More On Those Quinnipiac General Election Numbers

Jerome and I were thinking along the same lines this morning, but thought I'd still post my take on the Quinnipiac numbers showing Clinton performing better against McCain in FL, OH and PA - Todd

Mark Penn couldn't have asked for a better result if he'd polled it himself. A new Quinnipiac University survey released today of Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania Democratic voters seems to bolster Hillary Clinton's big state argument that she is better suited to win the "big states that a Democrat needs in November" than Barack Obama is.

What's interesting about Clinton's strength here is that the poll was taken over a full week, from Mar. 24-31, during which Obama had momentum nationally, apparently in the wake of criticism over Clinton's Bosnia remarks, although that's waned in recent days. These three states seem to be momentum-proof for Obama, which on some level should come as little surprise considering the states we're dealing with: Obama never campaigned in Florida, Clinton won Ohio handily and she appears poised to win Pennsylvania by a similar margin (Quinnipiac has her up 9%.) Now, while there has proven in the past to be little correlation between a candidate's primary performance and his or her general election head-to-head match up performance, there are some fundamentals to these three states in the polling that should be of concern to the Obama campaign:

"When it comes to November, Sen. Hillary Clinton's strength is a big edge over Sen. Barack Obama among white voters, who have not given a majority of their votes to a Democratic presidential nominee since Lyndon Johnson in 1964," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute." [...]

"At least for now, Sen. Clinton's argument that she is the better general election candidate in these key battleground states appears to have some validity," said Brown. "In this survey, her strength among white voters is why she runs better against Sen. McCain than does Sen. Obama.

"Roughly one in five Democrats in the three states say they will vote for McCain against Obama, but less than 10 percent say they would vote for McCain over Clinton. Among white Democrats, 23 percent defect to McCain in a matchup with Obama, but only 11 percent defect when Clinton is the Democratic candidate."

This "white flight" to McCain in the event of an Obama nomination is a growing concern for Obama. Even The Gallup daily tracking poll, which Obama has dominated in the Democratic primary results of late, shows a similar trend. Looking at the poll's general election match-ups between each of the Democrats and McCain from the period of March 7-29, Clinton averages 2 points better than McCain while Obama is back by 1. The reason?

In general, Clinton does better among all three groups of white Democrats against McCain than does Obama. The difference between Obama and Clinton is largest among conservative white Democrats. In fact, among this group, Obama manages to get only 50% of the vote to McCain's 35%, while Clinton wins by a much larger 68% to 25% margin.

Obama has his strengths as well, including, obviously, African-Americans and Independents among whom Obama polls better against McCain than Clinton does, but Obama's white defector problem could be seen as a larger problem for him from an electability standpoint since this is the classic swing voter group, the so-called Reagan Democrats, that we'll need in the fall to win, especially against McCain.

It's impossible not to look at these numbers in the context of the Pastor Wright controversy. There's a reason that, as Harold Ickes admitted yesterday, the Clinton folks are raising Wright to the superdelegates. As Bloomberg News is finding on the ground in Indiana, the trepidation some white voters feel about Obama as a result of Wright controversy isn't based so much on the fear that he shares Wright's views as much as it is on the fear that his connection to Wright makes him far more vulnerable in the general to the right-wing smear machine.

"As things came out regarding some of the things his pastor has said, I got concerned," said Helmer, a 36-year-old respiratory therapist and mother of two in Evansville, Indiana.

Interviews with dozens of Democrats in this overwhelmingly white region -- where voters will go to the polls in the May 6 primary -- suggest residual concerns over the controversy involving Obama's former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright. [...]

Still, there are stirrings of unease among white voters, including those who fear the issue will hurt Obama in a general election. Pew also found that 39 percent of all white voters who had heard of the controversy, including Republicans and independents, said it made them less favorable toward Obama.

All of which points to yet another reason a continued Democratic primary race is a good thing should Obama become the eventual nominee: the voters that are uncertain about Obama nationally are the very same voters that he needs to win over in Pennsylvania and Indiana over the coming month to beat Hillary Clinton in those states. So as he campaigns there over these next few weeks, Obama will be forced to try to find the perfect recipe for how he can appeal to them, assuage their fears and hopefully prevent them from defecting to McCain in the fall should he be at the top of the ticket in the general. To this end, I'd advise Obama to stay out of a bowling alley between now and November.



Display:


I think Mark Penn would have wanted more (2.00 / 2)

I really don't understand why you and Jerome think this poll helps HRC so much.  Yes, she's stronger in these states than Obama.  And yet, he still beats Mccain in both PA and OH.  He also performs better than HRC in a bunch of other key states, like Iowa, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, and Virginia.  

As far as your bowling one-liner, I live in an area where Obama's been touring lately.  All the democrats who actually do exist out this way are "Reagan Democrats."  His local press coverage has been great and the individual feedback I've heard -- some of it from folks who expressed concern about the Wright stuff -- has been similarly positive.  The only reference to gutter balls was to note that Casey -- who everyone loves -- is a lousy bowler as well.    


by HSTruman on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:01:11 PM EST

Two Cherry Picking White Guys (1.33 / 3)

Would come up with such an analysis regardless of the facts.

I thought everyone was worried about Obama having a latino problem?
Wait, the gallup poll shows them BOTH getting about the same percentage of latino support in the general election.

What about those White folks that we need?

First, the reagan democrats may make up 15% of the white vote and those people are primarily older voters. Hillary has always done well with older folks. So what?  Obama could easily counter that with the youth and AA's.

Also, most of Hillary's white support comes from females. These women are more than likely to vote for Obama as well. Honestly, if it weren't for white women at this point, Hillary would be out of this race.

Hillary wins OH, FL, PA
-Great but she loses WA, OR, WI, MI, IA. Remind me how we are supposed to win the election without winning those states?


by Hopeful08 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:12:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More On Those Quinnipiac General Election Numb (2.00 / 3)

They are gasping for air and looking for whatever hope they can find.

Interesting how you forgot to mention the Gallup survey where he is only 1% behind McCain today and where he leads Hispanics over McCain by a large margin.

Oh dear.


McCain: The Past, Obama: The Future
by KathyM on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:03:33 PM EST

Re: Q poll is an outlier (none / 0)

Okay those are scary Obama gets only 205 Evs and Hillary does even worse (and is up 1% in PA), if these hold we lose, and lose badly.


by Socraticsilence on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:49:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More On Those Quinnipiac General Election Numb (2.00 / 1)

i am one of those white conservative democrats who could switch to mccain , frankly i am pretty much more in line with mccain on most issues i care about than obama but a woman's right to choose and the supreme court rules mccain out for me .

however i have a more favorable view of mccain than obama.( Although i view him favorably as well ).

In Tennessee Obama would probably lose about 30% of dems to Mccain , not like we are in play anyway.

Most people I talk to down here even in a Clinton/Mccain matchup a lot that voted for clinton would be voting for mccain.


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:05:24 PM EST

I apologize Lori (1.00 / 2)

Now that I know that you are based in TN, I completely understand everything that comes out of your mouth. Actually I don't really understand but it makes sense to me now.


by Hopeful08 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:17:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That is not a kind (2.00 / 1)

comment.  Regional biases do not help the Democratic Party.


by TomP on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:13:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That is not a kind (none / 0)

isn't Gore from TN ? or is he 'a good one'


by bigbay on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:19:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not sure I understand (none / 0)

what you are saying.  I am not critical of Tennessee.


by TomP on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:19:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What are you (none / 0)

implying with this comment?


by georgiapeach on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:58:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More On Those Quinnipiac General Election Numb (none / 0)

"i am one of those white conservative democrats who could switch to mccain , frankly i am pretty much more in line with mccain on most issues i care about than obama but a woman's right to choose and the supreme court rules mccain out for me ."

Which is it -- "could switch," or "rules out?"


Hillary: "Her dishonesty is actually honest." -- yellowdem1129
by Kobi on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:28:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More On Those Quinnipiac General Election Numb (2.00 / 1)

rules out .

i am not going to vote for someone who would turn over the supreme court to judges who would set women back a century


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:45:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More On Those Quinnipiac General Election Numb (none / 0)

Kobi:  You troll-rated me for expressing my concern about Obama's stance on Roe v Wade in this thread?


by cameoanne on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:30:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More On Those Quinnipiac General Election Numb (none / 0)

Kobi:  You troll-rated me for expressing my concern about Obama's stance on Roe v Wade in this thread .... Then I notice that you did not troll-rate the couple other people that expressed concerns here as well.


by cameoanne on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:34:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More On Those Quinnipiac General Election Numb (none / 0)

.


Hillary: "Her dishonesty is actually honest." -- yellowdem1129
by Kobi on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 03:34:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More On Those Quinnipiac General Election Numb (none / 0)

Do you think Obama's "present" votes on abortion were significant?

On what issues do you align with McCain?


Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:39:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More On Those Quinnipiac General Election Numb (none / 0)

national security , military matters, iraq , fiscal resonsibilty , spending cuts , 2nd amendment issues .

i understand his votes were part of a strategy in illinois so i don't hold it against him.

despite all the ideological issue i have with him , he is on the right side when it comes to the sc and womens right to choose so he ultimately has my vote.


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:52:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More On Those Quinnipiac General Election Numb (none / 0)

Lori,

You have now just proved the point about many of these women voters for Hillary.

Your rights, like the rights of many women at the end of the day lead you to voting democrat no matter what.


by Hopeful08 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:57:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More On Those Quinnipiac General Election Numb (2.00 / 1)

What does Obama say on the abortion issue? If you have a link, I would appreciate it. I couldn't find anything on his website. What are his words on this? (Not others' opinions... or group support)


by georgiast on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:07:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More On Those Quinnipiac General Election Numb (none / 0)

He keeps his stand on abortion on a separate (but equal!) site not linked from the main issues page:
Supports a Woman's Right to Choose:
Barack Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in that case.


by souvarine on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:40:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More On Those Quinnipiac General Election Numb (1.33 / 3)

Several weeks ago, I went to his website to specifically look for his position on abortion.  I find it strange that it is not listed under "Issues".

And it's not good enough for me that NOW gave him a 100% rating 4 years ago.  I'm to the point where I need to read a direct quote from him, or hear him say, what his position on Roe v Wade will be in the Year 2009 should he become President of the United States.  You see, this would be ONE example where I don't trust him on policy issues.


by cameoanne on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 04:21:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More On Those Quinnipiac General Election Numb (none / 0)

I'll uprate this, but questioning Obama on his pro-choice position is crap.

Here's his NARAL ratings:

Voting Record:
Sen. Obama received the following scores on NARAL Pro-Choice America's Congressional Record on Choice.
  1.     100 percent
  2.      100 percent
  3.     100 percent

We should be delighted that we have two unabashed pro-choice candidates. Instead, you guys are questioning Obama as if he wants Roe v. Wade overturned.

Funny thing about that, though...you know who DOES want to overturn Roe? John freaking McCain. Yet that doesn't stop a daily parade of so-called feiminist Clinton supporters from promising to vote for McCain if Obama gets the nomination.


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:08:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More On Those Quinnipiac General Election Numb (2.00 / 1)

Obama blocked the Alito filibuster and planned to vote for Roberts until an aide advised him it would come back to haunt him....a lot of women are not going to respond to SCOTUS this election..just an observation..


ginaswo
by ginaswo on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:11:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More On Those Quinnipiac General Election Numb (none / 0)

Polls have been showing a 49% to 49%  in Tennessee between Clinton and McCaine. With Hillary we are in play. With Obama it is a McCaine blowout down here.


"Do you know the difference between a War Story and a Fairy Tale?"
by RedstateLib on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:56:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More On Those Quinnipiac General Election Numb (2.00 / 3)

I love how, all of a sudden, these general election polls are starting to matter.

Until now, when Obama fans pointed to numerous SUSA and other polls showing Obama outperforming Hillary in Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin and other Swing States, we heard comments like "General Election polling this early doesn't matter."

Now, between Jerome and Todd, this is the second diary on the main page touting this Quinnipiac poll.  I'm still of the view that General Election polls this far out DO NOT matter.  Don't you think that some of the Dems saying they won't vote for Obama or Hillary will eventually come back, even if not all?  And don't you think that will drastically change the picture in all of these states come October and November?


by spmaverick01 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:07:06 PM EST

Re: More On Those Quinnipiac General Election Numb (none / 0)

"Until now, when Obama fans pointed to numerous SUSA and other polls showing Obama outperforming Hillary in Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin and other Swing States, we heard comments like "General Election polling this early doesn't matter."

I held that opinion then and still do. Everybody is trying to trick everyone else with the same shell games.


Hillary: "Her dishonesty is actually honest." -- yellowdem1129
by Kobi on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:30:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More On Those Quinnipiac General Election Numb (none / 0)

Agreed.  GE poling this far out is meaningless.


"It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for subtlety". Salvor Hardin
by Denny Crane on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:40:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More On Those Quinnipiac General Election Numb (none / 0)

Its got a big enough sample to matter, and is state specific. That's about all to pay attention to for '08 right now, especially because the GE matchups do look like they are freezing into place-- might get shook up later, might not.


by Jerome Armstrong on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:27:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More On Those Quinnipiac General Election Numb (2.00 / 1)

This is the real challenge, over come the fear.

I'll be happy to take that challenge on with Obama.


by MNPundit on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:07:30 PM EST

GE polls do matter even now (none / 0)

Yes, they are important seven months out.

Obama's problem will be white women voters.  He can't be giving McCain a 3% head start.  

Could this influence his VP pick?  And since I'm of the view that VP selections don't matter that much, his race could cost the election.


by mikelow1885 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:13:22 PM EST

Re: GE polls do matter even now (none / 0)

Democrats always win women. Something about that whole "not expecting them in the kitchen, pregnant, 24/7" thing.

That's not going to change because the candidate with the manparts won the democratic primary.


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:34:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Security Moms Swung the Election for Bush 2004 (none / 0)

So your assumption is not correct.


by Abe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:16:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: GE polls do matter even now (none / 0)

um not always, the last three elections being a prime example


ginaswo
by ginaswo on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:12:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: GE polls do matter even now (none / 0)

Why will Obama have a problem winning "White" women?


Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:41:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More On Those Quinnipiac General Election Numb (none / 0)

Call me crazy, but I think that bowling thing is going to be an ongoing problem for Obama, especially with all the footage of his, well, "nuanced" delivery and his gutter balls.

It just sets him up for easy ridicule. And the 37 score? Jeez, how do you even do that, I'm sure most people are wondering.

Not fair, of course, but neither was the effect of the Dukakis/tank video.

The one thing in the world a Presidential candidate can't survive is to be made to look like a total joke. Unfortunately to most people, bowling 37 doesn't make you look humble; it makes you look like a doofus.


by frankly0 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:14:22 PM EST

I thought is humanized him a bit (none / 0)


Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.
by CardBoard on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:17:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is bowling thing is ridiculous... (none / 0)

...but just for the record, Barak finished with at least 47, which would be more than Casey had (not saying much :-) ). He was working on a spare that he got in the 7th frame but left it open.


by Ian Campbell on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:02:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is bowling thing is ridiculous... (none / 0)

a 10 year old also bowled one of the frames


Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.
by CardBoard on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:11:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is bowling thing is ridiculous... (none / 0)

probably the 10 yr olds frame snark-


ginaswo
by ginaswo on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:12:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More On Those Quinnipiac General Election Numb (none / 0)

Ok, you're crazy.

How do you bowl a 37?  Have you been to an alley outside of a league?  They're filled with people who haven't bowled in decades who get scores like that.   Maybe Obama should have finished the game so his score would have crossed the 50 barrier, but I've seen far lower scores than 37.


But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.
by thezzyzx on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:17:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More On Those Quinnipiac General Election Numb (2.00 / 1)

Please,

Again, this is going to be a case in which people will compare their own experiences with Obama's.

Whatever you may say, it is in fact very hard to get a score of only 37, even granting it was over only 7 frames. Most people will know that perfectly well.

I recently went bowling after not having done so for decades, and I scored in the nineties -- and I was always a pretty cruddy bowler, even back when I did what little bowling I ever engaged in. Even after pointing out the gap of decades in bowling, I was made to feel embarrassed even by my score in the nineties.

37 is a joke. If you don't get it, most voters will.


by frankly0 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:26:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More On Those Quinnipiac General Election Numb (none / 0)

Most voters don't bowl, I mean seriously, Bowling isn't Basketball its not like this is some popular sport its Niche, and more Niche, than hunting, besides he bowled poorly because he was busy dodging Sniper fire.


by Socraticsilence on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:31:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More On Those Quinnipiac General Election Numb (2.00 / 1)

I think this whole discussion is ridiculous, but I have to disagree that bowling is a niche sport compared to sports like basketball.  I'm pretty certain that every member of my extended family has gone bowling multiple times in their life, but I can think of several family members who may have never played basketball.


by markjay on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:15:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's the likability thing again (none / 0)

Obama is able to joke about it which defuses it as a weapon against him.  If it did somehow get to be bad, he can always have one of his basketball games open to the press.

I think pundits tend to over-analyze the effect of things like this anyway.  The tank photo didn't help Dukakis but he loses if he never took that photo op.  


But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.
by thezzyzx on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:36:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More On Those Quinnipiac General Election Numb (none / 0)

Well frankly0, since you can't vote for him because he bowled poorly, and you can't vote for Hillary because of the Tuzla lies, so who can you vote for?


by danfromny on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:38:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More On Those Quinnipiac General Election Numb (2.00 / 1)

"Call me crazy, but I think that bowling thing is going to be an ongoing problem for Obama, especially with all the footage of his, well, "nuanced" delivery and his gutter balls."

OK. You're crazy.


Hillary: "Her dishonesty is actually honest." -- yellowdem1129
by Kobi on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:33:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More On Those Quinnipiac General Election Numb (2.00 / 2)

Dukakis was under attack for lack of foriegn policy creds.

The tank op was supposed to fix that, show a vitality that Bush. Sr. couldn't reach.

Rather it showed his greatest weakness realized. He looked stupid.

Until Obama runs on a "I'm a better bowler" than you, this video will not fulfill your dreams of harming his candidacy.

Now that Tuzla thing (weakness: veracity; line of attack: I'm more experienced)...


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:37:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More On Those Quinnipiac General Election Numb (2.00 / 1)

Amazing. You're actually arguing that Obama's biggest weakness is his bad bowling skills.

Are you intending to be praising him with faint damnation?


by Aris Katsaris on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:46:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More On Those Quinnipiac General (none / 0)

His bowling only a 37 makes him look human.  For awhile most people didn't think he was.  I have bowled in the past, and I would probably bowl a 37 if I had not bowled in years.  The picture of Obama bowling looked pretty good to me.  He looked like a bowler.  I bet he got a lot of pts with PA voters for just trying.  Obama can always do a basketball photo op that will overtake the bowling photo op.  But, I think that this is a non issue.  Obama was not wearing a helmet or doing anything goofy.  He was just bowling which is a true american pastime.  There must be some smug bowlers out there who think there shi$$ don't stink.


by Spanky on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:52:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The results Clinton needed... (2.00 / 1)

...were to show her with large leads in these states and Obama with large deficits.  If you're trying to convince SDs with an electability argument, you need stronger evidence than this.

Yes, this is good news for Clinton, but showing Obama winning PA and OH too reduces the argument some, especially when Obama can win without a convention floor fight.  The SD flip would soften Clinton's numbers quite a bit IMO.


But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.
by thezzyzx on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:14:31 PM EST

Re: The results Clinton needed... (none / 0)

OBAMA WINS ARE all within the Margin of ERROR.


by Check077 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:19:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The results Clinton needed... (none / 0)

A 4 point lead in a poll with a 1.7 margin of error is outside of the MoE


But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.
by thezzyzx on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:21:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The results Clinton needed... (none / 0)

...or to put it another way, Clinton's advantage over Obama in PA is exactly the same as Obama's advantage over McCain (She has an 8 point spread; he has a 4  point.)  If you're claiming that 4 point difference is significant between the two polls, you need to say that it is with Obama over McCain.


But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.
by thezzyzx on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:28:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Too bad Quinnipiac didn't poll the states (2.00 / 2)

that are in Obama's electoral map also, so we could truly compare.

Obama does very well in State's with no black people (or recently settled black people) and states with overwhelming black populations.  He has a "white flight" problem.  I'm going to be posting a detailed diary on this soon, but the good news is that even though this changes the map, it places significantly more states firmly in play.  States where the Wright story, as best as I can tell, has had and will have no affect.  Obama's map is a little larger the Clinton's.


Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.
by CardBoard on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:16:15 PM EST

Re: More On Those Quinnipiac General Election Numb (none / 0)

"Jerome and I were thinking along the same lines this morning"

Clutching at the same straw is more like it.


Hillary: "Her dishonesty is actually honest." -- yellowdem1129
by Kobi on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:23:41 PM EST

Re: More On (none / 0)

I think these polls make the same point that such polls did the last 40 years.  That is no northern liberal has ever won the WH.  The reason is simple.  They lose Reagan democrats or better put working class white democrats.  If you just look at 2004 Kerry won indy's but lost around 12% of dems.  Even if there are more dems than republicans a democrat can not win without these voters.

It really is simple demographics.  And it is there voters who were most off put by the Wright blowup.  They see race in a very different way and "PC", whatever that really does mean, gets discussed all the time.  These voters see race as a means to take resources from their community resources that end up going elsewhere.  To them this is not racist it is only fair.

These are the voters that BO must get or he will lose and these voters support HRC big-time.

david


by giusd on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:24:46 PM EST

Re: More On (none / 0)

It depends on the how you are planning to reach 270.  Obama wins in the West.

I emailed Chuck Todd about this at NBC and he made very clear that Obama's path to the nomination is through the West and/or PA and/or OH but HRC's path is ONLY THROUGH OH/PA(only if she holds onto WA, OR, MI)


by Hopeful08 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:29:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More On (2.00 / 1)

If northern liberals can't win than we lose, last time I check both Junior Sentors are northern liberals.


by Socraticsilence on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:34:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wake up (2.00 / 1)

This whole argument about reagan dems just proves why Hillary Clinton can't win.  If  her support is coming from MOSTLY Reagan dems then she can't win. How many Reagan dems are in Washington and Oregon? Exactly.

Reagan dems are a shrinking base. It is the youth and to an extent latinos who are going to decide this election. If Hillary cannot the younger voting blocks, how is she supposed to win the election.


by Hopeful08 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:43:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wake up (none / 0)

Which is why I think we'll win because both of those groups are growing Dem constituencies and will vote for either Democrat in the fall. But if Obama has the youth vote, Clinton has the Latino vote.


by Todd Beeton on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:38:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More On (2.00 / 2)

Are suggesting that the Democratic Party knuckle under to fear of racism by nominating Hillary....and never mind that racists are all sexists too?


Hillary: "Her dishonesty is actually honest." -- yellowdem1129
by Kobi on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:39:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More On (none / 0)

agreed, and the 'West' argument assumes Latina support that Obama will not get against McCranky..


ginaswo
by ginaswo on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:15:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More On Those Quinnipiac General Election Numb (2.00 / 2)


How is creating a racial divide helping our party?

I really don't believe most of those people who would vote for Clinton but not Obama.  I doubt Clinton gets those votes against McCain either in the end.  Its just nonsense.

I just love how Jerome "50 state strategy" Armstrong is using his blog to advocate for the opposite.


by Bob Beard on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:25:31 PM EST

So we have both of you now on record (1.66 / 3)

concern-trolling about Pastor Wright and those skeptical white voters. Nice. Implying we should cave to Clinton and Ickes because back-porch racism will rear it's ugly head in the general(like it hasn't already) and there won't be nuthin' we can do about it.

Here's one for you: how about the now majority of black voters who will sit out or vote McCain if Hillary is the nominee? Has the Democratic party won a national election in the last 40 years without a healthy black voter turnout and even healthier margins among them?

I find it ruinous and despicable that so many more Hillary supporters  are trying to blackmail the rest of this party's supporters to get her the nomination. Up to 30% saying they'll vote McCain.  These are the 'real democrats', right? Not the Johnny-come-latelys and flaky independents and younguns we 'can't count on'?

You guys need to get your stories straight.


by SuperTex on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:31:58 PM EST

Re: So we have both of you now on record (none / 0)

More than concern-trolling. Concern-blogging. Thanks for your concern. We can do without it.


by danfromny on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:41:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So we have both of you now on record (none / 0)

OK, I was warned for "accusations of racism". Who did I call a racist?

The implication of the OP is that Ickes is right to push the Wright issue with supers, as this may be a problem for Obama in the general. Well, only if Republicans make a problem, right? And that's a different dynamic than Hillary's campaign dog-whistling to white Democrats who might be inclined to vote their prejudices in the primary but need an 'out'. In either case, it's cowardice to suggest that we or the superdelegates shrink away from a strong candidate who is our presumptive nominee at this point, and all the other advantages he brings to the table, because we think the GOP may decide to use race as a wedge in the general. And it reinforces, rather than challenges, the prejudices of voters who may choose based on race.

Cottoning to racism, or the spectre of it, is not progressive and won't do a damn thing to build Democratic majority. Our cowardice as a party is a bigger reason why swing voters have tended to stay away from us. It's time to stop being afraid of the right-wing noise machine and start talking past fear and ignorance, or we'll never defeat and marginalize those forces.  


by SuperTex on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:22:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So we have both of you now on record (2.00 / 1)

it's a patriotism issue not a race issue
no Democrat has won the White House without the base Dems, the 'Reagan' Dems, and neither will Obama, it's about patriotism not race when base Dems discuss Wright, I dont know why that is not clear...
ginaswo
by ginaswo on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:18:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So we have both of you now on record (1.50 / 2)

Nonsense. it's an excuse. Bigotry always needs an excuse.


by SuperTex on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:28:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More On Those Quinnipiac General (2.00 / 1)

...and we finally come down to the crux of the argument against Obama: he can't win because he's black. I'm surprised you guys haven't factored in the Bradley Effect to further buttress your point.


by dmc2 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:32:36 PM EST

Re: More On Those Quinnipiac General Election Numb (2.00 / 1)

Yeah, it seems a bit much to have two front page diaries about the same highly subjective poll that shows that Hillary might fare better against McCain in certain states 7 months from now. That being said, us Obama supporters should be hoping that he is reading between the lines of these results and mapping out a strategy for how to win these middle of the road voters from McCain. No matter how you want to slice it they will be decisive. Now I am in no way dismissing his new voter registration efforts and I think they will make him have to win a smaller number of these conservative white democrats, but win some he will have to. Although I am not afraid of the fact that white voters haven't gone for a dem since Johnson. Clinton wouldn't win the white vote either I would wager.


by wasder on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:39:54 PM EST

Re: More On Those Quinnipiac General (1.50 / 2)

I think Todd and Jerome should be honest with themselves.  The reason why Obama is not doing as well with white voters is because most of the white female voters are going with Hillary because she is a woman.  I don't think it has anything to do with race.  It is a gender problem.  These older white women just won't give it up even though Hillary will not receive the most pledged delegates, and the super delegates will not choose a candidate based on the popular vote.  I think that voters in PA should go with Obama if just to stop the race so that we democrats can beat McCain.  Come on women give it up.  I am a 54 year old white women who has some latino blood in me, and I think that Obama will crush old man McCain.  Y'all know I am right.


by Spanky on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:41:17 PM EST

Re: More On Those Quinnipiac General (1.50 / 2)

That's exactly the problem. In essence if you take away the elder vote, she's a very weak candidate.


by Hopeful08 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:51:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What does "Latino (none / 0)

blood" look like?  Is it a different shade of red?

I just never understood that expression.  No disrespect intended.  I just always found that a strange expression: I have X blood in me.  


by TomP on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:18:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More On Those Quinnipiac General (2.00 / 1)

I go with HRC becuase of her health care and economic plans not because she is a women, but I do think it's great that she is a woman too, a twofer!
And it isnt 'older' women or Seniors supporting Hillary alone, although they do have more money and are going to live another 40 years to vote so you may want to reconsider throwing those votes away...it is base Democrats who keep donating and voting and keeping her in the race, those base Dems Obama must get to win in November, with the Wright issue I dont think he can get them, again it's not race, it's patriotism
ginaswo
by ginaswo on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:20:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More On Those Quinnipiac General (2.00 / 1)

So "base Dems" are white conservative Democrats who don't reliably vote Democratic? That is a very interesting definition of the base.


by alephnul on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:18:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama's strategy rests on (none / 0)

challenging the conventional wisdom on who shows up to vote.  Interesting story in the Politico on this today.

If people vote as they have in the past, he's going to have a tough time.  If he can draw new voters into the process, then he may very well succeed in creating a new political coalition.

My take is that Clinton is the safer bet, though an Obama win would be more transformative to the party and the country.   It's probably more likely that the same people who have voted in the past will vote again, and that more conservative dems will leave the fold for McCain if Obama is the nominee.  But who knows?   Obama is playing a different game, and he may break the mold if he is the nominee.


by activatedbybush on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:59:16 PM EST

Re: Obama's strategy rests on (2.00 / 1)

How is she a safe bet when she can't win Oregon and Washington?


by Hopeful08 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:13:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's strategy rests on (2.00 / 1)

"if he can draw new voters into the process"?

Amazing that people keep asking this. Clearly, he has already, in a completely unprecedented way. Everywhere. Seriously, is anyone still WONDERING if this is actually happening? He hasn't just "challenged" the conventional wisdom on who shows up to vote, he's made it obsolete and completely inapplicable this election. it's the main reason why the likely voter models are being re-evaluated and re-calibrated by pollsters, and why so many polls have been so far off the mark.


by SuperTex on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:19:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's strategy rests on (none / 0)

Sorry.  Agree that Obama can do it.  But will it be enough to offset the conservative and older dem support that he will bleed to McCain as our nominee?


by activatedbybush on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:27:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's strategy rests on (none / 0)

Which older support will bleed to McCain? And where? I honestly don't that available data bears out this presumption yet. I don't buy that 30% of HRC's supporters will defect, either. I think it's a bluff by a lot of older women who are peeved right now about what they perceive as their greatest opportunity slipping away to elect a woman POTUS. After a grieving period, the vast bulk of these folks will come around, and Obama is a candidate who can bring them back to the table - the primary reason being that he's done nothing tangible to actually alienate them other than running against Hillary. If Democratic women really stay away from Obama in significant numbers in November, then maybe we had this 'personality cult' thing all wrong, eh?

For many AA voters, independents and x-over Repubs, though, the dynamic is different with Hillary as the nominee. Obama presents an opportunity to expand the Democratic base, win over new demographics and ramp up turnout among traditionally strong Dem demographics - IMHO, that is.


by SuperTex on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:49:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not sure (none / 0)

Your points make sense.  At the same time, I know how I feel and I am simply a male w/kids supporter of hers.  I am not thinking about her not being the nominee at this point, but I feel quite a bit of negativity toward Obama as the nominee right now even though I believe he is a good man and potential candidate.  Just being honest here.  I am very sure that I will come around if he does get the nomination.  It would be crazy not to.  The more transparent and complete (i.e., fair solution to FL/MI) the process is, the greater the odds of this occuring.  In a short circuited process, the odds of me pulling the lever for Nader grow somewhat, though still small.  In the end there is self interest.  For the middle aged women voter, especially ones with more moderate vs. progressive views, this will be a difficult situation.  In the end, you are right - no way 30% of all Clinton support defects to McCain, but 10% could.  Of course similar situation if it's Clinton and not Obama as the nominee.  Either way we have an issue to resolve.


by activatedbybush on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:47:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's strategy rests on (none / 0)

I'm not sure Clinton is a safer bet precisely because she is not transformative.  I think there is a sense of failed leadership in this country, particularly among younger voters, and fairly or not, Clinton is seen as being part of that failed leadership.  Obama does well precisely because he is new and doesn't have a lot of experience (read: baggage), at least not in the traditional sense.

People who are too young to have much of a memory of Bill Clinton's presidency have really been brought up politically with the narrative of "Bush is a disaster, the Democrats suck."  And Hillary Clinton is seen as being a part of that Democratic party.  Rightly or wrongly.


by the mollusk on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:29:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Kneecapping (none / 0)

If you look at the crosstabs, it's totaly clear that Obama's lower numbers are almost entirely the result of defections by Democrats who are supporting Hillary Clinton.  Obama still does the same or slightly better among indies and Republicans.  He does significantly worse among core Dems (eg. in Florida Clinton gets 78% of core Dems, Obama gets 61%).  And what we're really talking about, of course, are white women who are core Dems (eg. in FL he gets 28% compared to 46%).

The Wright issue doesn't seem to hurting Obama.  This protracted and bitter primary season is pulling down his numbers.

A few comments.  Who doubts this poll is conditioned on the premise that the candidate in question secures the nomination through some usual process? (if Obama or Clinton secure the nomination through a process which appears to overturn the popular result--hoping to avoid an argument over what might qualify--expect these numbers to tumble).

Second, part of what you're seeing is the big price Dems are paying for having rules which don't allow the winner to make an unshakable claim that he or she won definitively.  The supporters of the also-ran, I'm starting to appreciate, need this more than those who supported the winner (otherwise they'll feel robbed and will bolt).

Third, what's emerging is a likely scenario whereby the Dems might lose the next two national elections.  Let's get real.  What this protracted primary season might be producing are two candidates who are essentially unelectable.  I don't think there is much good news in this poll for either one (anyone who doubts that should check out Clinton's rising unfavorables).  

If nothing changes, at this point Denver might turn into the occasion when the Dems nominate their sacrificial lamb (though, of course, they won't realize this).  And if that scenario plays out, who doubts that the also ran will both get the blame for the loss and yet stands a good chance of being the party's standard bearer in 2012 (and will go into that race with all of the baggage of this one)?  

Excuse the pessimism, but I don't think this dire scenario is at all unrealistic.  Don't see what the Dems can do about this, either, except let the rest of the primary season play out and then encourage superdelegates to make their decisions in late June.  

We're on the verge of the first serious female presidential candidate, and the first serious black presidential candidate, kneecapping each other, though.  And if that happens, the Dems will be dealing with the damage caused by this for the next ten years.  Polls like this are a clear warning.
 


by IncognitoErgoSum on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:07:11 PM EST

Re: Kneecapping (2.00 / 1)

I think you make some very valid points and I think that these polls actually show Hillary is a weaker candidate.

You are right, Obama is only doing poorly in these polls because of white women who are for Hillary. Hillary would be doing worse if it weren't for white women. This is not to say that Obama is doing awful because he has a wider range of support but because of who democratic primary voters are, he is running even with Hillary.

Take away Hillary's democratic white women support and she collapses.

I still believe that Obama is the stronger candidate as he is more able to draw from more groups as where Hillary is limited to women, and older white women.


by Hopeful08 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:18:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kneecapping (1.00 / 1)

It is not a race thing, so much as a gender thing.  I am surprised so many people don't realize this.  Women better wake up and smell the coffee becasue if they don't we will have a President McCain, and if women don't like Obama, wait until President McCain gets cracking.


by Spanky on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:22:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kneecapping (2.00 / 1)

Obama supporters beter wake up and smell the coffee without Latinas, 'white' women, Seniors and Reagan Dems Obama cant win the general


ginaswo
by ginaswo on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:22:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton should be the Democratic Nominee (2.00 / 1)

based on these poll numbers and analysis of the polls.  That is, unless, Obama can turn it around with white democrats.  He is on a downward trend with white democrats and the floor is huge.

Winning the electoral college is the one and only goal in winning the White House.  The democratic superdelegates need to look carefully at the electoral map and chose a winner.  (Even if they have to change their minds when the convention comes around and it's time to choose.)  


by Abe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:14:38 PM EST

Re: Clinton should be the Democratic Nominee (none / 0)

He is NOT losing the white vote.  


by Hopeful08 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:19:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Reread my post - that's not what I wrote. (none / 0)


by Abe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:56:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton should be the Democratic Nominee (2.00 / 1)

Clinton should be the Democratic Nominee based on these poll numbers and analysis of the polls.

The final, gasping, reasoning of Clintonianism...

"Primaries don't matter. Polls do."


Hillary: "Her dishonesty is actually honest." -- yellowdem1129
by Kobi on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:30:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Winning the White House matters (2.00 / 1)

Picking the best candidate to win the White House matters.  

Why so derisive?  This argument is hardly "gasping", it's sound reason.


by Abe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:50:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Winning the White House matters (none / 0)

It's gasping and grasping to cherry pick poll numbers about an election 7 months from now in an attempt to justify overturning the will of most primary voters.


Hillary: "Her dishonesty is actually honest." -- yellowdem1129
by Kobi on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:55:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Your response to my post has nothing to do with (2.00 / 1)

the electoral college or anything else in my post.  And, it's a discussion of the original post and the polls cited in it - that's hardly "cherry picking"!

The winner of the Electoral College wins.  The Superdelegates need to choose the best candidate to win the electoral college.

Them's the facts!!


by Abe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:02:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Your response to my post has nothing to do wit (none / 0)

If the supers choose a nominee who didn't get the most popular votes, that candidate will surely lose the electoral college. And that makes more sense than than making a guess based on polling 7 months out from the election.


Hillary: "Her dishonesty is actually honest." -- yellowdem1129
by Kobi on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:17:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No, just speaking about today's stats (2.00 / 1)

Superdelegates don't need to decide today, if they did, they are absolutely able to change their minds all the way through the nomination.

The race is so close.  Why not base a superdelegate's selection on the best data available for the electoral college victory?


by Abe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:27:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, just speaking about today's stats (none / 0)

Because the best data available isn't necessarily reliable. Ratifying the votes of the people is the better course than trying to guess around them.

And if Hillary overtakes Obama in votes or pledged delegates I won't change my tune.

Superdels chose Walter Mondale over Gary Hart, who had more votes in 1984, and no one should need to be reminded how that turned out.


Hillary: "Her dishonesty is actually honest." -- yellowdem1129
by Kobi on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:33:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Cognitive dissonance (1.00 / 1)

How can Obama's numbers be pushed down in the general by white voters who fear he'll lose to McCain? If they really feared that, they would be voting for him.

Many low-info white voters may have concerns about him, but only the ones sticking with him will be concerned about his electability. The rest are concerned that he's a scary black man, so they're voting for McCain.

I realise these are core Clinton demographics, but let's not pretend there are noble motives at work here.


Visit Forgotten Countries, my new foreign policy-based blog
by Englishlefty on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:16:28 PM EST

Re: Cognitive dissonance (2.00 / 1)

I love when Obama supporters try to nail Clinton's "core demographic" as filthy racists; therefore; we shouldn't worry about them. Another reason why I wouldn't be caught dead in an "Obama 08" meetup.


Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008
by zcflint05 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:23:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Neutral, actually (none / 0)

I just don't see why two candidates with largely identical policy positions (and Obama on several issues is further right, which should help him) would have such different electoral coalitions, unless it came down to identity politics.

Since the major differences between the two in terms of identity are gender and race, and since conservative Democrats are more likely to vote for men than women, I think there's a strong case for postulating reason based on race in the choices of those voters.


Visit Forgotten Countries, my new foreign policy-based blog
by Englishlefty on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:04:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You're fooling yourself (2.00 / 1)

with your derision of white voters.  "Low-info", wth?  You assert they are afraid of Obama.  Please.

You'll never understand the disconnect if you just call these voters racist.  The white guilt is losing it's effectiveness, too.


by Abe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:24:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're fooling yourself (none / 0)

I assume the voters Obama loses are low-info, because those who vote for McCain are either DINOs or painfully unaware of his real record.


Visit Forgotten Countries, my new foreign policy-based blog
by Englishlefty on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:00:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Cognitive dissonance (2.00 / 1)

again, it's not race, it's patriotism
sigh, how many times do we have to explain this
ginaswo
by ginaswo on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:24:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't know (none / 0)

How many times do you have to say that until you stop sounding like Jack Kingston?


Visit Forgotten Countries, my new foreign policy-based blog
by Englishlefty on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:05:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Chris Bowers, ... (1.50 / 2)

... an Obama supporter, wrote a post at Open Left in which he said he was tired of trying to appeal to the "Reagan Democrats."

but...

... Obama's white defector problem could be seen as a larger problem for him from an electability standpoint since this is the classic swing voter group, the so-called Reagan Democrats, that we'll need in the fall to win, especially against McCain.

Are Bowers and the Obama supporters who feel like him interested in winning or not?


by sinjin777 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:25:54 PM EST

Re: More On Those Quinnipiac General Election Numb (2.00 / 1)

I love when Obama supporters try to nail Clinton's "core demographic" as filthy racists; therefore; we shouldn't worry about them.

You'll not find the term "filthy racists," anywhere.

But, for some reason, an uncomfortably large number of Hillary's operatives and supporters keep citing Obama's racial heritage in one context ot another as a reason to give Hillary the nomination.

It hasn't worked for her to date, and it won't work now, nor in the future, because most Democrats have moved beyond fear of an imagined racist backlash and are voting on their own aspirations instead.


Hillary: "Her dishonesty is actually honest." -- yellowdem1129
by Kobi on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:48:50 PM EST

Re: More On Those Quinnipiac General Election Numb (2.00 / 1)

I saw Kerry talk about Barack being AA as a reason he will unite the world
I saw Alice Walker talk about Barack being AA as a reason he would unite the world
I saw McCaskill talk about Obama being the FIRST AA leader to approach govt not as a VICTIM

those are Obama supporters saying that..

the Wright issue is about hating America not fearing/hating AAs...


ginaswo
by ginaswo on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:26:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More On Those Quinnipiac General Election Numb (1.50 / 2)

The Wright Distraction is about hating Obama, nothing more. And continuing to harp on it demonstrates not just the intellectual bankruptcy of Hillary's campaign, but it's nothing-left-to-lose attitude.

But I will agree that Obama being the first African American to get so close to being a nominee has helped him as much as Hillary being the first woman to do so has helped her -- although she obviously started out with a tremendous advantage in that regard due to her husband, without whom it's certain she wouldn't be where she is at all.


Hillary: "Her dishonesty is actually honest." -- yellowdem1129
by Kobi on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:11:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More On Those Quinnipiac General Election Numb (1.50 / 2)

I love when Obama supporters try to nail Clinton's "core demographic" as filthy racists.
Yeah, it's not as if poor, elderly whites living in Appalachia are likely to be racist, right? Oh wait......
by RP McMurphy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:25:54 PM EST

Re: More On Those Quinnipiac General Election Numb (2.00 / 1)

where do you get poor and Appalachia as Clinton supporters? how about AZ, MASS, NY, NJ, NM, CA,???


ginaswo
by ginaswo on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:27:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

look out for snipers (none / 0)

I suck at bowling really suck. On the flip side I have taken 110mph shots in goal playing lacrosse. Am I more manly because of bowling or lacrosse?

WHO CARES.

I do care that hill needs to lie to win. Cmon can you really say it was just not enuff sleep.

My brother is a combat Marine who had to run from snipers before in Iraq a quote from him
"Screw that bitch how dare she make that up. IF she did run for her life even once you dont forget that"

then he added I can tell you the color or the car I hid behind and how many rounds hit it trying to get a shot on me. I ask how many "18 I sat there counting then my buddy showed him the bad end of a m203"


by goalie40 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:30:11 PM EST

Meaningless Numbers! (none / 0)

These polls assume the election would be held today.

We still have 7 months to go. That McCain is polling higher today means nothing about how he will do in November.

So what other bluster is out there right now?


by CapTim on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:50:38 PM EST

Yes, there are alot of racists out there (none / 0)

who won't vote for Obama.  We'll win anyway.


by bigdcdem on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:37:47 PM EST

Re: Yes, there are alot of racists out there (2.00 / 1)

anyone who doesnt vote for Obama is a racist, thanks for reminding us again
that always wins em over in the GE
vote for us or you're racist!
ginaswo
by ginaswo on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:28:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes, there are alot of racists out there (none / 0)

So is your claim that there are no racists anymore? That there is absolutely no one who will vote against Obama because he is black? Even the voters who answer in the exit polls that the race of the candidates matter to them, and that they voted for Clinton? Presumably white voters in Alabama are just  much more likely to like Clinton's health plan than white voters in Wisconsin are. Or maybe white people in Alabama are just much more "patriotic" than black people anywhere or than white people in Wisconsin?


by alephnul on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:27:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More On Those Quinnipiac General Election Numb (none / 0)

The SDs aren't dumb.  They aren't going to be swayed by a couple point margin in a GE poll 7 months out when we don't even have a candidate yet.

The only way polling factors into this is if the margins are BIG, well outside the MOE.  They'd need to be 15-20 points at least, indicating huge problems with one candidate.  No polls are showing that kind of spread for either candidate, so we're just picking at nits here.  These kinds of polls are irrelevant.

The simple fact of the matter is that the SDs are going to need something SIGNIFICANT to overturn pledged delegate lead.  A couple points on a random poll isn't going to do it.  And neither is a very slim popular vote lead, even if against all odds Clinton does manage to eek out a lead by some measurement.


by ChrisKaty on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:22:12 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.