Poll: Obama More Electable Than Hillary AND Edwards
A new Zogby poll shows that Barack Obama is the most electable of the top three Democratic candidates, followed by John Edwards and Hillary Clinton.
Of the three Dems, Obama is the only one to beat five Republicans in all match-ups. Hillary loses to Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain, while Edwards can beat Huckabee but loses to Giuliani and McCain.
The full numbers are available after the jump.
Obama (D) 53%, Romney (R) 35%
Obama (D) 47%, Huckabee (R) 42%
Obama (D) 48%, Giuliani (R) 39%
Obama (D) 47%, McCain (R) 43%
Obama (D) 52%, Thompson (R) 36%Clinton (D) 46%, Romney (R) 44%
Huckabee (R) 48%, Clinton (D) 43%
Giuliani (R) 46%, Clinton (D) 42%
McCain (R) 49%, Clinton (D) 42%
Clinton (D) 48%, Thompson (R) 42%Edwards (D) 50%, Romney (R) 38%
Edwards (D) 47%, Huckabee (R) 41%
Giuliani (R) 45%, Edwards (D) 44%
McCain (R) 46%, Edwards (D) 42%
Edwards (D) 51%, Thompson (R) 35%
Comments (196)
bridoc wrote on December 21, 2007 12:52 PM:Mmmmm...saucy. And this is still with Obama being less well known in many states. If nominated and other states get the exposure to Obama over the next year that Iowa has received, I have no doubt that these margins would only swell as the general election progressed.
(Consequently, the opposite seems to hold true for Hillary)
Fired Up! Ready to Go!!
Michael wrote on December 21, 2007 12:57 PM:Eric-this should come as no surprise. The myth that Edwards is the most electable is just that, a myth. One only need glance at these pollster graphs to see that Obama's aggregate margins vs GOP matchups exceeded those of Edwards and Clinton as far back as 6 months ago.
Nobody's bothered to ever challenge the notion, b/c Edwards is white and southern and male. But the numbers simply do not bear it out. This is more evidence, but no deviation from the norm that's been in place for quite some time.
Nope! can't go with the hope and dope man.
Go Edwards!
From Jan - Sept, Edwards was leading in ALL SUSA state matchups - and some in Oct. Then SUSA began omitting him.
The polling in this election is very suspect. One of the first clues was the poll last May declaring Obama was "ahead" in SC.
I am an Obama supporter, and I am glad to see this---but---
I really believe that Edwards has been treated badly overall with regard to these kinds of polls. He is often omitted for no apparent reason---and of course, Hillary is never left out with her frontrunner status.
I am sure we will see other polls with different results very soon----and i think it is important that the individual states (like my own Missouri) have at least all three of the democrats matched up when they do the polling.
JoseyJ wrote on December 21, 2007 1:05 PM:Most people realize that a black man won't be elected President until he's been elected VP.
Obama wouldn't be on Hillary's ticket - but Obama supporters haven't figured that out yet - and many will help Hillary by voting for Obama.
Go Edwards!
JoseyJ,
So, since people are racist, we can't nominate Obama. No thanks, I won't let other people's ignorance shape the agenda.
Now I just hope the good people of Iowa aren't buying the BS Hillary is selling about electability.
Dan wrote on December 21, 2007 1:14 PM:Obama also ran much better than Clinton in an NBC national poll the other day.
Anonymous wrote on December 21, 2007 1:18 PM:If anyone needed a reason not to vote for HRC, this is it: President Huckabee.
yesterday gone wrote on December 21, 2007 1:19 PM:Margaret: Nope! can't go with the hope and dope man. Go Edwards!
edwards never inhaled?
journalschism wrote on December 21, 2007 1:26 PM:When SUSA polls were released showing Edwards beating all Republicans just a few weeks ago, not one mention by TPM on their little poll tracker on this page.
Obama gets a good poll...there it is for the world to see.
Another day, another Edwards snub from TPM. That is, unless it's something negative to report.
Beth in VA wrote on December 21, 2007 1:30 PM:I can't agree more with DR in OH--I'm so tired of what people say can't happen. That's the attitude the dems have taken for too long.
The republicans and the media will talk trash on whoever the Democratic party nominee is. Obama's calm and sensible demeanor will go a long way to negating the racist slurs--the guy has dealt with this issue all his life.
This media exposure for Obama is doing wonders. Im sure the media in most states aren't covering Obama nor Edwards that much. He is definately the one to vote for if you want a democrat in the White House, who understands the poeople.
Obama O8!
I don't trust Zogby polls. They are done by internet and they don't get a good segment of the public. Zogby has been the outlier of many of the recent polling outfits. SUSA though IS a good polling outfit. I would trust them. OH and STOP reporting Faux News, Republimussen and Opinion Strategies polls. They are ALL front groups BENT on getting GOP candidates elected. And as we all know, Republicans are EVIL!
Michael A wrote on December 21, 2007 1:35 PM:Edwards can't even win his home state and people consider him electable? He voted for the war in iraq because advisors told him he should for politics? You have got to be kidding.
I am sick of the racist garbage by clinton II and now edwards people. We are in the 21st century, not the 1800's go play at redstate.com. People who won't vote for him based on race wouldn't vote for a dem anyway. Disgusting.
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 21, 2007 1:37 PM:A brief aside from the actual meat of this thread - I would like to ask my fellow Obama supporters to read the headline above ("Obama more electable than Hillary AND Edwards") and then read the by-line (Eric Kleefeld"). Please take note of this and remember it next time you feel moved to say something unnecessarily rude about the supposed "bias" of this blog.
crap wrote on December 21, 2007 1:38 PM:Zogby polls belong in the trash.
I dont believe his polls are at all accurate.
they are all done by internet and are completely skewed
roo_P wrote on December 21, 2007 1:39 PM:journalschism:
When SUSA polls were released showing Edwards beating all Republicans just a few weeks ago, not one mention by TPM on their little poll tracker on this page.
Obama gets a good poll...there it is for the world to see.
Another day, another Edwards snub from TPM. That is, unless it's something negative to report.
Actually, I am pretty sure I saw that post. Unfortunately it looks like Edwards did not do as well in this one.
bbln wrote on December 21, 2007 1:40 PM:um- half or more of America don't really know Obama - he hasn't been vetted to hell by the Republicans yet. Yeah, sure, whatever...this is called pre-mature polling.
David in Burbank wrote on December 21, 2007 1:42 PM:I have never understood the appeal of Edwards. In my mind he ran and lost (yeah, I know it was Kerry's fault.) And my opinion is about as useful as a Zogby Poll.
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 21, 2007 1:42 PM:half or more of America don't really know Obama...
An interesting claim. Care to back that up with some actual data?
keith wrote on December 21, 2007 1:43 PM:It seems to me Edwards and Obama are probably equally electable at this point. Neither have generated the type of irrational hatred of the Clinton's and lack the real politic enemies that the Clinton's have. My guess is either will do fine in the general-especially considering they will have to beat the Borg to get there.
Kefa wrote on December 21, 2007 1:44 PM:of course this is pre-smear, pre-beck/rush/hannity/fox/matthews/russett/tucker/vrwc
he will be mince meat when they are finished with him. A lamb to the slaughter.
Len wrote on December 21, 2007 1:47 PM:Got this from anyone other than Zogby?
Kefa wrote on December 21, 2007 1:48 PM:it will be.....i will call it now
Clinton/Obama in 08
jedinate wrote on December 21, 2007 1:35 PM:
"I don't trust Zogby polls. They are done by internet and they don't get a good segment of the public. Zogby has been the outlier of many of the recent polling outfits. SUSA though IS a good polling outfit. I would trust them. OH and STOP reporting Faux News, Republimussen and Opinion Strategies polls. They are ALL front groups BENT on getting GOP candidates elected. And as we all know, Republicans are EVIL!"
Where do you get your information on Zogby's methodology? a quick link over at http://www.zogby.com/methodology/readmeth.dbm?ID=1241 explains that they are run over a random digit dial, just like every other poll. Discount the poll if you will(goodness knows polls are useless at this point), but don't make up bullshit, especially when there is a valid counterpoint that doesn't have bullshit.
Kristi wrote on December 21, 2007 1:54 PM:Yoo Hoo people, this a telephone poll, not internet.
So that excuse to dismiss the results falls flat.
M Miller wrote on December 21, 2007 1:55 PM:Rasmussen, SurveyUSA, & Mason Dixon are the most reliable polls I found so far for telling you the winner of the race (especially looking at them together, sometimes 2/2 or 2/3). I hate Fixed Noise, but if their poll was good, I would trust it. I checked up on it and found out their poll isn't reliable at all. Kerry would be president if the Fox polls were correct in '04.
One poll, CNN (Dec 11), which I don't know how much I trust as very accurate (I'm using it just for example) shows Edwards winning against all of those he was polled against. Giuliani (+9), Romney (+22), McCain (+8), & Huckabee (+25).
The poll I trust the most, Rasmussen (Dec 17) shows Edwards winning against both he was polled against. McCain (+7), Huckabee (+12).
Polls can be wrong sometimes. As for Edwards vs McCain, 2 out of three of all the polls this month makes me lean toward thinking that unless this is a new trend, it could just be a dud. As for vs Giuliani, its 1 out of 2 so who knows with that.
Kefa:
I predict now that Hillary will turn to the right some (or a lot) if she wins the nomination. She would only have everything to gain if she did.
Evan Bayh (from my state) is who I think that she'll run with (or at least she'll go down the route of someone like him). That will get more red-staters, moderates, and some conservatives to vote for her. They are pretty close personally from what I understand.
Heretic wrote on December 21, 2007 1:55 PM:Ugh. I just can't stand Barack Obama, but it is more important to me that we have a Dem than someone I actually like or respect. I don't think he is a psychopath, conman, or moron like all the repugs (except for Paul and McCain—neither of whom I could vote for other reasons), but he is just so naive if he thinks that his "post-partisan" rhetoric will lead to anything but continued corporate dominance of our country. These latest polls definitely have me thinking about my vote. Ifpolls continue to show Hillary losing to all the top repugs while Obama is walloping them, I am gonna have to hold my nose and take the plunge. Another sad day in the decline of the American empire.
YY wrote on December 21, 2007 1:56 PM:Obama is an unknown quantity--people can simply project their own visions of excellence onto Obama (that's what happened with Ron Paul).
Of course he's more electable: people know less about him to begin with!
Polls that claim to show "electability" are really more about about "awareness".
Electability should be measured in the candidates ability to fight the Republican Machine. That's Clinton right there.
Michael wrote on December 21, 2007 1:59 PM:Greg DeLassus--
Why dispute the fact that most Americans don't know about Obama? It seems obviously true on its face to me, and every trend in Iowa, NH, and SC suggests that the more voters get to know Obama, the more they like him.
Kefa--
Lamb to the slaughter? Please. You mean Obama will never be able to withstand insinuations that he's a Muslim Manchurian candidate? *cough*Clinton precinct captains *cough* You mean he'll be smeared as a druggie, maybe even a drug dealer? *cough* Shaheen *cough* You mean his middle name will be thrown to fear-monger? People talk about him going to a madrassa? *cough*Kerrey*cough* You mean he'll be tarred as not black enough for the black vote and not white enough for the white vote? *cough* Young *cough*
Huh. Yeah, he'd never be able to survive full-out, repulsive slime like that...there's no way his numbers would go through the roof in the midst of being smeared like that.
No way.
CalD wrote on December 21, 2007 2:01 PM:Wait, I thought Edwards was the most electable... Wait, no it was Clinton... Wait.
Michael wrote on December 21, 2007 2:03 PM:LOL @ Hillary the GOP dragon-slayer.
She's such a good fighter she turned a 5-point lead in Iowa into a 2 point deficit! An 18-point lead in NH into a 4 point lead! In about 2 months! What a fighter!
dajafi wrote on December 21, 2007 2:08 PM:The only thing that strikes me as irrefutable from this set of polls--given their methodological flaws, for one thing--is this set of numbers:
Obama (D) 53%, Romney (R) 35%
Edwards (D) 50%, Romney (R) 38%
Clinton (D) 46%, Romney (R) 44%
Everybody knows Mittens is a hideous phony. As the perceptions of the Democrat go from "more sincere" to "less sincere," the Dem's margins over Mitt similarly shrink.
Clinton and Romney are the mirror images of each other. A general election campaign between these two slimy, smarmy, compulsive crap artists would make the 1988 Bush-Dukakis campaign (which I always thought set a standard for substance-free politics) look like Lincoln vs. Douglas.
TB wrote on December 21, 2007 2:11 PM:YY -- I don't think the republican machine is any more formidable than the Clinton machine, and Obama is certainly holding his own against the Clintons.
DurangoDave wrote on December 21, 2007 2:17 PM:In spite of all the horse-race attention to Obama and Clinton, Edwards has IMHO the best and most developed policy positions of any candidate. If everyone would look at what he actually proposes, I don't believe electability would be a problem.
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 21, 2007 2:21 PM:Why dispute the fact that most Americans don't know about Obama? It seems obviously true on its face to me, and every trend in Iowa, NH, and SC suggests that the more voters get to know Obama, the more they like him.
Well, sure, your point about his favorability ratings improving as people learn more about him is altogether true and a worthy consideration. My only objection was to the "half or more" figure. That sounds really high to me. I am sure that more folks know Clinton well than know Obama well, but half or more do not know him? I find that implausibly high.
Equally implausible is the oft-repeated assertion that Sen Obama is "unvetted" or a "roll of the dice." As NCSteve never tires of pointing out, if we know about the man's kindergarten essays and his parking tickets from law school, you can be pretty sure that he has been gone over with a fine tooth comb by now. One does not find out about what a man wrote in kindergarten by googling him. You need to pay big money to send trained investigators half-way around the world to get that sort of info, so the fact that Sen Clinton's campaign had such facts on hand indicates that they have already spent a pretty penny sniffing around. If that is the best that they could dig up, then the worries that he has more "vetting" to be done are vastly exagerated.
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 21, 2007 2:24 PM:If everyone would look at what [Edwards] actually proposes, I don't believe electability would be a problem.
Well, good luck to you Edwards supporters in making that happen. As it happens, I have looked at his proposals and I mostly like what I see. I still prefer Obama, but I would be almost as delighted to see Sen Edwards take the nomination. As I see it, however, you supporters of his need to get your tails in gear if you want to make that happen. He needs money and he needs volunteers in states other than IA. Don't just spend your time wagging your fingers at us here on this blog; get going on the real work.
pkoso wrote on December 21, 2007 2:29 PM:if anyone actually needed evidence of KEFA's misunderstanding of american politics, here you go: "Clinton/Obama in 08"
are you really so naive?
as for zogby, he lost all credibility with me when he said on j.stewart in the week before the '04 election that kerrey was going to win. he said it with such certainty and well, mr. zogby, you were wrong.
brewmn wrote on December 21, 2007 2:34 PM:"Nope! can't go with the hope and dope man."
Tricky Dick? Is that you?
I just read Zogby's article in the HuffingtonPost which was unbelievably slanted in favor of Obama and simultaneously anti-hillary Clinton. I thought pollsters were supposed to be objective. But then I've also researched some of Zogby's opinions transcribed from the PBS NewsHour over the years when he was not so subtley supporting Dubya during the previous two presidential campaigns. If you don't believe me, go to the PBS web site and check it out.
I now seriously question any Zogby poll results.
Michael A wrote on December 21, 2007 2:38 PM:pkoso, good observation. There is no way that obama would be clinton II's running mate. In fact, if she does by way of blind luck get the nomination, she will have a very, very hard time coming up with a running mate. Nobody legit would want to be her running mate with Mr. bill running around the white house if she wins. Who on earth would want that crappy job?
Jim J wrote on December 21, 2007 2:47 PM:Zogby is a charlatan from the word go. He's not a reputable professional in the field. Check out any of his interviews, he crosses ethical lines in almost all of them.
dajafi wrote on December 21, 2007 2:52 PM:I still prefer Obama, but I would be almost as delighted to see Sen Edwards take the nomination. As I see it, however, you supporters of his need to get your tails in gear if you want to make that happen. He needs money and he needs volunteers in states other than IA. Don't just spend your time wagging your fingers at us here on this blog; get going on the real work.
I heartily endorse this message.
My only concern is that the Clintons control enough of the party--and command a large enough echo chamber--that there's probably room for just one Not-Hillary. I think Obama is the stronger bet in this case, but the truth is that if either one of them announced this afternoon that they were leaving the race, for whatever reason, I'd be pretty happy simply because that would greatly boost the chances of avoiding the disaster that a Clinton nomination would represent.
Ni Daye wrote on December 21, 2007 2:52 PM:Michael A wrote on December 21, 2007 2:38 PM: ---
Are you so sure? Nobody would admit he or she's running for VP but the position of VP has never been vacant. Obamer would say yes in a New York second if he's offered a vp spot but of course he will not be given all his compaign staffs are all big $ssholes. We have a perfect running mate for Hillary. His name is Lee Hamilton. He was passed over by Clinton in favor of Gore. This time, he will get the nod!
jeff wrote on December 21, 2007 2:54 PM:Quickly:
1) Obama is ahead in a poll. Well, Edwards is ahead in every other mathup poll. One abberation is not a big deal
2) The black guy with a Muslim name who has never won a tough electon is more electable than the southern guy who won a previously republican senate seat. Likely.
3) I find Zogby suspect. The guy is constantly shilling for Obama and his polls always seem to skew in his favor. Hard to trust
NCSteve wrote on December 21, 2007 2:55 PM:Hey Greg D, just because I say it over and over doesn't mean I'm not tired of having to say it.
At lunch today, I was thinking, just hypothetically, about when I would drop an atomic scandal bomb if I were a campaign that had one in the inventory. If it was a real, serious scandal, I think the answer is that the optimum time has already passed--early this week or late last week. If it were just some bogus Swiftboat kind of thing, I think it would have to be fired on 12/31. Any sooner and it might be defused and splash back on you, any later and it might not have any effect. And if I were going to do that kind of thing, Drudge would be my delivery vehicle of choice.
Just hypothetically, of course.
Ni Daye wrote on December 21, 2007 2:55 PM:Yea, election a woman of the POTUS and a black man as VP may well be too much a radical change to take at one time.
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 21, 2007 3:04 PM:Hey Greg D, just because I say it over and over doesn't mean I'm not tired of having to say it.
All right, I stand corrected. :-)
In any event, your point is a good one, and I am glad to have you repeating it as often as necessary.
I was thinking, just hypothetically, about when I would drop an atomic scandal bomb if I were a campaign that had one in the inventory. If it was a real, serious scandal, I think the answer is that the optimum time has already passed... If it were just some bogus Swiftboat kind of thing, I think it would have to be fired on 12/31.
Got it. So I guess then that we can already say with confidence that there is no dirt on him, but we will have to wait until the end of the year before we can say with any real certainty whether or not there is less-than-no dirt on him.
Michael A wrote on December 21, 2007 3:06 PM:Lee Hamilton would never accept in a million years. Are you kidding???? He wouldn't subject himself to the abuse, neither would obama. Everyone thinking about being clinton II's running mate would call gore and talk to him to get the inside info. Guaranteed it wouldn't be pretty. Gee, I wonder why gore can't stand either of the clintons.
On Zogby, gotta love those clinton lovers, don't like the poll result, attack the pollster. Too funny. I am sure the reason why is for the last year, the whole basis of the clinton II campaign was "gee, look at the polls, she is inevitable." Now that the polls aren't looking so good, attack the pollsters and the polls. Too funny.
Of course, when a clinton II person says something that is verifiable, I check it out. Can't do that with her record or alleged experience can you. That's why people don't believe what she says. I read the articles by Zogby and I didn't find them slanted or biased. He was stating some opinions based on facts, big deal.
Do I think this poll is the be all, end all. Nope. Just like I didn't think others were either. The point is that clinton II is not inevitable and a race is on. The trends look good for obama, but that's it. The ultimate poll for iowa and the rest of the states will be on voting day. Then we will know.
Sen, Widestance wrote on December 21, 2007 3:21 PM:JoseyJ:
With logic like this:
"So, since people are racist, we can't nominate Obama. No thanks, I won't let other people's ignorance shape the agenda."
Arent you just perpetuating that ignorance you're so concerned about?
Me think so...it's time to turn the tide--support hope.
BluePuppy wrote on December 21, 2007 3:25 PM:Mr. Hope shills with the right-wing meme against Hillary. Shameful. This man SHOULD NOT be president. Period.
http://www.hillarythemovie.com/trailer.html
Ni Daye wrote on December 21, 2007 3:29 PM:DRinOH wrote on December 21, 2007 1:14 PM:
"JoseyJ,
So, since people are racist, we can't nominate Obama. No thanks, I won't let other people's ignorance shape the agenda."
Oh, yea?! Are you not one of those people think Hillary's too polarized to be elected President so you want to nominate someone more electable? Should it not be the case that we should nominate someone who is most capable, most experienced, and ready to deliver change and not care about how the other side thinks? After all, we don't need the other side, we need the people in the middle.
You hate Hillary, the Repulicans hate Hillary. She must be doing something really right. I know you hate the Clintons because you guys cannot control them. The repugnants hate them because they cannot compete against them.
Go Hillary!
LJ wrote on December 21, 2007 3:31 PM:With respect to VP talk, I find it unlikely that either Obama or Clinton would accept a VP spot. Both are popular senators in their home states and can probably stay in the Senate for as long as they wish.
I'd love to hear from more Hillary supporters on her potential VP choices. I can't even venture a guess. Wesley Clark comes to mind, he has ties to the Clinton's and would bolster Hillary's hawkish side in the general election when the Republicans go all fire and brimestone. (Despite some unfortunate things I said when Clark endorsed Clinton, I have a great deal of respect for him.)
A more general question for Hillary supporters: what kind of a VP balances Hillary on the ticket? Richardson seems plausible, being hispanic and from the southwest, but he's not really been a very impressive campaigner and I think she could do better.
If Obama is the nominee it's pretty easy to see Edwards as the VP. In some of the debates they've almost seemed like a team. Edwards' demeanor has at times seemed like a VP candidate, with his pointed criticisms of Hillary.
I can also see Edwards choosing Obama as VP. But still don't see why Obama would accept.
BluePuppy wrote on December 21, 2007 3:33 PM:"But still don't see why Obama would accept."
It's the closes he'll ever get to the Oval Office.
"I still prefer Obama, but I would be almost as delighted to see Sen Edwards take the nomination. As I see it, however, you supporters of his need to get your tails in gear if you want to make that happen. He needs money and he needs volunteers in states other than IA. Don't just spend your time wagging your fingers at us here on this blog; get going on the real work."
Fair enough. I've been vascillating because, in truth, I would prefer any of the Democratic candidates to any Repugnicant. When it gets down to brass tacks, I think Edwards has the most "there" there. I'll be putting my money and my time there in the coming months. No time or energy for finger-wagging at fellow progressives.
Joe wrote on December 21, 2007 3:35 PM:I don't know. If I'm a betting man, I'm going to go with trends when figuring out who the most electable person is for President: 43 out of 43 - White male.
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 21, 2007 3:36 PM:Mr. Hope shills with the right-wing meme against Hillary.
Huh? What is this supposed to mean? Some right-wing propoganda outfit splices ten seconds of a television interview which Sen Obama gave into their hack job movie and you blame Barack Obama for that?!? Lord have mercy, the arguments that some folks will try around here...
Carol wrote on December 21, 2007 3:45 PM:It is a rather weird comment that more than half the public don't know Obama. All we have been hearing about is Hillaryandbarackandbarackandhillary. That Edwards out-polls Hillary and is just about neck to neck with Obama is pretty impressive, considering that the MSM act as if Edwards doesn't exist. Ever read analysis of the debates? Hillary said this, Barack said that, and the rest of the field is sort of shrunk into a meaningless mishmash of idiotic sound bites. You wouldn't know Dodd, Kucinich and the others actually existed.
Except of course, now, Newsweek...
pjsauter wrote on December 21, 2007 3:49 PM:Funny, when previous polls showed Edwards "most electable," I read a lot of dismissive comments to the effect of "most electable is what got us Kerry." Now, "electability" seems to have become very important.
Michael A wrote on December 21, 2007 3:49 PM:Just wait Gregg. You are new to this site. I have been hanging around for months. The clinton II people are priceless, you "ain't" seen nothing yet. That's mild.
Bluepuppy is just in love with clinton II. She/he takes offense to anyone that questions his true love. It's kind of scary, but she/he was posting about how "hot" clinton II supposedly is. Yikes.
Mike Bakunin wrote on December 21, 2007 3:58 PM:I generally like Zogby and respect his polling, but I am not just buying this one. Also, the Repubs numbers are just too high. ANY Democrat could run and probably win next Fall.
Elizabeth wrote on December 21, 2007 4:01 PM:I wonder.... Guess we'll never know but I would be very curious to see a poll that lined the GOP candidates up against Joe Biden. Might be very, very surprising...... and might remind people that when the real decision is made, folks will be choosing a *president* not the hottest Democrat. That's what electability is about, and I wouldn't be surprised to learn (if anyone would bother to ask the question) that Biden is actually the most "electable" Dem.
Michael Stevens wrote on December 21, 2007 4:03 PM:jeffwrote:
1) Obama is ahead in a poll. Well, Edwards is ahead in every other mathup poll. One abberation is not a big deal2) The black guy with a Muslim name who has never won a tough electon is more electable than the southern guy who won a previously republican senate seat. Likely.
3) I find Zogby suspect. The guy is constantly shilling for Obama and his polls always seem to skew in his favor. Hard to trust
Well put.
Edwards has been ahead in nearly ever match-up poll to date. Yet for some reason, these previous polls have gotten almost no attention from the news media, or even from progressive sites like TPM.
It's also true that a number of these hypothetical match-up polls haven't even included Edwards as a choice. When Edwards has been included, it is a very rare poll that doesn't show him leading Hillary and Obama, usually by wide margins.
pkoso wrote on December 21, 2007 4:07 PM:if obama gets the nod...edwards and clinton both will be far down on his list of potential VP mates. he'll need someone like biden who represents legitimate experience in foreign policy, etc.
Orwell's Intuition wrote on December 21, 2007 4:10 PM:I see a lot of luuuuv for Obama on the Internet, just as there was so much luuuuuv for Reagan way back when. That's right, we've got another "don't it make you feel good to listen to him" politician. All light and no heat.
I support Christopher Dodd, and I'll take Edwards second. I personally also think a lot of Repubs would have no problem voting for Chris Dodd, simply because he's a nonthreatening entity to them, or perhaps a lot of Repubs might shrug off voting altogether because the GOP has nothing to build anti-Dodd rhetoric into a frenzied outrage like they do with Clinton. And Dodd is the only one who sacrificed campaign time to fight for our rights. He announced exactly what he would do, and then he actually did it, while the others just kind of wishy-washed their way around the filibuster.
Tara wrote on December 21, 2007 4:12 PM:Its about the STATES people. The ELECTORIAL college. These National match ups between parties mean nothing because we do not vote that way. For example, in Virginia Hillary is beating the repuke by a higher percentage. In Illinois its Barack beating the repuke of choice. etc etc. Hillary has a wider margin over barack in most of the swing states. Thats what matters. That is where you look for electability.
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 21, 2007 4:17 PM:Hillary has a wider margin over barack in most of the swing states.
Not really. Their essentially tied in the swing states. When you combine their statistical dead heat with the simple unknowability of how those polls will develop over time, it is silly to assert that either candidate has grounds to claim an advantage over the other in this respect.
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 21, 2007 4:20 PM:Er, "they're essentially tied...", not "their essentially tied." Sorry about that.
skibumlee wrote on December 21, 2007 4:23 PM:That is just friggin amazing that Edwards is now allowed to be Included in a poll.
WTF is going on - Edwards has been systematically kept from Polls where he is the Winner in Head to Head matchups with the Republicans.
It is Obvious "they are scared shitless of running against Edwards" resorting to Interviewing the BubbleMeister Greenspan to discredit Edwards, Greenspan was the ONE that screwed up the financial systems!!!!!
Tara wrote:
...These National match ups between parties mean nothing because we do not vote that way. ...
Wrong. National match-up polls do matter. A lot! In fact, these polls could be the single most important factor in determining the eventual nominee.
The reason is simple. The #1 factor most Democrats are looking for in a candidate is... Electability These match-up polls are really the only way the electorate has to judge electability.
Unlike Republicans, the majority of Democrats say they are happy with all three top candidates. So electability becomes an even more important factor for us.
Because most Democrats "Just Want To Win". I believe these sort of polls will strongly influence voters in determining the eventual Democratic nominee.
Michael A wrote on December 21, 2007 4:24 PM:Good point Gregg. Also, there has been no real campaigning in those states either. The only states that have been seeing campaigning has obama neck and neck with clinton II. In those states, the important point is that before the campaigning clinton II was way ahead and obama was far behind. After campaigning they are neck and neck. The same could be said will happen in the swing states.
Also, more informative polls will be after the results come in in the first primaries. Now, the vast majority of these state polls are meaningless and the nationwide poll is as good as going to a fortune teller to make a prediction.
nogo war wrote on December 21, 2007 4:32 PM:Pick a poll,
any poll.
Put it back in the deck.
Now shuffle the deck.
pkoso...you can't woof until it's a done deal.
shhhh grown folks are talkin.
Zogby is bogus.
Kefa wrote on December 21, 2007 4:45 PM:M Miller
I have heard the same thing with Bayh and also Warner from Va. both would be excellent. I just have a hunch if HRC gets the nod it might be BHO but you maybe right with the R's useing the negs they have on him it might be dicey but his supporters might not lose gracefully.
One another note Edwards won't have the cash to run the long race btw using matching funds.
Greg,
Ohio (20-R): "I think 2008 is very likely to be a hotly contested race in Ohio," stated Eric Rademacher, director of the University of Cincinnati's Ohio Poll, for the Cincinnati Enquirer. [8] Its 20 electoral votes were critical to President Bush's reelection in 2004. In 2006, however, Ohio voters elected Democrats Ted Strickland and Sherrod Brown for Governor and U.S. Senator. The industrial urban areas of Cleveland, Dayton, Akron, and Youngstown tend to lean to the Democrats while the rural areas and the suburbs and exurbs (in particular around the ever growing Greater Cincinnati and Columbus areas) lean more to the Republicans.
Ohio:
Clinton (D) 49%, Giuliani (R) 40%
Clinton (D) 51%, Romney (R) 40%
Clinton (D) 51%, Huckabee (R) 39%
Clinton (D) 45%, McCain (R) 45%
Giuliani (R) 46%, Obama (D) 40%
Obama (D) 43%, Romney (R) 42%
Obama (D) 43%, Huckabee (R) 42%
McCain (R) 47%, Obama (D) 38
I could show you many more but I have a life.
Also if you are now arguing that National Polls do count then don't try to say that Hillarys 29 point lead in the national from yesterday means nothing/ That is the argument we here all the time. You can't have it both ways.
Anonymous wrote on December 21, 2007 4:53 PM:"Bluepuppy is just in love with clinton II. She/he takes offense to anyone that questions his true love. It's kind of scary, but she/he was posting about how "hot" clinton II supposedly is. Yikes."
I don't think Hillary is hot, I think she's attractive. I think Obama is too. It's not just physical appearances. It's the magic that great politicians have. They're not like you and I. Hell, even Winston Churchill had it. Kucinich does not have it.....I take offense at mindless Hillary-haters (basically they're tofu eating republicans--so far to the left they're righties. Groupthink, name-calling, politically correct, America-hating, Noam Chomasky-reading mother f*ckers).
David wrote on December 21, 2007 4:54 PM:Doesn't the GOP blame the poll methodology when they don't like their approval numbers as well?
Bottom line: her negatives will prevent her from EVER winning anything other than the Senate in NY.
Tara wrote on December 21, 2007 4:55 PM:"Also if you are now arguing that National Polls do count then don't try to say that Hillarys 29 point lead in the national from yesterday means nothing/ That is the argument we here all the time. You can't have it both ways."
HEAR....yes I know the difference. Just in a hurry with Christmas and all.
Merry Christmas to some of you and happy Holidays to the rest!
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 21, 2007 4:59 PM:I could show you many more but I have a life.
It really does not matter that you could but choose not to; I already posted them for you (see the link in my reply to you). If you look at all the swing state polls (not just OH) you will see that there really is no advantage for one or the other on balance. Your argument is only valid if you confine yourself to just OH.
Also if you are now arguing that National Polls do count then don't try to say that Hillary's 29 point lead in the national from yesterday means nothing. That is the argument we hear all the time. You can't have it both ways.
I think that you are confusing me with Michael Stevens. As it happens, I agree with you that national polls do not count for much.
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 21, 2007 5:00 PM:Hey, Merry Christmas to you too, Tara. :-)
Carl Nyberg wrote on December 21, 2007 5:09 PM:The polling that Edwards does best in swing states makes some sense to me.
However, anecdotally there are 20 something Republicans that seem to like Obama.
However, I wonder if a negative advertising campaign can bring these people back into the GOP fold.
I suspect the swing voters that prefer Edwards are more reliably in the D camp if Edwards is the nominee. But it Obama can keep the professional 20 something Republicans in the Dem camp, it would be a crippling blow to the GOP.
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 21, 2007 5:15 PM:However, anecdotally there are 20 something Republicans that seem to like Obama.
Brother, if we are bringing anecdotal evidence to the table, then Obama's cross-over appeal among Republicans extends well beyond just the 20-somethings. I am 31 and grew up in a well-to-do suburb of St Louis, so I have plenty of 30-something white Republican friends who have asked me for Obama bumperstickers. I found that impressive at first, but next thing I knew I had the parents of these friends (that is to say, 50- and 60-something Republicans) asking me for stickers - and in MO, a swing-state, at that.
kozmik wrote on December 21, 2007 5:16 PM:It looks like Huckabee has the advanatge with a Southern + Evangelical strategy, and Gulianni works the North East and moderates against Hillary.
Which shows that Hillary is fundamentally not that strong a candidate.
Having said that, I think realistically the Huckabee and Gulianni baggage would damage their campaigns once it's more widely known. Having said that, Hillary also has baggage. So it's tough to say.
Michael Stevens wrote on December 21, 2007 5:16 PM:@ Greg
I actually agree that national polls aren't good predictors of what they are designed to predict; the eventual outcomes in the general election.
But like it or not, these polls are the only way voters have to gauge whether a candidate is electable or not. It is for that reason, and only that reason, that I think these national match-up polls mean something. And because of the current Democratic landscape, these polls mean a lot.
As I've posted above, most Democrats rate Electability as their #1 desired trait in a candidate. Match-up polls are the only way for voters to judge who is electable. Combine that with the fact that most Democrats are happy with all three top candidates and it gives these polls even more influence.
To suggest these polls won't influence the nomination process is to put one's head in the sand.
Elizabeth wrote on December 21, 2007 5:31 PM:Michael Stevens wrote:
>> Unlike Republicans, the majority of Democrats say they are happy with all three top candidates. So electability becomes an even more important factor for us.
Afraid that is becoming less and less true. ---- I'm a Biden supporter and would readily, proudly work for Obama, Edwards, Dodd, Richardson.... BUT ... if HRC is the nominee, I'm outta here!! It would either be no vote for President or, for the first time in my (long) life, a vote for the GOP candidate!!!
I'm quite sure I'm not alone in feeling this way, especially after the last few weeks. Seriously, if that's how she responds to challenges, we might as well keep W!
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 21, 2007 5:36 PM:But like it or not, these polls are the only way voters have to gauge whether a candidate is electable or not.
How do you figure that? I already linked to a set of state (not national) head-to-head matchup polls, and there are plenty more beyond the ones that I linked. In other words, nationwide polls are not the only means that voters have to guage whether or not a candidate is electable; they have the far more worthwhile state-by-state data. All that Tara and I are saying is that these data are more worthwhile than nationwide data because we elect our presidents state by state, not in a nationwide vote.
kozmik wrote on December 21, 2007 5:38 PM:Carl Nyberg -
Polls of Edwards supporters show they favor Obama over Clinton. I also think it's pretty unlikely, as in totally unlikely, Edwards supporters will go for Huckabee or Romney, as they're polar opposites. Gulianni is already toast, and I can't really imagine Edwards voters supporting him either.
kozmik wrote on December 21, 2007 5:46 PM:Michael Stevens-
Polls have to be interpreted with some knowledge of circumstance. For example, both Hillary and Gulianni were always the leaders, which causes some of the less politically informed people to presume they were inevitable. I think political junkies always suspected they'd crash once they had competition.
Since much of their support was based on "inevitability" it's rather soft, and it's also a safe bet that that as they start losing primaries and as people become aware of their continually sliding numbers, they'll go into free fall.
At this point my guess is that it's Obama vs Romney.
One caveat, if Hillary drops out after a bitter fight, which I think is likely, Obama will likely be the front runner at that point. If Edwards is still in, the question becomes where she trows her support. And if she threw it to Edwards, it could split the Dem vote, and it would be hard to say who comes out on top, though again I'd suspect Obama, as Hillary's endorsement would be sour grapes. But, all that's a long shot, becasue Edwards will probably drop out first, unless he's hoping for that.
Anyways, that's a lot of "IFs" and Obama is still more likely.
dajafi wrote on December 21, 2007 5:50 PM:The thinking for a long time was that, among the Democrats, Clinton had the lowest "ceiling" (as in, the largest percentage of voters absolutely would not support her) but also the highest "floor" (the most guaranteed supporters).
I think the first remains true, but not the second. My subjective perception is that there seem to be at least a few Democrats (I'm one of them, which I admit renders me an imperfect analyst here) who would very happily support most of our field but not Clinton. Neither Obama nor Edwards seems to trigger the same level of disdain from grassroots/netroots Democrats--and I think the large majority of the party would support any of them.
That said, a more methodologically sound investigation of this question would be helpful. We've got it for Republicans (who clearly seem more open to Obama, as swing voters are for both him and Edwards).
I guess another component of electability is "how likely is s/he to screw up on the campaign trail"--this was what might have done in Howard Dean. There, too, the script has flipped from six months ago; the Edwards and Obama camps look really solid, while Team Restoration has been ugly, ineffective, or both over the last two months.
kozmik wrote on December 21, 2007 5:51 PM:Another caveat:
If Huckabee manages to win the nomination, he'll have strong support from the rt wing. But, he's going to lose miserably in the GE as his actual views and dirty laundry come out.
He'll be the type of candidate about 20% of the country supports passionately, and 60% hates passionately.
Meaning, he'd be a huge disaster for the Republican party. Which is why Northern Republicans are crapping their pants in fear of the wingnut monster they've created.
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 21, 2007 5:53 PM:... if Hillary drops out after a bitter fight, which I think is likely...
Really? From your lips to God's ears. That said, while I do not pretend to any sort of great wisdom in this respect, I confess that I cannot imagine any scenario in which Sen Clinton drops out at any point. I expect her to fight for every last vote right up until the last primary is held in Puerto Rico on June 7. She is, after all, still very much the front runner.
Michael Stevens wrote on December 21, 2007 5:54 PM:@ Greg
I actually wasn't differentiating between National and State match-up polls. I was referring to "hypothetical match-up" polls in general.
I agree that the State match-up polls are somewhat more influential. But we also have to consider that these National polls will receive far more attention by the national media.
We cannot forget that many voters rely almost exclusively on national news sources. For them, these national polls may be their only gauge of electability.
kjoe wrote on December 21, 2007 6:04 PM:The only poll worth paying attention to is from 1992:
At one point in June, Perot led the polls with 39% (versus 31% for Bush and 25% for Clinton).
Pay very close attention to this poll as you consider the others.
kozmik wrote on December 21, 2007 6:14 PM:Very different story with Perot. That's a lousy example. Perot is Ron Paul.
audit the polls wrote on December 21, 2007 6:15 PM:Kucinich 75% Huckabee 12%
Kucinich 82% Giulliani 3%
Kucinich 65% Paul 23%
Dodd 57% Romney 14%
Dodd 63% Giullianni 23%
Richarson51% Paul 41%
I've got my own poll working. Let's all make up some numbers.
Michael Stevens wrote on December 21, 2007 6:18 PM:@ Kjoe
That's a VERY Bad example. The polling wasn't to blame, not at all.
Perot's numers only dropped after he went all "black helicopter", then dropped out of the race, only to get back in less than a month before the vote.
Even after all that craziness, he still got 19%.
I don't think any of the current candidates are crazy enough to claim assassins are after them, then drop out of the race only to re-enter.
Well, maybe Tancrazy, but he's gone.
pkoso wrote on December 21, 2007 6:22 PM:kefa...i don't understand. what does "you can't woof until it's a done deal" mean? either american idiom has escaped you...or...or...i don't have any clue.
anyway, if you really think obama would be a likely VP candidate for clinton, please tell me why. try adding a dash of substance to your posts. as in: obama, with his unfortunate lack of experience in foreign policy/national security, would make a wonderful VP for someone carrying around similar disqualifications (not to mention all of her other baggage) because he's so... (here's where you finish the sentence i've started for you.)
pkoso wrote on December 21, 2007 6:25 PM:...and by the by/not that it matters, i'm an obama supporter. i'm just too damned optimistic for my own good.
CornBred wrote on December 21, 2007 6:28 PM:hey "audit the polls" at 6:15pm -- huge props to you! I'm an Obama fan, but have great respect for Kuchinich, Dodd and Bill. It's fun to see their names up in lights like that. Very cool!
No matter what happens in the Democratic race, we gotta be proud that we have such a stellar line-up of candidates this year. Especially compared to what the GOP put up this year. Hell, I even like Gravel! How about this one:
Gravel 82%
Satan 7%
George W. Bush 4%
Hey kjoe - the poll numbers you cited are meaningless because Perot dropped out of the race and went nutty (blamed George Bush Sr for trying to mess up his daughter's wedding) - he then got back into the race a few months later after Clinton was into the lead. Everybody thought Perot was NUTS at that point, but he still got almost 20 percent of the vote. I still believe he would've won that race he he not went dropped out.
Anonymous wrote on December 21, 2007 7:18 PM:Another Anonymous said: "If anyone needed a reason not to vote for HRC, this is it: President Huckabee."
There is nothing in the WORLD scarier than Mrs. Bill Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton, President of the United States. It's bad for the nation and bad for democracy. We don't need another dishonest, warmongering, incompetent president elected because of family ties and corporate dollars. ANYBODY BUT HILLARY, please.
I will concede the specific poll I chose is a bad example---but the general point is still illustrated. We do not know, at this point, what Bloomberg will do. We do not know how many blunders various candidates will commit. We do not know whether someone in the middle east will pull something timed to affect the elections.We do not know what issues will dominate the race.
On a day which is very good for my preferred candidate I still think there is not a lot of meaning in them at this point---except when some candidates are allowed to benefit when others just as deserving are omitted.
The polls about negative and positive attitudes about candidates---I think are somewhat revealing and valid.
Andrew L. in Des Moines wrote on December 21, 2007 7:26 PM:John Edwards as a great trial lawyer and is going to make a great AG in an Obama Cabinet.
Here's a thought though, what about an Obama/Edwards ticket?
CornBred - I agree with you -- it's great that we have such good candidates but it makes the selection process so difficult. I think that's why HRC polls so well in the later states than in the early states -- respondents just go with the name and aren't really engaged yet. Once folks really get to know Barack Obama, they see that he is an absolutely outstanding candidate, the likes of which we have not seen since JFK.
Brilliant, charismatic, inspiring speaker -- I think maybe Bill's a little jealous. Incidentally, I think HRC is very well-qualified for Sec'y of Education, Biden - Sec'y of Defense, Richardson - Sec'y of State, Dodd - Sec'y of HUD, Kucinich - Sec'y of the new Dept of Peace. Gravel -- creative thinker on how to promote democracy worldwide? Obama '08
@ CornBred
"Gravel 82%
Satan 7%
George W. Bush 4%"
Satan = Dick Cheney
David wrote on December 21, 2007 8:19 PM:Doesn't this say enough:
Gordon Fischer, the former chair of the Iowa Democratic Party who is now backing Obama, says that attitude represents an “evolution.”
“The strong pitch made to me and others not that long ago was that we had to be for Hillary, because Hillary was going to be the inevitable winner,” Fischer told me. “They have come a long way if they now think Iowa is just survivable.”
This has to be the most interesting poll i've seen for Obama fans yet. (Warning to Hillary fans: You may wanna look away if you don't want to spoil your Christmas.)
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=cbb37b64-f1d0-4b86-9995-a50378ed3919
Quick notes:
1. Who's know about their methodology. I'm no pollster, but i know these things can vary wildly. But even with a normal margin of error of 3-5%, this is still quote a statement.
2. If it's relatively accurate, it's a helluva statement that once voters really get to know the candidates on both the Democratic and Republican side, Obama is by far the choice to win the presidency.
3. Even in lily-white Iowa, an african-american candidate just incinerates all 4 potential Republican challengers by an average of 52% to 38%, while Hillary beats 3 out 4 by an average of only 46 to 44.5%.
Personally, this is what my gut has been telling me all along, that Obama appeals big time to Independent and Republican voters IN ADDITION to Democrats, especially after 7 years of an AWFUL (in an epic sense of the word) Republican administration. Whereas what Independents and Republicans would ever vote for HRC?
A.W. wrote on December 21, 2007 10:16 PM:don't think the republican machine is any more formidable than the Clinton machine, and Obama is certainly holding his own against the Clintons.
Don't count on it. Team Clinton is using kid gloves to keep from offending their black supporters. they can'tmake overt or even dog-whistle racist appeals. The Republicans are holding back now, but when the general election comes around, they will not be so constrained. All of his non-confrontational rhetoric will not stop them from turning him into Willie Horton, Al Sharpton, Michael Jackson and all other real and imagined black bogeymen rolled into one.
And don't discount the Bradley effect. It hasn't been a factor in Obama's previous races because his opponents, and in all but his Senate race, many of his constituents, were black. Racism is real and persistent. You don't have to be in the KKK to have some level of discomfort with the idea of a black person in the highest office in the land. The fact that he is also young and apparently naive can provide cover for a half-heartedly racist perception that he's not qualified for the job.
Am I saying that we should pick another nominee because people are racist? If the idea is to win, the answer has to be yes.
Michael Stevens wrote on December 21, 2007 10:33 PM:kansascitydem
3. Even in lily-white Iowa, an african-american candidate just incinerates all 4 potential Republican challengers by an average of 52% to 38%, while Hillary beats 3 out 4 by an average of only 46 to 44.5%.
I think Iowa is a very poor litmus test for determining the national electability of a black candidate.
It's not at first obvious, but my feeling is that a black candidate has a much better chance in lily white state like Iowa than many states with large black populations.
If you've never been to Iowa, it's almost shocking how white it is. It is SO white that many (perhaps most) Iowans don't personally know a single black person. Counter-intuitively, this is actually a positive for Obama as these voters don't evaluate him with any preconceived notions.
I have friends who emigrated from countries that were almost entirely white. They simply had no experience with any other race so they didn't arrive here with any prejudices. I put many Iowans in exactly this same category.
The real test for Obama will be the swing states. States like Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. The swing states are where I worry about Obama's electability.
All things being equal, Obama would be my first choice as a nominee. All things aren't equal. And I seriously question whether he could carry enough states to reach 270 electoral votes.
Kefa wrote on December 21, 2007 10:43 PM:pkoso....It's late...to make a long story short.....you can't discount my opinion (clinton/oboma) until IMHO she picks her running mate. If I am wrong, then you can say, see Kefa was wrong. You IMHO had the cart before the horse. Goodnight. Sleep to fight another day.
Kefa wrote on December 21, 2007 10:45 PM:A.W. by jove I think someone else is getting it.
A.W. wrote on December 21, 2007 10:47 PM:It's not at first obvious, but my feeling is that a black candidate has a much better chance in lily white state like Iowa than many states with large black populations.
Totally agree. It's the flip side of the truism that familiarity breeds contempt. Obama is a non-threatening exotic. A "magical negro", so to speak. It's the same phenomenon that allows WASP's in Connecticut to believe that Joe Lieberman is a principled, earnest, gnome-like creature who wears a funny little hat and has curious ways, but could never be deceitful or do anything but act out of strong moral conviction. For my money it's almost as bad as any other kind of prejudice.
Keith wrote on December 21, 2007 10:49 PM:Michael Stevens:
Wow. I'm sure you think what you are saying is positive in some strange way, but in essence you are insulting the intelligence of Iowans and Senator Obama. Please spare us any more of your pithy analysis--for your sake and ours.
Keith wrote on December 21, 2007 10:50 PM:I see the fear mongerers are out in force tonight.
A.W. wrote on December 21, 2007 10:56 PM:Sorry Keith, but I speak with some authority when I say that Michael Stevens is dead-on. Why are Obama supporters so tone-deaf about racial issues? Please don't let your admirable desire to eradicate racism lead you down the path toward another Republican victory. Please.
Keith wrote on December 21, 2007 10:57 PM:Team Clinton is using kid gloves to keep from offending their black supporters.
Too late.
http://www.blackstarnews.com/?c=117&a=4012
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_real_race_card
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/
Keith wrote on December 21, 2007 10:57 PM:
Too late.
Child's play. Just you wait.
Actually, having lived in Iowa for 18 months back during the 2004 election, I can saw without a doubt, he (and you) are wrong.
You, I assume are a HRC supporter. Back your candidate, but stop with the fear mongering--that's why Democrats keep losing elections, because they vote out of fear and not out of conviction.
Keith wrote on December 21, 2007 11:11 PM:AW:
I could give two-shits what a racist does. If I start altering my actions to adjust for others ignorance, I'd never leave home.
Seriously, your fear mongering isn't going to work here, so I suggest you not waste your efforts.
Michael Stevens wrote on December 21, 2007 11:15 PM:@ Keith
I welcome a debate, but you've offered no specific criticism of any of my points. You seem to suggest that I've offended your sensibilities. I can only suggest that you remove the rose colored glasses.
Elections aren't nice, nor are they politically correct. I assure you that each of the candidacies has in depth discussion which are far more indelicate than anything seen here. Those who are offended by the truth don't win Presidential elections.
Obama certainly knows his race will raise problems for him. His people probably have more data on this than anyone. All the candidacies have certainly done in-depth analysis on the topic and discussed this matter of factly.
If you don't these discussions, there are countless places to share your opinion with those who aren't uncouth enough to shine truth in your eyes.
don wrote on December 21, 2007 11:16 PM:Obama's strength is in part due to the weaknesses of most of the Repubs. Giuliani won't play well with the Evangelicals - with the dirt piling up they'll stay home. Huckabee knocks out most of the moderates and independents. Romney doesn't play well with any of the Dems in my opinion and will go the way of Giuliani and self-desruct. The one that I think could be the strongest Repub would be McCain. But then it'll be both generational and McCain's definition as being a NeoCon. Moderates/Independents are not Neocon supporters. As for the Evangelicals (once again), while they'd flock to beat Hilary, I don't think even their religious fervor would push them to vote against a black man unless they had their candidate, ie, Huckabee. They'll stay home instead.
And the Repubs will have a lot more difficulty playing the smear game against Obama than against Hilary and/or Edwards. Oh, they'll try, but they will need to far more attentive to backlash. I mean, when you've got Bush the Frat Boy Coke Snorker and Inexperienced Weak Governor on their sheet, they haven't much to exploit in those areas.
Finally, think of the international headlines the day after an Obama win. A black man elected President. That will give him an enormous upswing in representing a new day and new image for the US abroad. Yeah, I know Hilary's a woman...but it's America's history with its blacks that is well known throughout the world.
A.W. wrote on December 21, 2007 11:26 PM:You, I assume are a HRC supporter.
Wrong again, King Friday.
t stop with the fear mongering--that's why Democrats keep losing elections, because they vote out of fear and not out of conviction.
Dems lost (or more accurately didn't wing by a theft-proof margin) in 2004 because they nominated a candidate based on what mainstream and right-wing media tell them. Remember how formidable Kerry was during the primary? Compared to that "loser" Howard Dean? David Brooks, George Will and Karl Rove, to name a few
say that we're best off with Obama this time around. Wake up and smell the reverse psychology. Unless of course you are a right winger . . .
Michael Stevens:
What's to analyze? You've offered your opinion about people you don't know. Now you suggest I try to analyze YOUR feelings? No thanks.
I'm not going to go on a limb and say what another person will or will not do without actually knowing the individual well enough. And even then, I recognize that I have to hedge. You apparently don't feel such a constraint.
The one fact I will challenge (and which is why I responded in the first place) is the notion that most Iowans have never met an African-American. That's not only false, it's demonstrably false. The Des Moines metropolitan area, may not be Los Angeles in terms of minorities, but I'd be SHOCKED if a majority of the inhabitants had never met an African-American. Same with Cedar Rapids, Council Bluffs, Iowa City and Ames. Having lived in Iowa (West Des Moines, spent time in Ames, Iowa City, Cedar Rapids, Council Bluffs), I can verify that you are, in fact, incorrect.
Keith wrote on December 21, 2007 11:29 PM:AW:
The problem with even consider reverse psychology, is you've lost control of your own decision. Make your decision based on what you believe is best for you. If that's fear of others, so be it. But don't spread it to others.
Seriously, go climb back under your bed. It'll all be over in a month.
Michael Stevens wrote on December 21, 2007 11:43 PM:A.W. wrote:
David Brooks, George Will and Karl Rove, to name a few say that we're best off with Obama this time around.
You're absolutely right.
This is why the Republican's dare not attack Obama... yet. As you've pointed out, they actually want to run against him. Of the top three, he is their candidate of choice. In fact, they want to run against him far more than they want to run against Hillary. The Republicans worry that demonizing Hillary won't be enough to beat her.
They are also rightfully intimidated by the Hillary machine. Further, they think a lot of previously non-voting women may go to the polls just to support Hillary. If their candidate screws up and loses by a large margin, the coat-tails of those new voters could do tremendous damage to all levels of the GOP. The GOP is not nearly so scared of Obama's machine. Because they strongly believe that Barack Hussein Obama is unelectable.
These GOP puppet masters are equally aware that vast segments of the American populace are ready to take out vengeance on the GOP. They think their best weapon against that vengeance is a Democratic nominee named Obama, but if not him, they'll accept Hillary.
By far the candidate they least want to run against is John Edwards. They know John Edwards is likely to win in a blowout. So if Edwards wins Iowa, watch for the Republican attack machine to immediately go after him. They'll do all they can to make sure he doesn't do well in New Hampshire. It will make their attacks on Hillary look tame by comparison.
Michael Stevens wrote on December 22, 2007 12:00 AM:Keith,
Here in Virginia 1 out of 5 residents are black (over 20%). Yet I know a huge number of white people without a single black friend. The only black people they've ever known are those they've worked with. Many of them are very liberal Democrats, but because they grew up in white areas and went to white schools, all their friends are white.
Legal segregation ended in the '50s, economic segregation did not.
As for Iowa, it's just 2% black. I can only report what I've seen with my own eyes. I said many Iowan's have never "known" a black person. There's a big difference in seeing, meeting, and "knowing".
Given Iowa's tiny (2%) black population, I stand by my assertion.
Keith wrote on December 22, 2007 12:01 AM:Michael, I think there's room under AW's bed for you as well.
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 22, 2007 12:15 AM:These GOP puppet masters are equally aware that vast segments of the American populace are ready to take out vengeance on the GOP. They think their best weapon against that vengeance is a Democratic nominee named Obama, but if not him, they'll accept Hillary.
Those devious GOP puppet masters! Well, thank goodness that A.W. and Michael Stevens have opened my eyes. Now that I know that those sneaky, sneaky republicans want me to vote for Obama and/or Clinton, I will be sure to thwart them by voting for Edwards!
But wait, what if they are even more sneaky and devious than I expected? What if this is just a trap, meant to lure me into voting for Edwards. Yeah, now that my eyes have been opened into seeing that a candidate's demonstrable popularity is sure evidence of his value as a secret, devious republican puppet, I can also see through this devious trick by A.W. and Michael Stevens (who are clearly secret, devious GOP infiltrators). Thank goodness I was not fooled. No sir, I will be voting for Kucinich.
But wait...
Anonymous wrote on December 22, 2007 12:20 AM:Michael:
Wow. Maybe you and your friends should get out more. I heard this rumor that African-Americans, like Whites, are individuals and not some monolithic race which shares one identity and mind. Hard to believe, but I have seen it with my own two eyes.
Ignorance is an ugly thing.
Keith wrote on December 22, 2007 12:24 AM:Thanks Greg. My wife and I just had a great laugh over your post.
Michael Stevens wrote on December 22, 2007 12:34 AM:@ Greg
That got a smile out of me too.
Wheels within wheels, inside even tinier wheels...
Funny stuff aside, candidly ask any Republican who they'd least
Maybe they're wrong, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe enough Americans are far more racially tolerant than I believe them to be. I guess we'll find out shortly.
But if Edwards wins Iowa and the Republican attack machine immediately releases the hounds against him, the GOP will have shown their hand. We'll know Edwards is the candidate they're really, truly, frightened of.
Republicans will attack whoever the Democratic nominee is, yes even Edwards. It's not because they fear him the most. It's because that's all they have. They can't argue policies because they have none. They only have fear.
Michael Stevens wrote on December 22, 2007 12:50 AM:@ Kieth
I don't think so. My prediction is that the Republican's won't release the hounds against Obama if he wins Iowa. I believe there will be no obvious change in Republican tactics/attacks aginst him.
If however Edwards wins Iowa, I think the big guns will immediately and very obviously be brought to bear on Mr. E
We'll know in 12 days.
Chris Corbell wrote on December 22, 2007 1:20 AM:I wonder why Zogby tends to systematically favor Obama more than other polls? Maybe they're doing something demographically different - cell phones, blogosphere, ...?
At any rate, other polls show Obama much weaker in swing states where it counts with the electoral college. And he has closer margins in some states that should be shoe-ins for a Democrat.
See for example the recent SUSA polls at
http://www.surveyusa.com/electionpolls.aspx,
and this summary:
http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2007/12/susa-comes-out-with-7-general-election.html
Hillary has a better margin over the Republican field in many swing states; she has a shot in Virginia and Kentucky (Obama has a struggle in the former and no chance in the latter). And in some strong blue states like Massachusetts, Obama's in a statistical tie with McCain while Hillary has a 10-point lead over him.
I think Republicans will be very happy to have Barack Obama get the nod.
as for zogby, he lost all credibility with me when he said on j.stewart in the week before the '04 election that kerrey was going to win. he said it with such certainty and well, mr. zogby, you were wrong.
No, actually, he wasn't. He was simply assuming the election would be run fairly and the votes would be counted fairly.
onceler wrote on December 22, 2007 1:50 AM:I generally support Obama, but Zogby is not to be trusted anymore. I do think he is absolutely electable.
Jor wrote on December 22, 2007 2:21 AM:Edwards and Obama supporters need to remeber the common goal, and unite in their opposition to a HRC Candidacy. Personally I prefer Obama -- but I would much, much rather have Edwards the HRC.
Anyone But Hillary.
steveLA wrote on December 22, 2007 2:31 AM:Regarding Obama and the potential black vote...
http://www.suntimes.com/news/miller/269423,CST-EDT-MILL23.article
Money quote:
"Ten months before the March 2004 U.S. Senate primary...Obama's own polls showed him winning just 34 percent of the black vote. About a month before the primary, African-American voters began ''breaking'' in large numbers to his candidacy. As they began focusing on the campaign, black voters saw he was viable, liked his message and a significant percentage finally realized he was African American. He ended up winning just about all their votes."
Grant wrote on December 22, 2007 6:19 AM:The Washington Blade endorses Hillary Clinton. The endorsement largely bypasses Obama’s gay bashing tour in the south and focuses instead on experience.
framecop wrote on December 22, 2007 7:11 AM:What gets on my nerves is when these polls are not posted with some commentary like:
WHEN HAS ZOGBY RELEASED A POLL RECENTLY THAT DIDN'T SHOW OBAMA DURING THE BEST?
Zogby's polls always overhype Barack Obama's support. It's almost like Zogby has an agenda or something, just like in 2008 when his pathetic SC polls showed Kerry closing to within 4 points of Edwards in SC, and every other poll showed Edwards comfortably ahead, which he was, since he won by 14% in SC.
Zogby's Obama polls are crap.
This is what you call electability:
North Carolina (15 Electoral Votes)Anonymous wrote on December 22, 2007 7:52 AM:Edwards 48 Rudy Giuliani 43
Edwards 50 Mike Huckabee 43
Edwards 52 Mitt Romney 40Giuliani 46 Clinton 39
Huckabee 48 Clinton 42
Romney 46 Clinton 42Giuliani 46 Obama 43
Huckabee 47 Obama 42
Romney 45 Obama 42http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2007/12/general-election-poll-president.html
Hillary Lovers want to nominate Mrs. Bill Clinton for the presidency so the the Mean Clinton Machine can wage another vengful, deeply divisive, distracting and damaging war with its well-financed, equally mean and divisive critics. Bottom line, irrespective of who wins America loses.
There is no doubt that the Republicans will come out full force against the Democratic nominee. But Hillary as the nominee will face particularly empassioned Republican opposition, as well as the opposition of some Democrats and Independents who do not want the Clintons and their baggage back to distract the nation, who are fearful of the continuation of the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton domination of the presidency, and/or who want change.
The Republican nominee may or may not be an acceptable alternative to Mrs. Bill. But if Hillary is nominated, there will be a HUGE openning for a third party candidate. The huge obstacle would be late entry financing, a problem that would not be faced by a Bloomberg campaign.
When you look at Hillary's negatives, the increasing "softness" in commmitment of her supporters, her huge losses of support in primary states as the voting nears despite huge dollar and time investments (IA, NH, SC, NV, and now CA), Hillary is a very very weak bet for those who want a Democratic president. Hillary Lover will soon need to decide if nominating the first woman for president, irrespective of her qualificaitons or electablity, is a sufficient prize.
Personally, if the future of the nation was in the balance, I would relish Mrs. Bill being the first woman to lose a presidential election. A nice PERIOD in the historical record for a dishonest career of a political wife and a nice statement that you can't fool all of WE THE PEOPLE, all of the time.
Anonymous wrote on December 22, 2007 8:00 AM:Grant noted that "The Washington Blade endorses Hillary Clinton." Does this mean other candidates can forget about the lesbian vote?
Racism is just like hatred and I am sick of seeing it. Is there still racism in the us, absolutely and its sad. Will it have an impact on obama being elected, nope. People that espouse racism are the same people that would never vote for a democrat anyway. DTM, who hasn't posted for a while, had an awesome analysis of the tennessee senate election where ford lost by a hair. Racism isn't why he lost, he lost for other reasons, but not racism and in tennessee.
That all being said, obama being elected would send an incredible message to the world. America is back after the nightmare of the king's years. I always thought that the only way america could restore its goodwill around the world would be to have the king and darth vader in the dock in the hague. Obviously, that's a pipe dream. However, obama could instantly make incredible strides the moment he is elected and before he even says a word. The headlines around the world would be incredible. It would be astounding and great for the country and the world.
No more of the same old, same old. We need a drastically new direction and it is looking more and more like obama is the one to lead us in that new direction.
Concerned In Iowa wrote on December 22, 2007 9:36 AM:Interesting press reports (on other sites of course) that Hillary has ordered Iowa operatives to lower expectations. "Iowa is not significant" now that local operatives are reporting Clinton a weak third in informal pricinct cavasses. Predictions here are Edwards slightly ahead of Obama and Hillary fading fast.
random wrote on December 22, 2007 9:40 AM:Michael Stevens said: "Unlike Republicans, the majority of Democrats say they are happy with all three top candidates." Not me or the Democrats I talk to. The mantra I hear increasingly is anybody but Hillary. It's even louder for crticial independent swing vote. Bloomberg is hearing it too, and will enter the race as a third party alternative fast, if Hillary is the Democratic nominee.
Michael A wrote on December 22, 2007 9:42 AM:That's good news concerned. Thanks for the info. It's kind of along the lines of what savvy reported that clinton II had to buy signatures in virginia to get on the ballot. Sounds like clinton II may be going down.
Michael A wrote on December 22, 2007 9:45 AM:Now, that is an interesting observation random and makes complete sense. Bloomberg could wind up winning as a third party candidate if she gets the nomination. That would definitely shake up the system. The anti-clinton II vote is huge and would be enough to take the presidency.
yesterday gone wrote on December 22, 2007 10:09 AM:Concerned In Iowa wrote on December 22, 2007 9:36 AM:
Interesting press reports (on other sites of course) that Hillary has ordered Iowa operatives to lower expectations. "Iowa is not significant" now that local operatives are reporting Clinton a weak third in informal pricinct cavasses.
this has been the theme when bill clinton said it would take a miracle for hillary to win.
from the nation:
The predictions of politicians and reporters usually count for very little in Iowa, which has picked the Democratic nominee in every cycle but one since the caucus began in 1972. (Gephardt is the only Democrat to win the caucus and lose the nomination;
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?pid=260228
Michael A wrote on December 22, 2007 9:28 AM:
People that espouse racism are the same people that would never vote for a democrat anyway. DTM, who hasn't posted for a while, had an awesome analysis of the tennessee senate election where ford lost by a hair. Racism isn't why he lost, he lost for other reasons, but not racism and in tennessee.
i would have liked to have seen that. did DTM argue ford lost because of hypocrisy? harold presented himself as a bible thumping christian but was attending playboy parties. that would killed a white candidate if he did that.
DemAC wrote on December 22, 2007 10:30 AM:Concerned In Iowa wrote: Predictions here are Edwards slightly ahead of Obama and Hillary fading fast.I take it that “here” being in fact your behind. Or at least some place without access to polls and voter contact. Anonymous wrote on December 22, 2007 10:39 AM:
Grant wrote on December 22, 2007 6:19 AM:
The Washington Blade endorses Hillary Clinton. The endorsement largely bypasses Obama’s gay bashing tour in the south and focuses instead on experience.
it was bill clinton who signed DOMA into law banning gay marriage. something hillary had supported and now only wants a partial repeal. hillary was also slow to refute general pace's statement that "homosexuality is immoral."
Maybe enough Americans are far more racially tolerant than I believe them to be.
Well, for my part, I am inclined to believe you when you say that VA will not vote for Obama. You live there; I do not, so I figure that you know more than I do. When you try to extrapolate from that experience in VA to how whites in other swing states (like CO and MO and OH) will vote, however, I find your reasoning rather implausible. I have lived in OH and IA and now I live in MO, and I really do not buy your theory that whites in IA are less racist because familiarity breed contempt.
That said, I certainly agree with you that Edwards would be a strong candidate. I like Edwards a lot and would be delighted to see him take the nomination. I would, of course, prefer Obama but I certainly wish you and your candidate all the best.
Anonymous wrote on December 22, 2007 11:29 AM:DemAC, your insistence on crude, gutter attacks and cheap insults to others whose postings you don't like illustates the problems with Hillary's campaign. Rove-style attack-dog politics and dishonest whispers won't win Mrs. Bill the presidency. Watch her tumble and then take a bow.
Michael Stevens wrote on December 22, 2007 11:56 AM:Greg DeLassus
I would, of course, prefer Obama but I certainly wish you and your candidate all the best.
I'd actually prefer Obama a little more than Edwards, but I prefer Kucinich a lot more than either of them.
Call it realism, call it pragmatism. Kucinich is simply unelectable, and in my estimation, and to a lesser degree so is Obama. I just don't think Barack will be able to take enough swing states to make it over 270.
I've moved towards Edwards because he's good and definitely electable.
A.W. wrote on December 22, 2007 12:01 PM:Greg DeLassus wrote on December 22, 2007 12:15 AM: Now that I know that those sneaky, sneaky republicans want me to vote for Obama and/or Clinton, I will be sure to thwart them by voting for Edwards!
The thing to do is to vote for the best candidate, with the best platform, who has a reasonable chance at winning the general election. As it happens this year, the best candidate, with the best platform, also happens to have the best chance (per history and polling) to actually win. How lucky is that?
A.W. wrote on December 22, 2007 12:05 PM:don wrote on December 21, 2007 11:16 PM:
think of the international headlines the day after an Obama win. A black man elected President. That will give him an enormous upswing in representing a new day and new image for the US abroad.
don, don't you see: it's not by coincidence that the very thing that would make this a red letter day - the intractable problem of racism in America - is the very thing that's going to keep it from happening. In 2008, anyway. Sad but true.
Michael A wrote:
Is there still racism in the us, absolutely and its sad. Will it have an impact on obama being elected, nope. People that espouse racism are the same people that would never vote for a democrat anyway.
Sadly you're wrong.
There are a lot of traditionally Democratic voters who would be very unlikely to vote for a black President.
They won't tell the pollers this (see the Bradley Effect), they won't tell anyone they don't know very very well. They're not overt racists, but they do have a bias. They may even vote in favor of a black delegate, Senator, or Governor, but they won't vote for a black President.
It's sometimes easy to forget how big Democratic party's tent really is.
Desider wrote on December 22, 2007 12:41 PM:Folks, get a grip.
Rove insinuated a good man in Alabama was a pedophile and started a whispering campaign.
One of Hillary's aides hinted that a candidate who admitted snorting cocaine might have snorted cocaine. He also wondered what the next obvious question would be. Gee, very devious and below the belt. I guess it would be equally sinister Rovian to ask Giuliani if he arranged lovers nests or police escorts for other girls besides Judith.
DTM wrote on December 22, 2007 1:20 PM:To give the brief summary of what happened to Ford:
First, he got pretty much exactly the same support as Webb in Virginia. The problem is that Tennessee has a higher portion of conservatives than Virginia, and both Webb and Ford of course lost among conservatives, and that was enough to make the difference.
Second, more broadly 2006 was a change/anti-corruption election. Ford, unfortunately, is part of a well-established political family with several members involved in corruption scandals, and indeed his Uncle John was indicted in an FBI corruption sting right after Ford announced.
So that is basically what happened to Ford, and there is very little evidence that racism played a significant role.
DTM wrote on December 22, 2007 1:29 PM:By the way, here is a good analysis on the applicability, or lack thereof, of the "Bradley Effect" to Obama's poll numbers in light of what happened in 2006:
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/408/can-you-trust-what-polls-say-about-obamas-electoral-prospects
And anecdotally, I always think it is important to consider the University of Iowa primary poll where they let Republicans simply state who they preferred for President, as opposed to making them choose off a list. Obama was named by almost 7%, good for third in their field. It is really impossible to explain that sort of spontaneous support using the Bradley Effect (since no one would notice any racial bias if Republicans simply stuck to naming Republicans).
This of course is the problem with the crude analysis offered by people trying to argue that Obama should be eliminated from contention simply because he is black. Regardless of what negative effect his race may have on some people, it could easily be swamped by whatever positive attributes he has in the eyes of voters, including Republicans and independents.
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 22, 2007 1:39 PM:Regardless of what negative effect his race may have on some people, it could easily be swamped by whatever positive attributes he has in the eyes of voters, including Republicans and independents.
Indeed. It is almost certainly true that any given black candidate has a harder time than any given white candidate, but Barack Obama is not any given candidate. He is an exceptionally smart and winsome candidate, and to say that his talents cannot overcome the liability of his race underestimates the strength of these talents.
Anonymous wrote on December 22, 2007 1:39 PM:life long die hard democrat but ill rep dems for mccain before i vote for hrc in the general.
DM wrote on December 22, 2007 1:43 PM:Those who are arguing electability ad nauseaum 1) have very little evidence for their arguments; and 2) show a weakness of belief in their candidate.
Electability is what you argue when you don't have good arguments for your candidate. It's usually some fuzzy "historical" kind of argument. Electability was the main argument for John Kerry (oops).
Was the Catholic candidate, JFK, judged to be the most electable in 1960? No, but as it turns out, the armchair pundits were wrong and JFK probably performed better in the election than LBJ would have. Was FDR in a wheelchair the most electable in 1932? Probably not, but again, conventional wisdom would have been wrong. I doubt that Lincoln was the most electable in 1860. Most people had never heard of him.
The point is to vote your convictions. If your convictions tell you that a certain candidate is best, that is a better predictor of electability than some kind of abstract reasoning. I know people are going to argue polls here, but polls can only tell you so much. The polls didn't predict Hillary's slide (which is why Mark Penn never saw it coming).
Rather than trying to read the tea leaves of electability, vote your convictions. There are probably a lot of other people who feel like you do, who see what you see in the candidate.
A.W. wrote on December 22, 2007 1:52 PM:DTM wrote on December 22, 2007 1:29 PM:
By the way, here is a good analysis on the applicability, or lack thereof, of the "Bradley Effect" to Obama's poll numbers in light of what happened in 2006
While I can understand your reluctance to deal with the results of most of the head-to-head matchups (most of which are inconsistent with Zogby) I don't see how conclusions about the propspects of a hypothetical "qualified" black candidate bear on Obama's campaign, which was undeclared at the time that article was written.
And anecdotally, I always think it is important to consider the University of Iowa primary poll where they let Republicans simply state who they preferred for President, as opposed to making them choose off a list. . . .
This of course is the problem with the crude analysis offered by people trying to argue that Obama should be eliminated from contention simply because he is black. Regardless of what negative effect his race may have on some people, it could easily be swamped by whatever positive attributes he has in the eyes of voters, including Republicans and independents. Emphasis is A.W.'s
Gee, I always heard that the crudest kind of analyisis is that which is based on anecdotal evidence. I also like the way you first insist that race will have no impact, then declare that whatever the impact of race, it will be "swamped" by other, unnamed and unquantifiale attributes. I'll repeat: Obama is untested by the Bradley effect. You can ignore that if you like, but I prefer to dwell in the reality-based community.
yesterday gone wrote on December 22, 2007 2:02 PM:DTM wrote on December 22, 2007 1:29 PM:
here is a good analysis on the applicability, or lack thereof, of the "Bradley Effect"
excellent, thank you.
A.W. wrote on December 22, 2007 2:08 PM:Greg DeLassus wrote on December 22, 2007 1:39 PM: Indeed. It is almost certainly true that any given black candidate has a harder time than any given white candidate, but Barack Obama is not any given candidate. He is an exceptionally smart and winsome candidate, and to say that his talents cannot overcome the liability of his race underestimates the strength of these talents.
I'm sure you mean well, but just don't get it. The menial jobs, streets and yes, non-violent correctional institutions in America are brimming with exceptionally smart, winsome, beautiful black men whose worthiness escapes the many white people around them simply because it comes wrapped in brown skin. Your enthusiasm for Barack Obama notwithstanding, this is still a very racist country. And if Obama gets the nomination, Republicans will exploit that racism to cheat Democrats out of yet another victory. And there will go the Supreme Court, civil liberties, fair elections, separation of powers, and universal health care, and so much more, for years to come. All because of your naivete and stubborn refusal to hear the truth. I only wish I had had the foresight to say this to a Nader supporter in 2000.
Michael A wrote on December 22, 2007 2:25 PM:Enough with the racism already. Go play at redstate.com.
Michael Stevens, I asked this before on another thread, where in va do you live? I have lived and traveled all over va, from the appalachians to the tidewater, to the dc suburbs. I pretty much know va. I know racists in va and I know non-racists. Based on the way the state is trending and the population make-up, my guess is you are blowing smoke. Again, where do you live?
It really is disgusting. The argument of the clinton II people is now don't vote for obama because of racism. First it was the polls and she's inevitable. Then it was oh, she is so experienced, but she has been fumbling all over the place. Now, its racism. How low can you people go to perpetuate the clinton personality cult? Next, he'll be a martian. Disgusting.
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 22, 2007 2:58 PM:you mean well, but just don't get it... because of your naivete and stubborn refusal to hear the truth. I only wish I had had the foresight to say this to a Nader supporter in 2000.
Well good, I am glad that I was able to afford you a chance to vent your spleen. That said, do you find, in your own experience, that insulting your interlocutor is the best way to convince them of your own point of view? I ask because, in my experience, it is not an especially effective means of persuasion. I can certainly tell you that it had no effect whatever just a moment ago as I read your indictment pitch.
It really is disgusting. The argument of the clinton II people is now don't vote for obama because of racism.
To be very fair, dear Michael A, A.W. is an Edwards supporter, not a Clinton supporter. There is no sense in blaming the Clinton people for that which A.W. writes.
Michael A. wrote on December 22, 2007 3:17 PM:Hi Gregg, I would be willing to bet a lunch that aw is a clinton II supporter. There have been virtually no edwards posters on this site at all, until about a week or so ago and no prior edwards supporters ever threw out the race card in the past. The bulk of the posts have been complaining about lack of coverage of edwards or no polling of edwards.
I hate to sound cynical, but it comes from experience, the clinton II people started dropping the race card a couple of weeks ago for the first time. Prior to that the race card was rarely if ever thrown out there. I'm not going to research it, but colonpowwow, dc, and a few others were throwing it out there, then it stopped dead. It really doesn't fly throwing the race card when you are complaining about "hillary-haters." My guess is the new tact is to throw out the card, but claim it is coming from someone edward's camp.
It's just a hunch, but again based on past track record, I would be willing to throw a lunch out there on it.
A.W. wrote on December 22, 2007 3:59 PM:Greg DeLassus wrote on December 22, 2007 2:58 PM:Well good, I am glad that I was able to afford you a chance to vent your spleen. That said, do you find, in your own experience, that insulting your interlocutor is the best way to convince them of your own point of view? I ask because, in my experience, it is not an especially effective means of persuasion. I can certainly tell you that it had no effect whatever just a moment ago as I read your indictment pitch.
I hear you and Michaeal "enough with the racism already" A loud and clear. You're saying, "LA LA LA LA I'M-NOT-LISTENING-LA LA LA LA LA LA LA". I harbor no illusions about being able to change your minds. But I do hope to expose the thinness of your rationalizations to anyone who is serious about winning, and whose mind is open enough to hear the truth and recognize it as such.
nimh wrote on December 22, 2007 4:11 PM:Michael wrote:
The myth that Edwards is the most electable is just that, a myth. One only need glance at these pollster graphs to see that Obama's aggregate margins vs GOP matchups exceeded those of Edwards and Clinton as far back as 6 months ago.
Yes - that was indeed "as far back as 6 months ago". It does not hold true anymore now. Obama no longer does better than his rivals in the average of recent match-up polls.
Michael A. wrote on December 22, 2007 5:02 PM:Aw, you are ignoring our points on the racism issue. We are not ignoring it, we just don't believe that it is the be all end all and will have that big of an impact. You have your opinion and we have ours. The only point is that I am don't care if a candidate is male or female, white, african-american, brown or purple. The issue is the candidate him or herself and his or her policies. Race is a non-issue, that's a republican party issue and has been since johnson signed the civil rights act in the 1960's. If you are so into a candidate's skin color, I suggest that you join the republican party. America has come a long way from that.
Greg, if you by chance come back, I rest my case. Being a lawyer, you know what an admission by silence is, right?
A.W. wrote on December 22, 2007 5:36 PM:Right. You're not ignoring racism. You're just totally discounting it. Forget the Bradley Effect, employment and housing discrimination, lending bias, hate crimes, Jena fricking Louisiana . . .
With all due respect, what you and Greg know about racism would fit into a dollhouse thimble. You're in for a much-needed education.
wordUP wrote on December 22, 2007 5:38 PM:I nominate "framecop" at 7:11 AM today for TPM's idiot of the week.
The poll he cited and linked to showing John Edwards supposed "electability" was JUST a poll of residents in North Carolina, which is obviously JE's home state. (that state he couldn't help Kerry win in '04.) The numbers cited weren't even that great, at least compared to what Obama's or Hillary's same numbers would be in their respective home states. As a native North Carolinian, let me assure you that people down here don't much care for Edwards, and I'd bet Huckabee would tear him to shreds down here once it got into a general election. In fact, if Huckabee becomes the nominee, I'll find some sucker somewhere and bet them $1,000 that Huck wins NC. Edwards just is not that electable anywhere, and hopefully Democrats realize that before Iowa.
A.W. wrote on December 22, 2007 5:53 PM:wordUP conveniently ignores the fact that Edwards won statewide in NC even before the Bushies fouled the Republican nest; and that JRE was on the ticket that (but for an election fraud conspiracy in Ohio) won nationwide in 2004.
But maybe I'm being overly pessimistic. Maybe Obama can earn the endorsement of Senator Gantt. IIRC, he was the last African American candidate to win statewide in NC. It's never happened before, so the odds are good, right?
I am not particularly interested in this type of conversation with you aw, but I can almost guarantee I know quite a bit about racism and have been exposed to quite a bit. By way of example, some areas of california are incredibly racist and have large populations of people that are racist. For one moment do you actually believe that cali would go for a republican over a dem? Same thing with NY. PA has alot of racism, but I don't think that would impact in an election. You know, I could go on, but it is not right to categorize whole state populations based on the disgusting issue of racism.
I don't think it will have one iota of impact regardless of the dem nominee. If the r