By Big Tent Democrat

Some SUSA GE Head to Heads:


Clinton 53
McCain 42

Obama 45
McCain 47


Clinton 47
McCain 46

Obama 49
McCain 43

More . . .


Clinton 46
McCain 46

Obama 49
McCain 44


Clinton 46
McCain 48

Obama 29
McCain 63


Clinton 42
McCain 48

Obama 49
McCain 42

Both candidates have plausible electability arguments, despite the shrill protests from supporters of both candidates.

< Would A Dem Say This? | Steph Defends Debate >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    MN ---in the GE will go to Dem (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by timber on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:35:17 PM EST
    whether Hillary or not.

    MN -- is anti- Iraq War,near Canada, has a big educated, academic population ---  will go Dem --

    Right Now--many like Obama and is angry with Hillary for all the attacks.  But McCain wont win--the anger against Republican policies is there.

    However---OH will never go Obama in the GE.  Why?
    Because OH has a large blue collar population---which I believe are not ready to vote for a black candidate unfortunately.

    It is wrong but that is the reality.

    Ohio (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by sas on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:34:22 PM EST
    will not go to Barack because...?  

    To play the race card is typical Obama...yeah the stupid rubes in Ohio, yada, yada ,yada,....


    Really. (none / 0) (#60)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:50:19 AM EST
    Blue collar workers won't vote for Obama, quite simply, because he has so much contempt for them.

    Then why the GOP governor in MN? (none / 0) (#48)
    by Cream City on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 07:32:26 PM EST
    I never have figured that out.  Plus, he seems sorta . . . dumb.

    MN resident (none / 0) (#62)
    by sleepingdogs on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:33:28 AM EST
    I am from MN.  We do have a republican governor.  We also had Jesse Ventura for governor.  And had Senator Wellstone.  Wellstone was a democrat but I think he was well liked because of his completely untraditional way of approaching things.

    Although MN is almost always thought of as a democratic state, I think it's more common that MN likes the underdog.  Maybe it makes us feel like we're not just going with the flow and thinking for ourselves.....  I dunno.  Anyway, the republican convention is here.  That may give some MN independent voters a good up-close look at replublicans and McCain.  Will that be good or bad?  for whom?  Can't say yet.  


    The election aren't tomorrow (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by koshembos on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:37:53 PM EST

    Thank you (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Tiparillo on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:50:29 PM EST
    McCain has yet to face a challenger.  He is a weak candidate going up against an anti-GOP tide and a poor economy.  These numbers will be much different.  

    With a rabidly pro-McCain press (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by scribe on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:52:54 PM EST
    and establishment lining up to do everything they can to support him, and trash the Dem.

    Time for Grief Period (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by timber on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:39:53 PM EST
    This should not reach the convention.

    There must be a lot of time for the grieving supporters of the losing candidate to go through the phases of grief so that they come back to reason and vote for the best for the US and the world---which is to vote for the Dem candidate to repair the damage done by the GOP.

    Let's count those votes then! (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Fabian on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:03:41 PM EST
    There are votes to counts and SDs to declare.  Nothing is decided.  

    Both candidates can start reaching out whenever they want.  No one is stopping them.


    Hillary is doing so already. I (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by MarkL on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:06:52 PM EST
    don't believe Obama has ever said he believes Hillary is electible. In fact, the crux of his pitch is that she is NOT.

    Unity Watch 2008 (none / 0) (#26)
    by Fabian on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:12:11 PM EST
    A website dedicated to tallying which candidate reaches out to their opponent and his/her supporters without preconditions or qualifications.  Any positive statement counts so long as it is unconditional.

    Yes, yes, yes! (none / 0) (#55)
    by marklar on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 09:54:48 PM EST
    Obama is electible because Hillary says so! Which kills her argument w/super-delegates according to Candy. A less gracious person might have just said "oh, you're electible enough, Barack..."

    He has consistently said so (none / 0) (#57)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:36:13 PM EST
    and reiterated it last night.

    Really? Why does his campaign stress (none / 0) (#58)
    by MarkL on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:42:38 PM EST
    that he can win and she cannot then?

    Nonsense. (none / 0) (#61)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:49:25 AM EST
    His campaign says she can't win the nomination given the delegate math. Her campaign argues he can't win in November. Until this debate, Clinton had never acknowledged that Obama could win.  Obama had done so in previous debates.

    The only people scared by the convention (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by stefystef on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:18:31 PM EST
    are Obama supporters.  The longer he goes, the more the mask slips.

    Let's take it to the convention.  Let's show all these new voters and all these new people to politics how a real democracy is made to work.

    Democracy isn't easy.  If it was, everyone would be doing it.


    Exactly (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by stevenb on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 07:20:08 PM EST
    which is also why so many Obama supporters called for Clinton to bow out, because Obama can't close and because every other week some information chips away at his inflated "golden boy" image.

    I'm just waiting -- probably forever -- for Obama to just once admit he was beat by his opponent, just as in the case of Clinton trouncing him in the Penn debate.

    If Obama would be so humble to admit he was bested, then I would consider him for President.  


    yeah! (none / 0) (#33)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:38:25 PM EST
    I never liked polls (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:43:13 PM EST
    If they're in your favor, they invite complacency.

    If they're not in your favor, they invite despair.

    Both emotions are dysfunctional.

    And yet, it's what everyone likes to talk about.

    Totally OT (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by bodhcatha on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:51:18 PM EST
    BTD, did you ever cover the article on Politico by John Harris and Jim Vandehei called 'What Clinton Wishes She Could Say'?  It was published on April 13 and it's a must-read.  I know it's old now, but I hope you do a piece on it.  Back to regular scheduled programming....

    Obama used to have an electability... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Exeter on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:57:15 PM EST
    ...argument a month ago, based on the earlier susa polls, but post-Wright, all I see him doing better here is in Iowa.  Obama can no longer argue that he could win Virginia, and that was the center piece of the Obama-rewriting-the-electoral-map argument.

    He (none / 0) (#42)
    by sas on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:36:04 PM EST
    can't argue that he would win Colorado.  Internal Republican polls have McCain beating both Democrats there.

    He has a new electability argument now (none / 0) (#49)
    by Cream City on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 07:34:54 PM EST
    which is that Clinton said last night that he's electable.

    Brought to you by your fine cable media folks.  Argh.


    When you add the polls from MO (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by TheRefugee on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:13:26 PM EST
    FL, AR, TN, MI will you start to reaccess your Obama as most electable being your tipping pt for support?

    Not sure if SUSA has polls in those states yet but look, you (btd) and many other Obama supporters have held fast to the notion that Obama is more electable because he can win the blue states, the blue leaning swing states like PA, MI and expand the map into places like CO and NE.  What I've never seen is acknowledging that HRC can expand the map by winning FL, OH, two red leaning swing states.  That she can flat out win AR, TN while Obama cannot.  That she can be competitive in KT.  I think Obama has a great shot at LA but in a dream ticket or if Obama actively supports Clinton I think Clinton can win LA as well.  Same goes for CO.  Despite the facts Obama supporters think that he and only he can win NV, NM, well Hillary's Hispanic support is what would tip NM, NV, and possibly AZ to her.  (AZ, what is up?  Is FL the Dem retirement ground and AZ the GOP retirement ground?  If not then her base controls AZ, retirees and Hispanics.  And again, with Obama's support the college age crowd tips to Clinton.)  And I just don't see how the close toss up states like MN, WI, CO--would roll to Obama but not Clinton.  

    What I want is for ME to be right! LOL. (Well, especially since I am one of the 'absolutely, under no circumstances will I vote for Obama' voters.)

    this is what I've decided about Obama:  He is wishy-washy, his political views depend on the group he speaks to, the state he is in, the endorsement he is angling for.  BUT he is a great motivator.  In other words he shouldn't be running for president he should be the next head of the DNC.  As a Dem proponent and fundraiser I don't think he'd have an equal.  As a candidate I think he is lacking.

    Seriously Doubt Obama Could Win MO (none / 0) (#44)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:43:57 PM EST
    He does not have support outside the typical Dem strongholds.

    Latest SUSA Electoral Vote Prediction (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Dan the Man on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:17:22 PM EST
    based on this SUSA map and polls afterwards is

    Clinton 269
    McCain 259
    Tie 10

    Obama 242
    McCain 296

    These are based on top of my head calculations so they might be wrong.

    I think it's interesting to point out that according to these results, Clinton expands the map in a different way than Obama.  For states which didn't go to Gore or Kerry, she gets Florida, Ohio, Arkansas, Missouri, and Arkansas.  Obama only gets North Dakota, Colorado, and Nevada.  So I think the entire Obama  expands the playing field of states argument is just bunk because Clinton actually gets more states - at least according to these results - and we're ignoring that Clinton's states have (much) more electoral votes.  In fact, I think it's pretty obvious Obama basically must go the Kerry/Gore route in winning states to win an election.

    And he does worse on the Gore/Kerry map (none / 0) (#32)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:22:16 PM EST
    I have (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by sas on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:41:32 PM EST
    visited Republican sites.  There is NO DOUBT that they want to face Obama, who is emerging as the weaker candidate.

    They believe McCain can win over Obama,  but not Hillary.

    So? (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Tiparillo on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:10:44 PM EST
    I could care less who they want to run against.  Electibility arguments are all guess work anyway.  I'll base my vote on who I want to be president based on a ton of factors - and non of them will be who the GOP wants to run against.

    Meh (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Petey on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:14:54 PM EST
    "Both candidates have plausible electability arguments"

    Meh.  Obama consistently does better than Clinton in the Lutheran states of the upper Midwest, and pretty much nowhere else.

    The electability argument for Obama strains plausibility.

    A blinding glimpse of the obvious... (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by white n az on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 08:01:20 PM EST
    Hillary is much more likely to beat McCain than Obama is. Obama is even struggling in traditional blue states like MA.

    Survey USA head to heads make that absolutely clear.

    Hope your right. (none / 0) (#1)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:32:21 PM EST

    Missouri, Virginia and Oregon are interesting too (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:37:14 PM EST
    Poll #13723 taken in Missouri for KCTV-TV (Kansas City)
    Q: If there were an election for President of the United States today, and the only two names on the ballot were Republican John McCain and ... Democrat Hillary Clinton, who would you vote for?
    A: McCain 46% Clinton 47% Undecided 6%
    Q: What if it was John McCain against Democrat Barack Obama?
    A: McCain 50% Obama 42% Undecided 8%

    Poll #13728 taken in Virginia for WDBJ-TV (Roanoke), WJLA-TV (Washington DC)
    Q: If there were an election for President of the United States today, and the only two names on the ballot were Republican John McCain and ... Democrat Hillary Clinton, who would you vote for?
    A: McCain 55% Clinton 39% Undecided 6%
    Q: What if it was John McCain against Democrat Barack Obama?
    A: McCain 52% Obama 44% Undecided 4%

    Poll #13727 taken in Oregon for KATU-TV (Portland)
    Q: If there were an election for President of the United States today, and the only two names on the ballot were Republican John McCain and ... Democrat Hillary Clinton, who would you vote for?
    A: McCain 46% Clinton 47% Undecided 7%
    Q: What if it was John McCain against Democrat Barack Obama?
    A: McCain 42% Obama 51% Undecided 7%

    New Mexico is newly worrisome:

    Poll #13724 taken in New Mexico for KOB-TV (Albuquerque)
    Q: If there were an election for President of the United States today, and the only two names on the ballot were Republican John McCain and ... Democrat Hillary Clinton, who would you vote for?
    A: McCain 49% Clinton 46% Undecided 6%
    Q: What if it was John McCain against Democrat Barack Obama?
    A: McCain 50% Obama 44% Undecided 6%

    Oregon is not going Republican (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Tiparillo on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:52:56 PM EST
    as a resident, I don't see any chance of it.

    I don't take anything (none / 0) (#17)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:55:04 PM EST
    for granted. We didn't exactly win with a landslide there last time.

    That was a long time ago (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Tiparillo on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:59:15 PM EST
    And the GOP has lost a lot of luster here.  I don't take it for granted either...but the Magic Eight Ball says "All Signs Point to Yes"

    Important in Oregon vote (none / 0) (#46)
    by caseyOR on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 07:18:13 PM EST
    The senate race in Oregon is a big deal this year. I think whether Oregon goes Dem or Rep could hinge on turnout for the senate race. A big turnout to re-elect Gordon Smith could tip it for McCain. On the other hand, if the dem challenger, whoever that is, has a good lead on Gordon, either Hillary or Barack could take the state.

    Republicans have had a hard time winning statewide office here. We haven't had a republican governor since the early 80s. That said, democrats just regained control of the legislature in 2006. Since Smith is the only republican to win statewide in such a long time, and he's won re-election before, republicans may come out in big numbers for him.


    Within MOE in Mass for Obama, not Clinton (none / 0) (#8)
    by nycstray on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:42:08 PM EST
    She polls several points stronger in CA also.

    Ohio and PA are going to (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:44:20 PM EST
    decide this election. That's what worries me.

    Ohio is troublesome (none / 0) (#14)
    by nycstray on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:51:55 PM EST
    Have they shown Obama against McCain in PA recently?

    not SUSA (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:56:04 PM EST
    Strategic Vision (R) showed both Democrats losing PA recently. I don't buy that. Still, Obama had a much weaker showing, like Ohio.

    I don't see McCain beating Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by nycstray on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:05:14 PM EST
    in PA. She'll out wonk him on the issues they want to hear about.

    Obama needs to do more of that if he's the nom.


    "troublesome"? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Fabian on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:01:09 PM EST
    Well, I guess that's better than "mostly harmless"!

    In Massachusetts ... (none / 0) (#53)
    by Cassius Chaerea on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 09:13:31 PM EST
    Obama loses a good five points or so because he's running exactly the same campaign as Deval Patrick, whose popularity is going down the tubes. "Yes we can" isn't going to work again here.

    Last nigt's debate might change some numbers (none / 0) (#5)
    by TalkRight on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:38:54 PM EST
    Hopefully :)

    I wonder if the msm will look at the SUSA (none / 0) (#7)
    by bjorn on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:41:23 PM EST
    data. They seemed to have largely ignored any data from them of late.

    Even though I thought Obama was weak last night, I do think he can win if he gets nomination. In part, because I thought Hillary was very convincing that she would help him!

    They don't discuss polls that don't back up their (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by derridog on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:49:37 PM EST
    meme. I noticed that in 2004.  They always quoted the Gallup polls which always showed Bush winning. That's when I thought "They're going to steal the election again!"  That is still a worry.

    I don't think the debate changes much (none / 0) (#25)
    by maritza on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:09:50 PM EST
    It really depends upon who starts winning primaries.

    This is the short term electability math (none / 0) (#28)
    by AdamSmithsHand on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:16:15 PM EST
    I don't think it amounts to much either way.

    The long term math, if one cares about the future of the Democratic party - vastly favors Obama.

    Simply said, what he has accomplished in terms of bringing young voters into the Democratic Party tent and organizing them into activist members of the party is nothing short of miraculous.  A good portion of these young voters are likely to identify as Democrats for the rest of their lives provided we don't frustrate their activism by cancelling out the hard-won pledged delegate victories they helped to build.

    Hillary Clinton's electability argument extends to 2008 and perhaps 2012 at best.  An Obama nomination offers our party an activist foundation for the next six or seven Presidential election cycles.

    Clinton is offering another crack at the John Kerry/Al Gore electoral map and the hope of squeaking this one out.

    An Obama nomination offers gains in new states and a chance to buld a long term majority.

    If I'm a superdelegate, that's the electability argument I'm looking at.    

    Want explain to me how he wins (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:21:11 PM EST
    Ohio and Pennsylvania?

    We need to win now. The Supreme Court can't wait for some indeterminate period in the future.


    I imagine you will be waiting (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by RalphB on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:46:20 PM EST
    for a long time to get a good answer.  Don't see it at all myself.  Obama looks like a loser to me.

    please stop with the cadre (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by english teacher on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:02:16 PM EST
    of dedicated party activists lingo.  you sound like lenin.  next thing, you'll be calling them the intelligentsia.  

    activism for activisms sake is a bad thing.  what is obama's issue that causes them to be so active?  


    That's a lot of assumptions (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by badger on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:15:08 PM EST
    and not all of them are reasonable.

    The first assumption is that Obama's younger supporters will continue to vote Democratic in the future or even down-ticket in 2008. That's far from proven and there are indications from places like TX that it won't happen.

    The second assumption is that Obama will win if nominated. Losers are rarely transformational (short of martyrdom) and Obama has a good chance of losing.

    The third assumption is that if Obama is elected, he will either do things his supporters approve of, or that in general he will be a competent President. Herbert Hoover was more qualified to be President than Obama (or, in fact, several other Presidents), yet after his election the GOP lost the next 5 national elections. Obama could conceivably accomplish the same thing because of his inexperience. Transformational can mean different things.

    And there's a good possibility that even if Obama is competent, his supporters will turn on him just as they turned on Reid and Pelosi after the 2006 election over issues like impeachment or FISA.


    Sorry, (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by lilburro on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:32:36 PM EST
    this just sounds like a fluffy threat.  If you want to argue by CW, I think the CW that "once you really start paying taxes, you become Republican" probably has greater sway than "Obama will make you a Democrat forever, IF he wins."  Who knows how people will vote in 20 years?  Less than 20 years after the turbulence of the sixties, Reagan was our president.  Because you know, there were so many excesses in the sixties.  Twenty years from now someone new will enter the scene and start reassessing and bashing Obama...hopefully activism is made of sterner stuff than celebrity.

    Obama (5.00 / 5) (#43)
    by sas on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:41:29 PM EST
    offers electability for the next 6 or 7 PRESIDENTIAL cycles?

    Pure conjecture on your part - not substantiated by any evidence.

    You may wish it were so, but he can't even offer electability this cycle.  


    Future of party? (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by cal1942 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:59:40 PM EST
    It's just the opposite.  Obama is someone of few if any actual convictions and willing to risk the most significant of progressive programs for his own gain.

    The reason I supported Edwards was that his economic policies would draw a sharp contrast with the GOP.  Obama is not only the farthest from Edwards, he's demonstrated no real desire to go in that direction. He's promised, as the centerpiece of his campaign, to compromise with Republicans.  Not acceptable.

    Consider the Roberts confirmation.  That story is a deep insight into Barrack Obama that I find terribly frightening. If one story is chosen to describe a candidate the Roberts story tells all.

    The DNC needs an individual who is passionate about FDR/LBJ values. A partisan warrior. That person sure as hell ain't Barrack Obama.

    The long term health of the Democratic party (and the nation) is best served if Obama quietly serves out his term in the US Senate and then drifts out of public sight.


    these polls are meaningless (none / 0) (#51)
    by LCaution on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 08:04:07 PM EST
    I'm sorry, but these polls are as meaningless as the ones at the start of 2007 predicting the winners of the Republican and Democratic nominations.

    All of us who look at them are simply looking for support for our own private opinions.

    I happen to think (no proof) that McCain was the only person the Republicans could have nominated who would give Hillary or Obama (or Edwards) a real race - and I kept hoping his campaign was as dead as everybody said it was.

    However, we have to go with what we have.

    I don't think Obama can beat McCain for 2 very simple reasons: he's got no resume and his tendency to look down his nose at people is likely to give McCain the edge he needs. (A debate between the two will probably KO Obama purely on perceptions.)

    Hillary would also have a tough time against McCain, but when I imagine a debate between the two, I can see her winning on points without being perceived as not paying McCain sufficient respect for the person he is.

    Lastly, and to me most importantly, I think that Hillary is simply more qualified to be President. I want a Democrat in the White House, but I want a competent one.  

    Again, just my opinion, but I think Obama would be the Democrts' George Bush: a man with little interest in governing who can be controlled by the PTB.

    Agree 100% (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by RalphB on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:05:11 PM EST
    and also believe Obama would be the democratic version of Bush and quite probably a disaster.

    By the way, the republicans were never going to nominate anyone other than McCain.  They win elections because they nominate their most electable candidate.  Democrats lose because we tend to fall in love with a candidate and ignore all reason.


    Wis. is barely blue and wright+ ties to a (none / 0) (#52)
    by kenosharick on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 08:22:21 PM EST
    "former" domestic terrorist will cost him that state as well as Co,Va,Iowa, and maybe Minn. BTW- according to Howard Fineman Obama is "done with" Hillary and debates and moving into general election mode. Barack is also now saying he just "brushes off" what he does not consider "fair" questions. Funny- he did not look so care-free last night.

    Electability (none / 0) (#56)
    by Lahdee on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:05:55 PM EST
    is such a fun topic. It can be debated and debated and debated and achieve no satisfactory indication of who is the most electable; enter the polls, see says one Clinton wins here; heh, says another Obama takes the middle; and yet another sees McCain yelling at the kids on the lawn.
    The supers must be persuaded, that's the game.