CBS Exit Poll- Either Democrat would have won in '08

Now that the elections are over, it does not hurt to read some of these very interesting Post-Election surveys. Among them were how President-Elect Barack Obama won the highest income voting bracket of $200,000K & above. Another amazing stat was how President-Elect Obama won the Catholic vote despite a very hard push by the Catholic church on the Pro-Life issue. Exit polling also showed that Jews & Muslims both gave President-Elect Obama a landslide victory in their community. Another was Obama's success in penetrating the once key solidly republican Cuban community of Florida. If President Obama can repeat that performance again in Florida in 2012, the GOP will have a very tough time carrying Florida.

Another fascinating exit poll was done by CBS & released today.

It showed that if Sen. Hillary Clinton was the nominee, she would have also easily beat Senator McCain for the Presidency by 9%. politics/horserace/entry4596620.shtml

It was also great to see the virtually all the average pollings done from realclear, 538 & others were all pretty close to the actual outcome.

At the end of the day, this was truly our year as democrats. It would have been a miracle for any Republican to have won in this environment.  With that said, the win of President-elect Obama was the most exciting & truly touching victory ever. Any Obama supporter will never forget that feeling for the rest of their life.

Lastly, a Gallup poll today shows that many conservatives are happy so far with what they see from President-Elect Obama. His team looks prepared, professional & efficient. Its pretty impressive. cs/blog/2008/11/obama_gets_large_nod_fro m_cons.html

Tags: clinton, obama (all tags)



Not that it matters now

It's just anecdotal prologue at this stage in the game... but as a strong Hillary Clinton supporter, and a strong Democrat, that factoid makes me happy.

This was the year for Democrats... and we clearly proved that. We had a great field of candidates which narrowed down to 2 incredible candidates to choose from and the GOP... well, not so much.

Now let's get to work.

by twinmom 2008-11-12 03:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Not that it matters now

What the exit polls cannot do is factor in the amazing Obama ground game, so influential in states like Indiana.  I don't believe Hillary would have had the organization to get as many voters to the polls.

by interestedbystander 2008-11-13 12:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Not that it matters now

They also make no allowance for Clinton being attacked in the general - we all know she was the gOP's preferred opponent, hence Operation Chaos.  I still think she would have won - but wouldn't speculate on the margin.

by interestedbystander 2008-11-13 12:29AM | 0 recs
The Clinton number makes sense to me.

It surprises me that the margin between her and Obama was that close! Clinton was well above "generic Democrat" at that point since she hadn't been the target of a concerted political attack from either side since around April.

Man, just think, earlier this year, she was consistently viewed far, far negatively than any other candidate running. Her likability margins had been negative since who knows when. I haven't seen a national poll of her favorability rating in a LONG time, but I'd bet anything her numbers are sky-high at this point.

by vcalzone 2008-11-12 03:48PM | 0 recs
Re: The Clinton number makes sense to me.

Seriously, it's remarkable that someone who lost after such a lengthy and passionate contest improved her public image by that much. At this point, she's fully distanced herself from her husband and has a number of options open to her in the future.

by vcalzone 2008-11-12 03:51PM | 0 recs
Re: The Clinton number makes sense to me.

problem was she ran too arrogantly in the first few months. The underdog position almost always wins, with the exception of Bob Dole in '96 and W in 2000, for the nomination. I knew Hillary would have had a bigger margin, because she would have done far better in the South, and carried Appalachian states like KY and WV, and maintained similar margins on the coasts. Women would have flocked to her more than obama, I bet she woulda won like 58-60% of the female vote off her sex alone. She can still run in 2016, yea she'll be 68, but women live longer, and thats not that old. Bush Sr. was 64 when elected, tho 2016 will be harder, as even the most popular two term presidents get fatigue, Clinton and Reagan, as his approvals dipped a lot by 1988. Bush just got a dope opponent and wrecked him brilliantly.

by Lakrosse 2008-11-12 04:30PM | 0 recs
People love Hillary...

because, quite simply, she is wonderful.

It needs to academic discourse; it's a self evident truism of our times.  :-D

by BPK80 2008-11-13 01:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Added Post-Election comment

Yup, your right Vcalzone.

what is also amazing is Hillary Clinton's approval rating among African-Americans. Its even higher today than before her primary battle with Barack.

I'm really very proud of her. She was sincere & unequivocal in her support for President Obama.

It was really nice to see Barack & Hillary really come together as one.

She is obviously also as popular as ever among us Latinos.

As for Bill, some in the base who supported Obama may still have some ill feelings. But lets face, Bill Clinton is still extremely popular among millions of democrats & millions of Independents.

When our superstars Barack, Hillary & Bill are on the SAME PAGE, No Republican can touch us.

I also am very confident that Obama will do an outstanding job. The early signs look very promising.

P.S. Added Post-election analysis. I think everybody, dem or rep agree that 2008 was a democratic year particularly after the ECONOMIC COLLAPSE on Sept. 15

The only differences that I would say if Clinton was the nominee were: One PRO & One Con

1) She would have had lower numbers than Barack in the GE in states like ND & SD in the plains & AL,MS, GA & SC in the south. ( extra black voters due to Obama). But a mute point except for the popular vote since all these states went to Mccain.

2) She would have almost surely carried  Missouri, West Virginia & Arkansas. She would have also been very competitive in TN, KY, & LA. ( Racism obviously played a big role in these states. In fact, Mccain did even better than Bush( '04)  in AR,TN & KY as more white southern democrats crossed over compared to Kerry in '04)
Polls in LA were close in the last two weeks of the election with many undecided white dems. But at the end, race was probably an issue.

by latinomaker 2008-11-12 04:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Added Post-Election comment

I agree completely with you on the Clintons. I actually don't believe she woulda done much worse than Obama in the plains, as Bill was pretty close in the South Dakota both times. She would have done better in the south, because while a few less blacks woulda voted, they woulda come around to her, and her economic populism would have brought many more white voters to her. Appalachia she would have won KY and WV because there, economic populism flies like an eagle in bad times. Like you said, polls showed her ahead in WV and KY(which Bush won twice big). She was polling 9 points above McCain in KY, and Bill won it twice. She woulda done better than Obama in Ohio for the same reason.

by Lakrosse 2008-11-12 04:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Added Post-Election comment

She would have done better in the south, because while a few less blacks woulda voted, they woulda come around to her

If Hillary would have gotten the nomination after winning fewer elected delegates, the convention would have been a disaster, and African-Americans would have largely deserted her.  Sure, some would have come back, but not nearly enough to give her a win in any southern state--except maybe Arkansas.  But certainly not VA or NC, where Obama did very well during the primaries.

And I don't see Hillary winning Ohio without heavy AA turnout in Cleveland.

by Will Graham 2008-11-12 04:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Added Post-Election comment

if she had run in a way which had allowed her a clear victory, then she would have won the nomination in a way which would not have pissed off blacks. They would have came back, just as Hillary supporters, many of who themselves felt Obama stole the damn thing came around.

by Lakrosse 2008-11-12 05:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Added Post-Election comment

Well, yeah if Hillary had received a clear, unequivocal victory in the primaries then everything would have been just fine for the Dems.  She didn't though, and I'm just going off of that reality.

by Will Graham 2008-11-12 05:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Added Post-Election comment

but this whole "if she had won" thing in itself is hypothetical. If her voters, who were many groups were angry and almost went for McCain until the latter part of the campaign, came back to Obama, I see no reason why the blacks woulda not come aroud to her if she had won the primary. Also, their turnout was barely higher than in 2004 anyway. She would have performed better with whites she may have made up for black losses.

by Lakrosse 2008-11-12 05:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Added Post-Election comment

If her voters, who were many groups were angry and almost went for McCain until the latter part of the campaign, came back to Obama, I see no reason why the blacks woulda not come aroud to her if she had won the primary.

If Hillary were the clear, unequivocal winner of the nominating contest then AA voters would have never really abandoned her.  They would have accepted her as the winner.  But she wasn't.  I'm just trying to go by the reality of what actually happened during the primaries.  Not what might have happened that would have been extra beneficial to Hillary.  I'm sure that if Hillary proved she could turn water into wine and heal the sick with her touch she would have won the election easily as well.

by Will Graham 2008-11-12 05:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Added Post-Election comment

There was no clear winner in the primaries.  But that didn't stop strongly pro-Clinton demographics like women and Latinos from overwhelmingly choosing Obama.  Any Obama supporter who would pick John McCain over Hillary Clinton would be experiencing psychosis.  

by BPK80 2008-11-13 01:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Added Post-Election comment
There was a clear winner in the primaries. It was a close, but clear. I beleive that there is a distinction. Obama did win a majority if the pledged delgates and let's not foreget that Hillary Clinton had a commanding number of superdelgates as well as the overwhelming support of AA community at the start of the primary season. By suggesting that there wasn't a clear winner, diminishes the hard work  that the Obama campaign put in. Hillary was beaten soundly on several aspects of campaigning during the primary.
Also, Hillary won the popular vote, but that fact carries less weight in the 2008 primary season because of Operation Chaos, and the Michigan/Florida debacle.
by xodus1914 2008-11-13 06:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Added Post-Election comment

No diminishment intended.  The winner was picked by superdelegates and the pledged delegate apportionment was widely affected by an arbitrary Rules meeting, which had full discretion to do whatever it wanted to do.  

Both candidates received more votes than any candidates in history, and both did it as the first deviations from the white male stranglehold on the job.  Neither should be diminished.  The fact that they effectively tied and had coalitions that ultimately united to make history on Nov. 4th is all we need to think about now.  

by BPK80 2008-11-14 01:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Added Post-Election comment


If she had kicked ass in the primaries like she was supposed to, I probably wouldn't have supported Obama.

I was dying for a win, and the Great Clinton Machine sounded perfect to me.

When it started f*cking up and sputtering, tho, I figured "uh oh, this isn't all it's cracked up to be."

At that point, I thought Obama was the best option.

by Bush Bites 2008-11-12 07:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Added Post-Election comment

Yup, me too. There were a few substantive things I liked a tiny bit better about Obama, a few substantive things I liked a tiny bit better about Clinton, and the awesomeness of Obama's campaign machinery, which made me think, "Wow, that can actually win in the Fall."

Clinton was excellent from her June concession speech onward, and her husband what's-his-name was pretty good after the convention.

by letterc 2008-11-13 01:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Added Post-Election comment


Ohio was & is hurting really bad. The only thing that was keeping Obama from initially pulling away by a landslide was some hesitation from white voters. Remember, HRC did extremely  well in Ohio in the primary. The same Ohio that Bill Clinton won twice in the GE.

Obama won handily inspite of about 10% of white hillary primary voters crossing over to McCain

The economic hardship in Ohio really made 2008 a democratic year regardless if it was Dodd, Biden, Edwards ( pre-scandal of course), Hillary or Barack.

WV,AR,TN & KY were also in deep pain economically. But the "race issue" was just too strong for many white voters in these states.

Plus, no more magic from Ken Blackwell in 2008.

With Democrats finally controlling the Governor's seat ( with a very popular Governor Strickland) & the State Secretary seat, we should  be very competitive again in 2012 ( assuming Barack does a decent job in the next 4 years)

by latinomaker 2008-11-12 06:09PM | 0 recs
Only 10%?

Something like 16%-20% of her primary voters admitted to considering race to be an important factor in Ohio; if Obama only bled 10% of the Clinton voters, especially considering Operation Chaos, I'd chalk that up as a pretty major win for the country.

by Dracomicron 2008-11-13 05:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Added Post-Election comment

Oh and Pennsylvania probably would have been a nail-biter without strong African-American support in Philly.

by Will Graham 2008-11-12 05:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Added Post-Election comment

she was gonna get them back anyway if she had won mid season, as her supporters came back to Obama, after feeling completely cheated. Also, if she had run her camp better in the early stages and won or did better in Iowa, she woulda won it undisputed, and then AA's wouldn't be a problem at all.

by Lakrosse 2008-11-12 05:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Added Post-Election comment

I honestly don't see how her supporters would feel cheated.  This was a race for delegates.  Obama got more, fair and square.  He won by the rules everyone agreed to at the beginning.  I don't get it.

by Will Graham 2008-11-12 05:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Added Post-Election comment

because two big electoral states, where Hillary was popular had a huge chance to help her out. Its not like her voters made the GOP legislators there move the primary up, or the party leaders decide to completely disenfranchise the voters until it was way too late. The 1/2 penalty, if there was gonna be one, shoulda been decided in Jan 2007, as the GOP did. Howard Dean imposed the rules, and everyone knows he has no love loss for the Clintons. how would Obama supporters have felt if the same thing had been done to South Carolina and Virginia, where black Dems came out in droves to support Obama?

by Lakrosse 2008-11-12 05:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Added Post-Election comment


I was at the DNC Rules meeting which as you know was crashed by a bunch of Hillary supporting wackjobs.. so much so I left about halfway realizing just how ugly it was going to get. The Hillary position was we want it all... They wanted more than even the head of the Florida democrats asked for (and he was a Hillary supporter!)!

seriously grow up.. Hillary lost fair and square.. The idea that her delegates for states that weren't even officially sanctioned by the DNC was LAUGHABLE and it wasn't going anywhere..

Stop trying to rehash the past. Grow up.

by obama4presidente 2008-11-12 05:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Added Post-Election comment

I have to laugh at the rules committee because the rules clearly stated that any state that moved their contest from the designated date would be punished.  Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina all moved their dates.  Granted it was in response to what Florida and Michigan did, BUT RULES ARE RULES!!  All should have been punished in the same manner.  Again, I have to laugh at the pathetic rules committee.  

by realtarheel 2008-11-12 06:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Added Post-Election comment

Are you laughing?? Sounds like crying.

by obama4presidente 2008-11-12 06:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Added Post-Election comment

You are forgetting that  IA, NH and SC all recived waivers before they held thier primary. MI and FL didn't.

by xodus1914 2008-11-13 06:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Added Post-Election comment

If Obama had the chance to actually campaign, he would have won Michigan outright and narrowed the gap in Florida.

It doesn't matter though, because Hillary agreed to disenfranchise those voters from the beginning.  You can't change the rules in the middle of the game.

by Will Graham 2008-11-12 05:24PM | 0 recs
he would have won Michigan?

thats odd, considering in the other big states, like Massachussetts, New York, New Jersey(also with many black Dems) California(with tons of blacks and he was up in the polls,), he got blown the fuck out. he still would have lost florida, cuz the senior voters and hispanics liked Hillary then. He only picked up hispanics toward the end cuz they realized it was Obama or a Republican, especially after the economic crisis.

by Lakrosse 2008-11-12 05:26PM | 0 recs
Re: he would have won Michigan?

Michigan is not midwestern.

by Jess81 2008-11-12 06:47PM | 0 recs
Re: he would have won Michigan?

you know what i just said?  I meant the opposite of it.

I meant in Michigan you're starting to get close to Obama's power base.  It's not Massachusettes, where Bill Clinton got elected to one of his largest margins anywhere.

by Jess81 2008-11-12 06:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Added Post-Election comment


I don't think PA would have been a nailbiter. You're forgetting that Western PA. The home of millions of predominantly white working class democratic voters. The same Western PA that gave Hillary a landslide over Barack in the primary & gave her the state of PA over Barack.

Remember, A significant segment of Western PA crossed over to Mccain especially in the final two weeks of the election due again to  " Hesitation on the RACIAL Issue". Even Murtha got a scare after he called them racist.

But this is the same Western PA that went solidly for Gore & Kerry. Obama's numbers in Western PA were lower than both Kerry's & Gore. But Philadelphia took care of that. With Clinton or any white democrat, western PA would have delivered big.

Either way, we won with Barack & thats the most important thing.

by latinomaker 2008-11-12 06:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Added Post-Election comment

It's not worth arguing over, but there simply aren't nearly as many votes in Western PA, which is where I'm from.  Obama lost four counties around Pittsburgh that Kerry won.  He blew Kerry/Gore away in both Philadelphia AND the eastern suburbs; areas with growing and much larger concentration of votes.  

HRC would have won PA too, but I suspect it would have been by a smaller margin.  

by HSTruman 2008-11-12 09:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Added Post-Election comment

Obama won PA by the same margin he won Texas (11 points, and kerry won PA by only 3 points!) if that is not big I don't know what is.

by YourConcernsAreNoted 2008-11-12 09:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Added Post-Election comment

I think the other contributor doesn't know his facts or demographics well.  He's impervious to reason.

It says a lot that he's still figuratively urinating on us, the 18,000,000 supporters of Hillary Clinton who got over our post-primary issues and helped put Barack Obama well over the top.  I don't know what kind of alternate reality one is living in when instead of thanking us for recognizing the greater common goal of having a Democrat in office, one is bringing up distortions from a primary that everyone else has gotten over.  

Will won't be satisfied until he hears that Hillary received "zero" votes in the primary, "zero" delegates in the primary, and was on track to receive "zero" votes in the general election for a reverse electoral rout of "zero" to 538.  

by BPK80 2008-11-13 01:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Added Post-Election comment

In the primary, Hillary Clinton won every county but three. She won the state by 10 points over Obama with Obama getting most of the black vote. The Clintons are loved here and Hillary would have won easily regardless of the color of her voters.

by Scotch 2008-11-12 06:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Added Post-Election comment

She might have won some of AR, TN, KY, LA,  But if find it highly doubtful she would have won IN, CO, NM, NV, IA, and she probably would have had an equally difficult time in OH,FL as Obama.  I would say that it is probably a wash.

These numbers (as has been pointed out before) do not include a concerted smear machine aimed at Clinton as they do for Obama.  Surely there would have been an effect to the message.  The economic collapse would also have bolstered Clinton so it is hard to say that things would have turned out any differently.  The one exception, I think, is that Obama has a 70% approval rating (something I do not think that Clinton would have at this time since the far right has been trained to hate her for 16 years), which indicates to me a great amount of political capital (as Bush put it).  

Also consider this, If Clinton was the nominee, then there would not have been Sarah Palin for McCain, this was the anchor that sunk McCain.  I would venture to guess the VP might have been a black man (but probably not since there was always little chance the republicans would have been able to turn many black voters from either democrat) leading the Republicans to a McCain Lieberman or Romney ticket which would have been much stronger against either democrat on Nov. 4th.  

So to all this I say, it is a fun speculative counter-factual scenario which can never be proven to be right or wrong (a la Nevelle Chamberlan could have stopped the Germans if he didn't waive that piece of paper in the air and claim peace in our time).

I'm just happy a democrat, and more importantly a responsible adult is in charge.

by Why Not 2008-11-13 05:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Added Post-Election comment

oh yeah I forgot to include NC and VA in my analysis, both of which were much stronger for Obama than Clinton.

by Why Not 2008-11-13 05:11AM | 0 recs
No Palin

The appropriate stunt candidate for a Clinton candidacy is Bobby Jindal.  Wacky fundamentalist and brown skin.

I still don't think McCain's masters would allow him to pick Lieberman, and by all accounts he and Mitt hate each others' guts.

by Dracomicron 2008-11-13 05:41AM | 0 recs
She would of won easily....

...after getting rid of Mark Penn of course.

by spacemanspiff 2008-11-12 04:38PM | 0 recs
Re: CBS Exit Poll- Either Democrat would have won

yes I'm sure Hillary would have done as well with younger voters.. also she would have raised the same amount of money as Obama thereby allowing her to swamp battleground states with her message..Not to mention the enthusiasm of Obama's volunteers and the get out the vote would have easily been replicated by the Hillary supporters. Lastly, her campaign during the primaries was flawless and I'm sure a sign of how airtight it would have been for the general.

by obama4presidente 2008-11-12 04:43PM | 0 recs
Re: CBS Exit Poll- Either Democrat would have won

"her campaign during the primaries was flawless". Really?

by dtaylor3 2008-11-12 05:17PM | 0 recs
Re: CBS Exit Poll- Either Democrat would have won

I think that was sarcasm.

by Will Graham 2008-11-12 05:21PM | 0 recs
Re: CBS Exit Poll- Either Democrat would have won

Right over my head. I'll try to be quicker on my feet next time. That line really stood out though.

by dtaylor3 2008-11-12 05:27PM | 0 recs
Re: CBS Exit Poll- Either Democrat would have won

Humm,  Like to rehash things do we?  What an ass.  

by realtarheel 2008-11-12 06:23PM | 0 recs
Re: CBS Exit Poll- Either Democrat would have won

Mark Penn was dying to demonstrate his incompetence in a general election campaign.

The primaries gave him so few opportunities to prove was a f*ckup he really was.

by Bush Bites 2008-11-12 07:13PM | 0 recs
Counterfactual Observations

I agree that Hillary probably would have won as well, but there are some things to remember:

1. As Vcalzone said, she hasn't really been subjected to any sustained criticism since April or so.  I think at some point in the spring, the Obama team figured that they were going to win more elected delegates and get the nomination so they decided to tamp down their attacks on Hillary because they knew they would need her voters in the fall.  Hillary, on the other hand, was bragging about how she was winning the votes of "hardworking, white Americans" and was free to say basically anything she wanted because she was on a Kamikaze mission.

2. If Hillary had gotten the nomination, after having received fewer elected delegates, the convention would have been an absolute mess.  African-Americans would have bolted.  Sure, she would have gotten some of them back by election day, but turnout would have been seriously depressed.

3. With Hillary as the Dem nominee, there's no way McCain would have picked Sarah Palin as his running-mate.  I think his base would have given him more freedom to pick someone he preferred, like, say, Tom Ridge or Joe Lieberman, instead of forcing him to choose one of their own.  This most certainly would have helped him with moderate Republicans who were disgusted by Palin.

4. McCain would have made a very strong push for African-American voters and could have possibly increased his percentage enough to tip a few states his way, especially NC and VA and possibly OH and FL.

5. This is just my own personal opinion, but because Hillary voted for the Iraq War and initially supported it, I don't think the "change" message would have worked so well for her--and this was most definitely a "change" election.  The Iraq War is the one area where McCain is tied most closely with President Bush, and if that issue becomes a net-neutral for Democrats I think the race tightens considerably.  I know that voters' main concern was the economy, but Obama's initial opposition to the Iraq War cemented the idea in people's minds that he would approach all problems in a different way from the Republicans, not just foreign policy.  This was the ballast his candidacy needed.  

by Will Graham 2008-11-12 04:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Counterfactual Observations

I don't think Hillary would have had the same GOTV ability, but who knows.  I also don't know that there would have been as much excitement, regardless of how she won the nomination.  Still, I think she would have won as well and probably fairly handily.  Though McCain felt like he was always reacting to Obama's moves (and reacting badly, a la Palin and suspending the campaign).  I don't know if Hillary's campaign could have forced him into as many mistakes.  But Hillary was a great candidate and if she had lost to McCain, I'd have lost all faith in our electorate.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-11-12 06:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Counterfactual Observations

she was already getting the vote out in the primaries, and had massive victories in many places. you underestimate the Clintons. She would have rallied women, as Obama did blacks, and women overall are a much larger proportion of the electorate on the whole. Hillary would never have lost to McCain, you're talkin in impossibilities. If she, the most known woman in the US is beating McCain in polls and even in this exit poll, she was never gonna lose.

by Lakrosse 2008-11-12 06:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Counterfactual Observations

Ok, first of all, you can't take an exit poll 6 months after she was last criticized and say that means she would have won.  We learned the lesson about trying to pick the candidate we THOUGHT the people wanted in 2004 with Kerry instead of Dean.

Anyone can lose any election at any time.  I mean, this election should have proven that.  I mean, Elizabeth Dole?  John Sununu?  Proposition 8, in California of all places?

I do think Hillary would have done very well with women.  However, all the women who loved Palin would have hated Hillary.  And many men hate Hillary (primarily out of sexism, I would argue).  I think you are right, that it is more than a wash.  Hillary wins over more women than she loses men.  But I'm not at all sure that young voters come out and support her by a huge margin as they did with Obama.  I didn't know any young Dems excited about Hillary at any point in the primaries.  I think she would have won anyway, though.  But I agree with CG that this rehashing is purely speculative and really helps no one, so I am going to call it a night.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-11-12 06:50PM | 0 recs
Re: CBS Exit Poll

The original national exit poll, before it was altered, had Obama ahead of McCain 54% to 44%.

Therefore it's hard to make an exact comparison (the first polls released did not correctly predict the final result--the same was true in several states as well).

by RussTC3 2008-11-12 05:53PM | 0 recs
Re: CBS Exit Poll- Either Democrat would have won

This thread is unhealthy. Nothing will be accomplished or gained from this..

The reality is that probably any democrat would have won the general given the state of the economy/dislike for Bush and we knew the democrat would be favored.. we knew this during the primaries which I think is part of the reason the Hillary/Obama fight became such a knock down drag out fight...They were fighting for the whole enchilada.. The other part of the reason is Hillary's inability to accept reality.. It was very clear on February 12 that there was no way Hillary would win.. but she couldn't accept it..

But in the end the best democrat won and I am so glad for it. God knows I did my part and I am proud. I don't want to spend time thinking about the primaries yet I fear some Hillary supporters just can't get over it and will keep raising the Hillary/Obama primaries with diaries such as these... In the words of Chris Rock SHE LOST! SHE LOST!! TO A BLACK MAN!!!!!!

by obama4presidente 2008-11-12 06:04PM | 0 recs
Re: CBS Exit Poll- Either Democrat would have won

Hmmm, rehash much?  Racist much?

by realtarheel 2008-11-12 06:25PM | 0 recs
Re: CBS Exit Poll- Either Democrat would have won

I'm out on this thread.

But I think calling Chris Rock a racist is insane.

by obama4presidente 2008-11-12 06:27PM | 0 recs

i see the trolls have pervaded this thread - so i will refrain from commenting save for saying to those who remain silent - see?  where are your troll spears now?

by canadian gal 2008-11-12 06:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Unhealthy thread - Move on

This is an Unhealthy thread because some here have a tendency to get carried away.  

The elections are over. CBS came out with its findings & some made an observation. But a few got carried away.

With that said, lets all move on.

Bottom line, the overwhelming majority of democrats, republicans & independents would agree 100% that this was a DEMOCRATIC YEAR. The historic Economic Collapse on Sept. 15 was the nail in the coffin.

Whether it was Obama, Hillary Clinton, Biden, Dodd, Bayh, Edwards(without the sexscandal), would have WON THIS 2008!!!

The Economic fear & anxiety overtook any "racial issue" a segment of white voters especially in places like Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio, PA, Florida, & Michigan.

If you have any doubts whatsoever, just look at all the polls pre-Sept 15 & after Sept 15.

So the few who keep saying that Clinton would not have won should look at the polls, listen to ALL the experts, Dem & Rep. THIS WAS OUR YEAR!!! No GOP would have won in this environment.

As Chuck Todd of MSNBC stated, No one specific group put Obama over the top. No one group can take credit for it

Now Can we all move on !!!!

For some here attacking HRC, just say thank you to her for being the best soldier one can ask. She worked her butt off for Obama. No bitterness from her, nothing!!! Stop attacking her. She worked 10 times harder than you, so stop attacking her. Move on!

by labanman 2008-11-12 06:35PM | 0 recs
Re: CBS Exit Poll- Either Democrat would have won

I have no idea how Hillary can sleep, knowing that Mark Penn's incompetent strategy, presumably approved by herself and her husband, forfeited the presidency. Nothing serious.

I'm a big fan of Obama now, but I would have loved for him to fall just short in the primaries. It would have been kind of amusing for all the energy and cash and netroots fanaticism to be narrowly denied. That's exactly how I felt in 2000, when you might remember Bush raised and spent surreal monetary level based on previous standards.

by Gary Kilbride 2008-11-12 06:26PM | 0 recs
Re: CBS Exit Poll- Either Democrat would have won

Brings up a question.

Would Penn have been able to handle a general election any better than he handled a primary election?

Because, if she won the nomination, she would have kept that idiot on board for the long haul.

by Bush Bites 2008-11-12 07:08PM | 0 recs
Re: CBS Exit Poll- Either Democrat would have won

Obama needed the extra cash to counteract three things out of his control.

His name.
His color.
His anonymity.

Let's not forget that the money was donated to him. The Clintons never had that type of cash becasue they never had that type of grassroots support.

by xodus1914 2008-11-13 06:48AM | 0 recs
Re: CBS Exit Poll- Either Democrat would have won

The RMS Titanic would have set a new transatlantic record too.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-11-12 06:35PM | 0 recs
Re: CBS Exit Poll- Either Democrat would have won

Yeah but Obama's going to change the world. (Hillary would have been fine too though)

by Democrat in Chicago 2008-11-12 06:39PM | 0 recs
McCain wouldn't have picked Palin.

One thing you have to consider.

I don't think McCrazy would have picked Palin if he was running against Hillary.

He might have even run to the center with somebody like Ridge, secure that the Repub base would vote for him regardless.

I'm not saying Hillary wouldn't have won, I'm just saying her nomination would have set off a whole different chain of events that you have to factor in.

by Bush Bites 2008-11-12 07:06PM | 0 recs
Very Speculative

Good stuff, but you can't compare someone who has been praised from BOTH left and the right (including  BOTH heads of the tickets and their running mates) to Obama who was bombarded with negative adds and consistently called everything in the book including a terrorist, Marxists, socialists, an anti American. etc.

You can't play hypothetical with history.

by YourConcernsAreNoted 2008-11-12 08:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Very Speculative

oh yes, Hillary hasn't been bashed and trashed by the right over 16 years. Yet everyone in America, who know pretty much all about the Clintons there is to know, still likely would have voted Clinton in by a bigger margin than Obama. right

by Lakrosse 2008-11-12 08:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Very Speculative

Again, Obama or Clinton would have been attacked by the GOP.

At the end of the day, the ECONOMIC COLLAPSE would have given any Democrat the win.

If Clinton was the candidate, her numbers, just like Obama's would have SURGED after Sept 15.

I believe in destiny. I'm not completely ruling out Clinton's future but ALL the events to fall in place showed that this was for OBAMA.

He earned it the hardway & destiny was waiting for him.

To have the GREATEST ECONOMIC COLLAPSE in 80 years, the GREATEST ECONOMIC DISASTER since the Great Depression - 45 days before election day is destiny! This won't repeat itself anytime soon. Maybe not even in our lifetime.

Either way, it would have been a historic victory for Obama or Clinton.

Now lets move on. This does not help the unity of our party.

by labanman 2008-11-12 08:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Very Speculative

Don't forget he was ahead all summer as well and only fell behind (by max of 5 points) for 10 days AFTER the republican convention bonus which is natural, it is not like he was behind for the whole campaign and suddenly was bolted ahead. his numbers after the collapse went back to the standing he had before the republican convention bounce (4-6 lead) and he got 1-2 point bounces (that receded eventually) after each debate. he has earned this BIG with handwork and organization, but he is as smart as he is lucky I am going to admit.

sure any democrat could have probably won, but his win was the biggest dems got in 44 years (in PV/EV) and he has strengthen the dem strongholds and expanded the map. dems are far better of because of the organization and image he has build for the pary in the country (and the whole world i might add). now if he delivers on his promises and improves peoples lives he will be the dem version of Ronald Reagan which is far more reaching than just winning an election.

by YourConcernsAreNoted 2008-11-12 08:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Very Speculative

it was not the "biggest win" as a win is defined as getting more votes than the other guy, not some arbitraty percentage of the vote. I don't give a fuck Obama got over 50%. If he had had to deal with pro-choice pro-gay anti-NAFTA Perot, he woudln't have gotten close. Clinton's 1996 margin of 8.5 is bigger than Obama's. Thus, 2008 is NOT the biggest Dem win since 1964. He only won by 6 when the incumbent party's approval is only 4 times higher.

by Lakrosse 2008-11-13 06:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Very Speculative

Yea Perot got way higher from G.W.B than Clinton and the MAJORITY of population is the ONLY way you get a mandate. grow up puma troll. Clinton had no such mandate, not even close (although he turned out to be great anyway).

by YourConcernsAreNoted 2008-11-13 01:08PM | 0 recs
hold on,

Perot got higher from Bush? Its a shame actual data doesn't back that up, only right wing and leftie wackos like you. Pew didn't even find such horseshit to be true.

Also, if one had to get "50%" of a vote to be a "real legitimate" leader, I guess half or more of the worlds democratic leaders are not legitimate. In parliamentary countries, people know that what party they vote for choses the prime minister. But in nearly all of them, the PM's party, and thus the PM himself, rarely ever get 50% of the vote. No PM in a the UK has gotten such since 1931, nor in Canada since 1984. In Argentina, where the have Presidential elections, President Kirchner won 45% of the vote. She must have no mandate, right? WRONG, she won by 18 points, as the spread, not the raw percentage matters, and the press dubbed it a landslide, and she is considered to have a mandate. Why do I bother mentioning these examples? Because when you have more than 2 choices, because people will vote for the 3rd choice like Ross Perot, having a proportion of votes equal to or more than 50% is mathematically very difficult. Reagan barely did it. Had Anderson and Carter only ran .5 points stronger each, Reagan woulda had 49.7% of the vote, but still woulda beaten Carter by 9.2. Do you think the right would hesitate to call it a landslide? No they wouldn't. Is Reagan's landslide bigger than Obama's modest win, even tho he got a lower percentage of vote? YES, becuase he had a bigger margin. Elections are decided by margins, not arbitrary percentages. Clinton absolutely had a mandate after 1996. He beat Dole by 8.5, more than Bush I beat Dukakis. He clearly woulda had a higher percentage of vote had Perot not run, and Perot ate away at his lead towards the end of the race that year thru negative 30 minute ads. Clinton also had more of a mandate after 1992 than Bush had in 2000 or 2004, because he had a bigger margin. Going by whether a candidate got 50% makes no sense, because if the leading candidate didn't get it, then no candidate did. Then you could say "because America didn't give a majority to one candidate, they don't want a President." That sounds like what you propose.

by Lakrosse 2008-11-13 01:25PM | 0 recs
Third parties fualt?!?

Red herrings, there were MANY 3rd party candidates even this year too including an option to write in Clinton!, and we had a bruising primary which split the party down the middle which could have been used as an excuse to vote third party if Obama wasn't good enough. it turns out he was good enough and got the majority of the American's vote (and the majority dems got in 44 years). if you are good and competent candidate you win the majority of the vote against whoever else is running against you and not be lesser of the two evils which  is when the third party's really hurts the candidates running (that is what happened to gore by nader). if you are a strong candidate and not just the lesser of the two evils people don't split from you as much when given the chance which is what happened to the Clinton voters. big chunk of them simply didn't like him apparently and voted third party.That isn't the systems or the 3rd parties fault as much as it is the main candidates who were lacking in appeal(at the time).

by YourConcernsAreNoted 2008-11-13 05:12PM | 0 recs
you wanna play fucking games

or something? It should have been easily understood that when alluded to "third parties," I clearly meant to say VIABLE and FUNDED third parties, not run of the mill tokens. Unlike the other ones, Perot had billions of dollars, millions of which he could spend and Barr/Nader couldn't, he had TV ads and was on all 50 ballots. Perot had a national audience, no other third parties since George Wallace has come close.

by Lakrosse 2008-11-13 05:35PM | 0 recs
Re: you wanna play fucking games

yes and nader had so much standing and power too right? he cost Gore the majority of the vote (and the election) too even though he won the PV narrowly anyway.

Don't fucking blame others or make up numbers when you come out short (Exit polls!! oh wait exit polls + more!!). A candidate that doesn't have 50+ vote doesn't have a mandate, period. that is how it has been historically. a mandate is different than winning an election, bush didn't have one in 2000 and claimed one in 04 and dems didn't get one for 44 years till now. Clinton no matter how good he was had no mandate from the majority of the US citizens (not in 92 or 96), maybe at their peril but that is how that is.

by YourConcernsAreNoted 2008-11-13 05:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Very Speculative

The last 6 months have been full of praise for Clintons from  both sides including John McCian and barrack obama. it doesn't matter what the far right thinks since they voted against obama or clinton anyway but her standing in middle America was raised substantially from so much positive coverage (she had 49+ unfav rating during the primaries, I bet she  has much better fav rating now for helping Obama). she would have probably squeaked a win anyway even though her campaign was a mess and her fund raising was mediocre but thats history now.

by YourConcernsAreNoted 2008-11-12 08:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Very Speculative

BTW the same exit polls also poll shows Obama winning by 10%. so your hypothetical assertions are also incorrect.

and Obama's real top number is 53% while Clinton's in this exit poll is 52%. easy ride for the last 6 months and much praise from both sides and she still gets less than obama. you started it! :D

by YourConcernsAreNoted 2008-11-12 09:03PM | 0 recs
you're really something

as polls like the Clinton-McCain exit poll also include voters who would not vote with such a choice, so thus her percentage of the vote goes up in proportion to the new denominator. 5% said they wouldn't have voted, so Hillary's percentage becomes 52/95=54.7. Thats bigger than Barack H. Obama. The same exit polls did not have Obama winning by ten. stop pulling shit out of you asshole.

by Lakrosse 2008-11-13 06:16AM | 0 recs
Re: you're really something

Hah now you are making up numbers too? no her number was 52% and that is that idiot. She got a free ride and still has lower 52%, suck it up and live with it troll.

by YourConcernsAreNoted 2008-11-13 01:06PM | 0 recs
Re: you're really something

Also She would have ran a terrible campaign (with lousy fund raising) as she did in the primary and the only reason her number is decent now is because she clung to Obama so much in the past months and rode his coattails (and McCain praised her to get her voters). her unfav was 49% in the primary for god's sake, she was hated by half the country and would have been even more hated if she stole the primary and with a negative campaign against her by the McCian camp. she had a chance to squeak it out and that is pretty much that.

by YourConcernsAreNoted 2008-11-13 01:16PM | 0 recs
Didn't CBS have Obama ahead by 13 points

in the poll the weekend before the election?  And Hillary is only ahead by nine in their exit poll?

Since CBS was overoptimistic by 7 points (13 minus the 6 that he actually got on 11/4/08) then it seems reasonable to assume that Hillary would have got 7 points less than the exit poll, which means she would have won by only two points.  That would have been a real squeaker, but it would still be better than Bill's performance in '92 and '96, eh?


I also wonder how it would have affected her polling numbers if the weekend before a McCain v. Clinton election, there had been McCain robocalls around the country with the voice of Barack Obama telling voters that McCain was ready to lead but Obama wasn't.  Because that's what happened the week before the election.

Thanks for demeaning Obama's history-making victory.  And thanks for reminding me all over again why this place is such a joke.

by Dumbo 2008-11-12 08:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Didn't CBS have Obama ahead by 13 points

No.  CBS's final poll was Obama +9 (52/41).  Considering the current result is +7 (not +6), they weren't really off by that much.

by RussTC3 2008-11-13 06:01AM | 0 recs
My bad: 51/42

That would be 51% Obama, 42% McCain.

I should also add that while I'm pretty sure that Clinton would have beaten McCain, I don't believe she would have done it as convincingly.  Especially on a state-by-state basis.

I have a hard time believing a Clinton campaign would have won in places like Virginia, North Carolina and Indiana or perhaps even places like Nevada and Colorado.

Then again, she probabaly would have fared better in the south than Obama (perhaps getting wins in LA, KY and WV).

by RussTC3 2008-11-13 06:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Didn't CBS have Obama ahead by 13 points politics/horserace/entry4564135.shtml

November 2, 2008, 7:00 PM
CBS Poll: Obama Maintains 13 Point Lead
Posted by Brian Montopoli

With two days left until the presidential election, Barack Obama continues to lead John McCain by 13 points among likely voters, 54 percent to 41 percent, a new CBS News poll finds. The margin in the new poll, released Sunday, is identical to that in a CBS News poll released Saturday...

by Dumbo 2008-11-13 01:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Didn't CBS have Obama ahead by 13 points

So you're just going to ignore CBS's final poll? -all-Monday.pdf

On the eve of the 2008 presidential election, the CBS News Poll finds the Democratic ticket, Barack Obama and Joe Biden, still with a comfortable lead over the Republicans, John McCain and Sarah Palin. The Democrats hold a nine point advantage among likely voters, including those who lean toward a candidate.

Once again, their final poll was 51% for Obama and 42% for McCain (+9 Obama).

The current election returns are getting close to 53/45 which would be 8 percent when rounded.  At the very least, it'll be 53/46 and they would have missed by just two points.

by RussTC3 2008-12-07 09:08AM | 0 recs
Either would have won...  If the Diamondbacks had made the playoffs, they would have swept the Cubs and probably lost to the Phillies.

This is supposed to make me feel how?  Perfectly happy that we chose a Democrat that won?

What is the point of this? Is it to try to set up a "Dream will never die" moment in 2012 (in something comparable to the biggest demerit on Kennedy's record)?  I feel perfectly happy with my votes (in the primary and the general) and won't be made to feel badly about them.  

by AZphilosopher 2008-11-12 11:22PM | 0 recs

The exit poll is meaningless because the poll happened after the Obama-McCain campaign. Democrats have not been this popular in years our president elect has a 70% post election approval rating.

A Biden, Edwards, Clinton, or whoever campaign would have been different. How? who knows. Any conjecture about margins or performance of imaginary scenarios is idle speculation. It's like arguing about the outcome of a Joe Luis-Mohammed Ali matchup.

Obama did what he needed to do to win the primary and the election. After the primary Clinton and all the other candidates all played a part in the Obama victory. That's a fact, all the rest about would'a, could'a, should'a is BS.

by hankg 2008-11-13 06:37AM | 0 recs
would haves and could haves

This crappy and divisive diary is straight off Matt Drudges website, and the diarist has been trolling here with 10 different handles all with"latino" in the name.

by venician 2008-11-13 10:19AM | 0 recs
And he made it,

(briefly) onto the top of the rec list.  

by Dumbo 2008-11-13 01:15PM | 0 recs
Any competent Democrat would have won

Considering how McCain reacted to the stock market crash. Even Kerry would have romped home (probably by a smaller margin) but won he would have.

by ann0nymous 2008-11-13 02:37PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads