"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.
Both Democrats were roughly even with McCain in the previous poll about three weeks ago."
Even if Obama does get the support of more superdelegates now, Clinton is within her right to continue campaigning until they actually cast their votes. Until such time, it's just a pledge and she can go on in the hopes that either something trips up his run for the nomination or she can convince them to vote otherwise.
I must reiterate, I will vote for whomever gets the nomination.
11 comments:
Interesting:
http://www.jedreport.com/2008/04/what-it-really.html
I'm never sure what to think of all of these polls, since you see conflicting polls on a regular basis. However, this seems like a good site for sorting it out: http://tinyurl.com/2rdjgr
Notice that, while Clinton does beat Obama narrowly in most of the polls, the +9% is a serious statistical out lier.
They also have a popular count calculator: http://tinyurl.com/2hbf4a
The latter is interesting because it shows the fuzzy math that is going on with the popular vote--Clinton is down by 300k (as Kristol claims, if I can switch posts) only if you count Florida, where Clinton was the only person to campaign. I think that's a little shady.
It is also interesting in that I think it runs counter to the argument that the media treats Obama so well. Running a story saying that Clinton leads McCain by 9% while Obama is only up by 2% paints the Clinton campaign in a much better light than if they took the composite of the polls and said that she led by 3% while he lead by 1.5%.
All of this is not to say that Clinton gets preferential treatment or anything like that. But I think it does suggest that the media isn't quite as in love with Obama as some suggest. In fact, I think it points out that what the media is really in love with is sensational stories. When Obama is the unlikely winner, they have a great story. When Clinton is making a huge comeback, it's a great story.
Hopefully for us Obama supporters, he'll win big in North Carolina and finish well in Indiana, and that'll be the great media story again.
I agree that polls can be conflicting and seem to change on a dime, but as you mentioned national polls in an earlier response to a previous post, I mentioned this one showing Clinton in a good light.
Here's the skivvy on Florida - There was activity from both Obama and Clinton before the Florida primary. Obama's campaign ran TV ads in Florida as part of a national cable buy but did not advertise on local stations. Clinton's campaign received a boost from an active but independent public employee union AFSCME. While it is true that Clinton appeared in Florida, this was AFTER the primary was held and she landed there to claim victory.
Here's the breakdown on votes and demographics:
Clinton 50%
Obama 33%
Edwards 14%
with 98% of the precincts reporting
According to exit polls, Clinton won virtually every demographic group (men, women, whites, Hispanics, voters at all income and education levels) with the exception of African-Americans who made up only 19% of the Democratic electorate.
It is clear why Obama supporters don't want Florida to count but it is also clear that both campaigns had a presence in that state. Just because the outcome wasn't favorable to Obama, doesn't mean we shouldn't recognize it. We risk disenfranchising all of those voters (once again, poor Floridians!). We need all of the votes we can get to ensure a win against McCain in the fall.
Typically, when states have been "punished" for acting inappropriately (in this case, jumping ahead to hold primaries out of order), the punishments have been lifted in order to seat delegates. Where Michigan is considered a battleground state, one that we need to seat the delegates for in order to win in November, it is imperative that we find some way to deal with it that is fair to both campaigns - perhaps splitting the delegates?
That being said, the Florida votes are basically phantom votes right now and what is more important is that the candidates focus their energies on the upcoming primaries. If Obama can kick Clinton's behind by winning the next couple of contests, perhaps we can put an end to all of this.
OK...I feel like I just need to make a few points here...
1. I live in the United States and watch my share of cable television. I never saw a single campaign ad on TV prior to a couple weeks ago. If there were any significant number of national Obama ads running at the time, I would have seen one. I'm sure there were a few, but enough to sway voters? I don't think so.
2. There has been an established pattern in this campaign: Clinton starts out way ahead, the two candidates show up to campaign, and Obama either significantly closes the gap or wins. It happened in Iowa, New Hampshire, the Super Tuesday states...even Pennsylvania.
Acting like an actual campaign in Florida wouldn't have changed the results doesn't seem likely given the established pattern in every other state. Especially early in the campaign, Obama needed to be in the state to start to overcome Clinton's sheer name recognition. Seriously...if campaigning has no impact on the results of an election, why are the candidates campaigning 24 hours a day?
3. The "we don't want to disenfranchise voters" argument on behalf of the Clinton camp is totally disingenuous. Did Clinton worry about disenfranchising voters when the rules were set? Nope. She went right along with the plan. She only started to care when she fell behind in the delegates.
4. Let's say you and I go to a bowling alley. We decide to have a practice frame before we start the real game. I knock down 9 pins and you knock down 3. In frame 8, with you ahead 164 to 160 (we are good bowlers, you and I), I say, "Sheesh. I'm only ahead by 2".
Do you just accept my sudden counting of the practice round? Of course you don't. Why not? You weren't at any disadvantage in that practice round--I just did better? You don't accept it because it is totally unfair. Rules is rules. You don't change the rules in the middle of a contest because it benefits you to do so.
You can say "it is clear why Obama supporters don't want Florida to count" as though they're somehow being the unreasonable party here. But the party set the rules, and everyone (including Clinton) agreed to them and based their actions on them.
Andrew, Andrew, Andrew...you're killing me, dude.
1. Surely you know that ads are packaged and can run in certain regions at certain times. The fact that you haven't seen any in Oregon YET, doesn't mean they weren't shown in Florida. Maybe they did sway voters. Maybe they swayed them to vote for Clinton?
2. I wouldn't say this was an established pattern, but rather that she began the race for the nomination in the lead - mostly based on name recognition. The pattern I've seen, is that Obama has had opportunity after opportunity to shut her out of the race and has been unable to do so.
Campaigning does have an impact. Did I write otherwise?
3. Not counting Florida is what got is in this place to begin with. So, yeah, it's important we don't disenfranchise the voters of an entire state. Are you referring to the DNC's rules for the 2008 nomination? I don't believe either candidate got a chance to weigh in. Ask yourself if Obama would be saying the same things if he were behind?
4. How did I know this would end up in a sports metaphor? As a voter in that state, I would argue it is totally unfair not to count my vote. And yeah, just admit it, as an Obama supporter you don't want it to count because it doesn't go your way. It would be SO refreshing to hear an Obama supporter say, "Of course we don't want the votes to count. They didn't help our candidate." Instead of blaming Clinton for rules that were put in place by another entity.
Since the Mister is at work and probably won't see your response until later, I figured I'd chime in. First off, although I'm obviously not in a position to be able to prove it at the moment, I completely disagree that the only reason I don't want the Florida votes to count is that I'm an Obama supporter and "it didn't go my way." I'm a major fair-fighter and I hate situations like that where the rules are changed after the fact. I am confident that if the situation was reversed, I would feel just as strongly that those delegates shouldn't count for Obama either. If Clinton ends up winning due to the Florida and Michigan delegates, I think the Democratic party will split so fast. I don't think she will have a hope in hell in November if that's the case.
Second, it is my recollection that both candidates were in agreement with the DNC decision to disallow FL and MI from seating their delegates. Clinton even said after the Michigan vote that if the DNC wouldn't agree to count those votes, the states should redo the vote... not just count them as they were.
Third, I find it very hard to believe that a "normal" primary in either state (esp. Florida since Obama's name wasn't even on the Michigan ballot) would have ended with the same results. As far as I can remember (and verify with a few minutes of searches), the only state other than Florida where Clinton won with that big of a margin was NY, her home state.
Fourth, my baby has wedged herself part-way under the couch (bad, bad mother!) and I need to go.
My guess is they'll seat those delegates only after the contest is over and we have a clear winner. I'll have to take you on your word that you'd feel the same way if Obama was the one who won Florida.
I don't remember much about what happened right after Florida and Michigan. I would be up for another vote in Michigan. But since both names were on the Florida ballot, those results should stand.
As for your third point, did you mean to say "esp. Michigan since Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot?"
Fourth, how'd the baby fare?
Christie - just one more post because you know you love a good debate.
1. I suppose I either didn't know how national ad buys worked or didn't think it through. So I can buy that there were ads there. However, I think that ads are a far cry from real, on-the-ground campaigning and get-out-the-vote efforts.
2. You didn't say campaigning doesn't matter. But by claiming that if both names appear on the ballot, all is fair and the results should stand, I think you're implying as much. Clearly, Hillary Clinton is HILLARY CLINTON, and Barack Obama needs some face time. Without an actual ground campaign, how is he supposed to overcome that name?
3a. Here is some background regarding Clinton's senior advisers and their positions on Michigan and Florida. The overview goes like this: when they were acting in the interests of the DNC (i.e. a neutral party), they were all for the exclusion of the states. When they were acting on the part of Hillary Clinton, they suddenly became concerned about getting those votes counted. I think this shows that their concerns are not about the people of Florida. They are about winning the primary.
3b. I don't disagree that Obama would likely be doing the same thing in Clinton's position. Politicians are politicians. I think I would still see counting those votes as unfair were the situation reversed (in fact, as this was one of the issues that really irked me when Clinton started pursuing it, I might even be supporting Clinton right now. Who knows).
4a. I'm a guy. Everything is a sports analogy. What do you want from me? At least I went with the lamest sport I could think of.
4b. It is unfair that Florida and Michigan voters don't get their votes counted. They should be angry at their local government which decided to move the dates despite clear warnings from the DNC that doing so would invalidate their votes.
4c. It would be SO refreshing to hear an Obama supporter say, "Of course we don't want the votes to count. They didn't help our candidate."
Ditto, but replace the words "Obama", "don't", and "didn't" with "Clinton", "do", and "did".
4d. Instead of blaming Clinton for rules that were put in place by another entity.
I'm not blaming Clinton. The votes haven't been counted, so there is no blame to go around. And if the votes are counted at some point, I would blame the DNC for not enforcing their own rules, which were clearly stated from the beginning and at least implicitly agreed to by all parties. Clinton has no power to change those rules, so I can't blame her.
All that said, I think the only real fair solution to all of this would be to hold new primaries in both states. I think that has already been ruled out by the party, but that's the way I would sort it out if I were...like...the president or whatever.
Andrew,
1. I agree ads are a "far cry from real, on-the-ground campaigning".
2. Obama may have needed face time in the beginning - and that's a big "may" since he has been one of the front-runners from the beginning, but he doesn't now. In fact, he might fare better the second primary around, which is unfair to Clinton. If both names were on the ballot, the results in the Florida race should stand as is.
3a. You're not going to call them flip-floppers, are you? While we can make conjectures about their concerns, probably it is more nuanced than just winning the primary.
3b. Thank you for admitting that Obama would probably be doing the same if the situation was reversed. Counting the votes for Michigan might be unfair, but I don't see the "unfair" part of Florida.
4a. What about curling?
4b. True, but if the DNC in the past has issued stiff penalties and then seated the delegates, we shouldn't expect anything different.
4c. Of course we do want the votes to count. They did help our candidate.
4d. See 4b.
The only fair solution I see is splitting the Michigan delegates 50/50 and dividing the Florida delegates according to the end results of that early primary.
2. So what you're saying is, Obama needed face time to do better originally, which is unfair to him. And if they were to do it again, he might do better, which is unfair to Clinton. So the only fair solution is to count the results that were unfair to the candidate you're not supporting.
3a. I don't use the term "flip-flopper". I think we are all better than that. Let McCain's thugs go with "flip-flopper".
4a. I find curling somewhat exotic and interesting to watch, from a purely visual perspective. People sliding down the ice with brooms. Therefore, to me, bowling is the lamer sport. Also, the rules of bowling are easy to figure out, so I can come up with a simple metaphor for it. Curling...not so much. But since you brought it up, I checked out wikipedia and here's what I came up with:
Say you and I were the skips of our respective curling teams. We head out onto the ice, but our local curling club has not yet sprayed water droplets onto the level ice. We decide that, since this is a friendly game, we'll throw a practice stone while they prepare.
As the lead, you throw a come around, while I throw a more typical guard. We each throw another stone before the club finally gets around to spraying the ice. When you get up to throw your lead stone, I say "Wait--you have already thrown two stones. Your second should be throwing. Since both of us were throwing stones, the first two stones should stand."
Now this leaves you in an awkward position, as I have thrown my stones into a more appropriate position in the house, whereas your second throw was a practice take-out of your own stone. Would you just walk over and agree to sweep for your second as (s)he threw the next two stones? Or would you call over your vice-mate and threaten me with your brooms?
See what I'm getting at? It's just not fair.
2. I said "may" but let me see if I understand your position...
Obama needed face time to overcome the sheer name recognition, the same name recognition that many feel is actually a detriment to Clinton.
Besides the point that she had name recognition, neither candidate campaigned. Results then were about as "fair" as they could be.
Redo the vote now and Obama has not only caught up on the name recognition but has more money to run ads, etc.
So yeah, I guess I am arguing that it should fall to Clinton's advantage because there was nothing essentially wrong with that vote, except it was early.
4a. I appreciate your effort on this one but my lack of interest on curling prevents me from reading your response with any level of comprehension. Sports metaphors in general tend to find me uninterested.
Post a Comment