CBS/NY Times Poll on Issues, Hillary, Obama and McCain

There's probably something to like for everyone in this wide-ranging CBS/New York Times poll of all registered voters (not just Dems). (Full poll results here. (pdf.)

What stood out to me:

  • Those polled who either voted or will vote in Democratic primaries prefer Obama to Hillary, 46% to 43%, a statistical tie. But, Obama fell from 54% in Februrary to 46% in March and April while Hillary rose from 38% to 43%.
  • Obama does better than Hillary with Republicans. His support among Independents and Democrats is down a bit, but it's up among Republicans.
  • Hillary leads Obama in who will do better with the economy and health care.
  • Hillary and Obama both best McCain, with Hillary one point better than Obama. Whiile more people think Obama will win the nomination, they both beat McCain and are essentially tied here. [More...]

Both Obama and Clinton outperform McCain “if the election were being held today,” and by the same amount. If Obama wins the Democratic nomination, he currently would lead Republican nominee John McCain in a nationwide matchup, 47% to 42%, a difference unchanged from two weeks ago. If Hillary Clinton rallies to win the nomination, she fares equally well against McCain, leading 48% to 43% in this poll.
  • People like Obama a lot, but it doesn't translate into a vote for him.

What do you take from the poll?

Update: The New York Times take on the poll:

Senator Barack Obama’s support among Democrats nationally has softened over the last month — particularly among men and upper-income voters — as voters have taken a slightly less positive view of him than they did after his burst of victories in February, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

The survey suggests that Mr. Obama, the Illinois Democrat, may have been at something of a peak in February, propelled by a string of primary and caucus victories over Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, and that perceptions of him are settling down.

< Bankruptcy Bar Rallies Behind Cross-Dressing Judge | Announcement Tomorrow: No Michigan Revote >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    my take is that hillary was right (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:42:20 PM EST
    when she said on morning joe (i think) that the trajectory is working in her favor.

    you know how everything is so much funnier and happier when you're drunk?  i hope to god this means that people are finally sobering up to the reality that obama is simply not the strongest candidate.

    I'm with you on this. (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by 0 politico on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:45:39 PM EST
    I also have to wonder if, after a long campaign, BO's positives turn out to be not quite so positive when more folks start to look for substance.

    Agree (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Virginian on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:15:07 PM EST
    anyone that thinks he's in the same league as JFK, Reagan and even Martin Luther King, after serving half a term in the US Senate, 6 years in a state senate, and has yet to have his name accomplish anything other than a 2004 convention speech is going to ring ZERO for substance...

    people need to think about this just a bit...they are getting caught up in the moment, and buying into  the advertising...but if they think about it, Obama can't be close to his advertising...he can't be a progressive liberal and have Reagan's foreign policy, he can't support Rev. Wright and compare himself to MLK, he can't be JFKs heir and not have a body of service and work that supports the rhetorical "Camelot"...I don't know if snake oil salesman is to harsh...but the sales product is definately not as advertised


    The worst think that happened to Obama (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:26:02 PM EST
    was his glowing press coverage.

    If he's the nominee, I can just see McCain's gloat while each and every new piece of bad press comes out.

    The primary is supposed to vett a candidate, not anoint one.


    but noticeably absent (none / 0) (#44)
    by Josey on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:07:37 PM EST
    is the Dem leadership's acknowledgement of the media's bias for Obama.
    How can Dean claim to be an "honest broker" for both candidates while publicly ignoring most of the media pushing a pro-Obama narrative and concealing negative info about him?

    This is OT and I realize subject to deletion - but tonight NBC (surprisingly!) totally debunked Obama supporters' claims of Hillary's connection to "The Family" - she is not a member, etc.
    But Obama, Hillary and other politicians have been involved with them to some degree.

    Certainly a diary exposing these facts will be on the top of rec lists at Obama blogs.


    Do you have (none / 0) (#60)
    by Emma on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:38:57 AM EST
    a link to the Family report?  I'm very interested in this particular topic and would like any info you've got.



    And this item (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Salt on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:47:13 PM EST
    ....What has changed is that Obama is now the choice of Republicans, though many of them don't want either candidate. In mid-March, Clinton led Obama among Republicans, 35% to 27%. (Of course, that can just as easily be due to Republicans thinking Obama might be easier to beat as Republicans liking his candidacy). But it is they who have given Obama what is now a larger lead over Hillary Clinton......

    I know no Republican who will vote for Obama but I do know women crossing over for Hillary many actually.  These polls are beginning to ring staged almost.

    The poll is confusing to me. (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by lentinel on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:51:36 PM EST
    I think that Hillary Clinton has a great chance against McCain. I don't think Obama could beat him when it gets to crunch time.
    This has nothing to do with race. It is simply that his credentials are sorely lacking. The press that has propped Obama up will chew him up and continue to glorify McCain.

    I notice that the last sentence in the poll has to do with Obama's being likeable. There is no reference to Hillary Clinton.
    I like Clinton and I don't like Obama. It's subjective - but it keeps happening to me.

    Yet, when Clinton is mentioned with respect to this quality, it is always to say that she is not liked.

    As far as Obama doing better among Republicans, well - it should say something to "liberals" like Randy Rhodes and "progressives" like Chris Bowers - but it doesn't.

    Sad - that you have to qualify (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Josey on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:55:19 PM EST
    but that's the way it is these days...

    >>>This has nothing to do with race. It is simply that his credentials are sorely lacking


    You're right. (none / 0) (#18)
    by lentinel on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:12:02 PM EST
    It is sad I felt I had to qualify. I regret that I did so.

    No - I believe you are right (none / 0) (#45)
    by Josey on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:12:14 PM EST
    to state the Truth - even with a qualifier.

    What do the (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by bjorn on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:57:53 PM EST
    national polls mean in the context of actually winning the presidency?  The electoral college votes are state by state. Is there any past evidence that the national polls are a pretty good indicator of who wins the electoral college majority?  I am convinced that Clinton will do better with the e college outcome than Obama.

    I'll say this again... (none / 0) (#17)
    by tsteels2 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:10:15 PM EST
    ...I feel strongly that McCain would beat Obama or Clinton in the GE simply because Obama vs. Clinton (or vice versa) has provided so much ammunition for McCain.  Frankly I don't give a care about 48-state strategies, "Rocky" qualities, Hope, not counting votes, etc.  The Dems need to stop this now.  And to do it right, Clinton needs to be the Prez, Obama the VP.  Just to let you know, I'm a Green Party guy that would vote for the "Dream Ticket" in a heartbeat.

    Even though I'm black and Obama's historic run is infinitely heartening to me, having Clinton be the nominee for President will allow the "Clinton Machine" to circle around Obama and effectively manage the Right's attacks or vetting process.  And Obama's relative youth put him in the perfect position for a 2012 or 2016 run.  And Obama would be a devastating VP because of his charisma and ability to rally people.  I really, really hope this can happen instead of the "taking it to the convention" angle.

    'Nuff said.


    totally agree (none / 0) (#46)
    by Josey on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:16:11 PM EST
    but the Obama campaign has already framed a hypothetical VP position as "get to the back of the bus."
    I'm trying to think of a Clinton(s) comment they haven't deemed racist.

    The most important number in this poll... (none / 0) (#48)
    by sar75 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:17:36 PM EST
    ...for Democrats' prospects in November has nothing to do with Obama or Clinton.

    81% believe the country is on the "wrong track" and 78% say things are worse today than they were five years ag.

    It's hard to see how any Democrat loses under these conditions.  Once we have a nominee, his or her numbers will rise dramatically above McCain's. I don't care if this happens in May or July, because it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better in terms of the economy over the summer.

    If either Obama or Clinton screws this up, they don't deserve to win.  But both have run good campaigns and been tested in battle.  I don't see either one loses in November.


    McCain isn't just any Republican (none / 0) (#52)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:53:34 PM EST
    Unfortunately, that's the public's media-aided perspective.  Disgust with Republicans simply does not carry over to McCain, and we assume a Dem. win in November at our very great peril.  Especially if the nominee is Obama.  The 527s will kill him with ads on Wright, tie him to Farrakhan and every other slimy tactic.  McCain will just eat him alive in the debates with his personality and ease and "toughness."

    Whatever... (none / 0) (#53)
    by sar75 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:09:50 PM EST
    ..."especially not Obama".  Please.  There is absolutely zero evidence at this point that Clinton is absolutely the better general election candidate than Obama.  And while I tend to think Obama is slightly better, there is no evidence that he is absolutely stronger in the GE. I'm so sick of hearing this nonsense from both sides.

    I don't take this election for granted, but I will say that both candidates will enjoy enormous structural advantages over McCain, who will crumble in debates when it comes to the economy.

    Oh, and one more thing:  better get used to the idea that Obama will be the nominee, because that is what's going to happen. I hope you will get behind him.  In the slight chance that Clinton becomes the nominee, I will, of course, support her.


    As a Green Party man... (none / 0) (#56)
    by tsteels2 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:02:29 PM EST
    ...McCain's immense economic shortcomings has turned me off.  Unless a Green candidate just tears into the spotlight and becomes a credible challenger, I will support Senator Clinton or Senator Obama in the GE.

    Please watch those chickens... (none / 0) (#63)
    by Camorrista on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:00:12 PM EST
    Given the the mortgage-industry meltdown, the fragilty of the hedge-fund business, the vulnerability of Wall Street (Bear, Stearns, anybody?), the negative statistics in job creation, the renewed chaos in Iraq (and Afghanistan), the rise of both China and Russia as serious rivals to the United States, and the monstrous wrong-track/right-track track numbers in 24 months of public-opinion surveys, John McCain--an economic ignoramus and a foreign-policy primitive--should be double-digits behind any Democrat in the polls.

    Instead, he's near-even, and, in some states--frightening to say it--actually ahead.

    McCain is a formidable candidate; his victory over competitors who were either richer (Romney), more pious (Huckabee), more telegenic (Thompson), or America's Mayor (Guiliani) should demonstrate that. He was not supposed to win the nomination; he won it.

    Despite the media tilt towards Obama in the Democratic primary contest, in the general election, reporters not hesitate for a second to ditch Obama for McCain--reporters love McCain, and always have (see Bob Somerby on this). They do not love Obama--they hate Clinton, which is not the same thing.

    If Obama is the nominee, he can look forward to reporters' rehashing Wright & Rezco & cocaine & metrosexuality & madrassas and anything that could embarrass him. If Clinton is the nominee, she can look forward to more of the media hostility that has been her bitter gruel for years.

    As to the fantasy in some Democratic circles, that "true" conservatives (religious or economic) will desert McCain, it is just that:  a fantasy.

    They didn't desert Eisenhower, they didn't desert
    Nixon, they didn't desert Ford, they didn't desert Dole, and they won't desert McCain.

    As to the potential cross-over vote for
    Democrats--espresso independents and the young for Obama, Republican women for Clinton--does anybody really want to bet an election on them?

    To underestimate McCain is to lose to him. Ask Romney, Huckabee, Thompson & Guiliani.


    It seems to me (none / 0) (#3)
    by Steve M on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:46:13 PM EST
    we've reached the point where we can look at these polls and start thinking that maybe Wright is not the absolute deal-killer that some people assumed.

    Obama supporters only saw/heard about (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by catfish on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:58:39 PM EST
    the god damn America line. The ones I've talked to never saw the other ones where Wright called out Bill, Hillary, etc.

    I think we won't know about Wright (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:04:55 PM EST
    until people actually vote.  Should Obama make it to the ge--which I don't think will happen--then it will be Wright 24/7, Rezko, Ayers, etc.

    If Clinton were willing to scorch earth, he would be dead in the water right now.  The repubs will have no such qualms.


    Obama believes he can associate with (none / 0) (#13)
    by MarkL on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:07:55 PM EST
    anyone, and there will be no reflection on him.
    Sorry, no dice. Ayers is an unrepentant domestic terrorist. Obama should never have served on a board with him.

    off topic (none / 0) (#21)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:15:02 PM EST
    please stay on topic of the poll.

    The deal killer (none / 0) (#10)
    by lentinel on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:04:22 PM EST
    Wright said that the attacks on New York and Washington in 2001 were a case of "chickens coming home to roost".

    He was blaming the terrorists attacks on the long standing imperialist foreign policy of the United States with respect to the Middle East.

    This point of view is not radical. Senator Gravel and Ron Paul both articulated a similar if not identical view.

    For our survival it is important to examine how our foreign policy affects others. Compassion is useful.

    Obama dismissed the entire subject by simply "condemning" Wright's "controversial" remarks.

    He didn't even address this life-and-death issue.


    One of the curious phenomenons (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:16:19 PM EST
    Is Obama condemning those statements but then all of his supporters finding ways to point out how those statements are merely truthful.  And should not be condemned.

    Obama is still a star in the Trinity sky.

    Maybe because he didn't disown Trinity.  Maybe also because they know he had to capitulate on the statements themselves in order to save his political career.


    Yep he's a politician (none / 0) (#24)
    by voterin2008 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:22:05 PM EST
    I knew that (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:27:05 PM EST
    I know it's impossible to know what he really thinks about those statements.

    how'd that work (none / 0) (#12)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:05:39 PM EST
    for Gravel and Paul?  Are they both still running?  I didn't see them on the news tonight...

    And... (none / 0) (#20)
    by lentinel on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:14:02 PM EST
    And your point is?

    Uh (none / 0) (#50)
    by Steve M on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:24:41 PM EST
    I guess I don't agree with Wright's attempt to draw a link between 9/11 and US support of apartheid.  You seem to be reinventing his argument into one you find more appealing.

    This is the best (none / 0) (#33)
    by 1jpb on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:37:43 PM EST
    perspective argument I've heard.

    The particulars of this experience break through more than noting that the YouTube clips are his worst quotes, and the church does a lot of good in the community.

    Kind words from Wright's white peers help, and so do wingnuts (McCain, Wallace, Kemp and Huckabee) saying that the guilt by association etc. is too much.

    But, the particulars of Wright's military experience, at the least, demand a second take.


    Imus was a good guy too (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:45:19 PM EST
    Not sure if he was in the military.

    The entire "we can't judge the whole man by one or two statements" argument is valid.  But only when it's valid.  You know?


    I'm not interested in the rest of his sermons (none / 0) (#54)
    by ChrisO on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:23:55 PM EST
    They don't change what he said. How about the next time Hillary says something negative about Obama, I post links to 10 statements she's made about loving puppies? I'm sure Obama supporters will stop criticizing her when they see more of her statements "in context."

    me either (none / 0) (#58)
    by RalphB on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:49:16 PM EST
    what excuses that nutjob hatemongering?  i like you idea about the loving puppies statements.  gotta work.  

    The American values (none / 0) (#14)
    by stillife on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:08:11 PM EST
    responses seem very odd to me.  Most Republicans think that Obama better represents America's values?  There's something wrong there.

    I don't see anything wrong with that guess it's (none / 0) (#16)
    by voterin2008 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:09:43 PM EST
    just who you poll!

    very telling indicator (none / 0) (#36)
    by Arcadianwind on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:44:22 PM EST
    I thought the same thing on that one stillife.
    What does this tell us about that subgroup?

    What does it tell us (none / 0) (#38)
    by stillife on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:45:32 PM EST
    about Obama?

    in regard to repub responses (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Arcadianwind on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:56:21 PM EST
    on American values re: Obama

    1. a fair percent of bogus answers, meant to distort the poll. That one doesn't pass the reality test.


    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by stillife on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:58:17 PM EST
    Which is why polls, while entertaining, are BS.

    I wish somebody would poll me!  


    One important thing to consider with polls (none / 0) (#49)
    by Arcadianwind on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:19:57 PM EST
    and I think it more specifically applies in primaries, is that: It is like a game, and people are   playing with fake money, whereas in the general election it is more like real money, and people ("folks" as Dubya and Obama like to call them) don't play fast and loose when it's real money at stake.

    If this is a valid argument; and I think it is. Then  it does not bode well for Obama, since many who voted for him in the primaries will not do so in the General. And the ones who give false answers in a poll, won't play that way in the voting booth.


    Yeah it's hard to believe the accuracy of these (none / 0) (#15)
    by voterin2008 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:08:59 PM EST
    polls, a recent poll on realclearpolitics.com had Obama winning PA.  No way he is ahead at this point.  I believe the biggest problem with these polls are more people are engaged in these elections then in any time in history.  Sampling for these studies have not increased or targeted classification that are a true representation of the population.  Many have improved by screening for likely voters instead of registered voters but either because of costs associated with decreased response rates by randomly screening or by using old methodologies you can not count on the results being accurate.

    Good news for Obama in this poll (none / 0) (#19)
    by maritza on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:12:26 PM EST
    Another poll showing that the Reverend Wright controversy didn't flip it so that Hillary beats Obama or McCain beats Obama.  

    Also, Obama has the highest favorable ratings and has the highest "shares values of Americans" percentage of the 3 candidates.

    I think that Obama is now liked but "mortal" when before I think he was too high on a pedestal which is a very dangerous position for a candidate to be ie "Obama the Messiah".

    Just like Bush used to have. (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by MarkL on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:24:54 PM EST
    Only 24% (none / 0) (#25)
    by stillife on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:23:48 PM EST
    think this Presidential campaign has been more negative than campaigns in previous years?  

    OK, what are these folks smoking? I want some!

    Really odd that the Republicans polled think it's been more negative than the Dems do.

    I strangely agree that it hasn't been that (none / 0) (#30)
    by voterin2008 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:27:33 PM EST
    negative by either side.  Yes their have been some blows thrown but I perceive the media hadsmagnified every little narrative way beyond purportion.  While they may have covered previous campaigns every little thing that happens becomes a full fledged headline.  I mean a solid weak of Bosnia and an ongoing coverage of Wright.  Their is just so much support for each candidate the media is milking it for all it's worth.

    Does anyone remember Bradley in 2000? (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Exeter on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:33:34 PM EST
    Geez... the guy never won a single contest and stayed in it for 17 states. All the while, personally attacking Gore with some really, really, nasty personal attacks. Then, when he finally did concede, he refused to endorse Gore.

    I see your point (none / 0) (#35)
    by stillife on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:39:17 PM EST
    and I do agree that the media has been stirring the pot.  However, the average voter doesn't see through media manipulations and will take them at face value.  So does this mean that most of those polled see through the manipulations?

    I wonder if the higher negative numbers among Republicans is a manifestation of Clinton hatred (i.e., she'll "do anything to win").  


    I think if your a Clinton or Obama supporter which (none / 0) (#39)
    by voterin2008 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:46:30 PM EST
     both sides are extremely passionate about their candidate then yes you probably do see through these so called news events that are followed up by a surrogate from each side trying to spin it in one persons favor or another.  And I believe Republicans do buy into it more simply because they are not following it as closely.  They probably listen to segway then flip the channel and assume they've gotten the jist of it. I for one don't see anything wrong with doing everything you can to win.  Their is too much at stake not to.  

    But (none / 0) (#61)
    by Emma on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:50:44 AM EST
    However, the average voter doesn't see through media manipulations and will take them at face value.  So does this mean that most of those polled see through the manipulations?

    Clinton is still in the race, and pretty solidly so.  With all the media bias against her, you'd think she'd have been dead in the water long ago.  I don't know what that means.

    I don't know how to read polls, I don't know how to read these polls, and I wonder if the campaigns are having the same problem.

     My personal belief is that Clinton wins by shaking the hand of every single voter in America. There are just waaaaaay too many people who have hated her, met her, and then come to respect and admire her to discount.  I guess, though, it's hard to translate that into a national campaign strategy.  And harder still to see reflected in polls.


    Seems like a settling out (none / 0) (#27)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:24:56 PM EST
    of the the waves since we are in a lull between votes. More or less a tie, which is is really amazing when you think of all we have been through.

    I expect things will roil up again and polls will change as it gets nearer to Pennsylvania and more advertising and intense campaigning kicks in. Is Obama closing the deal nor not?  I sure don't see it in this poll.

    Speaking of polls Geraldine is on Fox (none / 0) (#31)
    by voterin2008 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:33:42 PM EST
    hurting Clintons polls numbers as I type.

    Don't be so sure of that. (none / 0) (#34)
    by MarkL on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:38:49 PM EST
    She is certainly no Randi Rhodes.

    Yeah I guess it depends on what demographic (none / 0) (#40)
    by voterin2008 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:47:41 PM EST
    your aiming for.  Republicans are loving her right now.

    The series was on how much (none / 0) (#55)
    by waldenpond on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:24:05 PM EST
    they are watching the Dems go after each other around discussions of race which they usually reserve for Repubs and how they are going after Clinton as if she was a Repub.

    Colmes was very welcoming to Ferraro.  Everyone on the show sees the irony in how one campaign is choosing to portray the other on certain issues.  

    I happen to agree with the Repubs when they state that this particular tactic will not work on them in the GE.


    Tim Russert this morning on Morning Joe (none / 0) (#32)
    by athyrio on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:36:49 PM EST
    said that Hillary would win but Obama barely ties McCain at this point when you count the electoral college, and coming from that idiot it makes ya wonder if NBC will start to flip when he gets closer to the nomination...

    The polls I would really like to see is when we (none / 0) (#41)
    by voterin2008 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:56:17 PM EST
    have selected a candidate and the power of a united campaign comes together.  It might be wishful thinking that we will be able to get beyond our petty differences but I still believe it will happen regardless of who wins.

    I ve read comments about Obama's message (none / 0) (#57)
    by thereyougo on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:08:04 PM EST
    how the perception is that its become flat. Seems he's reached a plateau. His supporters for all their presence on the 'A"blogs have helped Hillary in ways they didn't intend. So that might explain some of the  poll numbers

    I really don't see (none / 0) (#59)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:10:03 AM EST
    how this poll could in any way be conceived to be accurate or mean anything much at all. It's a national poll and only 1368 people were sampled! That's crazy. That amounts to 27 people per state. How did they figure out which 27 to sample? How did they account for the fact that the electoral college is what elects a president, not popular vote? This is really meaningless, because we know that someone can win the popular vote and not get elected, because those votes have to be distributed among the states that give one the highest number of electors. Winning a general poll by a couple of percentage points with only 1368 people and having no relation to how an election is done doesn't tell us much.

    Experience (none / 0) (#62)
    by FedUpLib on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:19:10 AM EST
    So...I read a lot about experience.  Hill has it and Obama doesn't.  I am not going to argue, his resume looks like that of just about any junior senator in his first term.  A lot of going along to get along and not a lot of big splashes.

    My question is...what exactly has Hillary done that would lead me to think that she has good "experience".  Unless I am mistaken, she has spent her entire senatorial career as part of a do nothing congress that let the worst president in history beat it like a stray puppy.

    What has she done to stop the bloodbath in Iraq, stop the financial collapse, stop the peeling away of our civil liberties, stop the purchase of our government by big business or anything else that would have stopped Chimpy from laughing at us over the last 8 years?

    I don't blame her for that, in general the Dems have been a bunch of spineless wimps that wouldn't stand up for us...but I didn't see her out in front leading any charges either.

    This is your chance, please...sing her praises.  Notice I am not even arguing for Obama here, I really just want to hear what kind of "experience" she has that should make me want to vote for her.

    Barack Obama popularity (none / 0) (#64)
    by Elaine from the great white north on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:18:00 PM EST
    It's amazing that no matter WHAT he does, everyone shrugs off. Hillary can't comment about the taste of a cup of coffee without having her sentence analyzed and criticized for some 'hidden evil meaning'. Today's "no show" for MLK is something that Obama should be ashamed of. McCain, the least of the candidates and probably the least expected to make an appearance...shows. It's hilarious to hear the 'flustered Obama groupies, eg: Roland Martin, making excuses for Obama. I think Obama is going to have a true color coming out party in the next few months, I just hope people see it.