I think the only way that Dems win the general election is if Democrats are united.

I really feel that if there is a Clinton/Obama ticket, we would win the general election.

I think demonizing either HRC or Obama right now is just DUMB politics.

We shoud be focusing on their strengths.

Obama may pick up more independents than Hillary, but wouldn't he also lose more Latinos and working-class whites to McCain?

That's a concern I have.

Considering the fact that polling paradigms do not hold up for this contest (as evidence in NH, and Super Tuesday), why do we keep giving them credence?

The thing is that general election polls right now are somewhat of a beauty contest.

If you look at polls on issues, independents overwhelmingly want troops out of Iraq, health care reform, and are worried about the economy.

In a general election campaign against McCain, HRC would do just fine among those people, although maybe not as well as Obama.

Either Dem is going to be a significant favorite to beat McCain in the fall.

You can't buy better press than Obama has received in Dec. and Jan.   It was more than a pass, it was a national media love fest.   That won't last forever.  The rock star treatment will be come before the Democratic Primaries even end.

On the other hand McCain has long been a friend of the media.  He has granted interview after interview and reporters love the fact that he comes to the back of the bus or the plane and talks to them without spin.

By the general Obama and McCain will be on equal media ground, and Obama will lose to McCain as the Republicans work to make this a national security election and highlight Obama's inexperience and some the comments he has made on the trail to date (sitting down without precondition in his first year with Castro, Chavez, sending combat forces into Pakistan, etc.).

As I have pointed out in other posts.  Obama will also allow McCain to do well among Latinos.  McCain will probably draw the same 40% Bush did, meaing key western states like Az, MN, NV, and Co will not flip to our column.  

Lastly, older white voters are rejecting Obama now, and I suspect, like latinos, it is a racial divide that Obama will not be able to bridge in  what will be a short general cycle for Democrats.  Older white voters will rally to the straight talk and experience of McCain.

Obama will be lucky to grab that 47% or 48% in a general against McCain.  He could end up at 45% or 45%.

The older vote scares me the most.  Old people vote and they won't be voting in large numbers for Obama.

how about an ObamaRichardson ticket? Obama could pick up the independents, Richardson could pick up the hispanics, it would be a blow out.

What about if Bloomberg jumps in?  He will siphon away a lot of these independents on both sides, and all we will have left is the base.  Who is better at getting the base out?  Hillary.  Yes, she's not appealing to African American's right now, but that will change if Obama loses.  The fact is that Hispanics now outnumber African Americans by almost 2-1 in some counts.

With that being said, I put little credence in these faux GE polls.  The fact is this is February.  A LOT of swift boating can happen between now and then, and with the oncoming Obama backlash in the media, the numbers could quickly change.

Mr. McCain  is supposed to be loved in New Hampshire.  He has won it twice now.

Quiz: who receieved more independent votes in NH this January?  McCain or Clinton?

Answer:  Clinton.

Clinton will do just fine with independents, many of whom are what ... women.

Clinton was beating McCain in these matchups back in Oct, Nov and Dec.   Fact is she has been beat up by the media for the past 2 months and that is just starting to state after the race has entered a new phase.

She can beat McCain in Nov. because she can convince enough voters that she is competent on national security issues, negating McCain's advantage a great deal.  Clinton will also hold the Latinos by a large margain, larger than Obama's, gain some rank and file unions support that Obama would not (he does poorly now with this demo and these voters have bolted to the R's in the past), and she will hold the older voters Obama will not.

Independents - again, a majority are women - will be backing the first female President, but largely voting on issues that are Clinton's strengths.    They won't vote on "hope" they will vote in jobs, education, and health care.

If polls in February were predictive of who would be President then Al gore and John Kerry would be President would have been President. Campaigns do matter and the Clintons will campaign better against the Republicans than did Al Gore or Kerry. Al Gore lost his home state of Tennessee; Kerry's V.P. lost his home state of North Carolina.

Hillary can most likely win Arkansas and Tennessee and probably Ohio. I don't see Obama winning these states. Don't make the mistake of looking at national polls - it's the "math" for electoral votes per state that matters.

Forget the polls. We all know what happened in NH.

BHO was supposed to sweep CA, MA and come close in NJ. HRC was up in CT and come close in GA and AL.

So it does not matter unless the vote is Cast.

My Advice: Disregard the polls. P

olls dont matter votes does matter

Poor Hillary Clinton.

The press is going to rip the nomination away from her because they are literally changing people's minds about the candidates and their issues.

It's an insult to Democratic voters to assume that they are merely sheep that are easily swayed by the big, bad media.

I think you are confusing them with Republican voters who feed at the trough of the Faux Nooz network.

I don't take comparisons like this between Hillary and Obama too seriously Obama hasn't been subject to the GOP attack machine yet. If he gets the nomination, he will be.

The polls also predicted Obama will win CA, NH, and NV. So, I don't care about these polls.

The entire basis of Hillary's special strength in the general wlll be previously non voting, working class single women who will see Hillary as uniquely caring about them, their families and their problems.

This was explained to me three years ago by an old sage of labor and one of the smartest people in DC when I told him that I was worried that Hillary couldn't win a national election for all the reasons her foes now repeat day after day after day..

He said women who see themselves as non voters will register when they see that Hillary, a woman, is the nominee. And they will come out and vote for her in November. Not because she's Bill Clinton's wife...and not because she's a Senator from New York...they will hear her and come and vote for her BECAUSE  they will hope and believe that she, as a WOMAN, actually cares about them, their children and their lives .

THEY WILL COME AND VOTE FOR HILLARY.
THEY WON'T BE THERE FOR OBAMA..

Obviously, non voters have no party. So I think we can safely call them "independents" too.

This has been the basis for her campaign for years. Ask Ellen Malcolm.

That's why President Clinton has from the beginning  said that he thought that the general election would be easier for Hillary then the primaries would be.   Because the votes of these "forgotten" women will make all the difference.

If the turn out of these women even in the primaries dont show this to be an effective predictor, I dont know what it is.

According to http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/200802 06/cm_thenation/45280868

"More consequentially, he [Obama] won independents by large margins in most regions, including states in Clinton's column, such as Arizona and New Jersey, where one out of five primary voters were independents. He won them by 15 points in Clinton's home state of New York, and by 30 points in California. In the swing state of Missouri, independents flocked to Obama by a decisive 37 points, securing his narrow victory there."

These "matchup" polls are worthless, but what I DO find quite interesting is that Hillary leads Obama in national polling again.  Tuesday was an effective tie any way one wants to slice it, so it stands to reason that Obama would move well ahead of Clinton at this point, given the "momentum" he had for the last 3, 4 weeks.  But, no such thing.  He is still behind by 6%, 4%.    That momentum is not as great as we are led to believe, or else  we would be seeing him ahead by large margins at this point.

Well, it's a long way to November and Obama has a lot of negatives that the GOP will expose. I can see him holding a lead until the 527's start tearing him apart. He hasn't shown that he can take the heat. And screaming racism everytime someone attacks him is a sure loser in the general election.

Obama also gets more crossover Republican votes than Hillary does.  They hate her with a passion.  It's totally out of control and irrational, but there it is.  My 82 year old Mom in the midwest has been a GOP voter all her life and is now planning to vote for Obama.

Look at polls before Super Tuesday...and what the actual results were in Ca, Ma & NY.

Obama is still floating on a good PR bubble. But all bubbles burst.
There is lots on unused negatives to use against Obama, but the repigs are holding their fire.

Hillary has spent 16 years beginning attacked and is still standing.
McCain has some cross appeal, but he has huge negatives too with age, temperment and the fact that he has taken ownership of the war weighing against him.

In debates Hillary will shine. Obama will be vague. McCain will be cantankerous.

Despite the years of assault and the press/pundits hating her she still is powerful and wins people over with her command of the issues.

The current matchup polls between McCain & Hillary or Obama are worthless. Hillary has been getting beatup by the media for over a month while Obama has been getting licked to death. Once the MCM & the Repub slime machine go negative on Obama, these numbers will change.

What does concern me is underlying factors: 1) Hillary has been getting close to 50% steadily in voters who will not support her under any circumstances (this makes her close to unelectable) 2) Obama, because he is black, will get a reasonable percent of swing voters - particularly blue collar types & elderly whites - who will not vote for him. Thus, both candidates have a good chance of losing against McCain.

These general election polls are meaningless. Obama has never been in a tough campaign.  Hillary has faced the right wing onslaught for 16 years. Anyone who thinks the right wing is going to take it even 1% less viciously against Obama in the general election than they would Clinton is living in an absolute fantasy world. The dynamics will change once a nominee is selected.

I give up, if Democrats want to nominate Hillary Clinton, who is qualified and smart, but perhaps the most polarzing politician in Washington, then fine. Republicans have been scrambling for several years to find something to unite them, and if Dems nominate Hillary we'll do just that. Nothing like making it hard on ourselves!

The Republicans and media have attacked Hillary Clinton for 20 years- they have yet to begin on Obama- Just wait- If she's this close with her closet cleaned out- Obama fans had best get a reality grip-

Hasn't anyone learned anything? The media and gullible, desperate partisans still continue to place too much emphasis on polls.  I can't believe anybody is putting any stock in these corrupt, bullshit polls, few of which have been very accurate to date. And the GE is a full 9 months away! Better to base your opinions on your Magic 8 ball or Ouija board.

People who extrapolate who's the best candidate from primary voting or results need to put these results in context: only a very small percentage of the voting population turn out. They're only representative of the activist/deeply concerned percentage of the population, not the general voting public.

In the final analysis, the GE winner in November will most likely win the %popular vote by at most 6% regardless of who the candidates are and the mood of the country at Super Tuesday time period and  regardless of the so called Issues.

With that as a "Given"-

On the Dem side at present we have one "known" and many times 'vetted' candidate who happens to be the First Female Candidate in history and with Women being 51% or so of the US poulation and maybe 55% or so of likely Nov voters.

All her warts etc are already out there and have been for several years!

Our other dem Candidate is a telegenic type with a thin resume and 'anti war' who is a Black male who is almost totally "unvetted" and also suffers--most unfairly-- as having 2 parts of his full name that rightly or wrongly causes subliminal association with 2 of the most despised figures from an American viewpoint-Saddamm and OBL.

Let's try and walk in the GOP's shoes now--not our own. What do we do leaning into the GE? Which one of these Dems will it be easier for us to Change perceptions of so that it is to our advantage in the Fall?

Since Hillary Clinton is within the margin of error in both polls, the only thing the polls show to me is that either Clinton or Obama could beat McCain in the November election. But lets not lose focus on the bigger picture; the house, senate, and gubernatorial races.
The Presidency is only one part of the entire process, and the presidency won't mean much unless we have a filibuster proof majority in congress, and wide spread support from states.
From the beginning I have been supportive of Obama, because I saw his name on the ballot as being very likely to pull more votes for other Democratic candidates than Clinton's name on the ballot could. Clinton's name, in and of itself, entices loathing among conservatives (whether or not they are Republicans), and that loathing will most assuredly affect every Democratic candidate that shares a ballot with Clinton. The conservatives do not possess that level of loathing for Obama, and in fact I believe Obama could marshal a whole lot of "Obama Republicans" (Republicans who are pro-choice, anti-Iraq War, color blind on political issues, anti-warrantless wiretapping, and pro-separation of church and state) toward his campaign and the campaigns of other Democrats sharing the ballot with him.
The term "Clinton Republican" does not exist, and will never exist.

I think what this poll doesn't take into account is that McCain will be pushed very strongly to pander frequently to the right wing of the Republican party.  I have no doubt in my mind that once that occurs consistently, that will push the independents to the Democrats regardless of who our nominee is.  Also, democratic turnout this primary cycle has been phenomenal and has vastly outpaced republican turnout.  So, honestly, I'm not all that worried about the general for dems.  We're going to win either way.

This might be an argument for Hillary to put Obama in the VP spot, although I am so turned off by him and his cultists, that I kind of hope she doesn't.

In terms of Obama and McCain, I can just hear Obama trying to explain the drivers licenses to illegal aliens pandering, the MoveOn endorsement, and the Kennedy endorsement. McCain would roll over him. But fortunately that won't happen because it will be Clinton/McCain.

Dukakis was leading by 17% over George Bush after the convention. We did not have Dukakis presidency did we? I am sure your koolaid would be well liked by th kossacs!

You know where you can stick your poll .........

These polls are meaningless.  If a democratic candidate loses Florida and Ohio I cannot see how we can win white house. It is important to see who has a better chance of winning Florida and Ohio against McCain. Hispanic votes are certainly in play.

I have not seen a thing about the voting reliability of the various constituencies.  As we all know, even the mail in ballots have to be mailed in, and there have been some major skews due to people not actually voting.  

OK so we know the Obama bros like a good party.  Can they be counted on to do something when no one's looking?  The independents in my state have a nasty tendency to drop out if they get pissed off.  And there's plenty of time to get pissed before november....It's so darned fun to fly off the handle for the cause.

Another 'Ho for Hilary

I have not seen a thing about the voting reliability of the various constituencies.  As we all know, even the mail in ballots have to be mailed in, and there have been some major skews due to people not actually voting.  

OK so we know the Obama bros like a good party.  Can they be counted on to do something when no one's looking?  The independents in my state have a nasty tendency to drop out if they get pissed off.  And there's plenty of time to get pissed before november....It's so darned fun to fly off the handle for the cause.

Another 'Ho for Hilary

All you have to do is look what Independents have done so far. No need to look at the polls.

Let's not forget Ralph Nader.  He has strongly indicated that if Obama wins the Democratic nomination he (Nader) will run again.  He has said Obama's candidacy is "nonsense", that he is shallow and inexperienced.  If we believe that Nader caused problems before, I don't think we can imagine the havoc he would cause in the '08 election.  There are as many Democrats who won't vote for Obama as there are who proclaim they won't vote for Clinton..but these folks are quieter about it lest they be called racists. Nader really represents a threat to Democrats this time.

I know exactly how we'll be able to beat him. C&L provided a glimpse of the damning ad against him. Hillary Clinton wouldn't hesitate to run it either.

Here's how it goes.

Play a clip of McCain saying Hillary Clinton wants to surrender. Then show a screen and some narration  that says, "In 1993, the United States was attacked by Al Qaeda in Somalia during its mission to restore liberty and democracy to that war-torn region." Then simply show a clip of McCain in the Senate saying that we needed to withdraw immediately. Rinse and repeat.

McCain was for raising the white flag of surrender before he was against it.

I doubt he'd want to play #3 in a WH that is going to be shelled for 4-8 years by the lunatics right-wingers and that's going to have to pass Republican-lite bills to get anything done.

Too much baggage if he wants to run again.

LINK

Oy Vey. Most of you are being a little over the top with all your over-analysis.

First off: The nonsense that Obama is the only one that can win against McCain or that Hillary is the only one that win against McCain is just ridiculous. This narrative coming from "progressives" and self-identified Democrats is just silly.

Second: polls are wrong. A LOT. Have we not learned anything from NH, CA, and all the rest. TIME is a right-wing rag. I don't trust them even a little bit.

Third: Have we learned nothing? DEMOCRATS are voting in record numbers. And this nonsense that Obama people won't vote for Clinton is silly. If they are Democrats, they will. Including the NEW young voters. As will Clinton's voters. They will vote for the nominee. A couple of num-nuts on the internet saying they will refuse to vote for whomever is not their nominee of choice is NOT the norm. Most Democrats will fall in line and vote the Party. We are more than DOUBLING most Republican voters in all the primaries. What makes ANY of you think that they won't for the general? They will. Regardless of who the nominee is.

Fourth:  Are we letting polls and Independents decide our candidates now? I thought we were Democrats. Start acting like it!

if she's willing to be populist, as she's already staked out the correct on the facts "there is no crisis' position. Obama would be unable to oppose McCain's crisis mongering, since he's done it himself.

One consistent theme that I hear here, and just about everywhere else that is Die Hard pro-Hillary, is criticism of Obama's health care reform proposal, because it is not "universal".
I find that silly for the following reason:
If Obama becomes the nominee, he will win the general election by a very big margin, and he will bring a lot of new Democrats to Washington with him (I am predicting 9 new senators). If Obama does that he will have a strong, nearly filibuster proof, Democratic majority in congress to work with.
Do you all really think a filibuster proof Democratic controlled congress is going to pass a Health Care Reform bill that wouldn't contain Universal Coverage?
Do you really think Obama would veto a bill that contained Universal Coverage within it if it was passed by a filibuster proof congress?
Get real folks and look at the bigger picture. We need 9 more Democratic senators in the senate, and Obama is much more likely to bring 9 new Democratic senators than Hillary is.
Bottom line; you can win small with Clinton, but you can win big with Obama.

How does electing a person who wins on the backs of old ladies (of which I am one) move us forward, represent the "change" HRC is espousing and represents the diversity of America?  I'd love a woman in the White House before I die, just not this one.  I'll vote for Condi before I would vote for the HRC.  Condi may be wrong, but at least she is real!