« Pro-Hillary Group Spending $700,000 On New Indiana Ad Targeting Obama On Economy | Home | North Carolina Governor To Endorse Hillary »
AP Poll: Hillary Doing Better Than Obama Against McCain -- Among Independents
This is a surprising nugget buried in the new Associated Press poll:
When pitted against McCain, Clinton now wins among independents, 50 percent to 34 percent, when just a few weeks ago she ran about even with him with this crucial group of voters. Clinton also now does better among independents than Obama does in a matchup with McCain.
Internals aren't yet available, and those will help in evaluating this.
Obama's appeal to independents is central to the argument for his electability, something that's key to super-dels. Of course, this poll could simply be an outlier, since many other polls have shown him stronger among indys.
Advertisement
Comments (238)
Come on.
No one has done more for Independents than Barack Obama.
April 28, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
ugh. obama supporters can't support any positive polling unless it's positive for barack obama. get over yourselves already. agreed with gotalife - your selfishness is overpowering.
April 28, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
TWO WORDS ON REV WRIGNT FOR THOSE HERE WHO HAVE BEEN PARSING HIS WORDS FOR THE PAST FEW MONTHS:
HA HA
Now we will leave you to your embarrassment.
Goobers With Common Sense
VOTE YOUR CONCIENCE
NOT YOUR GUILTY CONSCIENCE
April 28, 2008 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I tried to jump up near the top so I could point out that here are actual poll details:
http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/client/act_dsp_pdf.cfm?name=mr080428-1topline.pdf&id=3898
I calculate the number of self-identified independents taking part in the poll at 220 -- making any conclusions derived from such a sample laughably inexact.
in any case, the overall poll finds both Obama and Clinton beat McCain nationwide.
April 29, 2008 1:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Keep in mind the delegate count!
April 28, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Delegates will not help us win in November. Seriously, we have to smart about this. If Obama is the weaker candidate and is almost certain to lose, we should ask him to step down so that our party can gather around Hillary, who is clearly the stronger candidate.
April 28, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's clearly whiter, I'll give you that.
April 28, 2008 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you want to lose another election in order to prove that the United States is still a racist country, your self-righteousness is just as self-defeating as racism.
April 29, 2008 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sen Clinton is immoral and corrupt. Her threat of obliteration by nuke disqualifies her without further comment.
April 28, 2008 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
She made no such threat, and your slander disqualifies you from further comment.
April 29, 2008 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
She is a self-confessed liar, though. And most voters don't lke candidates who lie to their faces repeatedly. The right wing is biting its tongue to keep from exploding about Hillary's lies, hoping she'll be nominated. She has no chance to win this election at all.
Lying is what she does. It's impossible to believe anything she says. The Wright thing is not only racist, but guilt by association. He's still being vilified. If he walked on water, the press would scream that he didn't wipe his shoes first.
April 29, 2008 6:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Either candidate can win. If she wins the delegate count she gets the nomination, and rightly so. I she doesn't, Obama gets the nomination, and rightly so.
April 29, 2008 8:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton will win the Independents and win the general easily.
April 28, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gotalife: I hope the McCain campaign is paying you well. I'm curious though. Are they paying you hourly or by the post?
April 28, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gotalife and commenter are clones.
April 28, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I support the Clintons.Period.
She will be the next President.Period.
April 28, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
if you trolls weren't convinced by hillary's 30-point victory in pennsylvania, nothing will change your mind.
April 28, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Typo, I meant 10.
April 28, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
you said 20 repeatedly, then expanded it to 30, then settled on 10 after it didn't happen. you're as honest as your candidate!
April 28, 2008 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
And she didn't even get 10.
April 28, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Make that 9.2
April 28, 2008 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Best avatar ever!!!
April 29, 2008 1:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
gotaLIE supports the clintons.
gotaLIE gotaLIE.
PERIOD
April 28, 2008 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
This post is not about me.
I am not the "me" generation.
I support the Clintons and she will win.
April 28, 2008 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're a republican troll. We won't forget how many times you've waxed romantic about McCain here.
You're just here to stir up sh*t.
April 28, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gotalife, when asked how it could support Clinton's obliteration by nuke as the new dem foreign policy responded "it worked."
This is fantasy. And quite dangerous, the deep tunnel vision.
April 28, 2008 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
i, too, support the clintons. people can sh*t-talk all they want. it's not going to change. period.
April 28, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll say it's an outlier. Hillary winning Independents...what a joke.
April 28, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well good on you. Why don't you also say that Obama's policies will lead to Universal health care? Another great joke!
April 28, 2008 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Neither candidate will achieve Universal Health Care. The money isn't there. That this is an actual argument in the Party is annoying. We've got other issues that have a chance at being solved, let's discuss those.
April 29, 2008 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jesus Christ. Is this TPM or The Hillary Hub?
Of course, this could simply be an outlier, since other polls have shown him stronger among indys.
Do they? Funny, I don't remember seeing those polls flogged on the homepage in extralarge type.
April 28, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
CPM = Cherry Pick Memo
April 28, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
More or less.
April 28, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't wait until Hillary slinks back to the Senate and TPM has to back Obama 24/7.
(At least I hope that's what this site does.)
April 28, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
And after Obama slinks back to the Senate after losing to McCain, you will be the first to send him another $50 to lose the 2012 election.
Obama isn't running a political campaign - he controls a suicide cult that used to be the Democratic party.
April 29, 2008 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Self-fulfilling prophecies are pretty lame IMO.
April 29, 2008 8:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has one bad news day and immediately Obama supporters are up in arms. Obama and his supporters were pointing to the polls when they showed him winning. Now that the poll numbers show ominous signs for an Obama candidacy in the general, you're decrying the poll results.
April 28, 2008 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, this could simply be an outlier, since other polls have shown him stronger among indys.
I believe it's called "burying the lede"
April 28, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're spot on there. It's actually often hilarious. In the same post, an Obama supporter will say that this far out from the election polls mean nothing, then go on to say that Hillary will never win the big states she's ahead of McCain in, then go on to say Obama will win all the states he's ahead of McCain in ad infinitum, in exactly the same way the 'believers' cherry pick their horoscopes.
At least, it would be hilarious if there wasn't a consequence to such sloppy thinking.
April 28, 2008 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of sloppy thinking, how much energy do you spend twisting rationales for Hillary to win a nomination she lost by the end of February? How much Camp Hillary spin do you uncritically swallow in order to keep the faith that your "fighter" is well on her way to the Presidency?
Not trying to be mean, but just to say, "C'mon, get real, Hillary doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell. It's an illusion that she has any hope at all at this point."
April 28, 2008 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
And it's going to scar her supporters, more as the days go on. Still, there are states yet to vote, and vote they shall. Nay, there will be no easy letdown. I expect gotalife to reach around and turn itself off.
April 28, 2008 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right, it's gonna be a tough pill for 'em to swallow; that's what I'm afraid of. I haven't seen them buzzing about in such a fervor for a while now. Clinton and the media have definitely got their hopes up...they even started denying the existence of math. It can only go downhill from there.
April 29, 2008 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mike1981...you said Obama supporters were pointing at the polls to support their candidate of choice but are now decrying those same polls.WRONG! not polls, but rather such important statistics such as delegate count, states won, popular vote, supers gain rate.We believe these are the numbers that really count.But I will not deny you the opportunity to wallow in false hope on behalf of the train-wreck campaign run by the doomed Clintons. R u listening Dembilic?
April 29, 2008 8:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can we stop with the endless conjecture about what will or won't sway the super dels already? It is irrelevant becuase the super dels will never overturn Obama's 100+ pledged delegate lead. It would destroy the party, and they know that.
April 28, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
That lead is fascinating, but Obama has not won. He did not 2024 delegates. So the supers aren't overturning anything. If both candidates get 269 electoral votes in the general, we won't say the House is overturning the will of the people when they pick the next president. You need a majority of delegates to be the nominee and neither candidate has that. So the party has to decide. The people had a chance to decide, and it didn't work out. Deal with it.
April 28, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Howard Dean just made a point of saying that the duty of the superdelegates is not to reflect the results of the pledged delegate race but to consider "electability." I'm hearing words like this more and more from party leaders: it's NOT about the pledged delegate lead. The SF Chronicle's Washington reporter just wrote that the buzz in Congress is that if Hillary wins Indiana "all bets are off" where superdelegate votes are concerned.
I'm afraid that the belief that "Obama will inevitably win because of his 100+ lead in pledged delegates" could lead to a deadly complacency. He has to be able to show the superdelegates that he hasn't lost his momentum and that he can still win primaries.
April 28, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. However, if one candidate has the lead in pledged delegates, has the popular vote lead, and the superdelegates install the other candidate as the nominee? Something will be deadly, and it won't be complacency. It will be the health of the Democratic party.
And if Hillary Clinton wins by 1% point in Indiana, are all bets still off?
April 28, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, that's likely not going to happen because while Obama leads in delegates right now, Hillary has the lead in the popular vote. Also, seeing how the popular vote is a better metric to gauge the will of the people, I hope and pray that the supers will not overturn the will of the people.
April 28, 2008 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice try, but the supers aren't buying your Wolfson talking points. They are well aware that Florida and Michigan don't count in the popular vote tally. From Drew's Politico article:
*****
Hillary Rodham Clinton’s claim that she has, or will have, won the popular vote does not impress them – both because of her dubious math and because, as another key Democrat says firmly, “The rules are that it’s the delegates, period.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9862.html
April 28, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's complete and utter nonsense. The sort of meaningless psychobabble that Obama has drilled into his cult followers.
The voters of Michigan and Florida legally cast ballots in legal primary elections, and your shameful attempt to completely strip them of their voting franchise is the most ugly and extreme measure I've ever seen in American politics. It's not enough that you've stripped them of any representation at the Democratic convention, but now you also refuse to count them as if they were scum and illegal felons, rather than honest, tax-paying American citizens and Democrats.
Well, you sir will not succeed in your shameful campaign to disenfranchise American voters - we will see to that.
April 29, 2008 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't like the result? Complain to the Florida and Michigan state Dem parties. They are the ones who set the rules, with Clinton's approval.
We all learned in kindergarten: you don't get to change the rules in the middle of the game. And the supers are astute (and adult) enough to realize that.
April 29, 2008 1:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is YOU sir who don't like the result. We already know the result of the primaries in Florida and Michigan and it is you, sir, who are treating the voters of those two states as if they didn't have the same rights and voting franchise that you have. And this is EXACTLY why working class voters don't trust Obama and correctly see him as an elitist who rakes in the dollars of limousine liberals while crapping on the votes of hard working Americans.
April 29, 2008 1:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's funny how those who are so empathetic to the Florida and Michigan citizens who went to the polls, who feel their pain so fervently, don't give a shit about the Florida and Michigan citizens who didn't go to the polls because they were told their votes wouldn't count. What about them, monkey guy? Why don't they count?
April 29, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's obviously impossible to count the votes of people who didn't vote, but that doesn't mean that you should refuse to count the votes of people who did vote. There were other issues on the ballot in those states that they should have come out to vote for, and their failure to do their duty as citizens should not be taken out on voters who did their duty and voted.
April 29, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
What this really comes down to is whether you, as a member of a political party, agree to follow the rules of the party at the state level. Clinton is on record as having agreed to those rules. Don't like the result? Complain to St. Hillary.
Part of being an adult is accepting responsibility for your actions. Neither Dean nor Obama had a gun to Clinton's head when she agreed to the rules. To blame either of them for her own actions is simply childish and not the mindset I want in my president.
When the Bay of Pigs went south on Kennedy, did he blame Castro? Kruschev? No. He blamed himself, and the public gave him the benefit of the doubt. A good example for politicians who follow in his path.
There is audio on the net of Clinton even telling a radio interviewer months before the event that their votes wouldn't matter. Did you castigate her too at the time?
April 29, 2008 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hehe, math is psychobabble now? This is funny to me.
April 29, 2008 8:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
A. She does not lead in the popular vote.
B. The popular vote is a terrible metric since there is no official "popular vote."
April 28, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
A. She is leading in the popular vote.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
B. There is no official national popular vote in the general election either, but that doesn't mean that news organizations can't add up the official state tallies. Or maybe you want to stop them from doing it too.
April 29, 2008 1:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
That link shows Obama leading the popular vote by over 200K, even if you include FL and don't include IA, NV, WA, and ME.
April 29, 2008 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another lie. The link shows:
Popular vote total including Michigan and Florida and with estimates of totals in Ia, NV, Me & WA:
Obama: 15,328,989 Clinton: 15,340,550
April 29, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
But due to state party rules violations, Florida and so do you).
The top line in the link is clear:
Obama 14,418,784 (49.2%), Clinton 13,917,318 (47.5%).
April 30, 2008 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
[Pardon me, I "misspoke."]
But due to state party rules violations, Florida and Michigan don't count, as the supers no doubt already know (and so do you).
The top line in the link is clear:
Obama 14,418,784 (49.2%), Clinton 13,917,318 (47.5%).
April 30, 2008 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
The reporter does not cite her sources even if they wish to remain anonymous. Did she talk to the Congressional janitor?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/b/a/2008/04/28/nov05election-obama_needs_ind.DTL
I'll take Politico's perspective, which at least has quotes from "key Democrats on Capitol Hill."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9862.html
April 28, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, hello.... As has been reported ad nausuem, Hillary would have win every remaing contest 65-35 to pull even in pledged delegates. Won't happen in one state much less all of them. And after Obama wins NC that number will increase to 70+.
She would have to win 55-45 in all the remaining contests to pull even in popular vote. Also won't happen.
Bottom line is that after all the states have voted, Obama will have a 100+ pledged delegates lead and also a lead in the popular vote.
If you think that there would be no ramifications if the super dels overturned those results and gave the nomination to Hillary, then you are clearly delusional. The race is over. Deal with it.
April 28, 2008 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Screw the pledged delegates.
April 29, 2008 1:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah!! Stupid pledged delegates and their stupid vote representating asses can kiss my ass!
April 29, 2008 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's pretty hypocritical to whine about delegates representing the will of the voters while screaming for the disenfranchisement of voters in Florida and Michigan out of the other side of your mouth.
April 29, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the pledged delegate count, which is the measure of the will of the people, Obama will finish in the lead.
The fact that he won't have 2024 pledged delegates has nothing to do with the fact that he will have more than Hillary, hence he wins on the "will of the people". And so, yes, supers going with her would indeed be overturning the will of the people. It would be entirely within their rights, but it would, indeed, be overturning the will of the people.
Conflation is a bitch around here.
April 28, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the kind of convoluted reasoning that has infected the mind of Obama's supporters. Who cares how many votes are required to win the nomination - as long as he's in the lead in pledged delegates, that's good enough for them. If Hillary was thinking like Obama, she would have declared herself the winner while she was still in the lead in pledged delegates and defied anyone to overturn the will of the people. But her supporters aren't as crazy as obama's, and so it never would have flew.
April 29, 2008 1:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
She never had such a lead to do that. I'm all for letting everyone vote, as I believe Obama is as well. Now if the Clintons and her supporters are all for excepting the outcome we'll have a grand convention and get the WH in the Fall. Why do I think Clinton isn't going to accept the outcome?
April 29, 2008 8:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mmmm hmmm. That's why we Democrats took 2000 so well.
April 28, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
But this isn't going to result in a tie and if the House picked the candidate with less electoral votes, the legitimacy would be challenged in a not so nice manner. The 2000 protest of the election would look like paddy-cake. Obama will still have a commanding lead. Thus, he will win the SD race as well. There's a reason why Clinton is picking up SDs at a slower rate than Obama. Her silly arguments to make people believe she is actually winning may work on her supporters, but you need something tougher and more airtight than that to ask SDs to potentially throw the future of the party in the trash. I'm sorry she won't win, she had her chance and she blew it. If she pulls out a delegate lead by June 3, so be it. But it ain't happening.
April 29, 2008 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
She could increase the number of independents. If she gets the nomination, I'm becoming an independent.
April 28, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
mee too
April 28, 2008 11:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
OMG already. Enough with the misleading and ever changing polls!
I have poll fatigue.
I have primary fatigue.
I have Clinton fatigue.
I have blog fatigue.
I have outrage fatigue.
It's time to get away from it all.
April 28, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is NOT a poll of registered voters or likely voters. ITS A POLL OF ADULTS. Including those not even registered or having no intention to vote.
April 28, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right - but if they ever happened to maybe, possibly stumble into a voting booth by accident - they'd probably, sorta pick... Hillary... maybe.
Isn't that good enough?
April 28, 2008 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great point. This poll is probably the least reliable of any out there, since it doesn't even use likely or registered voters. But that didn't stop Greg from finding a "nugget" (revealing choice of words, there).
April 28, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. These aren't reliable. Still, this is troubling...
April 28, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
a little under 200 Inds in that poll. that's about a 7-point MOE using the standard calculation.
definitely not headline worthy unless more polls start showing a similar difference.
April 28, 2008 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who agrees to participate in polls, anyway?
April 28, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Go look at pollster.com and look poll by poll, state by state. Obama clearly has the edge to beat McCain on a state by state basis... the aggregate national number does not tell the story. Hillary's negatives are too high and she doesn't have the 50 State organization on the ground to beat McCain, like Obama does.
April 28, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are there any poll experts here? I'd like to be able to make sense of these discrepancies:
Gallup's daily says "There is also no change in national registered voter preferences for the fall, with Clinton beating John McCain by three percentage points, 47% to 44%, and Obama running even with McCain, each at 45%."
Gallup's error margin they put at+- 3
Rasmussen's is similar. Clinton beating McCain by 3 and Obama:McCain even.
My question: how does this square with the enormous unfavourability differences?
Obama and McCain today have identical polls on this:
both 51 favourable, 46 unfavourable.
Whereas Clinton's only 45 favourable and a huge 53 unfavourable. These high unfavourables of hers have held up for weeks.
I find it hard to believe that people will vote for someone they dislike if they have someone else there whom they don't dislike who's offering similar policies.
How to make sense of this. Anyone?
April 28, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes - stop reading polls.
April 28, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Keep in mind that I may say I have unfavorable opinions of Hillary Clinton, but when matched up with McCain I'd almost certainly answer that I'd vote for her too (although I wouldn't like it).
April 28, 2008 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Americans will vote for the devil they know before voting for the devil that they don't. Especially when his pastor is the devil.
April 29, 2008 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is the same poll showing Hillary beating McCain by 9?
Seems a bit odd.
April 28, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama can't control his pastor, how can he control Michelle?
If he can't stand up to Hillary in a debate, how can he stand up to Ahmadinejad?
Important unanswered questions.
April 28, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Hillary cannot control Bill, how can she stand up to the Republicans?
Important unanswered questions, indeed.
April 28, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill took control of the campaign. Hence Hillary moving up in every poll while Obama is moving down. Coincidence? I think not!
April 28, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
absolutely, the little lady knows her place.
April 28, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're correct - you think not.
April 28, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you are saying people are really voting for Bill because Hillary can't do a good enough job herself??? Nice vote of confidence in your candidate. I am an Obama supporter but even I find that offensive toward Hillary.
Let Hillary and Obama rise or fall on their own- leave the spouses out of it.
April 28, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
re: "your candidate"
They are republican trolls who feign loyalty for Camp Clinton. They do slip character once in a while, like right hhere, when their more natural, Freeper-like, boastful disdain for women comes out.
April 28, 2008 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting perspective from someone who ostensibly wants us to support the feminist candidate -- a plea to control one's spouse. :-\
No inconsistency there.
April 28, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the reason behind the tightening of the polls? Because of Bill.
This is one heckuva Hillary supporter.
April 28, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
'stand up to"
"control"
Do you even hear your own fear-words any more?
April 28, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
SEVEN articles from TPM on polls today alone???? What the fuck is this shit?
Hey Greg, et al: don't ever complain about the MSM - you're outdoing them by a mile.
April 28, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm... I wonder if you would be complaining if BHO was doing better in the polls?
April 29, 2008 2:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can hmmm all you want. Look through my older posts and you'll find I've complained about TPM's obsession with polls when Obama was leading in them too - especially the meaningless daily Gallup polls. I've suggested daily isn't frequent enough - why not hourly polls?
My problem with this isn't who's ahead in a given poll, it's the way TPM is outdoing the mainstream media's poll-obsession. I wea