He is winning and She is winning

[metta 0]

McCain, Obama tied; Clinton ahead: poll

by Frank James

Sen. Hillary Clinton got more grist for her argument to Democratic superdelegates that she would perform better against Sen. John McCain than Sen. Barack Obama. She continues to lead McCain in a tracking poll's head-to-head match-up, outperforming Obama in his match-up against McCain.

A recent Gallup Poll shows her leading McCain by several percentage points in a national survey.

That compares with McCain and Obama being in a statistical tie.

Here's a snippet of Gallup's report:

PRINCETON, NJ -- John McCain and Barack Obama are now virtually tied at 46% to 45% when registered voters nationally are asked for whom they would vote next November if these were the two presidential nominees, while Hillary Clinton maintains a 48% to 44% margin over McCain in a hypothetical Clinton-McCain matchup.

The latest update, based on May 22-25 and May 27 Gallup Poll Daily tracking, shows Clinton with a four percentage point advantage (48% to 44%) over McCain, while Obama has gained slightly and now trails McCain by just one point. Obama has trailed McCain by as much as three points in recent days, although from a longer range perspective, the two candidates have traded the lead throughout the month. Clinton, by contrast, has held at least a small lead over McCain for most of May.

As the end to Democratic primary and caucus voting draws near (the Puerto Rico primary on June 1 and the Montana and South Dakota primaries on June 3 will be the last), Gallup Poll Daily tracking for May 24-25 and May 27 shows that Barack Obama maintains a relatively slim 6-point lead over Hillary Clinton, 50% to 44%. (To view the complete trend since Jan. 3, 2008, click here.)

[no name 1]

May 28, 2008

Hillary Clinton’s Swing-State Advantage

Clinton says her primary wins are indicative of general-election results

by Lydia Saad

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.

All of this speaks to Sen. Clinton's claim that her primary-state victories over Obama indicate her potential superiority in the general election.

The results are based on aggregated data from Gallup Poll Daily tracking from May 12-25, including interviews with more than 11,000 registered voters nationwide (including Alaska and Hawaii). Across this period, Gallup has found Clinton performing marginally better than Obama in separate trial heats for the general election against McCain. Clinton has led McCain by an average of three percentage points, 48% vs. 45%. Obama has trailed McCain by an average of one point, 45% vs. 46%.

Clinton's popular-vote victories thus far include the three biggest Electoral College prizes: California (a solid Democratic state), New York (another sure bet for the Democrats), and Texas (a solid Republican state). (Although Obama won more delegates in Texas, Clinton's vote total exceeded Obama's by nearly 100,000 votes.) However, her victories also include several of the largest swing states that both parties will be battling to win in November: Pennsylvania and Ohio, as well as wins in the disputed Florida and Michigan primaries. As a result, Clinton's 20 states represent more than 300 Electoral College votes while Obama's 28 states and the District of Columbia represent only 224 Electoral College votes.

The question is, do Clinton's popular victories over Obama in states that encompass three-fifths of national voters mean Clinton has a better chance than Obama of winning electoral votes this fall? That's the argument she and her campaign have been making, including at a campaign stop in Kentucky 10 days ago (prior to the Kentucky and Oregon primaries), where she was quoted as saying:

"The states I've won total 300 electoral votes. If we had the same rules as the Republicans, I would be the nominee right now. We have different rules, so what we've got to figure out is who can win 270 electoral votes. My opponent has won states totaling 217 electoral votes."

As the Gallup analysis shows, Clinton is currently running ahead of McCain in the 20 states where she has prevailed in the popular vote, while Obama is tied with McCain in those same states. Thus, at this stage in the race (before the general-election campaigns have fully engaged), there is some support for her argument that her primary states indicate she would be stronger than Obama in the general election.

The same cannot be said for Obama in the 28 states and D.C. where he prevailed in the popular vote. As of now, in those states, he is performing no better than Clinton is in general-election trial heats versus McCain. Thus, the principle of greater primary strength translating into greater general-election strength -- while apparently operative for the states Clinton has won -- does not seem to apply at the moment to states Obama has won.

Red States, Blue States, Swing States

The picture described above is somewhat muddied by the fact that the sets of states Clinton and Obama have each won include reliably "red" (solid Republican) and "blue" (solid Democratic) states. A relative advantage for either Democratic contender in the primaries in such states won't matter come the fall, under the assumption that the general-election outcome in these states is almost a foregone conclusion.

Removing red and blue states from the analysis leaves just the swing or "purple" states that could be competitive for both parties. Gallup defines these as states that favored neither George W. Bush nor John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election by more than five percentage points. Additionally, Arkansas -- one of Clinton's home states -- is considered a potential swing state should she become the nominee. And Missouri is considered swing because although Bush beat Kerry in that state by seven points in 2004, Missouri has switched sides in the three most recent national elections, voting Democratic in 1996, and Republican in 2000 and 2004. (Other states have also switched sides in the last three elections, but the 2004 vote margins in these were well beyond 10 points for either Bush or Kerry.)

Clinton's 2008 swing-state victories include Nevada, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Arkansas, and -- based solely on popular vote (not delegates) -- Florida and Michigan (her swing states total 105 electoral votes). Thus far in May, Gallup has found Clinton leading McCain in these states by six percentage points, 49% to 43%. McCain holds the slight edge over Obama in these states, 46% to 43%. Thus, as of today, Clinton is clearly the stronger Democratic candidate in this cluster of states where she beat Obama in the popular vote.

With Florida and Michigan removed from the group of purple states where Clinton has won the popular vote, her relative advantage over Obama expands slightly. (This leaves Arkansas, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Hampshire, and New Mexico, totaling 61 electoral votes.) Clinton beats McCain in this group of states by 10 percentage points, 51% to 41%, whereas McCain leads Obama by three points, 46% to 43%.

Bottom Line

According to Gallup's May 12-25 tracking polling, Clinton is running stronger against McCain than is Obama in the 20 states where Clinton can claim popular-vote victory in the Democratic primaries and caucuses. By contrast, Obama runs no better against McCain than does Clinton in the 28 states plus the District of Columbia where he has prevailed. On this basis, Clinton appears to have the stronger chance of capitalizing on her primary strengths in the general election.

However, just focusing on the swing states in Clinton's and Obama's respective win columns, the two are fairly similar. Clinton beats McCain in her purple states (including Florida and Michigan) by 49% to 43%, while Obama slightly trails McCain (43% to 46%) in these states -- a nine-point swing in the gap in Clinton's favor. Conversely, Obama beats McCain in his purple states (49% to 41%), while Clinton trails McCain by one point, 45% to 46%, in the same states -- also a nine-point swing in the gap in Obama's favor.

Clinton's main advantage is that her states -- including Florida and Michigan -- represent nearly twice as many Electoral College votes as Obama's. However, removing Florida and Michigan from the equation, her purple states are about comparable to Obama's in electoral vote size, and thus the two appear more evenly situated.

What gives Clinton an additional boost in national support -- but is not likely to increase her chances of winning Electoral College votes in November -- is her superior performance over Obama in the red states where she has captured the popular vote in the primaries. These include such typically safe Republican states as Oklahoma, Texas, Indiana, and Arizona.

link

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Hillary Clinton and the 'Told You So' Calculation

Facing almost impossible odds in her quest to become the Democratic nominee for president, Hillary Rodham Clinton has started to cast the presidential race as a historical anomaly in which she is being badly mistreated.

In doing so, Clinton and her husband seem to be laying the groundwork -- whether unconsciously or consciously -- to go back to Democratic voters if Barack Obama comes up short in November with a very concise message: "Told you so."

To be sure, the Clintons are FAR too savvy to use that exact language, but the sentiment, nonetheless, is accurately summed up in those three words.

Need evidence? Look no further than comments made by former president Bill Clinton during a campaign stop over the weekend in South Dakota.

"She is winning the general election today and [Obama] is not, according to all the evidence," the former president said, according to CNN. "And I have never seen anything like it. I have never seen a candidate treated so disrespectfully just for running."

Clinton herself sounded a similar message during her now-famous interview with the Sioux Falls Argus Leader editorial board on Friday, in which she registered amazement that she was coming under such pressure to leave the race before the primaries end next week.

"I find it curious because it is unprecedented in history," Clinton said. "I don't understand it and between my opponent and his camp and some in the media, there has been this urgency to end this and you know historically that makes no sense, so I find it a bit of a mystery." (Clinton made that remark right before she brought up Robert F. Kennedy's 1968 assassination.)

The Clintons' message is that Democrats are ignoring all past precedent in choosing their nominee in this race, and that alleged break with history has serious implications in the fall general election.

As we have noted in this space before, Clinton's general election argument has some real merit. Current polling in Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio shows Clinton running better than Obama against John McCain in hypothetical general election matchups. Couple that trio of states with surveys that show Obama and McCain knotted in a tie in Michigan and there is reason for some level of concern within the Democratic ranks. Win none of those four states and it's hard to see how Obama becomes president this November.

(Obama, of course, argues -- and polling bears out -- that he is the stronger candidate in states like Colorado, New Mexico and Iowa -- all three of which President George W. Bush won in 2004. Even if he wins those three states, however, it would only equal the number of electoral votes -- 21 -- gained by winning Ohio.)

The Clintons -- ever the consummate pols -- know that the likelihood of convincing the vast majority of remaining superdelegates to side with her over Obama -- who leads in pledged delegates, popular vote (excluding Florida and Michigan) and total contests won -- is slim.

But one of the hallmarks of the Clinton brand is the ability to live to fight another day. That means, within the context of this campaign, it's necessary to make the strongest case possible about why Senator Clinton would be the strongest candidate between now and the end of the primaries on June 3. Then, in all likelihood, Clinton bows out of the race and spends the next five months working as hard as possible for Obama.

The Fix chatted with a number of unaligned Democratic strategists about this theory and, to a person, they agreed that Clinton's best course once she decides to end her bid is to become Obama's top advocate.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/05/the_i_told_you_so_factor.html

[no name 1]

Hillary Clinton and the 'Told You So' Calculation

Facing almost impossible odds in her quest to become the Democratic nominee for president, Hillary Rodham Clinton has started to cast the presidential race as a historical anomaly in which she is being badly mistreated.

In doing so, Clinton and her husband seem to be laying the groundwork -- whether unconsciously or consciously -- to go back to Democratic voters if Barack Obama comes up short in November with a very concise message: "Told you so."

To be sure, the Clintons are FAR too savvy to use that exact language, but the sentiment, nonetheless, is accurately summed up in those three words.

Need evidence? Look no further than comments made by former president Bill Clinton during a campaign stop over the weekend in South Dakota.

"She is winning the general election today and [Obama] is not, according to all the evidence," the former president said, according to CNN. "And I have never seen anything like it. I have never seen a candidate treated so disrespectfully just for running."

Clinton herself sounded a similar message during her now-famous interview with the Sioux Falls Argus Leader editorial board on Friday, in which she registered amazement that she was coming under such pressure to leave the race before the primaries end next week.

"I find it curious because it is unprecedented in history," Clinton said. "I don't understand it and between my opponent and his camp and some in the media, there has been this urgency to end this and you know historically that makes no sense, so I find it a bit of a mystery." (Clinton made that remark right before she brought up Robert F. Kennedy's 1968 assassination.)

The Clintons' message is that Democrats are ignoring all past precedent in choosing their nominee in this race, and that alleged break with history has serious implications in the fall general election.

As we have noted in this space before, Clinton's general election argument has some real merit. Current polling in Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio shows Clinton running better than Obama against John McCain in hypothetical general election matchups. Couple that trio of states with surveys that show Obama and McCain knotted in a tie in Michigan and there is reason for some level of concern within the Democratic ranks. Win none of those four states and it's hard to see how Obama becomes president this November.

(Obama, of course, argues -- and polling bears out -- that he is the stronger candidate in states like Colorado, New Mexico and Iowa -- all three of which President George W. Bush won in 2004. Even if he wins those three states, however, it would only equal the number of electoral votes -- 21 -- gained by winning Ohio.)

The Clintons -- ever the consummate pols -- know that the likelihood of convincing the vast majority of remaining superdelegates to side with her over Obama -- who leads in pledged delegates, popular vote (excluding Florida and Michigan) and total contests won -- is slim.

But one of the hallmarks of the Clinton brand is the ability to live to fight another day. That means, within the context of this campaign, it's necessary to make the strongest case possible about why Senator Clinton would be the strongest candidate between now and the end of the primaries on June 3. Then, in all likelihood, Clinton bows out of the race and spends the next five months working as hard as possible for Obama.

The Fix chatted with a number of unaligned Democratic strategists about this theory and, to a person, they agreed that Clinton's best course once she decides to end her bid is to become Obama's top advocate.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/05/the_i_told_you_so_factor.html

FL & MI are getting ready to be heard!

[Sheriff Uling 3]

HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT MCCAIN FOR PRESIDENT Edited May 28, 2008 by Sheriff Uling

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

FL & MI are getting ready to be heard!

This ain't gonna put her over the top. She's done. She's been done and next week, the party will show her the door.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

FL & MI are getting ready to be heard!

This ain't gonna put her over the top. She's done. She's been done and next week, the party will show her the door.

Yep.

[PlatyPius 5]

Do y'all even begin to realize how insane and crazed you sound? I mean....posting all of these things is something a whacked out, obsessed stalker would do. You say that Obama supporters have drunk the Kool-Aid....have you really stood back and objectively looked at how you rabid Clinton supporters look to everyone else? I think it's Kool-Aid all around, yo.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

all the rabid anti-Clinton stuff looks like kool-aid crazed stalkers. The ratio of pro-Clinton/anti-Clinton is something like 1/10.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

It's all moot anyway because Hillary will be the next President, either as a Democrat or an Independent. What will be really sweet about this election cycle is that we're going to see the emergence of two new political formations and the death of the GOP.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It's all moot anyway because Hillary will be the next President, either as a Democrat or an Independent. What will be really sweet about this election cycle is that we're going to see the emergence of two new political formations and the death of the GOP.

You better demand a refund for that crystal ball of yours.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

It's gonna happen, R. Clinton does not intend to give up. She's going all the way to November. And she will win this thing. Obama will get the kumbaya libruls, McCain the racist rednecks and Hillary will get the hard working American vote, a wave on which she will ride to a hard fought and extremely well deserved victory.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

all the rabid anti-Clinton stuff looks like kool-aid crazed stalkers. The ratio of pro-Clinton/anti-Clinton is something like 1/10.

I think what platy was saying is that the denial the Clinton crowd is in in terms of her having lost the fight for the nomination and of Hillary not being more electable than Obama - if she was, she wouldn't have lost the primaries - is almost pathetic.

Edited May 29, 2008 by Mr. Big Dog

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It's gonna happen, R. Clinton does not intend to give up. She's going all the way to November. And she will win this thing. Obama will get the kumbaya libruls, McCain the racist rednecks and Hillary will get the hard working American vote, a wave on which she will ride to a hard fought and extremely well deserved victory.

Edited May 29, 2008 by Mr. Big Dog

[amiquechu 0]

Hillary is the most annoying person in the history of humankind. Second isn't even close.