Uh, no shit? This is what nearly every single poll has been showing since they very beginning. Obama does much better against McCain, and in most cases Hillary either easily loses to McCain or at best ties. This doesn't take into account turnout either, and if Hillary is on the ticket, the Republicans will flock to the polls to defeat her, and every other Democrat on the ballot, and the race won't even be close. There is no way Hillary can beat McCain, she is too polarizing and his appeal is too broad, we can't win an election like that. We need Obama.

I've been saying this all along, no matter what you think about the candidates, whether you think Obama is better or even if you think Hillary is better (which I'd still strongly disagree with), either way we have to elect Obama, because Hillary will be the kiss of death for the Democrats in November. Wake up people, don't make a huge mistake here!

Yes and Obama was to win CA by double digits.
So pardon me if I'm not impressed.

Independents love Obama and hate Clinton. That's the story of that poll.

If you look at the internals on most of these head to head polls, Obama's advantage is even larger. Hillary starts with a larger percentage of Dems and a much smaller proportion of indies and disaffected Republicans.

It seems logical, even inevitable, that eventually these Dems would come home to Obama. Or to put it in other words, it will be easier for Obama to consolidate Dems than for HRC to change the hardened negative opinions of indies and disaffected Repubs.

This trend has been obvious for many months. Those who have labelled Obama supporters as "naive" and "cultish" need to ask themselves who is being realistic and pragmatic.

Obama not only runs better in trial heats against McCain, he is far less vulnerable to Republican attacks. Attacks "stick" when they mesh with the voters preexisting doubts about the candidate. Many voters have doubts about Clinton's authenticity and honesty. On the other hand, Obama's perceived honesty and authenticity make him a very difficult target for the Repubs.

Finally, is the issue of who can build the party. Obama will bring millions of new voters to the polls: young voters, increased AA voters, more indies, and more disaffected Repubs. These new voters will disproportionately support down-ballot Dems. On the other hand, HRC is a one woman turn-out machine for the Republican base. Many have commented that only Hillary can unite the Repubs. Why would we want to do that?

In my eyes the case for Obama is overwhelming.

"Yes and Obama was to win CA by double digits.
So pardon me if I'm not impressed."

Some poll which I didn't want to believe, made by some person, turned out to be wrong. Therefore all predictions that I don't want to believe, made by any person, have no basis in reality!

You guys ought to be ashamed for posting something this close and drawing the conclusion "Obama is more electable" What is the margin of error on this poll? And by the way, the reason they call it "margin of error" is that if you asked the exact same question, at the exact same point in time among an exactly matched group of people you could get a DIFFERENT result (including the OPPOSITE) result and it would be a meaningless difference. And by the way, all the way up to the conventions in 2004 when Kerry and Bush were matched up, guess what polls said?

Check out this link for a little history refresher: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9060-2004Sep9.html

I agree with JTHB. What have we learned this primary season except that polls cannot be trusted? Plus, these polls don't reflect the inevitable: the media tiring of Obama, his message of unity wearing thin, the Republicans and special interest groups attacking and attacking. His national poll numbers have nowhere to go but down. Clinton's numbers, however, remain steady with time.

If someone can explain this, I might change my mind. How exactly, in precise detail, will he bring about this supposed unity?

"You guys ought to be ashamed for posting something this close and drawing the conclusion "Obama is more electable" What is the margin of error on this poll?"

Oh, please. Let's say the margin of error is, I don't know, 4%. I'm making that up, but it's not unreasonable to use to illustrate what I'm about to say.

That would mean that "Clinton 46 McCain 46" means the pollster is claiming to be 95% confident that reality is somewhere between "C 50 M 42" and "C 42 M 50", and that the chance of either Clinton or McCain being higher (in reality) than the other is literally 50-50.

Meanwhile, "Obama 48 McCain 41" means the pollster is 95% confident that reality is somewhere between "O 52 M 37" and "O 44 M 45", and that the chance of Obama being higher than McCain (in reality) is very much larger than 50-50.

infinite jest,

It is sad but true that many people see absolutely NO difference between Clinton and McCain. These same folks still actually believe Obama is different from Clinton. Until we can get these irrational people to start seeing things a little more clear-eyed (highly unlikely, I know) we will most certainly end up with a President McCain and Vice President Huckabee.

If McCain doesn't consolidate the Republican base, it doesn't matter who the Dems put up. McCain will get beat.

..... what was amazing is that TIME seemed to go out of their way NOT do say the obvious in describing Clinton's chances using words like narrow when discussing Obama's lead and trying not to disparage her. That said I am not voting for Obama because of his perceived electability advantages in so much as a break from the past and a brilliant mind that he brings to the office.

Forget the polls. But the reality is that Hillary is the best known non-incumbent candidate in history - no other candidate has ever been so well known before. Most people have strong feelings about her, pro or con. She simply isn't going to bring in new people or win over anyone who doesn't like her.

It gets worse against McCain. She'll have a much harder tme winning against him. Remember folks, most Americans aren't party zealots. They'll vote for the person they like and trust more, regardless of party and regardless of whether they agree on all issues. Between her and Bill you've got a solid majority who will not vote for her under any circumstances.

The only hope with her as nominee is to pray McCain's turnout is very low. But he appeals to too many independents (and even some Dems) to lose the election if it's an UNpopularity contest against Hillary & Bill.

Obama has none of that baggage. Let's give ourselves a real chance to win this time.

First of all, let's discard the Democratic primary numbers that Times reporting as essentially worthless. They're using a loose screen that includes 82% of the adults they call as likely voters. There are two problems with Time's screen:

1) They ask whether voters are "likely to vote in the presidential election," not "likely to vote (or already have voted) in the presidential primary." They use "election" because they want to use the same sample to match up the Democrats against McCain in November. But the pool of people likely to vote in November is very, very different than the people likely to vote in the primaries. So it's a worthless sample.

2) Time says that 87% of registered voters will definitely vote this November. There's your headline: TIME discovers turnout will double this fall to never before seen levels! Of course, there's a reason Time doesn't trumpet this finding - it's completely absurd, and it's so far off the mark that it calls into question the rest of the survey. We already know what happens when 80% of likely Democratic voters give their opinions - the poll skews strongly to Hillary. Gallup was embarassed by this earlier in the week, when it turned out that including 80% of the sample predicted a 13-point Clinton advantage, at the same time that voters were evenly splitting their ballots. Using 50% of the sample most likely to vote, for Gallup, produced a result equivalent to the actual voting. So Time needs to retool its questions.

The only findings in this poll that are worth a damn are the ones that relate to November, because that's what they're screening voters for. And I'd take even those with a healthy dose of skepticism, given the overly broad sample. But we know from other polls that, in general, the bigger the sample of Democratic-leaning voters, the greater the support for Clinton. So it comes as something of a surprise that an overly-broad sample of the electorate as a whole produces the opposite result - Obama faring better against McCain than Clinton. That's the only reason I'd accept these findings at all, though I'd still like to see what a survey with a more succesful screen for likely voters looks like.

In response to the many readers who are expressing a well-founded skepticism of poll results this cycle, I would encourage them to be more specific in their critiques.

It's not enough to say, "I don't trust polling." Go take a look at the data, and identify the particular flaws that you find. Zogby screwed up in California by vastly undercounting Hispanics, and overcounting blacks. Other pollsters went astray in the south by underestimating both black turnout, and the extent of its support for Obama. And the national polls have been tying themselves in knots trying to figure out how to succesfully screen for voters (see above).

You can read more about all of these issues by clicking on my name below, and reading my blog. But I'd encourage you to be thoughtful in your critiques, and to remember: it's not the results of polls which should make us skeptical or persuade us, it's the methods used to arrive at those results.

Obama may or may not do better than HRC against McCain in the GE.
But any poll this far out is no way to demonstrate either case.
Among other factors Obama has yet to be the target of the RightWing Smear Machine.
And Obama equating HRC's campaign with what the Rethugicans will do to him is either lying or stupidity. Take your choice: liar or stupid, stupid or liar.

For his fans Obama's claimed superior "electability" is his largest selling point to all but the far left for whom his single antiwar speech is the Holy Grail, the very touchstone of reality.
But this poll does not illustrate that point. It is telling that TIME says nothing about sample size, demographics, or margin of error. Also it was taken before Super Tuesday.

And it was not a single poll that predicted Obama's CA win, predictions made I might add on the eve of the election.
And all the usual snide and dismissive comments by Obama fans simply does not change that fact.
So again forgive me if I'm not impressed.

And one last thought: the idea that we should credit the opinions of the Right Wing Talkingheads with anything more than evil intent is simply absurd.
Obama fans who continuously quote Rush (the same Rush who quite frankly doesn't know the truth from his anal canal) as if he were a Papal authority simply astound me. Do they credit his pronouncements on anything else? How much credence did they give his antiObama racist rants?
Simply put are they insane?

Another reader said:
"the media tiring of Obama, his message of unity wearing thin, the Republicans and special interest groups attacking and attacking."

The media is already tiring of Obama. Let's se where he is after the Feb. primaries. As for the message of unity wearing thin, that is his message and he's sticking with it. Not sure if it will wear thin, but see no reason to think so.

And as for the Republicans attacking and attacking, do you think they will lay back on Hillary? Their surrogates will bring up every woman not named Hillary that Bill has ever slept with as a way to show lack of judgement on her part, they will tie them both to every single Arab sheik who has paid for Bill to speak at one of their gatherings and you will be hearing about the Lincoln bedroom all over again. I say that these are largely cheap and horrible attacks (especially Bill's infidelities) but they will be made. Whatever they throw at Obama will not be any worse. They already saw what even hinting about race will do in SC by watching Bill.

Obama will not be fighting from a defensive position the way Hillary will have to. That is an advantage in the fall.

Eric...you guys love to front page a snapshotpoll when it favors your guy....no big deal....TPMemobama
if and when the poll changes it will never hit the front page or get a comment section.

On to the poll..it is moot....BO has got to get pass HRC 1st and that is not gonna happen.

I an just looking ahead at general election voter motivations as well as voter fatigue.
Clinton, and to a lesser and different degree McCain, will rely on party base loyalty plus some negative motivations in order to attract voters. With Clinton, we have already seen her mainstay negative motivation of rallying against the unfairness of 'a poor woman being beat up unfairly'. With McCain, we will see a negative motivation of rallying against the Clintons.

With Obama, there is obviously a negative motivation of rallying against the entrenched machines of either party, but this message is put forth as a huge positive for previous apathetic and cynical voters. What Obama represents so well and with such powerful articulation is the positive of winning an election by people, empowered in sufficient numbers, to be able to affect the collective future by moving past the gridlocks in Washington.

I do believe that negative motivations work, but they also become wearisome over time.

"And as for the Republicans attacking and attacking, do you think they will lay back on Hillary?"

Oh no, no, no. I don't know a single Hillary supporter who would claim that to be true. What we argue is that her poll numbers remain steady, regardless of those attacks. Obama has yet to be tested on this. While I think your arguement has merit, I just don't think this poll is necessarily an indication of anything. Furthermore, I would say that some Obama supporters who now polled would say they would vote for McCain will come to their senses by the fall.

But I'm serious about getting an answer on this:

How exactly, in precise detail, will Obama bring about this supposed unity?

People are forgetting a major dynamic here that's become very clear in the Democratic primaries and that's the fact that Obama is still stuck in the white/Latino vs black complex. Sure there's lots of (generally young) white voters who support him, but even in states that he swept clean like South Carolina, Alabama and Georgia, he lost the whites by overwhelming margins. All his talk of being a diverse candidate, he still generally wins (with a few exceptions, admittedly) on his ethnicity. African-Americans constitue a huge chunk of the Democratic electorate and are helping him a lot. The major reason he lost the Oklahoma and Tennessee primaries is that they just have a much smaller percentage of black voters than AL, GA or SC did.

He even lost the white vote in California, Nevada and Arizona. The racial divide is really there and I think it will hurt Obama in November.

Just out of curiosity. If it turns out neither of our candidates have a chance against McCain, do you think it's better to win the nomination this year and try again in 2012, or to come in a close second for the nomination this year and try again in 2012?

If we want to have a Democrat in the White House come 2009, we must vote from a rational point of view, and nominate the candidate who can beat John McCain. Whether or not you like a candidate, is not enough, they must be electable and able to defeat their opponent. So this is not just a race between Obama and Clinton, but a race to put on the ticket a Democrat who can defeat the Republicans! That's what you call the BIG PICTURE. Obviously, that candidate is Barak Obama!The polls have supported that over and over again. Please note the margin by which Clinton was defeated in many states, ie Idaho, 85%Obama, 15% Clinton. She only carried her home state of New York by 13%! This IS serious. Back a winner, vote for Obama!

MSM'ers, bloggers and Hillary supporters have latched onto the theme that Obama supporters are "messianiac" and "cult-like"and subject him and us all sorts of dismissive pooh-pooing intended to show that all the really smart, savvy, in-the-know people just know that Hillary is the better candidate.

I respectfully suggest that "cult like behavior" is defined as zealous advocacy that leads to magical thinking and imperviousness to fact, you simply cannot beat a Hillary true-believer.

Show them poll after poll after poll over the course of more than a year showing that her national favorables top out at 48% and they'll give you magical thinking about how all that will change once she's on the air nationally with commercials and people get to know her better. Got that? The problem is people just need to get to know her better. Easy fix. Problem solved.

Okey doke, thanks for clearing that up.

Show them Republican strategist after Republican strategist, Republican commenter after Repulican commenter, GOP functionary after GOP functionariy admitting in private, in public and at every fora in between, over and over again, that think Hillary is their best chance for a win and they're frankly terrified of running against Obama and the Hillary supporters tell you that its all a gigantic conspiracy by all those Republicans to trick us into nominating the weaker candidate. Got that? Its a great big conspiracy, a conspiracy, I say, between dozens of people with disparate agendas and divided personal loyalties, and they're all working in lockstep as part of a coordianted disinformation campaigna vast conspiracy from which there has never been a single leak!

Alrighty, then.

Show them poll after poll after poll showing that Hillary loses against McCain and Obama wins against him and they'll attack all polls based upon one or two that didn't work our right, or tell you its too early to judge these things or, even better, show you polls proving that she does better than Obama against McCain among Democrats alone with a self-satisfied air. Press them on this problem, and they'll invoke their all-purpose Deus ex Machina to save their argument: the All Consuming, Virtually Omnipotent Republican Smear Machine which only Hillary has the Strength and Experience to withstand.

Point out to them that, given her high negatives, it doesn't look like she's stood up to it very well over the years, and they'll tell you she's a fighter, and that's what we need, a fighter who'll fight, fight, fight for us for eight full years. Ask them to identify anything she's actually accomplished with all this fighting, or identify a single fight she actually won (other than beating Rick Lazio after outspending him by a massive margin), and they'll just tell you she's a fighter, and that's what we need, a fighter who'll fight, fight, fight for us for eight full years.

Point out that so far, Obama's stood up quite nicely to the worst efforts of the Clinton oppo team and they just stick their fingers in their ears and go "la-la-la-la," because, of course, there is no such thing, but instead, its only been Obama unfairly attacking poor, poor defensless Hillary. Until she gets the nomination, of course, at which point it her Mighty Oppo Machine will become even more fearsome than the Awesome Republican Smear Machine.

Get them to face the contradiction in that dichotomy and they'll go into broken record mode: "Rezko, Rezko, Rezko, Rezko!" Ask them to explain how that makes Obama more vulnerable than Hillary given her and Bill's own private mountain of fundraising scandals and shady characters (yeah, I'll see your Rezko and raise you an evil dictator of Berzerkistan) and they'll hint darkly of further devestating information about Obama to come, stuff that they know about that would be devestating to him but that they were too scrupulous to unleash before Super Tuesday.

Guess I'm just too blinded by my child-like cultish naivete to see the Way to Win.

Look at the exit poll numbers. For the first time in history, women (not men) will determine the nominee for the Democratic Party. After a prolonged and tortuous and ridiculously expensive battle, that nominee will be Hillary.

Women will then determine who becomes the next president, which will (again) be Hillary.

The reason the current polls say that McCain will beat Hillary is because white males are tending to prefer Obama and McCain over Hillary. (Again, the exit poll numbers already confirm this.) In the actual election, however, Hillary will make up any "loss" of the white male vote to McCain with a landslide of female and minority votes.

Of course if you're a white male (as most TPM reporters and many commenters appear to be), this will be difficult to swallow. So read "16 Ways at Looking at a Female Voter" by Linda Hirshman in the NYT Magazine for statistical support on demographics and voter behavior throughout history.

Some things don't change.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/magazine/03womenvoters-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

One word, DUH! She will never win the general against mccain. Every vote for the clintons is a vote for mccain. Is that what clinton lovers want?

Another reader said:
"How exactly, in precise detail, will Obama bring about this supposed unity?"

I'm just some dope at a keyboard and not an Obama spokesman, but from my perch what I see is this: The ability to excite voters in the fall will allow the Democratic Party to win a good number of those 28 retiring House GOP seats and a decent chunk of the 20+ GOP defended Senate seats. Assuming that happens, the Dem Party would be in the drivers seat and would be in a far better position to effect the policy changes that Obama is proposing. Don't think of it as a kumbaya movement. Think of it as a possible sea change in 2 branches of government that will give Obama the ability to govern effectively. I'm not a student of community organizing but the rap on him is his ability not to demonize his opponents, and therefore gives him an ability to find solutions that may not fit the normal patterns (for Christs sake, he co-sponsored a bill with Tom Coburn!) I don't look at him as some sort of savior. He is a politician. But I do know that the old ways of thinking are not working. The Democratic Party is supposedly in power but is hamstrung because of the miniscule majority and their unwillingness to fight from the offensive position. They/we are fighting the old war. GWB is a 30% president. We should be destroying anything he puts forward but are afraid of looking weak. That helps explain Hillary's war vote in 2002. She was voting from a defensive position.

The reason the "change" concept is a better fit for Obama is because of his style of leadership. Hillary is change to be sure, but she is also a throwback candidate due to her husband, which undermines that argument.

I try and think one positive thought every day about a Hillary GE race. I know she has a 50-50 shot at being our candidate. It helps lower my blood pressure when I see Mark Penn spout off some new bullshit. I suggest all of us try and do the same for our Democratic foes. Here is my Hillary thought for the day: I am a father of a little girl aged 3 1/2 and the idea of a woman president is something that helps me se a bright future for her in this society.

Hillary will beat McCain because the one-on-one will favor her. She's Cool, he's Hot. She's brilliant, she's pragmatic, she's isn't a reactionary, she's cool as a cucumber (in a general her campaign won't be setting up too many more of those let's show the softer side of Hillary photo opps) and while not inspiring she is way less boring to listen to them he is. She looks like a spring breeze next to him, he looks old, frail, sick, bitter and angry. Democrats (like me) who aren't supporting here aren't down on her on most policy grounds. I just think the feisty straight talk thing let's bomb them back to the Stone Age thing is not going to wear well. And I say this regretfully, because I admire McCain's independence.

I also say this as an Obama supporter who is feeling like the above is probably moot.

It will get worse of course. It will devolve into complete xenophobic hysteria and will ultimately become: "Barack Hussein Obama is a secret muslim terrorist operative who will take over the country and hand us over to Osama (Obama) Bin Laden."

At what point does the ludicrousness of these attacks become a negative to those perpetrating them? Assuming the majority of the electorate in this country aren't morons and have an intrinsic barometer for fair play, I don't see how these attacks gain much traction in the general election. If anything, they will push even more moderates and independents towards Obama -- especially those he's bringing to the polls for the first time.

Also, the country experienced the Swift Boating of John Kerry in '04. John McCain experienced, first hand, his own version of that in the South Carolina primary of '00. The vast majority of this country (I'd like to believe) is hungry for the political rhetoric to grow up. We expect so much more from our children than we expect from our political leaders. Unfairly or not, Hillary is attached to the height/low of partisan warfare. So is McCain. Obama is not. Obama has a chance to rise above the smears and attacks in a way Hillary doesn't. If only because the perception among many is that the smears/attacks against her are largely true. And, again, I'm not blaming Hillary for this (or even Bill, for that matter) -- I'm just stating facts. The playing field is not level for Hillary. If she is the nominee, I hope her political team has a strategy for making the field level (and I hope it isn't by slinging mud at McCain).

That said, I have a feeling that if the general election is between Hillary and McCain, there will be record LOW turnout. If it's between Obama and McCain, I predict record HIGH turnout.

In either case, I hope the success of the rightwing smear machine has run its course. After all, in the words of the man who benefited most from it: Fool me once, shame on, shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again.

I think the country's at least as smart as that. But maybe I'm just naive.

My dad voted for Obama in CT, because he reasoned that Clinton can't possibly run on experience against McCain. It's going to be a nonissue against a man who's been in congress since 1983, not to mention his military experience.

In terms of electability, I don't understand why Clinton says that she's been vetted, implying that Republican oppo research has already dug up everything unseemly about her and Bill and that Obama is an unknown quantity. It's becoming clear that there's a whole lot in their post-presidential lives that is going to require some serious scrutiny.

In the end, love or hate with the passion of an Obaminite or a Clintiod . . . Someone registered as a Democrat will their hand on their version of a holy book in January 2009.

Democrat are showing up at the polls two-to-one over the Republicans. Reality will have an impact this year.

So, we can hang on to polls, but only when they promote our candidate right? Cause if I've been following the election correctly the polls haven't really been working so well. I also love that the Obama voters talk about how polarizing Sen. Clinton is when you guys are the biggest bunch of self righteous haters out there. You almost remind me of the die hard conservatives back when Bush was running the first time. Come to think of it, Obama reminds me a lot of Bush...won't speak to small groups, doesn't like to debate or speak directly to the press without his posse behind him telling him what to say.

I'm sorry but I'm voting for a candidate not a mouth piece.

Something else I find interesting is that McCain is having the same problem as Hillary. Conservative voters are saying if it's between he and Hillary they'll vote for Hillary. So, it'll be a wash either way. I feel sorry for people that full of hate that if they can't have their candidate they'll sabotage the entire party. That's very mature.

I believe in the democratic cause and the party. I will vote my party and hope and pray Obama will come thru if that's the way it goes...wait, maybe that's what he means by Hope. We'll all have to have it if he wins.

If you believe these polls, well then you're naive enough to think that Obama has a chance against the McCain machine once the REALLY big corporate money starts rolling in. Give Obama a 5 to 10% lead in these so-called 'polls' until about the 3rd day after the Democratic convention, then the same people who financed the Swift Boat Veterans AGAINST Kerry start their accusations and innuendos with a vengance, all too eagerly picked up by the cable news networks...and Obama's fictitious approval ratings will plunge.

If Clinton loses the nomination we can add Obama's name to the long list of Democratic contenders whose candidacy was created by the so-called grass roots supporters like Howard Dean and John Kerry.

How exactly, in precise detail, will Obama bring about this supposed unity?

1.) Because he's not Hillary Clinton.

2.) Because he's bringing more and more voters to the polls (see South Carolina). Whether they're black/white/brown/yellow or purple, it doesn't matter. A vote is a vote is a vote is a vote.

3.) Because the majority of US citizens are so fed up with politics-as-usual and Obama is the freshest face in the campaign.

4.) Because Obama and his team have created the impression that his campaign is a mission, that it transcends politics. Tie that with No. 3 and it's hitting just the right nerve at just the right time. It's the perfect storm -- right candidate, right time in history, right opponents -- that will lead to the first black president.

5.) Because he's got Oprah. Don't underestimate Oprah's clout -- she'll bring the majority of women voters who supported Hillary over to Obama. Who else are they going to vote for, McCain? Ask the same question of Obama's followers, many of whom have sat out previous elections and will do so again.

6.) Because he's not Hillary Clinton.

Does anyone seriously believe that this poll, nine months out from the event it purports to predict, can be considered in any way truly meaningful? Especially given the reality of our politics. You know, that whole "a day is a lifetime" truism.

My argument is not that HRC will be more "electable" than Obama in November.
I don't know and I don't think any of us has anything much better than faith on which to make that call.
Too much will change in the next nine months. All of those changes just might favor Obama but it as likely that they will not.

As to anyone who found "snide" my characterization of those crediting Rush with truth or accuracy as acting as if he was a Papal authority I certainly apologize; it was an unintentional slight.
I used the Papal reference only because the doctrine of infallibility teaches that the Pope is to be believed in all pronouncements doctrinal no matter how horrendous the Papal record on such matters.
Perhaps someone will be kind enough to suggest a better metaphor for those who promote Rush's judgement on this one matter, ignoring his attacks on Obama say, and in light of his history.
For myself I see no reason to accept that Rush himself actually believes anything that he says. It may be harsh of me but I think it reasonable to question the sanity or honesty of any "progressive" that does credit Rush with any credibility.
And what of his veritable jihad against McCain?

ChrisO:

Give me an example of Obama playing "the race card", please be specific. If you call trying to set the record straight, when Bill Clinton is out there lying to voter's faces about you, being "thin-skinned" then explain to me how you would have handled it differently.

There is ample evidence from the primary battles that are now over that Obama had WAY more votes from Independents than Hillary. Her base is calcified and those Independent voters will easily jump on McCain's bandwagon if she is the nominee. You might not "listen" to the polls on this subject but they have been consistent on this.

The Republican base is going to fall in lockstep behind McCain, don't kid yourself. Check your calendar - it's only February. If all those nut jobs in Dobsonland have Hillary as a target, they will be energized.

Dear Another reader,

You didn't play fair in your compliment of Obama because you just had to add a pro Hillary sentiment in there. Try it again please, this time without referencing your candidate. I know you can.

And Birdie 96, I suggest you try and find something nice to say too. It's not that hard. I have tomorrow's and Sunday's Hillary thoughts ready to go.

Peggy Noonan writes in the Wall Street Journal:

The Democrats continue not to recognize what they have in this guy. Believe me, Republican professionals know. They can tell.

Michael A said: Why do clinton people always want to make it a gender thing? Why? I really don't get it.

Of course you don't get it. You're a man. It is a gender thing, which you just proved by such a clueless comment.

Women experience discrimination in every area of their lives, including in comment threads on blogs: Research shows men dominate there, too. You might try reading about it (go ahead and Google it). Or you might try asking some women you know (and letting them answer for themselves, of course).

As for the election, this time women will determine who will be our president. Get used to it.

cswartout:

Obama has an uncanny ability to make people cry. I know, he's done it to me. I LOVE listening to his speeches.

Those comments are like me saying that Hillary Clinton looks really good for her age. That would be a sexist slam and you would see right through it.

You are using what you have announced by your comments to be his weakness (lofty rhetoric) as a way to damn him with faint praise.

I refer you to my earlier compliment of Hillary Clinton:
I am a father of a little girl aged 3 1/2 and the idea of a woman president is something that helps me see a bright future for her in this society.

No snark there, no backhanded compliment.

Here's my Saturday Compliment since I will be away:
Hillary is an extremely disciplined and smart candidate. And as someone who is a wonkish person myself, I am mightily impressed with her grasp of the issues of the nation. She should not be taken lightly as a GE candidate for our party. The Republicans will do that at their peril.

Obama will not survive the attacks on him for being a muslim sympathizer, weak on defense, unfit to command. Too many of these independents wavering between him and McCain will be persuaded to go to McCain.

As I asked two days ago (http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/02/mccain-is-a-weak-candidate-wil.php), do Dems want to run a weak candidate (Hillary) against a weak Repug candidate (McCain) and risk losing everything?

I, for one, do not relish the idea of crazy grandpa McCain taking the reigns from Bush.

As I asked two days ago (http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/02/mccain-is-a-weak-candidate-wil.php), do Dems want to run a weak candidate (Hillary) against a weak Repug candidate (McCain) and risk losing everything?

I, for one, do not relish the idea of crazy grandpa McCain taking the reigns from Bush.

[let's try this again...]

As I asked two days ago, do Dems want to run a weak candidate (Hillary) against a weak Repug candidate (McCain) and risk losing everything?

I, for one, do not relish the idea of crazy grandpa McCain taking the reigns from Bush.

We have a LONG way to go before Election Day, and it doesn't take much imagination or memory to realize that the Republicans are going to use every smear tactic they can against the eventual Democratic nominee. They will invent nasty things to say about both Obama and Clinton; the difference is, most Americans over the age of 16 already know all the nasty stuff about Hillary. For that reason, the positive numbers for Obama may go up but they may go down; Hillary's are probably pretty settled.

If Bush offers an October surprise/parting gift of military action against Iran, Obama's "can't we all just get along" philosophy and lack of military cred are not going to help him.

That said, as long as the economy remains in the toilet, McCain doesn't have a great shot against either Barack or Hillary, and I will be delighted with either of them in the WH.

(P.S. please don't flame me because I don't hate Hillary. I'm trying my best to be post-partisan).

I just can't believe that it has finally happened! After years of struggle, all those people who came out to vote for Bush over Kerry have magically been transformed into liberals! And not just moderate liberals, but Ted Kennedy loving, leave Iraq tomorrow, prochoice, liberals. The long national nightmare is over! The other thing is that they may vote for Obama over McCain. They said so!
Chew on this: 51% of the independents who voted for Obama in NH think we should stay in Iraq "indefinitely".

Brother Crow:

You're missing the big picture, friend. The majority of people who voted for Bush probably won't vote for either Clinton or Obama. But the 50+% of people who stayed home and voted for neither Bush nor Kerry are more likely to come out and vote for Obama than they will for either Clinton or McCain.

The electorate field is not static. That's why the Republicans have been so successful (in winning elections -- not in governing) since Reagan: They were able to identify a growing segment of the population (white rural Christian evangelicals) and appeal to them with very narrow and divisive wedge issues (abortion, gay rights). By appealing to the leaders of these folks (Dobson, Robertson, et al), Reagan thru Rove were able to expand the electorate enough to cobble together a (barely) majority vote in their elections. Bill Clinton was able to undercut that support in '92 because of Bush Sr.'s obliviousness to the economy (and also because Clinton, as a white southern baptist himself, was able to siphen off some of it for himself) and then again in '96 because congressional Republicans overplayed their hand and because Dole was such a weak candidate for prez.

Don't underestimate the power in expanding the electorate. There's a huge swath of people out there who haven't shown up to vote before but who may do so given the right incentives (e.g., candidate, issues, etc.).

Greg DeLassus: Sorry, but you are not looking at all U.S. polls. That's because TPM does not track all the polls. So your (mis)interpretation of the data is not your fault. I realize it's a pain, but check some other sources as well.

anneeliz: Sorry, I'm not sure how I insulted you. I'm merely trying to say that Hillary's numbers show massive support from women, who will be the tipping point in this election. Polls about "Hillary's negatives" are not bearing out in her exit polls. The idea of "Hillary's negatives" appears to be just more media hype. Hillary has survived despite the MSM's negative thrashings of her for decades. Hillary has survived despite her vote on Iraq. Hillary has survived the flaws of her all-too-human husband. Hillary has survived what amounts to public torture. And because of this inner strength, she will likely continue to appeal to women and minorities, who suffer many of the same societal prejudices in their daily lives that Hillary does.

Genghis: The question is how many women she'll be able to capture who would otherwise vote Republican.

If you want to know the answer to this, read the Times article about female voters.