AT LEAST 6 MAJOR NATIONAL POLLS: Barack Obama STRONGER against McCain than Hillary Clinton

[cloudythescribbler]

Now the question is -- do the Hillaryites just dismiss all polls?

Or do they try to argue that Obama is just a phony, but Hillary the real McCoy?

Or do they roust about "cult" and McClurkin and handshake-gate and any other straw to latch on to to "do the job"?

Or most likely all of the above?

Sorry these are hard to read :blush: but you can get clear charts at the two links provided:

General Election: McCain vs. Clinton

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html


Polling Data
Poll Date Sample McCain (R) Clinton (D) Und Spread
RCP Average 01/29 - 02/07 - 46.6 45.1 6.6 McCain +1.5
Rasmussen 02/04 - 02/07 1700 LV 46 44 10 McCain +2.0
Time 02/01 - 02/04 958 LV 46 46 8 Tie
CNN 02/01 - 02/03 974 RV 47 50 3 Clinton +3.0
Cook/RT Strategies 01/31 - 02/02 855 RV 45 41 10 McCain +4.0
ABC/Wash Post 01/30 - 02/01 1249 A 49 46 2 McCain +3.0
FOX News 01/30 - 01/31 900 RV 45 44 10 McCain +1.0
NPR 01/29 - 01/31 1000 LV 48 45 3 McCain +3.0

General Election: McCain vs. Obama

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html


Polling Data
Poll Date Sample McCain (R) Obama (D) Und Spread
RCP Average 01/29 - 02/07 - 44.0 47.3 7.0 Obama +3.3
Rasmussen 02/04 - 02/07 1700 LV 43 46 11 Obama +3.0
Time 02/01 - 02/04 958 LV 41 48 6 Obama +7.0
CNN 02/01 - 02/03 974 RV 44 52 4 Obama +8.0
Cook/RT Strategies 01/31 - 02/02 855 RV 43 45 9 Obama +2.0
ABC/Wash Post 01/30 - 02/01 1249 A 46 49 3 Obama +3.0
FOX News 01/30 - 01/31 900 RV 43 44 13 Obama +1.0
NPR 01/29 - 01/31 1000 LV 48 47 3 McCain +1.0


In short, Obama runs 4.8% better than HRC according to RCP avg of all polls

Rasmussen: 5% stronger
TIME: 7% stronger
CNN: 5% stronger
Cook 6% stronger
ABC 6% stronger
FOX 2% stronger
NPR 2% stronger

FOLKS this can EASILY mean the difference between a REPUG and a Democratic White House? What say all the Hillary fans?

[K Gardner]

1. HRC and supporters like to stick heads in sand when these numbers come up. Crickets.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. Two Words

President Dukakis

[denem]

28. Two words: President Hart

There were a thousand sound reasons for supporting Mondale back in 1984. Fritz cooked him with 'Where's the beef'? a variation on a theme usually leveled at insurgents. Maybe Gary didn't have a chance but it was worth trying wasn't it? Would DSB 1980-1984 be supporting Obama?

[RLS21]

73. But Obama Would Lose Electoral College to McCain

Popular vote means very little, ask Al Gore. If Obama is at the head of the Democratic ticket Calif, New York and PA are put in play and Florida is automatically lost.

Its not how many votes in the general election, its where the votes are.
If the electoral vote mattered in the primaries Hillary would currently be leading 200 to 123. Barack is winning red states that we will likely lose in November and Hillary is doing very well in the big states that are required to win the electoral college.

The only sure thing for Dems is a Hillary/Barack ticket, so we'll get to see if we are dumb enough to hand the republicans another election.

[Hawaii Hiker]

80. There is ZERO chance that ANY Democrat will lose NY or CA:

Just won't happen....From Tuesday's primary, Obama was second in both & he practically had more votes than the top 2 Republcians....

NY, CA, MA, IL, NJ, and a couple others will stay blue without question...

[TwilightGardener]

4. They say, "McCain's an old warmonger--he'll never win" or "Obama will

get slimed by the Republican machine" or "Nobody's going to vote for McCain" or "Bomb bomb bomb Iran"--they never offer an explanation for why these matchup polls turn out this way.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. I Doubt The Efficacy Of A Poll In February In Determining What Will Happen In November

Does that meet with your satisfaction?

[TwilightGardener]

13. We are in the process of choosing a nominee NOW--these next few weeks are

going to decide it. Do we discount the information we have TODAY in the hopes that it will change in six months, AFTER it's too late to change our minds on our nominee?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. We Don't Hope...

We think...

And it's foolish to think the fact a poll in February can predict what will happen in November...

[TwilightGardener]

19. No, you're not "thinking" based on facts in hand today, you're trying

to predict a trend (Hillary will pull ahead of McCain) in the fall based on...what? Yes, polls change, front-runners fall by the wayside, no one can say what will happen...but to assume Hillary will eventually prevail in November against McCain--where is your data to support this theory? She's consistently either lagged behind him or ran even with him in head-to-heads for months now, whereas Obama has consistently done better against him. I prefer to believe the data I have on hand from yesterday, than the data I will have in the future.

[HughMoran]

24. predict?

You really think these stupid fucking useless polls have any meaning at all for the GE?

[TwilightGardener]

32. This sword cuts both ways--you can call people who use this info

to make their voting decision silly, for thinking it means anything for the future, but you can also call the people who totally discount it silly, for rejecting the info and assuming there will be a different result in the fall--what happens if the results are the same, or (gulp) WORSE, in November? What happens if the McCain/Hillary gap WIDENS, instead of tightens, as Hillary supporters are insisting? It might tighten up on Obama too, but since he tends to run a little ahead, he's got more cushion, perhaps. You all are saying that the polls are meaningless, because...well...because it just HAS to get better! It just HAS TO! Faith-based support. You might be right, or you might be wrong, but we can't change our minds in six months.

[TwilightGardener]

34. I will remind anyone who wants to ignore these polls, too, that McCain

was chosen BECAUSE he consistently did the best against Hillary in head-to head matchups. Not because they liked him, but because he has the most chance of winning. If we believed the polls in terms of thinking McCain was their strongest, and Romney their weakest, why don't we believe the polls that show Obama is our strongest, and Hillary our weakest? The Dem party is illogical, that's why.

[HughMoran]

37. Speaking of faith-based support - what happens when the RW machine unloads on the rookie Obama?

NOW we're talking about a double-edged sword baby!

Please do not try to infer anything from those polls. Obama is still an unknown and has a very high possibility of being brought-down by the RW hate-spin machine and you know it. Let's not ASSume anything from these stupid fucking "hypothetical" polls.

[TwilightGardener]

41. You're again making things up that aren't there yet. You're making your decision

based on an event that has not occurred, with results that are impossible to predict. Obama has stood up to smears, no big damaging skeletons, no big unloading of anything really bad yet, and we all know how bad Hillary wants to win. That's fact. Thus, I take this fact and use it to inform my decision. You are making assumptions of RW smears, and the strength of those smears--you are trying to predict the future based on...what? Obama's campaign history so far shows a VERY strong candidate, why assume that will change and he'll suddenly be weak?

[HughMoran]

44. Making things up? Making my decision? NO! I'm making a neutral argument !!

You are the one who can't stop seeing things as black-and-white (NO pun intended)!!!

I could give a crap which one wins - I have sent BOTH candidates money. What I dislike is the attempted manipulation of people based on polls THAT WE ALL KNOW CAN EASILY SWING +/- 10 POINTS EITHER WAY IN A HEARTBEAT FOR ALL THREE OF THE CANDIDATES!!!

You are blinded by bias, I am trying to point out the stupidity of taking polls like this seriously. I don't give a crap who is ahead in the latest polls.

[TwilightGardener]

45. Wrong--I'm going on data. Not bias. I support Obama, and if the polling

suddenly reversed and favored Hillary, I'd be in a quandary too, but it's silly to ignore actual numbers. And it's silly to try to think up reasons why Obama can't win in the fall, when none of those reasons have appeared yet, to make your case.

[HughMoran]

51. Sounds good to me

I certainly don't think it's silly to think that the RWers will not bring up the email that's circulating about his church or Rezko (there are 9000 hits for "Rezko Obama" on Google.)

[TwilightGardener]

52. Of course they'll bring it up. But has it damaged him in the primary?

It's out there now. If it didn't damage him now, why assume it will somehow be worse in the fall?

[HughMoran]

53. Because the Republicans have a way with whisper campaigns & outright smears

Dems may seem to be hard-hitting in this primary, but this is softball compared to what's going to happen this fall.

[TwilightGardener]

56. And how has Obama demonstrated weakness in this regard?

edit--something concrete you can point to that shows he can't handle smears?

[HughMoran]

59. Forget it

You appear to be getting defensive - this isn't the argument I wanted to have here - we are too far off topic now.

[TwilightGardener]

60. No, I'm just challenging the myths, assumptions, and memes around here--

I want a logical argument. I'll call it a draw. :-)

[NYCGirl]

72. And there are 13,300,000 hits for "Clinton Hsu". So what's your point? NT

http://www.google.com/search?q=clinton+hsu&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

[HughMoran]

2. Polls have been just so accurate. And they know state-by-state breakdown? ...and it's "hypothetical"

Irrelevant, since hypothetical matchups have almost no meaning.

[mtnester]

5. I think that ALL polls can change, and it will come down to WHOM

is chosen as Veep for whichever candidate.

Watch and see.

[Alexander]

6. Hillary is so divisive that the GE would be a squeaker with her as the nominee.

Given the vote-stealing, caging, electronic machine "problems" and so forth, we can't afford another squeaker.

We need a landslide.

That's part of the reason why I support Obama.

[ingac70]

9. I agree. We need a landslide! n/t.

[Independent-Voter]

27. Exactly - I can't see how HRC supportors can be so fucking obtuse

[JimGinPA]

42. "Obtuse"

That's the adjective Iv'e been searching for for days! I thought a lot of people supported Hillary out of loyalty to Bill and were either convinced of her supposed "inevitability" or maybe just didn't like any of the other candidates (Obama especially), but now I'm convinced there is a certain stubbornness that is just inexorable.

[ingac70]

7. HRC supporters don't care...

It is as if they want to see the Democrats snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

[TwilightGardener]

10. They are in denial. These early polls can't be counted on, it's true--but they

DO give us some idea of our candidates' strength against the R nominee RIGHT NOW, while we're in the midst of choosing ours. They should count for something, if someone is on the fence.

[rinsd]

16. I don't have a problem with people arguing perceived strength against the likely GOP nominee.

And the polling data gives Obama an edge right now over McCain.

Provided the "she can't possibly win when she's down 2 pts 9 months before the election" crap is kept to a minimum, we can happily discuss polling.

;-)

[zanne]

11. Your polling data will just be dismissed or ignored, and...

Replaced with their polling data!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. I Raised Substantive Objections That Were Conveniently Ignored

~

[rinsd]

12. And when campaigning for the general election, those numbers will change.

A hint for making formatting easier use <pre> before your charted polls (except in DU HTML language which uses brackets ) and space as required. This will format them a bit better and make them easier to read.

Like this

Poll	        Date	     Sample  McCain (R)  Clinton (D)  Und	Spread
RCP Average	01/29 - 02/07	-	46.6	45.0	6.7	McCain +1.6
Rasmussen	02/04 - 02/07	1700 LV	46	43	11	McCain +3.0
Time	        02/01 - 02/04	958 LV	46	46	8	Tie
CNN	        02/01 - 02/03	974 RV	47	50	3	Clinton +3.0
Cook/RT Strat	01/31 - 02/02	855 RV	45	41	10	McCain +4.0
ABC/Wash Post	01/30 - 02/01	1249 A	49	46	2	McCain +3.0
FOX News	01/30 - 01/31	900 RV	45	44	10	McCain +1.0
NPR	        01/29 - 01/31	1000 LV	48	45	3	McCain +3.0

[JKaiser]

15. Well, who trusts the polls anyway?? I sure don't.. The Republican media....

creates these polls so why should we trust them? When the rhetoric changes from change to experience after the primaries those polls will change.. Everyone better hope Hillary wins because Obama won't last..

[ginnyinWI]

47. the long lines at the rallies kind of back up the polls.

Which candidate has the huge rallies with people waiting in line three hours to get in? Obama.

[JKaiser]

62. Because they want to hear a speech that is written by a speech writer..

Who is Obama anyway? does anyone know anything about what his plans for change are? Has he changed anything before for the better? People are just following with blind faith..

[ginnyinWI]

67. Um. He has this website where you can go to learn about him

and all of his policies and plans. Anybody can go there at any time and find out, for free in the comfort of their own home, what he plans to do.

Plus he's written two books about his life and his philosophy. I've read one of them.

He's spoken plenty during the debates. And there is a surprising amount of content in his stump speech. But you have to actually listen to it.

I would never follow any candidate on blind faith!! Never never never.

[dmallind]

17. Well in all honesty these are less relevant than most

It's certainly good news for Obama and it's certainly an advantage he has right now over Hillary, albeit well within MOE in probably all instances.

But the questions remain: How are his advantages in key states? If he can get 40% support in Alabama instead of 30% that's a huge gain, but bugger all use. If we had state polls in OH, PA, FL, MO, NM and the like showing them on different sides of 50% then it's a much stronger argument.

Even in that case we are talking about polls of a candidate who has not been the victim of the RW smear machine yet compared to those for one who has been for nigh 20 years. Polls nine months out have little predictive value as it is (anyone remember IA polls 9 months ago?) but when they relate to a national campaign that has not yet begun at all they are even worse.

But yes, this is good news for Obama and an advantage, in popular national opinion. It's just that it's nine months before an election we have not started contesting and which is conducted on a state by state basis.

So what does it mean? Right now it's 95% likely that more Americans have a slightly better opinion of how Obama compares to McCain than how Hillary does. That's all it's supposed to mean, and all that it should be used for. It's a nice thing for Obama's reputation, not a guarantee of differential electability.

[Tarc]

20. Just like the polls that gave NH, CA, NJ to Obama?

:)

[cloudythescribbler]

33. No the CA and NJ polls showing big leads for Obama were outliers ...

[debatepro]

46. Only 1 poll in CA and NJ gave it to obama...

there were clearly outlyers. But this is seven... and to be honest ... one of the main reason I vote for Obama is because he is a better match up against McCain... He is best against McCain's strength and weaknesses.

1. GOP base not Happy with McCain - GOP base hates Clinton worse... (don't kid yourself with Rush or Colter - they are messing with you) -
2. McCain does well with independents - Obama does better.... Clinton doesn't do so well with independents head to head with McCain.
3. New voters flocking to Obama...
4. Clinton pulling democrat staples... who will vote for Obama anyway... don't be fooled by the testimonial of the annonoumous on DU...
5. Bringing in new voters and crossovers is more important to creating a fillibuster proof majority than hillaries 48 +1 strategy.

Answer 2: "Register 10% more voters"
1. Hillary energized there base to do the same thing negates the advantage.
2. Barack will get the same new registered voters hillary would get can more. Look at all the new people he is bringing into the process.

[Tom Rinaldo]

21. The next nine months are not your average nine months

You could ask Governor Dukakis about that some time. Nine months before the General Election most of the press he was receiving talked about "the Massachusetts miracle":

"In Spring, 1988, the upcoming presidential general election looked grim for Vice President George Bush. Seeking to succeed his popular predecessor, Ronald Reagan, Bush appeared on the surface to be a long shot. No sitting vice president since Martin Van Buren in 1836 had been elected in his own right short of presidential assassination or death.

Bush's problem was more than historical precedent, though. As a man, he inspired little public confidence. Bush was a cautious politician with little vision. Even conservatives in his own party never fully trusted the Texas man. He was too moderate, too patrician, and too boring for their tastes.

Facing him was a Democratic opponent, Governor Michael Dukakis, who looked very strong. Dukakis had pulled off what was being called the "Massachusetts Miracle," a stunning revival of economic fortunes in a liberal state previously derided as "Tax-achusetts." Early national public opinion polls showed Dukakis with a 17 percentage point lead over Bush. Some Democrats gleefully debated who would earn Cabinet positions in a Dukakis White House.

Below the surface of Dukakis' advantage over Bush, however, lay a volatile public that would upset the conventional campaign wisdom and usher in a surprise outcome. Unbeknownst to outside observers, Bush operatives had organized a series of focus groups in Paramus, New Jersey with so-called Reagan Democrats. These small group discussions with swing voters were designed to test possible Bush campaign messages.

At the beginning of the conversations, group participants held a generally favorable view of Dukakis, based on his demonstrated leadership and accomplishments in Massachusetts. Slowly, though, voter sentiments turned more negative as key information uncovered by Bush operatives was revealed. How would you feel, the moderator asked, if you knew that as governor of Massachusetts, Dukakis had vetoed legislation requiring teachers to say the Pledge of Allegiance at the beginning of the school day? Not so good, came the group reply...."
http://www.insidepolitics.org/ps111/independentads.html

[Independent-Voter]

36. Dukakis was a duchebag, much like Kerry was

It's that simple. Dems have a long history of picking the absolute worst candidates for the GE.

[Tom Rinaldo]

49. Few people had much prior information on Dukakis other than his talking points

His talking point was that he turned the MA economy around. It was a pretty good talking point and it was enough to give him very high poll ratings in the general public. Dukakis had an image of a hard working honest technocrat who did wonders for his home state, but very few people knew much about his actual past record at all. His past was a blank slate for Republicans to write in their own message on.

Obama has different talking points and a different positive image, but like Dukakis very few people actually know any details about his political biography. Just like voters at first just went with Dukakis message about what a competent Governor he was, voters are going with the Obama message about what a unifying and positive figure he is now. The Republicans have not yet laid a kid glove on him.

It is a very different situation with Hillary Clinton. The Republicans have already made their maximum effort to negatively define her past for her. We already know she can fight back a hell of a lot harder and more effectively than Mike Dukakis did, we've already seen it. All we've pretty much seen from Obama so far is the promotion of his own version of "The Massachusetts Miracle" phase of his presidential campaign.

[LostinVA]

22. National polls mean NOTHING

Or, at least that's what some Obama supporters posted today in the Ras national poll showing HRC over Obama.

[cali]

25. Agreed. It's too far out for those polls to mean much of anything

BUT, one thing we do know is that Hillary Clinton is, with one exception, the most polarizing figure in America. And one more thing: Her negatives will not go down.

[MethuenProgressive]

23. When Obama was down in the polls, DUbamas dismissed polls as "fixed". But now...

POLLS ARE HUGH!!!!1!!!


:rofl:

[golddigger]

38. You forgot am SERIES!!!!!!!!11!!!!!!

Silly us Hillary supporters, polls are only good when they favor the anointed one.

:rofl:

[TwilightGardener]

26. Here's the problem, Hillary supporters: you're acting like we have the next nine months

to choose a nominee--we don't. Our nominee will in all likelihood be chosen this time next month--so of course it's in your interest to discount the CONSISTENT performance of our candidates in head-to-heads, because they don't favor your girl. But right now, it's the only indicator we have of their respective general election strengths. You either rely on polls and data from today, or you act in a faith-based manner by supporting your candidate in the face of this data. That is your choice.

[incapsulated]

29. Wins on Paper don't count

Winning a GE means surviving relentless attacks by the republican machine and still standing at the end of the day.

Has Obama ever done this?

EVER?

[polichick]

30. We MUST win the WH and many open Congressional seats...

Obama is the one who can pull in enough votes, and inspire enough people to get to the polls.

[musiclawyer]

39. HRC is poison downticket

Even if she wins, even if she's turns radical liberal, even if she gets rid of Mark Penn etc, the landscape does not change. Some ole. Plus all the other money issues, it has to be Obama. This one cannot be close. There is too much at stake.

[TexasObserver]

64. you are right

On all counts.

I don't see how anyone who has been involved in Democratic politics for the past 10-15 years could not know how badly Hillary is going to hurt down ballot races across the country. It could cost us the House, the senate, governships, state houses, all the way down to the courthouse level. She will wipe out entire counties' Democratic structure by dragging down the ticket.

We must have (1) people excited to vote, and (2) a name at the top of the ticket that best ensures straight party voting. This ain't rocket science, it's by the numbers politics.

As LBJ said, if you want to be in politics, you have to be able to count.

[Nimrod2005]

31. Add, Obama's ability to raise CASH!

[TacticalPeek]

35. Can anyone find a poll

Can anyone find a poll that shows how Obama ranks after he has been chainsawed up one side and down the other by the premier scorched-earth slimers on the planet? I guarantee you that will move his numbers.

Hillary's numbers are after over 15 years of relentless attack, and they hold up well enough for this camper.

Obama has been treated with kid gloves by the media and with caution by primary opponents. But Rove and gang are loading the cannon as we type.

[MethuenProgressive]

40. Excellent points,

expressed thoughtfully. Thanks.

[TwilightGardener]

43. Where is the logic in this thinking? If he hasn't been wrecked by Hillary, and is

still running strong, why do you assume that will suddenly change, and that suddenly he will be proven WEAK in the future? What fact, from Obama's performance in the campaign to date, is this assumption based on?

[TacticalPeek]

61. The logic is that he has not been attacked by the RW machine - YET.

And he hasn't been attacked by the press - YET. For now, they love him - but they also haven't been played by the RW yet either. It takes little imagination to picture the countless times the MSM would be endlessly replaying attack videos from Indonesian Madrassa Students for the Truth and other horseshit on and on and on and on. You surely can see that, right?

Even if he were a consummate campaigner and debater and 'won' every point so to speak, those attacks still, inevitably, bring your numbers down. That's not 'fair', but it's reality.

And he might not actually be a consummate campaigner and debater under fire. Now of course he and Clinton are battling, so there is some pressure, yes - but will someone please cite for me the campaign attacks against him by Edwards? By Dodd? By Biden, Richardson, Kucinich? I'll be curious to see what anyone comes up with and how fiery it is. I cannot think of a single attack.

Also, when he has been put on the spot sometimes he seems to get somewhat arrogant and dismissive, like a few times in debates during January etc. (at least that's my take). That is not much to go on I know, but that's my point: there's not much to go on when evaluating his potential general election campaign performance. Three years in the Senate, from a campaign against seriously damaged opposition is not much of a track record for this purpose. In the current campaign, when the heat starts to rise, it's like he says 'Stop!', and they stop.

Karl won't stop.

[shayes51]

48. Dukakis was 18 points ahead of Bush41

during the summer of 1988. Polls this far out mean nothing.

[CRH]

50. If most of these listed polls can't get the right answer for tomorrow, ...

or next week, how can they tell us the dynamics in play and the opinion of an easily swayed electorate in nine months?

Second, do you ever get the feeling these constantly erring polls that fail to reflect the vote, are being used to manipulate public opinion?
How else could they be so consistently, wrong, and live on to be wrong again, and again, and again?

Try using a coin, it is just as accurate at predicting which way the wind will blow next.

[TwilightGardener]

54. But these same polls you dismiss were a large part of why McCain was chosen.

And we here on DU AND in the media assumed McCain's strength for the general election, and Romney's weakness, based on these matchup polls. If you want to make the argument that Hillary may be the stronger candidate despite the poll results, then you must conversely make the argument that McCain may be the WEAKER R candidate, and perhaps Romney is the stronger R candidate, based on those same results. Logical?

[CRH]

68. I'm not making an argument for or against Hillary or Obama, I'm simply stating, ...

the polling to date in this elections has been off the mark too often to be trusted. Second that even if it was accurate for today, the electorate can be easily swayed by just about anything from a terror attach to swiftboating, and what is significant today has little bearing on public opinion 9 months from now. Third, that it is not conspiracy theory to realize the potential that these polls could be designed to manipulate. And, four, I don't thik Hillary is the stronger candidate for the future, because it is too early to gather criteria to make that decision, which whenever made is likely to be little more than a guess or opinion.

I will boldly state, if a person chooses to believe in the iching and uses three coins to determine the future and the sentiments of the electorate as a whole, nine months from now after who knows what future events, that person is equally enlightened as to the actual outcome of the general election as if he/she were to study and speculate on todays probably inaccurate polls.

For me it matters little as I see the Obama Hillary debate as six of one half a dozen of the other. The system of government or the democratic party will not significantly change, and viewing how the democratic party has performed the last seven years, they deserve another republican trouncing. It might be beneficial in helping them to become a genuine opposing party, if the world can survive in the mean time.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

55. Didn't polls prove, many months ago, that

McCain was least likey to be the GOP nominee? Polls are so accurate.

[TwilightGardener]

58. The head-to-head polls ALWAYS showed McCain beating our nominees--

in fact, many here supported Edwards BECAUSE of the head-to-head matchups with McCain. Repubs chose McCain because he has the best chance of beating our guy. But Hillary supporters, while agreeing that these polls are correct in proving McCain's strength, are also discounting that they show Hillary's weakness.

[Vinca]

57. The "cult" seems to be getting larger by the day.

:rofl: That would explain the polls.

[TheDeathadder]

63. what good is a poll

if it leaves out there's like 9 months of future events that will effect how people will vote.

so I'm going to go ahead and stay 100% Clinton, vote and decide on how I feel and not on polls that have already been proven wrong so many time this year. Polls said Obama was going to win California.

[VotesForWomen]

65. completely meaningless; the two candidates have not faced each other yet. nt

[theboss]

66. None of this matters until Summer

Here is my belief un "electability." Both probably beat McCain.

However, Hillary has the potential to single-handidly rally a fractured Republican base around McCain.

Obama does no such thing.

Plus, I think the image of 72-year old, squeaky-voiced McCain on stage next to Obama in a debate would be a shocking contrast.

[gulliver]

69. GOP hasn't attacked Obama at all.

If they had, you can bet that Obama would be well below Hillary's numbers. (They'll call him a coke-snorting, freshman nobody liberal from corrupt Chicago). The head-to-head polls with the GOP mean nothing until (duh) the GOP is actually fighting our candidate. Prior to that, they mean that the GOP would rather have Obama against McCain, because Obama has been getting kid glove treatment from the GOP.

[TexasObserver]

70. Obama is the better candidate for us by far.

Hillary won't do well against McCain. What's her campaign theme? "She's not quite as old, crotchety, and rightwing as he is!" That's a winning theme.

[DiamondJay]

71. Dukakis was ahead in the polls too..

as was Obama in California and Mass, in which he was supposed to wreck Hillary. Obama is always victim to the Bradley Effect. Hillary always does the opposite. She polls lower than she receives in elections. These polls don't take account that many people actually think about THE ISSUES before they vote, and Hillary is stronger on them. They also leave out that the question "will middle americans accept Barack Hussein Obama" which while we should not draw attention to, the media will undoubtedly will. His race could be a handicap, but his name compounds it. If he had a normal name, I think he'd have a real shot. Also, once the GOP machine gets ready, they will take away his bullshit crossover appeal. NO ONE KNOWS HIM. Of course some indys wil think "o i kinda like the new guy", but when they call him an ultra liberal, i think he's too much of a neophyte to not get knocked down, and they will polarize him the way they have done to John Kerry.

[LisaL]

74. Those polls, IMO, so long before the election, are useless.

Furthermore, one has to win states, not popular vote, to become president.
I, for one, would not base my vote on some silly poll. And I do not think that Obama would be more electable than Hillary anyway.
Kerry was supposed to be electable, and look how that turned out.

[NoodleyAppendage]

75. Clinton supporters are IDIOTS. The poll numbers in aggregate dictate that Obama is stronger.

The DINO/DLC, pro-corporatist loving Clintonites around here are either developmentally delayed, closet racists, Repuke plants, or Clinton plants...in any event, they are idiots not to recognize that Obama is the better candidate against McCain.

J

[ShadowLiberal]

76. Hillary supports refuse to believe any polls that are bad for them after NH

[mtnsnake]

77. All these polls will go down the drain when Obama becomes the sole recipient of Right Wing's venom

[Onlooker]

78. Polls are not an argument

I support Obama, but let's recognize he has yet to be framed by the right wing. Clinton has been framed, and hopefully she really has a strategy for fighting back. God knows the Clintons have thought about it a long time. Obama has not been framed, but already attempts are starting. Words like "messianic" and "cult" will certainly resonate, and God knows what else will be done. I think the fact that he spent so much time in questionable countries will be used to rally the right around McCain, e.g., Do you really want a President whose values were formed in a Muslim world? They'll probably try to draw similarities between him and Malcolm X. Hopefully, Obama's people have been thinking about how to battle that, and they've addressed the Barrack Hussein Obama issue effectively, by first aggressively denying and second having Obama play up his Christianity.

Whatever polls show today mean nothing. The Democrats will be able to frame the superior argument, but lately the Republicans have been able to do a better job framing their candidate and the Democrat one.

[marlakay]

79. Hillary's people would rather win primary than election

thats how I feel. I know a few people who months ago told me they were voting for obama because she can't win in the general. so its out there and most everyone has known for a long time. I heard on tv last year Hillary could probably win primary but ??? general.

So knowing that its like taking once again our country down the republican road to vote for her.