Poll: Clinton wins = 300 electoral votes

PRINCETON, N.J., May 28 (UPI) -- Sen. Hillary Clinton averages a 7-percentage point lead over Sen. John McCain in the 20 states where she claimed victory, a Gallup poll indicated Wednesday.

The Gallup Poll Daily hypothetical Clinton-McCain general election matchup showed Clinton leading McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee, by 50 percent to 43 percent.

In the states Clinton, D-N.Y., won, a hypothetical race between McCain and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was a virtual tie with McCain, R-Ariz., holding a 46 percent-to-45 percent lead.

In the 28 states and the District of Columbia where Obama has won a higher share of the popular vote than Clinton, Gallup pollsters found Obama and Clinton were statistically tied in how each fare against McCain in a mock general election.

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008/05/28/poll_clinton_wins_300_electoral_votes/2794/

PRINCETON, NJ -- In the 20 states where Hillary Clinton has claimed victory in the 2008 Democratic primary and caucus elections (winning the popular vote), she has led John McCain in Gallup Poll Daily trial heats for the general election over the past two weeks of Gallup Poll Daily tracking by 50% to 43%. In those same states, Barack Obama is about tied with McCain among national registered voters, 45% to 46%.



In contrast, in the 28 states and the District of Columbia where Obama has won a higher share of the popular vote against Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primaries and caucuses, there is essentially no difference in how Obama and Clinton each fare against McCain. Both Democrats are statistically tied with him for the fall election.




http://www.gallup.com/poll/107539/Hillary-Clintons-SwingState-Advantage.aspx

Just a guess.

Obama and McCain will BOTH get more electoral votes.

WOOT!!!

...Obama would have been the nominee for weeks now.

Hillary would have been the nominee for 6 months now.

My point is--

WE DON'T ELECT CANDIDATES OR PRESIDENTS BASED ON POLLS. WE ELECT THEM BY ELECTIONS.

Yeesh.

Then can we just use cherry-picked polls?

There's no reason why she couldn't have won caucuses if she and her team was better prepared for them. She's a lousy boss and an inferior politician.

That was fair to Hillary. Especially because she started with the handicap of not being from there.

Also fair was her senate reelection campaign where she spent $50M.

who would have made a great Senator.

Former New Yorker

Moynihan's endorsement plugged Mrs. Clinton into her Senatorial title.

like Edwards and Richardson?

Can't wait until June 3.

You know this just makes your candidate look bad, don't you?

She's not going to be nominated. I realise you are delusional, and do not wish to accept reality. She's lost. This is totally irrelevant. You might as well be polling how many people support making her Empress of the Universe, because those results would be just as meaningful as these.

I'd be interested to see your response to this, if you have a minute to read it!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6159454

I was wondering why no one was pointing this out. No candidate has said anything bad about Clinton for weeks, not even about the Kennedy thing. That was all cable news...which no one watches.

Reality, well that's a different animal. But you can play with the poll numbers all you like and imagine what could have been.

:shrug:

being attacked is Obama... From McCain, from Clinton, etc. No one is going after her. She's ignored by the GOP, and Obama has never really gone after her, and particularly now - all he's done is speak well of her.

Unless of course she's running as an independent and traitor to the party.

- as

next

Let it go.

What we should have done was let Gallup select the nominee on the first of January.

Good luck! :hi: (Hell ... it worked for Joe.) :shrug:

What's the point of this?

Where has she been campaigning? Other than FL, where she piggybacked on Obama's trips so she could rattle the "disenfranchisement" saber, have you seen her in ANY state that has already voted in the Primary, as in...let's go back there and campaign for the GE?

Meanwhile, Obama has returned to MO, MI, FL, NV and now CO.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Remind me of that "unity" meme.

Very classy, typical response of some of his supporters.

elect Clinton because she "super-beats" McCain, whereas Obama only beats him. Come on, that is no reason to abandon our nominee. The OP is the problem.

You don't call fellow Democrats "cockroaches".

Obama or McCain? Your answer to that will determine whether you really are a fellow Democrat.

Fool? More classy remarks.

all over this board. You guys keep throwing around his campaign slogans like we're all working for his campaign or something. I don't support him because of his campaign slogans, but because of who he is and what he can do. So you can quit flinging around the "unity" stuff. And yeah, you are a fool. Patently.

Don't rule that out!

Let's tuck this little tidbit of information away for then, because it sure as hell doesn't mean anything before then.

David

She's the far better candidate. Obama may well end up being the nominee, but she's still the better one to beat McCain.

The woman has been vilified, bashed constantly by the LF and the media, but she still manages to poll well and win states.

Pity that we are about to throw away someone who would be a better president for the inexperienced new kid on the block.

The Democratic motto: snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.

lost in '04, and not in '00 (but he did not get to be president). Also, Dole and Bush Sr. had more experience than B. Clinton...so Americans don't really go for that experience thing. B. Clinton, the new kid, was a better POTUS than Bush Sr. and Dole. Even where the experienced candidate would have been better than GWB, Americans rejected them...though in the case of Gore, only 5 Americans rejected him (and they all sit on the Supreme Court).

and would be a great president. I think that Obama is still too green.

"One of my heroes is Abraham Lincoln," said Obama. "And a while back there was a wonderful book written by Doris Kearns Goodwin called 'Team of Rivals,' which talked about Lincoln basically pulled in all the people who had been running against him into his Cabinet because whatever . . . personal feelings there were, the issue was how can we get this country through this time of crisis."

"And I think," he added, "that has to be the approach that one takes, whether it's vice president or Cabinet, whoever, and by the way that does not exclude Republicans either."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/05/rendell-obama-r.html

He's really not that bad a guy. He has good ideas and he'll pick the best people to support him in the campaign and the WH. Plus he inspires people, even while asking them to sacrifice for their country.

I talk to a few Hillary supporters on other boards, and they're down to that one lame argument, too.

He's no more green than Bill Clinton was! :rofl:

Bill Clinton was the senior governor of the country in 1992, having served for 12 years. Obama? Oh yeah, he was a state senator. Big deal!!!

I'd say Bill was better than Poppy any old day.

We elect a nominee through each state holding primaries or caucuses. Those are the rules of the game. And by the rules, Hillary has LOST.

Let it go.

instead. vote according to polls.
It doesn't matter.

:boring:
rocknation

Or else, John Kerry would be running for re-election right now.