« Ferraro: The Obama Camp "Have Played The Race Card Time After Time After Time" | Home | State-Run, Party-Funded Primary Being Floated In Michigan »
NBC/WSJ Poll: Hillary Ahead Of Obama, But Obama Seen As More Electable
The new NBC/Wall St. Journal poll released last night shows Hillary Clinton with a national lead of 47%-43% over Barack Obama — but somewhat paradoxically, the same Democratic respondents view Obama as the more electable candidate by a 48%-38% margin. Perceived electability often tracks with preference, as people see their own candidate as the stronger one.
As for match-ups against John McCain, they actually seem to be about equally electable at this juncture. Obama beats McCain 47%-44%, while Hillary is ahead of McCain 47%-45%.
Advertisement
It's official. Democrats do not want to win.
March 13, 2008 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Read: A lot of Democrats are stupid, and seem to get off on losing elections, so they continue to vote for a candidate that has no chance of winning in the general election.
March 13, 2008 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, you have such a high level of intelligence to make such an intelligence assessment of the intelligence of a pluarity of Democrats.
March 13, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's probably just read too many of your comments.
March 13, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well that tears it. Obama should step down. Clinton wins the polls time and time again.
March 13, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's weird it ate two of my words... It should have said.
Clinton wins the big important polls time and time again.
March 13, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, Clinton emerges from Mar. 4 with a net popular vote victory of over 360,000 votes, and with wins in little (and never-winnable) MS and WY Obama makes up her delegate gain?
How is this at all fair? Superdelegates, save us from ourselves!
March 13, 2008 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Um, she is actually BEHIND about a million popular votes, and is insurmountably behind in delegates, so...what the hell are you talking about?
You might like to notice, that she only got about 4% more than Obama in the Texas primary, and he creamed her in the caucus there. She also only got what, 10% more than him in Ohio? Big deal. The difference is when he wins, he doesn't just win by a few percentage points, usually single digits, like she does, he wins by a LOT, by 20%+. So you can whine all you want about Hillary "winning" all the big states, when really she only got a few more percentage points than him, but you sound just like Bush when he won in 2004, and claimed his 1% victory gave him some huge "mandate" to lead, as if a narrow victory means anything. The fact is, Obama consistently wins by large margins, and Hillary consistently (with the exception of her home state of Arkansas and racist places like Oklahoma, and Tennessee) wins by narrow margins. That is no mandate, and that is why he is so far ahead of her in the popular vote, and the delegates.
Oh, that and the fact he won 11 in a row before she won two and a half, and then he added two more to that.
And is Texas supposed to be winnable? Is Oklahoma? Is Tennessee and Arkansas? Oh yeah, and try looking at the general election matchups, because Obama does much better than her even in the states she has won:
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/post/28045053
March 13, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
One interesting finding is that, contrary to conventional wisdom, Obama and Clinton still have about the same negatives they had in January. But McCain's negatives have gone up in that time frame.
March 13, 2008 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
The electability question has been in Barack's favor in almost every poll i've seen.
March 13, 2008 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Makes sense. More Democrats want Hillary to top the ticket, but they understand how all the Obama attacks have damaged her candidacy for the general election.
I know that is not the general opinion on this blog, but out in the real world......
March 13, 2008 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wait...what are the big Obama attacks on Hillary? I guess I don't read the same news.
I might sound snarky here, but actually I honestly don't see many instances where he's been on the offensive ...or at least not to the degree that she is. I think a lot of Obama supporters wish he stood up to Hillary MORE, and didn't just defend against her attacks on him. I'm not sure how I, personally, feel about this. I really detest negative campaigning, but it must be inevitable to some degree.
So, I actually would like to know which attacks you're referring to. Can you show me where you've read these things? Even if it is just another blog site?
Thank you.
March 13, 2008 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.
March 13, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is really strange! I'll be interested to hear the analysis.
March 13, 2008 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
The longer she stays in the race the more damage she does to Obama's chances in the general election.
100 REASONS NOT TO VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON
March 13, 2008 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with the commenters that have said that most Americans are stupid. And the ones that think Obama has been running the more negative campaign, or that primary victories automatically equate to general election victories (i.e., the Big State theory), are doubly stupid
March 13, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
"As for match-ups against John McCain, they actually seem to be about equally electable at this juncture."
I really doubt if this is true. Did the poll compensate for the fact that Hillary Clinton would face a HUGE Republican turnout, since she is so hated by the right wing? But with Barack Obama on the ballot, a lot of Republicans might just stay home - and they certainly wouldn't donate money or time - because they don't like McCain.
Preferences are one thing, but enthusiasm is also critical. Also, Barack Obama runs a lot closer in swing and red states, forcing the Republicans to spread their scarce resources very thin. With Clinton, they could more easily focus on just a few states. Much more efficient for them.
March 13, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
We are actually in a pretty bad situation, which is actually no one's fault. Just be realistic! According to multiple polls now, Clinton voters are more likely to vote for McCain than Obama's voters, contrary to what your savor has been saying. Why? A lot of Clinton voters are actually modearte-to-conservative Democrats, the Reagan Democrats, who will have no problem voting for McCain. In reality, if Obama is nominated, a lot of Clinton voters will cross over to vote for McCain. Counting me as one of them. On the other hand, Obama voters may detest Clinton and do not show up to vote for her in the general election. But they are more likely to stay home than to show up and vote for McCain. This is the MATH.
March 13, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
No its not MATH, its your typical unsupported bs. I guess obama blowing out mccain in states that she is barely squeaking by in the polling or losing is indicative of???? You're full of it as usual.
You go girl.
March 13, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you think Obama GE numbers can hold up against onslought from the McCain campaign and other rightwing outlets, I have a bridge to sell to you!
March 13, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
And clinton was leading in all polls last summer by 20% or more and has lead in virtually every state poll by at least 10% one to two weeks prior to a primary in the state and then she gets blown out. What does that tell you?
I got one for you, why don't you find a pre-primary series of polls where she gained support?
What this tells you is her support is totally maxed out and can only go down, which it does. Obama's support is not maxed out and goes up.
She is not electable and will get trounced in the general election. Not only that, but once again the clintons will cost dems seats in congress and probably the senate.
However, you go girl. She's riding the nuke into oblivion.
March 13, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I resent that you keep calling me "girl". WTF? When did I tell you I'm a girl. Cannot a man support Hillary?
You are not building a case why Obama could sustain onslaughter from McCain and others. You are saying negative things about Hillary. If Obama is so good, just beat her in PA, in FL, and in MI. He could have finished her off in NH, in Super Tuesday, and in Super Tuesday II and he has failed. Let me give you some news. Your love boy cannot close the deal! Nomination is earned but not bestowed.
March 13, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was not directing that at you. I actually do apologize that you took it that way. I thought that that was one of the things that clinton people were saying, remember "You go girl," referring to clinton early in the campaign. That was the way I meant it. I will stop using it.
The balance of your post is typical bs. He actually gamed the primary based on the assumption that clinton would hold a certain block of voters, which she has, absent a few exceptions. He anticiated losses in big states because of the clinton brand and focused on smaller states. Smart strategy, I would say.
I submit that there is no evidence that there is any hope in hell that clinton can win in november. All evidence points in the opposite direction, so she is unelectable.
Finally, I find amusing your bestowed comment. From last year until about october, we were talking a clinton coronation. She still believes that it is owed to her, rules and voters be damned. In any event, at the end of the day I hope she is sipping champagne on the french riviera with her donors, as opposed to causing more damage to the country.
March 13, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
EmmaP, you don't know the big Obama attacks on Hillary? Are you kidding?
Shame on Obama for being half black, that brings race into it.
For being a man, that brings gender into it.
For inspiring people, that brings hope into it and For not running a negative campaign
For getting more votes.
For being a better candidate.
For disrupting Hillary's plan to be president. He That splits the party. Get it?
Just shame on him, he has my vote, that cad.
The electability issue is most troublesome in exit polls. In Ohio and Texas one of the questions on CNN exit polls was:
Who is More Likely to Win in November?
If you want the Democrats to win you'll vote for the person most likely to win. Obvious.
Ohio thought Obama was most likely by 50% to 46%
Texas thought Obama was most likely to win 52% to 40%. Not quite how the vote went.
Of the 46% in Ohio and the 40% in Texas that said Clinton would win in November 93% voted for Clinton
But of the 50% in Ohio and the 52% in Texas that said Obama 18% still voted for Clinton.
She had a lot of voters who thought she was the least likely to win. Rush would be proud.
March 13, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
hmmm- I just had a thought and wondered what others thought about this:
Hillary is relying on superdelegates to exercise their better judgment. They tend to be people heavily involved in politics and often elected officials. You might argue that they are the ones more committed to the party and the process andhave the highest level of enthusiasm. IS it just me or could one argue that people who show up to caucuses are also more energized than the average primary voter? They are more committed and enthusiastic. So if Hillary suggests that Caucuses disenfranchise because it is only the super involved... wouldn't she also have to make the same argument about superdelegates?
March 13, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Aimey mae do you have any actual evidence to support your claim that Reagen Democrats are supporting Hillay? That would fly in the face of everything that is known about that particular sub-group. The Reagen Democrats, if memory serves me right, were mostly white men. Evidence from nearly every vote so far this cycle shows those voters going to Barack in very regular amounts.
March 13, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
About the best case for Obama I've seen NOT based on electability:
It's by Robert Bellah and just out in the Catholic magazine COMMONWEAL:
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php?id_article=2158
March 13, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
HRC's popular vote deficit is also insurmountable.
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=03&year=2008&base_name=clinton_08jerry_brown_92
March 13, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink