Latest McCain vs. Dems Poll

There's a new LA Times/Bloomberg national poll. The key findings:

  • Between McCain, Obama and Hillary:
    In head-to-head contests, the poll found, McCain leads Clinton by 6 percentage points (46% to 40%) and Obama by 2 points (44% to 42%). Neither lead is commanding given that the survey, conducted Feb. 21-25, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
  • On the economy, Hillary beats McCain 43% to 34% while McCain beats Obama 42% to 34%. That's a big difference.


  • Republican voters see McCain as more experienced. They like that he's older. Where are the change voters? Not in the group that includes Republicans for McCain apparently, only in the Democratic contest.
  • Among Democrats nationally, Obama leads Hillary 48% to 42%. But, there's one more key number:
    Of Democratic voters whose home states have yet to hold primaries or caucuses, the former first lady maintains a 13-point edge over Obama.
  • The poll finds Hillary's support has remained constant at 42%, but Obama's has risen, possibly it says, from gaining Edwards' supporters. And that each side's two core groups, older white female voters for Hillary and the African American voters for Obama, are not budging.
  • As to what the superdelegates should do, this will suprise some:
    The survey's participants are evenly split over whether the 796 superdelegates should vote for the candidate they personally support or for the one who won their state. But a majority (52%) thinks the party should allow delegates from Florida and Michigan to participate, agreeing with the position taken by the Clinton campaign.

< Predicting Ohio in the General Election | David Gergen Confirms Clinton Didn't Back NAFTA >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Wow that is amazing about Florida and Michigan (none / 0) (#1)
    by athyrio on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:44:44 PM EST
    but I am sure Dean won't let WHAT THE VOTERS THINK get in the way of manipulation....This is truly sad....

    The numbers against McCain (none / 0) (#2)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:45:17 PM EST
    are utterly meaningless.

    Dem numbers are still split between Obama and Clinton.  Once the Dem nominee is selected the Dem candidate will take a strong lead.

    we'll see (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Nasarius on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:04:59 PM EST
    It's not meaningless, it's just clearly not predictive of November. What it does demonstrate is that McCain is not someone to be taken lightly, a disturbing trend I've seen among some Obama supporters.

    McCain's lead on Iraq is more disturbing (I can't find the exact numbers). Here's an issue where we should be crushing the Republicans, and yet McCain, who has unabashedly tied himself to George Bush when it comes to this war, is still leading on that issue. This requires aggressive tactics to change.


    McCain leads (none / 0) (#7)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:15:40 PM EST
    on Iraq by 13 points and on terrorism by 37 points.  That's hard to laugh off but Obama supporters will try.

    "some Obama supporters say" (none / 0) (#10)
    by s5 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:28:54 PM EST
    Who are they?

    In various posts just today (none / 0) (#12)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:35:11 PM EST
    they are several purported Obama supporters who've been saying he would be easy to beat.  He's old.  He's stupid.  Can't possibly take on Obama.

    Just the kind of crap that'll get the democrats beat in the GE.

    Who?  Look them up, in today's posts.


    No matter what (none / 0) (#14)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:39:59 PM EST
    some Obama supporters, Hillary supporters, say on an Internet blog, things are going to play out the way they are going to play out.  

    This isn't a sporting event and I wish people would stop treating it like one.


    see flyerhawk below (none / 0) (#16)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:44:09 PM EST
    A poll (none / 0) (#13)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:38:46 PM EST
    taken 8 months before an election when only one candidate has been decided and the other two are still duking it out, is pretty much meaningless.

    They are good for starting conversation.  That's about it.  

    The Dems will be winning the November election barring a catastrophic scandal/event.  It's  a done deal.  The Republicans know it.  The Democrats know it.  

    As for the reason for the positive numbers for McCain right now, the non-scandal scandal played well for him at least for the moment.  

    The fact that McCain is royally screwed on finances right now could make this a really amusing race.


    Yes, it may not be so useful to us (none / 0) (#15)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:40:31 PM EST
    but I bet it's the sort of thing that super-delegates find interesting, as they have a vote a lot sooner than November.

    Why (none / 0) (#17)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:46:04 PM EST
    Do you think they are unaware of the meaninglessness of these polls?  

    There ya go again, Fly (none / 0) (#18)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:51:13 PM EST
    so g'night to you.

    It's not amusing (none / 0) (#27)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:58:45 AM EST
    when you realize that every single news outlet will be in the can for McCain, just like they always are for any wingnut nominee. You don't have to buy a lot of ads when everyone is fawning all over you on television every single day. What has been done for Obama will be done for McCain. Yeah, I know, Obamazoids don't want to believe that. They think those jaded pundits really think their guy is awesome and they'll just roll over everyone and get the nomination, no sweat. But some of us still live in the reality-based community and know how it goes.

    Well us Obamazoids (none / 0) (#32)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:54:04 AM EST
    live in the surreality based community. Luckily we have you brave and sober Hillary supporters to tell us how the world really is.

    I don't know or care what the pundits think of Obama.  It doesn't matter.  

    Democrats lose because of their own failings, not because of the evil Right Wing Media.


    I agree with that as to who they will vote for (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:01:23 PM EST
    Theyt don't split them that way. (none / 0) (#8)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:17:53 PM EST
    The polls are individual.  Yes the numbers are meaningless but some of the internals are interesting.

    No they are not (none / 0) (#30)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:57:54 AM EST
    The match up is one on one, that means you are seeing how the other candidates supporter would vote in a match up. They are probably fairly representative of how things stand RIGHT NOW.

    My addition is this is with Sen Obama having not been attacked at all. So his numbers will go down a bit (my guess).

    Also if economy stays the way it is economy numbers will kill Sen Obama against McCain.


    Of course they are (none / 0) (#33)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:57:42 AM EST
    one on one matchups.  However many Democrats are split on Obama and Hillary.  While the blogosphere is particularly emotional about the matter a lot of voters are still firm about their choice and not as keen about the other.  While they will predominantly vote for the Dem in November, RIGHT NOW they are settled on their candidate.  

    This suppresses the results of BOTH candidates when compared to John McCain.


    That is where you are wrong (none / 0) (#34)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 10:11:16 AM EST
    I don't see how you jump to that. Unless what you mean is that each side is so angry with the other right now they will vote for McCain, but by Nov that will change.

    I don't think that is so true either.


    3 polls in the past few days have shown (none / 0) (#3)
    by tigercourse on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:49:09 PM EST
    Obama trailing McCain. I think that might be an indication of a pull back on the Obama bump or surge or whatever metaphor. Since there are 8 more months to go, it doesn't mean that much of course.

    What I find interesting (none / 0) (#6)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:10:16 PM EST
    Are the issue votes.  Obama won Colorado, right, but I wonder if you did a poll right now in Colorado asking them who they trusted, Obama or Clinton, on the economy and national security, you might get some results that would make the actualy primary count look funny.

    Point is really that maybe people are willing to accept the fact that one candidate might do a better job than the other but that the other might make them feel better.

    And people do like to feel better.

    Colorado had (none / 0) (#36)
    by Fultron on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 05:40:15 PM EST
    caucuses. Any poll would make the final count look funny.

    I was promised that the election couldn't be lost! (none / 0) (#9)
    by jerry on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:28:26 PM EST
    Let's face it, our two cowardly candidates couldn't have led a crappier campaign.

    One ran on his charm, the other ran on her inevitability, BOTH ran a campaign in which they were afraid to take a strong leadership position.

    If either candidate had risked their candidacy by taking a leadership position and defending the country, well, the odds of their losing the nomination or even the presidency may have increased, but the odds of an overwhelming knockout victory would have also increased.

    Scared to lose, they have ended up as mediocre, bland, not terribly special candidates.  Not running on leadership but running on charm and hope, and running on competency and hope.

    We were promised that we couldn't lose the election.  How did we get here?

    Wow (none / 0) (#11)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:34:43 PM EST
    You win the prize for most jaded and defeatist post of the week.

    Heck you already know what kind of campaign they are going to run in the GE.  Pretty impressive clairvoyance on your part.


    What does their campaign have to do with anything? (none / 0) (#19)
    by jerry on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:54:36 PM EST

    How did they stand up to Bush when they had a platform that only 98 other Americans had, the best most amazingly great platform to start a campaign on?

    What did they do on wiretapping?  On habeas?  On torture?  On the war?  On Halliburton?

    NOTHING!  They completely squandered their last four years, and our last four years.  They acted in concert to make America and the world more dangerous.  And they did it because they were too scared they might lose an election.

    If either had done anything, anything at all, we would all be in a much better position today, and most likely they would have been lightyears ahead in the polls.

    But they were cowards and afraid to risk and offend.  They ran on platitudes not reality.

    They have not shown leadership.  They have fooled you into thinking that their campaign is a proxy for leadership, but they had a platform to lead from and they showed great disrespect to that platform, to their constituents, and to the American People.


    Feingold was the lone exception in the Senate (none / 0) (#20)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:28:35 AM EST
    except he voted to confirm Ashcroft (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:43:00 AM EST
    even he doesn't get a 100% pass here.

    and voted to confirm Roberts to Supreme Ct. (none / 0) (#23)
    by lily15 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:01:13 AM EST
    Thank you for recalling that (none / 0) (#24)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:02:25 AM EST
    as few do. As a longtime voter for and donor to Russ here, that really was angering (as was his explanation for a "maverick"). And it wasn't the only time he failed us . . . but there have been so few times.

    And Roberts (none / 0) (#28)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:03:08 AM EST
    and darn it, he wouldn't run (none / 0) (#21)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:28:59 AM EST
    He's better, far better, as a Senator (none / 0) (#25)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:04:07 AM EST
    than in the executive branch. )And we well could lose that seat to the GOP again, if he hadn't decided to hold it.)

    I think so too Cream (none / 0) (#29)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:05:30 AM EST
    And if Wisconsin lost his Senate seat to a Republican we'd be down to 1 Republican and 1/2 a Democrat aka Herb Kohl. (And besides, I honestly think that at times Feingold manages to drag Kohl kicking and screaming into the light.)

    well, how about (none / 0) (#26)
    by cpinva on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:06:35 AM EST
    whoever the dem. nominee is starts with a "i didn't dump my sick spouse for my bottle-blonde girlfriend!" campaign? so much for that whole loyalty thing.

    or they could go with the "i didn't give all your tax dollars away to corrupt savings & loan owners, like mccain did to charles keating!" yeah, we got your "straight shooter" right here buddy!

    realistically, there's just so much rich ore to mine from mccain's history, the failure to use it would be criminal.

    both clinton and obama are pikers by comparison.

    In my opinion (none / 0) (#31)
    by kmblue on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:04:38 AM EST
    Whoever gets the Democratic nomination, the Democrats should take nothing for granted, includingthe support of their own party for their nominee.

    The Republicans never make that mistake.

    Obama-team Rhetoric on Superdelegates . . . (none / 0) (#35)
    by Doc Rock on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:16:40 PM EST
    . . .  has gradually changed from the Superdelegates should vote for 'whoever gets the
    popular vote' to "whoever gets the popular vote based on the number of committed delegates earned."  At first sounds similar, but it changes from the "popular Democratic Party vote winner" to "committed delegate winner" which actually might frustrate the will of the majority of voters because of the ways delegates are awarded in various states.  

    In other words, they were for the popular will before they were against it.