Florida Poll: McCain Would "Trounce" Obama But Tie or Lose to Hillary

A new Rasmussen poll out today, taken Saturday, before Bitter-Gate dominated the news:

The new poll, which was conducted Saturday and has a 4.5 percent margin of error, shows McCain with a 53-to-38 percent lead over Obama in Florida. If Clinton is the Democratic nominee, the poll shows her edging McCain 45 percent to 44 percent in the state.

The poll's results are similar to a Quinnipiac University poll of Floridians released this month that showed McCain topping Obama 46 percent to 37 percent but losing to Clinton, 44 percent to 42 percent.

The poll finds support slipping for Obama and that his unfavorability rating is 56%.

If he doesn't stand up for the right of Floridians to have their votes counted in time to select the nominee, I suspect they won't stand up for him in November.

< PA Likes Its Annie Oakley | The Sound of 100 Mayors Clapping >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    You know, (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:03:54 PM EST
    given that the Democratic nominee should get a poll bounce once he/she is chosen, if we pick HRC, it's actually possible for a Democrat to win FL this year.

    I hope the SD's are taking note.

    Wow- (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:13:01 PM EST
    His unfavorable are higher than hers?  Is that right??

    What? (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Josmt on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:15:42 PM EST
    are you serious or are you joking? So, if people don't vote for Obama they are racist?

    I've been searching (none / 0) (#59)
    by zyx on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:51:37 PM EST
    for my inner racist for weeks and weeks now, so I can have her exorcised and join polite society and hold my head up again.  But I haven't found her yet.  I keep trying, though.  Soul-searching never does any harm.

    Votes are earned... (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by kredwyn on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:21:42 PM EST
    not to be expected. You have to give people a reason to vote for you. And ostensibly, telling them that their primary votes don't count while you take their money to fund your primary bid, could be an indicator of how much you want their votes.

    Florida and Michigan (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Jackie on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:04:27 PM EST
    Howard Dean said in an interview on NPR (March 5th) the DNC wanted African Americans to have a decision in who would become the dem. nominee and that is why they decided to have SC vote before Florida.

    The republican Florida State Legislature refused to change the primary date to PLEASE Howard Dean. State governments pay for primary voting....the dem. party pays for and local dem. leaders run, caucuses. There is no oversight of caucuses or official tally of voting.

    If as Dean says, there is no money to support a revote in Florida now, does that mean that his intention was if democratic voters in Florida hadn't voted on the republican chosen primary date, he would then have decided Florida would hold an undemocratic caucus???? And which candidate would that have favored?

    Say you were charged with a punishable driving offense however by attending a safe driving class the punishment would be wiped away. BUT the driving school was shutdown. Now what? Would you have been punished or released from that obligation?

    In simple terms this is what Dean did, set a rule then when the situation changed, he didn't offer a solution. He should be fired.

    Those of us who "knock on democratic voter doors" for democratic candidates are getting an earfull from our local dem. voters such as...."that damn undemocratic caucus system.....how could Pelosi refuse to impeach those criminals in power...I'm fed up with the useless dem. congress.....disgusted with Dean for disenfranchising Florida and Mich. voters....don't understand what the democratic leadership is doing....I'm afraid they are going to lose this election....how could they have screwed this up?".

    Does democratic leadership in the beltway have a clue as to how their base feels?

    Simple Answer (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:12:30 PM EST

    They believe that the WH is in the bag and voters will rush to vote DEM no matter how poorly they perform or how often Obama insults voters. According to them, the DEMS will win the election on all those cross over Republican voters.


    They may be getting a clue (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:33:31 PM EST
    As their telephone money solicitations bring in less cash.  I gave one of their callers my figurative 2 cents worth the other day - that if they don't find a way to count my vote, thyy won't get another real 2 cents out of me!

    It's probably the same... (3.00 / 1) (#1)
    by lansing quaker on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:58:09 AM EST
    It's probably the same for Michigan, especially on the coattails of the PA comments.

    But so many in the "Creative Class" decided that rules are rules, without thinking in the long term.

    It's a shame the most recent (none / 0) (#44)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:25:57 PM EST
    Michigan poll destroys your hypothesis,  showing Obama beating McCain by 2, with Clinton losing by 9.

    Maybe there should be another post (none / 0) (#47)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:32:37 PM EST
    "Michigan Poll : McCain would trounce Hillary, and lose to Obama"

    Maybe you should post a link... (none / 0) (#74)
    by white n az on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:29:27 PM EST
    to this poll you are referring to

    One more reason for Obama to ignore FL (none / 0) (#2)
    by TalkRight on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:59:56 AM EST
    it just doesn't matter to him. And the poll proves that .. why should he take the risk to get the FL counted and risk losing the nomination when FL is not going to vote for him anyways!

    Because it is the right thing to do? (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:07:27 PM EST
    And if he won't stand up for people when it doesn't benefit him on this issue, why would anyone believe he'll stand up to ANYONE, including Repubs, on any issue unless it benefits him personally.

    Politicians only do the thing that is right for (none / 0) (#7)
    by TalkRight on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:08:47 PM EST
    THEM period!

    No (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:37:03 PM EST
    They don't. Some politicians stand up for what is right even when it isn't popular. Even when they don't gain anything personally from it. And if we don't demand that from our politicians then we get what we deserve.

    there is no right or wrong (none / 0) (#8)
    by TruthMatters on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:09:05 PM EST
    on this issue, its pure politics.

    How come it is (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Kathy on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:30:57 PM EST
    when Obama does something questionable, it's politics, but when Clinton does the same, it's "claws out" "desperation"?

    I love this double standard.  Keep pushing those talking points.  The more they are out there, the angrier women get, which wouldn't matter much on a sunny day, but somewhere, someone, is going to figure out that we are not the minority in our towns, our country and our world.


    Wrong! (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:15:57 PM EST
    Telling voters their vote doesn't count because you don't like the results is ALWAYS wrong. At its extreme its called DICTATORSHIP.

    Thanks God Obama stands for (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:18:58 PM EST
    the end of Politics as usual.  

    enough support (none / 0) (#3)
    by TalkRight on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:03:34 PM EST
    If he doesn't stand up for the right of Floridians to have their votes counted in time to select the nominee, I suspect they won't stand up for him in November.

    Well he has enough people to stand up for him.. lots of pundits and bloggocrats .. in the time of November everyone in FL will be singing his hymns and would have long forgotten the FL saga as one of those myths that never happened [because of him]

    No, we won't. We won't forget (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:33:32 PM EST
    that when our votes weren't in his favor, he didn't want them counted. We won't forget that he dissed small town residents, and in FL there are a lot of us. We won't forget that he didn't want to seat us at the convention. If Obama gets the nom, I can just about guarantee he won't take FL. Even the black community here in central FL isn't happy with him. And if he is losing the AA vote, you know he is toast.

    he can never ever lose AA vote (none / 0) (#77)
    by TalkRight on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:35:48 PM EST
    at least not in this election.. may be next time.

    Obama has no chance (none / 0) (#9)
    by TruthMatters on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:10:33 PM EST
    of winning FL, and thank goodness Obama's elctoral map doesn't include Florida.

    Hillary has been fighting non-stop for Florida and McCain can tie her there?

    I think that is worrisome there a bit. Obama can be down in the polls in FL by 40 points, I don't think he would carry that state in the fall. I don't know why FL is not considered a red state.

    Um, because it's voted (none / 0) (#12)
    by rooge04 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:13:18 PM EST
    Democratic many times before?  Including 2000, btw.  
    PA is ALSO considered a Democratic state. Whether Obama and his supporters want to hear it or not. You know which states are considered Republican? MI, GA, ID, UT and many more.

    No (none / 0) (#14)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:17:01 PM EST
    MI is a purple state that leans Dem. Although, I can't see Obama winning there if the delegates don't get seated.  No one in MI is paying attention right now, but if he's the nominee, it will be all over the news again how he blocked a revote - THEN I think you'll see MI vote Republican.  They like McCain there.

    no one in MI is paying attention? (none / 0) (#18)
    by TruthMatters on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:21:55 PM EST
    then who the heck is demanding the revotes? if MI itself doesn't care enough to pay attention.....

    also I know this site would almost likely NOT post it, but match ups for MI came out the same time the FL matchups came out.

    curious why not post BOTH at the same time? why are the Florida polls worth noting but Michigan we don't care about?


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:41:31 PM EST
    since they've already been told their votes won't count, they've moved on from paying attention 24/7 to election coverage.  It's off the front page of the newspapers - but if Obama is the nominee, it will all be drudged up again, and people there will see his nomination as illegitimate and will flock to McCain.

    But hey - Obama doesn't need MI either - he can win Utah!


    soooo.... ironically (none / 0) (#34)
    by TruthMatters on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:48:00 PM EST
    MI has Obama up and they aren't paying attention, and those polls were not worth mentioning.

    FL has Hillary up and they are paying attention and those polls are worth mentioning?



    I actually (none / 0) (#20)
    by rooge04 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:23:25 PM EST
    meant Mississippi not Michigan. MS! I always get that wrong Argh.

    20 lashes (none / 0) (#31)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:41:49 PM EST
    with a wet noodle!  :)

    Hillary (none / 0) (#32)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:43:59 PM EST
    has been fighting non-stop for Florida since she realized she was going to lose.  Hindsight is a funny thing.  

    If the rules don't fit the wanted outcome, change the game, right?


    Yup. Them rulz. (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by rooge04 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:53:29 PM EST
    Them rulz will not help you when Obama loses FL in the GE.  But when he does you can scream at the top of your lungs, "The Rulz! The Rulz!"

    rules? (none / 0) (#76)
    by white n az on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:40:41 PM EST
    as opposed to standing up for the principle of counting votes?

    If Obama as a candidate doesn't stand up for counting votes, why would anyone vote for him?

    Consider that this was the largest primary turnout in FL ever.

    Obama's posture to prevent their votes from counting in an extremely tight nomination fight is a loser.


    A to D (none / 0) (#78)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:11:53 PM EST
    you just bore me.   Zzzzzzzzzzzz. . . .

    It's funny to me (none / 0) (#10)
    by rooge04 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:12:05 PM EST
    how completely underestimated her chances of WINNING the GE actually are. I think she'll win easily.  Same as I think Obama will get easily trounced.

    Chickens (none / 0) (#19)
    by blogtopus on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:23:15 PM EST
    Roost. Welcome back.

    When did "tie" become a (none / 0) (#21)
    by independent voter on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:25:47 PM EST
    possible voting outcome in an election?

    actually... (none / 0) (#75)
    by Nasarius on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:29:46 PM EST
    You need 270 EVs to win. 269-268 is a possible outcome -- just take Kerry's map and flip NV, NM, and IA. Then it gets kicked over to the House, I believe.

    This post addresses Florida, (none / 0) (#82)
    by independent voter on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:16:44 AM EST
    You cannot "tie" in a given state, but please correct me if I am wrong.

    we must win the swing states (none / 0) (#22)
    by drewohio1 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:29:21 PM EST
    Funny how the msm have not made it a point to tell its readers and viewers that the Democrats must win all the states that Hillary has won.    

    The pivital states such as Florida and Ohio to name a few. Its so obvious that we need to win those states and not idaho or nevada.

     Who cares about the red red state victories obama has, they are meaningless in the electoral college game for the general.

    preacherman barry is being exposed for what he really is. Barry is a guy who is in his first year of the senate and for most of that time he has been running for president.

    To Change all the damage w has done these last 7 years will take a team that knows how to do it and Hillary's team will do it.

    Here is an article about the (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by zyx on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:59:40 PM EST
    pivotal states, and the electoral college math



    I hope BTD read this part:: (none / 0) (#65)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:16:46 PM EST
    McCain currently is narrowly ahead of Obama in New Hampshire, New Jersey, Wisconsin and Michigan, and behind in the others. A Marist survey last week shocked many by showing McCain ahead of Obama by 2% in New York State (an 18% Kerry win in 2004). If McCain is within 10% of winning in New York in November, he will not need the state to win the election, for he likely will have won most or all of the blue states on his target list above.

    Ha! I told you all that McCain could put New York in play against Obama. I know my crazy whacked-out state.



    Yep, Obama lost Wisconsin (none / 0) (#79)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:17:05 PM EST
    but I wish I didn't feel vindicated for saying all sorts of funny stuff was going on in our primary.

    We were less than half of one percent from going red last time, and if Obama is the nominee, red we will be in the so-called "progressive" state.

    And what he would cost us re coattails here could be tragic.  We just got back one house of our legislature, barely.  If we lost that, it's back to the agenda that won gay marriage here, that sent birth control costs soaring for students, that has closed most of the women's clinics in the state.  We  already get an F on the report card for reproductive rights, but the little women have left here, we cannot afford to lose.

    I wish I could think that Obama cares about that, about what Wisconsinites could lose, but all we hear about is why he ought to win.


    Despite some of the rhetoric here (none / 0) (#25)
    by Kathy on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:35:15 PM EST
    I think super d's know very well that we need all the states we can get, and that counting out FL and MI is done at our party's peril.

    I've been thinking a lot about super d's lately, and the fact that they are not all elected officials.  The ones we don't hear about much are the ones who have worked in the field to get their super d designation.  I think that they, more than anyone, will want to fight hard to make the dem party take back the White House.  Their vote can be soley based on that desire, and I think that polls like this persuade them more to Clinton's side than anyone knows.

    There was a rumor here this morning that an Obama super d was going to switch.  I think after PA and IN, we'll see a lot more super d's either declaring Clinton or switching.

    Just my opinion, and as has been stated many times, I am totally a Clinton partisan.  

    why does Gallup (none / 0) (#26)
    by dem08 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:36:42 PM EST
    continue to show Obama at 50% (actually 51 today) and Hillary stuck at 40 nationally?

    I hate even asking because I wish Polls were stressed less. But given how snooty Obama is and how authentic Hillary is, why do her numbers stay so low?

    Wait until after PA (none / 0) (#42)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:18:01 PM EST
    There is a lot of perception in those numbers. If the MSM constantly runs the "she has lost" "there is not point" it finally will show. But if something changes that perception then we'll see where things really sit.

    Look farther down the screen of that poll (none / 0) (#80)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:19:54 PM EST
    and see that Clinton and Obama come in exactly the same in terms of beating McCain (by a narrow number within the MOE).  So that 11-point spread between the two Dems doesn't make sense, somehow, if both come in the same, in the same time frame, when tested against the Repub.

    I have liked following that poll, but now I know that I have to like it a lot less, when that weird difference in the head-to-head runoffs is not explained.  Too many polls are too weird this year.


    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#29)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:40:03 PM EST
    why only polls that favor Hillary?

    The Gallup came out at the same time as this poll and has Obama up 10 points.


    See BTD's post. (none / 0) (#33)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:44:50 PM EST
    In Florida? (none / 0) (#35)
    by eric on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:48:30 PM EST
    Seems to me that this post is about Florida.  I think the Gallup you reference is some sort of national poll.

    you're right.... (none / 0) (#38)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:59:32 PM EST
    i just think there seems to be a tendency to promote (in most cases) only pro-Hillary polls.  slight data mining.  

    true but Talk Left (none / 0) (#45)
    by dem08 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:28:21 PM EST
    is the thinking person's Taylor Marsh all Hillary/All Obama's badness blog.

    In NY state, the Primary makes Texas look fair, and I saw today that PA is similar. Even if Hillary wins the popular vote, Obama could get more delegates.

    It is in Talk Left's best interest to run all anti-Obama stuff in case super delegates are reading; just as it really is in Hillary's best interest to mention "bitter" and "cling" until Obama gets impeached by his Senate Colleagues. It doesn't help Hillary, but it does hurt Obama and that is her only chance.


    Taylor Marsh (none / 0) (#54)
    by LoisInCo on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:40:50 PM EST
    I actually enjoy her articles. The comment section not so much.

    TL is a pro Hillary site (none / 0) (#46)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:31:35 PM EST
    Don't expect to see much in the way of polls that are unfavorable to her on the frontpage.  e.g. The recent Michigan poll which is totally contradictory to the theme of this post.  From Marc Ambinder

    What's The Matter With Michigan, HRC?
    14 Apr 2008 08:01 pm

    In Michigan, EPIC-MRA, a pollster with good methodology and a strong track record, Barack Obama and John McCain are tied (Obama +2 ) while Hillary Clinton loses to McCain outside the margin of error (HRC - 9).

    Further evidence that Clinton's rough month moved her numbers in battleground states?

    JoeA this is why this site (none / 0) (#50)
    by bjorn on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:35:22 PM EST
    is fair. Because you posted this info, we all get to read it and digest it.  Now I will go look at it in more detail.  So it is win-win.  Why must you complain, complain?  This is good info to have and it is what BTD and Jeralyn expect commentators to do.

    I went and read the post (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by bjorn on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:38:48 PM EST
    by Ambinder, not much more info than what JoeA posted. But here is the very first comment:

    "Hillary Clinton is just plain evil. That's apparent right now.

    She has become the pig; she has become the Karl Rove of this election cycle.

    And by doing so, she further legitimizes these types of divisive, petty attacks, just like she has worked to in some ways legitimize racism in this election."

    THIS IS WHY I PREFER TO READ THIS BLOG AND THE COMMENTATORS HERE. This kind of comment would not be allowed here about Obama or Clinton.


    Hell, I'll reject and denounce that comment. (none / 0) (#57)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:45:39 PM EST
    Not all bloggers have the time to moderate their comments in the way that Jeralyn and BTD do here.

    I'll certainly admit that it does mean there is certainly very little of that kind of toxic stuff on here, and any that does appear tends not to last for long.


    I'm not complaining, (none / 0) (#53)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:40:50 PM EST
    I'm just pointing out the editorial slant in a reply to a question from another commenter asking why the site is not more balanced.

    Jeralyn is a pro Hillary partisan,  it's her site and her prerogative to promulgate her views.

    I'm just saying if you were looking for a relatively unbiased summary of polls or editorials you would probably go to somewhere like Marc Ambinder or some other pundit on the election who doesn't have a dog in the hunt.  

    He/She should not and cannot expect balance here,  nor would they be able to get it at Taylormarch or No Quarter or other pro Hillary sites,  or at Dailykos/Americablog/etc or other pro Obama blogs.


    point taken (none / 0) (#56)
    by bjorn on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:44:29 PM EST
    Ahhhh (none / 0) (#58)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:49:51 PM EST
    That poll was done April 3-8, before Cling-gate, and the FL poll was done Saturday.

    I take all polls with head-to-head matchups with McCain with a grain of salt (yes, even this one showing HRC winning FL) because the landscape will completely change once (hopefully HRC) is the nominee.  Right now, McCain doesn't have to say or do anything and he will be more favorably viewed by voters (especially those who only have a passing interest in politics and from what they see on the news).

    You could be right about MI, but I'm from there and I don't know anyone in my circle who will vote for Obama if he's the nominee.


    Everyone (none / 0) (#69)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:29:48 PM EST
    Has a dog.



    He made a funny (none / 0) (#73)
    by Camorrista on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:02:44 PM EST
    I'm not complaining...

    Excellent!  We needed a good laugh today.


    Glad to have raised a smile. (none / 0) (#83)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:56:31 AM EST
    I'm here all week.

    Same pollster has Obama tied with McCain in NC (none / 0) (#37)
    by cannondaddy on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:53:52 PM EST
    talk about changing the electoral map...

    Just wait till those North Carolinans hear (none / 0) (#49)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:35:06 PM EST
    about Obama's elitism!!!  /snark.

    If Obama would seat Florida (none / 0) (#48)
    by bjorn on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:33:00 PM EST
    as is or let them revote, it would finally show that he is a true leader. Especially, since his hissy fit about bitter gate has diminished his aura of "above the fray."  He did not demonstrate anti-war leadership once he was sworn in to the senate.  He has not presented one policy that was not taken from Edwards or Clinton.  Why do people think/believe he can lead?  I would believe it if he let FL and MI revote.

    IT would appear (none / 0) (#52)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:40:41 PM EST
    that the Clinton Campaign has successfully managed to pin the Florida debacle on Obama.  Good work.  Much better to blame Obama, and gain minimal political points, than to blame the people actually responsible.

    If that's the case, why did she get so much (none / 0) (#55)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:43:19 PM EST
    traction in Florida with pinning it on Obama, but zero traction in Michigan where they seem to have some Obama love?

    Is it that the Michiganders just realise and accept that their election was blatantly unfair and it would not be reasonable to seat delegates based on it?

    Or is it just that Florida for demographic reasons is just much much tougher for Obama, and it has little if anything to do with the Primary and revotes?


    Florida (none / 0) (#60)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:58:36 PM EST
    We have a lot of elderly and Hispanic voters which are 2 groups Obama hasn't done as well with overall. I'm not saying that alone is the reason but it could be part of the problem.

    How have Jewish voters been responding overall to Obama?


    The narrative is that Obama should (none / 0) (#66)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:16:47 PM EST
    have a big problem with Jews as a demographic,  but I believe the polling data is ambiguous,  showing Hillary winning 54-46 or something like that.  

    I check at Pollster.com (none / 0) (#62)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:00:09 PM EST
    And I don't see a recent legit polls showing what you say. Which pollster is this? Can you please link to results? Besides the EPIC-MRA poll (which I have no idea about) all the rest show essentially a tie either way.

    Its the Epic poll I'm referencing. (none / 0) (#64)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:15:39 PM EST
    I'm not familiar with them either,  however Marc Ambinder over at theatlantic.com said that they are a well respected outfit with sound methodology so I'm going by that.

    Thanks (none / 0) (#67)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:17:54 PM EST
    But to be fair I think you are cherry picking a little. Not to say there is nothing to your point, but the bigger picture doesn't show this. To be honest I'd say you are overplaying it a little.

    I was just going by the most recent (none / 0) (#68)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:28:09 PM EST
    GE poll on Michigan that I had seen.  Granted, it does seem to contradict other older polls so we will have to wait and see if it is borne out.

    Never heard of that poll, it's not on RCP (none / 0) (#81)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:24:50 PM EST
    or pollster.com, but it's widely respected?  

    Doesn't make sense.  Need to know more about its track record, its backstory, its funders, etc.


    Hard to say (none / 0) (#63)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:00:39 PM EST
    Personally I think that it has to do with the circumstances of Florida and Michigan.  In Florida the appearance that Obama is being unreasonable is greater because he would be getting some votes and, in some voter's minds, he is getting as many as he would have anyway.

    With Michigan, the one sided results lessen the notion that Obama is being unreasonable.

    Obviously this is all speculation but I think it is reasonable.


    That's what happens when you disenfranchise voters (none / 0) (#71)
    by vicsan on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:43:44 PM EST
    It tends to tick them off...just a tad. From what I understand, Mr. Hope's campaign thinks they don't NEED FL OR MI because he's going to win all those red states the Democrats always lose. :)

    I've also read from a Mr. Hope supporter that he doesn't NEED any white voters either...he's got the election "in the bag" without them. For REAL. I read that on another blog. Very interesting logic, IMCPO. ;)

    Here in FL we are not 'feeling the love' (none / 0) (#72)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:46:53 PM EST
    from any candidate. The Dems did not get to campaign here at all before the primary, and they have been too busy in other states since then to bother with us, except to come get our money and tell us why they can't let us vote again.  McCain has not been here much either.

    I expect these numbers to change a lot when real campaigning starts here.  I think either Obama or Clinton have a chance here.  The economy is tanking, and MCCain is not all that popular.