The Tracking Poll (0.00 / 0)

also shows how each matches up with McCain.

"The Clinton-McCain trial heat results are unchanged, with 46% of registered voters favoring Clinton and 45% McCain".

"In the general election trial heat match up versus McCain, 46% of registered voters prefer Obama...McCain is the choice of 44% of registered voters".

Both Clinton and Obama clock in at 46% which takes the juice out of the Clinton/Obama numbers. If you dissect the numbers they are not good for Obama. He registers 50% among Democratic primary voters but when placed head to head with McCain he drops to 46% among national voters which is who was polled.

Clinton on the other hand when placed head to head with McCain goes from 40% with Democratic primary voters to 46% with national voters.

So bottomline Clinton actually rises in national support and Obama declines which helps back up Clinton's argument that she is the better candidate because she attracts a border segment of the electorate. Super Delegate should take note of that.

---

by: Super Delegate @ Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 20:12:27 PM UTC

Super Delegate did take note of that. (4.00 / 1)

n/t

---

by: tremayne @ Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 20:34:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What about what a bunch of BS (0.00 / 0)

And anybody who has the username "Super Delegate" certainly isn't one, probably not even a registered voter, or even an American.  :-)

Looks like Talkleft and the propagandists over their are sending their minions out to other blogs, taking their political theater on the road as it were, in the hopes of bolstering a Clinton campaign which is already a cooked goose, finished, kaput.  Hillary Clinton just doesn't have the sense, good graces or even the modicum of class required to accept reality. She'd rather go down fighting "her own" and try and take everyone with her, if she can't be crowned sovereign queen of the Americas.

After this election, when you look up the word BITTER, you will see a picture of Hillary as a designated synonym.  Just take a look at Hillary Rodham Clinton, she epitomizes the word perfectly.  All those years she had to put up with her philandering husband in the now vain hope of vaulting herself into power off his name recognition, and it's all falling apart right before her eyes.  I suppose that would make most women bitter.

Hillary like everyone else who understands the political winds of the day, knows that the Democratic primary is the national election this year.  The GOP and the conservatives will be lucky if they can get their own candidate to vote for himself in the fall.  The whole McCain campaign is nothing more than an empty gesture on a part of a Republican Party who months ago realized they have no chance of winning in the fall.

I can't wait to see Hillary dragged kicking and screaming out of the convention hall in Denver, after she completely loses it and throws an infantile fit when she and those who run her campaign -- and those in the establishment who run Hillary the same way they ran George W. Bush -- are denied what they believe is their rightful due,  control of this country in perpetuity.  

---

by: AaronBBrown @ Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 23:26:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nice Post (0.00 / 0)

Better than beating you dog. :-)

As I said in my last three paragraphs the poll shows what it shows. Obama loses overall support in the General and Clinton gains. The numbers don't lie.

BTW your, ah, childish blog turf war is hilarious. That is if actions meant to divide the Party is hilarious.

Your desire for segregation is, well, pathetic.

---

by: Super Delegate @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 00:56:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Apples and oranges (0.00 / 0)

You're comparing numbers from two completely different things. It makes no sense to look at a poll percentage for the Democratic primary and then one for the general election and say that support increases or decreases. It's as illogical as the argument that someone who loses the Democratic primary in a state can't win that state in the general. The primary is not the general.

---

by: KCinDC @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:34:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't see how it is (0.00 / 0)

illogical or more importantly relevant to the conversation.

If Obama leads Clinton with Democrats in the poll but is even with her in a national race then that probably means she pulls more support from independents than Obama does and that it is likely Obama loses Reagan Democrats to McCain which is entirely possible and has been much discussed. Throughout the primaries Reagan Democrats have not been his strong suit. And most people agree that he will not hold all his primary independent support.

If this early in the race Obama cannot hold Reagan Democrats and loses some Independents to McCain it makes him a weaker candidate than Clinton who can hold Reagan Democrats and still attract independents.

The bottomline is Obama is weak with Reagan Democrats against McCain and gives up some of his Independent vote to him also. Clinton on the other hand holds her own in those categories.

The problem with your argument is that you make no argument as to why Clinton is behind with the Primary poll but pulls even in the General poll. I just explained to you a highly likely reason why. And since for most of us, maybe not you, this is about winning the WH pointing out the General numbers in the poll and asking why the jump for Clinton and the drop-off for Obama is totally relevant.

That Obama with a 10 point lead in the primary poll can't hold it and add to it in the general and maintain at least a 10 point lead in the general when compared to Clinton should be a big red flag to even the most partisan Obama supporter.

---

by: Super Delegate @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:17:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

No (0.00 / 0)

It does not mean he loses independents and she does not 'hold her own' with them vis a vis McCain. It actually means the opposite of what you are suggesting - Clinton does better with Dems but gets blown away with indies. Obama makes up for his very real weakness with Reagan Dems by doing better with unaffiliated voters. That is why they are both basically tied in most general election polling. We have seen the same pattern in poll after poll. I still think, even after the latest flap, that he is more likely to get Dems that didn't vote for him in the primary than she is likely to get indies.

---

by: conspiracy @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:41:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well we agree (0.00 / 0)

about Reagan Dems but disagree about Indies which I still think Clinton pulls more in the general than you suggest.

The bottom line is that Obama doesn't hold his 10 point lead from the primary in this poll and carry it over to the General. Where as Clinton actually improves her percentage.

Now if Clinton already has the Reagan Dems in the primary and Obama doesn't then there is one place where she is actually gaining on Obama in the general poll and that is with Indies. And if yu say it isn't with Indies then who is it with because simple math says she is gaining somewhere.

---

by: Super Delegate @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 14:21:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The crosstabs of poll after poll show Obama defeating McCain (0.00 / 0)

with unaffiliated voters while not holding as many Dems. Clinton does better with Dems but loses independents to McCain. He also does better with Republicans. That is the math I'm looking at.

---

by: conspiracy @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 18:12:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Remember also that the primary polls include independents (0.00 / 0)

And obviously not all Dems are Reagan Dems. The bottom-line I think is that she has a very narrow lead among self-described Dems but he does much better than that amongst indies which is why he generally performs slightly better than she does in polling versus McCain.  

---

by: conspiracy @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 18:18:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Which is why people think he has a better chance of winning (0.00 / 0)

The idea being that he is bringing new people into the process and that in the end Democrats will vote for the Democrat and Republicans will vote for the Republican so whoever wins unaffiliated voters will win the WH.

---

by: conspiracy @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 18:24:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wow (0.00 / 0)

I think you just won the award for the best bit of spin of the entire campaign, narrowly defeating the argument that the candidate who wins a state in the primary is best suited to win it in the general.

---

by: conspiracy @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:20:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well if you would (0.00 / 0)

have made an actual argument back by logic we could talk. But all you did was make an empty and baseless statement so you said noting that can be discussed.

---

by: Super Delegate @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 14:23:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why are Gallup's numbers different than Rasmussen's numbers? (0.00 / 0)

It looks to me like Rasmussen's daily tracking polls consistently show McCain doing better than Gallup's polls indicate.

Any thoughts why?

---

by: ThomasPaine @ Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 20:45:39 PM UTC

I've noticed the same (0.00 / 0)

Apparently Rasmussen is a conservative and that might be all you need to know but then again, his head-to-head race results stand up fairly well compared to others. He also uses different methodologies than other pollsters including robocalling. More on the bias is here.

---

by: tremayne @ Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 20:53:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Today's ARG Poll (0.00 / 0)

shows Clinton up 20% in Pennsylvania also.

---

by: Super Delegate @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:04:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Interesting (0.00 / 0)

Two ways to interpret that:

1. Hillary gets a bounce out of "bitter" controversy
2. It's ARG and it therefore must be taken with a boulder of salt

---

by: tremayne @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:35:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

ARG was crap when they said it was tied at 45-45 and it is crap now (0.00 / 0)

---

by: conspiracy @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:24:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I like how Garry Shay actually thinks (0.00 / 0)

that anyone voted for him because they were thinking how they could trust him to vote as a super delegate to the Dem national convention.

These are the two I think are the strongest factors my constituents would believe I should use in making a decision:

1. I was elected because my electorate trusted my judgement and I should vote my conscience.
* * *
5. I should vote for the candidate most likely to win in November, in my opinion.

I wonder if in his wild speculation he actual surveying of his constituents? Unlikely. Garry, nobody even knew you would have vote when they voted for you.  Gee wiz!


Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

---

by: Will @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 00:41:03 AM UTC

A supporting article from McClatchy (0.00 / 0)

White women begin to turn away from Hillary Clinton
[...]
Quinnipiac University survey taken April 3-6 in Pennsylvania found that Clinton's support fell 6 percentage points in a week among white women. Nationally, a Lifetime Networks poll of women found that 26 percent said they liked Clinton less now than in January, while only 15 percent said they liked her more.
[...]
A lot of white women, and for that matter white men, want the race to end and increasingly consider Obama an acceptable nominee. "There may be a general, reluctant acceptance that things just don't look that good for Clinton," said Susan Carroll, a professor of political science and women's and gender studies at Rutgers University.
[...]
The most familiar echo among many Pennsylvania women when they discuss Clinton, however, is disappointment. Ask them when they became disillusioned with the woman who would be president, and they can cite almost the exact moment.
[...]

The article then continues with several different personal examples.  Overall, the article is an interesting wrapper to the cited polls.  Maybe I don't hang out in the right haunts but I haven't heard or read of any Obama supporters defecting to Hillary since January.  

---

by: sawgrass @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:45:55 AM UTC