Polling gainst McCain
I think that trying to project November from here is pretty foolish, but there seems to be a growing body of recent polls showing that Obama polls better against McCain.
Just throwing it out for discussion.
Just throwing it out for discussion.
posted by mikevotes at
9:45 AM
14 Comments:
First Comment:
I think that's mostly a relative difference based on the perceptions of today, and that trying to project November from here is pretty foolish.
But, it's showing up, so it's a factor in the primaries that are now.
And, I think it plays into Obama's growing electability argument that he's pushing in little ways, like the recommendation to look at the Clinton tax returns further down the page.
By
mikevotes, at 8:51 AM
At this point I don't know how Obama DOESN'T do better against McCain than Hillary in open, non-partisan polling. This is what the exit polling from the Dem primaries have been telling us as well, so this makes sense. However, if Hillary is the Dem nominee, and faced with a real choice, not just a phone survey choice, Hillary will probably do much better than today's polling would indicate.
But we've all seen what a fools errand it is to make political prognostications even weeks out, never mind well over half a year out.
By
-epm, at 9:59 AM
That's kinda what I'm saying. There's a whole bunch of real estate bewteen here and November.
The question to me is, does this polling affect the very right now primary?
By
mikevotes, at 11:05 AM
In a word: yes. But, not in a tipping point kind of way... yet. The two Dem candidate have their own cults of personality (and loyal followings) that transcend party. Right now there are too may Dem primary voters who feel a deep personal conviction to one or the other candidate.
So the electability numbers will affect whatever portion of the primary electorate is less emotionally evolved and are focused on November. I just don't have a sense as to what percentage of the primary electorate that is. 20%? 30%? 5%?
By
-epm, at 11:22 AM
That's the discussion I was looking for.
It's my opinion that there are alot of people on the fence who vote Clinton at the end because they just aren't willing to leap. (If you look at the polling, Clinton usually wins last day deciders.)
I don't think that's about electability as much as "Day one," but some of those probably are.
By
mikevotes, at 2:06 PM
"I don't think that's about electability as much as "Day one," "
That may be part of it, but I also think it's the "devil you know..." argument as well. People think Hillary's known quantity. I think that's a faulty assumption. People don't really know Hillary as an individual... only as that stoic lady as part of The Clinton Years.
By
-epm, at 2:30 PM
For me, electability was THE factor, given the very minor differences on policy among the major candidates. I was operating on the assumption that while this country would be unlikely to elect a woman President, it would be even more unlikely to elect an African-American president. Maybe I got that wrong. If I hadn't already voted, I would have a very tough choice, given these latest polls.
But... several points.
The differences are pretty close to being within the margin of error.
Supposedly people are much more willing to tell a pollster they'll vote for a black candidate than they are to actually do so.
The Republicans will go negative on Obama in a way that Clinton has not... and it will have an effect. A lot of his support among independents strikes me as very soft. And McCain is very appealing to independents.
So... I take the polling with a grain of salt. But to answer the question...yes, if it holds up, it affects the primary voting, just not a whole ton.
My question is, does it affect the superdelegates... who more and more look like the key constituency in this race?
By
Anonymous, at 2:51 PM
Tom, the negative voter question has always fascinated me in this race.
You figure the majority "who wouldn't vote for a black man" weren't likely Dem voters anyhow. For a woman, I don't know. I think we have a pretty good sense of the Hillary Clinton specific anti-vote, but at this point, the Obama specific anti vote is still unclear.
I will add this. Republicans (I emphasize) that I talk to in Texas, often talk about his delivery style as "black preacher." I think they really mean civil rights but can't bring themselves to say it. Just little quiet racism I'm running across.
To your points,
MoE is a good observation, and I think these polls will shift.
The polling gap for a black candidate isn't as big a deal within the Dem party.
And, I do buy his argument that her supporters go to him, but not vice versa.
(And I think the superdelegates will be sorted out by the DNC way before the convention.
At some point, I would guess Howard Dean will try to step in, quietly poll them, then through agreement force a majority to the people's elected winner.
I just don't see the superdelegates being allowed to overturn the voters.
Just my sense of it.)
By
mikevotes, at 3:02 PM
I'm hoping for a Hillary/Obama or Obama/Hillary ticket.
Hillary has the female vote, as well as support in the Asian and Latino, and the great big states seem to be in her corner.
Obama, besides his delegate count and some surprising wins, has the advantage of enthusiasm behind him. This is an intangible, but very important.
In a perfect world, wouldn't these two figure out a way to patch up differences and function together as an electable package?
A war-happy Republican president over the next 4 years is a very depressing prospect, and I feel fairly sure that bombs would be pointlessly dropping on Teheran in short order in a McCain administration.
By
r8r, at 4:00 PM
8r, I understand the logic, but I don't think it's happening.
I don't see her taking the VP slot. If she's smart, she'll cut a deal for Senate Majority leader in order for her not to take it to convention.
I don't see him taking the VP slot because, if he loses, he won't want to leave his 2012 or 2016 positioning so out of his control. His record will be whatever she wants it to be.
Plus, at this point, I don't think they could work out a suitable and sustainable powersharing deal.
Does she want to be outshined by his oratory? Does he want to have a Bill Clinton running around looking after her interests among his administration?
It's just too messy.
Just my opinion.
By
mikevotes, at 4:30 PM
"I would guess Howard Dean will try to step in, quietly poll them, then through agreement force a majority to the people's elected winner."
But if there IS no clear winner? I don't think Howard Dean, or anyone else in the party, has the clout to play Solomon. That's where the electability argument, if Obama can make it stick, could be important.
By
Anonymous, at 1:29 AM
TG, that's my hunch that Dean will step in.
The question is, how many of the superdelegates are committed enough to either candidate to create this chaos.
You have to figure that the majority could be persuaded to to move their vote for the betterment of the party.
By
mikevotes, at 8:25 AM
"betterment of the party"...
without due diligence that phrase could turn into code words for "Pro-Clinton"...
By
Anonymous, at 11:33 AM
Except that my hunch is that Obama will be on the post.
By
mikevotes, at 2:17 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home