Exit Polls: More Hillary Voters Would Desert Obama And Back McCain
MSNBC just announced some new Pennsylvania exit poll numbers that show -- again -- that Hillary supporters would be more reluctant to support Obama against McCain than the reverse.
The numbers:
* Seventy-one percent of Pennsylvania Dems would be satisfied with Hillary as the nominee, while 64% would be satisfied with Obama.
* Six out of 10 Hillary backers would not be satisfied with Obama as the nominee, while only half of Obama backers would be dissatisfied with her as the nominee.
* In a startling finding, only 53% of Clinton supporters say they'd vote for Obama against McCain, while 69% of Obama backers would vote for her as the nominee.
These numbers obviously reflect the passions of the moment, and would likely shift dramatically after the party united behind a nominee. Nonetheless, this is inarguably a pretty grim starting point for either Dem in a state that will be so crucial to Dem hopes of retaking the White House this fall.















Bitter, bitter.
April 22, 2008 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jesus Greg, this poll has always been utter horseshit - let me explain why.. See, Obama supporters, feeling that he will be the nominee eventually, feel more generous about saying that they would support Clinton if it came down to that. Hillary supporters, knowing that her chances of becoming the democratic nominee are slimmer than Amy Winehouse's silhouette - are angrier, and express that in that nonsensical poll.
April 22, 2008 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly, we don't want to alienate voters we need to work with in the general. Makes perfect sense.
April 22, 2008 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
What would alienate me the most is if the Super Delegates overrode the will of democratic voters and "elected" Clinton as their choice for the Democratic presidential candidate.
This would be elitism in the extreme - less than 1,000 people telling Democrats who they can vote for in the general election.
If this happens, we might just as well not have primaries and let the "Supers" pick the candidates.
April 23, 2008 8:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ummm have you been on TPM lately and heard the Obama supporters that will NEVER by any means vote for Hillary, but expect Hillary supporters to fall in line behind Obama?
Obama was VERY cocky when he said "I can win her voters, the question is can she win mine?" He is not automatically entitlled to the vote of Hillary voters nor should he be - especially the way his campaign and his supporters have been so negative towards Hillary while trying to claim the "high ground". Please spare me. If you don't respect Clinton or her supporters, why should you expect their support in return?
April 23, 2008 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Humanity_Critic:
You are spot on. I would add that Hillary supporters need to create doubt in Obama. By saying that they won't vote for him, they're trying to make him look weak. If Obama does not get the nomination, which could only happen by theft, I suspect Obama supporters (like me) would feel disenfranchised and the poll number for Clinton support, currently at 69%, would plummet.
April 23, 2008 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well Hillary is running for McCains VP isnt she?
April 22, 2008 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Totally meaningless numbers, Greg. As much as I currently think Hillary is a destructive force for the Democratic Party, Supreme Court Justices mean too much. Iraq means too much. The economy means too much. Ditto the EPA, FDA, FEMA, the DoJ, and on and on. The party will rally around the nominee.
April 22, 2008 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just like the gop.
They said the same thing about their candidate but look at them now.
April 22, 2008 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
From your lips to God's own ears. That said, this seems to me like it might be a tad too simplistic. After all, we do not elect our president as a nation, but instead as a mess of individual states. Whether the party in general unites, will it unite in Pennsylvania (where the race has been exceptionally acrimonious)? It does not matter if Clinton supporters and Obama supporters come together in New York to give him a 20 pt victory instead of a 5 pt victory. What matters is whether they come together in the swing states. I certainly hope that these numbers are way off base, but I think that we have to expect that some percentage of democrats will bolt as a result of this primary race and these numbers suggest that we have reason to be concerned that the defections will be painful.
April 22, 2008 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't kid yourself. ALL of Obama's friends HATE America and white people. He's toast.
April 22, 2008 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right. Even all of us white supporters. We're self-loathers.
And the real campaign slogan is "HATE you can believe in." Keeps us motivated to volunteer and make more donations.
April 22, 2008 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spoken like a guy who gives a sh*t. ;-) Most people aren't paying attention like we do. We're defective people. We enjoy this crap on some perverse level (well, I know I do). You can't ask someone who JUST cast a vote for their candidate if they'd vote for the other person. It's a weird question that only serves to feed the media beast it's daily dose of controversy.
April 22, 2008 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, yours is a cheerful thought, and I can do with some cheer, so I will content myself to agree with your take on this, at least for the moment.
April 22, 2008 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't that a double-edged sword for Hillaryites ?
I mean isn't that kind of number the proof this primary season needs to end soon so that wounds have the time to heal ? And therefore does not that convince SDs who already know Obama will be the nominee to endorse him and finish with this ?
April 22, 2008 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is it startling? People are incredibly supportive of their candidate and aren't going to say they'll support the other at this point in the campaign, especially on the day of the friggin primary!!
This is a stupid poll.
April 22, 2008 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
with 45% of the vote in HRC has an 8 pt lead. Does anyone know if what percentage of the the big cities votes are in thus far?
April 22, 2008 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Franklyn,
Try this link. CNN has a clickable map that shows the results from all over the State, the breakdown between candidates, and the percentage of the vote counted at each reporting location. It looks like Philadelphia has not been reported in yet.
It works best with IE browser, so if you are using Firefox, you may have to toggle to IE. Here is the link.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#PA
April 22, 2008 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting link.
Note that 16% voted for Ron Paul - to end the Iraq occupation and 11% voted for Huckabee - the radical religious right.
There is a good chance that most of the 16% who voted for Ron Paul would support a Democrat who wanted to end the Iraq occupation.
April 23, 2008 8:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another thought:
With 2.3 million Democratic votes as opposed to 800 thousand Republican votes, the Democratic candidate seems a shoo-in in Pennsylvania so electability is not an issue in that state.
April 23, 2008 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
No kidding. Both Clinton and Obama partisans had best hope that these numbers are totally bogus, because otherwise we are in real trouble. Those percentages are so steep that it really does not matter that more Clinton voters than Obama voters would be willing to bolt; both represent a percentage of defection so steep that McCain would win.
I hope that this puts to rest the claim that the extended primary season is good for the party. This was true up until around Ohio, but we are past that point and it is only getting worse from here on out.
April 22, 2008 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
CNN calls it a thumpin.
It solidified her argument that she can win the general easily.
So, it comes down to whether the Dems want to win or lose.
April 22, 2008 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could you please explain to me how someone with a 49% unfavorability rating "easily" wins the general election?
April 22, 2008 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's more like the low 60s, like 64%.
April 22, 2008 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come on Zell.
President are elected by the electoral college.
You know that.
April 22, 2008 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are calling less than 10% a thumping?
Hard to give that any credence when a thumping is usually measured by a factor of 2 or more.
Good luck with that.
April 22, 2008 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
CNN never said that -- the talking head said it was not a "thumpin'" (win for her or loss for him, whichever it was).
April 22, 2008 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where's the 20 point win?
))))))))))))))))))-crickets-((((((((((((((((((((
April 22, 2008 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does anyone seriously believe that Hillary won't campaign on Obama's behalf if/when she loses the nomination. With or without the VP slot, she's gonna do it, because it's in her best interest. This support delta will fade substantially.
April 22, 2008 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
And this number has nothing to do with the manner in which Clinton has campaigned, right?
April 22, 2008 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
meaningless -- people are heated up right now; with a few months of Obama running against McCain every one of Hillary voters will come around to supporting Obama in the general election.
CNN has a good county by county vote total graphic. Many of the Phili suburbs haven't come in yet. The margin could get smaller.
April 22, 2008 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
DanF, we control those things through Congress, not the Presidency. Get out there and work for a Congress with a spine.
Also, there's all make of blather on MSNBC about the *dream ticket* but what they're forgetting is the Obama CAN'T have HRC on his ticket because of Bill. I can just see Bill out there running with all his foundation buddies creating havoc every which way but loose for the Prez. No way.
The supers need to grow a spine and end this thing. There is no point at all to continuing it especially since the Clintons are out of money and vowing to continue *drawing contrasts* (read negative tabloid ads) that will do nothing but tear the party to shreds.
If the supers let it go on, they deserve to lose the WH AND all the down ticket pluses they would have had with Obama.
April 22, 2008 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um...you do realize the President appoints Justices to the Supreme Court, right? The Senate confirms apppointments, but they can't make appointments. Same thing with Cabinet appointments. And the folks who staff executive branch agencies--that's all pretty much under the President's control. As is conduct of foreign policy.
This is not to argue your excellent point that we should get out there and work to elect a "Congress with a spine."
April 22, 2008 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Prez nominates the Justices, but it is solely the job of the Senate to approve them. No nominee can make it unless the Senate approves.
Read your civics book again.
April 22, 2008 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right--we're agreed. No need for your "Read your civics book again" snark. My point is, the Senate can only confirm or reject the President's appointments.
Even if Dems have a majority in the Senate, they won't be able to present their own choices for any of those appointments. They'll be forced to confirm based on the lesser of evils. Not a promising situation.
April 22, 2008 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
What??? FEMA? EPA? DoJ? With all due respect, you have not been paying attention to the damage political appointees can do to our bureaucracies. The president appoints directors and sets the tone for these institutions. And Democrats have shown no spine on supreme court nominations and no oversight over our institutions - and don't get me started on Iraq. Heckuva job Brownie. Ring any bells?
April 22, 2008 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree the bureaucrats can mess things up pretty good, and I agree the EXISTING Congress is spineless...but my point remains that Congress is far more important in implementation than the Executive. It is incumbent on ANYONE that wants change to figure that out and work just as hard getting rid of the spineless ones as they do for the more figurehead position of Prez.
I want change more than anyone...I also know that Obama or anyone else will not be able to do anything without a compliant Congress behind them.
Stop yelling at me and figure out how to really take this country back.
April 22, 2008 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not yelling at you G. The President is a big deal and sets the agenda and can control news cycles. It's one third of the govt. on paper, but it's more than that in our era. I'd like a progressive agenda front and center - if I can't, I'll take the moderate Clinton.
The number of congress people that we can turnover each cycle is always a small number and Blue Dog Dems aren't going away.
My congress person, Baron Hill (D), is exactly the kind of Democrat I'm trying to get rid of. He has a primary challenger that is progressive. SHe came within a few thousand votes of over turning him in the primary in 2006. Rest assured I'm working to get her elected.
April 22, 2008 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm flipping channels and there's an awful lot of blather out there. This is still a single-digit margin, but to hear some of these people talk, you'd think Hillary just won South Carolina, Mississippi, Alaska, Hawaii, and all the other states that Obama won -- tonight. It's astounding the theories the talking heads apply to the situation, but then, Hillary's campaign has applied some pretty wild theories to what things mean, and apparently it's mangled the heads of the talking heads. They're making about as much sense as Hillary's campaign mouthpieces do.
Big thing they keep saying is "she's tough." OK, I'll definitely give her that. But when it comes to Obama, he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. They knock him for getting tough on her because it's "breaking the promise of the new kind of politics he says he's for," but if he tries to ignore her or gets a bit defensive, then "he's not tough enough to fight the Republicans." Sorry blathering heads, can't have it both ways.
I didn't expect him to win in PA and had only hoped it would be a single-digit margin. So far that's true, and thus my expectations have been met. He's still the frontrunner and will continue to win more.
April 22, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, the progressive blogs decided to toss their readers and back Obama ruthlessly.
They need to stop dividing the party and hating on the Clintons.
April 22, 2008 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
gotalife,
Please tell me you aren't thinking there is also a vast left-wing conspiracy against Hillary.
The progressive community has been speaking out against Hillary because of her campaign strategy, among other things. Distinguish between Hillary and her campaign. I think the progressive community has.
Back away from this line of thinking, friend. Don't start forming a persecution complex. It's just the passion of the campaign...
April 22, 2008 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't believe my lying eyes?
Sorry, call them like I read them and those who have not drank Obama's kool aid will tell you the same.
It is very obvious the media backing Obama and the progressive blogs flame the hate for the Clintons.
They divide the party, they need to grow up and stop it.
April 22, 2008 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good lord, this is an 8% win at this point. Could get higher, yes, but could get lower. And it could remain the same. Hillary Clinton began with over a 20% lead. Obama's campaign at that point called it that anything within 10% is a victory. Just wait. Wait and see. so far this is a nonevent.
April 22, 2008 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will not vote for her. How can she win the nomination without IL. How can she win IL without the black vote and every black person in IL would be pissed off.
April 22, 2008 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why are you on a Dem blog then?
April 22, 2008 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course they'd vote for McCain. A good chunk of Clinton's support comes from Limbaugh ditto-heads looking to make mess of the Dem primary. Ya think the ditto heads would vote for Obama or Hillary in the general?
April 22, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed. Just look at all the right-wing pundits on the media coverage this evening who are regurgitating all of the Clinton campaign's talking points. Everyone of them is talking up Clinton over Obama. That is no coincidence and it speaks volumes. Of course Clinton did not get the *big* win she desperately needed so they have to shill for her. The fact remains: Clinton can not win the nomination and would get destroyed in the presidential campaign.
April 22, 2008 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
It solidified her argument that she can win the general easily.
Love that Russ Limbaugh spin.
(Yes Russ and BillyO want this to go on. What could be better than having democratic money being spent tearing down the future democratic nominee? That's a freebie.)
But here is the bottom line for people who don't spoke crack thru a bong loaded with Crown Royale:
a) It isn't true.
b) She can't even when the democratic primary popular vote. Or the pledged delegate vote total. Or the combined superdelegate and pledged delegate total.
April 22, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems the true issues are just how destructive and vindictive is Team Clinton, and how much of this will linger on to the fall?
April 22, 2008 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is rush and it backfired when she wins the general.
Look at the electoral votes she has won if this was the general. She wins the big States easily.
It boils down to the supers if they want to win or lose.
It is their call.
April 22, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love this argument:
And not only that, look at all the ponies we have if wishes were horses!
This has not been the general election. In the general election, Obama also wins the big states easily, and also some of the small-to-medium states that Clinton loses.
April 22, 2008 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Hillary is running strong with Reagan Democrats, i.e., registered Democrats who have been voting Republican, there's no guarantee they won't vote for McCain anyway. The DLC strategy has been to win back those OLD and I mean they are really OLD voters. Obama has been bringing in different voters. Hard to say who defects in the fall, but I would be surprised if a super negative Clinton/McCain race excites young people and if I have to listen to two neocons competing for months on how many nations they can turn into green glass at 3 am, I guarantee you will find me hiding under the covers on election day.
April 22, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is as meaningless as the argument that since Obama didn't win CA or NY or other traditionally blue states in the primary, that he can't win them in the general election. Phooey.
There are a few states Hillary can win in the GE that Obama can't; but there are states Obama can win in the GE that Hillary can't.
My only fear is that the fight will be allowed to continue long enough and bitterly enough that there won't be enough time to unify the party again after the nomination.
April 22, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. The time of healing cannot begin soon enough.
April 22, 2008 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. That's why Dean is pushing for an end to this sooner than later.
April 22, 2008 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't... I think there will be enough time to heal. How long ago does Super Tuesday feel to you? 2.5 months or 2.5 years ago? Between the first week of June and the first week of November is six months.
April 22, 2008 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
June will probably leave plenty of time. I was thinking of the lateness of the Democratic National Convention. Letting it go until late August scares me!
April 22, 2008 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah ... I don't think the Super Delegates are going to let it go past the last primary. They know what's at stake. :-)
April 22, 2008 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Considering Hillary needed to win PA (and Ohio and Texas) by 20 points, she is well and truly fucked. The media may be willing to play by her rules but she's out of cash and almost out of pledged delegated to win. As Chuck Todd said, the race for pledged delegates is over.
April 22, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zell, hoping for anything from the egregiously misnamed 'gotalife' other than desperate Clinton spin is a waste of time.
~
April 22, 2008 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
A good chunk of Clinton's support comes from Limbaugh ditto-heads looking to make mess of the Dem primary.
And a good chunk are longtime Democrats who have been convinced that Obama is an elitist Muslim Black Panther. These numbers point to one thing only: Hillary's scorched earth campaign.
April 22, 2008 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I dared to think the whole primary race would be better than that. It's what disappoints me so much about how Hillary has run her scorched earth campaign. OK, not disappoints -- really really angers me.
April 22, 2008 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course more Clinton supporters will abandon the Democrats if Obama wins than vice versa...Obama supporters are confident he'll win, they have no reason NOT to support her, they think he'll be the nominee.
Wait and see what happens if the SDs throw the election to her. I'll go to Denver just to bang down the doors of the convention center...
April 22, 2008 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't even want to think about what would happen if they take the nomination from Obama that he earned and give it to the one who ran the nastiest, filtiest campaign.
April 22, 2008 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me too. The story that is getting no coverage is that Hillary has rendered herself even more unelectable than when she started. We don't elect people that 60% of Americans see as dishonest and 54% just don't like.
April 22, 2008 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
OMG, Chris Matthews, is on something tonight...this dude is craby, and obviously irked...
April 22, 2008 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is in full clap, clap, point, point mode :D
April 22, 2008 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had to turn theh sound down.
April 22, 2008 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
First it was "Yes She Can", now its "Yes We Will".
the imitations of Change.
hilarious.
April 22, 2008 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Less than 10%. Yawn. This is over. Obama is the nominee.
April 22, 2008 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Nonetheless, this is inarguably a pretty grim starting point for either Dem in a state that will be so crucial to Dem hopes of retaking the White House this fall."
Yep, thanks to that asshole Hillary for her slash and burn strategy. She can't win but she wants to sabotage.
April 22, 2008 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, God, this really does not look good for the democratic party. This split between Obama and Clinton and all the negative advertising that has gone back and fourth are polarizing the democratic party internally. What we need now is unity, not more dirty, gutter politics. If we do not unite in the face of the republican menace before the convention, the democratic party may self destruct. It may already be too late. No matter who is the candidate, they will loose democratic support to McCain, a supposed moderate, even though he strongly supports the Iraq war, supports Bush tax cuts for the richest 1 percent, waffles on extreme torture methods like water boarding, and is 71 years old (with a health risk looming each and every day). I mean, for any democratic candidate to loose support to an old, cranky, curmudgeon like McCain shows us just how divided the party is. I mean, seriously, the guy is a dinosaur from the late gilded age or something. Unfit for office. If there is one thing Reagen taught us it is this: Really freaking old people shouldn't be in politics.
April 22, 2008 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
gotnolife:
Er no.
I said "all our voices should be heard."
Get with the program.
Yeah I know the message changes every 10 minutes but that is no excuse.
April 22, 2008 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, let them vote and count but they both need the supers to win.
More debates will help them decide.
If we used the gop system, she won and it is over.
April 22, 2008 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
MMMmmm... Gotnolife wishes Dems picked their nominee like the GOP.
Better trolls please.
April 22, 2008 11:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, that's the latest whine coming from Bill Clinton. Yep! According to him, the Democratic primaries are inferior to the Republican primaries.
Classy.
April 23, 2008 2:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
To paraphrase what Hillary just said, 'Its time to stop talking about our problems and starting solving them and that's what my campaign has been all about.'
Excuse me but her campaign has done nothing but create problems and made existing problems worse.
April 22, 2008 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pay no mind to Hillary. She'll never be president.
The only way she can get the nomination is through a brokered convention and no democrat candidate who has won their nomination that way has even won the general election.
So if the democrats are so foolish to do that, I think I just might sit the next election out.
(I'd be damned if I ever were to vote for a Republican)
April 22, 2008 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Clinton "wins" a brokered convention, voting for a Republican would be your only choice. The only question then is "Do you want to supersize your war with that?"
April 22, 2008 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is finished. Working Americans have seen through his hoodwink games. He's toast.
April 22, 2008 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
rural west Pennsylvanians don't represent the rest of America. You will see this once the Indiana primary come.
April 22, 2008 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree.
April 22, 2008 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is still totally open. Sen. clinton's is in no way a decisive or "important" win.
April 22, 2008 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you.
April 22, 2008 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. The thank you that got lost below was meant for you.
April 22, 2008 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama will gain more delegates on May 6th then she does tonight.
April 22, 2008 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why can't Obama close the deal?
Because Americans actually love their country.
April 22, 2008 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your comment history is a very special thing.
April 22, 2008 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
HRC doesn't seem too happy. Maybe she's just tired but she's sort of walking through her speech. I don't think she's delusional. She knows she needed more than 10% to turn this thing. Terry McA can say this was a romp as much as he wants but it just wasn't. It wasn't what she needed.
April 22, 2008 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is anybody paying attention to the Republican results? McCain is the de facto Republican nominee, and 30% of PA republicans refused to even vote for him.
Yes, the Democratic party is still roughly split as to who they'd rather have, but McCain's failure to get more than a 1/4 of his party to vote for him seems like the bigger story here.
April 22, 2008 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
74% of vote in and this is still stuck on 8%. is this how it ends? if so, did HRC really win?
April 22, 2008 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The press is still locked on to Clinton winning Texas, even though Obama won more delegates there. So, this may be another Texas.
In any case, Clinton would have to win by overwhelming margins in the remaining states in order to take the lead in delegates and total votes. It just won't happen. Ms Clinton's new nickname may be Hillary Huckabee.
April 22, 2008 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is crap, I'm tired of these stupid polls, they are meaningless.
All they say is she needs to quit being bitter and quit demonizing Obama amongst her supporters.
April 22, 2008 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right.
Here's how this works:
Hillary Campaign: Obama's not electable, we've got to make that point to Superdelegates!
Pollster: Would you vote for Obama if Clinton lost?
Hillary supporter: No.
Uh huh.
April 22, 2008 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. Hillary supporters will say this because, for one thing, she's not so different from McCain... and because it's one more way to help her bully her way into the White House. Vote for Hillary -- or else!
I just hope Obama gets back on message and starts campaigning for himself and against McCain. Ignore the sh*t-slinging from the Hillary camp, and let her be the cause of her own demise.
April 22, 2008 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only thing which could get me to vote for McCain is if the "Super Delegates" overrode the will of the Democratic majority and installed Clinton as their choice as the Democratic presidential nominee. That would tell me that the "Super Delegates" are not concerned with democracy, only with getting another Clinton in the White House.
April 22, 2008 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
TPM love to put Chris Matthews' quotes, why not this one that speaks the truth: ""This contest is essentially over," he proclaims to Keith. "Barack Obama is going to win the most elected delegates."
He went on to say of the media, "Trying to keep this game going, we've created the delusion that somehow this race is still open.""
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/22/chris-matthews-the-media_n_98086.html
April 22, 2008 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the campaign is truly over and Obama is the nominee, I'm investing in "Don't blame me I voted for Hillary" bumper stickers.
Obama's performance in the swingstates shows there are key parts of the democratic party that are not turning to him despite the hype, despite the inevitability, despite the massive spending, despite the media story line that the campaign is over, despite the calls for Hillary to drop out of the race, despite the thumbs on the scales for Obama by Dean and Pelosi and allegedly "neutral" SDs like Donna Brazile, Jimmy Carter, etc. This is unheard of for a frontrunner to have this much trouble sealing the deal. Normally everyone jumps on the leader's bandwagon especially when the media is saying the campaign is over, but that's obviously not happening hee.
Hillary's got work to do to make her case for electability and PA was an important piece of it, but this overexuberence and smug self-assuredness by Obama supporters in the face of questions about his electability is truly troubling. If this doesn't make Obama fans nervous in the least, it's because they don't care about the general election. They are with Obama as the nominee even if it means he will inevitably lose to McCain.
Does anyone have a comparison of a race like this ever before? I can't think of one in recent history.
April 23, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, She CAN...........................................................................
Be McCain's running mate.
That's why folk would vote for McCain if she's not the nominee, that and racism.
She showed no shame in begging for money during her speech. (I think that's because she has not yet experienced shame in her life, though you'd think Monica would have brought her SOME shame.)
April 22, 2008 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
These thought are cold blooded, but you are likely correct. Whatever is driving her, it is unknown, and Bill is not too far behind her in this regard.
April 22, 2008 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's another factor at work here though it is difficult to quantify: crossover voting. I read recently that something like 10% of the people voting for Democrats today were Republicans who for one reason or another switched their party affiliation in order to do so (yes, it was another poll someone did...)
Surely some of these are disaffected Republicans, but I don't think there's any denying that many of these crossover voters are simply trying to throw the race to Hillary because in their view, she will be easier to beat due to her higher negatives. They are never going to vote for either one in the general.
Even if this is only 2-3% of the voting, it serves their purpose to monkey-wrench the Democratic nomination process as it stands now. If Clinton's margin were 5% margin instead of 8% it would be less supportive of her 'comeback' claims, given polling trends.
For example, see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/21/rush-limbaughs-involveme_n_92722.html?page=7.
I don't know of any similarly 'coordinated' effort by crossover voters to inflate Obama's numbers.
So...just another reason to pay no attention to this particular poll.
April 22, 2008 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, these poll numbers are largely meaningless since they were taken in the middle of a heated, "bitter" primary.
Second, a significant portion of Hillary's support comes from "Reagan Democrats"--i.e., Neo-Dixiecrats. That group's lack of enthusiasm for Obama isn't exactly surprising.
April 22, 2008 11:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
BluePuppie:
FYI - Obama is much closer to closing the deal than Clinton is.
April 22, 2008 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
You people call yourself Democrats? I'd sooner cut off my arm than vote for Grandpa Simpson.
If McCain wins neocons win... it's unbearable.
April 22, 2008 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The exit polls saying that Clinton voters would not support Obama are pure horseshit. There was a concerted effort to have Republicans change their registration to Democrat just so they could voye for Clinton. Those voters will never vote for a Democrat in the general election. It was so bad, that at my voting place in Pennsylvania there was a reminder just outside for people to re-register as Republicans.
April 22, 2008 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I would like to believe that Hillary supporters will come around in the Fall and support Obama, I think there are substantial indicators that that is simply wishful thinking. A tremendous block of Hillary's support comes from "Reagan Democrats" and right leaning independents, not to mention conservative older white voters. I highly doubt a group like that is going to break for the liberal black candidate. I expect 70-80% of Hillary's support will break for Obama, the rest will merrily back the old rich white guy...no sense breaking tradition...and march off the cliff, potentially taking the rest of us with them.
April 22, 2008 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
With 60% of the voters not even college level, I think they are stuck in a rut. They are also, in my opinion, bigots. It boils down to color, is that what PA is all about, how sad.
April 23, 2008 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's an example of the sort of mindless filth I am talking about. And you think you are educated? Dude, you are one heck of a hilarious moron. And what's truly funny is you have no idea that you are such a ding-dong.
April 23, 2008 1:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is really the tone of the Obama campaign that is to blame. When you post fundraisers on your Obama for President website that consist of watching Obama supporters cheering madly while an Obama media shill screams that Hillary is a F*cking Wh*re you kind of lose the respect of the other candidates supporters. Funny thing about that.
April 23, 2008 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is really the tone of the Obama campaign that is to blame. When you post fundraisers on your Obama for President website that consist of watching Obama supporters cheering madly while an Obama media shill screams that Hillary is a F*cking Wh*re you kind of lose the respect of the other candidates supporters. Funny thing about that.
April 23, 2008 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is really the tone of the Obama campaign that is to blame. When you post fundraisers on your Obama for President website that consist of watching Obama supporters cheering madly while an Obama media shill screams that Hillary is a F*cking Wh*re you kind of lose the respect of the other candidates supporters. Funny thing about that.
April 23, 2008 1:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is really the tone of the Obama campaign that is to blame. When you post fundraisers on your Obama for President website that consist of watching Obama supporters cheering madly while an Obama media shill screams that Hillary is a F*cking Wh*re you kind of lose the respect of the other candidates supporters. Funny thing about that.
April 23, 2008 1:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I am one of those Hillary supporters who will not vote for Obama over McCain. Part of it has to do with my belief that experience of any kind is better than NO experience. But a significant reason why me and many of my acquaintances won't vote for Obama is because of the extreme obnoxious rhetoric of Obama supporters. Their strident, insulting screeching and bullying has turned me off the Democratic Party.
I mean, look at this site. The sort of screaming filth that gets blogged here is an insult to any decent human being on this planet. It would require me to crush any vestige of humanity in myself to vote with these people. Not in this lifetime.
April 23, 2008 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Senator Hillary Clinton won more than 220000 voters than messiah Obama. Poor Obamaites. And yes it would be hard for me to pull the lever for Obama against McNastyMcSameMcCain.
April 23, 2008 1:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, despite being called divisive throughout the campaign, maybe Hillary isn't as divisive as Obama. I certainly grew to dislike him intensely over the course of the campaign. Apparently a lot of Pennsylvanians feel the same way.
April 23, 2008 2:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, that's because Hillary democrats aren't real democrats. She's not a democrat either, not anymore judging by her recent pronouncements.
April 23, 2008 3:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice of you to be the arbiter of who is a democrat. I always thought democrats advocated universal health care. I always thought democrats advocated every vote should count.
So since we are not "real" democrats, Obama doesn't need our votes then? We do represent about 1/2 of the democratic electorate. How pray tell can he win without us? And how do you attract Clinton voters when you are being divisive and saying they are part of "old" politics and not real democrats? Good luck with that.
April 23, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
This has nothing to do with Obama's divisiveness, and everything to do with antiquated sensibilities, to put it nicely. While there are plenty of people who might pick Clinton over Obama for a variety of reasons, the cross-section of Democrats that is so anti-Obama that they won't be able to vote for him (even after a few months to cool down) are the old, pre-civil rights crowd. Check out the NYT article posted on TPM today about how age is the most reliable predictor in the Clinton/Obama contest, containing the following quote, among other choice tidbits:
This is not the first time I've heard this sort of thing either. The attempt to cloak their racism in terms of "the world" would be laughable if it weren't so common.
Please don't misunderstand me to mean that only racists vote for Hillary. I just find it hard to imagine any Democrat among the "vote for her because she has more experience" or even "vote for her because she is a woman" crowd actually being so closed-minded as to sabotage Obama in the general.
Like it or not, we have no shortage of evidence that backward racial and cultural attitudes are present in today's Democratic party. Even in those voters for which racism alone does not disuade their vote, it can easily open the door for the nonsensical muslim and patriotism smears to be taken seriously.
April 23, 2008 3:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe I can help you imagine other reasons for a Hillary supporter to not support Obama in the general. The world is not black and white, Republican and Democrat. There are finer gradations. There is a far-right wing of the GOP, and a far-left wing of the Democrats. Obama has the support of the far-left Moveon wing. Hillary, as many of her detractors here accuse her of being "GOP-lite", represents the more conservative wing of the Democrats. Many people, such as myself, who would be happy with a Hillary presidency would NOT be so happy with a far-left presidency, be it Obama or Kucinich or whoever. And personally I find McCain to generally be closer to the center than Obama.
April 23, 2008 8:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
If your definition of "centrist" revolves solely around an expressed willingness to continue a blindly hawkish foreign policy (or at best pretend to do so to get votes), then I can grant you that explanation. Otherwise, what significant policy distinctions do you have in mind when drawing that comparison?
Besides, hasn't Hillary been trying to paint herself as every bit as progressive as Obama this entire campaign, with the distinction that she supposedly has the experience necessary to make things happen?
April 23, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
independentmeans: "With 60% of the voters not even college level, I think they are stuck in a rut. They are also, in my opinion, bigots.
Hahahahahhahhaahha . . . this deplorable dupe thinks that today's college graduates - many of whom are nearly illiterate, rabid TV watchers, totally ignorant of the world, devoid of experience, and mere technocrats desperate for a job with zero humanities, history, philosophy and literary/art - are somehow to be considered educated!
What a revelation! And what a deeply melancholy satire.
And this person is knocking the Hillary voters as stoopit collective bigots - as we all know that MUST be the reason they voted for Hillary. Here's a hint for you, dupe - there is no difference between you faux techie ignoramuses and the lumpenproletariat you so disdainfully look down upon. If anything, you are worse with all your pretentious affectations. Please kill yourself at once.
As usual, reading you imbeciles and your stiflingly conformist, doctrinaire pronouncements, is at once an uproarious hoot and staggeringly depressing.
And this laurajordan person. Christ, please jump off a high building, for god's sake. Your bitchy glibness makes you the archetypal snooty-virgin Daddy's girl Bryn Mawr yup-bitch persona. What an unmitigated bore that makes you.
April 23, 2008 4:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
You sad, bitter old man. Did that feel good?
April 23, 2008 5:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
what a bunch of f******g fools.
1. The Supreme Court does NOT matter. There hasn't been a court case that really affects any of you idiots in any meaningful way in decades.
2. Given the lack of any substantive differences between the two, these figures show you people for just what you are: hysterical pansies all worked up about whichever candidate you have a crush upon. IF OBAMA IS NOT THE NOMINEE, I'M GOING TO CRY AND NOT VOTE ANYMORE!
3. Speaking of Obama, he *really* is an amiable black guy who never has actually done anything terribly impressive. Too bad you fools can't understand that.
4. A system where law skools are required to admit less qualified people over more qualified people is a system that poorly serves the public interest, if your objective is to have well qualified lawyers.
5. However, I guess if you're willing to have a less qualified lawyer representing you, but with a pleasing skin coloration, then maybe AA is a great idea.
April 23, 2008 6:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
well, I finally watched the phil.i.am Obama video. But I didn't come in my pants. Nothin'. Nada. Zilch. Not even a stirring of an erection, not even a little squirt : (
April 23, 2008 7:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
laurajordan, delassus:
you and your fellow kool aid imbibers, having found the messiah, are so convinced of the strength of your core support, once again demonstrated in PA: the 90% bloc and GOP (guilty overpaid) whites. the hara kiri inexorably proceeds, and terri schiavo exacts her revenge on a clueless, spineless mob. mccain wins CA. game over
April 23, 2008 7:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Given how Clinton has already thrown *me* to the lions (because I am not one of the elite who lives in an "important" state like California or Pennsylvania), I am perfectly content to let her rot on the vine in the general if it comes to that. And if you are still laboring under the illusion that she is somehow more 'vetted' than Obama for the general, boy, are you in for a shock.
Somehow, I should have guessed that Hillary Clinton would find a way to sink the hopes of the Democratic Party. It's so sad, because this election should have been a total and complete gimme for the Dems. But her vanity and her belief in her divine right to power is ruining the country, and will give us President McSame and the disaster to follow. Well done, Hills.
To think I used to defend the Clintons. Sigh.
April 23, 2008 8:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Vanity and entitlement are certainly more associated with Obama for me than Hillary. Hillary may not have expected a fight for the nomination, but she didn't crumble and go home. Nor did she say I am owed this nomination. She is COMPETING for it. The only sense of entitlement I've seen is from the Obama surrogates who were telling Hillary to drop out for the good of Obama... I mean for the good of the party.
Obama has a superiority complex that is appalling to me and has a way of talking down to people like they are beneath him even when he is the one with explaining to do. Like the preachy speech on race when confronted with aligning himself with Rev. Wright or whenever he is criticized for his own words, words then become unimportant and it is "old politics". The media may buy in to him, but a good number of people even in the democratic party do not.
April 23, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
hillary is positioning herself for 2012. she knows that she's lost, and is purposely trying to make obama unelectable come november so "SHE" can run again in 2012. problem: this country cannot afford 4 years of mcbush.
April 23, 2008 8:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama would NEVER get my vote.
Why? He isn't what you people think he is, he doesn't have presidential credentials.
He doesn't inspire ME. I see through all that nonsense because I have kept my head and look beyond the speeches... unlike you Obamamites.
If you really knew how little this guy knows and how inexperienced he is and how that fact could really get this country in deeper doo doo than it already is, you'd be abandoning him like rats off a sinking ship.
If Hillary does not win nomination, McCain will get my vote.
Rae
April 23, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
"If you really knew how little this guy knows and how inexperienced he is..."
You have a point. Now if only he had a few more years of experience as a corporate lawyer, plus 8 years as White House decorator-in-chief, with zero major accomplishments to show for a supposed mile-long resume, THEN he'd be qualified.
April 23, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heck, he thinks he's so great, he couldn't even finish out ONE (1) term in the Senate. He's much too big for his britches! Arrogant SOB oops I meant sNob.
Rae
April 23, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink