« NRCC Head At A Loss For Spin On Mississippi Race | Home | Obama Rolls Out Two More Super-Del Endorsements »
Quinnipiac: Both Dems Beating McCain
A new Quinnipiac national poll shows the two Democrats winning against John McCain by similar margins -- a potential stumbling block for Hillary Clinton's argument that she's the more electable candidate in the wake of her huge West Virginia win:
Obama (D) 47%, McCain (R) 40%
Clinton (D) 46%, McCain (R) 41%Sample size: 1,745 registered voters.
Margin of error: ±2.4%
On the other hand, the poll does have some good news for Clinton, with 63% of Democratic respondents saying she should stay in the race, and 60% of Dems saying Obama should pick her as his running mate.
Advertisement
I guess this is the "bargaining" stage now.
May 14, 2008 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Could be. But, since the general election is not decided on the basis of the popular vote, it could be that polls like this that tell you nothing about electoral votes are misleading.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
Here's a site that tries to translate state opinion polls into electoral votes. This is a good representation of the logic behind Clinton's argument to the super delegates. I don't have the expertise to judge how reliable this site is, however. I just reference it as an example.
May 14, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
The election is six months in the future. Six months in the past, Hillary was a shoe-in with all the money in the world, Obama a long shot, and McCain was signing up for public financing because Romney and Guiliani (remember him?) were sucking up all the oxygen in the Republican room.
Hillary is a known commodity--her numbers don't really go up, only down. Her campaign strategy, time and time again, is to "shore up support" here and there. McCain is much the same--everyone knows him, and they've made up their mind.
Obama blows into a state, and the numbers change. He gains when he campaigns.
Take a look at the list of states that favor McCain in a McCain/Obama contest, and look how many of them have McCain over 50%--there's not that many. You know what they say about incumbents under that mark--ripe for the picking. He has been running uncontested since Huckabee dropped out and essentially as an incumbent, and he's pulling 54% in MISSISSIPPI, of all places. Bob Barr will shave 3% off that. Look at McCain's numbers today--they are all high water marks for this guy. There's a kitchen sink waiting for him, too. Hell, McCain loses 20-25 points each primary when he's running without opposition.
The Childers race in MS showed the Republican book on Obama. It's Wright(scary black man) and "most librul voting record in the Senate". It didn't work even in North Mississippi, and it ain't gonna work in Michigan, Ohio, North Carolina, Indiana, and New Hampshire.
This is going to be a Shirky election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_Shirky), and John McCain and the Republicans are still trying to figure out the how Ted Stevens series of tubes work. (I'd like to lay claim right here to coining the phrase "Shirky Election". I suspect this will not be the last time we hear of it.)
I am not going to worry too much about how those numbers look now. Even John Kerry could beat John McCain in a year like this, but Kerry is a flatfooted traditionalist when you compare him to either BHO or HRC.
May 14, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
"potential stumbling block for Hillary Clinton's argument that she's the more electable candidate"
With the number of stumbling blocks Hillary's hit in this primary season, it's a wonder that he hasn't broken every toe.
May 14, 2008 8:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I meant to say "she" there. Sorry. bad typist.
May 14, 2008 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Freudian slip, I'd say.
He has that effect on people.
May 14, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Travis Childers can win by 8 points then Obama can sure beat McCain without Clinton.
May 14, 2008 8:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a recent poll:
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=4837828
which includes this encouraging result:
If she's only a "slight net plus" to Obama, largely because she drives away nearly as many as she attracts, then the chances of her being picked as veep are slim.
May 14, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. I'd rather have Obama pick someone, like Sebelius or Richardson, who attracts more folks without driving 20% away.
Clinton only have high VP numbers right now because of name recognition and media hype.
May 14, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think she should continue running as well. I just don't think she has a chance of winning the nomination. If she decides to stay in, she should make her case, but stay away from trying to alienate part of the electorate from every supporting Senator Obama. Imagine if Obama was making the case that she can't carry African-Americans in the fall, a key constituency that Democrats have to carry in the fall. The primary is NOT the general. Just ask Dukkakis (sp).
May 14, 2008 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
A rabid raccoon in heat would beat McCain. Although the press continues to sheild, even die-hard Republicans are beginning to whisper about the various insane exploits of Senator Wavkadoo and the bent-talk reality.
While I live and work in Los Angeles . . . A ditto-head at work referred to him as McSame.
As for Clinton beating McCain . . . See my opening observation. Hell if pollsters would think to ask . . . Gravel would probably beat McCain.
May 14, 2008 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
My, my, my. For fancy-pants college-boy elitist eggheads, you Obama supporters certainly have a curiously strange way of using mathematics.
Forty-six percent plus forty-one percent is eight-seven percent. That's much higher than Senator Obama's margin of seven percent, not "similar".
May 14, 2008 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now THAT'S funny!
May 14, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Operation Board Game.........watch out.
May 14, 2008 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
AS I NEED NOT ABIDE HERE BY THE STRICTER BOUNDS OF TASTEFUL POLITICAL DISCOURSE, I must say I hope the Democratic Party as a whole solidly understands that we can do a different fall victory map which does not include the unfortunately undereducated, ass-backward, n**er-hating, redneck ignoramuses of West Vuhrginya.
Does Hillary really want us to believe Democrats should abandon our future for the sake of this bunch of nitwitted morons?
In defense of my harsh words let me just add that I recently watched a news clip interviewing West Virginians on the street and 3-to-1 they expressed sentiments such as 'Ah'm afraid o' thu black muslim..'.
If Hillary is proud of this, then that Saturday Night Live skit is looking more prescient.
May 14, 2008 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
But, but, but...Obama can't win...
May 14, 2008 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I actually considered endorsing Obama last night, thinking, well, compared to most politicians he's not that bad, probably not dumb, and maybe even up to the job, despite a lack of any clear evidence to prove it. But then I thought, the three presidents in modern (post 1900) history with the least experience, by far, are W, Obama (assuming he were elected) and JFK. And W and JFK are actually among the worst, along with Harding.
W and JFK: loutish rich kids who went to Ivy institutions based on family money and social class. Undistinguished academic careers.
Obama: pompous middle-class kid who goes to Ivy institutions based on checking the "AA" box. Undistinguished academic career.
W: "businessman" living off sweetheart deals from people wanting a connection to Sr.
JFK: "writer" of Pulitzer winning book, written by someone else.
Obama: "law professor" who never published a single scholarly article, usually a requisite to teach law.
W: governor for a few years
JFK: Senator for a term
Obama: Senator or a few years
Performance:
W: well, pretty obvious
JFK: because he got assasinated, people get all weepy over Kennedy, but he was in fact not at all that good a president.
Obama: well, as Borat says, if you want, you can let a monkey fly a plane, but watch out, you don't know what's gonna happen!
So you have guys who never actually accomplished anything on their own, who are privileged by one reason or another, whose purported achievements are actually make-believe, and then they have the serious responsibilities of the presidency to handle.
Sorry, Obama's not proven and definitely not ready.
May 14, 2008 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I love how your entire post had nothing to do with your assertion at the end that Obama isn't proven and not ready. In fact you have absolutely nothing to base that on. And I'm sure you support Hillary, which makes it even more amusing that you are attacking Obama for not being proven and not being ready, when if this campaign has proven anything it is that Hillary isn't nearly as able as Obama.
May 14, 2008 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your argument that JFK was a poor president goes completely unsupported in your post. You just say that it's a fact and leave it at that, like you proved something.
I'm certainly open to that argument, BTW - I'd just like to see you actually make it.
Also, publishing is only a requirement for tenure-track jobs in the academic world. Adjunct professors (which I think Obama was) are there only to teach. That's it.
So, nice try.
May 14, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
"But then I thought, the three presidents in modern (post 1900) history with the least experience, by far, are W, Obama (assuming he were elected) and JFK."
JFK had eight years as a Senator and six, I think as a Congressman. I would say that outshines Jimmy Carter's four years as Georgia governor. Even W. had six years as Texas governor.
May 14, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Democrats are apparently idiots.
I'd like to see the numbers for high-information Democrats, the people like us who have been following the details of this race for a year and a half. I guarantee there would be much less support for Hillary as VP. Sure, "dream ticket" sounds super duper if you have no idea what you are talking about.
May 14, 2008 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
What difference would that make? We have to win "low information" voters come the fall. They're telling us how to do it. Ignore at your own peril.
May 14, 2008 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
high-information Democrats, the people like us who have been following the details of this race for a year and a half
It's time for that particular elitist meme to be discarded for good before someone outside of the group notices.
May 14, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary will never be the VP candidate. Won;t happen. It ruins Obama's CHANGE message and kills Obama with Indepedents and Republicans.
We can't have her laundry list of shame on our ticket. Too many scandals. Too many investigations. Too many impeachment trials.
Too much!
May 14, 2008 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
"So you have guys who never actually accomplished anything on their own, who are privileged by one reason or another,
This describes Obama how?
And, at the same time, it doesn't also completely describe Clinton?
I'd go out on a limp and say that Obama has achieved much more on his own and is far less privileged than Hillary.
May 14, 2008 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Going out on a limp sounds painful.
May 14, 2008 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
hahaha, damn spellcheck!
May 14, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Come on.
No one has done more for John McCain than Barack Obama.
May 14, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Geez, I think I'd be willing to help retire Hillary's campaign debt if she'd JUST GO AWAY. I want her nowhere near the ticket this fall.
May 14, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Much less the Nuclear football...!
May 14, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I dismiss polls like these that support HRC as VP. People seem to react to the moment. In the long run, I think she would be a huge mistake for the VP spot, detracting from Obama's message as the Swift Boat types not only go after him but bring up all her baggage, and there is A LOT of it.
He needs someone solid, really experienced and a team player. She has proven that is not her. If she does not drop out soon, I will be truly disgusted. I already am, not at the fact she is staying in, but that she continues to divide the party and voters.
I would think if she truly loved her country, and wanted a change, knowing the numbers now, she would put the greater good before her own ambitions.
May 14, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I trust the Obama team not to be swayed by polls like these but rather what is a smart and sensible approach both in tactical terms for getting elected and for how best to govern and lead once Obama is elected. Due to her high negatives and being the type of politician that Obama is seeking to replace, Hillary cannot be on the ticket.
That said, they will need to find ways to give her her due given the large # of Dems who support her (keynote spot at Denver, fundraising appeal for those who wish to help retire her debt, some kind of cabinet post maybe, etc.....)
May 14, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Emphasis mine. The trouble with this sort of polls is that they say nothing about electoral college outlook! The story last night in which Obama lost to Hillary by a staggering 41 points in W.V., coupled with the pattern of his defeats to Hillary all season long, has been clear: It is a big gamble to nominate Obama because (a) he'll have big trouble in Appalachia, which includes must-win swing states such as PA and OH, (b) he won in deep blue states that would never vote for Dem in the GE, and (c) sadly, racism is still alive and well in the good ol' US of A, so there are whites who would never consider voting for Obama in 2008. If you put all those things together, you are staring at a McGovern-esque landslide drubbing of Obama in the GE. That Hillary is still competitive this late in the game and consistently bests McCain in poll after poll, despite attempts by the Obama-loving media to ride her off, is truly remarkable. She, in my opinion, is the Dem's best hope for recapturing the White House. The media love affair with Obama will be short-lived: They'll either desert him as soon as he goes head to head against McCain, whom they have adored the longest or they'll crucify him when he gets crushed in the GE as unprepared for office, and then they move on, leaving us with yet another potentially disastrous Republican presidency. They contributed to giving us Bush over Gore, and they have now almost succeeded in giving us McCain over Hillary -- who is the strongest Dem Candidate -- by pillorying her while pushing the Obama candidacy.
May 14, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary-Zilla claims that Senator Obama had an "undistinguished academic career."
The facts are that Obama attended Occidental College and Columbia University, and later graduated magna cum laude - with great honors - from Harvard Law School where he was elected president of the Harvard Law Review.
As a Stanford Law School graduate, I'd be more than happy to have had such an "undistinguished academic career" myself.
There are several good reasons not to support Senator Obama, comparing his academic record to that of Shrub is not one of them.
May 14, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
1. Here is your choice, people: McCain vs. obama (or nader, or Barr.)
2. Here is your choice, people: McCain vs. Hillary. We do not kinow how that happened, but it did, so don't worry about the details, just decide between them.
May 14, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink