« Obama Supporter: Campaign Will Announce Endorsements From 50 Super-Delegates | Home | SurveyUSA: Dem Candidate Ahead In Special Election For Hastert's Seat »
SurveyUSA: After Her March 4 Wins, Hillary Edges McCain Nationally
A new SurveyUSA poll, the first national poll conducted entirely after her wins on Tuesday, shows Hillary doing well nationally against John McCain.
Hillary narrowly edges McCain at 48% to his 46%. Barack Obama ties McCain at 46%-46%. While the differences between the two matches are not statistically significant, at the very least it can give the Hillary campaign justification in saying they now run just as strong against McCain as Obama does, if not better.
Advertisement
I know this is going to fall on deaf ears but it is inevitable that polls of all kinds are going to show an Hillary uptick in the next week.
So Obama supporters should not freak out and journalists should try to stop making stupid judgement based on those kinds of polls.
Winners always do a little better. And that will transfer to whoever is the nominee is the end.
Have you ever heard of good and bad news cycles ? And don't you know how many ups and downs there will be between now and November ?
Urgh
March 6, 2008 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you Benjamin. But it's important because it *does* provide evidence that people will coalesce around the winner. Thus it further supports the argument that we should let all states vote before making a decision.
That is the democratic way, right?
Also, just say Hillary wins PA, Indiana and other big states. Then we get to the convention, Hillary has more of the popular vote, Obama is ahead 50-100 pledged delegates, and Hillary is ahead by a large margin against Obama in national polls (say 60-40).
Who would you then vote for if you were a superdelegate, wanting to reflect the will of the people?
March 6, 2008 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I don't think polls should be used. That's not an accurate way to pick anything, we all know how unreliable polls can be.
The popular vote is hard to narrow down as well. How are caucuses counted in the popular vote? And, do we really want states like New York and California to pick who's going to represent the nation in the national election? It's not like those states wouldn't enthusiastically support Obama if he becomes the nominee.
This argument that somehow states like Ohio are more important than the majority of the other states is flawed.
But, it's up to the Supers to decide, whether we like it or not.
March 6, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
But aren't polls the way supporters (at least on this site) had until now been basing their arguments that Obama is more competitive against McCain? Can't have your cake and eat it!
March 6, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's a good point re caucuses. How they're allowed to count at all is beyond me - if they voted that way in Russia, everyone would be (even more) up in arms! Texas proved that they don't reflect the will of the people.
March 6, 2008 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, please ... if your preferred candidate was doing well in the caucuses you'd be all over them. I never heard a whit of complaint about caucuses in any election I've followed until this one. The Clinton campaign has made a career out of whining about every possible thing to minimize the impact of Obama's wins. Caucuses existed in primary elections for a long, long time and only now they're deemed unfair? Ridiculous.
March 6, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Steady there, Carol. Just because something was done in the past, doesn't mean it's fair, or right. I'm not advocating changing the system right now, but I don't think anyone could objectively say it's as democratic a system as primaries.
The reason we're talking about caucuses here, is because if superdelegates take the popular vote into account Obama will be disadvantaged due to his dependence on caucus wins. Go whine about that.
March 6, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Steady there, Carol. Just because something was done in the past, doesn't mean it's fair, or right. I'm not advocating changing the system right now, but I don't think anyone could objectively say it's as democratic a system as primaries.
The reason we're talking about caucuses here, is because if superdelegates take the popular vote into account Obama will be disadvantaged due to his dependence on caucus wins. Go whine about that.
March 6, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
You mean, of course, they don't reflect the will of the Republicans who voted for Hillary.
March 6, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where's your evidence that actually happened?
March 6, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is never going to be ahead 60-40 in national polls, so your hypothetical is pointless.
Since Florida and Michigan tried to cheat, she will most likely not catch him in the popular vote either, not to mention that the popular vote is, you know, totally irrelevant to determining who wins.
The only thing that matters is the pledged delegates, as the Hillary camp used to say when it thought it could win the most. The super delegates are not going to overrule the pledged delegates, and Hillary cannot catch Obama in pledged delegates. She should have dropped out Feb. 20, after that became clear, or yesterday, after it became clear that she had not won 60-40 in Ohio and Texas, the margins necessary for her to catch him in pledged delegates.
March 6, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
The national numbers don't matter nearly as much as the state by state numbers, and McCain stomps here there, even in many blue states:
http://thepersonalispolitical.tumblr.com/post/26659785
Obama is still much more electable. Also note, that these numbers don't include turnout at all, and you can be sure that if Hillary is on the ballot in any form, the GOP is going to come to the polls in record numbers to take her down, with Rush and Hannity and the rest of them cracking the whips.
There is no way in hell Hillary can beat McCain.
March 6, 2008 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
These polls do not take into account turnout. Every one of the polls consider every likely voter for Obama-McCain is a likely voter for Clinton-McCain, and vice versa. However, having Clinton on the ballot will massively increase Republicans turnout, so any of these polls have to be taken with a grain of salt.
March 6, 2008 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just a few days ago, Hillary endorsed John McCain over Senator Obama!
March 6, 2008 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's a lot of complaining about the race for the Democratic nomination continuing indefinitely, but I believe that in the long run it may work to the Democrats' advantage. It means that from now until at least the end of April, and probably later, Hillary and Obama will dominate the national stage, and we'll hear from McCain only when he does something boneheaded, like he did in sucking up to John Hagee. Of course, the downside of this is that blunders on the Republic side won't receive as much attention as they might otherwise. At any rate, it promises to be a wild ride. What I particularly love is how punditocracy is all over the map. It's made me realize that among all the so-called media political experts the only ones who know what they're talking about are the tiny handful who say they don't know.
March 6, 2008 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think this poll shows that she is winning the 3 AM argument, even against McCain. She is sitting in the middle between Obama and McCain on the war. McCain basically says the invasion was okay and so is the occupation. Obama says the invasion and the occupation were a disaster. Clinton says the invasion was okay, but the occupation was a disaster. I think that when they look deep down and think about it, most voters -- not here, but out there -- are going to end closer to the Clinton position than to the others. The beauty of her position v. McCain is that it reduces the issue to its simplest, most understandable and arguable form: End the occupation or don't end the occupation? That is an argument we can definitely win.
March 6, 2008 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Billy Glad,
So you think the poll shows that she's "winning the 3 AM argument, even against McCain." Do you have any actual evidence for that?
March 6, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
The invasion was OK? Seriously?
If Hillary said that, she'd be toast. She actually said she'd take the vote to authorize the war back, much better than saying she was mislead by Bush, which again questions her judgement (and intelligence!) Oh, yeah, and did she read the briefing?
But I digress. How can the war be the big issue between Clinton and Obama? If it was, Obama, who was against the war from the start, would be winning.
Oh, wait, he is.
We'll discuss again IF Hillary is actually able to pass Obama in the popular vote.
March 6, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Billy, hate to tell you this, but you just proved that Obama is more electable than Clinton. I've heard her say on occasion something like "it was the right thing to do to take out Sadaam Hussein, but the occupation has been a disaster" and words to that effect. Well, lo and behold, McCain says EXACTLY the same thing: "I was supportive of Bush's decision to invade Iraq but critical of the prosecution of the war." Tell me where there is any noticeable difference in their statements? They seem pretty aligned to me, especially given McCain's recent statements that the "war will soon be over and our troops can come home." If given the choice between the Democratic candidate that sounds very much like the Republican one and the one who has been consistently outspoken on both the the invasion and the occupation (and the bogus reasons for invading a sovereign country in the first place), I think for most Democrats (hell, and most independents and some Republicans), it will be no contest.
March 6, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Carol: "Tell me where there is any noticeable difference in their [Clinton and McCain's] statements?"
Ummm... let's see, shall we? McCain supports the surge and wants to stay in Iraq on and on and on. Hillary (like Obama) wants to start withdrawing troops asap, with most of them out within a year.
Clear enough for you?
Anyone hugely against troops staying in Iraq would vote Hillary or Obama over McCain. However, because of that Authorisation bill Hillary will stack up much better against McCain on the national security argument (and get the vote of Anne Coulter and her crazy followers)
March 6, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
How do you figure she'll stack up better against McCain BECAUSE of the AUMF? Since nearly 3/4 of Americans think we shouldn't be there (and the majority thinks it was a mistake to go in in the first place), I simply don't get your argument.
AmericaBlog had a great post today - Hillary touts all of her "experience", including her 8 years in the White House. Well, let's turn this back at her - would she trust Laura Bush to lead this country and make national security decisions? She's had the same 8 years of "experience" that Hillary's always touting. I think it's a very salient and important point and one that needs to be hammered home again and again.
http://www.americablog.com/2008/03/so-is-laura-bush-qualified-to-be.html
March 6, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=eab_1201152136
This alone is enough to say her judgment is way off.
March 6, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's camp should feature that video in an ad, if it hasn't already. Hearing her confidently making those assertions is way more powerful than just noting that she was pro-invasion.
March 6, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't buy the argument that the longer this race continues, the better it is for democrats. What we will have for the next seven weeks (or longer) is the democratic candidates dumping oppo research on each other. They will become bloody, bruised, and battered.
In the meantime, McBush will be raising money and framing the democrats in a republican narrative as being liberal and out of touch with American values.
I don't see any upside here. The race was designed to produce a nominee on February 5th. That strategy failed. There is no good path for Hillary going forward. She will not take the lead in pledged delegates. Her only hope is to bloody and bruise Obama so badly, that the super-delegates migrate to her camp to push her past the pledged delegate lead of Obama to the finish line. This isn't a strategy, this is the politics of personal destruction. Where have I heard that phrase before?
I fervently believe that the superdelegates should endorse Obama enmasse and bring this blood letting to an end.
March 6, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
What a load of nonsense. Every single poll showing head-to-head matchups has shown Obama doing better. You can't just take one poll from a firm that's never polled these general election matchups before and proclaim some ridiculous trend just because it was taken after Hillary's "win" on tuesday.
The question I have is why SurveyUSA would choose to now do its first national general election poll on a single day after the March 4th primaries. It almost seems like it was designed to create this stupid story about Clinton surging after those primaries. I'm very suspicious of this.
March 6, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
This conversation is a bit premature. What would happen, for example, if Senator Clinton games the nomination in a brokered decision, outraging many of the African American core support of the party who see their choice rejected despite his lead in delegates and the popular vote. In a brilliant move, McCain prevails upon Condoleeza Rice to be his running mate. Sudenly, NcCain has the potential to cut deeply into the AfricanAmerican vote.
Another scenario, Obama gets the nimination, outraging women over 50 who are a core support group of the Democratic party. In a brilliant move, McCain asks Kay Baily Hutchinson of Texas to be his running mate. attracting enough older woman to cut deeply into the core democratic vote?
March 6, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
"While the differences between the two matches are not statistically significant, at the very least it can give the Hillary campaign justification in saying they now run just as strong against McCain as Obama does, if not better."
Rasmussen has already been showing Clinton to be stronger in recent days, even before March 4th.
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/general_election_match_up_history
Staring around March 2nd and getting stronger.
March 6, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
My goodness! Bret Favre is on bawling like a baby over his own self induced retirement.
Now if a football quarter back can bawl like a baby, a candidate should be able to get a little misty eyed once in a while yet the Obama crowd and some media really crucified Hillary for that teary eyed moment.
Bet you won't hear any criticism over Brett Favre's break down on national t.v.! why? Because he's a man of course. And they are allowed to cry on national tv.
March 6, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink