Et tu, Nevada?

Brilliant!

Then fall Caesar, I mean Obama.

Jerome, you know that Clinton was in 3rd place behind both Bush and Perot in polls at this time in 1992, right?

One poll of one state contrasting the nominee with a "what if...?" candidate...

This deserves to be on the front page, why, Jerome?

Seriously.

How is this more important than discussing a halfway important state leg race?

Of the 18% of Nevadans who cite immigration as the top issue, how many are R's and how many are D's?  Do we have any way of knowing?

These numbers would mean a ton if there was still a legitimate chance for her to win.

So it goes.

One other thing.  Jerome do you EVER post anything that is flattering to Obama or unflattering to Clinton?  

said in the report that Obama is only getting 65% of the democratic vote.  Somehow I don't think that will happen in the fall.  Over on 538, people think if may be due to having Hillary in the poll that Obama does so poorly (the Hillary supporters are weakly on board and aren't ready to unify in polls where she is also included)

That said Hillary does have strengths in the EV map that Obama doesn't have like FL

...but this is a delegate race.

Remember that.

Jerome,

She's lost. Clinton will only become the nominee by a coup d'etat. Get over it. Stop torturing yourself.

If you read the comments from Rasmussen, it is clear that Clinton supporters are distorting the polls in her favor. Rasmussen should adopt the approach that SUSA has taken and not polling Clinton. Until she drops out, polls with her name as a candidate will be distorted.

Hillary's chances in May 2008 are just about as relevant as Dean's chances in May 2004.  They're not.  The contest is over.  

When was the last time this blog even commented on the news of the day or the relevance of Democratic policies?  

this is the kind of behavior that makes it difficult to select Hillary as VEEP.   You're only hurting your own default candidate.

These polls are being by HRC supporters. Why is Rasmussen polling HRC supporters???

Uh oh. Patterson better get ready to recieve a ton of angry and nasty emails.

All of this derives from Democratic votes, by and large.

Clinton is working hard to keep her supporters from saying they'd vote for Obama over McCain by stoking gender resentment and making absurd claims about FL and MI. Meanwhile, Obama has been very gentle and generous in talking about Clinton, so his supporters are more likely to say they'd support her.

If she were to drop out and encourage strong support for Obama from her followers, Obama's numbers will increase in those GE match-ups.

I used to be a Hillary supporter (early voted for her in CA).  I now have no feeling for her other than I'll vote for her if she is the nominee--but I feel as though I'll have to hold my nose to do so.  I hate what she has done lately in her campaigning even though it's futile.  She IS HURTING THE PARTY.  Obama now gets my vote AND my support.  I've signed up to help him and I'll send a meager $10 a month.  I'm not the only one feeling this way.  Give these polls another 2 weeks and Obama's numbers will continue to rise.  Clinton supporters can go through the stages of loss and then come to the fold, or they can go their own way to their detriment.  ENOUGH!

I'm sending emails to all superdelegates listed on Huffpost.  My bottom line, I agree with Ariana-- come to the table and lay your pick down and get this over with.  If you don't, I'm going to register INDEPENDENT on June 4th.  I'm joining a contingency of people who will be doing this to send a message to the DNC-- stringing this nomination process along is hurting the party.  By registering Independent, I am turning my back on the Dem party but not the candidate.  I will vote for whomever the Dems put on the ballot. They won't have me on a Dem list to call anymore. Nor will I give funds to the party. I'll give to individual candidates instead.  THE BOTTOM LINE, THIS MUST BE DECIDED BY June 3rd, or the risk of losing in NOV is far too great.  

"Will" win?  Really?  Gimme "more likely."  Gimme "better candidate."  Because nothing "will" happen based on a poll six months out.  

I'm perfectly OK with her polling well against McCain.  But it doesn't cause me to suspend logic and give me the ability to predict the future.  Our party has (except for three contests) spoken and she cannot win based on pledged dels and the desire of supers to support the leader in pledged dels.  

Telling me she polls well is like telling me scored a 250 bowling.  Interesting.  I'm happy for her.  But it wouldn't sway me.

Notice how the Gallup poll showing her 11 down among Democrats gets no mention.  I could tell you that someone getting only 40 percent of Democrats in the general has no chance of beating McCain.  You'd call me an idiot, and you'd be right.

If it weren't so patently and unabashedly antagonistic it would make little difference to me.  I thought I stumbled into a bad rec list candidate diary.  

Even if true,  it's inconsequential at this point.

Patterson had his arm twisted by the Obama campaign a while back and he has gotten into lock step with Obama. If you are a black politician, and you don't get behind Obama, you are political history--the campaign makes that quite clear. And Patterson has some extraordinary vulnerabilities to begin with.

Perhaps prudent political analysis would mention the fact that polls change over 6 months. Clinton is sure aware of that fact.

What, no Judas reference like with Richardson?  Of course Obama is the one with the messiah complex, right?  Also... is Hillary Caesar?

A little Clinton electability boost.  Picking her for VP would bring him tons of benefit.  At this point, she's been "written off" by the media- yet still VASTLY outperforms him in the EV maps.  Sounds like he's in serious, serious trouble.  All this BEFORE any major Repub attacks.  

I think we need a Clinton to the rescue...........

Jerome,

Don't ignore a third possibility (IMHO the most likely).

Right now, Obama and McCain are engaged with each other, and no one is laying a hand on Hillary right now on the merits.   McCain's not attacking her; and neither is Obama.  On the other hand, Obama is dealing with McCain while Clinton accuses him of wanting to violate core democratic values.  It's understandable in this environment that she might, temporarily, poll better than him in places where he's really a better candidate.  (And I think NV is such a place)

Needless to say, if she were the candidate, this free ride would not continue.

Citizensane, don't you think HE'S hurting the party? He's won Republicans that won't vote for him in November. He's won inflated caucus states. He hasn't won any substantial swing states. Half of the party didn't vote for him and he hasn't done a thing to win us over. Very few Americans believe that he's been ordained to "be in this place at this time" to effect change. His ego will sink it for us come November and I think it's incredibly irresponsible of him to continue his candidacy.

is a schmuck and an embarrassment to the State of New York.

The majority of the country's Dems are having buyer's remorse, as they should for "Mr. I had no idea what Rev. Wright was saying for 20 years while sitting in the pews", which I believe will end up being BHO's "I did not have sexual relations w/ that woman" moment.  The state EV polling maps aren't lying, guys, unlike Sen. Obama himself is about Rev. Wright.....

Nice diary.

For what it's worth, I was visiting in Las Vegas last weekend at a big reunion picnic.

Dozens of people there told me that they will vote for Clinton over McCain but will vote for McCain over Obama.

Your diary seems to reflect that sentiment.

(1) You overstated Obama's support.  He's at 40, not 41 in that Obama poll.

(2) This is especially interesting, because NV is cited as a state where Obama has a better chance of "changing the map" than Clinton has.  Similar to North Carolina, where Clinton also performed significantly better than Obama in a recent poll vis-a-vis McCain.

"Clinton gets her own Brutus today,"

I wish the bard were here today to do justice to this tragic version of Hamlet we're living. Ohamlet needs to finish the deed already. I doubt McCain will be Fortinbras, he's more suited to Claudius' role.

The Ceasar comparision doesn't hold up as well. Too many vying for the role of Brutus.

MORE REALITY RAP...

Hillary is the overall stronger Electoral Candidate.  She has appeal in Arkansas, West Virginia, Nevada, New Mexico.  She has strong appeal in FLORIDA!!! with senior citizens and older women.  She is strong in the north east and has the LATIN VOTE ON LOCK in California and throughout the 50 states... With this being said Obama has truly never been vetted and is in deep trouble with rural whites (Hillary matches up EVENLY with McCain in this area by the way) and latino communities.  The democratic party can go ahead and commit electoral suicide by nominating Obama who is going  to have SO MANY 527's headed for him on issues from Wright, Michelle, and his past statements on everything from Iran to abortion. Also unfortunately money can only go so far as seen in Pennsylvania where he couldn't even carry the suburbs surrounding Philly!!! What the hell????  Are you kidding me??? What sucks is that all his baggage didn't come out until after Super Tuesday or even last year.  If it did my God, this thing would have BEEN over and he would NOT be where he is today!  Wow oh well go ahead and blow it again DEM's why don't yah.  What stupidity.  Obama supporters please don't start talking about delegates and crap.  A great majority of Americans don't even buy that stuff.  Popular vote is the reality of it all.  And she will have a greater popular vote total after Puerto Rico (even if you don't count Michigan) yah dig??

What is the point of this? Obama is our candidate, not Clinton. It is pointless to run these polls and it is pointless to showcase these polls on the front page of this site.

I do not see how polling results from May suggest that Clinton will definitely win in November. There's a long time between now and then. Also, it is quite clear that for the past 2 months, Clinton has received almost zero negative attention in the press besides the fact that she is unable to mathematically win the nomination. I'm glad that she be seen as winning after 2 months of no scrutiny.

Look, the sooner that Clinton drops her futile challenge for the nominatio and Obama is able to focus on bringing back her hardcore female supporters, the better. And once this happens, these polls will start showing that Obama is well-positioned for the general election (which he already his).

JEROME ARMSTRONG WROTE:

"Because Clinton is receiving a 'unity' boost among Obama supporters whom are saying they support Clinton in polls, and that love is not being reciprocated by Clinton supporters for Obama."

What does that say?  That some Clinton supporters need to grow up.  It is sad that more supporters of the candidate who is actually winning are willing to get behind the other candidate if she wins than vice-versa.

If the roles were reversed, with Clinton winning this primary/caucus race, and as many Obama supporters were to say they won't support Clinton no matter what as is currently the case with Clinton supporters, wouldn't you be telling us Obama supporters to grow up and accept that our candidate lost and that we needed to get behind the leader?

If Clinton were winning the race and it looked as if she was going to have the nomination taken from her, I could completely understand her supporters feeling reluctant to stand behind the nominee.

But the fact is, Obama is winning by EVERY measure - INCLUDING the popular vote - except the unfair and absurd metric which awards him ZERO votes in Michigan (where he wasn't even on the ballot) and doesn't include the votes of caucus-goers in Iowa, Nevada, Washington, and Maine.

If Clinton supporters really do choose to sit out or vote for John McCain because of feelings of bitterness, that speaks very poorly of such people.  Your candidate is going to lose, fair and square.  If you wish to be considered a progressive Democrat by clear thinking individuals, you WILL vote for the Democratic Nominee in November, even if said nominee wasn't your first choice.

I do not fault Jerome for his passion but am a little disappointed that someone who so logically laid down his premise in one of my top ten political books of the past four years appears to have abandoned it temporarily.

I am only reposting this because it is clear some have not learned the lyrics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxNf2uCxd 3E

Fox, like some here....trying to help Sen. Clinton make her case.
http://www.newshounds.us/2008/05/22/ingr aham_if_superdelegates_were_doing_their_ job_hillary_would_have_the_nomination_wr apped_up.php#more

I think it's becoming clear that Jerome doesn't even take himself seriously anymore. He doesn't bother to read the comments which point out either the outright lies or idiocy in his comments.  

This was particularly clear a few days ago when, after he called a McCain 8-point polling lead a "double digit" lead over Obama, a chorus of people pointed out the idiocy of this comment.  He didn't even both responding or correcting it.

Basically, he just drops a pile of garbage on the front page, cashes his check from the Clinton campaign, and moves on.  He doesn't really care about the dialogue any more.

I live in Nevada. Las Vegas specifically.

The campaign hasn't really even started in here. Obama just needs to run ads on how McCain supports Yucca Mtn (though that issue is declining in importance from people's minds because we've been hearing about ti for the past 20 years)

BUT, what people don't know about McCain is that he wants to ban college sports betting. People in NV will freak out, especially in the big population areas like Las Vegas and Reno (where most of the Dems live).

Once Obama gets those ads running, watch out McCain.

As someone pointed out in the other thread, there's good evidence that Obama's doing more poorly in the hypotheticals because of the defection of Clinton supporters - he's doing more poorly among Dem voters and women.

It's certainly possible that those numbers will stay the same through November, but there's also good reason to believed that they'll move after people have a chance to recover from a pretty emotional primary.  Seems likely that the numbers would be the reverse if Clinton held a similar lead and Obama was telling his supporters that she was stealing the election.

I don't have access to the crosstabs, but the link provides this helpful piece of info:

"Obama currently attracts just 65% support from Democrats in the state."

This is the Clinton "sore loser" vote showing up again.  Assume a 50/50 split, and 2/3rds of Clinton supporters are now telling pollsters that they won't vote for him.

If even half of these voters carried out this threat (which would still be a massive rate of Dem defections), Obama's and Clinton's numbers would be the same.

Here's my prediction for November, btw: Obama will be the nominee, between 15-20% of Dems (ie. Clinton supporters) will vote for McCain or stay home, and Obama will still win.  The Dems will be rescued by having a ten-point advantage in party ID (thanks, President Bush).

And Clinton will head of the "Naderite" wing of the Democratic party (seriously, how would she come back from that?).

The unity boost is probably the best explanation for Clinton outperforming Obama in some cases (not all, but some).  If Obama won a majority of pledged delegates and lost via the supers, her numbers would get worse, before eventually improving, as I expect his to do as well.

Another morsel of info from this poll which substantiates what I'm suggesting, btw: 29% of Democrats would like Clinton to run as an independent candidate in the Fall (!).  Can we agree that's an incredible figure?

But let's do the math and apply some common sense.  Nevada, can we agree, basically split 50/50 (and even though Obama generally has a ten-point lead in the national match-up right now let's assume that's the split there).

Can we safely assume that this 29% share of Dems all support Clinton?  So we're talking about 2/3rds of Clinton supporters in that state.

But let's carry this further.  Of that fraction, do you think there are some who are telling pollsters this because the party doesn't yet have a nominee?  They think by expressing this sentiment they might influence superdelegates and enhance Clinton's chances to be the nominee?

What do you think will happen when the party gets a nominee? (and let's say it's Obama).  Once that incentive is gone, do you think they'll all do what they're telling pollsters now?  Some will, to be sure.  But consider three things:

1) it's a lot easier for someone to say that they're going to vote for McCain than to actually vote for him (some fraction of voters saying they'll do this will stay home, and some who now say they'll stay home will rally in the end);  2) Clinton will have the job of rallying these supporters to the Democratic banner (she doesn't have to do that now, and she's not).

Let's say the Dems make up 40% of the electorate.   Voters who support Clinton, in other words, make up approx. 20%.  2/3rds of this share are now telling pollsters they'll vote for McCain, stay home, or don't know.  Let's cut that number in half, which would still be a rate of defections not seen since George Wallace and the Dixiecrats.  So what are we talking about, really?

A swing of 6-7%.  And sure, that's massive.  But if the Dems really have an advantage in party ID of 10% (which is why the party is competitive in places like Mississippi), that's probably not enough to cause Obama to lose the race.

It is enough to make him look a lot weaker at this point than he is (and that's really what you're getting from these head-to-head polls), but if you go with the above assumptions, which don't strike me as nonsensical, both candidates, actually, have a really good shot to win the battleground states of PA, OH, FL, etc.D

Look at the Nevada poll again.  McCain, with 2/3rds of Clinton supporters saying they won't support Obama if he's the nominee in the fall, heck, with some fraction of this group actually voting for him, can't break 50%.  C'mon.  For the GOP that's a harbinger of impending disaster.

And while I'm not going to turn this into a pro-candidate diary, and we'll all watch as the rest of the process plays out, I wish someone in the Clinton camp would give the slightest amount of attention to whether, indeed, they think it's reasonable, or good, or legitimate, for so many of her supporters, at this point, to say that they'll abandon Obama if he's the Democratic nominee in the fall.

How can one be proud of that?  Just askin'.

That poll is COMPLETE CRAP.
TRUST ME.
I am from Nevada.

In Nevada, there is no person in the Democratic Party, other than Harry Reid that is more despised than Hillary.
This just proves that polls are wrong.

Hillary would get annihilated in Nevada vs. McCain.
Extreme conservatives in Nevada would worship McCain over voting for Hillary.  However, if Obama is at the top of the ticket many conservatives would stay home in Nevada instead of voting for McCain, giving Obama a good chance.  

Ah c'mon....Brutus?

This is now much more a dark comedy than a tragedy.

Should loyalty trump truth?

For the 100th time...they ALL agreed to not compete for Michigan.
She broke the agreement. Michigan broke the party rules.

They are going to seat Michigan and count some votes because they have to politically.

But morally? Ethically? Or doesn't that matter anymore?

It won't happen and Paterson is just telling it as it is.

As for the polls....c'mon again. How was Obama doing in Iowa five months before the primary? In Virginia?

How about answering me Jerome....or better yet...shifting your focus to the real battle to come.

Mark

Clinton is now Caesar AND Jesus. Appropriately, she's crucifying herself.

Hillary Clinton Blows (Another) Hole in Her Florida Argument.

"Because Clinton is receiving a 'unity' boost among Obama supporters whom are saying they support Clinton in polls, and that love is not being reciprocated by Clinton supporters for Obama."
Unfortunately, that's probably the case.

The candidates are nearly identical in platforms, yet it appears that some Clinton backers want to vote for McCain in the general because Clinton lost.  

I really, really hope Democratic voters aren't that pitiful.

But I think that once Obama officially becomes the nominee, his support among Clinton supporters will rebound.

I don't get that sentiment from most Obama fans.  I only speak for myself, but I can tell you that even though I'd be majorly angered if Clinton somehow ends up being our nominee, I'll still end up voting for her in the end.  And that's coming from an enormous Obama supporter, despite how much I've "threatened" to not vote for her.

Come on people, it's McCain for gods sake!!

"why Clinton does so well in the Electoral Vote recently, when looking only at the last poll done in each state"

Gee, maybe Clinton does so well in the Electoral Vote because you are ONLY looking at the last poll.  

Could you pick a less statistically relevant way to measure "electability?"  

We are so early in the process of a general election.  Either of the two Democrats has the potential to make significant gains .. once the nomination bickering ends and we start focusing on McCain!

Paterson? Big surprise...

Anyway he won't be in office past 2011 he will see how that goes over in New York. Expect a Clinton backed Andrew Cuomo to take him down