Obama 50, Clinton 44
McCain 46, Obama 45... Clinton 48, McCain 44
Obama 48, Clinton 44
McCain 47, Obama 43... Clinton 46, McCain 45
Favorable / Unfavorable
McCain: 50 / 46
Clinton: 48 / 50
Obama: 48 / 49
When pitted against Obama, 48% think McCain will win in November; 39% think Obama will.
Latest Puerto Rico poll: Clinton 51, Obama 38. Election Inspection predicts Clinton will win by 10-20% with a median of 15%.
Posted on May 28, 2008 2:26 PM
Thanks for the info... X Styker...If the high voter turnout in Puerto Rico remains consistent, then this really bodes well for Hillary in her quest for popular votes. Additionally, Puerto Rico has 55 pledged delegates up for grabs (more than Oregon).
Posted on May 28, 2008 2:48 PM
The Rasmussen Poll seems to have verified one of my theories that voters are leaning toward the moderate ideology.
Obama is considered 39% very liberal and somewhat 33% liberal BUT... only 19% see Obama as "moderate."
Whereas, McCain is viewed as 31% moderate and 33% somewhat conservative. Only 12% see McCain as very conservative.
That equates to Obama 52% versus McCain 64% in and near the center.
This aligns with how well voters think each candidate will work across party lines: Obama 52% versus McCain 63%.
Posted on May 28, 2008 3:02 PM
Poll after poll after poll show that Clinton is a stronger national candidate against McCain than Obama is. For her to be drawing these types of numbers 3 weeks after the national media crowned Obama the nominee is truly unprecedented and shocking. And a big win in PR may very well put her ahead in the popular vote when the primary season is over. If Obama does not offer Clinton the VP slot and loses to McCain (which many voters seem to be predicting), he will go down in history as a disaster for the Democratic Party. And guess who'll be waiting to be coronated by her party then?
Posted on May 28, 2008 6:14 PM
I do think Clinton is a stronger canidate than Obama in the general election under the current conditions. But these polls are skewed and heavily influenced by the fact that Democrats are divided. Ive never seen a situation where the frontrunner is beating the other canidate head to head by 8 points or so yet the canidate thats losing is performing better in general election match-ups. The democrats have major issues right now and may very much lose in November if they dont get the healing process started immediately in early June.
These numbers arent really relavent right now. I mean imagine if it was reversed and Clinton was the frontrunner and the superdelegates override the pledge delegate leader. Her numbers would be worse than where Obama stands against McCain right now. AA, young people and independants, all gone. The only reason she is polling ahead of McCain is because Obama supporters are more receptive to her now that she doesnt seem like a threat to win the nomination. A month or so ago when things still seemed up in the air, Obama was beating McCain slightly more than Hilary was. The difference is now the Hillary voters are upset and deflecting, thus giving McCain a slight edge over Obama. I think come November Obama is goign to get more than 65-70% of democrats support. But if the election was held today, Obama would probably lose.
Posted on May 28, 2008 7:30 PM
@Nick08: I disagree about your point that Obama is beating HRC by 8 points so it's surprising that she is leading otherwise.
I think that the public does buy the popular vote argument (even though the SDs won't change their votes becasue of it). As far as the public is concerned, Obama is leading by at most 1.4% over HRC. Support in the survey comes from his crowning, I think the missing 6% would have gone to HRC since they still don't support crowned Obama.
So what you really got are two candidates who were fairly close to one another and one simply deemed to be more likely to beat McCain than the guy who got the nomination.
Not the first time that this happens, an abberation of the fact that we can't simply have a simple one day national primary date like normal countries.
Posted on May 28, 2008 7:39 PM
Nick08, I think many BO supporters are either intentionally or unintentionally undermining the reasons why blue collar and rural white, women, and Hispanics haven't voted for Obama. It is not simply because of resentment caused by HC not being the nominee. BO has been disasterously unsuccessful in efforts to lure them while spending tons of $$$ and time during the primary. The alternative to HC in November is McCain, who is still a very formidable moderate candidate with character and proven bi-partisan record. The cause is deeply rooted in belief, value, and yes, race. Those things are not easy to be changed.
Posted on May 28, 2008 7:51 PM
Per "I think come November Obama is going to get more than 65-70% of democrats support."
I have big doubts about Obama winning back voters who only support HRC. How do you think he can do it?
His campaign has acted as though the nomination is sewn up for weeks now. He could have started the reconciliation process - whatever that would be - weeks ago. But Axelrod is still taking pot shots.
BHO could have started to woo HRC loyalists among older women weeks ago. He hasn't done a thing. And according to Axelrod post-PA and OH, they've given up on white and hispanic blue collar voters.
What can he do differently? He won't have HRC to define himself against. The media will never go for demonizing McCain the way they went for HRC. McCain feeds them bbq chicken and tells them racy stories. They love him.
So how does BHO expand his group of supporters? And does he have the temperment to pull it off? It seems to me that he has rejection issues - that if he feels a person or group isn't on his side, he goes ice-cold to them. Has a difficult time even feigning warmth. Probably a deeply embedded defensive response springing from early childhood father/abandonment stuff. IMHO, of course.
So how does he do it? My hunch is that its all downhill from here for him.
Posted on May 28, 2008 7:57 PM
@Ciccina: Well put.
Another thing I've noticed about Obama is that he may have a "temper issue" that would end up reducing the negative impact of McCain's well-known temper.
In situations where he has been angry or disappointed (e.g., the Ohio night), he comes out with a fairly obvious undercurrent of anger and his charisma dropped (watch the video of his speech that night). I've seen that happening several times. The bitter comment is one example of what can happen.
If the Republicans play their cards right and piss him off, that side of Obama is going to come out, and it's going to conflict significantly with his "new spirit of change" approach and his charisma advantage.
To make matters worse, it seems to me that Americans voters who are prone to racism could get anxious about the "angry black men" especially if images of Rev. Wright are played.
Once HRC is out of the picture, Obama has five months to hold his temper in the face of a nasty Republican onslaught and a possible underdog position in the polls once he's already "a well known candidate". I am not sure he can pull it off.
Posted on May 28, 2008 9:09 PM
About a week or so ago Obama was up on Hilary double digits. Of course because of her blow outs in WV and kentucky she got a bounce back into the fold but shes been trailing by a signifcant margin ever since. I actually wouldnt be surprised if she over took him in the polls. There is a sort of sympathy vote out there.
Your right! The public is buying into this popular vote stuff. Thats why im startled when people say Hilary is getting a bad rap. If Obama was throwing out the populate vote argument he would be laughed at and people would say, oh well most of that is because of AA turnout and etc.
The primary process is decided on delegates. If it was popular vote there would be no need for delegates. To start complaining about caucases and Obama not winning big states is kind of futile. The rules are the rules and she knew them going into the process.
The main reason why Clinton lost is because Obama's feburary wins were on average of about 20-25% of the 12 straight states he won. Wisconsin being the most shocking of them all at 17%. If Clinton could have won Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania by 20-30 points, we would have a completely different race.
The point about a one day national primary is interesting. I think Iowa and New Hampshire has waaaaaaaaaaay too much influence. I mean after Iowa everyone was saying its over! After just one state! Although I do think that having small states from different parts of the country hold early primaries isnt a bad thing but too much emphasis was put on them. McCain basically sewed up the nomination just by winning New Hampshire. With that said, Obama probably still would have won if they just had all the primaries and caucases on one day.
Posted on May 29, 2008 1:05 AM
Im not sure Obama supporters are undermining the importance of blue collar workings, women, or latinos. Obama always had a uphill climb on name recognition against two canidates that have been around forever. There is a generational divide among all those groups. With time and campaigning he can make inroads. Its hard to go up against the first family. There is a tremendous amount of affection out their for the Clintons. Those were votes Obama was never going to get. But you have to be amazed out how far he has gotten.
I agree I think McCain is more moderate than Obama by far. But there is no question he has become way less moderate than he was before. On the most pressing issues facing this country, McCain is right in line with George Bush. And McCain honestly has no clue where to go on the economy. I thought his economic speeches were embarrassing. Thats why 90% of his stump speeches is about war, war, war, Iraq, and national security.
Your right, of those issues, values and race, the greastest of them is race. It breaks my heart, but I know its out there. But I still think Obama needs to go out there and just present himself. Maybe he can change some minds.
Posted on May 29, 2008 1:20 AM
If McCain is getting 20% of democrats, 40% of independants, 80% of republicans and only running even and slightly ahead of Obama nationally right now, I dont think it would be something I would be content with. He has 80% or more of republicans but democratic turnout will be very high this year. If Obama can just get 75% or close to 80% of democrats to coalesce around him, its over. If not, McCain will win in a very close race.
My guess is that the economy is going to be the driving issue, especially in the summer. I think come the convention, that will be the moment of truth. Also his performance in the debates. Which I think McCain will probably outperform him in. Obama just s*ck at debates. But if democrats really loathe what they have been through the last 8 years it would be in their best interest to unite.
And also, Hillary Clinton acted like she sewn up the nomination all of 2007. She acted like she was the inevitable nominee and basically ignored the other canidates and with good reason, she was at times at 50% in the polls. 20 plus points better than anyone. Obama seems to cant win on this issues. McCain has gotten too much of a head start. Obama is trying to pivot towards the general and still appease Clinton. Obama is being blasted on a daily basis. Not Clinton. McCain hasnt said Clintons name is 2 months. If Obama made a RFK flap like she did, oh my goodness they would be like sharks after him.
I think the Clinton camp has taken way more shots. There isnt anything more damaging than to tout that your rival is unelectable.
Its more up to the voters than it is Obama. I think he has been the most inspiring canidate in a long time. If he can connect with voters like he did in Iowa and really stay above it, he will do fine. McCain is a formidable canidate. But hes flawed. He can win, but it wont be because of the issues. It will be because he was able to successfully define Obama and give the voters extensive reasonable doubt of his ability to govern.
Posted on May 29, 2008 1:44 AM
I'm an Independent, 56-year-old, white woman who is on the low end of the pay scale. I've been appalled at many of the Clinton gaffs and the thought that she's supposed to represent my type -- age group and such. Don't go counting chickens before you're sure she actually represents these groups. It seems she gets them in some states and not in others. There is no clear delineation as to just who she seems to represent. I, for one, feel far more represented by Obama. When there is a woman out there who I am proud to be represented by, I will be rushing to the polls to vote for her. I will not rush to the polls to vote for Clinton. I am embarrassed by the very thought of her, and that is my opinion -- no one else's.
Posted on May 31, 2008 11:17 PM
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)
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.
Please email us to report offensive comments.
See our comment policy here. Note that we require commenters to share their email address via Typekey. We will never share your email address with anyone without your explicit permission.
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