home

AP Poll: Hillary Leads Obama, 46% to 41%

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:58:06 PM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

You might have missed that in today's Associated Press poll, Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama 46% to 41%. The reason: The headline to the articles about the poll all say "Obama Leading McCain." (Big Tent Democrat discusses other aspects of the poll here.)

In the fight for their party's nomination, Clinton has a 46 percent to 41 percent edge over Obama, the Illinois senator. That represents virtually no change from last month but a significant tightening since last year, when the New York senator led comfortably in most surveys.

...Democrat Barack Obama would narrowly defeat Republican John McCain if they were matched today in the presidential election, while McCain and Hillary Rodham Clinton are running about even, according to new general-election sentiment since the Super Tuesday contests.

So the AP would rather talk about last year than last month, when the big news this month has been Obama's surge...yet it hasn't resulted in a lessening of her lead.

As to the McCain factor, Hillary and McCain are 45% to 46%, essentially a tie. Obama-McCain is 48 to 42%. Then there's this: [More...]

The poll showed that Clinton's support from whites for the nomination grew faster than Obama's, leaving her with a 47 percent to 36 percent edge over him with those voters.

White women overwhelmingly favor Clinton while white men are split evenly between the two Democrats. And an age differential persists: Clinton wins older women overall, while Obama gets younger men.

< The Need For Unity | Stating The Obvious: Clinton Must Win Texas And Ohio >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    AP Poll: Hillary Leads Obama, 46% to 41% | 117 comments (117 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I guess that's one poll (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:14:02 PM EST
    Obama won't be using in his attack mailer destroying the Bill Clinton legacy.

    This is absolutely disgusting.  And I see TPM gets a quote, too.

    Is it no wonder he can't win the democratic base?  Why is the "uniter" splitting the party in two?

    I am sickened by this.  Absolutlely sickened.  Part of me wants him to win the nom so he can be eviscerated and Hillary can go back to doing her good work in the senate.

    How can he get away with this???  No wonder he doesn't want to debate.  She would call him on it and make him look like a fool.

    Wow (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by phat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:21:39 PM EST
    Who's being divisive now?

    Nice job TPM!

    I like the Zogby poll quote, too.

    Wow.

    phat

    Parent

    Where has Zogby disappeared to? (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:25:36 PM EST
    Have not seen hide nor hair of him since his Cali debacle.

    Is he hiding with Cheney?

    Parent

    On Friday... Zogby (none / 0) (#87)
    by katiebird on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:42:26 PM EST
    This is what he had to say on Friday at HuffingtonPost

    First, ignoring the reality of this still-emerging movement comes with a risk to Democrats. Obama was right when he observed at a press conference last week that, should he win, Clinton's voters would support him; but should she win, his voters would not necessarily support her. The movement he has unleashed is not focused on just winning. That is too limited and too cynical a goal for his supporters. They do not seek to power for its own sake, they seek to bring about fundamental change.

    Secondly, it is important to note that while Obama has been the inspiration that launched this movement, it will have the power to drive him. Expectations for change, once created, cannot easily be let down.



    Parent
    Why does Obama's (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by ding7777 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:13:18 PM EST
    attack ad say the Clintons.  Is he now conceding that Hillary was more than just a tea-sipping spouse?

    Parent
    Here Is A Quote From Frank Rich (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by MO Blue on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:22:36 PM EST
    One black woman, the former TV correspondent Carole Simpson,was given the servile role of the meeting's nominal moderator, Ed McMahon to Mrs. Clinton's top banana. Scattered black faces could be seen in the audience. NYT

    Now go back to that flier. Look at the audience in that ad.

    Double standards for sure. Wonder if Frank Rich will write about the demographics on that ad.

    Parent

    Frank Rich is ultimate Hillary Hater (none / 0) (#113)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:55:42 AM EST
    Frank Rich has always hated the Clintons. His columns, like those of the always female caninenss of Maureen Dowd practically froth at the mouth in their hatred.

    People that like to read their hatred for Hillary Clinton also might want to remember their paranoid, and dishonest columns about Al Gore.

    Parent

    Actually, he might (1.00 / 1) (#13)
    by halstoon on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:34:23 PM EST
    don't forget, the same poll has him beating McCain, while she is in a dead heat.

    By insisting on running when she will only divide America, it is Hillary who is damaging the party. She should drop and support the candidate who can beat McCain, not just tie him.

    The mailer only points out the truth. Democrats lost nationwide with Clinton at the helm.

    Does it not bother you all that Newt Gingrich gets credit for the same things Clinton touts? It's a fact. Clinton worked with a decidedly conservative Congress that was in the midst of tearing his personal life apart. Why are y'all not mad about that, since Obama being willing to reach out is so detestable?

    Parent

    This is a ridiculous comment (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:39:44 PM EST
    I hope you can add something better than this to the conversation.

    Parent
    I should have put snark by the dropout line. (none / 0) (#47)
    by halstoon on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:02:10 PM EST
    I also shouldn't lower myself to the kind of vitriol the Clinton camp exudes here.

    But it's not ridiculous to point out that Democrats lost big under Bill Clinton and that he was forced to work with a Repug Congress, or that nowadays Newt Gingrich touts the same budget balances, welfare reforms, and jobs that Bill does. He does, and he can, b/c Dems lost the Congress under Clinton.

    Parent

    mccain likely (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by sancho on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:13:43 PM EST
    beats obama. and bill clinton inherited a dead, dividing democratic party. lots of blue dogs. lots of corruption. very misleading argument by obama. but he is depending on capturing those dem voters as yet untainted by historical memory. and his some of his key supporters, ben nelson, tom daschle and mo.'s claire mc., are clearly part of a  big blue progressive wave. ha ha.

    Parent
    "the mailer only points out the truth" (none / 0) (#18)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:40:29 PM EST
    The truth being, cherry picked polls that have us nine months out from the election?  Going by your reasoning, Obama should have dropped out six months ago when he was polling well behind Clinton.

    I think I'll stick with the voters, thanks.  

    Parent

    The dropout line was a joke. (none / 0) (#43)
    by halstoon on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:57:34 PM EST
    The fact that all those people lost their elections is not a poll; that's actualy history. Democrats did not win elections under Bill Clinton. That's just the way it was. It's also a good indicator of how things will be. The Clintons are the divisive figures in this race. Obama gets skewered for offering unity.

    Parent
    So basically (none / 0) (#48)
    by PlayInPeoria on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:03:12 PM EST
    since Obama is running as an Idependent then he does not have to worry about the Democratic history.

    Hey... Obama IS a Democrat.

    Parent

    Yeah, he is. (none / 0) (#52)
    by halstoon on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:09:37 PM EST
    Where did I say differently?

    What I do believe is that Obama is better for down-ticket DEMOCRATS than Clinton. I think he'll be better in 2010, will get re-elected in 2012, will be better than she would in 2014 and will leave Democrats with a better shot in 2016.

    Democrats should worry about the Democratic history under the Clintons, and then consider if they want to go through similar things over the next 8 years.

    Parent

    I believe you've proven before (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:50:14 PM EST
    that you have no sense of the history of the '90s.  If you did you would realize that their own ineptness and corruption brought down the democrats in congress.  It's what happens when you've been in power for 40 years and have tons of hubris.


    Parent
    hmm, you need to go back and take a long (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by hellothere on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:23:33 PM EST
    serious read of just what went on in the 90s. clinton was up against a repub culture way out of control. were you mature during that period? i wonder based on your comments. context is quite important! without that no critical thinking takes place.

    Parent
    Two-faced comments by Obama people tick me off. (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by BrandingIron on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:14:47 AM EST
    You know what's quaint...is that you say the Clintons are divisive, yet in the same breath you say that Clinton worked with the Republicans/"just don't like the idea that Bill Clinton was a great president precisely because he did work with the opposition, even if he didn't have a choice due to their power. He still did so."  you say he was a "great president" but then turn around in the next second to say that even though he did a lot of good and was great, that that's not a reason to return to a Clinton administration.

    Which is it?  Why do you Obama people insist on having it both ways?

    (BTW, I'm new here, hello everyone...)

    Parent

    it is very hard to debate you sorry to say. (none / 0) (#140)
    by hellothere on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:15:45 PM EST
    the reason being is that i think your mind is made up no matter what the other in the debate says.

    you fail to take into account that clinton was dealing with the meanest, most neocon repub congress in the history of this country. you fail to take into account that obama is leaning to the right and encouraging them to vote for him. he is no way a change candidate. he is just playing both sides of the fence.

    i also don't appreciate your lack of appreciation for the great things clinton did. i left the repub party due to the meaness and lack of any real will to do good for the country. so you think obama will affect change just exactly how? by reaching out to people who will don't want to cooperate and will run us into the ground. the right will never be obama's friends. that is a fool's errand to end this with a well known quote.
     thanks

    Parent

    one additional comment about the gop. (none / 0) (#149)
    by hellothere on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:51:11 PM EST
    it in my humble opinion is not a case of gop hate returning. it never left. they might climb under a rock or hide in a corner for a short while. but they haven't left the building.

    Parent
    Love that togetherness mantra (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:43:18 AM EST
    When what it really means is "we" have to go along with what "you" think is best. And when it comes to dividing people maybe you haven't been paying attention but it seems pretty plain to me that Obama is dividing people quite a bit. I know that many of his supporters and he himself has been quite dismissive of older voters. Isn't that divisive?

    It's always amusing when someone tells us we need to get together when what they mean is those that don't agree with them need to knuckle under.

    Parent

    I Try not to call names (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:51:25 AM EST
     I also try not to allow myself to attack someone else for their lack of facts as if everyone that posts here must somehow come equipped with links to prove that every thing they say is backed up with fact.  You can present your "facts" all you want. I have read about Hillary Clinton for a very long time. I like her, I respect her and I don't like or will I vote for people that attack the only successful Democratic Administration in 40 years.

    I know that many of the smears against her are lies started by the right-wing and now perpetuated by the left that doesn't like her. And if you think that providing some links to negative Hillary sites will make a supporter change into an instant Obama supporter you're simply wrong.

    I do not like Obama. My reasons are my own but since you seem to think that I haven't the right to express my opinion without offering you some proof here's just one little link to a comment made on a Obama site. There are way too many like this to provide links too and I try not to spend to much time reading them as it makes my mind feel dirty.

    http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/twocents/CjzM

    "Obama is a leader now  |  By Verna Jan 11th 2008 at 2:23 pm EST
    You mean when hil's blue hair brigade stood all of their grandchildren up in front of the camera's for her walk thru the crowd? The old dawgs couldn't resist peeking into the camera to get their mug on teley.

    Obama's message is stronger each day than the day before. They do not have the intellect or open mind to even follow the dialog.

    We are safe. "

    This was not one of the worst. It was just one I thought might be allowed to be posted here.

    And really, why do you object to anyone not taking you seriously when your own title here "Obamamania2008" suggests something less than rational thinking? That is unless someone has changed the meaning of the word mania.

    Parent

    Obama uses more republican talking points (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by sancho on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:19:37 PM EST
    than some republicans. I cant tell you how sorry I am that you will not be able to see through Obama until after he has gotten your vote and let the dem party down. I hope he does not do that, I hasten to add. But his campaign suggests he will say anything at any moment to get a temporary edge and in the long run this will only bring his dem voters heartbreak and pain.

    Do you have healthcare, halstoon? Do you know people who do not?

    Parent

    this is for discussion! (none / 0) (#97)
    by hellothere on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:24:16 PM EST


    Parent
    are you kidding? (none / 0) (#99)
    by sancho on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:34:10 PM EST
    you think it hasn't been divisive since bush was elected? that's why i cant vote for obama. he thinks this is the golden era! unbelievable.

    Parent
    To change what? (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Sima on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:05:57 AM EST
    In what direction? how?

    It's like you see the end of the road, and the beginning, but the whole middle section is missing.  I'm interested in that middle section.

    And frankly, I haven't heard any version of the end of the road from Obama which has any specifics to appeal to me.  What about women's rights?  Abortion available for all who need it?  Right to choose?  Healthcare for all?  Social Security to last through old age?  

    What about the economy?  The long rows of houses standing vacant in places like Cleveland?  What about jobs going overseas?  What about rural jobs?  What about support for small farmers?  What about support for alternative energy sources (no coal doesn't count)?  What about establishing a strong and respected America worldwide?  What about education which doesn't penalize teachers?  What about a strong and safe food supply?

    Telling me 'Yes, we can' (I got news, I already know we can) and to join the movement does nothing.  I want the details of the road map and all the destinations laid out.

    It's like I'm listening to one of my professors and when I point out, 'But what about women's rights?' he waves his hands and says 'Yes, yes, that'll happen too.  But what's really important is that we move into a post-modern heurmaneutic dialect accessible via a 'Yes we can' modality which encompasses the entire range of possible positive 'yes' and 'can' meanings.  Of course the 'we' is all inclusive...'

    Huh?  There's no there, there.

    Parent

    Thank you (none / 0) (#153)
    by Sima on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:00:00 AM EST
    For the well thought out answer.

    Some of it reassures me.  I don't like his framing on Social Security; it's not broken.  I don't mind raising the tax though, if it's 97k for an individual, not a family.  

    All in all, I remain an Edwards democrat voting for Clinton.  Obama needs more seasoning, and I'm scared of hope and unity as a strategy.  It reminds me too much of the hope the country had after Bush was 'elected' that he really meant what he said about being a unifier and bringing the country together.  Call me gun-shy.

    Parent

    I hope you are right (none / 0) (#124)
    by sancho on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:15:10 AM EST
    that Obama wants to pivot away from Bush. But I don't see him doing it. How is he going to get the Senate Republicans to vote his way? Is he going to tell Reid to let them filibuster? Oh well, you'll learn. Best wishes to your hopes and dreams. Please remember to share them with the poor, the uninsured, and the Americans at risk overseas when they come true.

    Parent
    well i have seen folks made some mean (none / 0) (#150)
    by hellothere on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:56:49 PM EST
    comments followed with "i was just kidding".

    Parent
    In TX she will get a chance (none / 0) (#6)
    by Hypatias Father on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:19:45 PM EST
    to make the same points you are making, if she chooses to.  It turns out there will be a debate after all, though in Austin--not in Dallas.

    Parent
    Austin, huh? (none / 0) (#23)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:42:18 PM EST
    Well, that'll be a tough crowd for him, huh?  Latte dems and students wall-to-wall.  I might fly in just to show my support.

    I hope she nails him on trashing the party's greatest--and only--president of the last two decades.  Despicable.  

    Of course, if she "attacks" him, then she's the one going negative.

    God, I am so sick of these double standards.

    Parent

    I dunno (none / 0) (#35)
    by Hypatias Father on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:51:18 PM EST
    I'm trying to get tickets even as I type this.  Austin and Dalls both will probably continue to trend for Obama.  Less to do with latte types, of which I am myself, even though I hate lattes...  and more to do with the reverence that we Dem Texans hold for the late Molly Ivins.  In any case, I am convinced that the rural vote will be more determinative, and the jury is still out for that sector of the population.

    Parent
    'Scuse while I genuflect (none / 0) (#102)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:38:57 PM EST
    to the memory of Molly Ivins.  She bashed Hillary, but okay, she bashed everybody in her initimable way.  How I'd love to see what she'd say about Obama and all that is going on in this campaign!

    And while we're at it, we could use Barbara Jordan, too.  Texas did turn out some great women.  Any at all like them coming up to entertain and lead us?

    Parent

    You aren't the only one (none / 0) (#104)
    by Hypatias Father on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:48:17 PM EST
    who wishes Molly had more on the record re. her views of Obama, but he was just a blip on her radar at the time.  Part of me thinks she may have gritted her teeth and pulled for Hillary.  

    And let's not forget Ann Richards.  If you don't stop, soon you'll have me beer-cryin' to old Bill Hicks videos or Willie Nelson tunes.

    I think there is a crop of vibrant outspoken TX females coming up, now that you ask, but it's a different ball game down hear that we're all having to play since Dubya took over.

    Parent

    Ah, and I have Ann Richards' book, too (none / 0) (#126)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:47:44 AM EST
    right on my shelves here.  Get out the hanky, and let's both play some Willie!  (I also have his earliest albums from 'way back -- when he was country, clean-cut, no ponytail.:-)

    And yep, Miz Ivins didn't genuflect to anybody, so I suspect she wouldn't see a messiah.  Heck, when she got to heaven, I bet she gave God a good lookover and snarked a few funny lines to St. Peter. . . .

    Parent

    He just set up his headquarters on Congress Ave, (none / 0) (#55)
    by Angel on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:46:58 PM EST
    down from the capitol building.  He has a huge following here, lots of students, young people, and the wealthy who can afford health insurance.  The debate should be interesting.  Of course, that depends on the moderators, as always.

    Parent
    Angel (none / 0) (#62)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:50:08 PM EST
    Austin  is  the  liberal  spot in  Texas....college  town,   upscale   yuppies,  etc.    It doesn't  represent  the rest of  Texas, and  never has .   Austin  is  VERY  atypical  of   Texas  voters.

    Texans  don't LIKE  that Obama  is  for   driver's licenses   for illegal  aliens.  

    Parent

    As a Texan I feel (none / 0) (#73)
    by Hypatias Father on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:07:16 PM EST
    that's not quite the whole picture.  Molly Ivins is practically a saint here, and lately people have been reexamining all of her arguments against Clinton.  Both candidates are getting hard second looks IMHO.

    Parent
    I love Austin (none / 0) (#116)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:04:53 AM EST
    great town......progressive town (and I know it is hard to believe that Texas has such things but they do)......tough audience for Clinton.  I think that is why Bush was able to walk across an aisle before he got to D.C., because he had to live in Austin and he wanted to step outside once in awhile and see the sun before he exiled himself forever to sulfur downunder ;)  Dallas would be her town but she has challenged herself to sell it to Austin and you know what......she can do that because she is one strong smart talented progressive girl!

    Parent
    Mailers (none / 0) (#20)
    by dwightkschrute on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:40:57 PM EST
    Nasty mailers are terrible. I'm glad Hillary Clinton and her campaign would never  get negative in a mailer. So great she's above doing this. And I'm sure her camp will respond very calmly, instead of say invoking charged references in response.

    Parent
    You are not seriously comparing the mailers (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:43:25 PM EST
    are you?

    Obama's was detestable. Not about a single issue.

    Can you not just say it was awful and move on?

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:47:42 PM EST
    they don't "seriously" do anything but come here, stir up crap, then leave.  

    Parent
    I see it now (none / 0) (#46)
    by dwightkschrute on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:01:18 PM EST
    You're right. There's no reason to compare a mailer where Obama took a low blow at Bill Clinton's tenure but used stats that actually backed up the claim. Down ticket elections are not an issue. It would have been better if he had used an issue like the economy, choice, or Social Security and just completely distorted his opponents position.

    How cool, this double standard thing works both ways.

    Parent

    Mailers (none / 0) (#63)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:52:05 PM EST
    Obama's  negative  mailers    are  a  sign  that he's   feeling  desperate.  

    Must  be  because his  campaign  has  already  conceded   Texas,  Ohio,  and  Pennsylvania.  

    I  thought he  was  a  "uniter."    

    He's  more like    Bush.

    Parent

    Apparently, in MI and Fl (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by sancho on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:36:55 PM EST
    Obama's campaign is happy to to discount votes, recount votes, or vote over and over until he is declared winner. Just. Like. Bush.

    Please tell me how Obama is going to be a better democratic president than Hillary is. What policies will he enact? What is his go-to issue?

    The only one I can see is elect me, I am the one I have been waiting for. Group narcissism.

    Parent

    Beliefs don't dictate actions. (none / 0) (#131)
    by BrandingIron on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:32:54 AM EST
    "Obama believes that we should actively engage our enemies while Hillary believes in the old way of containment."

    Yes, we should totally engage Kim Jong without any preconditions.  That's such an awesome idea, it'll totally make him want to give up his arsenal.

    The naiveté in all of those "beliefs" is astonishing.

    Parent

    Uniting unless you're over the hill... (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:51:22 AM EST
    Obama and his supporters like to paint themselves as the future which means old bats like me aren't important anymore. Course old bats like me get real upset when Obama starts talking about Social Security like a Republican. That came after Democrats actually won something and did not allow Bush to eviserate Social Security. Thus many of us older people may well not want to "pass the torch" to people we see as having less than common sense and less than respect for people that don't agree with them.

    Obama unites those that believe instead of think, hope instead of plan and want to follow with their hearts not their heads.

    He is a very good politician. As such every thing he says should be taken with a grain of salt.

    Parent

    kinda looks like obama gave up on california! (none / 0) (#98)
    by hellothere on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:28:46 PM EST
    yeah, i know you'll come back with obama meant this and did that. and frankly i don't see obama winning the big states where IT counts outside of IL his home state. so come back after texas, pa and we'll talk.

    and poster, clinton isn't afraid to contest. she is a mature adult. she has taken more in one day than obama has taken the whole time he has been in the senate.

    Parent

    Mailers (none / 0) (#64)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:52:12 PM EST
    Obama's  negative  mailers    are  a  sign  that he's   feeling  desperate.  

    Must  be  because his  campaign  has  already  conceded   Texas,  Ohio,  and  Pennsylvania.  

    I  thought he  was  a  "uniter."    

    He's  more like    Bush.

    Parent

    Yeah, Clinton is so much better than that (none / 0) (#28)
    by halstoon on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:45:31 PM EST
    scurge Obama.

    But I'm glad to see another member of the right wing conspiracy is here to victimize Clinton with me.

    Parent

    Halstoon, (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by sancho on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:38:13 PM EST
    I worry you are cominghere to scare people away from voting for Obama?  Is that possible or am I just a bad reader?

    Parent
    Kathy (none / 0) (#51)
    by PlayInPeoria on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:09:12 PM EST
    Please remember that Sen Clinton is very dedicated to her policies. Just because Sen Obama is the President does NOT prevent her from pursuing her convictions. She will still be in the Senate. And by watching her dedication... the Universal Health Care will NOT die if she is not the nominee. It will be much easier for those policies to pass if we had a Dem Pres.

    Also, we can still hope that her experience will help her with the superdelegates.

    Parent

    Here goes a nice primer on the Penn Primary (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by lisadawn82 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:59:48 PM EST
    From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is a nice description on how the delegates are awarded, the state of support of both candidates amongst the superdelegates and how hard it is to get a majority of the pledged delegates.  

    If someone is routinely low-rating (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:05:52 PM EST
    comments because they oppose the viewpoint of the writer rather than because the comment is poorly written or violates the sites terms, please let me know. That person will be warned once and then banned from the site (and have all of their comments to date deleted) if they keep doing it.

    You don't low rate a comment because you disagree with it.

    i gave a one rating just above and explained (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by hellothere on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:37:47 PM EST
    that making a comment about pulling comments out of one's backside isn't kosher on this site. also the sarcastic use of "sweetie".

    Parent
    that was an appropriate rating (none / 0) (#133)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:44:35 AM EST
    and I deleted that comment as well as others with denigrating tones.

    Parent
    jeralyn, we so much appreciate your (none / 0) (#138)
    by hellothere on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:06:26 PM EST
    policy your blog. it makes it a place where supporters of both obama and clinton can exchange views.

    Parent
    jgarza does this frequently although (none / 0) (#88)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:42:57 PM EST
    I don't know what your standard is.

    Parent
    that is great about John Glenn (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by athyrio on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:53:34 PM EST
    endorsing Hillary for president...That means alot to Ohio as they love him there...I love him too he seems to be a nice man....

    It is anti-American to not adore (none / 0) (#117)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:08:26 AM EST
    John Glenn ;)

    Parent
    Halstoon (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by rosaleen on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:32:12 AM EST
    You might want to inform yourself and your candidate that the POTUS' party almos invariably loses seats in mid-term elections.

    MO Blue, no kidding! There isn't one person of color anywhere in either of those big glossy pictures! It's almost all cute young white chicks! Where are the people of color? If I didn't already know B.O. I wouldn't believe such a thing.

    Zogby's polls are skewed because he has a horse in this race and he makes no bones about it.

    I saw HRC's mailers and I never saw a personal attack against O.B. His calls her divisive. This is how he is going to unite the country? No. This is how he is going to satisfy his lust for power.

    Otoh, I would rather have HRC in the Senate than B.O. All he knows how to do is run for higher office. If he's elected POTUS, he'll probably start running for Pope immediately.

    Gallup/USA today (none / 0) (#1)
    by magster on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:08:23 PM EST
    47% O - 44% C

    Bottom line: Who knows?

    There tracker has Clinton up 2 (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:24:50 PM EST
    It is fair to say that Clinton has an edge.

    Parent
    Look at the trend (none / 0) (#15)
    by magster on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:39:22 PM EST


    Parent
    Wha trend? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:41:49 PM EST
    Obama has been up in this poll.

    Frankly, I am surprised he has not moved solidly nto the lead.

    Parent

    52-39 four days ago (none / 0) (#40)
    by magster on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:55:19 PM EST
    tapering to a virtual tie today.

    And he is solidly in the lead --- in pledged delegates.

    Parent

    What trends? (none / 0) (#41)
    by Tano on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:55:21 PM EST
    This trend

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.htm l

    Parent

    great name (none / 0) (#81)
    by Jgarza on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:32:46 PM EST
    trend lines facts those are all MSM creations to people on this site, they prefer cherry picked info that they like.

    Parent
    Frankly (none / 0) (#2)
    by andrewwm on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:09:43 PM EST
    National polls don't really tell people that much useful information now. I don't think matchup numbers between even the two D candidates and McCain really say all that much either, but at least it provides some information on which to make a decision.

    More relevant polls (none / 0) (#3)
    by Hypatias Father on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:11:22 PM EST
    would be restricted to the remaining states.  

    Young voter represent 18 percent of all voters (none / 0) (#4)
    by Prabhata on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:11:28 PM EST
    People tout the young voter turn out for Obama, but  young voters and black voters are a small percent of the composite of all voters.  Yes they are important, but having the dependable older and women voters supporting Hillary is good omen for winning the general election in November.

    Young voteres (none / 0) (#66)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:55:03 PM EST
    Hillary  WON   the  young  voters in  California  and  Massachusetts.   Literally blew  Obama  away   in   those  2  states.

    Parent
    cali and mass have (none / 0) (#79)
    by sancho on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:23:19 PM EST
    most of our country's best, most competitive  colleges and universities. coincidence that young people there chose hillary? :)

    Parent
    wow the (none / 0) (#82)
    by Jgarza on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:33:57 PM EST
    attacks on Obama supporters continue, I don't blame you culture is set from the top.

    Parent
    How is it an attack (none / 0) (#132)
    by BrandingIron on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:42:42 AM EST
    on Obama supporters by saying that Cali and Mass have some of the best colleges/universities?

    Parent
    good news for HRC (none / 0) (#7)
    by NJDem on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:20:35 PM EST
    thought there's some of us who can use some positive news, especially as tomorrow ain't lookin so good:

    Former Senator and astronaut John Glenn of Ohio will be endorsing HRC!  

    The white vote and moderates (none / 0) (#10)
    by halstoon on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:25:33 PM EST
    There's this:

    Yet among whites, who have preferred Clinton to Obama in most Democratic contests this year, she has no advantage when each is paired against McCain. Both get 37 percent of whites' backing, trailing McCain substantially.

    Obama slightly outdoes Clinton against McCain among moderates, a group that comprised almost half the voters in the 2004 general election and that both parties will contest fiercely in November's general elections. Obama gets 51 percent of their votes against McCain, compared with Clinton's 45 percent.

    Looks like he does get the white vote, at least as much as she does. And a 6 point edge among moderates is statistically significant.

    Actually it is not (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:26:27 PM EST
    statistically significant given the subsample.

    Parent
    Even a wash negates the Clinton camps (none / 0) (#16)
    by halstoon on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:39:27 PM EST
    claim that he can't do as well as she can. Simple fact: he gets the same number of white votes as she does.

    And then this nice little tidbit that probably irks her camp:

    Women favor Obama over McCain by 12 points, and favor Clinton over McCain by 11.

    Obama gets 74 percent of the votes of minorities when paired against McCain, 7 points more than Clinton.

    +12 for Obama in women vs. +11 for Clinton? Well, that ain't good for her. Think that 1% of respondents are black women who have turned on her? Or white women who never liked her to start?


    Parent

    Obama (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:56:17 PM EST
    But in  same poll,  in  a  matchup  between Obama  and  McCain,    Obama  LOSES  the  Independents,  who  move  to McCain.  

    Parent
    GE Polls at this juncture (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:40:45 PM EST
    are simply not worth considering.

    Parent
    Yeah, but they indicate the feeling right now. (none / 0) (#22)
    by halstoon on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:42:07 PM EST
    And right now, he's as good a prospect as she is.

    Parent
    he's as good a prospect as she is? (none / 0) (#24)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:43:12 PM EST
    Weren't you just calling for her to drop out of the race?

    Parent
    That was a joke in response to all the people (none / 0) (#30)
    by halstoon on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:47:46 PM EST
    bashing him and accusing him of splitting the party. I guess I should make that more clear.

    It was a sarcastic call for her to step down. I don't really believe that.

    Parent

    I think he is a better prospect (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:44:22 PM EST
    But I do not base that on GE polls this far out.

    Parent
    Can't use those stats now (none / 0) (#33)
    by SandyK on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:50:25 PM EST
    Since they're top heavy with the kids.

    Have to wait until October to get a better idea of the real vote.

    Have to also factor, polls are emotional. Anything that happens between now and October will seriously influence it. Just like the Iraq war was overshadowed by the economy when the Fed made it's prime cut.

    Parent

    Come On (none / 0) (#37)
    by Salt on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:52:44 PM EST
    Hillary numbers are never representative of her strength.

    Parent
    And the White vote will be less... (none / 0) (#26)
    by SandyK on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:43:58 PM EST
    if Hillary's supporters aren't inclusive.

    Want the votes? Dems will have to take a page from the Rove playbook, and get all the factions and fractions together.

    Currently they're just talking to their base. Remember the moderate and independents aren't going to buy the party line, just parts. Which is when the real fun begins if the Democrats win (as the crossovers will want something for their vote).

    Welcome to the real world of politics!

    Parent

    Yes indeed (none / 0) (#34)
    by Salt on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:50:54 PM EST
    we will want a experienced ethical competent candidate not just a Dem, I believe thats fair don't you.

    Parent
    If her white supporters decide to give the WH (none / 0) (#36)
    by halstoon on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:51:49 PM EST
    to McCain, that's their right. As for the poll, the 30% of her voters in the polls that switched still left Obama with a lead over him.

    His 33% defection left her tied with him. So from that standpoint, he's the stronger candidate.

    That's reality.

    Parent

    Obama is always above what he actually obtains in (none / 0) (#42)
    by Salt on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:56:09 PM EST
    votes and Hillary is almost always lower, suffice it to say these polls are uncomfortably tight and an indicator of what I had been hearing.  

    And the Fla Mich issue is not yet resolved.

    Parent

    In Maine, that finally changed. (none / 0) (#50)
    by halstoon on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:05:32 PM EST
    She was supposed to win. He won big. And he got the same 37% in NH that he had polled that day before. He won SC by more than expected. He won more delegates in NV despite her being heavily favored.

    FL and MI won't come into play until the rest of the calendar plays out. By that time, it won't matter, hopefully.

    Parent

    You call (none / 0) (#134)
    by BrandingIron on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:47:23 AM EST
    a 2,079 to 1,396 caucus win "big"?

    ...Seriously?

    Parent

    ObamaMama (none / 0) (#128)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:55:38 AM EST
    Lose the denigrating tone and words in your comments or you are not welcome here.

    Parent
    just a question? are you making a threat (none / 0) (#151)
    by hellothere on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:53:32 PM EST
    toward this blog? perhaps i misread your intention and read more into it that was meant. thanks

    Parent
    Not really (none / 0) (#68)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:58:51 PM EST
    Poll shows  that those  "Independents" Obama   brags  about    clearly  move to McCain  if  Obama  is  his  competitor.    In BIG  numbers.

    Parent
    something ALL Democrats can laugh about = (none / 0) (#14)
    by NJDem on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:35:04 PM EST
    today is the anniversary of when Cheney shot that guy in the face!  That was really too much...

    I've read (but never verified) that the national polls are indicators for state polls, in terms of trends.  So how can we believe these polls, which have had HRC consistently ahead, though by varying margins, and still see an Obama surge?  Or explain the crazy numbers (spreads) that come out of the caucuses.  

    And for perspective's sake, let's remember Guiliani (sp) was ahead in the polls for months!

    In some contexts maybe (none / 0) (#31)
    by andrewwm on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:47:52 PM EST
    But just look at the case of South Carolina. Clinton was climbing and trouncing Obama in national polls and he outcompeted polls on the ground there.

    I think we can safely say that pollsters have no idea how to poll primaries. Even the good ones have an average error of 5 points.

    Parent

    Look at Florida (none / 0) (#32)
    by Janet on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:48:22 PM EST
    Even though each candidate did not focus on Florida still went with HRC. Those white hairs will vote for her not him

    A lot of that vote was name recognition alone. (none / 0) (#39)
    by halstoon on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:53:25 PM EST
    She is indeed stronger among seniors, but an election where he didn't even address the population is not an indication of his ability to compete.

    Parent
    No TV, radio or newspapers (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by oldpro on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:00:45 PM EST
    in Florida?

    Parent
    you failed to notice that hillary doesn't (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by hellothere on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:09:32 AM EST
    scare the "white hairs"(was that how you put it) to death with talk about social security. they are also concerned about how he presents health care. that just might be the reason they vote for her versus name recognition.

    Parent
    FLorida (none / 0) (#69)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:00:23 PM EST
    He  addressed  the population  in his press  conferences  and his  ads,  both  of  which were  against  the   rules.

    Parent
    Remember New Hampshire (none / 0) (#38)
    by Janet on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:52:58 PM EST
    Zogby has not been right all along

    State Polls (none / 0) (#44)
    by Janet on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:58:39 PM EST
    When you look at the polling over the last two months each state and local poll was generally correct, not the national polls. look at nevada and California

    Yes, (none / 0) (#49)
    by Hypatias Father on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:03:23 PM EST
    exactly, and here are some analytics from the byzantine process that is the Texas primaucus; or, is it caucary?.

    Parent
    AP poll* (none / 0) (#54)
    by cannondaddy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:45:36 PM EST
    *Among democrats...

    Can I ask-- (none / 0) (#56)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:47:47 PM EST
    If the polls change to favor Clinton, then what will the spin be?

    Cherry-picking only leaves you with the pits.

    Most polls favored Clinton... (none / 0) (#65)
    by cannondaddy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:52:48 PM EST
    they have for months. It's only even come close recently.  She's never trailed in the RCP average.

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:01:52 PM EST
    And  as  soon  as  she  wins  Texas, Ohio,  and Pennsylvania,  as  Obama's  campaign  thinks  she  will,   those  polls  will  change AGAIN.

    Parent
    Aunt Mo... (none / 0) (#114)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 07:04:55 AM EST
    From your keyboard to God's ear. I get so depressed with all/Obama all the time. I stopped watching any of the talk shows and only spend a little time online.

    My favorites list is now very short since I have deleted most of my former favorites and I no longer listen to Air Obama Radio.

    I know who I will vote for and what I will do if she is not the candidate. I've voted Green before and will happily do it again.

    Parent

    Voting Green (none / 0) (#120)
    by allimom99 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:56:45 AM EST
    Funny that should come up, Ive just come to that exact conclusion. As a progressive John Edwards supporter, I can definitely see myself going that way.

    Parent
    You know what's weird... (none / 0) (#135)
    by BrandingIron on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:51:16 AM EST
    Fox News really is offering the most fair coverage of Clinton's campaign.  I wish I were kidding.

    Parent
    "True" Democrats (none / 0) (#85)
    by diogenes on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:37:35 PM EST
    "True" Democrats will vote for Hillary whether or not they supported Obama just as "true" Republicans would support Huckabee if nominated.  The Independents will swing the election, though.

    But I'm not a Democrat (none / 0) (#129)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:08:24 AM EST
    I'm an Independent that has always voted for a Democrat except once. That once I voted for the Really Excellent Green Candidate that was running against Senator Herb Kohl, who I find more of a Blue Dog Democrat than a True Democrat here in Wisconsin.

    I have always voted for Russ Feingold and vote for Jim Doyle, our Democratic Governor only because everything else that's been offered is so much worse.

    I try to always vote for the "progressive" candidate. I would classify myself as a moderate liberal, whatever the heck that means anymore.

     That said, no one is going to make me change my mind about who to vote for by insulting me or suggesting that my choice of candidate is wrong or foolish. I am quite capable of making up my own mind and of voting as my conscience tells me to do. And that means if the candidate for president is Obama, I will vote Green.

    Parent

    Obama voted his infamous (none / 0) (#136)
    by BrandingIron on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:53:35 AM EST
    NV/"present" on legislation where the pro-choice groups could've really benefited from the "NO" vote.  He chickened out...for no good reason other than he was afraid that his votes could be used against him in "direct mail" attacks.

    I was already covered by my parents (none / 0) (#137)
    by BrandingIron on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:58:25 AM EST
    up until age 25.  That is nothing new at all.

    He speaks about improving SCHIP...well, who do you think created SCHIP?  That's right, Hillary Clinton helped bring SCHIP about.

    He speaks about a Brilliant New Program he's going to create to let college students work off some of their tuition after school, except that something like that exists.  AmericCorp was created by Bill Clinton, and Hillary has plans to spruce it up.

    He talks a big talk, he does.

    AP Poll: Hillary Leads Obama, 46% to 41% | 117 comments (117 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment