home

Rasmussen Poll : Hillary 46, Obama 43

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:54:54 AM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

New polls from Rasmussen are out today.

Nationally, Hillary maintains her recent and slight (and subject to the margin of error) lead over Obama. Today it's Hillary 46, Obama 43.

In the McCain contest (one I truly believe doesn't matter until we actually get a candidate): McCain beats Obama by 9 and Hillary by 5.

As to favorability,

Clinton is currently viewed favorably by 74% of Democrats nationwide, Obama by 67%.

As to the electoral college math,

Democrats l[are]leading in states with 200 Electoral College Votes. Republicans are favored in states with 189 Votes. When “leaners” are added to the total, the Democrats lead with 247 Electoral Votes to 229 for the GOP. A total of 270 Electoral Votes are needed to win the White House. Leaners are states that narrowly lean to one party or the other at this time but remain competitive.

[More...]

Twelve states with 149 Electoral Votes are either a pure Toss-Up or just slightly leaning to one party or the other. These are likely to be the early battleground states of Election 2008:

Florida (27), Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20), Michigan, (17), Virginia (13), Missouri (11), Minnesota (10), Colorado (9), Iowa (7), Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), and New Hampshire (4).

< Boehlert: The Press Hits the Rewind Button | 2nd Circuit Tosses Passenger Bill of Rights Law >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Rasmussen Poll : Hillary 46, Obama 43 | 71 comments (71 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I think it's interesting... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:12:16 PM EST
    ... that Hillary is now faring better in the head-to-head with McCain than Obama is. I can't recall that being the case at any previous point in the campaign.

    Its also the first time (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by tree on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:18:59 PM EST
    that Obama's national unfavorables at Rasmussen match Clinton's unfavorables, at 52%.

    Parent
    thanks to hillary (none / 0) (#61)
    by marcusdelara on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:16:34 PM EST
    hillary can only bring obama down.

    and the limbaugh effect

    won't work either.

    Parent

    I understand the need of some to blame Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by tree on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:49:08 PM EST
    for everything, but Obama's unfavorable increase is most likely due to the Wright flap, and Clinton had nothing to do with that. In fact I think it quite likely that Obama's unfavorables would be higher if she had dropped out and the MSM had more time to spend focusing on Obama. For some crazy reason, some  Obama supporters seem to think that the attacks against him will stop once he wraps up the nomination, but that's not the way things work in a general. And despite the desire to wrap things up early, the general election won't happen until November. You don't get to tell the other general election candidate to concede six months before the vote. Well, actually, you can tell them that, its just that everyone will laugh at you if you do. Clinton's actually doing Obama a favor by staying in it. He can either toughen up, learn to go the distance, or if he doesn't he won't be anything other than old history in November.

    Parent
    Obama will be brought much lower by Repubs (none / 0) (#72)
    by andrys on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 09:11:36 AM EST
    He is being treated with kid gloves, relative to what the Repub swiftboaters will do.  They don't have the kind of reservations we do.

    If Hillary did not point out some things now, and we just let Obama go unopposed as he has always seemed to prefer, then the party would have been buried come November.  

    Does any one really think that any of this would not have been said to deleterious effect for us all, after the nomination was made and there was no turning back or adjustments made?

    At worst, Obama's getting experience at how to fight such things.  He was really naive earlier, to say that he could not be swiftboated successfully because he'd been through a really tough primary season with Clinton.  That was before it got a bit rough, and this is still softball, relative to the general election.  People should stop babying him.  That won't help him or us.

    Parent

    What votes will be lost for each (approximately) (none / 0) (#71)
    by andrys on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 09:05:39 AM EST
    Also, there's this:

    "The division in the Democratic Party is highlighted by the fact that just 71% of Democratic Primary voters now say they will vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election campaign.

     If Barack Obama is nominated, 64% of Democratic Primary voters are ready to vote for him."

      {  That's huge! }

    "Clinton is currently viewed favorably
    by 74% of Democrats nationwide, Obama by 67%.

     By way of comparison, McCain is viewed favorably by 83% of
    Republicans."

    Parent

    It's been that way since Wright story broke (none / 0) (#9)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:13:46 PM EST
    in most polls I believe.  Going back to around March 14-15.

    Parent
    The battle ground states (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by countme on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:22:37 PM EST
    Look like they lean more to Hillary's advantage rather then Baracks. the question is which states are more likely to go Clinton over Obama as super delegates contemplate their decision?
    wow. just look at those 12 toss up states (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by irene adler on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:32:28 PM EST
    and how many of them are strong for HRC. Ohio and Pennsylvania alone would put Dems at 288.

    Florida (27), Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20), Michigan, (17), Virginia (13), Missouri (11), Minnesota (10), Colorado (9), Iowa (7), Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), and New Hampshire (4)

     

    They really can't be (none / 0) (#42)
    by independent voter on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:55:42 PM EST
    strong for HRC and toss-ups at the same time. If they were very strong for HRC, they would be showing up in the Dem column.

    Parent
    strong for Hillary when compared to Obama (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:08:37 PM EST


    Parent
    One word (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by tek on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:34:43 PM EST
    Yeahhhhh!  She has to do well in the upcoming primaries.  I'm going to make another donation.

    My question is (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by rockinrocknroll on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:40:15 PM EST
    who and what are the Obama supporters going to blame when/if (probably when) Obama loses the general to McCain? They are so unwilling to even entertain the thought that people - normal non-wingnut people - do not believe that he is perfect and don't want to vote for him.

    (BTW, as someone whose preferred candidate is no longer in the race and is now undecided, I am glad to have found this site. It seems like the only place on the web that has not lost it's collective mind to the cult of Obamania.)

    Clinton (none / 0) (#69)
    by Imelda Blahnik2 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:42:25 PM EST
    If she had quit the race when they told her to, Obama wouldn't have been so damaged nor would he have had to spend so many resources in the primary campaign.

    Their view, not mine.

    Parent

    Unbelievable. (none / 0) (#70)
    by rockinrocknroll on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:23:03 AM EST
    These people are becoming (have become?) deranged.

    Thanks.

    Parent

    I have noticed... (5.00 / 8) (#39)
    by Oje on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:44:09 PM EST
    In the past couple of weeks (Google Election News, 3-25-2008), it seems like Clinton is still campaigning for votes and pushing policy papers, even as the campaigns exchange snipes. She has given an Iraq withdrawal speech and a housing crisis speech in the past two weeks. Each week she seems to start tackle one more task and more work suitable for the president.

    Obama's campaign seems to be in a state of atrophy, focused almost entirely on tit-for-tat exchange and the media messaging on endorsements that catapulted him into the race during December 2007, with his one exception: The Speech on Racism to End All Speeches on Racism. Obama is still campaigning, spreading his message of change to Eugene, Ore., (the faithful), and playing games with the issue of tax returns and such.

    One of the candidates clearly is acting more presidential and more respectful of what Americans will need in January, 2009, while the other candidate is clearly focused on how to end the campaign now while he still has a tenuous lead.

    That's been my take on things, as well. (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:04:28 PM EST
    She appears to be trying to win so she can fight for us, and he appears to be winning so he can, well, win.  For him.

    He doesn't seem to have a general election strategy, which, given how shortsighted he has been on so many issues, does not surprise me, but he doesn't seem to get that winning the nomination is not the end of the fight, but the beginning.  McCain and Rove and the rest must just be drooling over the prospects of an Obama nomination.

    Parent

    Any thoughts the effect of the 'Bosnia Lie'? (1.00 / 1) (#64)
    by K Lynne on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:10:46 PM EST
    I'm reading / hearing reports of HRC's apparent lie regarding being under fire in Bosnia?  Any thoughts / speculation as to how this might affect the polling?  

    Link

    Hillary's top 10 lies (1.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Suzi on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:13:03 PM EST
    1. 35 years of relevant experience

    2. Audio of her saying Michigan and Florida don't count then later saying they should be counted.

    3. Playing a key part in Northern Ireland peace process when it was a cheer leading role to encourage activism among women's groups.

    4. Claimed to have negotiated with Macedonia to open up its border to refugees from Kosovo. However the Macedonian government opened its border to refugees the day before Clinton arrived.

    5. Claimed to had advocated on behalf of a U.S. military intervention in Rwanda to stop the genocide there. However,key foreign policy officials say that a U.S. military intervention in Rwanda was never considered in the Clinton administration's policy deliberations

    6. She said speech don't matter but then she claims her speech in China as part of her foreign policy experience!

    7. Her exaggerated her trip and gunfire to Bosnia.

    8. Her claim in getting SCHIP passed. In reality, the Clinton Administration fought the SCHIP effort which was being advocated by Senators Edward Kennedy and Orrin Hatch.

    9. She claimed on Sept. 11 daughter Chelsea was jogging around the World Trade Center when she was at home sleeping.

    10. She was named after Sir Edmund Hillary. who climbed Mount Everest in 1953 but wait Hillary was born in 1947!


    Lies, lies, and d**n lies just make me (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:21:03 PM EST
    even less willing to vote for Obama, considering the company he keeps with supporters such as this.

    Keep it up, you're converting more to Clinton.

    Parent

    Ras PA: Clinton 49, Obama 39 (none / 0) (#1)
    by mike in dc on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:57:41 AM EST
    10 point gap is smaller by 3 points from the last one.  Also, PPP just released an NC poll showing Obama up by 21 there.

    Guess this is why Obama's doing a 6-day bus tour of PA...

    That PPP poll is weird (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by magster on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:05:44 PM EST
    because today's poll shows a 20 point swing for Obama since March 19.  That cannot be right.

    Parent
    the media pats itself on the back (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:16:20 PM EST
    The speech, the speech!  I think the media is more interested in proving to themselves that they have power over the American public than they are about letting Democracy play out.

    But here's an alarming wake up call to the media:  They've been wrong almost every single time about Hillary's demise during this primary season.  The louder they pour on the hype and hate, the better she seems to do.

    Parent

    PPP poll (none / 0) (#31)
    by delandjim on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:33:47 PM EST
    It looks like a number of small factors. This weeks has a younger sample. Less women, more AA. All things that affect the result.

    I hope the answer is somewhere between.

    Parent

    There's no way (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Lil on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:41:15 PM EST
    to be encouraged by PPP poll, and frankly, Rasmussen didn't make me happy either. We've seen Obama close the gap in all her strong states before, and this could be the beginning of that trend for him again. I don't think Hillary can lose another primary and she needs more than 10 points in Pa. IMO.

    Parent
    I agree (4.00 / 1) (#44)
    by delandjim on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:58:32 PM EST
    I didn't mean to be encouraging. I was just trying to see the giant swing. I think the 1 point result was not accurate but I also am not sure this 21 point spread is accurate. I believe it is in between.

    Parent
    Yes, I see your point (none / 0) (#53)
    by Lil on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:28:42 PM EST
    I just added extra thought to post. Basically I'm moving into pessimism mode again.

    Parent
    I haven't looked at the sample, but if you (none / 0) (#43)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:55:53 PM EST
    are correct on the differences in the sample for this PPP poll, then it bears no relation to the last poll, which had Clinton within one point of Obama only a week ago; in my mind, that renders the poll fairly uselss, except as a rallying point for Obama supporters.

    Parent
    To believe that PA poll, you'd have to... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:11:35 PM EST
    If you think that poll is reliable or remotely believable, then you'd also have to believe that Obama, despite trailing by double digits in the poll is somehow viewed more favorably in Pennsylvania than Clinton... who is beating him by double digits.

    If you can squate those two incongruent "findings" by Rasmussen (and you forget that the trends are within margin of error) then you've got something to feel good about if you're an Obama supporter.


    Parent

    the house of clinton needs sixty percent plus (1.00 / 1) (#12)
    by cy street on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:16:51 PM EST
    in every remaining contest.  if they do not achieve sixty percent plus in a single race, then the concession speech should be forthcoming promptly.  

    by the way the only state hillary gained sixty plus was arkansas.  she only achieved fifty seven percent in her home state, where she is currently polling lower than obama in a general election match up with mccain.

    Parent

    She will get it in West Virginia (none / 0) (#13)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:17:40 PM EST


    Parent
    As long as you're making the rules, that is. (none / 0) (#26)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:26:23 PM EST
    It's silly to think Hillary would or should concede if she's stringing together double figure wins, and Obama's continuing to slide in national polls.

    Parent
    polls do not elect democratic (none / 0) (#30)
    by cy street on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:33:33 PM EST
    presidential nominees.  i accept the ten percent chance of winning that the house of clinton agrees with.  this hail mary is based on winning out by sixty percent plus.

    any failure to do so, closes the door.

    Parent

    Please stop posting falsehoods. (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by echinopsia on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:06:27 PM EST
    One unnamed source paraphrased in a single Politico article is not a campaign position, or one the campaign agrees with.

    Do it again and I'll tell mom.

    Parent

    If you were a super-delegate... (none / 0) (#51)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:16:39 PM EST
    ... and your primary criteria was who had the best chance of winning, would you be comfortable supporting Obama for the nomination if he were to lose every remaining contest by 7-10%, and was underperforming Hillary in the polls? I wouldn't.

    Of course, my threshold of when to switch horses might be lower than a lot of the actual SDs. Given that there aren't really any official rules or even guidelines for how they make their choice, anything is possible.

    Parent

    Rasmussen says (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:06:41 PM EST
    McCain is heavily favored in North Carolina. Will an Obama win there matter in November? It doesn't look like it. Gore-Edwards didn't take it in 2004 and it was John Edwards' home state.  North Carolina hasn't gone Democratic since 1976 when Jimmy Carter won. Bush won there by 13% in both 2000 and 2004.

    Parent
    ues, an Obama win in MC matters (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by delandjim on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:11:18 PM EST
    An Obama win in N.C. matters because it probably means he will get nomination and we will lose in Nov.

    Parent
    There will be debates... (none / 0) (#8)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:12:46 PM EST
    'nuff said.

    I like Hillary's chances.

    Parent

    It's always striking to me (none / 0) (#11)
    by frankly0 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:16:24 PM EST
    that many Obama supporters, who deplore the supposed "damage" that Hillary is doing to the Democratic Party by staying in the race and undermining the "certain" Democratic nominee, show so little interest in the serious question of whether Obama really might be the better candidate for the general election, especially in the wake of the Wright business.

    And yet what could be more destructive to the Democratic Party than to choose a candidate who looks all too likely to lose in November -- and in an election cycle when all things would seem to favor a Democrat?

    Parent

    i am equally struck by clinton supporters, (none / 0) (#19)
    by cy street on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:21:23 PM EST
    like me, who have not figured out that the stock they are holding is worthless.  there is no path to victory that passes the smell test.  

    i agree with those that claim the house of clinton knows how to win.  it is also clear, they have not learned how to lose with grace.

    Parent

    Unfortunately for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by frankly0 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:41:47 PM EST
    there is certainly no path to victory in the general election that involves his loss of all four of the major swing states, OH, PA, MI, and FL.

    And how does he win any one of those states, given the clear resistance even of Democratic voters, especially the Reagan Democrats, to cast their vote for him?

    No path to that either.

    Ergo: no path to a win.

    But why should an Obama supporter care about that, even if it does the Democratic party enormous harm? They get their chance, be it slim or none.

    Parent

    and winning without Florida and Michigan (none / 0) (#23)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:24:31 PM EST
    that smells allright to you apparently.

    Parent
    michigan and florida are past tense. (none / 0) (#27)
    by cy street on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:30:37 PM EST
    in the moments following the house of clinton concession speech, the delegates of florida and michigan will be seated.

    this would have been more helpful after wisconsin.  the continue to drive the wedge between these states and the obama campaign is dishonest.

    obama had no more control over that process than john edwards.  howard dean is to blame.  i have said this over and over.

    dean could have done the same as the rnc.  penalize the delegates, seat half of them and move on.  he did not.

    life is not fair and politics is absolutely not fair.

    let's move on.

    Parent

    You have sd. it over and over. (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:33:06 PM EST
    But Obama sd. he would do whatever the DNC approved.

    Parent
    When did you become a Clinton supporter? (none / 0) (#50)
    by echinopsia on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:08:42 PM EST


    Parent
    Yeh. I did a double-take. (nt) (none / 0) (#65)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:12:23 PM EST


    Parent
    Never mind the Wright business (none / 0) (#55)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:35:30 PM EST
    it just shows poor judgment, which is not a good thing, either. But, how about the fact that most of that legislation he takes credit for he didn't have anything to do with other than the photo op? In Illinois, the Speaker put his name on as a sponsor even though he hadn't done squat to write, promote, or work on those bills. He got credit for work he didn't do. He was also neglectful of his constituents and did little to help them improve their lives.

    He has repeated the same pattern in D.C. according to the Washington Post. Several Senators were quoted as saying he had not been present for the committee meetings, done anything at all for the legislation, but had shown up at the press conference thanking everyone else for their help on his bill. And everyone buys it, hook, line and sinker. And his supporters crow about all the "meaningful" legislation he has allegedly written and pushed through. Very little of his "accomplishments" are his own work. Someone is going to start pointing that out soon, over and over. Like me. And if the GOP starts down that road, he is toast. No one likes a cheater, and taking credit for work you haven't done is cheating in anyone's book. Except maybe Obama's.

    Parent

    Obama has the money for ad buys. (none / 0) (#4)
    by sweetthings on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:10:47 PM EST
    Now money isn't everything, but it helps. I've seen various accounts of Clinton's finances, but most of them are bad and all of them agree that she has less that Obama.

    I'm not sure that Obama can win PA even with that advantage, but I imagine he'll be happy just to hold her to single digits. She needs a blowout in PA if she's going to sway the Supers. A repeat of Texas won't do it.

    Parent

    Must be the Obama Girl (none / 0) (#14)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:18:44 PM EST
    On CNN ticker it says she made a new video pleading with Hillary to quit the race. There is only Obama for her. Will Obama girl be advising the WH issues too? Will Obama Girl be leading the way through Penna? Amazing.

    I Heard She Didn't Even Vote For Him (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by flashman on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:20:11 PM EST


    Parent
    she didn't vote against him either (none / 0) (#33)
    by delandjim on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:36:17 PM EST
    She said she just didn't vote.

    Parent
    So. one of the people who is endorsing (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:42:02 PM EST
    Obama, didn't vote? Um, isn't one of his rallying points getting out the vote? How successful is he is one of the most public endorsers didn't vote at all?? Doesn't make sense to have a non-voter telling people to vote. Does it?

    Parent
    That's The Whole Point (none / 0) (#60)
    by flashman on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:53:16 PM EST
    She's "Obama Girl", not "Can't Decide Girl"

    Parent
    so... (none / 0) (#24)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:24:39 PM EST
    ... you are blaming Obama for being behind Obama girl?

    Seriously?

    Parent

    Not at all (none / 0) (#45)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:03:45 PM EST
    It is just one more of those things that is laughable. Reminds me of David Letterman and his will it float or will it sink. Comedy.

    Parent
    I'm fairly certain that Obama Girl's appeal... (none / 0) (#25)
    by sweetthings on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:25:03 PM EST
    Is extremely limited to certain demographic. One that doesn't exactly favor Hillary anyway.

    But I must admit that while I don't personally find her act all that appealing, I'm always happy to see people actually getting involved in politics. Granted, I'd like to see a slightly more intellectual take on the subject matter than tight shirts and short shorts, but we're such an apathetic nation, particularly when it comes to the youth vote, that I'll take what I can get.

    Besides, the McCain girls were hilarious.

    Parent

    A Teflon Democrat? (none / 0) (#16)
    by flashman on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:19:32 PM EST
    Would the recent string of bad PR not put a severe dent in the numbers of almost any other candidate?  Is Obama immune to revelations that illuminate his judgment and character much as Ronald Reagan was?  Is this guy simply invincible, able to leap tall scandals with a single bound?  It's true that he lost some of his favored status after the bad news of the last couple weeks, but if you look at some of the polls, he appears to be back on the rise.  By the time voters go back to the polls, will the campaign be back in the same place as before the all the recent issues?  And if so, to what may we attribute his apparent lack of culpability?

    Is it his charisma?

    Is it the temporal aspect of the news, only becoming available late in the campaign?

    Is it good damage control?

    How about pollsters and media playing horse race (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:21:03 PM EST
    Let's not forget that these poll results can be tweaked to drive narrative and keep people interested.  Especially when things are getting boring with 1 month to go until the next voting.

    Parent
    The media helped (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Chisoxy on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:07:56 PM EST
    More than anything he did. He didnt answer anything about Wright, he pretty much lied about what he's heard and I never saw him called out on any of it, the news was all "great speech" and lets move on. They think they're helping Obama but really they're helping the Repubs in the fall. Obama didnt put this behind him now. Unlike Hillary who didnt say anything, the repubs are going to hit non-stop with it. They used race against one of their own in 2000 w/ McCain and against Ford in 2004, there will be no hesitation on their part.

    Also is there any doubt that if Hill had said "typical black person" that her career would be over? Not her presidential hopes, her entire career. The media wouldve buried her alive.

    Parent

    Attribute (none / 0) (#35)
    by tek on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:39:33 PM EST
    it to the fact that the DNC wants him and the media wants him because they think he won't win.

    Parent
    Clinton doesn't do well when way ahead (none / 0) (#21)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:23:24 PM EST
    This might be good for her if there's a new perception developing that Pennsylvania will be tight.  As long as it ends up being just a perception.  Expectations game winner again!

    From the report... (none / 0) (#22)
    by wasabi on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:24:21 PM EST
    "The division in the Democratic Party is highlighted by the fact that just 71% of Democratic Primary voters now say they will vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election campaign. If Barack Obama is nominated, 64% of Democratic Primary voters are ready to vote for him. The way in which the Democratic Nomination is resolved will ultimately determine whether the nominee will enjoy stronger support from the party's base."

    Boy is that an understatement... The way in which the Democratic Nomination is resolved will ultimately determine whether the nominee will enjoy stronger support from the party's base...

    Anybody at the top listening?  Howard?  Harry?  Nancy?   Hello?  You there?

    This is so troubling.... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:37:30 PM EST
    I never thought that they would let it come to this.  There seems to be no incentive for Hillary to drop out of the race at this point and yet that seems to be the Dem Party Leadership's preferred strategy. What they don't realize is that they have a bigger problem than Hillary Clinton. They have a growing problem with Hillary Clinton voters who make up a large number of the base. Is Barack Obama willing to adopt Hillary's healthcare plan, which all but his most devoted followers concede is the better plan? Are they willing to bend even a tiny bit?

    Parent
    7 points isn't a wide enough spread (none / 0) (#40)
    by zzyzx on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:47:42 PM EST
    If Clinton were polling at 80 and Obama at 20 that would be one thing, but a result barely out of the margin of error in one metric in one poll 7 1/2 months out isn't the smoking gun that will inspire people to move en masse to Clinton.

    There's still a path for Clinton.  If she wins everything from here on in and wins it with substantial margins - even if they fall significantly short of what's needed to take the lead - she'd have a good case.  Without a big win in PA and solid wins in NC and OR, I don't see why superdelegates will feel the need to reject the current status quo.

    Parent

    I think the status quo (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by smott on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:53:27 PM EST
    Is going to be Crazy Rev Jeremiah on 527s day in and day out this fall if the Supers give it to BO.


    Parent
    You are missing the point made by Rasmussen (none / 0) (#57)
    by wasabi on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:57:12 PM EST
    His numbers are:
       29% of Obama supporters will not vote for Clinton as of today
     36% of Clinton supporters will not vote for Obama as of today

    Whether Clinton or Obama will be able to win in November is dependent on how the nomination is resolved.  That is what Dean and Harry need to think about.

    It's got nothing to do with a 7 point spread.

    Parent

    two months ago (none / 0) (#52)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:24:33 PM EST
    nearly every poll had Obama and Clinton beating McCain.  Demos are killing themselves.  One of the worst presidents in modern history and our party cannot figure out how to beat the other party.  Of course the polls will change when we stop spending money against each other.  McCain cannot win the GE, he is the John Kerry of the Repub party.  

    I live in ranch country in Montana (none / 0) (#54)
    by athyrio on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:34:38 PM EST
    and a rancher remarked to me the other day that the reason that Wyoming went for Obama was that those "old ranchers" would never vote for a woman....sad....

    very sad (none / 0) (#62)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:30:50 PM EST
    And very prevalent. Alive and well, as they say.

    Parent
    And this in the first terrority (or state) (none / 0) (#67)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:19:20 PM EST
    with woman suffrage -- in 1869.

    Another example of gendered regression, I guess.

    Parent

    Two polls matter . . . (none / 0) (#58)
    by Doc Rock on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:03:10 PM EST
    --the superdelegate poll and the general election.  Everything else is justy bandwagoning and horseracing.

    Rasmussen Poll : Hillary 46, Obama 43 | 71 comments (71 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment