Clinton the Populist Beats McCain [Updated]

[See Update on new national polls from USA Today/Gallup and CBS/NY Times at bottom]

General Election polls continue to demonstrate that Clinton is the far stronger candidate against McCain than Obama.

Real Clear Politics has data from 6 recent national General Election polls.  In a Clinton v. McCain match-up, Clinton beats McCain in FIVE of the 6 polls. In an Obama v. McCain match-up, McCain beats Obama in 3 of the polls and ties him in one.

More importantly, in key battleground states, Clinton beats McCain in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, while Obama loses to McCain in all 3 states. And RCP highlights a recent McClathy article about Obama's likely loss in Indiana to McCain. A new Rasmussen poll for New Hampshire claims "Clinton gains on McCain...Obama heads in opposite direction."

Obama's problems with working class voters have worsened, according to a story posted yesterday by the AP:

In an Associated Press-Yahoo News poll...53 percent of whites who have not completed college viewed Obama unfavorably, up a dozen percentage points from November. During that period, the numbers viewing Clinton and Republican candidate John McCain negatively have stayed about even.

In contrast, Hillary Clinton's strength among seniors, women, and key demographic groups such as Catholics improves with each election, as most recently seen in Pennsylvania.

Hillary Clinton is a candidate of the people, successfully delivering a populist message across American towns,  cities, and suburbs.  As the Washington Post said recently, "Clinton Is In Her Element:"

Clinton attacks the rope line with more gusto than her husband, who invented the genre in modern campaigns.


Clinton has found a home -- and a potentially receptive audience -- among rural Democrats...Small towns. Middle-class and working-class. Older voters. Women.


The rope line in Terre Haute late Thursday was dominated by women of all ages, who are as passionate in their support of Clinton as Obama supporters are for their candidate


A USA Today/Gallup poll released on 5/5/08 gives Clinton a 7 point lead over Obama,"the first time in 3 months she has been ahead." USA Today writes:

Barack Obama's national standing has been significantly damaged by the controversy over his former pastor, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, raising questions for some voters about the Illinois senator's values, credibility and electability.

The USA Today/Gallup poll also demonstrates Clinton's strength on a number of variables:

Clinton Obama Advantage

Is a strong and decisive leader 53 37: Clinton +16

Has the best chance of beating John McCain in November 48 43: Clinton +5

Shares your values 47 42: Clinton +5

Cares about the needs of people like you 47 43: Clinton +4

A CBS/NYT poll released on 5/4/08 is being publicized by many news sources as showing a 12-pt. lead for Obama over Clinton, but this is among those who have voted or plan to vote in a Democratic primary.

However, Clinton actually leads Obama by 1 point when the question is asked of "registered voters who identify themselves as Democrats, regardless of whether they have voted or plan to vote in a Democratic primary".

This means that Obama has lost substantial support among people who have already voted for him.

In other good news for Clinton, the CBS/NYT pollster's report states:

For the first time since October 2007, more registered voters overall have a favorable impression of Clinton than an unfavorable one.


When asked who is "tough enough to make hard choices," Clinton gets 70%, McCain 71%, and Obama 58%.

See related post 2 New Polls: MORE HILLARY MOMENTUM.

Tags: blue collar, campaigns, clinton, Demographics, general election, mccain, obama, polls, populist, Seniors, Women, working class (all tags)



Re: Clinton the Populist Beats McCain

Hillary is rising...trending upwards..embracing the exhausting campaign schedule with gusto!

by TexasDarlin 2008-05-04 01:17PM | 0 recs
She has been the populist forever

and I cannot understand how Edwards supporters don't see that.

by NewHampster 2008-05-04 01:36PM | 0 recs

Who is this Populist Clinton and where is she running?

How many donors does this Clinton populist have?

It would be great to support a Clinton that didn't use k street atms when they need campaign cash.

by ameridad 2008-05-04 02:21PM | 0 recs
Troll rated for

attacking Obama supporters ignorantly.

by ameridad 2008-05-04 02:40PM | 0 recs
I know you keep repeating it like a mantra..

but I just don't see the connection as being that strong. Obama supporters seem fairly oblivious to a lot of things that I would think intelligent people would notice.. like..

by architek 2008-05-04 07:08PM | 0 recs
When hillary

wins her coveted demographic by 60% and Obama wins his by 80+ you dismiss huge chunks of American votes with these boorish stereotypes.  

Parr for the course for this campaign.

by ameridad 2008-05-04 07:24PM | 0 recs
Re: I know you keep repeating it like a mantra..

Yes, but it may all be moot now. After the devistatingly close win last night in Indiana, Clinton's next goals are to raise the money to pay herself back and then work at being on the VP ticket with Obama.  For the sake of the party, perhaps wise voices will prevail and convince Obama to step aside and submit to being the VP. I really don't think he can win it on his own in November.

by Folkwolf101 2008-05-07 02:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Troll rated for

using the rating system as a tool for your own purposes.

by anya109 2008-05-05 07:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Huh?

God, you're so boring.

by vann 2008-05-04 04:20PM | 0 recs
Do realized how foolish you would sound...

... to a person not familiar to this site.  Your beliefs exist in a tiny bubble that is about to pop.

by dystopianfuturetoday 2008-05-04 06:50PM | 0 recs
did you troll rate me?
by linc 2008-05-06 06:14PM | 0 recs
Because you are a troll.

by dystopianfuturetoday 2008-05-10 11:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Huh?

Uprated to offset TR abuse.

by Montague 2008-05-04 09:02PM | 0 recs
what nonsense

she is no more tied to k-street than Obama is.  He has been able to pretend he has more small donors partly because every sale of a button or bumper sticker as a donation and counts it that way.

When talking about who is populist, we are looking at POLICIES that will help people, someone who listens to the people and tries to understand their issues.  Hillary does that and she always has.

by TeresaInPa 2008-05-05 04:11AM | 0 recs
Re: She has been the populist forever

"You know a lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans."
-Hillary Clinton, August 4th 2007

I wonder why no one realized, including her it seems, that she's been the populist forever.

by TheSilverMonkey 2008-05-04 02:35PM | 0 recs

I wonder if she meant the lobbyists that represent unions, environmental, veterans, voter rights and consumer groups, the AARP, the ACLU, the NAACP.  I know "lobbyist" is a bad word, but all these groups have their own lobbyists and last time I looked they represent the concerns of real Americans.

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-05-04 04:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Gee

And those same lobbyists are the big-money contributers she was fielding the question about, hmmm? Get real. That's typical political parsing, "well, not all lobbyists are evil, so I shouldn't feel guilty taking money from any lobbyists."

by TheSilverMonkey 2008-05-04 06:40PM | 0 recs
Re: She has been the populist forever

Ah, but she made those comments at the Daily Kos convention. And everyone who reads Daily Kos is a hatey hate hater. So it doesn't count.

by CrazyDrumGuy 2008-05-04 06:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton the Populist Beats McCain

"More importantly, in key battleground states, Clinton beats McCain in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, while Obama loses to McCain in all 3 states."

RCP shows Obama beating McCain in Pennsylvania. 2008/president/pennsylvania.html

Will you update to correct your mistake?

by soccerandpolitics 2008-05-04 04:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton the Populist Beats McCain

New CBS poll:

Obama- 50- Clinton- 38

Obama- 51- McCain- 40

Clinton- 53- McCain- 41

Both of our candidate kicking McCain's butt. 4/opinion/polls/main4069259.shtml

by bosdcla14 2008-05-04 07:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton the Populist Beats McCain

I think either of our candidates can beat McCain....

by JenKinFLA 2008-05-04 01:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton the Populist Beats McCain

And that they will both lose Florida?

Team Obama NEEDS certain things to be believed.

1)  That Florida is un winnable so that Hillary's better support there can be ignored.

2)  That Ohio and Penn will both go Democrat so that Obama's lack of support in both can be ignored.

3)  John McCain is a weak candidate.  Truth is McCain will be the toughest candidate the GOP could have run and many Democrats will find voting for him pretty easy against Obama.

They NEED you to see the world the way they do...

by DTaylor 2008-05-04 01:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton the Populist Beats McCain

Actually, as someone who carries a B.A. in Political Science, I do not need John McCain defined for me by anyone... I have studied his stances, I have studied his views, I have studied his latest foray into blatant pandering... He is beatable.

As to the rest, once the Dems coalesce around the nominee, things will look different than they do now... that works if Obama is the nominee as well.

by JenKinFLA 2008-05-04 02:02PM | 0 recs
I agree with you even though you

are an arrogant person that McCain is beatable.  It is just that McCain is not beatable by Obama.  McCain is actually only beatable by Clinton.

by macmcd 2008-05-04 04:47PM | 0 recs
Re: I agree with you even though you

Well let's see...  you feel confident enough to make an incredibly rash judgment that only Clinton can beat McCain and yet you call me arrogant...?

That's kind of laughable really....

by JenKinFLA 2008-05-04 07:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton the Populist Beats McCain

I hope you are right, but, while McCain has a lot of lousy baggage, I fear him in a general election.  It's amazing how many people still give him a total pass.  The media still seems to like him.  He has that (largely undeserved) maverick label that draws independents to him.

by Montague 2008-05-04 09:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Floridian Should Know Better

For someone who is from Florida, you should know better.

Personally "Hoping" your candidate Obama wins Florida is vastly different from a Clinton who is " Favored" to carry Florida.

"Hoping" Obama can carry Ohio is vastly different from a Clinton who is heavily favored to carry Ohio.

Do you see the difference between the two?

Why would anyone whose main concern is Winning Back the White House in November "Mess Around" for the sake of some " historical perspective" & "not offending some racial group".

We have a "crazy" bunch of liberals who are much more concerned with the nomination than winning in November

by libdemusa 2008-05-04 01:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Floridian Should Know Better

I am voting for the Democrat in the Fall, so MY CANDIDATE will do just fine thanks...

Also, Florida is something of a lost cause no matter who gets nominated... Gay Marriage Amendment on the ballot in November...

Finally, just moved back to Ohio, but I could live in any of the 50 states and can tell you that polls in the Spring do not mean squat come November.

I'm a liberal, I'm not crazy... but there is a historical perspective that you have completely dismissed... that is, polling data is unreliable.

by JenKinFLA 2008-05-04 02:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Floridian Should Know Better
Historical perspective?
When discussing politics?
Surely you jest!
Historical perspective is for us geeks to keep to ourselves while all the Cool Kidz make fools of themsleves and then wonder why when we're close to being right.
by spirowasright 2008-05-04 03:31PM | 0 recs
I disagree because I know so

many very loyal Democrats who will never vote for Obama because of his tactic of using racism to get 90% of the black vote.  That is much too dangerous a tactic to be allowed to win.

by macmcd 2008-05-04 04:29PM | 0 recs
From the Ohio/Penn exit polling

Something like 10% of Clinton's numbers in both states were from pople who considered race to be an important factor in their choice of candidate.

There are some votes that Obama's just not going to get (and probably doesn't lament not getting).  Your "very loyal Democrats" who think that Obama has been the one playing the race card probably wouldn't have voted for him anyway.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-04 04:38PM | 0 recs
Unfortunately, I was prepared to vote for him

if he were the nominee until he showed himself to be willing to divide our country by accusing the Clintons of racism.  I have fought against racism all my life and I will not support it no matter what color the skin of the perpetrator.  Until then, I was a yellow dog Democrat.  Incidentally, I AM part black.  So you need to pay attention.  Many of us who will NEVER vote for Obama because of racism are black.

by macmcd 2008-05-04 04:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Unfortunately, I was prepared to vote for him

ummm... that's called staging and it is commonplace... Clinton has done it... she was surrounded y older women until someone in her camp decided they needed to appeal to younger voters... voila, next rally, she was surrounded by younger people.

Crimony, we certainly are looking to be outraged thee days aren't we?

by JenKinFLA 2008-05-04 08:00PM | 0 recs
Re: I disagree because I know so

Senator Obama has spoken at length about trying to heal racial divides in this country. Things were said during the course of the campaign that were offensive to some people. The Clinton's could have done a better job of damage control, but their apology was the half-hearted "if we offended" variety. As for being dangerous...the comment Hillary made regarding Iran was horrifying. The people of Iran are currently not in a position to speak for themselves or speak out against their government. Imagine how terrifying it might be to hear from someone who is in a position to possibly become the next leader of the only country that has actually ever used a nuclear weapon, threaten to wipe your people, your family from existence. This was so reckless that a formal complaint was filed to the UN in protest of her comment... And yet you accuse Senator Obama of being dangerous... I don't understand that and I find it very sad.

by grasshopper 2008-05-04 05:20PM | 0 recs
Re: I disagree because I know so

Right, 90% of black Americans got together at their annual Nation of Islam/Trinity United Church of Christ meeting and decided that they're all going to vote for Obama because he hates white people just as much as they do. The 10% who didn't come are either Clinton-loving Uncle Toms, or Alan Keyes.

Also, white women support Hillary because they identify with her man-hating feminazi lesbianism.


Ever consider that black support for Obama and female support for Clinton might have anything to do with the historic nature of both of their candidacies and not just racism or sexism?

by CrazyDrumGuy 2008-05-04 06:13PM | 0 recs
I disagree

Obama cannot beat McCain.  Republicans are salivating at the idea of running against him.  Hillary has not run a negative campaign against him at all but I saw two horrible ads republicans are spreading about him earlier today.  That plus the fact that he injected racism into the primary and that will be used against him totally.  Many of us will not vote for Obama because of that tactic.

by macmcd 2008-05-04 04:32PM | 0 recs
Of course.

Because Republicans haven't been preparing to run against Clinton since her husband left office or anything.

Why do you think Fox and Rush and Coulter and Scaife are so desperate to get Clinton as the nominee?

Obama flipped the script on them, and now they're fumbling to try and get us to throw away our best chance at a transformative presidency.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-04 04:40PM | 0 recs
It wasn't Hillary's campaign

who solicited me to go and get "Dems for a Day" to vote for Obama.  You are kidding yourselves if you believe the silliness you are putting out.

by macmcd 2008-05-04 04:54PM | 0 recs
That was never a campaign position

From what I can gather, this "Democrats for a day" nonsense was the baby of one organizer in Iowa; the theme was quashed by the greater campaign when they learned of it.

Regardless, you don't want to be making the "fake Democrat" arguement when Clinton might have only won Texas's popular vote because of Republican interference.  Rush Limbaugh is still promoting Operation Chaos, you know.  Bill Clinton did court those votes on Rush's show as well.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-04 05:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton the Populist Beats McCain

They both can beat McCain.

And poll numbers in May for an election in November are simply not predictive.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-04 01:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton the Populist Beats McCain

Correct Obama would do far worse than the polls indicate.

by DTaylor 2008-05-04 01:26PM | 0 recs
you mean the same way that

Hillary won the election on February 5th because she was ahead during the summer?

by highgrade 2008-05-04 01:34PM | 0 recs
Re: you mean the same way that

No I mean the Wright thing cut 10 pts off his numbers

Wright has a book coming out.

Ayers is not in the public TV yet.

Rezko has a lot that hasn't been on TV in a big way yet.

Obama has a LOT of downside potential and very limited upside potential from this point going forward.

Hillary on the other hand has recently shown that she can do BETTER among independents than McCain which is a swing UP.

Hillary gets better in GE Obama gets worse.

by DTaylor 2008-05-04 01:38PM | 0 recs
Re: you mean the same way that

And Hillary isn't connected to any anti-America characters.

You may want to re-think statements like this.  The wingnut right has legions of guilt-by-association hits that they've been planning for years to attack Hillary Clinton with.

Go type "Clinton Rogues Gallery" into Google.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-04 03:25PM | 0 recs
the Republicans have used EVERYTHING

they have or that they could conjur against Bill Clinton and then against Hillary when she ran in New York.  Hillary did not use shenanigans to clear the deck in New York.  She ran a clean campaign and she won the first time and she won BIG the second time.

by macmcd 2008-05-04 04:35PM | 0 recs
New York is a lost cause for Republicans

My shoe could be elected as a state representative in New York if it had a "D" next to its name.  

Presidential elections are a whole 'nuther ballgame.

I wish Clinton had run as cleanly in the primary as you seem to think she did in New York... though from former supporters there's a lot of speculation that she wasn't all that clean... bus boys donating over a thousand dollars, and then there's the Peter Paul lawsuit...

Anyway, suffice to say that the Republicans have no reason to send nasty ads towards Clinton right now, because she's effectively an operative for them in damaging Obama for the general.  You don't attack someone if you're not scared of them.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-04 04:45PM | 0 recs
As usual with Obama followers,

that is not the point.  Of course, the Democrat will win New York; however, Hillary ran two elections in New York and if the Republicans had anything new, they would have used them against her.  She is vetted better than anyone who has ever run in this country.

by macmcd 2008-05-04 04:58PM | 0 recs
Why would they do that?

Why would Republicans use all their best moves on a lost cause?

Smears only work well if they're new and people aren't sick of hearing about them.  They're evil, not stupid.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-04 05:15PM | 0 recs
I'd have to disagree with the comment that

"you don't attack someone if you're not scared of them."

I think the Republicans think Obama is too good to pass up right now.  For example, the ad with Obama and Pelosi - oooooo, scary liberals! - isn't because they are afraid of Pelosi and Obama but because those names can be invoked to bring out Rethugs in southern elections.

by Montague 2008-05-04 09:17PM | 0 recs
Re: I'd have to disagree with the comment that

Republicans are Americans too.

Just like we wanted McCain not because he is the weakest candidate as he is the strongest but rather because he is the one who we would suffer least if he won.

Republicans if they were told they will lose the election with 100% certainty would probably vote for Hillary because they know the Clintons won't totally mess up the country.

by DTaylor 2008-05-05 01:45AM | 0 recs
Re: the Republicans have used EVERYTHING

Schumer got a better result (71%) in his reelection in 2004 than Clinton (67%)got in her reelection in 2006. So i don`t think that you can qualify her win as BIG when she spent more money and when 2006 was such a great year for the democratic party compare to 2004. Maybe we got the wrong New York senator in the race.

by Gabbo 2008-05-04 06:22PM | 0 recs
Re: you mean the same way that

Yeah, the new one is Ayers stomping on the American flag and talking about how he hates America. Just what the GOP wants, someone who REALLY does have those issues. It makes it a lot easier for them.

by Ga6thDem 2008-05-04 04:48PM | 0 recs
Oh yeah.

A 60-something college professor who did some stupid stuff before Obama was 10 years old is really a valid argument against Obama.

He'd eat that alive.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-04 05:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh yeah.

Sorry but those talking points have failed. The GOP now has someone who was 9 years old when Ayers tried to kill him. He's making the rounds.

Ayers still supports terrorism to this day. Obama chose to associate with him and even work for him. You act like Ayers repented. He didn't. He still sees terrorism as a solution.

by Ga6thDem 2008-05-05 03:58AM | 0 recs
Ayers didn't try to kill anybody

The Weather Underground bombed unoccupied targets.  They didn't try to kill anyone.

They were terrorists, but they were silly hippy terrorists.  The only people that died from Weathermen attacks were Weathermen who were working on a bomb at the time.  They played with fire and got burned.

Ayers has come clean on his involvement; any debt to society that needed to be paid has been paid, and none of it involves Obama in the slightest.

So yes, your Republican contacts are more than welcome to hang their campaign on this ridiculous issue.  Obama will tear them apart.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-05 05:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Ayers didn't try to kill anybody

Yes, they did kill people. Look up their history.

Ayers has not come clean. He beat a terrorism rap on a technicality and has said that he didn't bomb enough. He is unrepentant.

It involves Obama because Ayers was the one who helped Obama start his political career. Did Obama turn him down? No, and it goes to Obama's lack of judgement and poor deicision making skills.

Obama won't tear them apart because this stuff is going on right now and there's no response from the Obama campaign. He rolls up in a ball and assumes the fetal position when this stuff is brought up. Good grief, Obama waited weeks too long to throw Wright under the bus.

by Ga6thDem 2008-05-05 09:50AM | 0 recs
Troll rated for

negative attack on democratic candidate hoping for guilt by association fall out.

Will you feel so clever when billo and rush suddenly remember all those shady people the Clinton's knew/know?

Will you feel a little stupid when they remind you that Hillary is nominee because she argued that who someone knows/knew is vital in determining fitness for nomination?

by ameridad 2008-05-04 02:34PM | 0 recs
Obama loses Fl, OH and

probably PA.  Now how is he going to win?  State polls are predictive but even more predictive is demographics.  

by TeresaInPa 2008-05-04 01:45PM | 0 recs
He can't...

That's why I'm so worried about him as our nominee. No matter how much Obama tries to spin his swing state disadvantages as being a "mapchanger" who can run a real "50 state strategy", all I'm seeing now is a "strategy" to "change the map" in McCain's favor. No matter how much he touts Virginia & Colorado, those states aren't enough to make up for losing Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Jersey, & Florida.

This is another reason why Hillary's our best chance of winning. She has what it takes to get us to 270+ EVs in November. :-)

by atdleft 2008-05-04 02:01PM | 0 recs
Re: He can't...

Then wy have you people insisted on him?

by spirowasright 2008-05-04 03:33PM | 0 recs
Real map changers do not stoop to

"gaming" the caucus system.  They try to win fair and square by counting the actual votes of real citizens who legitimately can vote there.  They do not bus in kids from out of state to over run the system.  Real candidates are not afraid to debate in a one on one situation.  Real presidential material doesn't throw his grandmother under the bus just because it justifies staying in a racist church.  Real intellectuals do not claim to have attended a church for twenty years and not known what was being preached.  

by macmcd 2008-05-04 04:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama loses Fl, OH and

   Teresa...he's tied with McCain in OH and he's beating McCain in PA by MORE than Hillary is.

  What on earth are you basing this logic on?

by southernman 2008-05-04 02:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama loses Fl, OH and

It's not logic...  It's hateObamamania....

by JenKinFLA 2008-05-04 02:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama loses Fl, OH and

The same logic that has HRC dismisses those elitist economists.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-04 04:52PM | 0 recs
Troll rated for

making things up when attack a democratic candidate.

by ameridad 2008-05-04 02:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Correction-HOPE vs. FAVORED- Big Diff !

Correction Mr. Politicsmatter:

Your idol Obama is "Hoping" to beat McCain  nationally.

while Clinton is "Favored" to beat McCain nationally.

Your idol is "Hoping" to somehow beat McCain in Ohio & Florida.

Clinton is "favored" to win Ohio & Florida.

Clinton is "favored" wo win NH.

While Obama is "hoping" to win NH.

"hoping" & "favored" have two very different meanings.

I know that 100% of your comments are always one sided. That's fine.

But sometimes, we have to call you on this kind of bullcrap.

by libdemusa 2008-05-04 02:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Correction-HOPE vs. FAVORED- Big Diff !

Can we call you on the bullcrap of quoting polling data like solid reliable fact as well...?

Why even both having elections in November...?  Let's just poll in April and May instead...

by JenKinFLA 2008-05-04 02:08PM | 0 recs
Can wee troll

rate comments that call Obama an Idol to his supporters?

by ameridad 2008-05-04 02:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Correction-HOPE vs. FAVORED- Big Diff !

Obama's not my idol.  In my religion, idol worship is prohibited.

And I'm not a Mr., thank you very much.

Onto your polling analysis -- First, not all of them agree. Second, polling this far out is highly unreliable.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-04 04:54PM | 0 recs
by Lost Thought 2008-05-04 01:25PM | 0 recs
Re: No

Obama doesn't beat the senator from arizona in New Mexico and Nevada with Latinos voting 3-1 against him in the primary.

And Hillary doesn't lose Washington and Oregon.

Nice try.

by DTaylor 2008-05-04 01:29PM | 0 recs
Statistical analysis takes effort

Gut feelings are much easier

by Lost Thought 2008-05-04 01:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Statistical analysis takes effort

Polls New Mexico 2008/president/nm/new_mexico_mccain_vs_o bama-448.html

Polls Nevada 2008/president/nv/nevada_mccain_vs_obama -252.html

Polls Oregon /2008/president/or/oregon_mccain_vs_clin ton-532.html

Polls Washinton /2008/president/wa/washington_mccain_vs_ clinton-530.html

Wright Killed Obama's independent voters and GOP voters interest in him.

He lost 10 pts nationally.

Wright has a book coming out just before the election.

Ayers, Rezko and whatever is next hasn't hit yet will hurt his numbers even more...

by DTaylor 2008-05-04 01:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Statistical analysis takes effort

Those polls are a month old

by Lost Thought 2008-05-04 01:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Statistical analysis takes effort

Obama dropped 10 pts in that month.

by DTaylor 2008-05-04 02:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Statistical analysis takes effort

And Obama has rebounded in the tracking polls and in this one as well: 4/opinion/polls/main4069259.shtml

by politicsmatters 2008-05-04 04:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Statistical analysis takes effort

We will see on Tuesday if he can hold his NC 10 pts lead.

If Hillary wins Indiana and gets NC under 8 I think Obama starts to feel real sustained pressure.

And Obama isn't good with pressure.

by DTaylor 2008-05-05 01:42AM | 0 recs
Re: No

   Obama won't lose NM. No Democrat will lose that state this time around.

  Your logic is silly. Does this mean you think Hillary won't win blacks in VA and MO? They voted far more than 3 to 1 for Obama.

  Might want a new argument...=)

by southernman 2008-05-04 02:09PM | 0 recs
Re: No

So if Hillary wins NM then his projections are wrong as they show her losing....

by DTaylor 2008-05-04 02:31PM | 0 recs
Re: No

   projections this far out are worthless...especially since our primary is still going on...voters on both sides are still loyal to their primary candidates.

  Once we have a nominee, that'll change. But if you're so convinced that Hispanics won't vote for Obama in NM b/c they didn't do so in the primary...then surely you must be worried that blacks won't vote for Clinton in places like VA and MO...b/c they didn't in the primary.

  I'm just using your logic.

by southernman 2008-05-04 06:48PM | 0 recs
Re: No

I think McCain has a much stronger track record with getting Hispanic support than AA support.

Hillary would run a Black VP ideally named Barrack Obama.  I think it would be very hard for most AAs to vote against the first black VP.   If Obama didn't deliver the AA vote as VP his career would be in serious trouble and there aren't any Barack Obama rock start type candidates waiting in the wings for the AAs.

No if Hillary wins the deal will be full whole hearted support from AAs to Hillary in 2008 and full whole hearted support from Hillary and friends to Obama in 2016.  The way to do that is for Hillary and Obama to kiss and make up after she wins.

If blacks play their cards right they will get a stronger position in 2016 then the one they have now in exchange for waiting for President.

by DTaylor 2008-05-05 01:51AM | 0 recs
Very classy

I hear that blacks might be able to sit at the front of the bus if they play their cards right, too.

Asking a minority to wait their turn when their candidate is winning.  That takes some gumption.

How would you feel if Clinton were ahead and Obama supporters told you that Clinton had a better chance of becoming president eight years down the road if only she'd submit to being vice president?

by Dracomicron 2008-05-05 05:58AM | 0 recs
Re: No

Obama doesn't beat the senator from arizona in New Mexico and Nevada with Latinos voting 3-1 against him in the primary.

By that logic, Hillary doesn't beat the Senator from Arizona in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida with blacks voting 8-1 against her in the primary.

So since you've admitted she has no chance to beat McCain, what now?

by Angry White Democrat 2008-05-04 10:25PM | 0 recs
Re: No

Yes. Read the front of the page.

by zcflint05 2008-05-04 01:33PM | 0 recs
Front Page

Win percentage: Obama 50.4 McCain 49.6, Clinton 46.5 McCain 53.5

by Lost Thought 2008-05-04 01:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton the Populist Beats McCain

just heard Obama on CNN speaking about the gas holiday and saying her plan is the same as McCains. I wonder why he feels the need to lie, why can't he say that her's is paid for by oil companies?  I don't get that guy, if he wants to win, why can't he speak about himself without misrepresenting Hillary's positions?  Am I the only one that thinks at this late date it's weird? Is he planning to lie about McCain too, if he's our nom? Will I have to feel embarrassed that a Democratic candidate following Bush disasters can't win without lying?  

by anna shane 2008-05-04 01:35PM | 0 recs
Simple answer...

I just heard Obama on CNN speaking about the gas holiday and saying her plan is the same as McCains. I wonder why he feels the need to lie, why can't he say that her's is paid for by oil companies?  I don't get that guy, if he wants to win, why can't he speak about himself without misrepresenting Hillary's positions?

He knows he's on the losing side of this issue, and the only way for him to "win" is to spin. McCain's only thinking about short-term quick fixes by only proposing the gas tax holiday. Obama's only thinking long-term by using Hillary's ideas on clean, green energy... And claiming them as his own. Only Hillary has BOTH the short-term fix to help consumers AND the long-term solution to the energy crisis.

by atdleft 2008-05-04 01:57PM | 0 recs
There's no difference

Neither plan will be passed, for one.

For two, even if Clinton's plan were passed, it would be vetoed.

On a third point, the core of Clinton and McCain's plans are the same: pandering.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-04 02:00PM | 0 recs
Clinton is already beat
<Will I have to feel embarrassed that a Democratic candidate following Bush disasters can't win without lying>
Anna I guess you will. I do seem to remember hillary following Bush right into Iraq.
by venician 2008-05-04 02:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton the Populist Beats McCain

I've decided that Obama stands for nothing other than being Anti Hillary. I guess he'll run an anti McCain campaign if he's the nominee. Good luck with that one. You have to be FOR something not just against something or someone.

by Ga6thDem 2008-05-04 04:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton the Populist Beats McCain

But, but, but....he's made perfectly clear what he stands for, over and over:

hope, unity and change.  Don't you get it?

by Gabriele Droz 2008-05-04 06:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton the Populist Beats McCain

Man alive, this demvictory fool is on a TR'ing tear tonight.  Could it be a sockpuppet that's afraid to post a comment?

by Montague 2008-05-04 09:20PM | 0 recs

I expect that Clinton's polling numbers are going to take a stiff hit very soon; I expect that people will start to look down on her continuing to campaign after the party has chosen Obama as their nominee.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-04 01:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Prediction

lol How many months has it been since you start parroting this?

by zcflint05 2008-05-04 02:23PM | 0 recs

I just made that up now.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-04 02:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton the Populist Beats McCain

   once again, polls this far out mean nothing. If the election were held tomorrow, you'd have a point...if the election were held next week, you'd have a point.

  This far out, those polls are are the polls that show Obama as the better candidate. They are a waste of time.

by southernman 2008-05-04 02:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton the Populist Beats McCain

All I'm saying.....

by JenKinFLA 2008-05-04 02:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton the Populist Beats McCain

Clinton, the "$100 Million Dollar" populist.  That made me laugh.  Is it due to her "pander bear" gas tax break?

by chewie5656 2008-05-04 02:19PM | 0 recs
Re Clinton the Populist Beats McCain so does Obama

Now, new CBS poll shows that Obama is on offensive again.

And that relates to both races. A hypotethical race against McSame:

On one key measure, Obama has seen a big reversal since his denunciation of Wright's remarks on Tuesday. He now leads presumptive Republican nominee John McCain in the hypothetical fall contest by eleven points, 51 percent to 40 percent.  

by BDM 2008-05-04 02:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton the Populist Beats McCain

what is great about Hillary is that these days, the people are gonna look for someone smart with knowledge on issues who is articulate, which is opposite GW Bush. Kinda like in 1976 America looked to someone honest like Jimmy Carter, but that is the only similarity between the two, nothing else cuz Obama is more like Carter the politician, and that is no compliment.  Hillary can talk to enough average whites, not just blacks and college kids, who are the swing voters to swing the election. In the 2 times we've won since 1976, we've always come within 5 of the GOP with white voters. She's more popular than the media will ever tell you she is.

If the healing process is done correctly, the blacks will be thankful we at least were the party to first field a semi realistic black candidate, come home, and vote for Hillary enough, and young voters will probably go to her because the women will and they'll be averse to McCain, the grandpa. She can win in a landslide, because she is almost as "slick" as Willie was considered to be, and doesn't have adultery rumours. All of the "baggage" on her is old hat, and resonates with no one. Not to mention, none of it involves racist hateful pastors who would compound ethnic stereotypes like Obama.

by DiamondJay 2008-05-04 03:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton the Populist Beats McCain

However she is not going be the nominee.

by BDM 2008-05-04 03:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton the Populist Beats McCain

says who? you? the superdelegates decide, and they decide in cases like these for a reason. nominating McGovern was not a smart move either, and neither be with Barack Obama

by DiamondJay 2008-05-04 03:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton the Populist Beats McCain

"One of Clinton's laws of politics is this: If one candidate's trying to scare you, and the other one's trying to get you to think; if one candidate's appealing to your fears, and the other one's appealing to your hopes; you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope".  Bill Clinton

by venician 2008-05-04 04:14PM | 0 recs
Ah yes

Bill Clinton is Obama's best advocate.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-04 04:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton the Populist Beats McCain

he was saying that for a general election, not a primary election. The guy he said it for had a very real chance of winning. Bill Clinton having to get heart surgery and almost dying  didn't help Kerry, and neither did it when Kerry disavowed him on gay marriage

by DiamondJay 2008-05-04 05:58PM | 0 recs
So... fear rules and hope sucks in a primary?

You're parsing Bill's statement more than even Bill generally parses Bill's statements.

If there's any candidate that embodies the spirit of what Bill was saying there, it's Obama, because you can be sure that Clinton won't run on hope in the general even in the off chance that she's the nominee.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-05 06:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton the Populist Beats McCain

She's not coming off as smart and knowledgable on issues when she puts down experts/economists and touts a ridiculous gas tax holiday.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-04 04:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton the Populist Beats McCain

"If the healing process is done correctly, the blacks will be thankful we at least were the party to first field a semi realistic black candidate".

Yessuh. We blacks be so grateful. Obama being a contender for the nomination has got nothing to to with how intelligent, skillful and hard working he is, he should just thank the party for fielding him.

(by the way, which party 'freed the slaves'?)

by My Ob 2008-05-05 04:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton the Populist Beats McCain

while it does have to do with his skills and intelligence, he would never have made it this far in the Republican party primaries. he'd have been out like Alan Keyes.

the fact that the Republican party freed the slaves means nothing, because that was 150 years ago before they became the hick redneck party. They were a completey different entity then

by DiamondJay 2008-05-05 09:30AM | 0 recs
MSNBC poll -- bad news for Obama

Accordng the MSNBC, Obama has some serious problems with the white working class, who make up 43% of the electorate and went heavily for Bush twice.  I'm not exactly sure how anyone with half a brain comes to the conclusion this election is winnable if the candidate alienates 43% of the electorate.

I find it absolutely mindboggling how all the rules of winning the Whitehouse are being tossed out the window this year -- screw Florida and Ohio, who cares if Pennsylvania and Michigan are back in play, so what if the Democrat has to spend money in Massachucetts, we don't need the votes of people over 50 and Latinos.....because hey!  We could NAIL Colorado!  

All I ever hear about here is "math" -- how Clinton doesn't have "the math" on her side.  Well, Obama doesn't have The Math on his side and  "Democrats unifying behind the candidate" isn't going to make a tinker's damn bit of difference.   The elderly, the white working class and Latinos aren't died in the wool Democrats.  They will "unite" behind whichever candidate in the fall resonates best with their concerns.

Watching these poll numbers with an eye to the Electoral College while listening to the Obama camp rhetoric about delegate count and stolen nominations is like watching a bus drive off a cliff.  

All the youth and intellectual Independent votes in the country can't "swing" this thing if it's not close enough to be swing.  Clinton is the candidate who can crack the Bush coalition and deliver the white working class.  

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-05-04 05:06PM | 0 recs

Anyone else find it ironic that someone named "grassrootsorganizer" is discounting the importance of the sleeping giant that is the youth vote, and suggesting that certain demographics just can't be swayed by someone with the best ground game in the business?

I find it absolutely mindboggling how all the rules of winning the Whitehouse are being tossed out the window this year

What's mindboggling is that people are still clinging to the politics of failure that have let us down time after time.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-05 06:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Irony

My point was that in order to swing an election it has to be close enough to be swung by the group in question.  Sure, of course, youth turnout could effect a close race, but the youth vote isn't large enough to offset a mass migration by the white working class, particularly in Rust Belt states and Florida where the populations are older.  
You also can't overlook that Obama currently polls at about 50% with those new youth voters -- it's not like all youth voters with automatically vote Obama, particularly WHITE WORKING CLASS youth.  
Registration is through the roof with new young voters -- a good thing -- but even with a powerful ground game tailored to them there is no telling if they will turn out as needed should the race get very messy between now and November.
What we do know is the white working class and the elderly will turn-out regardless in the same percentages (or greater) because they always do.  They don't tend to give up their vote or lose interest in troubled, ugly or boring campaigns -- if they aren't happy they will just vote for the other guy.  

I'm all for abandoning the "politics of failure" just not the realities of the general electorate and the electoral college.  One "politics of failure" notion we really need to get past -- the idea that a Democrat can win in November trying to squeak by in either Florida or Ohio and that we don't need to nominate our strongest candidate for the "battleground" states .  That failed idea just keeps biting us in the ass as we continue to nominate darlings of the left wing intellectuals without strong appeal to the lunch box voters -- guys like Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, Mondale.   It's like every fricking year we forget that white people without college educations who don't subscribe to "The Nation" get to vote.   Will this year too it seems.  oh well.

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-05-05 06:33AM | 0 recs
We'll be fighting for their votes

I don't think you can say that Obama hasn't tried to get their votes; they just prefer Clinton in most states.

But, again, the Democratic primary has little to do with the general election.

Obama's strategy is to go after ALL votes... that's the 50 state strategy.  We'll see more once he's the nominee, trust me.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-05 06:47AM | 0 recs
Re: We'll be fighting for their votes

Here's how it looks to me -- IF he's tried to get their votes with almost everything going for him -- money, endorsements, media support, presumptive nominee status and a great ground game -- he can't crack through to them.  If anything?  He's losing them more and more with each passing week.

At this point, with the media and the pundits declaring her dead, I see every vote for Hillary as a vote AGAINST Obama.  Certainly that's not completely true, but it's looking more and more that way.  

And it's not just the Wright business or the bitter comment.  It goes all the way back to "her voters will vote for me" and the underlying tenor of his campaign that more or less took the "typical Clinton voter" for granted while over pumping his base of support.  

Face it.  He is losing the white working class in large part because he seems so tragically out of touch with their issues and what's important to them.  He labelled it "bitterness" when in fact it's the stubborn demand not to be ignored or talked down to.  

I'd be surprised if he can turn their opinions around once he's the nominee, only because the leap to McCain is so much shorter for them.  McCain doesn't demand they redefine patriotism or understand how black preachers refer to them behind closed doors.  He won't be asking them to make any more sacrifices "not in their immediate self interest" and he will honor the sacrifices they have made (disproportionately to the military than any other voting bloc) in ways they can connect to.

without a complete make-over, I don't see how Obama can make any inroads against McCain within the groups most alienated by his campaign to date.

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-05-05 07:17AM | 0 recs
Huh, really?

Barack just can't win with you people.  If he tells the truth about sociopolitical issues inelegantly, he's talking down to white working class voters.  If he refuses to talk down to white working class voters on the gas tax issue, he's an elitist.

Where you seem to be failing is where you assume that votes for Obama are against Clinton.  This is demonstrably at least 70% false via exit polling, and probably a lot more.  She's a fierce campaigner with a lot to recommend her; give the lady some credit.

You sure sound like you're making the case for McCain against the presumptive Democratic nominee.  That's not going to go over well among the non-fanatics over here...

by Dracomicron 2008-05-05 07:48AM | 0 recs
Oh there you go again

It's so lame ass that we can't honestly discuss the strengths of our opponent without being accused of "making a case" for McCain or being some Republican troll.

Look.  I don't have the power to tell the white working class how to vote -- I'm only trying to lay out the potential challenges to defeating him in the fall.  He is succssfully distancing himself from Bush, according to opinion polls.  And the white working and middle class has had a soft spot for the guy going back to his being screwed out of the nomination in 2000.  He's got a certain appeal on that "have a beer with him" level that's sunk us in the past and he's the first candidate since Bush I with any real military experience, and how. (um, that didn't go on to pose with Jane Fonda in a hippie costume)

Regardless of all the Bush ass licking he's done of late, most voters remember him as someone opposed to GWB.  He's also positioned himself as a "maverick" within the party we all now love to hate.  The one big stone around his neck is his age which scares the crap out of people.  But with the right VP choice, one with broad youthful appeal and distance from Bush, we have a serious GD problem on our hands in the fall.

Read "The Art of War".  Underestimating the strengths of your enemy is the shortest path to defeat.

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-05-05 08:37AM | 0 recs
Good advice. I suggest you take it.

Read "The Art of War".  Underestimating the strengths of your enemy is the shortest path to defeat.

Considering that Obama currently seems to be your enemy, I'd suggest that you take this advice as well.

I've no illusions about the difficulty of the presidential race.  McCain will be the only establishment candidate left after the Democratic primary is over, and there are a lot of people out there with a lot of stake in things staying exactly as they are now.  A tunafish sandwich could run as a Republican, and the RNC, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and various 527s would still make a powerful argument against any Democrat.

The only way to fight that is by rolling up our sleeves and battling it out, tooth and nail.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-05 08:50AM | 0 recs
There you go AGAIN.

Obama is not my GD MF enemy.  Bush policies and cronies are my enemy.  Conservative values are my enemy.  The GOP is my GD MF enemy.

Barack Obama is my PROBLEM, not my enemy.  Even his most obnoxious, niave, pin-headed supporters are not my enemy, they are the pains in my ass.

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-05-05 09:42AM | 0 recs

Okay, okay, fair enough! :)

by Dracomicron 2008-05-05 09:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Hee!

I do appreciate your tone and level-headednesses.  Thank you.

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-05-05 10:57AM | 0 recs
No biggie.

We're on the same side, remember?

I just want the Bush nightmare to end!

by Dracomicron 2008-05-05 10:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton the Populist Beats McCain

I think it is important that one recognizes the significance of every section of the electorate. Everybody counts, and neither candidates' supporters ought to diminish the others.

The disdain shown towards working-class, middle-income families by some of Barack Obama's supporters is affront to the Democratic Party in itself.

One would have thought that Obama's message of sweeping change and all-inclusive politics would have included working class voters. But he lost a central premise of his candidature when he made those comments about rural voters.

by optimisticBoy 2008-05-04 09:37PM | 0 recs
That was *so* 3 weeks ago

Nobody cares about the "bitter" comments anymore, which were essentially true if not elegantly phrased.

These days we're talking about Clinton teasing voters with legislation she can't get passed.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-05 06:10AM | 0 recs
Not so

I realize the "bitter" business is so yesterday to internet bloggers, but according to MSNBC it's still sitting square in the craw of the people it was directed at -- the white working class.  They still seem to have some issues with it.

Oh, I forgot.  they are 60 million voting nobodies.  Oops!

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-05-05 06:39AM | 0 recs
It will be forgotten

There are a host of issues that have been outraged at and then forgotten this season.

Most of these issues are manufactured and don't have legs.  Once Obama is the nominee, he'll be able to zero in on these problems and address them directly... a proven strategy in the primary, even.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-05 06:49AM | 0 recs
Re: It will be forgotten

I'm not sure what's on that "host of issues" list, I only know of four that are sticking to Obama --

his surrogates going after the Clintons as racists with Democrats over 50 who have similiarly spent their lives fighting against racism

the "her voters will vote for me" comment with women over 50

his weak reversals on Rev. Wright with the white working class, the elderly and military families

the "bitter" comment with the people it referred to

some of those folks are died in the wool Democrats who will support him, even if they have to hold their noses.  (that would include me)  Some of them won't come back because the leap to McCain is shorter.

As much as American voter say they want to hear about the issues that has never been nor will it ever be the only factor in their decision making.  Someone elected GWB twice and it had NOTHING to do with the issues.  
At the end of the day, most people in the GE vote on a gut feeling and then cherrypick the issues to suit their decision.  Hell, even today between Clinton and Obama, no one is going to convince me it's not 90% identity politics driving folks loyalties underneath all the rhetoric and "logic".

I'm amazed (well, not really) at the noise of one issue voters from the Democratic side -- the same folks who went f-wild over Bush being elected by one issue voters.  I can't estimate the number of comments here that begin or end with "the one issue for me that I'll never get past is..."

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-05-05 07:32AM | 0 recs

Just because you are carrying a torch for some issues, doesn't mean that they're "sticking."  

Nobody outside the blogs and maybe the vast right wing conspiracy honestly thinks that Obama's been smearing the Clintons as racists; most TV coverage of Bill's accusation has been puzzled at best.

The "my voters won't vote for her" thing was based on demographics; it wasn't a threat, and it's been basically disproven as Obama's people have been more willing to vote for Clinton, while the anti-Obama minority is just becoming more and more wedged as Clinton fires them up against him ("Shame on you, Barack Obama!").  I don't think anyone expected Clinton to intentionally foster so much divisiveness in her supporters.  Regardless, it hasn't been reported on in ages.

"Bitter" and Wright do get some play, but it's less and less all the time.

Your dismissive attitude towards Democratic voters does not speak well for your presumed username; if people only go by identity politics, what's the point of grassroots support?

by Dracomicron 2008-05-05 07:40AM | 0 recs
Re: &quot;Sticking?&quot;

From CNN, um, yesterday
"n a world of so many polls and findings within those polls, a few stand out:

* Six in 10 Americans have an unfavorable opinion of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's former pastor, according to the latest CNN Opinion Research Corp. survey.

* Nearly four in 10 Americans (38 percent) have an unfavorable opinion of Obama in the latest CNN polling, up 10 percentage points from the beginning of the year.

* Half of Americans think a John McCain presidency would bring different policies than the Bush administration.

* And in a new Pew Research Center national survey, Clinton's lead among whites who didn't attend college has increased to 40 percentage points from 10 in March." right.fallout/index.html?eref=rss_politi cs
In fairness, the piece does go on to say
"Since late February, his unfavorable rating has risen six points among all Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters. At the same time, Clinton's unfavorable rating among Democratic voters also has increased by seven points."

Translation: The Wright controversy is hurting Obama most but Clinton also, at the same moment McCain is burnishing his brand as a different kind of Republican.

The overall fundamentals still heavily favor Democrats, but the controversy over Wright is a source of significant Democratic angst."

But we aren't here debating Clinton's problems in the GE, we are going back and forth about Obama.  

then we have this, this weekend, from MSNBC

"In an Associated Press-Yahoo News poll in April, 53 percent of whites who have not completed college viewed Obama unfavorably, up a dozen percentage points from November. During that period, the numbers viewing Clinton and Republican candidate John McCain negatively have stayed about even."

""It's the stuff about his preacher ... and the thing he said about Pennsylvania towns, how they turn to religion," Keith Wolfe, 41, a supermarket food stocker from Parkville, Md., said in a follow-up interview. "I don't think he'd be a really good leader.""

"In Democratic primaries held on or before Super Tuesday, Feb. 5, whites who have not finished college favored the New York senator by a cumulative 59 percent to 32 percent, according to exit polls of voters conducted for The Associated Press and the television networks.

In primaries since Feb. 5, that group has favored Clinton by 64 percent to 34 percent. That includes Ohio and Pennsylvania, in which working-class whites have favored Clinton by 44 and 41 percentage points respectively."

I defy you to show me where I have a dismissive attitude towards Democratic voters.  Identity politics is a reality across the political spectrum -- Democrats are not immune to it, smart candidates understand it and the majority of American voters, the true deciders this year, do not strongly identify with either party to the point of voting on party affliation alone.

Beyond that, I don't quite see how my username is relevant to this debate.

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-05-05 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton the Populist Beats McCain [Updated]

What about the poll that says HRC gets 59% or fewer AA votes if the superdelegates designate her to be the candidate? What about the poll in May, 2004 showing Kerry beating Bush? What about the poll in May, 1992 showing Bill Clinton third behind GHW Bush and Perot? The question we should be asking is: How reliable are polls 6 months before an election? When there are just two names on the ballot, either of them might have a chance depending upon circumstances in the month before the election. Barack's chances against McCain seem good, especially if HRC gives Barack her support. I tend to believe HRC's chances would be less good when crunch time comes, but admittedly this is a personal opinion.

by applecrispbetty 2008-05-05 10:50AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads