BO - 243Again: Polls change over time. Polls contradict each other. Polls can be wrong or phony. The numbers and their interpretation are endlessly debatable. (Will Virginia and New Mexico really go for Obama? I don't think so.) There is no need for you to tell me these things, because I already understand them.
JM - 295
HRC - 286
JM - 252
these numbers are generous as well since many of the states in BO's column will NEVER go democratic.
But I also suspect that the Democratic candidate will get no post-convention "bounce" (perhaps even a "negative bounce") if the proceedings inside the hall degenerate into chaos, while the "Recreate '68" movement wreaks havoc outside. At the Republican convention, John McCain will look like everyone's beloved Grandpa as he presides over a smooth propaganda extravaganza emphasizing order, unity and patriotic virtue.
By the way, I'm glad to see someone else say something that has troubled me for a while:
Obama's weakness among Latinos and Jews could conceivably put California's 55 electoral votes in play. Los Angeles County delivered an 831,000 vote plurality for John Kerry in 2004. Most of that plurality came from areas with large numbers of Latinos and Jews.
14 comments:
According to MYDD? And numbers from March?
Here are figures according to Pollster.com
April 19, 2008
National Dem Trends, Newsweek Poll
A new Newsweek poll gives Barack Obama a 54%-35% lead over Hillary Clinton among Democratic voters. The Newsweek poll also has some interesting internal results. As with virtually all this year's polling, Obama has a substantial lead among Independents who will vote in the Democratic primary or who lean Democratic: 61% to 28% for Clinton. What is a key to Obama's strength in the Newsweek poll is he ALSO leads among self-declared Democrats 51% to 38%, a group Clinton has won in most contests.
The other important shifts in this national Newsweek poll is that Obama leads among men 57%-31% but also among women 52%-38%. Again this would represent an important gain among women.
The age gradient in Obama support has been interesting all year. In the Newsweek poll, he wins 18-39 year olds by 62%-28%, as usual, but also wins 40-59 year olds by 54-36%. In past exit polls, his "break even point" has varied among age groups from as low as 40 (i.e. losing all groups over 40 years old) to as high as 59 (only losing those over 60 years old.). More astonishing here is he gains a plurality of those over 60, 47%-41%, which if true would be his best performance among older voters all year.
NOW to be fair
The area of the Newsweek poll where Obama still suffers is among working class or poor whites, where he trails badly, 35%-54%. In contrast he leads 52%-35% among upper and middle class whites. That class divide remains a critical issue for his campaign.
Thanks, Joseph, for those CLINTON-MCCAIN, OBAMA-MCCAIN poll numbers re electoral college/general election projections.
Even taking into account all the very true caveats you point out, this is staggering data.
Now I have to look at the MyDD piece in hope of seeing some mention that this poll data is getting to voters via their popular media... How very silly--even, I'm supposing, masochistic--of me.
Of course, I should try to gain a bit of knowledge of how the data was derived. That's going to make my head hurt. Being a responsible citizen is hard work.
I'm going to sneak into Pelosi's office and write this large on the wall in front of her desk in indelible ink that will bleed through any paint that is used to try to cover it. Being a responsible citizen is fun.
Well, Here's Senator Obama's chance to show his stuff and win over those superdeligates:
April 26, 2008 (LPAC)--In a recent speech in Indiana, Senator Clinton challenged Barack Obama to a one-on-one debate on the issues facing the nation, and while there have been many debates in the campaign thus far, this challenge is unique.
Simultaneously with her challenge in speech form, the campaign released the guidelines, for a two minute by two minute back and forth, to last for 90 minutes, uninterrupted. This format would allow for a real debate over policy, something the voters recently responded to in the Pennsylvania Primary by voting for Clinton, as she has been spelling out the more concrete economic solutions for the crisis. It is also a very good challenge coming from Clinton, in that the obamanables cannot gripe, as they have, that the debate format is 'biased.'
First, I have to say that those Newsweek numbers are WAY out of line with everything else I've seen.
Gary, I have no real desire to se another Clinton-Obama debate. On the other hand, I've always wanted to see a real Lincoln-Douglas debate, as enacted by parties other than impersonators of Lincoln and Douglas.
You don't have to watch. I'm sure it would be well and fairly reported in the NEWS, should it occur. (o;
These numbers are truly bogus. The real issue at this point, is that in national and many state polls, neither Clinton nor Obama beats McCain. That should be the single focus of every person of loves this nation - beating McCain.
When Democrats fall once again into the trap of denigrating their own candidates instead of making it crystal clear to the American people that the eventual nominee will be running against the most dangerous, most duplicitous, most ill-equipped individual ever to seek the Presidency. Electing McCain is not like re-electing Bush, it is like electing Cheney. Let the stupid, inane primary process proceed and may the best person win - but we have to tell America about the danger of McCain at every opportunity.
I disagree. If Obama is nominated, the best thing that can happen to this country is for McCain to win -- IF blame for the loss can be laid at the feet of Moulitsas and Huffington and everyone else who falsely accused the Clintons of racism.
Reread my post on "Democratic racism." David Plouffe's admission is absolutely damning. DAMNING.
Of course, I understand how much the Obama team must have been rankled when their candidate was losing the African American vote. Their embrace of the Big Lie made a Machievellian sense. Obama would not be where he is had he refrained from this tactic.
But some tactics must be eschewed -- if not out of decency, then out of a respect for the larger picture. Look at how fractured the party now is. Quite a few life-long Democrats, such as myself, now will not vote Democratic in November in Obama is the nominee. Obama and the O-bots took a tremendous risk when they went for the Big Lie.
It was truly unforgivable.
And ?
The same polls said that McCain was "dead" not too long ago. The publisher of the book "The Real McCain" had stopped the publishing process. Polls are only a fuzzy snapshot of what people are currently thinking, not of the future. I'm sure you had polls showing that Bill Clinton would loose against Bush Sr. during the Democratic nomination process.
If Democrats (or former Democrat like you) could stop the internal war and start focusing on the real enemy, the REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE, then maybe the free ride McCain is currently enjoying in the media would end.
The problem is that you're currently part of the problem and not the solution. Your little anti-Obama campaign is kinda ridiculous and based on the type of "evidences" and arguments you would never accept if they were used against Hillary. You're basically accusing Obama of being a politician while you excuse the same kind of behavior when Hillary does it. It's the Manichean view of Hillary & force of Good vs. Obama and the legion of Evil you're trying to depict that doesn't make sense and is very frustrating to any rational mind. Your personal war with Kos and others has clearly reached an emotional point where your rational thinking process has been severely affected.
I can't vote in the US election and I'm not partisan beyond preferring a Democrat president (the rest of the world always suffer a little bit less). I think Obama or Hillary would be at least 200% better than Bush or McCain. But I can't stomach your current Foxnews style anti-Obama campaign, calling anyone who disagree with you an Obamabot to denigrate them (like they were hypnotized by Obama while your superior intellect was pure and not influenced by anything) and reacting with outrage when they insult you back.
So please, what is your objective again ?
Some nut calling himself "President Bloomberg" has just posted an interesting "Diary" over in Kossland.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/27/113843/635/663/503771
It might be worth a look.
I'm confused by the polling science because it relies on a hypothetical outcome based on two essentially equally-matched variables (Clinton/Obama). Not knowing the poll/survey's language, I'll assume that the respondents are aware that they are being 'asked' to 'prefer' one hypothetical outcome over another hypothetical outcome. Furthermore, the binary 'if this one/then-what?' also relies on an equally (and absurd) hypothetical which assumes McCain will be the opponent. I mean, interesting and fun aren't substitutes for validity.
That is not to say that such nonsense isn't valuable to the candidates themselves and the people who will contribute money or active effort.
Besides, the American 'electorate' are idiots, morons, and willfully ignorant, who vote only with their feelings. The exceptions are so far out on the fringe that if they didn't vote, it wouldn't change the outcome even in their precinct.
Yet we are asked to reflect on someone's rational analysis of these beauty pageants (to put it harshly), or popularity contests (putting it mildly).
How hard is it to imagine a lucid and cogent argument that shows how essentially alike Clinton and Obama are? Or to argue how they are polar opposites? Or the same two kinds of arguments about either of them, or both, and, say, McCain? Any elementary-school Martian could construct any of those arguments, dancing backwards, wearing heels, and standing on a galloping horse.
Now this. Do you (and you know who you are) really want Barry to quit smoking? Do you know what happened to Arnold Palmer when he quit (because Ike said he should)? He couldn't win anymore, in his prime! Look what's become of Keith Olbermann since he quit. What if FDR, Churchill, or Stalin had quit?
"If Obama is nominated, the best thing that can happen to this country is for McCain to win -- IF blame for the loss can be laid at the feet of Moulitsas and Huffington and everyone else who falsely accused the Clintons of racism."
But that won't happen.If Obama loses it will be because the Republicans will have sucessfully exploited the Rev. Wright affair, and Bill Ayers, and painted Obama as too far-left,to extreme to be President.
This country is hellbent to shove its head up its ass yet again, apparently.
The only reason I posted the Newsweek poll was to show that there are always ways of justifying an argument if you are willing to lower the standard enough. Don't get me wrong, the poll is for real but it is so different than others that it's validity or method is being questioned and I am honest enough to say it.
No one gives a rat's hairy fuckin' flea bitten ass about Hillary Clinton. No one is going to vote for her. And No one wants her for president yet the magical-thinking Hillary supporting family of prole hating elitist fruits just keep having faith in the power of magic, fairies, fluffy white bunnies(and maybe the CIA) to carry them along. The fact that Obama raises more money than Hillary, should be enough proof to tell rational folk with their heads screwed on straight that the PEOPLE want Obama over Hillary. But no... the super silly sugar coated magical bunny pants comeback girl HILLARY and her loopy FRUITCAKE supporters must push on against the wishes of the majority. The MOST RIDICULOUS SHOW on earth must go on!
Post a Comment