Obama more electable than Clinton

[Starbuck1975]

Obama leads McCain, Hillary tied with McCain

Granted, New Hamsphire demonstrated that polls aren't always accurate or worth debating, but I found these results rather surprising.

I have been watching polling for potential match-ups over the last few months, and Hillary always stood out as polling the strongest against then Guilliani or Romney.

Now throw in the McCain factor, and Hillary is essentially in a dead heat with him...Obama on the other hand enjoys a sizeable lead in that match-up.

Democrats should take note...which is the more electable candidate? Independents will probably favor Obama over McCain, but would also probably favor McCain over Hillary...an interesting and relevant observation.

Also, didn't want to start another thread on this topic, but it looks like we may see a Colin Powell endorsement of Obama:

Powell praises Obama

Am I the only one excited about the prospect of an Obama/Powell ticket, or Obama perhaps bringing Powell back into the political fold.

 

[bamacre]

I take those polls with a grain of salt. Just too early. Those numbers will change once the attack campaigns start up.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: bamacre
I take those polls with a grain of salt. Just too early. Those numbers will change once the attack campaigns start up.

Hillary has ALOT more skeletons than Obama

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: bamacre
I take those polls with a grain of salt. Just too early. Those numbers will change once the attack campaigns start up.

Hillary has ALOT more skeletons than Obama

I was not referring to the Hillary/Obama race for the nomination. It's the presidential race I am referring to.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: bamacre
I take those polls with a grain of salt. Just too early. Those numbers will change once the attack campaigns start up.

Hillary has ALOT more skeletons than Obama

if Hillary had anything in the closet, the republicans would have thrown it at her by now.

we're looking at another 7 months to go before the election really heats up... who knows what's going to happen between now and then.

 

[Pabster]

loki8481, prepare to relive the 1990's in every scandal, every intricate detail. It'll be Days Of Our Lives.

But if that's what they want, put her in.

 

[umbrella39]

TBH I think they both stand a pretty good shot of beating McCain but Obama I agree would be a lock, it would depend on who Hillary chose to be her running mate for her to win. I guess Obama would be out of the question if she gets the nod. She'd have to pick someone who can pick up some of the votes she drops on name alone. But who...

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Pabster
loki8481, prepare to relive the 1990's in every scandal, every intricate detail. It'll be Days Of Our Lives.

I loved Days of Our Lives in the 90's.

kind of a moot point with Obama being the front runner, though. I'm just saying don't get your hopes up like he's some untouchable prince... I think if his camp tries to pull another stunt like they did in SC on McCain, it could blow up in their face.

 

[ProfJohn]

I wouldn?t call anyone a lock.

But Obama would do better because Hillary will cause a conservative backlash that will more than likely propel all the people pissed off at McCain to the polls in order to keep Hillary out of the White House.

Obama doesn?t have that problem.

As Rush has been suggesting. With Obama v. McCain I can sit at home and let Obama win and put into a place a bunch of liberal ideas and policies. And when it all goes to hell Jimmy Carter style the conservatives can ride to the rescue just like Reagan did in 1980.

BTW just look at P&N and you will notice LOTS of people who hate Hillary from both sides of the isle, but very few who hate Obama.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
BTW just look at P&N and you will notice LOTS of people who hate Hillary from both sides of the isle, but very few who hate Obama.

how can you hate Obama when you don't know him? many people are obviously still in the "euphoria" stage of their relationship with him, where all faults are ignored or glossed over. sooner or later the press will get past the man crush, all his negative points will be dragged out.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Pabster
loki8481, prepare to relive the 1990's in every scandal, every intricate detail. It'll be Days Of Our Lives.

I loved Days of Our Lives in the 90's.

kind of a moot point with Obama being the front runner, though. I'm just saying don't get your hopes up like he's some untouchable prince... I think if his camp tries to pull another stunt like they did in SC on McCain, it could blow up in their face.

John is a priest. John isn't a priest. He is. He isn't. He loves Marlena! But Marlena is possessed.

I'm not gay, but I did work in a bank surrounded by women.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Am I the only one excited about the prospect of an Obama/Powell ticket, or Obama perhaps bringing Powell back into the political fold.

Yes you are.

Powell has no place.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I wouldn?t call anyone a lock.

But Obama would do better because Hillary will cause a conservative backlash that will more than likely propel all the people pissed off at McCain to the polls in order to keep Hillary out of the White House.

Obama doesn?t have that problem.

As Rush has been suggesting. With Obama v. McCain I can sit at home and let Obama win and put into a place a bunch of liberal ideas and policies. And when it all goes to hell Jimmy Carter style the conservatives can ride to the rescue just like Reagan did in 1980.

BTW just look at P&N and you will notice LOTS of people who hate Hillary from both sides of the isle, but very few who hate Obama.

I wouldn't read too much into the P&N views. We might disagree on a lot of things, but for the most part we're all fairly "progressive" as our respective ideologies define it. I think people are underestimating the race factor when it comes to the general election. There is a significant portion of the US so backwards that the idea of a black President just makes them go fucking nuts. They aren't the primary voter types, but I bet they'll make a fair amount of noise up till election day.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
...
As Rush has been suggesting. With Obama v. McCain I can sit at home and let Obama win and put into a place a bunch of liberal ideas and policies. And when it all goes to hell Jimmy Carter style the conservatives can ride to the rescue just like Reagan did in 1980.
...

Hey, I'm fine with people "riding to the rescue" even if they are Republicans...but could they NOT do it "just like Reagan did"? Some actual conservatives, for example, wouldn't be a totally unreasonable change of pace.

 

[chowderhead]

go look at the primary results for Missouri or Tennessee (or Arizona or California). I am not talking about caucus states where relatively few people caucused.
Obama won the urban cities areas with the large black populations. Clinton won the more exburb/rural areas. She won 110 of 115 counties in Missouri. Obama won in the 5 counties Democrats always win in Missouri. He needed to show he can expand out into the red areas and he did not. In fact, Clinton won in the red areas in these states while Obama won the very blue areas in these states. These are Democratic voters in red areas voting for Clinton over Obama. Missouri was an open primary so independents could have voted here and if they did, Obama didn't win enough of them to win outside the blue areas that Democrats always win in.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: chowderhead
go look at the primary results for Missouri or Tennessee (or Arizona or California). I am not talking about caucus states where relatively few people caucused.
Obama won the urban cities areas with the large black populations. Clinton won the more exburb/rural areas. She won 110 of 115 counties in Missouri. Obama won in the 5 counties Democrats always win in Missouri. He needed to show he can expand out into the red areas and he did not. In fact, Clinton won in the red areas in these states while Obama won the very blue areas in these states. These are Democratic voters in red areas voting for Clinton over Obama. Missouri was an open primary so independents could have voted here and if they did, Obama didn't win enough of them to win outside the blue areas that Democrats always win in.

So there are two arguments I'm hearing from Clinton supporters..

Obama won only red areas that are unwinnable in November anyway. He cannot possibly be successful in November.

or your version..

Obama won only strongly blue areas and Democrats need to be competitive outside those areas in order to be successful in November.

If we combine all you idiots I suppose we have the perfect candidate in Obama.

 

[chowderhead]

Obama won very red states in a a caucus format or he won primaries where the demographics were strong for him i.e. upscale liberals or states with large black population centers. Clinton won states that had strong demographics for her i.e Hispanics or traditional working class Democrats. Caucuses are dominated by die-hard activists who want to spend 1 hour sitting around at a school. They are not remotely close to representative of the state in a general election. There is little chance Democrats will carry states like the Dakotas, Idaho, Utah or Alaska. Obama doesn't need to win there. All I am saying is in that in a battleground state like Missouri which is often said to be a good approximation of the United States, Obama won but he won by winning the traditional blue areas that Democrats always win. Clinton did better in the more rural/exburb areas that Republicans typically win.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: chowderhead
Obama won very red states in a a caucus format or he won primaries where the demographics were strong for him i.e. upscale liberals or states with large black population centers. Clinton won states that had strong demographics for her i.e Hispanics or traditional working class Democrats. Caucuses are dominated by die-hard activists who want to spend 1 hour sitting around at a school. They are not remotely close to representative of the state in a general election. There is little chance Democrats will carry states like the Dakotas, Idaho, Utah or Alaska. Obama doesn't need to win there. All I am saying is in that in a battleground state like Missouri which is often said to be a good approximation of the United States, Obama won but he won by winning the traditional blue areas that Democrats always win. Clinton did better in the more rural/exburb areas that Republicans typically win.

I have two problems with your argument. First, you apply different standards to Obama and Clinton in regards to voting blocs. You claim Obama only wins in primaries that are strong for him, those with large black populations (and "upscale liberals"). But Clinton won with Hispanics and "working class Democrats." Please tell me the advantage here? Either way?

Second, your standards differ again when you seem to promote Clinton's ability to win in districts that "Republicans typically win" but you want to write off Obama's success in entire states where Republicans typically win. With the governor behind him, with family roots there, with his complete domination over Clinton, is Kansas out of the question? His ability to motivate Democrats in Idaho like nobody ever has, is that state out of the equation? His ability to motivate rural Nevadans, is that state out of the question? Let us not forget that the swing state of Nevada went to Hillary because of Latinos, who will vote for the Democrat there regardless. . . it is the rural vote that counts in that state.

 

[nageov3t]

Please tell me the advantage here?

if the hispanics aren't jiving with Obama and break for McCain, who's moderate on immigration, that could cause some problems. I mean, remember... the name of the game here is strictly FL/Ohio/VA.

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: Farang


I have two problems with your argument. First, you apply different standards to Obama and Clinton in regards to voting blocs. You claim Obama only wins in primaries that are strong for him, those with large black populations (and "upscale liberals"). But Clinton won with Hispanics and "working class Democrats." Please tell me the advantage here? Either way?

Second, your standards differ again when you seem to promote Clinton's ability to win in districts that "Republicans typically win" but you want to write off Obama's success in entire states where Republicans typically win. With the governor behind him, with family roots there, with his complete domination over Clinton, is Kansas out of the question? His ability to motivate Democrats in Idaho like nobody ever has, is that state out of the equation? His ability to motivate rural Nevadans, is that state out of the question? Let us not forget that the swing state of Nevada went to Hillary because of Latinos, who will vote for the Democrat there regardless. . . it is the rural vote that counts in that state.

there is no advantage either way. That is why this race is so close. Clinton/Obama trade off on wins depending on the demographics. It's possible that one can gain a lot of momentum and eat into the other's strengths but I don't think that is too likely.

There is a big difference between a caucus (relatively few people attend) and a primary (mostly party members vote) and as a general election where everyone votes.

Idaho. yeah ok. Even with all the hype about 18,000 people at an Obama rally, the Democrats drew more than 20,000 caucus goers Great right? Nope. The 2004 election had about 500,000 voters in Idaho and Bush beat Kerry by 39%. There is no way a Democrat wins Idaho.

Kansas with its popular governor right? Well, McCain beats Obama by the same margin as he does Clinton. Kansas poll

I will say that the Democrats will have an advantage in Nevada because McCain supports dumping nuclear waste at Yucca mountain. But McCain with his comprehensive immigration reform could eat away at the Latino vote so we need a strong candidate who can keep him from that.

I stand by the assertion that the Democrats won't carry those types of red states no matter who they choose. Winning a caucus in that state may be good but the general election is a whole other story.

 

[M0RPH]

Originally posted by: chowderhead
Obama won very red states in a a caucus format or he won primaries where the demographics were strong for him i.e. upscale liberals or states with large black population centers. Clinton won states that had strong demographics for her i.e Hispanics or traditional working class Democrats. Caucuses are dominated by die-hard activists who want to spend 1 hour sitting around at a school. They are not remotely close to representative of the state in a general election. There is little chance Democrats will carry states like the Dakotas, Idaho, Utah or Alaska. Obama doesn't need to win there. All I am saying is in that in a battleground state like Missouri which is often said to be a good approximation of the United States, Obama won but he won by winning the traditional blue areas that Democrats always win. Clinton did better in the more rural/exburb areas that Republicans typically win.

Some good points here and I want to add to this. People that vote in primaries are not really all that representative of those that vote in a general election. You get a lot of upper scale, politically active people voting in primaries... the kind that would favor Obama (especially with the hype around him lately, you may get Obama fans voting in primaries who normally wouldn't... their Clinton counterparts my not be as excited, but that doesn't mean they won't vote in a general election.)

The general lower-middle class masses typically don't bother with primaries (I don't know anyone who votes in primaries), and these types of people are more likely to vote Clinton. In fact in a general election you will probably get quite a few people who are not all that familiar with either candidate, in which case the name recognition of Hillary Clinton has a big advantage.

To summarize, Obama would not do as well in a general election as he is doing in these primaries. Sorry to break it to you, Obama fanboys.

And Farang, calling Clinton supporters idiots, that's really bad form. Remember, you have to be all smiles and sunshine like your hero Obama. Go drink some more kool-aid.

 

[StageLeft]

And when it all goes to hell Jimmy Carter style the conservatives can ride to the rescue just like Reagan did in 1980.

Goodluck with that. Socialized medcare is pandora's box and it cannot be put back in once unleashed.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: chowderhead All I am saying is in that in a battleground state like Missouri which is often said to be a good approximation of the United States, Obama won but he won by winning the traditional blue areas that Democrats always win. Clinton did better in the more rural/exburb areas that Republicans typically win.

This is just a flat out flawed argument. By the way, even heavily motivating African-American turnout which is traditionally low can end up being decisive. The practical point is its the overall vote of the state which actually determines the outcome in a general election. As has been noted, the reality is there are actual Republicans and Independents who are willing to vote for Obama, but are not willing to consider Hillary since they have already made up their minds against her.

Of course what you're ignoring is that Obama won extremely decisively in the potentially crucial swing state of Colorado, while its sometimes been classified as a red state in the past, its clearly potentially in play this election cycle.

The level of passion for a candidate clearly does matter because it impacts how many people are likely to really volunteer and help campaign for the candidate, and this includes during the general election. The reality is many conservatives dislike McCain and are unlikely to aggressively campaign for him if they are going up against Obama. Hillary might cause them to rally to McCain out of simple opposition to her though.

 

[aidanjm]

Is it really true that Obama volunteers are actually told to avoid discussions about policy with potential voters?

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
...
As Rush has been suggesting. With Obama v. McCain I can sit at home and let Obama win and put into a place a bunch of liberal ideas and policies. And when it all goes to hell Jimmy Carter style the conservatives can ride to the rescue just like Reagan did in 1980.
...

Hey, I'm fine with people "riding to the rescue" even if they are Republicans...but could they NOT do it "just like Reagan did"? Some actual conservatives, for example, wouldn't be a totally unreasonable change of pace.

Dream on...