Two new polls show Obama beating McCain, while Hillary is tied/losing

General election match-ups:

From USA Today-Gallup: Obama 50, McCain 46; McCain 49, Clinton 48.

From AP-Ipsos: Obama 48, McCain 42; Clinton 46, McCain 45.

http://thepage.time.com/2008/02/11/national-ap-poll/

The MOE for the other matchups averages 5 points.

If that's the MOE for these too, it's a statistical dead heat.

O. has not yet been on the receiving end of any really negative ads yet. The most HC has said is that he lacks experience. The Rs are going to tear him a new one. You can't judge how electable someone is if the other side hasn't had a crack at him yet. Kerry was pretty popular in February 2004.

And I'm pretty sure it's everything there is to dig up. She plays as dirty as any Repug.

The thing with Obama is that these types of attacks seem to backfire on the attacker when attempted against him.

But she's already played the whole deck.

Nobody but the R's could make John Kerry look like a coward. The R's will hammer O. on national security experience and his ability to manage the economy. They will cast doubt on whether or not he is a real American. After all he is "half-Muslim" and being named "Hussein" won't help. By the time October comes there will be so many doubts about O. in people's minds that Saint McCain will seem like the only sensible choice.

jackson_dem (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Feb-10-08 01:31 AM
Original message
Obama does well against McCain. So did Bush vs. Gore and Kerry vs. Bush. What happened?

Edited on Sun Feb-10-08 01:32 AM by jackson_dem
Many folks are putting a lot of faith in polling about general election match ups. They ignore the fact the "new" candidate always sees his support decline as his negatives rise once he gets attacked by the other party. Here is some historical perspective.

Bush vs. Gore

March 13, 2000: Bush 49, Gore 43 (Bush at 52 among likely voters, down from 57 the month before)
July 27, 2000: Bush 50, Gore 39, Nader 4
Election Day: Gore 48, Bush 48 (Gore wins by half a million)

Bush vs. Kerry

February 3, 2004: Kerry 53, Bush 46
April 27, 2004: Kerry 52, Bush 44
August 3, 2004: Kerry 50, Bush 44
Election Day: Bush 51, Kerry 48 (Bush wins by three million)

What happened? In both cases the "new" candidate was attacked for months by the other party and his negatives inevitably rose. Anyone who thinks Obama is immune from this is insane. He may still ultimately end with lower negatives than Hillary but the idea that his current poll positions will not change after the rethugs go after him and the media stops promoting him is absurd.

Hillary is an exception to this. The rethugs have already thrown the kitchen sink at her for sixteen years. Her poll numbers will remain stable. Almost everyone already has a strong opinion about her.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/03/13/...
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/07/27/...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/02/elec04.poll.p...
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/08/elect04.prez....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34914-20...

Tear him a new one? Have a crack at him?

UNCLEAN! UNCLEAN!!!!



x(
rocknation

Remember where Hillary was 8 months ago?

Thank you!

Those results are very consistent with last week's Washington Post poll.

I keep running into independently minded voters who say (unprompted by me) that they will vote for Obama but not Clinton in November.

I'll vote for either Dem in the general, but I'll work a helluva lot harder for Obama.

of the democrats is silly.

i dont know what the pollsters are doing to adjust their numbers but it is destined to be as far off as zogby was in california.

mccain is going to lose in a landslide and only horribly crooked voting machinery will be able to keep him remotely close.