AP Poll: Clinton leads McCain, doing better than Obama
By LIZ SIDOTI – 5 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton now leads John McCain by 9 points in a head-to-head presidential matchup, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll that bolsters her argument that she is more electable than Democratic rival Barack Obama.

Obama and Republican McCain are running about even.

The survey released Monday gives the New York senator and former first lady a fresh talking point as she works to raise much-needed campaign cash and persuade pivotal undecided superdelegates to side with her in the drawn-out Democratic primary fight.

Helped by independents, young people and seniors, Clinton gained ground this month in a hypothetical match with Sen. McCain, the GOP nominee-in-waiting. She now leads McCain, 50 percent to 41 percent, while Obama remains virtually tied with McCain, 46 percent to 44 percent.

Too bad all those stupid heads are voting for Obama, huh?





joe

Stupid??....No, not stupid...Just the same sort of people who forced the Democrats to nominate George McGovern in 1972. (He was a "nice" man with "dreams")

Stupid??....No, not stupid...Just the same sort of people who forced the Democrats to nominate George McGovern in 1972. (He was a "nice" man with "dreams")


Well then let the voters sink themselves.

That's the ting about allowing people a vote: sometimes they vote for people you don't like, or, in the instance of primaries, people you don't believe can win in a general election.

If you're willing to stake whatever resemblance of Democracy we might have left on an AP poll, that's your business. But that is not something I would like to see.





joe

Too bad all those stupid heads are voting for Obama, huh?

That's why Dem have super delegates, to override the "stupid head".

Well then let the voters sink themselves.

That's the ting about allowing people a vote: sometimes they vote for people you don't like, or, in the instance of primaries, people you don't believe can win in a general election.

If you're willing to stake whatever resemblance of Democracy we might have left on an AP poll, that's your business. But that is not something I would like to see.





joe

Thing is, this poll is done before there is a nominee. It can't be called accurate at all. Why? Because based on just the mere numbers of democrats who have been voting, even if say, 20 percent of them jump ship, there is still a good chance either democrat will win, and win easily (I'd vote for Senator Clinton or Senator Obama). The poll is split right now between democrats who support Obama, and those who support Clinton. If folks have sour grapes because their candidate didn't get the nomination, and take their ball and go home, then we all deserve gramps McCain as a President. Which would be horrible. Let's just all get behind whoever the dem nominee is (if you're a democrat of course). It would be freakin' idiotic not to do so.

But then again, this is the same country that elected W... Twice...

Eggzakly.

I can not, for the life of me, remember who said. "The masses are asses."

Stupid??....No, not stupid...Just the same sort of people who forced the Democrats to nominate George McGovern in 1972. (He was a "nice" man with "dreams")

Wow. You say that as if the Democrats had someone (anyone) who could possibly beat Nixon in 1972! Don't make me laugh.

Eggzakly.

I can not, for the life of me, remember who said. "The masses are asses."


Good thing we've got a vanguard party then, huh?





joe

I Googled it. It was Alexander Hamilton.

This goes along with this poll

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/Apr28.html

Clinton 291 McCain 237
or
Obama 243 McCain 269

Take's your pick.

Still, these sorts of national polls are sort of useless in predicting who'll win a presidential election, because they don't account for how the contest is actually decided, state by state electoral votes.

Here's a nice graphic showing how each does versus McCain state by state.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

As you can see by the graphic, Obama leads Clinton in 16 states that have 169 electoral votes.

Clinton leads Obama in 6 states, that have 93 electoral votes between them.

And only Obama carries enough states to get the needed number of electoral votes to become president.

It also doesn't take into consideration how badly Obama's been hammered in the media over the past few weeks, while the right wing smear machine hasn't even started on Hillary yet. Once they do, doubtless her numbers go down as well.

As you can see by the graphic, Obama leads Clinton in 16 states that have 169 electoral votes.



Those are the states the Dems are going to lose anyway. Obama will just lose by a little less. As Grumpy points out below, this site shows Clinton beating McCain and Obama losing to him.

Edited to fix typo.

There is nothing "democratic" about the nomination process. Nothing. They can nominate a tree if they choose.

Wow. You say that as if the Democrats had someone (anyone) who could possibly beat Nixon in 1972! Don't make me laugh.


that Nixon was influencing the Dem primaries to give him the weakest opponent

hmm now who do the cons seem to be pushing to run against McCain???

Those are the states the Dems are going to lose anyway. Obama will just lose by a little less. As Grumpy points out below, this site shows Clinton beating McCain and Obama losing to him.

Edited to fix typo.

Why concede those states? If it shows that currently he loses them by less than Hillary, it also shows that he's in better position to steal them from McCain in the general election come November.

That is, if Hillary doesn't succed in completely destroying him before then, and handing the election to McCain by default.

Why concede those states? If it shows that currently he loses them by less than Hillary, it also shows that he's in better position to steal them from McCain in the general election come November.


There is another benefit of such a "50 state strategy", and that is to pin down the opponent's resources in supposedly "safe" states. IOW, even if you don't think you are going to win the state, spending a few hundred thousand dollars and a few days there can force the other side to make trips there and spend time and money there. If it is not close, they won't, so such a move only makes sense if the threat of losing a state is seen as credible. And given how Obama's numbers go up when he goes to a state, such a threat is credible from him. From Clinton, with her narrow targeted strategy, not so much.

Why concede those states?

I'm not conceding those states. I'm just pointing out that on that same WebSite they show Clinton beating McCain and Obama losing to McCain. On that WebSite most states where Obama beats Clinton are states they say are going to McCain.