Quinnipiac Swing State Poll: Clinton wins; Obama does not

Florida

Clinton 48% - McCain 41%

McCain 45% - Obama 41%

Ohio

Clinton 48% - McCain 41%

McCain 44% - Obama 40%  

Pennsylvania

Clinton 50% - McCain 37%  

Obama 46% - McCain 40%

"The numbers for Florida and Ohio are good news for Sen. John McCain and should be worrisome for Sen. Barack Obama. That is especially true for Ohio, which decided the 2004 election," said Peter A. Brown.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?Rele aseID=1180

Tags: Election 2008, Quinnipiac poll, swing states (all tags)

Comments

175 Comments

LIAR!!!!

Obama wins in Pennsylvania.  You should change your lying headline before your pants catch on fire.

by Blue Neponset 2008-05-22 05:59AM | 0 recs
Personal attacks

are disruptive and inappropriate.

No presidential candidate in the modern era has won without at least 2 of these 3 states.

by phoenixdreamz 2008-05-22 06:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Personal attacks

Lying is worse.  

You don't give us any analysis.  You only tell us the poll results.  Obama wins PA, and he is within a four points of winning FL & OH.  That is hardly a doomsday scenario for him.  Either your headline is a lie or you don't know how to read a poll.  

by Blue Neponset 2008-05-22 06:07AM | 0 recs
I did not lie

and ask once again that you refrain from personal attacks.

I provided a link to the Quinnipiac site web page I obtained the information provided from where you'll also find their analysis. I don't presume to know more about their business than they do. Quinnipiac is well respected and independent.

by phoenixdreamz 2008-05-22 06:14AM | 0 recs
REC THIS DIARY UP GANG!!!!

This info reinforces everything we've been saying for months... Hillary WINS key states.  BO... not so much!

by alegre 2008-05-22 06:49AM | 0 recs
Re: REC THIS DIARY UP GANG!!!!

So if one went by polls alone, why is Hillary trailing in this primary(or winning very narrowly even if you go by the most biased Hillary supporter) when she was leading big time in the polls when the primary started?

by Pravin 2008-05-22 06:53AM | 0 recs
Re: REC THIS DIARY UP GANG!!!!

If we're going by polls, then the most reasonable split of MI delegates is giving Obama the uncommitted! Because he is BEATING her in MI polls. And since camp-Hillary is concerned with most "accurately" reflecting the will of the people, shouldn't she be suggesting a 59/69 split instead of "Gimme Gimme Gimme all of 'em!!!"?

by Rhizomorph 2008-05-22 06:59AM | 0 recs
Yep. The superdelegates were brought into

existence within our party to address exactly this situation. It is noteworthy that Obama's declaration in Iowa that he is now the winner of the most pledged delegates didn't bring about the sudden deluge of supers we've been hearing about around these parts, and have heard about before, and before that. Didn't happen. The rest are waiting for something. Wonder what that is?

by Rumarhazzit 2008-05-22 07:55AM | 0 recs
I'm not part of your "gang"

or any "gang."  So, no thanks.

by kellogg 2008-05-22 12:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Personal attacks

Um, the diary did post the poll result. Did you read?

by kingsbridge77 2008-05-22 06:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Personal attacks

And no presidential candidate in modern history has registered as many new voters as Obama or raised as much money from a record number of individual voters. Obama will do a lot of things that no other presidential candidate (or president) in modern history has done.

But anyway, Obama will win PA, and he will also likely win OH. You all need to remember, we are SIX MONTHS from the general. Once Obama starts debating Old Man McCain one on one, then the presidency will be ours. Sure, he won't win FL - I never thought he would. But the electoral map gives him a number of different paths to 270+ without FL.

by Rhizomorph 2008-05-22 06:57AM | 0 recs
Re: also

And this red-state North Carolina poll posted earlier by Jerome Armstrong is interesting.

SUSA does poll both Obama and Clinton in North Carolina today. Obama loses by double-digits, while Clinton defeats McCain:

North Carolina

Clinton     49
McCain      43

McCain      51
Obama       43

by moevaughn 2008-05-22 07:32AM | 0 recs
Re: also

1) Obama's down 8pts, not double digits. :)

2) This is only because Clinton supporters who are still peeved that she lost the nomination are holding off their support for Obama.

Once they come together, Obama's support will rocket up above McCain's.

by Yalin 2008-05-22 07:56AM | 0 recs
New SUSA poll in Virginia

Obama: 49% (35%)
McCain: 42% (55%)

Obama/Edwards:   53%
McCain/Huckabee: 41%

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollRepo rt.aspx?g=9901f8fc-034e-4a1d-ab36-f6e5c9 18614e

by bookish 2008-05-22 08:58AM | 0 recs
Re: LIAR!!!!

Obama wins one and is within the MoE in the other two.  I'd say those are excellent polls - especially as the only candidate out of the three that has been attacked is Obama. Clinton's numbers have nowhere to go but down.

by interestedbystander 2008-05-22 06:04AM | 0 recs
improper

Maybe the diarist should just ADD North Carolina as an UPDATE.  YOU KNOW the state B O just won as the justification for annoint himself, where he LOSES to McCain, but Hillary would WIN*

by LindaSFNM 2008-05-22 07:05AM | 0 recs
Re: improper

If you think any Democrat is going to win in North Carolina this cycle, I've got some swamp land here in the land of the not really dienfranchised to sell you.  

by Same As It Ever Was 2008-05-22 09:02AM | 0 recs
Re: LIAR!!!!

One poll. Not what I would like to see for a candidate with over half the pledged delegates, but still a long way out from the general election. Please try to be civil. The post is not a lie.

by Jeter 2008-05-22 07:36AM | 0 recs
This poll was just released today

No spin. It does lend credence to Hillary's electability argument.

by phoenixdreamz 2008-05-22 06:00AM | 0 recs
Re: This poll was just released today

Only if you assume that the President is only elected by 3 states

by Lost Thought 2008-05-22 06:02AM | 0 recs
Re: This poll was just released today

Make that 2 states.

by Lost Thought 2008-05-22 06:03AM | 0 recs
Re: This poll was just released today

See what happens when you lie diarist?  People think Obama isn't winning any of those states.  Why don't you change your lying headline?

by Blue Neponset 2008-05-22 06:04AM | 0 recs
Re: This poll was just released today

You really need to grab a cup of coffee, take  few deep breaths, and climb down off your high horse.

by dhonig 2008-05-22 06:05AM | 0 recs
Re: This poll was just released today

Nope.  

I am sick and tired of lies.  If people want to have a reasonable conversation about the election then they can write a reasonable diary.  One paragraph diaries with lying headline aren't meant to foster civil discussion.  AS a result I am responding in kind.  

by Blue Neponset 2008-05-22 06:09AM | 0 recs
Re: This poll was just released today

No, you're being an asshole.  If you really want to parse words, then the title is factually correct.  Among the swing states in the polls, Clinton wins, Obama does not. That is true as a measure of the number of states, 2-1, or the number of electoral votes.  It is a headline.  Headlines are not the entire story.  There is nothing inaccurate in the diary.  Get over yourself.  Seriously, just get over yourself.  Nobody here is obligated to write headlines the way you want them written.

by dhonig 2008-05-22 06:18AM | 0 recs
Re: This poll was just released today

Comedy. MyDD is LGF.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-22 06:26AM | 0 recs
Head back over here, please...

by ragekage 2008-05-22 06:38AM | 0 recs
Re: This poll was just released today

As an Obama supporter, I would TR you for your conduct in the thread if I could.  There is nothing dishonest in this diary.  It is just spin.  The headline is factually accurate if slightly misleading.  

Chill.

by Same As It Ever Was 2008-05-22 09:04AM | 0 recs
Re: This poll was just released today

Okay! Here's a fair diary headline: Hillary wins Swings States, Obama not necessarily so...

by Check077 2008-05-22 06:53AM | 0 recs
fairer -- HRC makes blue states swing

In the fantasy world of a Clinton nomination, Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, and other normally-reliable blue states become battlegrounds.

In the fantasy world of a Clinton nomination, Iowa and Colorado -- turned blue when Obama is the nominee -- go back into the battleground.

In the fantasy world of a Clinton nomination, Virginia is no longer in play.

by N in Seattle 2008-05-22 09:09AM | 0 recs
Hillary wins EV, Obama doesn't

by TeresaInPa 2008-05-22 09:36AM | 0 recs
Re: This poll was just released today

Where he is within the MoE, and is due a bounce when Clinton drops out.

by interestedbystander 2008-05-22 06:05AM | 0 recs
Re: This poll was just released today

and a fairly substantial bounce IMO.

Once Hillary supporters come to their senses, once their feelings are sewn back intact, once the party comes together to back Obama and once the excitement of the national convention comes to grip us, Obama will see improvements across the board.

And I'm just talking about Hillary supporters who say they will not back Obama, which I find stupifying.

Obama will win Ohio, he'll lose FL and he'll gain over 300 EVs to win the election.

by alex100 2008-05-22 06:37AM | 0 recs
Re: This poll was just released today

By not carrying even one of these 2 states has cost us the last 2 elections.

by pollbuster 2008-05-22 06:14AM | 0 recs
Re: This poll was just released today

Exactly why maybe we need to try to focus on other states. I mean why do people keep using the same faulty map?  Obama will win PA and he can win out west. He has consistently polled very well in Colorado, Iowa,New Mexico, and Nevada. You do know that if you flip red states, you can win.

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-22 06:28AM | 0 recs
So that's it?
Redrawing the map amounts to losing big swing states and a roll of the dice in Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico, and Nevada?

Where's the Hope? Ross Perot had a more optimistic strategy.

by Pacific John 2008-05-22 07:41AM | 0 recs
Re: This poll was just released today

sorry to inform you of the electoral college, but this election is not going to be a national one, it will be 50 separate state elections.  With most of those already pre-determined, so the end result is yes, the election will be determined in 3 to 4 states.

perhaps obama can change which states those are but the fact will be the same.

Right now, Obama has to "change the dynamics" of the race, rather than Hillary who would have a straight shot at winning.

I'd go with the person who has a clear wiinning path.

by yellowdem1129 2008-05-22 06:05AM | 0 recs
Re: This poll was just released today

Hillary doesn't have a cat in hells chance of winning without a high AA turnout, and we both know that if she wins at the convention, she will not get those votes.

by interestedbystander 2008-05-22 06:07AM | 0 recs
Re: This poll was just released today

God bless you for saying this. Please explain to me how she wins by only receiving on average 60% of the AA vote in these states?

People fail to realize that these polls are meaningless right now because Hillary is still in the race. If I was angry that Hillary was losing of course I would tell a pollster that I was voting for McCain over Obama. The Obama folks are not in that situation when asked about Hillary because Obama is winning.  The fact that he is so close in Florida and Ohio after all of what has happened is very good news which means that it shouldn't be as hard for him to close the gap.  

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-22 06:13AM | 0 recs
Re: This poll was just released today

Great point.

I can only imagine what the results would be if the shoe were on the other foot, and Obama supporters were the angry ones flirting with McCain. Why, I'm sure they'd look similar to the polls above!

Not to mention, the last polls I saw showed Obama winning Washington, Iowa, Colorado and Wisconsin while Clinton lost them all. I can't wait for all the Clinton supporters' overheated diaries about how Clinton is in "serious trouble" if she can't win those important swing states.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-05-22 06:23AM | 0 recs
Re: This poll was just released today

Exactly. It should cause those some real concern that in states like Oregon and Washington where Democrats have won(although Oregon has been somewhat close) that she has yet to poll ahead. She has the name brand for goodness sake and yet she can't even poll strong there!

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-22 06:26AM | 0 recs
Re: This poll was just released today

Indeed. I could see if people wanted to post polls like this and state that Obama has his work cut out for him in certain states. But this bizarro notion that we're still back in January or February and the outcome of this primary is still in doubt is ridiculous. "He's going to lose Ohio as of this moment! It's not too late to overturn everything and hand the nomination to Clinton!"

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-05-22 06:33AM | 0 recs
Re: This poll was just released today

good point.  there is a HUGE difference of course.  HRC's map is historically precedented for democrats and BO's is not.

by canadian gal 2008-05-22 06:54AM | 0 recs
Re: This poll was just released today

True. And I'm not saying these polls should be laughed at. It's dismaying that Ohio or Florida would even consider voting for McCain in light of how bad their economies are thanks to gop policies.

But much like the U.S. needs to shake its dependence on foreign oil, Dems need to shake our dependence on Florida and Ohio. (I think Pennsylvania can be considered cautiously blue in presidential elections.) No one's writing off those two states, but there are other ways to win.

I guess I don't get the point of posting diaries like this. Is it just an "I told you so" as Obama nears the nomination? An actual appeal to the remaining superdelegates to change the outcome?

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-05-22 07:18AM | 0 recs
Umm...

No one ever said this.

This guy is nuts.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-05-23 08:42PM | 0 recs
Re: This poll was just released today

The African-American vote is historically precedented for Democrats too.

If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, there's a better than decent chance she won't have it.

by mistersite 2008-05-22 07:23AM | 0 recs
Re: This poll was just released today

In the most recent SUSA polls and Rasmussen polls out of both Washington and Oregon she beats McCain. And even if she didn't all the states you mentioned don't equal the EV's of FL and OH.

by nyarch 2008-05-22 07:49AM | 0 recs
Re: This poll was just released today

Well, Obama is not going to be able to win without Hillary's core supporters... So, I guess it's John McCain, everyone.

by Check077 2008-05-22 06:55AM | 0 recs
Re: This poll was just released today

There was a blackmail diary yesterday about Clinton supporters blackmailing, now it's the blackmailing is from Obama supporters. Guess they are not so different afterall...

by devil 2008-05-22 06:48AM | 0 recs
Re: This poll was just released today

I don't think it's fair to describe depressed AA turnout as blackmail.  I don't think many AAs will  vote GOP, but substantial numbers will stay at home if the legitimate winner of the most delegates is deprived of the nomination in a backroom deal.  Don't forget Obama is getting many new voters to the polls - they are not yet committed democrats, they are committed Obama supporters.  They may not return to the dems if Obama is not on the ticket.  And before anyone says he can be VP - that is not going to happen.

by interestedbystander 2008-05-22 07:02AM | 0 recs
Re: This poll was just released today

you know what I find interesting?

Setting aside for the moment who the "legitimate" nominee is or will be..

It seems when Clinton core voters (like the white working class in the Rust Belt or women over fifty) say they won't support Obama in the fall everyone starts yowling and shaking their heads -- racism, over identifying with the woman candidate, too dumb to vote in their own best interest.

BUT, whenever someone mentions African Americans staying home in the fall if by some chance Clinton were to get the nomination...oh.  That's understandable.  They'll feel justifiably disenfranchised.  Screw the party and their best interests, their outrage will be justified.  And it's totally understandable how they can never forgive Clinton for "stealing" the nomination from the first viable black candidate.

My point is, there are Clinton voters who feel just exactly the same way.  They feel robbed, like the system failed them, like nothing about the process was fair or democratic.  Like the best person lost in part because of her gender.  

Whether that's true or not is irrelevant.  the point is how the progressives here justify or condemn either line of thinking.  AA community stays home?  Good for them.  Disenfranchised women over fifty stay home?  Grow the hell up.

Interesting.  not sure what it means, but it's interesting.

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-05-22 07:45AM | 0 recs
Re: This poll was just released today

The difference is that the vast majority of dem voters recognize that Obama is winning a fair contest.  The Alegra wing of the party is in a substantial minority.

by interestedbystander 2008-05-22 09:34AM | 0 recs
Re: This poll was just released today

There are a variety of scenarios which are realistic given current polling, which is what we are discussing, where Obama wins without needing Florida or Ohio. So no, there are not 3-4 swing states. There are about 15-20 swing states.

by Lost Thought 2008-05-22 06:11AM | 0 recs
Re: This poll was just released today

These 3 states are not Rhode Island, Hawaii and Alaska. They are key states. Do you know why Quinnipiac calls them key? Because without them, you better pray for a miracle.

by kingsbridge77 2008-05-22 06:24AM | 0 recs
Re: They are key

Actually, your claim that Obama is in better shape than Kerry ever was is just not borne out by the evidence.

Obama is ahead for the moment in CO, IA, NM, and NV, and still is 17 EV short of a majority. And that includes IN as an Obama state, which is sort of a tenuous assumption.

by arkansasdemocrat 2008-05-22 06:33AM | 0 recs
Re: They are key

Then it's a good thing the general election isn't tomorrow, is it?

by mistersite 2008-05-22 07:24AM | 0 recs
Re: They are key

he is also ahead in Virginia.  

by Same As It Ever Was 2008-05-22 09:06AM | 0 recs
Re: They are key

Unless we find polls from Those states concerning Kerry  and Bush, we cannot guess that Obama is better now than Kerry "ever was". Did you honestly sit down and analyzed all state polls  from 2004?

by kingsbridge77 2008-05-22 06:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Kerry polled badly

Why do Obama supporters like to make stats up?

In Iowa, Kerry had a 10% lead at one point. He also had leads of 7%, 5% and 4%.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Preside ntial_04/ia_polls.html

And In Nevada, Kerry kept it competitive until August, 2004:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Preside ntial_04/nv_polls.html

by kingsbridge77 2008-05-22 08:56AM | 0 recs
if they didn't make stuff up
they wouldn't have any stats at all.
Kind of like Obama who thinks he is the winner.
by TeresaInPa 2008-05-22 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Quinnipiac Swing State Poll: Clinton wins; Oba
I think we can agree SurveyUSA is pretty good..
They have Obama over McCain by 8
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollRepo rt.aspx?g=162d4baa-59af-4ec5-9d9b-eb6e65 8e86c5
by nogo postal 2008-05-22 06:06AM | 0 recs
Jeepers!!!

If Quinnipiac polls taken in May decided Electoral Votes in November, we'd be DOOOOOOOOOMED! (would be) Doomed, I say!

by BlueinColorado 2008-05-22 06:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Quinnipiac Swing State Poll: Clinton wins; Oba

Proves once again that Hillary is the more formidable candidate in those all important states. She could win them all hands down, as for Obama, well numbers tell a worrisome story about his chances.

by steve468 2008-05-22 06:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Quinnipiac Swing State Poll: Clinton wins; Oba

Only if you don't know how to read a poll.  

You Hillary supporters are a panicky bunch.  Try not to worry so much.   Obama will catch up and surpass McCain once the GE begins in earnest.  

by Blue Neponset 2008-05-22 06:11AM | 0 recs
Good point


As long as no one campaigns against her, and no one brings up any of the things Obama can't bring up because her supporters are already in full-tantrum mode, she'd be golden!

It's just like with the Florida and Michigan primaries:
Hillary Clinton: Unstoppable When Unopposed!

by BlueinColorado 2008-05-22 06:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Good point

Obama cannot claim that KY and WV were name recognition r that he did not get the opportunity to campaign. He outspent her there, and when he saw he couldn't win he decide not to campaign. One can call it great use of resources, or one can can call it at 46 states strategy.

by LadyEagle 2008-05-22 07:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Good point

Oregon

North Carolina

by BlueinColorado 2008-05-22 08:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Quinnipiac Swing State Poll: Clinton wins; Oba

it was just 6-8 weeks ago or so that Obama was the one with the Polling MoJo. Now it's Hillary's turn.

If Obama really wanted to make a mess of Hillary for Tuzla (as she did about Wright, Farrakhan and Ayers)  and other lies, we could have expected to see her numbers down where his lay currently. She got the free pass due to his strong lead, both from the media that wanted to see a clean race and the Obama campaign which wanted to be seen as "above the fray".

Elections are an up and down affair. Don't like the polls, wait a week.

by alex100 2008-05-22 06:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Quinnipiac Swing State Poll: Clinton wins; Oba

If he really wanted, needed, to fight fire with fire, he could get a lot nastier than Tuzla.

Obama's been fighting with one hand tied behind his back because Clinton and her supporters are so quick to play the victim. That's why her numbers are temporarily inflated right now.

John McCain wouldn't have observed such niceties, and he doesn't need to worry about Clinton voters threatening to stay home.

This is one of the reasons I think he was a stronger GE candidate all along, and why I don't want HRC in the Veep slot. Her baggage will be just as harmful if she's in the number two slot. He, and we, shouldn't go into the GE with that handicap.

by BlueinColorado 2008-05-22 08:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Quinnipiac Swing State Poll: Clinton wins; Oba

She could win them all hands down

Not true.  She could win them all hands down today - before she's taken the nomination from the pledged delegate leader, thus severely depressing the Democratic Party's African-American base; before the Republicans roll out all the attacks that Barack Obama was too honorable to roll out; before her candidacy becomes a real thing that will unite all the real Clinton-haters - the Republican "coalition" - in opposition to her.

If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, we will not only lose but lose badly in the fall.

by mistersite 2008-05-22 07:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Obviously

Bringing MIssouri Connecticut into your argument about undecideds is somewhat problematic.  Connecticut was a state that naturally leaned Obama due to Demographics, and Missouri Obama only won in St. Louis which has a large urban population. I think it was only one or two counties.  Looking at the exits the majority of the undecideds have gone to Clinton. Not ever time, but most of the time.  It is a general rule of thumb that undecideds go with the known quantity which in the case of the general will be McCain.  It's a good area for Obama to work on, and he should start now.

by nyarch 2008-05-22 08:00AM | 0 recs
Unity ticket is the answer

Once again, swing state polls show why this party needs unity. Over the course of the primary season, we have built 2 powerful forces, and each have shown considerable strength in some areas ans each has shown some weakness in other areas. It is for that reason that we must combine our 2 powerful forces, and the best way to do that is with a unity ticket.

Hillary's presence on the ticket makes us more than competitive in Ohio and Florida. She brings Arkansas to our column, and maybe West Virginia too. She makes border states like Kentucky and Tennessee competitive. And her selection for VP  unifies our party in an instant. Anthing else becomes a big gamble, and an unnecessary risk.

by pollbuster 2008-05-22 06:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Unity ticket is the answer

I agree with unity ticket, but I don't agree with some of your states.  I think OH, FL, and PA are places where Hillary will be very helpful, and that's HUGE, though I don't think he will need help in PA.  I don't think KY, TN and WV are going to vote for Barack #1 and Hillary #2.  Don't know what to think about AR.

I think the unity factor is the driving force in this pro-Dem political environment, and I think it is helping her that polls show lots of Dems perhaps not voting for Barack right now (e.g., look at today's Rasmussen).

By the way, I support Barack but I like Hillary, too.

by sasatlanta 2008-05-22 06:19AM | 0 recs
Huh, no

Unity ticket actually hurts us in places like Wisconsin and Colorado, I'd wager.

The benefits do not make up for the potential drawbacks.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-22 06:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Huh, no

I think it's a big gamble to think we can win without being unified. It would certainly be a different kind of strategy; probably a losing one

by pollbuster 2008-05-22 09:25AM | 0 recs
A 56% disapproval rating

suggests otherwise.

Also,

  1. It's a general, not a Democratic primary.
  2. They're saying nice things about each other now (well, Obama is) but how do you know they don't personally hate each others' guts?
  3. Hillary is the face that launched a thousand Republican campaign contributions.
  4. Her armed services committee cred could easily be offset by her AUMF vote baggage.

by corph 2008-05-22 07:50AM | 0 recs
Re: A 56% disapproval rating

If you are counting on the republicans not contributing to the max, than you are in for a rude awakiening, I fear.

They don't hate each other. They are a lot more mature than some of the folks who inhabit these boards with their hateful opinions. You can count on that. They are both excellent politicians who will work together, well, for the common good .

by pollbuster 2008-05-22 09:29AM | 0 recs
Oh, c'mon.

How many Republicans are hesitant about contributing this cycle?  They even publicly admit the one thing that will unite them is facing Hillary Clinton.  I'm not saying the attitude is justified, but I'm pretty darn sure it exists.  I know more people who have gotten involved into politics out of aversion to one candidate or group (such as my dad's collegues: hippies, or me: Bush) than affection for another.

In theory, I disagree with the principle of not doing something out of fear of how the right wing will attack it.  But the way I see it, if I strongly dislike Hillary despite generally liking her policy positions, (I hope) having no problems with the idea of a woman President and being a lifelong Dem, how will small-government independants and Republicans feel?  I'm convinced she'd be a huge drag on the ticket, as Obama would have to fend off her attackers as well as his own.

by corph 2008-05-22 10:27AM | 0 recs
Re: A 56% disapproval rating

If you are counting on the republicans not contributing to the max, than you are in for a rude awakiening, I fear.

Oh, that's definitely something I'm counting on. In fact, we've already seen it -- the Republican nominee is raising about 1/4 as much money as his Democratic rivals. Now, there are certainly a lot of people who'll climb aboard the McCain bandwagon once the campaign gets rolling. However, there are also some people who won't; you can't fake enthusiasm. Putting Hillary Clinton on the ticket, I fear, would introduce an unnecessary motivating factor to the Republicans.  

by RP McMurphy 2008-05-22 10:41AM | 0 recs
Re: A 56% disapproval rating

And it would introduce a very necessary motivating factor for the almost 20 million people who voted for Hillary Clinton. I care a lot about those people. I don't care a rats whatever about how the republicans feel, because I know that when we unite our two powerful forces, there won't be anything the republicans will be able to do to stop us.

by pollbuster 2008-05-22 11:02AM | 0 recs
While approvals don't measure salience

i.e. how much voters care to come out to vote for or against her, the fact that she has a net disapproval suggests she woul alienate more voters then she would draw.  20 million may seem like a lot, but 120 million voted las general election.  Even if you disregard the Limbaugh effect, over 80% of likely general election voters did not vote for Hillary in the primary.  The net disapproval among those voters is likely to be even higher.

So, while it's all speculative, Hillary's benefit to the ticket may well be grossly exaggerated.  I'm kind of suspicious that this idea is being pushed so hard mostly by Clinton supporters, and that it coincides with most of them realizing the nomination is out of reach.

by corph 2008-05-23 07:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Quinnipiac Swing State Poll: Clinton wins; Oba
As for Sen. Clinton?
Her numbers are worrisome to win the Democratic nomination.
by nogo postal 2008-05-22 06:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Quinnipiac Swing State Poll: Clinton wins; Oba

She isn't winning the nomination. That is no longer an issue. The issue now is unifying the party.

by pollbuster 2008-05-22 09:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Quinnipiac Swing State Poll: Clinton wins; Oba

Obama is within 4 in FL? I almost don't even want to believe polls that show him this competitive in Florida!

the man has 6 months and he is only 4 behind? he has had weeks to close double digit leads on Clinton, and you want me to freak out when he has 5 months to close a 4 point gap?

sure Hillary runs better in these states, but thats not enough to say Obama isn't electable.

you are saying Hillary is more electable then Obama in FL and OH? maybe, but Obama seems to be electable in those states also, so the supers don't really have a reason to flip the primaries.

by TruthMatters 2008-05-22 06:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Quinnipiac Swing State Poll: Clinton wins; Oba

As a Hillary supporter I totally agree. However what this poll clearly shows is how strong we would be with a unity ticket.

It's true the campaign hasn't really started, but that goes for McCain as well, and we should be careful not to underestimate McCain. The other GOP contenders did that, and he dispossed of all of them rather easily.

We need to unify this party, and not argue who is better in Florida and Ohio. When we are together there will be no question about what column those 2 states will land in come November.

by pollbuster 2008-05-22 06:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Quinnipiac Swing State Poll: Clinton wins; Oba

But can I ask you if you really believe Hillary has no negatives?  I just see Hillary on the ticket as a giant bait for the GOP, who will delight in making the election about her 24/7.  It will motivate their base, who really, really hate her.  

The GOP have been expecting to run against Hillary for 4 years - their file on her must be enormous - you can tell that from how hard they have fought to keep her in the race - they are salivating at the chance.  I would go so far as to say it is the only thing that can help McSame win this thing.  Obama just doesn't need her baggage.

by interestedbystander 2008-05-22 06:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Quinnipiac Swing State Poll: Clinton wins; Oba

His negatives are going up...by the time the general is here both candidates will be around 50% negative 50% positive, it always happens that way.  Her negatives are higher but so far it has not seemed to hurt her that much in national polls, and as vp I doubt it will outweigh the EV's in FL and OH.

by nyarch 2008-05-22 08:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Quinnipiac Swing State Poll: Clinton wins; Oba

I disagree - I think Obama is about topped out on negatives, Hillary has a way to go.

by interestedbystander 2008-05-22 09:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Quinnipiac Swing State Poll: Clinton wins; Oba

If you think his negatives won't move during 5 months of campaigning against McCain then you should probably look at historical negative ratings for presidential candidates.  Once they go up they are hard to get back down, they are almost always 50/50 by election day, no matter who it is.  If the entire weight of the republican machine cant budge his negatives higher he truly is the second coming and I will bow down before his might.

by nyarch 2008-05-22 10:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Quinnipiac Swing State Poll: Clinton wins; Oba

 If the republicans aren't motivated by a presidential election than nothing will motivate them. We need unity in the party in order to win in November. Don't count on the republicans not being motivated, and/or not being united. We need to bring all our strength to the battle. Hillary has an enormous base of support. We throw it away at our peril. I recognize that you have your opinion, and likewise I have mine. i just hope we can reconcile when the real battle starts.

by pollbuster 2008-05-22 09:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Quinnipiac Swing State Poll: Clinton wins; Oba

They aren't motivated - that is proven by primary turnout numbers.

by interestedbystander 2008-05-22 09:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Quinnipiac Swing State Poll: Clinton wins; Oba

Well that's hardly a viable explanation. They haven't had a competitive primary since Florida. However there is a lot of truth to your assertion. The dems have been much more motivated and that's a testament to the fact that we have two wonderful candidates.

by pollbuster 2008-05-22 11:06AM | 0 recs
McCain won the nomination because he won Florida

Its that simple. And he won Florida because Charlie Crist endorsed him. After he won Florida everything fell in place, with Romney and Huckabee splitting the Fundy vote across the south and with Guiliani getting out to let McCain cruise in NY / NJ and CA.

It will be interesting to see what McCain promised Crist for his crucial endorsement. If it is the VP slot, and if Crist cashes in - then you have a GOP VP candidate who is rumored to be a homosexual (not that there's anything wrong with it). Fundy heads across the country would explode. It would be fantastic political theater.

by johnnyappleseed 2008-05-22 08:02AM | 0 recs
He won more than Florida

McCain won a lot more than Florida. He won New hampshire and South Carolina before they even got to Florida. Crist is not going to be his VP selection, that's a smoke screen. My guess is that it's going to be either Condy Rice, or Kay Hutchinson.

by pollbuster 2008-05-22 09:34AM | 0 recs
Yuck.

I'd be surprised at Rice, she has a lot of Bush administration baggage and has suggested she's pro-choice, at a time when the nominee has issues with SoCons.

Hutchinson maybe, the wingnuts seem to like her, despite her being a vile mindless tool.  Or maybe that's why they like her.

by corph 2008-05-23 07:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Quinnipiac Swing State Poll: Clinton wins; Oba

Don't believe them.  Florida's demographic trends do not favor Democrats.  I'm not saying it can't be done.  But odds favor McCain.  

Hillary runs stronger because of family ties to the state, but I'd wager that even she would have a tough time winning the state.

If Obama wins Florida, we're looking at an electoral landslide election.

by Same As It Ever Was 2008-05-22 09:11AM | 0 recs
According to May 2004 polling John Kerry

won the election.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-22 06:15AM | 0 recs
Re: According to May 2004 polling John Kerry

Right. And then his numbers went down. If Obama follows the Kerry model, with falling numbers, we will this time next year be referring to John McCain as "Mr. President."

Good thing we have a viable alternative who performs better. Too bad the establishment Democratic party refuses to avail ourselves of that option.

by arkansasdemocrat 2008-05-22 06:20AM | 0 recs
Re: According to May 2004 polling John Kerry

Obama's numbers only go up when he campaigns against someone.

If Clinton performed better she'd have beaten Obama.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-22 06:25AM | 0 recs
Re: According to May 2004 polling John Kerry

And that assertion is based on the experience Obama has campaigning in a general election against the Republican attack machine?

I don't remember that.

by arkansasdemocrat 2008-05-22 06:28AM | 0 recs
Re: According to May 2004 polling John Kerry

Oh they'll bring up something that Clinton didn't? If the GOP attack machine is tougher than the Clintons and the Clintons couldn't defeat Obama then there is no reason to believe the Clintons could beat the GOP attack machine.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-22 06:31AM | 0 recs
Re: According to May 2004 polling John Kerry

Sounds like you're saying Howard Dean should have swift-boated John Kerry to prove he was electable.  That's just crazy -- there is so much that is off-limits in a primary race, particularly in the Democratic primary, that the Republicans would sling at Obama...  Just imagine all the 527 ads talking about his Madrassa days, or the pictures of him in a turban on TV nonstop, or any number of things that have not been exploited in the primary.  Apres Denver, le deluge...

by frankies 2008-05-22 06:40AM | 0 recs
The attack ads haven't worked so far

I don't remember Clinton pulling many punches.  She eventually even started hitting on Wright.

The Republicans have tried Wright in two downticket races, and the tactics have failed miserably.

Obama is good at counterattack; the people know that they've been played in the past and are not too happy about it.  

by Dracomicron 2008-05-22 06:45AM | 0 recs
Re: According to May 2004 polling John Kerry

Rezko, Wright, Ayers, and even Farrakhan were used by the Clinton camp. Also, the right-wing attacks on his liberalism, elitism, inability to keep America safe. What will the GOP use that hasn't been out there already?

by heresjohnny 2008-05-22 06:51AM | 0 recs
Re: According to May 2004 polling John Kerry

Exactly, and with the GOP he will fight back.. he went very easy on Clinton.

by interestedbystander 2008-05-22 06:53AM | 0 recs
Re: According to May 2004 polling John Kerry

Yes he did. He already rips on McSame on a daily basis.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-22 06:54AM | 0 recs
Re: According to May 2004 polling John Kerry

There are arguments that McCain can make that Clinton could not.  It will be 3AM times 1000% and it will make a difference.  She was hard on him, but pretty soft compared to what is coming.  This is a party that won't flinch at being called racist, a party that wants nothing more than to harm democrats, they won't pull their punches when the blogs start crying.  if people honestly think republicans are just gonna roll over and play nice just because Obama asks then they have no place in the world of politics.  The 90's weren't bad because Clinton was an easy target (he was) they were bad because the republicans grew balls after 30 years of being in the minority and realized they could kick ass if they went for the jugular ever time on every issue.  The era of new politics requires two players and you can be sure that there is only one thinking about it.

by nyarch 2008-05-22 08:10AM | 0 recs
Re: According to May 2004 polling John Kerry

Yep.  The Republican attack machine wouldn't have a thing to say about Hillary Clinton.  There's absolutely nothing they can attack her on.

And don't give me some crap about her already having dealt with it in the '90s.  She's never won a national election against the GOP attack machine.  Her husband, who had significantly more charisma and two gifts of presidential elections (a three-way election with Bush and Perot and a weak-ass "my turn" nominee in Bob Dole), still never managed a majority in the popular vote.

Barack Obama was far too honorable to bring up the many unsavory associations of Bill and Hillary Clinton, even since 2001.  The Republicans will not be so honorable.

by mistersite 2008-05-22 07:33AM | 0 recs
Snipergate?

That wasn't out there in the 90s.  What's to stop them from passing out little figurines of Hillary ducking next to helicopters at the convention, as they did with purple heart bandaids in '04.  And Kerry had already been attacked several times on that issue even before he ran for president.

It doesn't have to be a real scandal, or even a new one.  They'll make up anything, and it doesn't matter if they've already been subjected to it.

There is no way to avoid Republican mud.  You just have to know how to handle it.

by corph 2008-05-22 07:54AM | 0 recs
Re: According to May 2004 polling John Kerry

That was the theory in February.  It did not hold true from March to present.  He campaigned hard in Pennsylvania.  People could only make the argument his numbers went up by reaching back into 2007 to find polls that put him far enough behind to pretend it still held true.

by dhonig 2008-05-22 06:35AM | 0 recs
Re: According to May 2004 polling John Kerry

That's incorrect. Every place he campaigned he increased his numbers.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-22 06:38AM | 0 recs
Re: According to May 2004 polling John Kerry

and every place he had a real shot and ending this thing...OH,TX, PA...he couldn't close.

by nyarch 2008-05-22 08:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Quinnipiac Swing State Poll: Clinton wins; Oba

Well, we'll just have to wait and see how the Super Delegates deal with this! How could they possibly vote for Obama now?

I've never heard such a compelling argument for Hillary.

by xdem 2008-05-22 06:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Quinnipiac Swing State

More evidence to add to the growing mountain that indicates that Hillary would be the hands down favorite in a general election. Obama- well, I guess it could, in kindness, be characterized as a tossup.

Obama's electoral map is looking more and more like Kerry's all the time. Which is not great news.

by arkansasdemocrat 2008-05-22 06:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Quinnipiac Swing State

I wonder whether Hillary supporters recognize that her current polling MIGHT be strong because she is not under any heat right now.  Right now, SOME Hillary supporters are angry and saying they won't vote for Barack in polling.  Most people believe some, but not all of them will come back, and hence, Barack's numbers will improve.

But what about the opposite?  If Hillary were perceived as having a major chance to win, do you not honestly believe her current poll numbers would suffer as Barack supporters would be angrier and would cast votes against her in polling right now?  

Right now, Hillary is not receiving any heat from McCain or Barack, and much fewer of Barack's supporters are demonstrating anger towards here.  I realize a lot of bloggers want her to go away, but you don't see any major protestations in the mainstream public.  And why?  Because his supporters are confident he is going to win, so what's to be angry about?

Personally, while I support Barack, I think Hillary would be the better GE candidate IF ONLY she could win the pledged delegate count and hence appear like a clean winner to Barack supporters.  She could also more easily put Barack on the ticket than he can put her (he does not hurt her messaging though I think she hurts his), and they would probably cruise.

Problem is, fairly or unfairly, if she wins the nomination without the PD majority, it is going to be seen by Barack supporters as even worse than the way Hillary supporters see things right now.  This reason is the key reason SDs will not overturn the pledged delegate result.

by sasatlanta 2008-05-22 06:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Quinnipiac Swing State

He's going to be the nominee almost certainly but he can't win without her so they are going to have to split the ticket. I can't understand why it causes such shock horror, it was the commonplace of politics for years. I've got a diary explaining why George Packer believes the coalition that gave him the nomination doesn't win him the presidency.

by ottovbvs 2008-05-22 06:20AM | 0 recs
otto, I totally agree with you

but all indications are that Obama is not interested in having Hillary on the ticket with him. There is a new news report out today that Obama is conducting super secret meetings with potential running mates. This is truly worrisome.

by phoenixdreamz 2008-05-22 06:31AM | 0 recs
Re: otto, I totally agree with you

This is great news! I saw that too.

by Becky G 2008-05-22 06:54AM | 0 recs
I don't see it as such great news

Personally, I long to see a unity ticket emerge from this nomination process. Every poll out there posing the question to Democrats indicates that a solid majority of them strongly favor it too.

by phoenixdreamz 2008-05-22 07:03AM | 0 recs
Some other swing states to consider...

Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan all show Obama outperforming Clinton in recent polling.

Isn't it a problem for Clinton that there are no recent polls showing her up Michigan? That's a lot of electoral votes to make up...

by fwiffo3 2008-05-22 06:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Some other swing states to consider...

Isn't it a problem for Clinton that there are no recent polls showing her up Michigan? That's a lot of electoral votes to make up...

On the contrary, in the only Michigan poll conducted in May so far, McCain edges Obama by 1%, or what we could call a tie, while McCain and Clinton are exactly tied:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/michigan.html

by kingsbridge77 2008-05-22 06:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Some other swing states to consider...

I should have been more clear.  No recent polls show her ahead of McCain in Michigan (what I meant by "up").

There isn't that much recent polling from Michigan, unfortunately, but if you look at the balance of the most recent polls (instead of a single poll), Obama is outperforming Clinton:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

by fwiffo3 2008-05-22 07:06AM | 0 recs
What else is new?

Hillary supporters have been saying from the beginning...

HE CAN'T WIN.

by nikkid 2008-05-22 06:24AM | 0 recs
Re: What else is new?

Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan all show Obama outperforming Clinton in recent polling.

Hillary can't win if she loses states like Michigan.

by fwiffo3 2008-05-22 06:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Quinnipiac Swing State Poll: Clinton wins; Oba

Anybody who seriously looks at May polls for a November election hasn't paid much attention to previous elections.

by jsfox 2008-05-22 06:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Quinnipiac Swing State Poll: Clinton wins; Oba

Painful isn't it? A leading progressive political blog and people are touting polls in May like they're determinative of the outcome. I'm sure Kerry wishes that they were but we know how that turned out.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-22 06:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Quinnipiac Swing State Poll: Clinton wins; Oba

I'm pretty pleased that Obama is in striking range. Hillary isn't going to be the nominee so her numbers are irrelevant. Once she's out and she isn't polled anymore Obama will get a lot of those voters and his numbers will be much better.  I think he'll do fine in those states.

by Becky G 2008-05-22 06:52AM | 0 recs
This foolishness needs to stop

You have NO credibility if you say "Obama can't win" based on tight polling data in a couple of swing states.

Seriously, NONE.  It is absurd on its face to speak with such blustery confidence.

Nearly every person here stating with supreme conviction that "Obama can't beat McCain" is also a person who stated with supreme conviction that "Obama can't beat Clinton."  You'd think being proven wrong once would result in some humility.

by Slim Tyranny 2008-05-22 06:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Quinnipiac Swing State Poll: Clinton wins; Oba

He is doing well. Look at the FL figures that is good figures. And he is hardly been there.

by MissVA 2008-05-22 06:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Quinnipiac Swing State Poll: Clinton wins; Oba

If Obama is the nominee, I don't expect him to devote serious resources to competing in Florida.  I suspect he's in Florida this week more for propaganda and fundraising purposes, and to influence the nearby Puerto Rico vote.

Ohio is worrisome for the Democrats.  Yes, it's possible for Obama to put together a win without Ohio or Florida, but not very likely.  And I think Obama would definitely have an uphill battle in Ohio.

by markjay 2008-05-22 07:02AM | 0 recs
Re: If he's down by 4

Yeah - I have a tough time thinking that Obama can win Florida. It has been trending GOP for a while.

But if Obama is within the MOE in Florida - he is going to go hard for it and make McCain spend money and resources there. Obama, with his small donor base, has an ATM card that he is going to exploit and push McCain to spend money to defend where he shouldn't have to. Obama's small donor based funding is an incredible competitive advantage.

by johnnyappleseed 2008-05-22 07:31AM | 0 recs
Um . . .

Florida is not "nearby" Puerto Rico, nor does what happens here in Florida have any impact on the island.  It may not even be reported on there.

by Same As It Ever Was 2008-05-22 09:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Um . . .

Florida is closer to Puerto Rico than any other state is to Puerto Rico, and it is also the only U.S. state with large numbers of Puerto Ricans that Obama has not yet spent much time in.

by markjay 2008-05-22 01:21PM | 0 recs
Do Hillary diarists

ever do more than cut and paste with the occasional re-written talking point?  I'd really like to see some reasoned analysis from the Hillary crowd here, at least once in a while.

by JJE 2008-05-22 07:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Do Hillary diarists

I purposely avoided any personal analysis because of the way people here use that to trash a diary/disrist. I provided the statistics, backed up with the URL with contains the pollster's analysis, and cited the pertinent line of information I gleaned from the Quinnipiac site:

"The numbers for Florida and Ohio are good news for Sen. John McCain and should be worrisome for Sen. Barack Obama. That is especially true for Ohio, which decided the 2004 election," said Peter A. Brown.

I included 2 comments of my own near the top of the diary which I think completed the picture:

"No presidential candidate in the modern era has won without at least 2 of these 3 states.

No spin. It does lend credence to Hillary's electability argument."

I hope this works for you. It's all I felt was really necessary to say.

by phoenixdreamz 2008-05-22 07:32AM | 0 recs
I guess we differ

on what makes a worthwhile diary.  I don't think excerpting a poll that can be found dozens of other places meets the standard, but perhaps my perspective is not widely shared.

by JJE 2008-05-22 07:46AM | 0 recs
Uh-oh...

it's not polite to point out that the about-to-be crowned Emperor has no polls.

by Radiowalla 2008-05-22 07:09AM | 0 recs
And not only that

you get troll-rated for it!

by Radiowalla 2008-05-22 08:14AM | 0 recs
Obama can win without Ohio or Florida

He'll probably end up winning Ohio anyway, whether or not Strickland is his running mate. But that is besides the point. McCain can not expand the playing field. And neither can Clinton. Obama has the money, persona and message to put a bunch of States in play that haven't been in play for years.

Obama is going to put Texas in play. And when he does, McCain is going to have to campaign there and he's going to have to be soft on immigration, or he's going to lose the Lone Star State. It will not play well with the knuckle dragging portion of the GOP - all across the country. Plus, McCain can't raise money and Texas has 7 expensive media markets. Losing Texas for McCain is like losing California for Obama - it is impossible to win without it. Just being in play has major repercussions, and McCain will be two-stepping on immigration all across the country. From what I've seen of McCain on the campaign trail, he has no deftness in him and deftness is what will be required to adroitly handle an immigration debate in Texas.  

And Obama can definitely lose both Ohio and Florida and still win the GE. All Obama has to do is Kerry States plus Iowa, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico (which gives him 278 EC votes). The Democrats get help in Colorado and New Mexico by having excellent Senate candidates - and by having the DSCC being flush with cash. Obama doesn't need all four of the above either, since he's going to pick up at least one EC vote in Nebraska and since the Democrats control the House and essentially win Electoral College ties.

Obama is going to be fine. And if he happens to win Ohio, he is going to have an electoral college landslide.  Obama is the Democrat that is going to finally turn Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada into reliable blue States. The demographics were always on our side with this respect, but Obama is going to be the first GE beneficiary.

by johnnyappleseed 2008-05-22 07:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama can win without Ohio or Florida

I actually think she can expand the playing field. Hillary can win FL, Arkansas and WV.

that's expanding the playing field.

Obama expands it in ways no Democrat really has in a long time though. He picks up crucial states in the American West.

Also, I'd be weary of any southeastern state poll with Obama on the ticket. He polls much worse then he performs.

by alex100 2008-05-22 07:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama can win without Ohio or Florida

Hillary would most certainly win Arkansas and would be looking at a toss up in West Virginia. I'll give you that.

I seriously doubt that she could win Florida - especially if Crist gets the VP nod. Even without Crist, Florida has actually gotten more conservative over the last 10 to 15 years or so, thus I think that a Democrat winning there is a long shot.

The sweetest part to me about turning the Mountain West blue, is that it turns the GOP into a completely regional party. To change that status - which the GOP must do or be faced at being completely marginalized for the long term - they will have to dispense with the wacko God/Guns/Gays platform. They themselves will have to repudiate the message because it doesn't play outside of the south. It truly would be the death of Rush Limbaugh conservatism.

by johnnyappleseed 2008-05-22 08:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama can win without Ohio or Florida

i don't disagree with you.

Obama has a huge upside and I think it'll come to fruition come Novemeber.

Then again, getting caught up in this electability argument is a Clinton inspired myth that's been going on since she was way down in the GE match-ups some months ago.  Let's not forget that. A democrat has created the meme that Obama isn't elecatble (or as electable).

I vividly remember her praising mcCain's experience while tearing down Obama in the same sentence.

by alex100 2008-05-22 08:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama can win without Ohio or Florida

I just wanted to latch onto a side point of yours:

Obama is going to put Texas in play. And when he does, McCain is going to have to campaign there and he's going to have to be soft on immigration, or he's going to lose the Lone Star State.

Obama needs to play up his and McCain's agreement on immigration over and over again, while pointing out that he (Obama) and Ted Kennedy were the only two Senators to march with the immigrant-rights protests on May Day.  He needs to say again and again that he and McCain agree on immigration.  This tactical move forces McCain to either stay where he is on immigration - and lose the votes of the xenophobes, who form much of the GOP base - or tack right, losing the Latino vote.

A similar tactic could be used with global warming, though there's less of a voting bloc associated with that issue.

by mistersite 2008-05-22 07:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama can win without Ohio or Florida

expand the playing field

going to put Texas in play

And Obama can definitely lose both Ohio and Florida and still win the GE

Kerry States plus Iowa, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico

Obama is the Democrat that is going to finally turn Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada into reliable blue States.

really... talk about fantasyland...

by MediaFreeze 2008-05-22 08:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama can win without Ohio or Florida

We just disagree.

Have a good day.

by johnnyappleseed 2008-05-22 08:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama can win without Ohio or Florida

I thought I was the only one who believes Texas will be in play.  I have a wager with a Republican friend that Obama will win Texas.

It's a long shot, but I think it just might happen.  

by Same As It Ever Was 2008-05-22 09:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama can win without Ohio or Florida

Latinos and AA's make up 45% of the Texas electorate. It should be in play every year based on demographics. Democrats typically get about 60% of the Latino vote nationally, with Bush doing better in Texas in 2000 and 2004 because he was Governor. And he did much better nationally in 2004 (Kerry won 53% to 44%, Gore won 62% to 33%).

I'm convinced that Rove and Bush were frightened of the growth of the Latino demographic, that is why they tried the soft immigration reform measure. They saw electoral doom for the GOP if they didn't reverse the trend. I don't think that the GOP brand is going to help McCain any with Latinos, and I think that Obama is certainly going to capture 60% to 65%.

by johnnyappleseed 2008-05-22 09:57AM | 0 recs
Once again...

...the Democrats are set to nominate a candidate that has no chance to win in the general election.

Obama's coalition of latte liberals and African Americans spells disaster in November. I think it is going to be a lot worse than the 32 point loss MyDD tracker is currently listing. He doesn't get Indiana. Colorado always dissapoints. No New Mexico. Could easily lose Iowa and Maryland. He will be struggling to break 200 electoral votes.

We did it again. After Bush, all we needed to do was nominate a strong mainstream Democrat, and we let this 'hope and change' nonsense drive us to selecting perhaps the one prominant Democratic figure that will actually lose the election.

It's almost as if we were gamed. Hey, maybe we were gamed...

by MediaFreeze 2008-05-22 07:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Once again...

No chance to win?

So winning PA and being within the margin of error in OH and FL, after two months of solid attacks on his character and patriotism, after two months of being hit from both sides, with five months of general election and united Democratic Party ahead of him, is "no chance to win"?

All those other states that also have electoral votes - upper midwestern states like WI, MI, MN, etc. and Western states like CO, NM, etc. where Obama outperforms Clinton - these give him "no chance to win"?

Also, support or retract your claim that Obama "could easily lose... Maryland."

by mistersite 2008-05-22 07:46AM | 0 recs
You are out of your mind

Fact is that Obama is going to have unlimited funds and resources to attack McCain where ever he wants to attack. McCain is going to be on the defensive in Virginia, North Carolina, Texas, Indiana and all across the Mountain West.

Democrats and Obama are on the right side of every major issue for the election. National demographic trends are in Democrats favor. And most importantly, McCain represents a third term for George W. Bush - a fact that Team Obama,the DNC and Democratic candidates far and wide are going to be shouting from the mountain tops in a couple weeks.

Doom and gloom about Obama's GE prospects may help Clinton supporters feel better, but it just isn't based in reality.

by johnnyappleseed 2008-05-22 07:47AM | 0 recs
Re: You are out of your mind

We will see. That's the thing about politics. You get to make your grand predictions and I get to make mine, and then there is a vote and we find out who was right. I'm going to vote for him, but I am certain that he will get clobbered. That coalition of the Democratic Party does not get support from the moderate swing voters, so we lose. It has happened time and time again. I don't know how old you are. Do you remember McGovern or Dukakis? That's what the map is going to look like on election day.

by MediaFreeze 2008-05-22 08:20AM | 0 recs
It Should be Noted

Polling for the general election this far out with an ongoing Democratic race isn't going to be very accurate. Here are some points to consider:

1.) Obama right now has a coalition of Democrats and Independents. Hillary has more support among the core Democrats.

2.) The Democratic party is essentially split. In conjunction with point one this means that she will poll stronger as she gets more of that vote.

3.) Consider this: What is more likely? Clinton garner support from independents who seem to favor McCain over her? Or can Obama rally the Democratic base as the Democratic nominee? I personally think Clinton has a tougher sell here, given her higher negatives.

With the above points polling becomes very inaccurate. Core Democrats are still leaning towards Hillary and Obama, while gaining less support among Democrats, gains more support from Independents. He already has a coalition building.

McCain has, pretty much, a unified party. Recent national polls show Obama doing much better against McCain when you factor in with independents. He does better than Clinton.

But then again, polling this far out is very shaky.

by Zotnix 2008-05-22 07:26AM | 0 recs
The poll is actually really reassuring

"If the 2008 election for President were being held today..."

I can buy that. Fortunately, it's not, and Obama will have some time to improve his numbers in areas where he's lacking. Some of the less glamorous poll questions are something to be excited about.

The numbers comparing McCain and Obama  favor Obama on two of the top three issues considered most important by the respondents. Obama wins out on the economy and health care, McCain on Iraq.

It also shows that respondents want to know more about Obama before they make a decision, whereas they're satisfied with their knowledge of McCain. And they think that Obama is "in touch" with the problems of most Americans, while McCain is out of touch.

While a vast majority would be entirely comfortable with either a woman or an AA as president, a minority would be with someone as old as McCain, and his association with Bush makes folks overall less likely to vote for him.

The poll also shows a minority favor an Obama/Clinton ticket, which gives me a degree of personal satisfaction since I think that would be a mistake.

Finally, a majority say that the Wright issue will have no effect on their vote. Good night, Reverend Wright.

Sure, those numbers on the election if held today aren't great, but there's more than enough time to build on the positive and overcome the negatives once the nomination process is over.

And since the respondents suggested a familiarity with both Clinton and McCain, Obama has the added benefit of being able to change perceptions. That's a big plus.

by bookish 2008-05-22 07:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Quinnipiac Swing State Poll: Clinton wins; Oba

let's take a look at polling history. I try to go back 5 months when possible (no caucuses, only democratic primaries):

Alabama 01/23/08 (rasmussen):
Hillary +15 (Actual: Obama by 14.4)

California 09/07 (SUSA):
Hillary +24 (Hillary by 8.3)

Connecticut 10/07 (Q):
Hillary +27 (Obama +4.0)

Deleware 10/07 (FD):
Hillary +24 (Obama +10.8)

Georgia 10/07 (StraVision):
Hillary +13 (Obama +34.7)

Maryland 10/07 (WaPo):
Hillary +19 (Obama +24.9)

Massachusetts 01/22 (SUSA:
Hillary +27 (Hillary +14)

Missouri 08/07 (ARG):
Hillary +25 (Obama +1.4)

New Jersey 09/07 (Q):
Hillary +31 (Hillary +9.9)

New York 09/07 (Q):
Hillary +32 (Hillary +16.9)

N.C. 11/07 (SUSA):
Hillary +24 (Obama +14.7)

Ohio 12/07 (Q):
Hillary +26 (Hillary +10.3)

Oregon 12/07 (rileyResearch):
Hillary +16 (Obama +17.6)

PA 12/07 (Q):
Hillary +28 (Hillary +9.2)

S.C. 09/07 (Ras):
Hillary +13 (Obama +28.9)

Texas 12/08 (IVR):
Hillary +34 (Hillary +3.5)

Virginia 10/07 (WaPo):
Hillary +24 (Obama +28.2)

Wisconsin 09/07 (SV)
Hillary +22 (Obama +17.3)

This leads me to a few conclusions. Either Obama knows how to finish off races that seem impossible or Hillary can't hold on to insurmountable leads.

by alex100 2008-05-22 07:34AM | 0 recs
recent polling history tells us

let's take a look at polling history. I try to go back 5 months when possible (no caucuses, only democratic primaries):

Alabama 01/23/08 (rasmussen):
Hillary +15 (Actual: Obama by 14.4)

California 09/07 (SUSA):
Hillary +24 (Hillary by 8.3)

Connecticut 10/07 (Q):
Hillary +27 (Obama +4.0)

Deleware 10/07 (FD):
Hillary +24 (Obama +10.8)

Georgia 10/07 (StraVision):
Hillary +13 (Obama +34.7)

Maryland 10/07 (WaPo):
Hillary +19 (Obama +24.9)

Massachusetts 01/22 (SUSA:
Hillary +27 (Hillary +14)

Missouri 08/07 (ARG):
Hillary +25 (Obama +1.4)

New Jersey 09/07 (Q):
Hillary +31 (Hillary +9.9)

New York 09/07 (Q):
Hillary +32 (Hillary +16.9)

N.C. 11/07 (SUSA):
Hillary +24 (Obama +14.7)

Ohio 12/07 (Q):
Hillary +26 (Hillary +10.3)

Oregon 12/07 (rileyResearch):
Hillary +16 (Obama +17.6)

PA 12/07 (Q):
Hillary +28 (Hillary +9.2)

S.C. 09/07 (Ras):
Hillary +13 (Obama +28.9)

Texas 12/08 (IVR):
Hillary +34 (Hillary +3.5)

Virginia 10/07 (WaPo):
Hillary +24 (Obama +28.2)

Wisconsin 09/07 (SV)
Hillary +22 (Obama +17.3)

This leads me to a few conclusions. Either Obama knows how to finish off races that seem impossible or Hillary can't hold on to insurmountable leads.

by alex100 2008-05-22 07:34AM | 0 recs
Re: recent polling history tells us

These are among Democrats. We don't know how this dynamic works in the GE. Are you, an Obama supporter, at all worried that your guy has lost so many key states?

by NY Writer 2008-05-22 07:39AM | 0 recs
Re: recent polling history tells us

no. not at all.

by alex100 2008-05-22 07:40AM | 0 recs
Re: recent polling history tells us

let me expand. If Hillary was the nominee, would I be at all worried that she has lost so many urban areas, the Democratic party's key demographic?

No. Not at all.

I'm not into this kind of dead end reasoning.

by alex100 2008-05-22 07:42AM | 0 recs
Re: recent polling history tells us

It's not dead end reasoning because the urban areas are reliable Democrat votes in the GE, while the places where Obama is losing, and where polls show that Clinton's supports will not vote for Obama in the GE, are the places that swing elections. He loses in these places and he loses the election.

by MediaFreeze 2008-05-22 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: recent polling history tells us

"key states" is not as an objective term as you might believe it to be. The "key" is to win a majority of EVs during the GE. Obama can do this and I believe he can do it as easily as Hillary can.

If polls are to be an accurate consensus of what will occur in November, then explain how Hillary's 20 point leads in places such Connecticut, Deleware, Maryland, Missouri, NC, Virginia, and Wisconsin were wiped out. In many of these cases, Obama went on to win by over 20 points himself.

I'm not about to buy the Hillary bred myth of electability. Nor do I believe that the current rash of polls bode ill for Obama.

by alex100 2008-05-22 08:47AM | 0 recs
Re: recent polling history tells us

You can believe whatever you want. His coalition of liberals and African Americans is a prescription for disaster in the fall. Remember McGovern and Dukakis... that's what the map is going to look like.

by MediaFreeze 2008-05-22 09:06AM | 0 recs
Re: recent polling history tells us

anyone who portends to know what any future map looks like should just play the lotto for a career.

polls haven't been kind to Hillary and with a campaign that can't hold on to 20+ point leads, on a multitude of states, in different regions of the country isn't one that gives me the confidence that she can hold onto smaller leads.

by alex100 2008-05-22 10:19AM | 0 recs
Rocket Science

OK. we need to all hold hands.

She has waged a rather close contest for the nomination.

They need to run together. I don't think he should be forced into it, but common sense and the desire to win should dictate it.

by NY Writer 2008-05-22 07:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Rocket Science

In other words, round up on all these numbers if they're together

by NY Writer 2008-05-22 07:38AM | 0 recs
Obama ahead in Virginia

Skimmed through the comments, but in case it's been missed a new SUSA poll today has Obama up by 7 in Virginia.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollRepo rt.aspx?g=9901f8fc-034e-4a1d-ab36-f6e5c9 18614e

Sorry Hillary supporters, they don't poll how she would do. But if Obama can win Virginia he unquestionably has a very credible route to 270 EV even if he loses Ohio and Florida. Moreover as one or two others have noted, the Florida poll is actually a considerable improvement for Obama - one of the first that have made him look competitive against McCain there. So I'd say things are looking fine and dandy at this stage, given he's still not even the official nominee.

Jerome, flip VA blue on the Obama electoral map, please!

by al1 2008-05-22 07:52AM | 0 recs
But that would make Obama

look better as a candidate, and I'm not sure Jerome is ready for that.

by corph 2008-05-22 08:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Quinnipiac Swing State Poll: Clinton wins; Oba

Lets be clear...
Clinton was/is heads and shoulders above McCain as a Candidate. That Clinton won some big States is NOT a sign that McCain can do the same. I find it ironic that Clinton supporters dismiss her as a formidable candidate. Without Clinton in the race..Obama would have finished this by now.
I believe Clinton using the rhetoric like she is in FL(slavery,Africa politics etc..)has finish any chance for a VP slot.

The DNC meeting on MI and FL will drag on until after 6/3..at that point in time there will be a decision with some sanctions but not effecting the leader in the final pledged delegate count.  

by nogo postal 2008-05-22 07:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Quinnipiac Swing State Poll: Clinton wins; Oba

The results are about 1.5% off of the MOE- without any GE campaign happening.  

Before Obama began campaigning in the primary, he was far, far behind Clinton.  

This might be slightly supportive for some supporters of Clinton, but if I'm McCain, I would not be happy with those numbers against Obama.

by ottto 2008-05-22 07:53AM | 0 recs
Florida <3 Obama

Scroll down the page and take a look at this:

TREND: (Registered Democrats) Who would you like to see win the Democratic nomination for President this year - Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama?

                       REGISTERED DEMOCRATS
                        May 22  May 1
FL                      2008    2008

Clinton                 41      47
Obama                   41      33
DK/NA                   18      20

Obama is gaining support (and Clinton is losing support) among Florida Democrats! Beating this "count every vote (for me)" talking point to death is not working for her.

by CrazyDrumGuy 2008-05-22 08:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Florida <3 Obama

That's pretty remarkable. Seems Florida Dems have started to consolidate around Obama.  That may account for the close margin there. I expected it to be much worse.

by elrod 2008-05-22 09:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Quinnipiac Swing State Poll: Clinton wins; Oba

Is this all you've got? This is a really sorry argument to make to superdelegates.

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-22 09:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Quinnipiac Swing State Poll: Clinton wins; Oba

So you're saying that PA, OH, and FL are the only swing states?  Or that winning 2 out of these 3 is the only way to win the election?  'Cause if you're not saying that, this diary is pointless.

by rb608 2008-05-22 09:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Quinnipiac Swing State Poll: Clinton wins; Oba

Three words: Margin Of Error

by Grant Caesar Peters 2008-05-22 09:38AM | 0 recs
Not bad for Obama at all

Down 4 in FL without campaigning is a strong position for Obama. I'm leery about Florida elections and I think the age issue makes FL really difficult, but Obama is highly competitive there for now.

The Ohio numbers are a bit more worrisome but I think Obama could also overcome those once he starts working the Rust Belt areas around Cleveland again. Obama will overperform Kerry in the Cincy and Columbus suburbs. He does better among well-educated Independents than any Democrat in recent years. He needs to secure his base among the blue collars around Cleveland.

But even if he lost both OH and FL, he is on track to win VA,IA, WI, CO and likely MI and NM. With the other Kerry states that gives him the election.

by elrod 2008-05-22 09:40AM | 0 recs
Who cares?

Obama's the nominee.  you should spend your time trying to figure out how to help him win.  He'll take Penn and has a good shot at Ohio, which if he doesn't get it, it could be made up for by Virginia and Iowa(or colorado or new mexico) or a whole host of other combinations.

by responsible 2008-05-22 09:56AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads