LA Times: Obama and Clinton Beat McCain Because Of The Economy

In a turnaround, where McCain was slightly edging the Dem cadidates previously, either Dem candidate would beat McCain today in the new LA Times/Bloomberg poll.

May 1-8, 2008 +/-3%
           May (Feb)

Clinton     47  (40)
McCain      38  (46)
Don't know  11   (9)

Obama       46  (42)
McCain      40  (44)
Don't know   9   (9)

LA Times:

"Although there is such infighting now between the two Democratic candidates, we are finding that both Democrats are beating McCain, and this could be attributed to the weakening of the economy," said Times Polling Director Susan Pinkus, who supervised the survey.

For example, among the 78% of voters who said they believe the economy has slid into a recession, 52% would vote for Obama, compared with 32% for McCain. A Clinton-McCain matchup showed nearly identical results.

The poll was based on telephone interviews with 2,208 adults nationwide -- 1,986 of them registered voters -- several days before and after Tuesday's primaries in Indiana and North Carolina, which Clinton and Obama split

We knew going in that McCain would be the most competitive of the GOP candidates, but that's not the same thing as winning the election. Fundamentals still matter, and the fundamentals will not be in the Republicans' favor this fall. Take a look at the graph.

McCain remains competitive because of his showing among older voters and independents -- constituencies both parties are vying to win. McCain leads Clinton among independents and is essentially tied with Obama.

Older voters and generational change will be a theme of the election, like it or not. So will independents, because no one wants to be a Republican. But as Chuck Todd astutely observed on primary day, NC looks more like the future than Pennsylvania. And when the question turns to policy, direction of the country, the economy, health care and Iraq, the senior senator from Arizona (R) is going to have his hands full convincing the country that his policies are not just more Bush, and that he can chart a path to the future that makes sense.

After all, the economy is not his strong suit, and he's a man of "the twentieth century, my century". McCain will win among voters who want to chart a path to the 20th Century... but if that's the case he makes, he'll lose the election.

•  in rasmussen poll

  The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows Barack Obama attracting 46% of the vote while John McCain earns 45%. This is the fifth straight day that Obama has had at least a one-point advantage over McCain. While it is not a statistically significant lead, it is the first time Obama has led McCain on consecutive days in two months. The last time Obama outpolled McCain for five straight days was in mid-February (see recent daily results).

  http://www.rasmussenreports.com/...

  by DemFromCT on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:32:03 AM PDT

  •  Gee, I can't understand why

    people aren't flocking to McCain's platform of more wars and less jobs. Go figure.

    by miasmo on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:59:04 AM PDT

    •  it's because of the musicians, silly...

      more obama music videos (and some recent obama graffiti) on my site...
      

      by that veiled gazelle on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:32:52 AM PDT

    •  More Wars

      Remember that back in the '04 election the Democratic Presidential candidate criticized Bush for not sending ENOUGH troops into Iraq. Not much of a way to differentiate oneself from the war makers.

      Obama or Clinton should just come out and say it was wrong to invade Iraq 5 years ago and it is still wrong, and we should bring all the US troops home now.
      Anything less than that is just not in the interests of the big majority of Americans who work for a living.

      by First Light on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:38:04 AM PDT

      •  wrong vs stupid

        Obama has says that it was stupid. That is not the same as saying that it was wrong in the moral sense. I agree with you on that point. However, if you are going to invade and occupy a country, you really should go in with enough troops to maintain order and prevent the widespread chaos and bloodshed that's been going on.

        by miasmo on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:00:45 PM PDT

        •  wrong vs stupid

          Well, no doubt King George III was criticized in his day for being too stupid to send enough troops to the 13 colonies to subdue George Washington and his "terrorist" irregulars.

          If we learn anything from the American revolution it is that seizing colonies around the globe is a bad idea. If John Kerry couldn't figure that out in 2004 it doesn't excuse Obama and Clinton in '08.

          by First Light on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:38:22 PM PDT

    •  Esp. in MI

      Where McCain told the voters that their good industrial jobs were NEVER coming back.

      by smeesq on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:13:14 PM PDT

•  I expect the gap between Obama and McCain

  to increase drastically once we Democrats let the country know who our candidate is.

  by Tirge Caps on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:23:16 AM PDT

  •  Exactly.

    I heard a very intelligent exchange between Olbermann and one of his pundits about how bad for McCain that he hasn't even broken 50% at this point in the game.  His percentage should be much higher because 1) he has no competition because the Democrats are still fighting amongst themselves 2)He has so little financial support from the Republicans and 3) he is still running on the myth of him being a "maverick" and a "moderate".

    I'm willing to bet that the Republicans have no intention of running McCain as their candidate.  I believe they are letting him be the sacrificial lamb right now, but at the convention they will pick Romney/Huckabee.  Their explanation will be that McCain is too sick (he does have cancer even though the MSM is ignoring it).  So, with two months left to go, the Republicans will roll out a fresh candidate.

    That's why I hope that Obama and the DNC run ads against the Republican party and their policies that have destroyed this country, rather than ads against McCain.  If they do that, they will be ahead of the game when the Republicans pull their switch.

    by Katiebegood on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:53:10 AM PDT

    •  I was with you until your

      second paragraph.

      I think your scenario would make a good "B" movie, but it ain't gonna happen.

      by Dragon5616 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:02:22 AM PDT

      •  Agreed

        I can't think of any time a replacement candidate has been successful, but I can think of counter examples

        by heliosfootball on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:05:17 AM PDT

      •  It's All About the Electoral College

        Boys and Girls, time to step away from the Kool-Aid stand:

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

        McCain has an electoral college advantage vs. Obama. As Obama racks up huge popular vote percentages, reflected in the polls, in California, New York, and Illinois, the real action is in the electoral college - meaning state by state polls.

        Right now McCain starts the general election with a base of 250 electoral votes - states that won't change between now and election day. Solid south, including Florida, all the border states including Missouri, plains and mountatin states (not including Colorado)plus Alaska. All McCain has to do is win on of three states: Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Ohio - Just one and he wins.  Obama needs to win all three in order to win.

        Right now the national press is attempting to ignore this reality as seen in the link above. With all of the advantages the Democrats have this year how in the world is McCain essentially tied with Obama in this contest? Is McCain strong or is Obama weak? I believe both are true and this is very bad news for us come the fall.

        by richmond199 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:23:17 PM PDT

        •  A lovely day in troll-land

          It is pretty obvious from a quick survey of your comments that you are a McCain advocate. Since you seem to want the Republican to win, your opinion on this topic becomes a bit, shall we say, suspect.

          by McJulie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:00:58 PM PDT

          •  You Think Wrong

            The facts are clear and your accusation is false.

            We have problems and in order to overcome them we must face up to them and not pat ourselves on the back with stupid party ID polls that don't mean anything. This is McCain vs. Obama and it doesn't look good for us right now.

            What can be done to prevent McCain from winning one of the three industrial states that he needs? PA, MI, and Ohio? Obama needs all three.  Look at the numbers, do you think he can run the table?

            by richmond199 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:40:23 PM PDT

        •  Thanks for your concern. n/t

          by Dragon5616 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:06:24 PM PDT

        •  We dont want Clinton

          thats all there is.  We are not going to throw away our principles just so we can get Clinton in the White House.  

          by UpstateDem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:21:57 PM PDT

  •  you mean after that vile couple

    stops sliming him from coast to coast?

    you bet he'll be trouncing mccain!

    the minute obama is elected president,  you will hear TONS of
    stuff about what the clintons really did during this campaign

    by maxnyc on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:19:41 AM PDT

•  Not sure this polls mean much. McCain will lose

  in a landslide.

  by Engine 08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:25:24 AM PDT

  •  ignore the numbers in the head to head

    and look at the fundamentals (economy, wrong track)

    that's the value of the poll.

    by DemFromCT on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:27:55 AM PDT

    •  The Bush economy is

      going to slaughter the Republicans, It is really baaaad, and people are starting to understand that all this war spending and tax cuts for the rich are part of the economys problems.

      by jackieca on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:32:32 AM PDT

      •  Bush & Cheney while making there buddies rich ...

        Have destroyed the Republican Party.

        ... so they got that going for them.

        by Kdoug on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:47:13 AM PDT

      •  Remember $1.46 gasoline?

        That's what gasoline cost when Mr. Bush took office in 2001.
        And this was the man who said he would jawbone the Saudis
        to bring those prices DOWN. As long as we can get people to
        remember this, and remember that McBush is just like him,
        we will have absolutely no excuse for losing this election.

        http://www.democrats.org/...

        by Alan Charles on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:00:17 AM PDT

        •  Obama needs to

          run ads with the $1.46 price tag and show footage of Bush when he spoke about how he would jawbone & tap the Stregic Oil Reserves, and then juxtapose that with the current price of gas.

          Tag line should read:

          Can America really afford another 4 years of Republican mis-manangment?  

          by jackieca on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:04:17 AM PDT

  •  A nice sentiment.

    But that's what we thought about Bush. And what people thought about Reagan. Discount the possibility at your own peril.

    by Dauphin on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:43:38 AM PDT

  •  Polls right now are worthless

    for a couple of points.  One, because it's way too soon for polls to be accurate.  Remember that Clinton had a 20% advantage over all the Democratic candidates when this started.  Also, think about all the polls that have been taken thus far, they have been all over the map!  But the biggest reason why these polls are bogus right now and will continue to be bogus up to the election is that the pollsters poll "likely voters".  That means it polls people who have been registered for a while.  Their polls have no way to take into consideration all the newly registered young voters.  The polls also have no way to consider the fact that Democrats are outvoting Republicans 3-1.  

    by Katiebegood on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:56:47 AM PDT

    •  this is registered voters

      you're right to be cautious about likely voters this far out.

      by DemFromCT on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:04:50 AM PDT

  •  Pat Buchanan

    said as much.  He said this poll was REALLY bad news for Republicans, esp. since the Dems didn't even have a nominee yet, and McCain has had nothing more to do than fly around and raise money (which he also has not done very well.)

    Normally I discount what PB has to say, but occ. a unfiltered piece of truth escapes his lips.

    by smeesq on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:18:27 PM PDT

    •  He's been reliably anti-Iraq War.

      He saw it as the disaster it was very early on.

      -7.75 -4.67

      "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

      by Odysseus on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:08:12 PM PDT

      •  I agree

        and back when Hillary and friends were still patting Bush on the back for his war, I would often watch PB on Matthews or other MSNBC programs and wonder why I felt more connection to this right wing Republican than to the Democratic party leaders. I think Rachel Maddow said on a show that PB turns right and she turns left and they sometimes meet at the back of the circle.

        Love your tag line.

        by smeesq on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:22:22 AM PDT

•  Diversions

  Our economy is why they will bomb Iran.

  by judyo on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:25:51 AM PDT

  •  Could be

    Oh, Israel will.

    by david mizner on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:26:39 AM PDT

  •  Diversions redux

    a bit more "could be"
    http://www.amconmag.com/...

    by judyo on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:35:06 PM PDT

•  Older voters

  McCain has said he's for the privatization of Social Security, so I think he's pretty vulnerable among older folks there.

  by BriVT on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:26:04 AM PDT

  •  McCain wanting to privatize SS

    should be made into an advertisment NOW.

    by jackieca on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:33:21 AM PDT

    •  That should be advertised in Pennsylvania

      and Florida as soon as the primary season is done.

      by Drdemocrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:45:44 AM PDT

      •  When Bush was reelected in 2004,

        only 6% knew a substantial amount regarding his policies, and yet he won. Such a campaign would need to be very widespread and negative to have a substantial effect.

        by Dauphin on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:48:12 AM PDT

    •  Obama's folks=smartypants

      I'm sure they have that standing by for later.

      I've never been too concerned about these polls that show McCain doing well with older voters and women. A single ad campaign for each demographic will cut his numbers considerably (Social Security for older voters, choice for women).

      Patience, my friend, patience. McCain has some strengths, but he's really vulnerable on some issues. The time to hit him will come. We just wrapped up this primary, after all ...

      by BriVT on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:52:23 AM PDT

      •  Also

        have you seen McCains healthcare ideas? Ugh, they are not pretty.

        by jackieca on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:00:52 AM PDT

  •  As an older voter...

    Still a few ways away from SS, I'm actually more inclined to listen to somebody with ideas to fix it than ostriches who think the current situation is rosy.

    I wasn't very warm to Kerry in 2004 -- more angry at Bush -- but decided absolutely that I would not vote for him when he promised not to change Social Security.

    That was a time when Bush was getting lots of criticism for his proposals -- which is fine -- , but the critiques went along the line of "Well, we can always reduce benefits" or "It won't be a crisis for another 40 years".

    I suppose that made all of the high-living Social Security recipients feel great as they zipped about in their private jets, and, certainly, satisfied financial pros who all know that the best time to fix any financial problem is the very last minute ...

    but, naive little me, poor  guy who doesn't want to burden his children and grandchildren with an impossible mess...

    I wasn't that impressed.

    by dinotrac on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:07:43 AM PDT

    •  Then Obama's the man for you!

      Obama has talked about making tweaks to the program (that's all that's really needed) to make sure it's strong essentially forever.

      Privatization by McCain means killing it. Obama fixes it.

      by BriVT on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:52:52 AM PDT

      •  Would be intersted in the tweaks he proposes...

        Guess I need to go a Googlin'.

        Must tell you, though, that I am highly skeptical that "tweaks" will fix it -- unless your standards are incredibly low.

        As it is, SS looks like a bad deal even when you hide the true cost by claiming half is paid for by employers.  When you look at the return on the true cost -- it reeks.

        by dinotrac on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:35:45 PM PDT

•  polls...

  good or bad this far out do not mean much. What counts is how the demographics play out overall, and we are demographically ahead. Obama's 50 state voter registration drive is also going to help him have a huge advantage on the GOTV front come November.  

  Unless Obama turns out to be Satan himself, I am pretty confident he will be elected President come November.

  by jbou on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:27:14 AM PDT

  •  horse race means little

    but the right track/wrong track is huge...

    When you say 'polls'; don't forget there's more in polls than horse race.

    by DemFromCT on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:29:04 AM PDT

    •  true

      right track/wrong track gages the mood of the electorate and the party in charge of the White House always seems to pay for the bad mood of the public.

      by jbou on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:36:08 AM PDT

      •  Always. n/t

        by Dragon5616 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:05:06 AM PDT

•  McCain is a cold warrior

  And he wants to fight al Qaeda as a cold warrior would, with bombs and armies. McCain is simply not suited to fight any conflict we are likely to face, since they will probably be on a smaller, localized level, and will include cyber threats, as well as terrorist threats. You cannot fight a 100 person terror cell with a 200,000 man army. They just don't match up.

  by corwin on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:27:15 AM PDT

•  A net loss of 260k jobs so far this year

  http://data.bls.gov/...

  by jfern on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:28:26 AM PDT

  •  A note on jobs number

    You need gains of about 70K to keep pace with population growth. So a gain of 40K is actually a loss. To have a jobs number that actually goes down is really bad.

    By the way, it always drove me crazy when a politician would tout "We created 30K new jobs" when that number was below employment percentage steady state.

    by heliosfootball on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:01:09 AM PDT

    •  Oh

      and that 70K number is monthly.

      by heliosfootball on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:10:24 AM PDT

•  “Hillary and the Genie Do Florida and Mich

  "Hillary and the Genie Do Florida and Michigan: A play in one very short act"   http://msa4.wordpress.com/

  Democratic side of the race....goes on and on and on...

  by Mitchell4a on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:29:45 AM PDT

  •  Democratic side of the race goes

    on and on and on...

    We need a new narrative
    
    Obama the Democratic presumtive nominee

    by jackieca on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:36:23 AM PDT

•  My Personal Opinion...

  I think a six point spread between Obama and McCain in November is probably about what it would end up being in an optimistic scenario. The sad truth is, Hillary isn't lying when she says there are some "white Americans" who won't vote for him. The sin of omission   She makes is that those same voters (at least many of the men) probably would not pull the lever for a woman, either. This doesn't mean that either one couldn't beat McCain, it just means don't expect that the national mood is going to lead to a Reagan-style landslide.

  The way I see it, winning in November in spite of the race factor will just make victory all the sweeter.

  by scooter86 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:29:49 AM PDT

  •  Every democrat

    Has a problem with white voters. His biggest problem is in Appalachia, as was pointed out on this site a couple weeks ago. But Obama is running about where Gore and Kerry did in the last 2 elections. And Clinton would be unlikely to win many more than he does against McCain. He does, however, put the mountain west into play, with possible wins in Colorado, NM, NV and Montana.

    by corwin on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:34:28 AM PDT

    •  I think you are quite right...

      His problems in Appalachia have been explored in detail on this site, and really the underlying reason is race. This will put him at a disadvantage relative to Gore or Kerry when it comes to holding states like Ohio or Pennsylvania where Appalachia is a factor. However, the national mood helps him out more than it would have in 2000 or 2004. He compensates for this weakness with increased competitiveness in many states. Personally, I see a decisive electoral college win for Obama in November, but when you look at it state-by-state, his victory margins will be closer than one might expect.

      Or I could be completely and humiliatingly wrong. We'll find out in November ;)

      by scooter86 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:43:08 AM PDT

    •  Maybe this will be the year when they vote

      in their own best self-interest rather than gods, gays and guns.  Many of these people are in several financial stress.  If they are honest with themselves they will see that voting for McCain IS NOT going to help their financial situation in any way.  It will probably only make it worse.  If Obama plays it right, I do think he can get these people to override there inherent racism and do the right thing for themselves and for this country.

      Besides, Obama isn't "black".  He is a lovely shade of mocha.

      by Katiebegood on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:03:26 AM PDT

    •  let me get this straight

      1. Unemployment among poor white through the roof

      2. gas prices @$5/gal by election day,

      3. her sons and daughters dying and maimed in Irak and Afghanistan (IIRC WV % of enlisted population  is historically the highest in the country)

      4. Said sons and daughters receiving humilliating support and refused educational opportunities

      5. Foreclosure at historical highs.

      Are you going to tell me that the Democratic candidate, that happen to be AA, charismatic and a very good campaigner, after 6 months of campaigning against an economic ignoramus that can't keep his talking points straight, can't peel away a few percentage points to eke out a couple of victories in states where there are a lot of poor white folks.

      Let me tell you something there is hunger now in  poor areas of this country including appalachia, there are no medical facilities, no education opportunities and no jobs and it is going to get worse by november, how well received a "more of the same" message do you think is going to be?

      if your son or daughter is sick, "socialized medicine" will sound very good vs taxes on your non existent insurance

      If you can not afford to fill the tank of your truck,    a $1000 credit feel justified  vs tax reductions for the oil companies?

      If your son or sister is his/her 3-4-5th tour in Irak, it might make a difference in your vote to have him/her back in 16 months instead of a 100 years

      I like the Democratic chances in November among the poor, white folks.

      by IamTheJudge on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:16:56 AM PDT

      •  Maybe, maybe not

        But I do like the poor, white folks chances with Obama even if they do vote against their interests.

        by corwin on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:20:47 AM PDT

        •  that is exactly my point

          their situation is getting so dire that a whole bunch of them will have to vote for their economic interest particularly when compared with a candidate as JMC that is a terrible liar b/c he can't  keep his arguments straight as Pat Buchanan said "JMC's slogan more wars and no jobs,  good luck with that!"

          by IamTheJudge on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:26:56 AM PDT

        •  hear, hear

          by scooter86 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:26:01 PM PDT

      •  Logically

        you are correct. There is no reason for poor white folks to vote against Obama. However, people have voted irrationally and against their best economic interests for some time.

        by heliosfootball on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:27:20 AM PDT

      •  I am telling you exactly that

        because I happen to know a few of these sort of people, a couple are even related to me. Some of them will join the good guys, some won't do so if the "good guy" is black.

        But we'll still win, and that's what matters most in November.

        by scooter86 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:28:54 PM PDT

      •  Sorry, I don't think they will vote for Obama

        Not the hard core, Confederate flag waving ones, the Scotch Irish rednecks .  They can't do it, they'd rather starve or eat road kill than admit that there was a black man anywhere in the world who is their equal.  Thru their whole lives, and thru their parents' and grandparents' lives, the only thing such people have had that they felt superior about was the color of their skin. You have only to listen to 5 min. of right wing talk radio to know that these people BLAME blacks and hispanics for many of their problems...there is always someone else to blame.  Its never their own  failure to get an education, or their use of meth or oxycontin, or other dependably bad decisions that they make. Lets face it, most young people with any motivation and ambition left these backwaters a long time ago.  THe ones still left will vote for McCain because he's white.  And even if Hillary were the nominee, they would vote for McCain because he's a man.

        by smeesq on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:41:07 PM PDT

        •  Border States

          You are quite right.

          Obama's weakness if very clear in the border states, Missouri, AR, W.V. and the numbers in Kentucky and Tenn. are just plain out of sight. Being down 35pts in states Bill Clinton carried is not a great way to start the general election.

          The whole she-bang will come down to the big three industrial states of Michigan, Penn., and Ohio. McCain needs just one to win the election. Obama must sweep all three to win.

          by richmond199 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:12:26 AM PDT

          •  VA and NC

            are dropping into the Obama column this year, and that changes everything.  This really is going to be a transformational election. All that old red state/blue state stuff will have to be revised.

            by smeesq on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:15:38 AM PDT

  •  I agree with you

    As an African-American, I do realize that race will be a factor in this election.  That's why Obama has to not only unite the Dem party but also has to get NEW VOTERS.

    Since the primary is still going on, Obama can work on the latter which he is doing.  "VOTE FOR CHANGE" got underway today.  The more Dem voters there are, the greater the chance that Obama will be able to overcome the certain percentage of voters who just won't vote for him.

    This CAN be overcome.

    The Dem convention will be electrifying with the coincidence of Obama giving his acceptance speech for the nomination on the 45th anniversary of MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech.

    by Drdemocrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:36:47 AM PDT

    •  that's the biggest generational thing

      Of course, Dems need everyone. Older voters are welcome.But young'uns aren't as hung up on race as older voters, so it's important to get them to the polls.

      The question is whether this is the election that establishes the above as a political fact, or whether its' the next one.

      by DemFromCT on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:41:31 AM PDT

      •  I think when Obama's successor runs in 2016...

        (knock on wood) that will be the election where the younger generations are the powerhouse and the older generation is simply not alive in enough numbers to hold sway to the same degree. This election, and 2012, will be transitional elections in my estimation. Sort of a changing of the guard, if you will. Unfortunately, the old guard doesn't always want to go when their time comes, but fortunately they always go eventually.

        by scooter86 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:48:00 AM PDT

    •  2/3rds of

      the new voters registered prior to the NC primary voted for Obama.

      The newly registered voters will be key to offsetting Obama's weakness w/ working class poor whites (primarily those east of the Mississippi) in winning the GE.

      by Cynic in seattle on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:01:23 AM PDT

  •  It all depends on

    who Obama chooses as a running mate, if he chooses the Govenor from Ohio or Jim Webb then dynamics change.

    by jackieca on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:37:49 AM PDT

    •  Unfortunately...

      I think the nature of his race and the problems it will cause in attracting certain voters dictates that he choose a white male running mate. I just get the feeling that too many voters are only ready for so much change at a time.

      by scooter86 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:44:33 AM PDT

      •  There is nonthing wrong

        with taking change slow, Rome wasn't built in a day:)

        by jackieca on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:59:15 AM PDT

        •  True, but...

          I am a white male. If I were a strong supporter of Hillary and a female, the take-it-slow approach might not be as reassuring to me. I guess I'm just saying I understand why some women would be very disappointed not to see a female on the ticket this year. Between the first viable female and African-American candidate, someone had to lose, and I don't begrudge anyone's disappointment, as long as they remember the bigger goal in November.

          by scooter86 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:16:32 AM PDT

    •  I think for the most part

      that VP is irrelevant. Muskie couldn't save Humphrey. Bentsen couldn't save Dukakis. Quayle couldn't stop Bush I.  Unless Obama chooses the president of Iran as VP, I really don't think it'll make a percentage point worth of difference in the GE.

      A woman as VP could help unite the party, however, IMHO.

      by Dragon5616 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:10:23 AM PDT

      •  Obama/Ahmadinejad is a lousy ticket...

        Personally my money is on an Obama/Putin ticket. He is the reassuring white male, and he'll assuage the fears of the "security moms" and "nascar dads" who remain to be convinced that Obama will do whatever it takes to keep the country safe.

        /snark

        by scooter86 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:20:54 AM PDT

        •  Besides,

          GWB looked into his eyes and saw he was just as soulless as he is.

          by Dragon5616 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:52:29 AM PDT

•  Ok I know I'm going to get flamed as an alarmist

  and a hand-wringer for saying this, but I'm going to say it any way.

  I'm worried about huge margin losses in WV and KY. and I don't mean 20 point margins, I mean 40 maybe 50 point margins and that scares the snot out of me.

  Can we please start a phonebanking effort to those states as well as Oregon. Not to affect a win just to lessen the loss?

  Ok let the flames begin.

  by notquitedelilah on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:30:18 AM PDT

  •  you're not an alarmist...

    You're right. Obama is going to get absolutly crushed in West Virginia and Kentucky, just like Hillary got crushed in Idaho, Virginia, North Dakota, etc. That's the bad news. The good news is, it won't affect the final outcome. She's like the Germans in the first stages of the Battle of the Bulge (obscure WWII reference approaches...): she's gonna inflict some humiliation on her opponent, but the end result has already been decided.

    by scooter86 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:37:36 AM PDT

    •  :(

      by notquitedelilah on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:38:45 AM PDT

      •  Don't worry, be happy ;)

        by scooter86 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:49:19 AM PDT

    •  Yeah

      I think she may be looking at this as her "Last Hurrah."  One more round on the cable news and morning shows, so she can go out "a winner!!"

      I heard a reporter from a KY paper on NPR today saying that the voters of KY don't care much for Obama, but also don't care much for Hillary.  He said that there has been only a minimal voter registration effort, and that the predicted turnout will be quite low.

      The wierd thing is that both KY super dels have already declared for the Obama ticket (and have received a lot of racist phone calls and hate mail for doing so.)

      by smeesq on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:49:31 PM PDT

  •  Since Hillary has to win 90% of EVERYONE of the

    rest of the primaries, Obama can afford a 40% loss in West Virginia.  The media will probably hype it as why can't Obama get the "hard working Americans, white American" vote but they have been harping on that for weeks.  It really hasn't changed anything.

    The following week, Obama will win Oregon by double digits while losing Kentucky by >20% but the exit polls will show that while Obama does POORLY in Apalachia with whites, he does very well with whites in the West.  The media will just show that it has to do with Demographics/location rather than just race.

    by Drdemocrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:41:19 AM PDT

    •  I realize that it will have little effect on the

      math. I'm more worried about the rationalizing spin that she might gain by 2 large wins to stay in the race, push MI and FL and generally hold the entire Dem Party hostage till August.

      I'm a Brit which unfortunately make ineligible to phonebank at the same time I hate conceding anything without a fight.
      So I wish you guys could make some calls, however few, to help mitigate a total wash.

      I guess I'm feeling sort of useless at the moment.  

      by notquitedelilah on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:49:40 AM PDT

      •  I'm not worried

        Personally, I think that Obama has all the supers in his pocket he needs to go over the magic number.  I believe he is not bringing them out now because he wants to give Hillary the WV and KY wins so she can leave with her ego intact.  

        by Katiebegood on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:08:51 AM PDT

      •  What will be interesting

        is how the media covers the exit polls of voters in WV, interviewed proudly proclaiming that they would not vote for Obama bec. he's black, and a Muslim, and unpatriotic because he doesn't cover his heart with his hand during the National Anthem, and all that other BS.  And there will be plenty of people in WV willing to say exactly that on camera.

        I think that kind of display of a lot of "low information" trashy white people claiming they are superior to Barak Obama will put Hillary in the position of having to essentially say that she wants appreciates the vote of such people, even if they are ignorant racists.

        by smeesq on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:57:11 PM PDT

  •  Don't worry about Oregon

    Obama is going to crush Hillary in Oregon.  And I wouldn't worry about KY and WV.  Even if Hillary wins by a large margin, it will make no difference in the end.  Maybe it will give Hillary the ego boost she needs to leave.  She can say "I went out a winner".  I don't care, just as long as she leaves.

    by Katiebegood on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:06:55 AM PDT

•  This pig is beyond pre-election lipstick

  Painting a rosy Republican economic picture just before this election is no longer possible by for Bush by just tweaking his oil and Wall Street connections.

  McCain's only hope is for an October war to take the economy out of the voting booth.

  by crystal eyes on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:30:32 AM PDT

  •  With what's happening in Lebenon at the moment

    an October or even June war is not out of the realm of possibility.

    So let's not tempt fate.

    by notquitedelilah on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:33:42 AM PDT

    •  Not tempting fate, but preempting it.

      Orchestrating war before an election is already a well used political weapon in the Republican arsenal.

      by crystal eyes on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:48:55 AM PDT

•  I am completely ignoring GE matchups until

  We have a nominee... 5 different polling outfits have completely different numbers, and it is giving me the agita.

  by sharris0512 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:34:53 AM PDT

•  Obama needing 27 more pledged delegates

  My math is that Obama needs 27 more pledged delegates to secure a majority of the pledged delegate total:

  (1590.5+27)/(1590.5+1426.5+217) = 50.015%

  It seems to be almost a certainty that he will reach this majority point on the night of May 20. After that it is only question of days, or two weeks at most, before enough SDs put him over the 2025 magic number. So if there are any discussions this weekend on the news shows about Hillary Clinton still having a chance to win the nomination, short of a meteor clunking Obama on the head, then those discussions are taking place in the Twilight Zone.

  As for the GE polls, I don't put much stock in those anymore. I can remember in early August in 2004, I went on vacation with Kerry leading Bush by about 13% just after Kerry was nominated. Then the swift boat attacks began. When I got back from vacation in two weeks, Kerry's lead had dropped into single digits and he went behind by double digits in September. At the opposite extreme, Bill Clinton was in 3rd place behind Perot and Bush in June 1992, just after Clinton secured the nomination.

  What matters is the capability of the candidate. Perot was a disaster as a candidate, and Kerry was out-maneuvered by Rove. As best as I can tell, Obama is tougher and more inspiring than Kerry and light-years in front of Perot.

  by BronxInTN on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:39:15 AM PDT

•  Still,

  neither Obama nor Clinton has an absolute majority (50%+), and the ratio of undecided voters is quite high. In fact, McCain's support is outstanding, given Bush's legacy and his own horrendous positions, which just shows how powerful the media in this country is.

  Furthermore, I would point out that the popular vote does not translate into an electoral college vote and a survey with a state-by-state breakdown would be much more useful.

  Finally, the sample's too small. Telephone surveys are notoriously unreliable as it is, and the minimal sample which has a good chance of representing a relatively large population is one of at least three thousand people, and likely more in a country as large as the United States. Furthermore, the sample must be properly structured by age, education, income, area, and so forth.

  Given all that I would hold back my optimism. This is far from over and I have great reservations about the reliability of the poll.

  by Dauphin on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:42:34 AM PDT

  •  all mere details ;-)

    neither Obama nor Clinton has an absolute majority (50%+), and the ratio of undecided voters is quite high. In fact, McCain's support is outstanding, given Bush's legacy and his own horrendous positions, which just shows how powerful the media in this country is.

    OTOH, this is as good as it gets for McCain, which others recognize as well.

    Furthermore, I would point out that the popular vote does not translate into an electoral college vote and a survey with a state-by-state breakdown would be much more useful.

    I'm looking at neither this far out (wrong track, generic ballot and specifics on the three lead issues - iraq, economy, health care - mater more). But if you must: The Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Calculator shows Democrats leading in states with 200 Electoral Votes. The GOP has the advantage in states with 189. When "leaners" are added, the Democrats lead 260 to 240 (see summary of recent state-by-state results).

    Finally, the sample's too small. Telephone surveys are notoriously unreliable as it is, and the minimal sample which has a good chance of representing a relatively large population is one of at least three thousand people, and likely more in a country as large as the United States. Furthermore, the sample must be properly structured by age, education, income, area, and so forth.

    The sample is not too small, and the fundamentals of the LA Times poll have always been sound. Their polling director, Susan Pinkus, is very good.

    by DemFromCT on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:49:33 AM PDT

  •  to be clear, the poll doesn't say

    McCain woan't win. The fundamentals that the poll reveals say that McCain won't win.

    by DemFromCT on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:50:50 AM PDT

    •  I hope you are right,

      but given Bush's victory in 2004, when, according to sources quoted by Chomsky, only 6% had substantial knowledge of his policies as opposed to 11% among Kerry's voters, I'm not sure if the pressing issues will rouse the public to a sufficient extent, especially in the current media environment. I hope they will, but I would not bet on it.

      My thanks for the information, although I would still maintain that a sample of 2,208 people in a country of a quarter of a billion people with large regional differences is a bit small. ;)

      by Dauphin on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:55:59 AM PDT

      •  but eerily accurate

        2004 was polled the same way.

        see public opinion quarterly. only Newsweek really blew it.

        by DemFromCT on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:01:30 AM PDT

      •  I look at 2004 differently

        Commander Cuckoo Bananas had every advantage available to him - he was still relatively popular, the war wasn't unpopular, he hadn't really bungled any US cities up too much.  The economy was fairly decent.  He still had the post-9/11 glow around him.

        He should have won.

        And he still almost lost.  

        by Crisis Corps Volunteer on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:28:34 PM PDT

    •  The Electoral College differs with you

      Wishful thinking will get you another loser...

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

      How is this possible with the recession, unpopular war, housing mess, and gas prices going through the roof? Is McCain that strong or is Obama weak? Looks like both are true....Not good.

      by richmond199 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:26:45 PM PDT

•  Go Obama

  Thursday, May 08, 2008
  Final Indiana Results

  This just in from the Obama campaign.
  The final vote tally for Indiana has been certified the results are as follows:

  FINAL INDIANA TALLY — As per Indiana Sec. of State is:
  Hillary Clinton: 637,814 / 50.4%
  Barack Obama: 626,642 / 49.6%
  Diff. = 11,152 votes (less than 1 %)

  by Oracle2021 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:42:45 AM PDT

•  Question

  This may be stupid, but why does Clinton poll better versus McCain than Obama?  This just seems counter to what the race has shown so far.  I'm an Obama supporter and really believe he's more electable so I'm just curious about these numbers.  Thanks.

  by latinadem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:47:16 AM PDT

  •  I think it is because the "economy brand"

    is what the Clintons are known for.  Obama just has the generic Democratic brand which is that Dems do better with the economy.

    Hillary has the generic Dem brand as well as a boost since she is the wife of Bill Clinton who presided over the 1990's when the economy was good.

    But the bottom line is that Obama is showing that he can go toe to toe with McCain which is what is important.

    As long as the superdelegates see that Obama is still beating McCain they will feel more comfortable.  Now if the poll showed Hillary beating McCain and McCain beating Obama, than I would be worried.

    Also, the poll was conducted May 1st-8th which was right after the Jeremiah Wright epside and only 2 days after Obama did well in the last primary.

    by Drdemocrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:53:18 AM PDT

  •  they actually just about poll equal

    give or take an individual poll or two.

    General Election   McCain-Obama   McCain-Clinton
    National           Obama +3.2      Clinton +4.6

    from real Clear Politics. That's within any reasonalble MoE.

    by DemFromCT on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:53:30 AM PDT

•  McCain is a weak candidate.

  He, literally, HAS NO BASE.

  Nobody should worry about this man. By the time we get to November, he will have had the roughest Summer a candidate can possibly have.

  He will be forced to run FROM the Republican brand, and simultaneously TO the Republican brand, since he has no sturdy base of support. He is going to be flummoxed. McCain is going to have to explain how his presidency would be different from Bush's without depressing already depressed Republican turnout. When the polls start to look like shit, and they will after the Democrats convention, he is going to have to deal with internal dissent on the conduct of his campaign.

  Obama is, by far, the smartest politician in the field. He has his finger on the pulse of the nation and now that is all beginning to become clear. He also has the strongest most capable political organization out there, having beaten the vaunted Clinton organization.

  You can bet money on this prediction: This will be a 1932 style re-aligning election and a new generation of leaders will emerge from well managed, superbly coordinated, and people powered Obama campaign.

  by brooklynbadboy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:47:50 AM PDT

  •  Bingo

    The libertarians hate his guts
    The theocons hate his guts
    The nativist hate his guts

    and the neocons love him but have no votes and as the 100th years in Irak adv show is not exactly a winner

    by IamTheJudge on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:03:42 PM PDT

•  McCain will lose

  These polls being conducted only show the division between Clinton supporters and Obama supporters. I can not see how McCain can even compete with either candidate. I just do not see how anybody would want to elect Bush's 3rd term. In the past several months McCain has clearly shown his true colors and real intentions. I can't wait for Barack to tear him down during debates, Barack is not the best debater but have you ever seen McCain?

  by Jemily0818 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:49:38 AM PDT

•  McCain is still demented a bit

  the Aricept isn't working.  Has everyone forgotten how out of touch this guy is?

  by 714day on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:49:50 AM PDT

•  No one wants to be a liberal

  is probably closer to the truth than "no one wants to be a Republican".  With a couple of decades of right wing media saying in essence that liberals like to eat live babies, to a lot of people "liberal" is the last thing they want to be.  The message that Democratic=liberal will again be pounded into people's heads.  A lot of those people hold liberal values though, they've just been conditioned not to realize it.  They might vote Democratic, but they really would rather not.

  On the other hand, a lot of people want to be Republicans.  They don't want to pay taxes, like to bully the rest of the world, and cling to the moral superiority that the GOP supposedly represents.  The brand has been so damaged by the last 8 years that many sometimes find it hard to vote Republican, but they just need some excuse to rationalize the vote and they'll be right there feeding at the trough of big business, military intervention, and bigotry.  

  Plus the right wing owns the voting machines and voter suppression, and have a compliant media.  I won't be optimistic until after the November vote is certified.

  by Scioto on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:49:56 AM PDT

  •  not this year

    pay attention. Pay attention to the two special elections (IL and LA) where that was tried (D candidate = liberal = Obama) and it failed.

    by DemFromCT on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:58:48 AM PDT

    •  They may have been exceptions

      The GOP candidate in both those elections were pretty bad I believe.  Haven't there been other elections that we've lost badly (one in NW Ohio, where there FP solicitations for our candidate)?

      by Scioto on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:00:40 PM PDT

      •  we haven't lost any

        we were supposed to win. They have.

        We do take on red state candidates and sometime we lose. In any case, click the first link.

        

        by DemFromCT on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:08:52 PM PDT

•  Current Polling - Republican Talking Points

  It is important that Democratic campaigns begin to emphasize that middle-class, hard-working Americans must begin to vote their economic interests.  America is going broke voting on social issues raised by Republicans so that they can impose their back-breaking economic policies on all of us.

  by sharbutt on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:51:57 AM PDT

•  Even more than the war

  or the "social issues," the economy will decide this election.

  I don't see anything turning this economy around before Nov. Sucks for the Republicans, doesn't it?

  Sen. Obama will be President Obama on Jan. 20, 2009.

  by Dragon5616 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:00:02 AM PDT

  •  bingo

    that's among the fundamentals that matter.

    by DemFromCT on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:02:50 AM PDT

    •  I'm not as confident...

      The GOP and the media are going to jump hard on that economic stimulus and claim "it needs time to work" (coincidentally enough--around 6 months, when they'll just let the whole thing crash).  As a few others have suggested, they're also going to hit on the "personal responsibility" thing as well ("well how about you get another job so you can afford these prices--government isn't here to give you handouts").

      And this of course assuming they don't attack Iran to get everyone's attention off the economy altogether....

      by catnap1972 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:17:42 AM PDT

      •  you can't get arttention off the economy

        impossible task.

        by DemFromCT on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:10:41 PM PDT

        •  Especially when

          an attack on Iran will shoot oil prices up to 200 per barrel.

          by Crisis Corps Volunteer on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:15:10 PM PDT

•  Obama's job is to make sure that the R ticket is

  Bush/McCain or McCain/Bush and that their slogan is turned into "four more years" and "100 years of Iraq".  Let's see how McSame is able to defend that record.

  by Dave from Oregon on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:04:18 AM PDT

  •  Yes, all you will hear from

    Obama and the DNC will be "the Bush/McCain" agenda. That is how Dems will define this race.

    The "maverick" thing is easily dispelled by having McCain's prior quotes placed next to his current quotes.  The DNC is already doing that, and wait till the Dem 527s really gin it up down the stretch. They will make Kerry's "I voted for it before I voted against it" quote look like