Clinton Now Better Against McCain

Sorry for the brief diary, but I didn't see this mentioned anywhere else. Gallup is out with their new national tracking poll numbers, here (http://www.gallup.com/poll/104971/Gallu p-Daily-McCain-47-Obamas-44.aspx), that show Hillary tied with McCain and Obama now losing (within the MoE). It seems as though the Obama meme about attracting all sorts of new and otherwise Republican votes is changing about as fast as his stories re Wright and Rezko.

The "Obama is more electable than Clinton" storyline has always seemed to me to be one of those "seems like it should be true" stories that gains traction but turns out to be kind of questionable. Obama has led the hypothetical match-ups for some time, it's true, but never by very much, and it now appears to be shifting. If you believe most of all in electability, it appears to be time to take a fresh look at this race.

Display:


Re: Clinton Now Better Against McCain (none / 0)

You oughta not get so caught up in the ups and downs of polls.  It isn't really representative of anything at this point, as either Clinton OR Obama is going to beat McCain - once they are the nominee, support will solidify behind them.


by Cycloptichorn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:23:41 PM EST

Oh my... (2.00 / 1)

So now that your candidate isn't looking so hot in the polls, polls don't count? I find that hilarious. For several weeks now, Obama fans have been pushing our faces up against a hand-selected crop of polls showing "Obama more electable". But now that we know that he's no more "electable" than Hillary against McCain, suddenly "polls don't count".

Wow.


No way, no how, no McCain! :-)
by atdleft on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:28:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh my... (none / 0)

It's not that polls don't count, it's that the polls are BOTH within the MoE; and have been so for weeks, on both sides.  The differences are statistically insignificant.  Slight up and down variations don't tell ya anything, b/c there's no real evidence that they are 'actual' numbers.

Gimme a poll or two with numbers outside of the margin of error, and I'll concede the point.  


by Cycloptichorn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:35:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh my... (none / 0)

There is a more significant trendline at work...

Obama's negatives have been climbing steadily for the past 2 months.  At a near constant rate.

And yes, I agree that the day to day trendlines are meaningless


If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi
by SevenStrings on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:47:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh my... (none / 0)

Um, I suppose you can link to this?

Most polls don't support what you are claiming -

http://www.pollingreport.com/o.htm


by Cycloptichorn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:03:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh my... (none / 0)

In fact, here's the chart showing the history of the Ras poll in question:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_20082/2008_pres idential_election/favorable_ratings_for_ presidential_candidates

Obama's unfavorables have not moved significantly since Nov.  I think it's fair to say at this point that you are talking out your ass.


by Cycloptichorn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:10:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh my... (none / 0)

Wow, you do use colorful language.  Did I upset you ?

Take those numbers into a spreadsheet, substract the  unfavorables from the favorables, and plot it over time.  Do it for all 3 candidates.

I think you will be surprised (I was)!

I can send you a pic (on this very space) this evening, if you like.


If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi
by SevenStrings on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:15:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh my... (none / 0)

Why would I do that?  It's not a statistically significant thing whatsoever.  

You may note that Hillary's unfavorables have been higher then her favorables for all of known history.  More importantly, though, you wrote:

'Obama's negatives have been climbing steadily for the past 2 months.  At a near constant rate.'

The chart I linked to shows that this is a lie.  


by Cycloptichorn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:37:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh my... (none / 0)

Okay, I misspoke when I said 'Obama's negatives have been climbing steadily for the past 2 months.  At a near constant rate.'

I should have said "the number of people who like Obama minus the number of people who dislike him...".. because that is what I meant.

That is "one" meaningful measure of how popular you are, or how much goodwill you have.

And yes, by that measure Hillary is doing worse, but is trending up.  Obama is currently doing slightly better, but is trending down.  McCain is doing better than both of them, AND is trending up.

I will upload a chart this evening.

Finally, if you want to carry out a meaningful conversation, I suggest you cut out your colorful language that includes "lie" and "talking out of your ass".


If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi
by SevenStrings on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:47:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh my... (none / 0)

Why would I do that?  You were lying and talking out your ass.  

If you don't want to respond to me, don't.  It matters little to me either way.  I'll still go on posting the same corrections of the poor math skills displayed by Clinton supporters.


by Cycloptichorn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:11:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh my... (none / 0)

Okay, I promise you this: you will look mighty foolish once I upload the chart this evening!!  


If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi
by SevenStrings on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:21:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Seriously (none / 0)

This is a major stretch. Why post a diary about a statistically meaningless one day shift?


by HatchInBrooklyn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:29:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Maybe because... (none / 0)

This isn't a "statistically meaningless one-day shift"? For several weeks now, Hillary's been looking stronger against McCain in these tracking polls than Barack. And while these polls don't mean all that much this far out from November, they nonetheless destroy the myth pushed by so many of you here that Obama is "more electable" because some of you handpicked a couple polls showing him doing well.


No way, no how, no McCain! :-)
by atdleft on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:37:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe because... (none / 0)

Look, do you even understand what the 'margin of error' means?  It doesn't appear so.


by Cycloptichorn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:39:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Do you understand... (none / 0)

What "bubble burst" means? I don't think so.


No way, no how, no McCain! :-)
by atdleft on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:43:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you understand... (none / 0)

Do you have any evidence that any 'bubble' has burst, at all?  Nope.  Just projections and holding on to hope.


by Cycloptichorn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:51:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

yeah (none / 0)

I love it how last time Obama was winning that by 5% every here said taht it did nto matter that far from the election.


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:26:16 PM EST

And now... (2.00 / 2)

All of you want to say that polls don't matter? So what is it? Do polls only matter when Obama looks good in them? Sorry, but the real world doesn't operate that way.


No way, no how, no McCain! :-)
by atdleft on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:29:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And now... (none / 0)

The bias of this site really shows in how these two comments are rated.


by marcotom on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:59:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Now Better Against McCain (2.00 / 1)

I hope Edwards endorses Hillary.
According to surrogates he thinks Obama is too inexperienced to be president.

Plus -Obama's campaign conducted the most divisive campaign against Edwards - with Obama followers spreading the rumor all over the country that Elizabeth was dying.
And prior to SC, Edwards spoke out in defense of the Clintons over accusations by Obama surrogates and followers that they were racists.
Of course, this resulted in Kos calling Edwards an "ass."

And during the SC debate - Obama's racial slur toward Edwards was despicable!

Obama's documented divisiveness and race-baiting surpasses his "hope" mantra.


Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:35:29 PM EST

I do, too... (2.00 / 1)

I may not have always seen eye to eye with John Edwards, but I can say that I've ALWAYS respected him for being a good Democrat that stands up for our progressive values. It was despicable to see Obama smear Edwards with many of the same crap that he's throwing at Hillary now.

Edwards must be taking that into consideration as he's deciding who to endorse.


No way, no how, no McCain! :-)
by atdleft on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:41:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Now Better Against McCain (2.00 / 0)

>>>Most voters, 56%, said Wright's comments made them less likely to vote for Obama. That figure includes 44% of Democrats. Just 11% of voters say they are more likely to vote for Obama because of Wright's comments.

However, among African-Americans, 29% said Wright's comments made them more likely to support Obama. Just 18% said the opposite while 50% said Wright's comments would have no impact.


Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:38:26 PM EST

On The Other Hand (none / 0)

33% had no opinion of Rev. Wright whatsoever.


by HatchInBrooklyn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:52:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And... (none / 0)

The 44% of Democrats who said it makes them less likely to vote for Obama are probably all Clinton supporters anyway.

In the long run, this might no have any effect whatsoever.


by HatchInBrooklyn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:54:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Now Better Against McCain (2.00 / 1)

It's too bad the media didn't cover this thing objectively, it's sad that it's taken a scandal to bring his polls lower, when he could have stayed a great candidate who wasn't quite ready. I want Hillary to win cause she'll do the best job, not because the media now turns on him because they didn't do their jobs in the first place.  Of course his poll numbers will go down, but it'll all be attributed to the scandal and not to her exit Iraq speech, which should be plenty to show there are real differences in preparedness, which is all that should matter. I like Obama, and understand his ambition, why not, but for heaven's sake, that it has to end this way is unpleasant.  


Hillary - alternative energy
by anna shane on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:38:43 PM EST

Margin For Error (none / 0)

Survey USA (which seems like the most accurate polling outfit so far) has had Obama up against McCain by a higher margin for a longer period of time.  All by itself, this is not that significant, especially when it's within the margin of error and could easily be affected by random polling noise.

What matters is trends, and Obama is trending slightly higher than Clinton in general.
There's a long way until November, however, and at this point your guess is as good as mine.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:40:14 PM EST

Re: Clinton Now Better Against McCain (none / 0)

I guess were doomed then because Hillary's obviously not electable, and if Wright renders Obama unelectable, we should probably write off the presidency and start focusing time and money on the congressional races, and planning for 2012. (I'm not saying give up, I mean Hillary has a shot to do at least as well as Carter did vs. Reagan, I just don't find that too re-assuring).


by Socraticsilence on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:43:49 PM EST

agreed (none / 0)

I think McCain will win in a landslide.  The focus is now to contain his his coattails.

The problem is we're going to fall so far behind McCain, by the time we "unify," it'll be too late.


by mikelow1885 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:02:15 PM EST

Re: agreed (none / 0)

We just have to work hard to make sure that he has a "lonely landslide", much like Eisenhower in 1956.  


by Toddwell on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:10:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: agreed (none / 0)

A big decision for Schumer and Van Hollen:  when to decouple the Congressional races from the presidential race?


by mikelow1885 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:26:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Now Better Against McCain (none / 0)

Let's hope Obama has jumped the shark and that Hillary will ultimately prevail. With the long-term and intimate involvement with Rezko and Wright up to the present time, and with no good answers ('cause there aren't any) McCain will indeed win with a landslide. Even of you haven't been for Hillary, PLEASE take a second look. Our party needs you.
by The Smoldering Crone on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:07:25 PM EST

Re: Clinton Now Better Against McCain (none / 0)

I think we've been seeing Obama's electability wither before our eyes since the weekend. It will be interesting to see the tracking polls later this week to see the Hillary/McCain and Obama/McCain match ups.


by grlpatriot on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:35:40 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.