan approach that will help him immensely. Additionally, people around the world really seem to have taken a liking to him. That'll help after 8 years of monkey boy.

____________________

Jonathan:

"No one is going to vote for an ugly, handicapped dinosaur who has rather disturbing fixation with starting random wars."

Yeah,

Remember "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran"


____________________

Patrick:

While it is way too early to put too much faith in these national match-up polls, I do feel that there are important points that are backed up by recent history:

- The last several elections have been decided by OH, PA, and FL and given the # of electoral votes each of these states (and the other states that Obama may bring "into play"), there is no reason to believe that this will not be the case again this year. None of those 3 states is strong for Obama. The reasons? Some of it is working class and culutural racism (unfortunately), but the biggest reason is relative inexperience, i.e. the working and older people (i.e. more traditional Dems) of those states won't feel he's "paid his dues" because he has only 2 years of Fed government experience. And they feel that the world is more dangerous and complicated than ever before.

- Half of the states Obama has carried have not gone to the Democrat in 40 years or more. And they won't go to him in the general election. So while their pledged delegates should count, the superdelegates are free to take that into consideration if they decide the nominee.

- Hillary has received approx. 1 million more votes from registered Democrats in the primary season thus far. Some networks say she has received more total popular votes too. Regardless of the exact #'s, it's clear that Obama's edge in pledged delegates has come substantially from Republicans and Independents, both of whom will favor McCain in the general election according to current polls (and common sense in the case of Reps).

- Obama wins virtually all the caucuses; Hillary wins most primaries (except in hugely black states). We all know that caucuses are completely undemocratic (due to the tiny relative % of voters who turn out and the fact that they don't verify even state residency in most state caucuses) and heavily favor candidates backed by party activists (who basically "take them over"). In the 2 states that had both a primary and a caucus, the differences were huge: In WA, in the primary (big turnout), Obama won 50%-47%, but won 67%-33% in the caucus (much smaller turnout); in TX, Hillary won the primary 51-47% (huge turnout), but is losing the caucus (which were reportedly a logistics disaster) about 55%-45%. Primaries mimic general elections; caucuses do not at all.

- While Hillary is more than fully vetted, Obama is just now starting to get his first negative press. For example, the Rezko trial is just starting now. He will be much more vetted between now and June or August (when the nominee will be determined). We don't know how that will affect the decision the superdelegates will make. If she has the advantage in the popular vote (as well as all the big state and primary wins), she will have the very best argument for the nomination. With FL and MI re-votes, she is very likely to have a distinct advantage in the popular vote by June.

- McCain is a moderate (not scary) Republican with high positives and a tremendous amount of experience. Every poll that has asked the question so far shows that more of Hillary's supporters will vote for McCain over Obama than the reverse. In a close election, this could make the difference between the Dems winning and losing the White House.

I think in the long-run, Hillary will be a much stronger general election candidate. And I really think we'll see a shift to that thinking over the next 6 weeks and into June. And she knows she has to offer the VP slot to Obama. IF in June, she has won more votes and most of the important states, he should put his huge ego aside for the good of the party, they could make a great winning team, and together they hold the White House for up to 16 years.

____________________

Katie:

"All the Dems know that with her, conservatives will come out of the woodwork to vote against her, but with Obama conservatives will vote FOR him. (How do you think Bill Foster just won Hastert's seat in a heavily Republican area?) "

I believe this is a BIG reason that superdelegates will support Obama over Clinton - he just changes the map and has green/red support. Therefore, candidates in Congressional races would like him at the top of the ticket and ride his coattails to victory.

____________________

I'm usually the guy who chastises ever'one for going on about their personal beliefs and not the polling numbers. Well, this thread is pretty much all about personal beliefs, so I think I should tell ya something.

I started out as a Richardson guy. I never thought anyone other than Clinton was going to be the nominee, but I wanted Richardson to pick up some cred on his way to becoming Sect'y of State. I like the guy, but I thought it was all Clinton's.

Funny thing happened in Iowa. Real funny, in fact. I started listening to this young guy and I thought, "Hey, maybe he does have a chance!". Long about South Carolina I started to not only like Obama, but I was very angry at Bill Clinton for talking in a way that was, to my mind, akin to driving up to the gas station with those "NO SMOKING" signs, sticking the nozzle into the tank, and lighting up a big stogie. I could almost hear him telling the Fire Department, "Hey, I didn't ignite that gas station, it just happened!"

More than anything, however, I want my party, the Democrats, to come together. As someone repeated earlier, Republicans fall in line, Democrats fall in love. Hell, I'm ready to fall in line. After Wisconsin, I'd seen enough. It's over, Obama is fine with me, I have plenty to criticize both of them with. But it's still very much over.

Then, I did some math.

We have to realize that if you look at Gen-Xers plus Millenials together, which is to say everyone born after the Voting Rights Act was passed, we made up 33% of the voting public in 2004. If the same turnout rates happen in 2008, our advancing age will put us at 37%.

But what if a candidate really sparks things up, enough to get the Millenials (born after 1980) to vote just as much as Gen-Xers? We go to a combined 40%. And if both groups are really fired up and vote like Baby Boomers, it's at 45%.

When I did this math, I got excited about Obama and being a Democrat all over again. This could be a massive generational shift. Clinton? To Hell with Boomers that don't know when they are beaten. We have a chance to forge a new Democratic power base that could last for the rest of my lifetime (and I'm 42).

Maybe I did have to fall in love after all, but I fell in love with the stats first. This is generational change, guys, nothing less. All our feelings about leadership styles, identity politics, and the rest are tied up in when we grew up. We've had two Boomer presidents, Clinton and GW Bush. Obama is technically a Boomer, but he talks like a Gen-Xer. He's convinced me it's our turn.

____________________

David :

Patrick -

Hillary WILL lose the general (if she miraculously pulls out or steals the nomination).

Sorry, it is true. There will be a whole bunch of people who will come out to vote just to make sure she doesn't win.

If you weren't so blatantly a Hillary campaign donor, you would see this.

Think about this for a moment. How is Hillary going to win any state without the AA or Youth vote?

Answer: She won't. The Superdelegates know this and that is why Obama will get the nomination.

By the way, here is a table you should memorize:


After today,

Primaries & Caucuses -

Obama: 30
Clinton: 14

Are my eyes deceiving me or did Obama just double up Hillary?

So your argument is, "Let's change the rules so Hillary can win!" Is that about the gist of it?

Rule - Michigan and Florida broke the rules -therefore they get no delegates.

FUNNY, I don't remember Hillary saying **** before "winning" these contests about whether they should be seated at the convention!


Rule - Primaries AND Caucuses count, no matter how much Hillary wants them not to. Everyone KNEW this going in. Now she is crying because Obama's ground game kicked the **** out of hers.

Rule - The popular vote means NOTHING. Only delegates matter. If you don't believe me, ask Al Gore if the popular vote ever did him any good.

As for Hillary's "Big state" strategy - That has to be one of the dumbest things I have EVER heard. Like California or NY or NJ are going Red come November. If anything, it should be a negative - just winning the "big states".

Like someone else said - People still don't know Obama. Just look at the effect his campaigning has over time. Give him a few months in a state and he will convince people to vote for him.

Obama expands the sample size.

These head to head polls with McCain MEAN NOTHING.

Don't believe me?

Look at the head to head polls with Clinton in all of the states he has won (and those he has lost as well). He closed the gap in ridiculous fashion in a matter of days. Give him time and it will be a landslide in November. I'm talking ALL 50 states and Puerto Rico. Well, maybe not Utah & Arkansas - they aren't quite ready for him yet.

____________________

Gregg:

Yes, Eric,


IT IS OUR TIME!


These stupid boomers and parents of Boomers gave us 8 effing years of Bush and Cheney.


It is time we got involved and en masse & in force!!

____________________

Dewrdeye:

Ciccina & Carol,

YOU ARE NOT DEMOCRATS - JUST HILLBOTS

What is a hillbot?

A person who is blinded by their support of Hillary - usually because "they want to see a woman in the white house".

Poor Hillbots, so blinded by radical feminism that you don't even see what is so painfully obvious to everyone else. HILLARY IS NOT A STRONG WOMAN! Does a strong woman cry when things get tough? Does a strong woman have Bill do her dirty work? Does a strong woman stay with a chronic adulterer? No, no, and NO!

Really, "100 years" McCain over a Democrat?

Remember this Hillbots, Obama and Hillary have nearly identical policy stances. Hillary and McCain certainly do not.

Carol - your arguments against Obama could easily be thrown at Bill Clinton in '92. What was HIS foreign policy experience again?

AND, by the way, Rezko donated to Hillary as well. If you have a problem with devious fund raisers - WHY ARE YOU SUPPORTING HILLARY????? Or did you conveniently forget Peter Paul, Norman Hsu and others??? Just google their names.

And a little tidbit for ya - McCain is just as dirty (if not more so) - remember his "affair" with a lobbyist? And his lying about knowing certain people involved with her, in addition to writing highly unusual letters helping her out. Or did you forget that too???

Here's a NEWSFLASH (no really, it is a story that just broke) -

McCain's advisers supposedly were advocating for that Euro company that just got that lucrative Air Force deal over Boeing! OOOPS!

Way to go McCain, sending jobs overseas while weakening national security AT THE SAME TIME! Nice one, old man!


Another tidbit for ye uninformed -

Virginia and other red states are going blue for Obama in November. Sorry, it is true. Just check out poll snapshots of him. Have you ever in your life seen a candidate skyrocket like that? No. And it is just the beginning. Wait until he campaigns in smaller settings with extended time. No one is going to vote for an ugly, handicapped dinosaur who has rather disturbing fixation with starting random wars.

Obama changes the map in way that no one else in politics could have (and many people STILL haven't heard a lot about him). That is why poor McCain has no chance.

All the Dems know that with her, conservatives will come out of the woodwork to vote against her, but with Obama conservatives will vote FOR him. (How do you think Bill Foster just won Hastert's seat in a heavily Republican area?)

If they were smart, they ALL would have endorsed him some time ago. But who ever said politicians were smart *cough Spitzer* ?


Mississippi -

65 - Obama
35 - Clinton

By the way, Obama is going to win Pennsylvania - you heard it here first folks.


General - you are pathetic. Why don't you go grab your bedsheet now and get ready for your KKK meeting?


____________________

st paul sage:

I heard Clinton lawyer Lanny Davis the other day trying to spin a miniscule advantage for clinton amongst democrats in the pew poll as predictive for the general election.

it is patently silly. clinton has been running on the best brand name in democratic politics for the last 15 years and lots of democrats will reflexively support a clinton over an unknown (and clearly obama is still a bit of an unknown).

i mean - according to the pew - obama carries 86% of democrats and clinton carries 92%. the difference is completely insignificant - especially EIGHT MONTHS before the election and in the midst of a hotly contested primary.

as a democrat, i think they are both doing really well coalescing their support this well this early and i have no doubt that both will win democrats with 90+ % as soon as we decide our nominee - as i believe kerry and gore did.

the issue again is how do we get better than that. there are two ways which most polls show and actual primary turnout confirms.
1. Being stronger amongst independents, which it appears Obama is.
2. And being in a position to grow our base, which it appears Obama, because of strong and enthusaistic turnout amongst African Americans and young people is in a great position to do.

I don't completely discount Sen Clinton's ability to appeal to independent women, but there seems to be no evidence so far. And her base - seniors and women vote in higher percentages than everybody else already so she doesn't add any to our total this way.

All in all, it seems that Sen Clinton is promising to fight the same fights the same way with the same troops as the last few elections. I don't see how that's a winning strategy since we've already lost a couple of times that way.

____________________

Robby Evanoi:

**********************************

Well said, st paul sage!!


**********************************

____________________

Chris Cichorek:

"Obama is going to win Pennsylvania - you heard it here first folks."

Care to make a $100 per point loss wager on that? If so, let me know Dewrdeye and we can exchange email addresses

____________________

Chris Cichorek:

"No one is going to vote for an ugly, handicapped dinosaur who has rather disturbing fixation with starting random wars."

Just because you say so?

I see.

____________________

Dewrdeye:

Make it $10,000 a point Chris, and you got yourself a deal.

Care to bet now, small fry?


That's what I thought.

____________________

John - Spokane, WA:

Hillary is up by 12 pts right now in PENN - less that 5 weeks to go. Obama wont close that gap like he did in Texas. Not enough Nieve College Kids in that State. Its mostly 65 & up - Goes to Hillary easily.

____________________

John - Spokane, WA:

Hillary is up by 12 pts right now in PENN - less that 5 weeks to go. Obama wont close that gap like he did in Texas. Not enough Nieve College Kids in that State. Its mostly 65 & up - Goes to Hillary easily.

____________________

Dewdeye @1:39,

I am so glad you can instruct me in what is and is not appropriate behavior for women. And you've done so articulately!


{ cough }

____________________

Paulc:

Count me among those who think Obama and Clinton supporters who seem more likely to bolt now, will come home in November after the heated primary cools off.

And I doubt many Democrats are going to vote for a Republican in 2008, all things considered.

____________________

Dewrdeye:

Ciccina -

I'm glad you see the stupidity of your ways. The first step is saying you have a problem. Way to go!


____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR