Tuesday, July 15, 2008

The Lightbringer's numbers: Hillary's still ahead!

According to Alegre, eight SuperDelegates -- formerly in the Obama camp -- have switched to Hillary. I cannot think of a precedent for this situation. Howard Dean and the Democratic leadership -- and Hillary Clinton -- have done everything they can to unite the party around Obama, yet no-one wants to ride the unity pony.

Why the sudden un-love for the Lightbringer? Alegre attributes the disaffection to the campaign's displays of arrogance and entitlement. Although the Blessed One's 'tude has indeed pissed off a lot of folks, I prefer to look at the poll numbers.

Jude Kean at Savage Politics has plugged all the data from 147 polls into a spreadsheet and found that the results have been surprisingly consistent over time. Only a few polls have ever given the Lightbringer more than 50 percent of the vote; he averages 46%. This flat-line response barely blipped even after he "won" the nomination; the expected bounce never came.

McCain is another flatliner: He is Mr. 43%. (45% at the moment, as we shall see.)

If the PUMA movement grows, Obi's a goner. Even if the movement does not metastasize, he must hold onto his prog base, much of which recently became angry when he showed his true (conservative) colors. At the same time, he must increase his appeal to independents -- and that's an area where he has lost ground. Why? Perhaps because PUMAs are more numerous than the media would have you believe, and they are re-registering as indys.

Rasmussen notes that if Hillary were the presumptive nominee, she would do better against McCain. The current daily tracking poll, including "leaners," shows an ultra-tight 47% to 45% race, with Obama in the lead. However,
New York Senator Hillary Clinton leads McCain by eight points, 50% to 42%. Former Vice President Al Gore, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2000, leads McCain 50% to 43%
Meanwhile, Obi's unfavorables continue to rise -- in a year which should heavily favor any Democrat.


Anonymous said...

You are picking the poll that shows the narrowest difference between Obama and McCain.

As for those who want Hillary as VP, Hillary’s supporters and Obama’s enemies continually read the polls incorrectly. Many typically use this logic: “most Democrats want Obama to select Hillary, therefore he should” as if that observation matters. What really matters is whether selecting Hillary would help the ticket and here the evidence runs against a selection of Hillary as VP.

The latest Quinnipiac poll finds Democrats favor Hillary’s selection by a margin of 56 to 33 percent. Democrats also plan to vote for Obama over McCain by a margin of 84 to 8 percent, in short, whatever Democrats may feel about Hillary as VP, they are voting for Obama anyway. Among independent voters, who could tilt the election, Obama and McCain are running evenly and this same group opposes Hillary as VP by a margin of 50 to 35 percent and all voters oppose the selection of Hillary by 49 to 36 percent. More importantly, 28 percent of independents and 24 percent of all voters say the selection of Hillary would make them less likely to support Obama while only 18 percent of independents and 19 percent of all voters said they would be more likely to support Obama. In other words, Hillary would be a drag on the ticket.

Joseph Cannon said...

My discussion had nothing to do with the VP choice. Given the absolute necessity of winning NM, I still say Richardson has a lock on that spot.

The Rasmussen poll is consistent with the aggregate number discussed on Savage Politics.

Anonymous said...

According to who? What? How? Huh?!

"There are unconfirmed reports, based on phone banking efforts to reach out to Super Ds, that eight previously Obama SDs expressed that, given the opportunity, they would vote for Hillary at the convention."

Just how absurdly vague a report will you accept Joseph?

Joseph Cannon said...

Hey Scott -- weren't you the one who, not long ago, denounced as mere rumor the reports that Google was shutting down the anti-O blogs?

Anonymous said...

joseph said...
"Hey Scott -- weren't you the one who, not long ago, denounced as mere rumor the reports that Google was shutting down the anti-O blogs?"

Ah, ... No! "Google" shutting down blogs? No. I wanted proof that "Obats" were attacking pro Hillary blogs causing them to be shut down. Were those Google blogs? Is there a problem asking for proof?
If Google was shutting down the blogs why do you use them?

Anonymous said...

hey joseph,

remember your comment about how Santa Barbara has parking lots filled with folks who have lost their homes and condos? larry king interviews one "Barbara harvey" living out of her SUV with her 2 large dogs in a parking lot somewhere in santa barbara. Barbara was a former loan processor who lost her job in january and hasn't been able to find a job that will help her afford to pay the rent on a rental. Barbara demonstrates how she sleeps in the back with her 2 large dogs and puts her suitcase underneath the car at night.

Larry King's show says 6 out of every 1,000 homes this year will be foreclosed in 2008.

Anonymous said...

Though you need a lexicon like a fish needs a bicycle pump, that 'indys' lexeme looks like car races.


Xeno said...

So New Mexico's 5 big electoral votes are now in the "must win" column for barky? Jeez, things must be pretty bad for him. I would have thought he'd try to shore up his chances in one of the bigger states, like PA, VA, FL, OH, etc., instead of wasting his veep pick on NM. And since Richardson has about as much charisma and intelligence as a road-killed skunk, he would bring nothing to the ticket other than those 5 measly votes. Of course, with most of the big names giving barky the old brush off, he may be stuck with a third-string veep like Bill.

Perry Logan said...

Rigged polls aside, the AOL online poll has McCain with over 80%, Obama with 20-some percent.

Now THAT'S a poll.

I'm astonished by how badly Obama is doing. since he began the game holding virtually all the cards.

He had America's desire for hope and change.
He had scads of money.
He had the mainstream media eating out of his hand.
He had the progressive blogosphere pimping for him.
He had some good speeches he'd cribbed from other sources.
He had the race card to ruin the Clintons' standing with African Americans.
He had all the misogyny card--and he knew how to use it.
He had an army of enthusiastic mindless young thugs working for him.
He had the Clinton haters on his side.
He had a big bus to put people under.
He had much of the media and the internet gamed in his favor.
He had all the old smears against the Clintons the Right made up during the 90's.
He had an arsenal of Stalinist tactics to help him along the way.
He had threats and intimidation galore (this is what Obamites mean by "a brilliant campaign")
He had the DNC rigging the nomination for him from A to Z...

...and yet--with the entire game rigged in his favor--Obama STILL CAN'T WIN!

Hats off, my friends. The Democrats have managed to pick The Worst Candidate Ever™.

Anonymous said...

"According to Alegre, eight SuperDelegates -- formerly in the Obama camp -- have switched to Hillary. I cannot think of a precedent for this situation."- Joseph

What are the names of the SuperDelegates who have switched? That should be easy. Eh?

[ i think I accidentally posted this above in the wrong thread?]

Anonymous said...

Hillary has ALWAYS shown polling increases when she was out of the news. If she were still in the running, the kind of publicity she'd be receiving from her detractors in the major media would likely not yield the kinds of results in hypothetical polling she is receiving now (after a month from her finally gracious and well-received semi-concession).

Similarly, look at HRC's first run for NY's US Senator seat. She was consistently below 50%, enough to prompt Dick Morris to proclaim she would eventually drop out of that race, and then, once she became the nominee, that she would certainly lose.

Remember, even the allegedly greatest retail politician of the modern era, WJC, only got 43% of the vote running against a highly discredited elder Bush who had a bad economy hanging around his neck. Why? Lack of national name recognition or national security experience, a hint of scandal, and the aftermath of a long string of strong rejections of Democratic party candidates at the presidential level.

It is not especially clear to me that HRC would in fact be a stronger national candidate, IF her reaching the nomination over the back of BHO would alienate the black voters from voting the Democratic line.


Anonymous said...

I am one of those PUMAs that the Obama camp decries. They insist that it's all a GOP plot, but it isn't. I am old enough to have voted for McGovern, and I've always voted the straight Democratic ticket, without exception, without fail.

I just can't vote for Obama. He's a crummy candidate. He's a liar, he's a crook, he is pretty stupid (just his US history gaffes are embarrassing beyond belief), he's inexperienced, and he has the integrity of a gnat. The old expression that someone would walk over their grandmother to achieve power, well, that's him. He called the poor old woman who raised him a RACIST while defending a racist preacher who called him a typical politician. How fucking cheesy can you be? To say nothing of STUPID.

I haven't switched my affiliation from the Democratic Party to Independent/Unaffiliated ... YET. But I will do that just as soon as the election's over. I've had it with the DNC ignoring the will of the people and cramming this sleazy guy down our throats, just because he's "cool" and they think the "kids" will get out and vote for him.

Don't count on the kids. The pot wasn't as strong when McGovern was running, and they didn't bother to get off their asses and pull it out for him either...and the stakes were pretty high, too. It wasn't an All Volunteer Force back then...