The more you know about elections and polls, the clearer it is that these polls are meaningless.  Most potential vp picks have low name recognition and would of course poll lower.

And in Clinton's case, there would be an enormous amount of vetting of her and Bill's finances that would be done and would very likely undermine the ticket.

tests what % of dems want HIllary on ticket. I bet its much more than any such poll would get from the blogs, I love theblogs but i feel like one this issue they are really on the outlier as NO! When most dems would probably like it...

another poll showing Obama losing Michigan?

...

Two in a row?

I can't imagine Hillary would add any further support that Edwards wouldn't also shore up.  (Except for maybe a few disgruntled HRC supporters).  I would recommend to everyone going to Open Left and reading Paul Rosenburg's excellent three part "Logic of Edwards for VP" series.  It's a good read.

independents everywhere with this poll.  Obama actually does BETTER than Hillary with independents depending upon the state.

I just think this poll is more reflective of the fact that Obama hasn't really campaigned in Michigan yet.  People there don't know him (just like in Florida).

Once Michigan gets to know Obama than I expect his poll numbers to rise.

This is what we're reduced to? Taking a poll of a state from the local broadcast afiliate, who polled less than .000001% of the state's population, as a justification for a unity ticket?

The desperation is getting tiresome.

MSNBC currently only has Hillary down by 149 Pledged Delegates.  Once Puerto Rico votes and MI/FL compromise is reached, Hillary could be less than 100 pledged delegates away from Obama.  She could certainly get enough supers to overtake that lead at the convention if Obama continues to look weak against McCain.

This conflicts with a recent SurveyUSA poll showing Clinton hurting the Obama ticket in Michigan (by a statistically insignificant amount, which is still in pretty strong contrast to this poll).

EPIC-MRA also doesn't really have a strong record - IIRC they showed Bush beating Kerry in Michigan in 2004 close to the election; I think they were the only ones to incorrectly call MI.

Any democrat will win Michigan easily this year.  These polls are just that polls....

released yesterday from SUSA which also had 4 point lead for McCain over Obama (the internals were screwy b/c the race factor had a small sample and showed Obama only getting 62% among African-Americans, w/ 26% for McCain & 12% undecided -- which are ofcourse ridiculous numbers which I think skewed the entire poll as 13% or 14% of population of MI is black) ...

nevertheless, in this SUSA poll, when Hillary was added to the ticket (and Romney to McCain's ticket) the result was still McCain/Romney 45 - Obama/Clinton 40.  When Edwards was added it was McCain/Romney 43 - Obama/Edwards 40 ... there were also other matchups as well:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollRepo rt.aspx?g=52d98ca6-6c14-4f4a-9180-4e7f1f ce8a1a

I think Michigan GE polling is screwy at this point, b/c of the unique nature of the undecided primary situation and the fact that (except for one visit) Obama has not campaigned there yet...

Hillary as VP candidate is huge risk.

Her personal negatives would probably be added to Obama's personal negatives rather than canceling them out.

And Obama would have no message control over Hillary or Bill.

It may work out really well.  But it could also work out really poorly.  My guess is really poorly.

Obama's best chance is to sideline Hillary ASAP and not have her and Bill dominating the news cycle.  With them on the ticket, it's going to be almost impossible to avoid a media rehash of every Clinton scandal -- something we haven't yet seen.

That Obama would add Clinton to the ticket.    Since Obama is winning, he has to continue to project confidence and strength.  No matter what these polls say, I don't think the Obama campaign would want to have the appearance of giving in to, or being bullied by, an opponent whose strategy was to make him seem unelectable.

Picking a VP should be the Presidential nominee's job, and the "dream ticket" narrative would be all about how Clinton got her way, etc., not how strong Obama/Clinton are in certain states.

Any Dem will beat McCain in Michigan.

Same goes for Wisconsin.  Even though Hillary lost by a significant margin there, I still believe she'd win in November.

Someone needs to blog about the long-term consequences of putting Clinton on the ticket.  The Clintons have not had to endure a national GE campaign against Republicans in 12 years and they've accumulated tons of "baggage" since then.  In addition, Obama did not go hard-negative or "kitchen sink" on Clinton at any point in the primary.

I believe the Clinton's attacks on Obama may have actually strengthened him for the general, but I have seen no evidence that the opposite is true.

Do you think those Arabs in Dearborn in the state will vote for McCain or the Repugs after what has happened?

doesn't make it true, man. I get it; you want Clinton on the ticket. But this is Obama's decision. Writing about it as if it's CW that everyone wants her for VP, that public will is gonna somehow make it happen...it's just a different kind of desperation.

If Clinton wanted to be VP, she should have avoided the scorched earth tactics she has used.

I'd hate to see the republican ad showing Hillary giving kudos to McCain over Obama, then flashing to Obama/Clinton 2008 ticket.  Give it up.  This is a terrible idea.

Seems like selective poll picking to me.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollRepo rt.aspx?g=52d98ca6-6c14-4f4a-9180-4e7f1f ce8a1a

Shows Dems LOSE Michigan.

Polls this far out in May can say lots of things about the GE, but to somehow come to the conclusion that Clinton as VOP would strengthen the ticket based on ONE poll when another poll shows nothing of the sort seems to be reaching to me.

SurveyUSA has put out polls of PA, OH, IA, NM, VA and a few others and Edwards has always given the ticket a huge boost.

No mention of those?

Obama's numbers vs. McCain are way below reality because of Clinton supporters who say they won't vote Obama.  Obama supporters aren't disappointed about losing and so don't do the same back to Clinton.

Most Clinton supporters will come around.  In some early 2000 polls, 51% of McCain voters in the GOP primary said they would support Al Gore.  That didn't even come close to happening and it won't happen for Clinton supporters this year, either.

Just given where expectations were 6 months ago compare that to what expecations are now.

6 months is a lifetime in politics.

McCain is currently beginning his meltdown.  The media is focussing more on his past because Hillary is for all intents and purposes, out of the Dem race.

Its great news to watch Hillary and Obama spin around one another vying for the nomination, but that particular dance has been played out and its no fun watching Hillary solo a couple's dance after the music has stopped.

So now the liability in this election, experience, is rearing its ugly head.

The thing about politics in this country is that you have to swim in the slime.  The longer you are in the more saturated you are.  Its just the way it is here.  Both Hillary and especially McCain during an election that is calling for change from the status quos suffers this particular liability.

Obama does not, fortunately.  

So the attention has shifted and the melting begins.  The years of actually wading through the political slime that is Washington does indeed stick and people hopefully, will take note of just who has more baggage.

And for this that sing the rhetoric of 'that's how you get things done in politics', then you haven't been paying attention, nor do I expect you to.

A great many firsts have happened in this election already.  Not the least of which is outdated ways of thinking on how to get things done.  Its why the 50 state strategy is winning, its why the big donors are not the policy drivers of the DNC at the moment, its why a black man or a woman can run for president.

Barack has been smart from day one of this campaign.  He's changing the paradigm of politics, for the better is my ardent hope.

He also scares the scrap out of the establishment which is truly a wonderful thing as the establishment hasn't been very good for anyone save the establishment for the time I have lived in this country.

Barack Obama might just have a million volunteers for the GE.  Imagine that ....a MILLION...

Its unheard of.  

Change is a wonderful thing.

Obama, not the Clintons, not the DNC.

If Hillary is on the ticket it will be because Obama wants her there, and I can't imagine why he would.

"Let me give you some straight talk, my friends.  The old jobs are not coming back to Michigan." --John McCain, January, 2008

He lost the primary with that statement... he'll lost the general with that statement.  Add his pro free trade sentiments, and McCain's a goner.

We have nothing to worry about in Michigan.  Please focus the "concern" elsewhere.

He doesn't need her and I very seriously doubt he wants her. In my opinion she's more a liability than anything else.

Obama is going to run AS brilliant a campaign as he ran against Hillary Clinton. Only he can finally take the kid gloves off.

In the extremely unlikely event Clinton wins, she will likely beat him as well.

Stop acting like Clinton is his "only hope" to beat McCain. She started out with the Clinton name, connections and 100 Superdelegate lead before a vote was even cast. Here's Nick-the-new-guy taking on two titans, 2-term President Bill AND Hillary Clinton. More recently, here he is taking on Bill AND Hillary AND Limbaugh AND McCain AND the rest of the GOP.

And now we have Clinton way behind, scorched earth and multiple kitchen sinks thrown into the smoke.

Stop being so afraid of Obama vs McCain. Reach down, grab your nuts and realize Obama is doing to destroy him.  

The January election was an undemocratic scam.  Jennifer Grenholm and her Clintonista thugs screwed their own people over.   The voters were told that the election would not count, so many did not bother to even show up.

Now to count to vote in full is to make an absolute mockery of the people who played honestly and by the rules.  I have friends in Michigan who did not vote and they are furious that Clinton is trying now to claim that the election should count in full.

We need to find a real Democrat to run against Grenholm so we can get her out of office.  I am disgusted that the Clinton camp is blaming this on the national party, when this is fully the falt of the Michigan Democratic Party.

make Hillary VP!

This is getting pathetic.

Adding the Clintons only makes Obama weak and like every other politician.

The Clinton's plan - with their attacks - was always to make nice at the end. They know that once the subject is changed everyone will forget. They are right and in September the Clintons will be forgotten. If he puts her on the ticket everyone will see as caving in and weak and that can't be forgotten because it will be right in our faces the whole time.

It is time for the Clinton faithful to move on. By buying into all this stuff about counting votes that do not matter and seating people who knew they wouldn't be......it sounds like the Bush faithful going along with anything Bush said on the lead up to the war.

give it up already. Let her play it out and that will be that.

Check the cross-tabs.  SUSA has 26% of African American voters voting for John McCain.  Yeah, right.  That's going to happen when Rush Limbaugh converts to Islam, moves to India to meditate with a yogi guru and becomes a vegan.  

If Obama is down 4 points with 26% of AA's going for McCain, what it really means is that Obama is several points up on McCain.  African Americans will vote at least 90% for Obama, while McCain will receive no more than 5-7% of the AA vote.  

c'mon..
Is there anyone who thinks this is not about the frickin' DLC and the future of our Party?

Under the direction of Dr. Dean we are moving toward the every district every State that the DLC objected to...and we can do it without Hillary and Bill on the ticket.
Let Sen. Clinton go back to the Senate and perhaps establish a legacy close to what Sen. Kennedy did after 1980.

The Obama campaign is tight.
Screw the DLC..they have been replaced.

My guess for the poor showing for an Obama/Clinton ticket - lots of African Americans actually said they would vote for McCain rather than for Obama/Clinton.  

any pro-invasion Democrat for VP. It would completely undercut one of his strongest arguments against Bush/McSame.

USASurvey has McBush getting a lot of AA votes.  LOL.

Crystal Balls.

I think SUSA has generally done a tremendous job this year, but the methodology on their multi-match-up polls is atrocious.  You simply can't ask the same sample 10 different match-ups, without rotation, and tell me the results mean anything down the list.  Their unrotated 50-state poll from Feb was bad enough, but this one is just ridiculous.  Question rotation is simple and that they're not doing it is mind-boggling.

Survey USA only polled Romney as VP, and your saying this doesn't look good? Wow, we sure love concern trolling here, even on the front page. Give me a break, obviously a McCain/Romney ticket is going to fair well in Michigan, Romney made sure to turn it into his home state in the primary.

But 1, theres no indication McCain will pick Romney (if he does, it will make him weak elsewhere). And 2, we know Obama's going to have to work there, its a swing state, but using only the McCain/Romney match-ups to assess his situation is dumb (note: the McCain-Obama pure matchup is within the MOE).

Of courser Romney's presence will boost McCain in Michigan.  He has roots in the state, and won the GOP primary there.  But I wonder how much good the Massachusetts Chameleon will do for McCain elsewhere in the country.