McCain easily beating Clinton and Obama in Rasmussen poll


No, he asked for links to back up opinions.

I find it very hard to believe either of those statements. While the primaries are still going on and there’s no democratic nominee, people are still emotionally invested one candidate, so when that person’s not on the ballot, there’s a possibility of them saying, “I don’t care” or voting against the person they want to lose the primary.

I didn’t know Bush played guitar. Huh.

I think if Clinton wins the nomination, unless Obama is caught with an Emperor’s Club VIP girl or something else that causes his candidacy to collapse utterly, for Clinton to win there would have to be such a gerrymandered convention effectively yoinking the nomination from Obama that there will be enough of an uproar amongst Obama supporters that they’ll simply sit out the election, effectively handing it to McCain. (I know I would.)

And I suspect the reverse is true - that Clintonistas are so riled up that they simply won’t vote for Obama either. Not as big a factor as Clinton pulling a Bush/Gore and pissing off 51% of the Democratic Party electorate, but enough that it’s showing up in the polls.

I also think if Clinton wins the nomination legitimately somehow without shenanigans like seating the Soviet-style-voted Michigan delegation (though it’s starting to look exceedingly mathematically improbable), the Dems will be able to repair the damage enough to beat back McCain. But Obama will do so much more crushingly.

But remember when we said the continued bloodletting would kill the Democrats in November? You’re seeing the storm surge.

I don’t think that Hillary engenders that kind of loyalty.

She’s being foolish for sure, and she’s shocked me with how selfish her campaign is, but Obama’s magic is healing exactly this kind of divide.

I doubt it.

CHILL OUT…The hot topic of conversation right now is the proposition that a long, drawn-out Democratic primary runs the risk of destroying the party and putting John McCain in the White House. So for the good of the country, Hillary should withdraw.

Now, this might be true. But I’d like to offer a historical counterexample: 1968. Consider. The Democratic incumbent president was forced to withdraw after a primary debacle in New Hampshire. The Vietnam War had split liberals into warring factions and urban riots had shattered the LBJ’s Great Society legacy. A frenzied primary season reached all the way to California in June, culminating in the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. The Democratic Convention in Chicago was a nationally televised battle zone. Hubert Humphrey, the party’s eventual nominee, had never won a primary and was loathed by a significant chunk of the liberal community. New Left radicals hated mainstream Democrats more than they hated Republicans.

In other words, this was the mother of all ugly, party-destroying campaigns. No other primary campaign in recent memory from either party has come within a million light years of being as fratricidal and ruinous. But what happened? In the end, Humphrey lost the popular vote to Nixon by less than 1%. A swing of about a hundred thousand votes in California would have thrown the election into the House of Representatives.

If long, bitter, primary campaigns really destroy parties, then Humphrey should have lost the 1968 election by about 50 points. “Bitter” isn’t even within an order of magnitude of describing what happened that year. And yet, even against that blood-soaked background, Humphrey barely lost. This suggests that if primary divisiveness has any effect at all, it must be pretty small.

So I say: chill out. Like a lot of people, I’m not very happy about the direction the Democratic campaign has taken, but the idea that it’s going to wreck the eventual winner’s chances in the fall seems pretty far fetched. It takes more than a few nasty exchanges to do that. And who knows? By keeping Dems in the spotlight, it might even help them. Stranger things have happened.

That may be valid, but your counter example still shows the party lost. Just like the last two contested conventions (1976 Republican, 1980 Democratic) saw a loss in the general election as well.

Who knows what will happen, but even if the impact is minimal, it’s still significant if it ends up being a tight vote in November.

2008 isn’t 1968 by any stretch of the imagination. The “New Left” powerfully alienated most of America over the age of 30 (hello, hippies), and Vietnam was unimaginably more unpopular than Iraq (hello, draft), so both sides had very, very powerful reasons to vote for “their” side. It’s a bit different this time.

Heck, I think this calls for a poll!

Why waste your time?

True but they might not vote. Which I suspect is what these numbers really mean.

McCain’s solid post-Wright debacle lead on Obama holding firm:

Looks like the speech either didn’t help, or it’s not showing up in the numbers yet for some reason.

Nice update, thanks - interesting numbers! Please keep doing this regularly until well after Obama has the nom! I bet those numbers will be even more interesting!

Seems like you’re right, Fooey. Voters loved the speech itself but it isn’t changing minds about Barack Obama the candidate.

The speech stopped any hemorraging of voters. That alone makes it a political success.

Interesting stuff.

Speaking of LBJ - how many people recall that he was a president with no VP for about two years? Just trivia.

There was a lot of divisiveness in 68, and that no doubt did contribute strongly to Nixon winning - he barely won, and would not have won had the Democrats been more unified. What I don’t know is if the smaller size of the conflicting groups in the Democratic party had less effect than what would be a much larger single demographic (African-Americans) being completely pissed off should Hillary be given the nomination. Obama is going to go in to the convention with more delegates and more popular votes - if a black man has the most voted delegates and the most votes and the nomination is given to a “white woman with big-wig connections” I suspect we are going to see a HUGE backlash that will take a major Democratic demographic, one which they take for granted, and remove a lot of those votes from the talley.

All of which may be academic. I’ve seen 3 or 4 commentaries lately that talk about how there’s no way in hell that Obama doesn’t have this nomination wrapped up, that everyone in the party knows he’s got the delegates and the popular vote wrapped up, and no one in the party believes the superdelegates would risk the backlash of putting Hillary in despite that. All commentators opine that the media is making this out to be some neck and neck tight race with the outcome a nail-biter because that makes for much more interesting stories and avoids the wrath of the Clintons. But the fact is, in spite of the stories, unless Obama is caught having an affair with Dick Cheney, Obama is the nominee. And like someone else mentioned, while a lot of people like Hillary, they don’t strike me as the type who will be so loyal to her that they would not vote Democrat in the general election, nor will they have any case at all that she was “robbed.”

Check out page 12.

If [FILL preferred candidate] does not win the Democratic nomination, who do you think you will vote for in the November election? Will you vote for [fill other candidate], John McCain, some other candidate, or will you probably not vote in the November election?

Hillary Clinton supporters (n = 228)
53% Barack Obama
19% John McCain
5% Other
13% Won’t vote
10% Don’t know

Barack Obama supporters (n = 126)
60% Hillary Clinton
20% John McCain
3% Other
3% Won’t vote
14% Don’t know

That seems like a really bad sign for the general.

If Hillary got out now, it would give Obama time to win back her supporters. Easier if he gets her support, which I’m sure he will.

Other than for the good of the party, which I seriously doubt she really cares about compared to her own self interest, there’s no strong reason for Hillary to get out now. Recent polls have shown her with a large and rising lead in Pennsylvania and a massive lead in West Virginia, and she’s narrowed things in North Carolina. She actually looks a bit better in the general versus McCain now than Obama for the first time with Obama’s Wright problems. If things keep trending that way, she has to believe it’s not impossible to think that super delegates will decide she’s now the stronger general election candidate and get behind her.

In other words, even though she will lose the elected delegate count and lose the popular vote, she believes the superdelegates will still snub Obama and give her the nomination? Does she really, truly believe that the party will tell a black man who has won the voted delegates and overall votes “nope, we are going to give it to this white woman with connections instead - sorry we wasted your time and money campaigning, we only really count a handful of states and the others, along with total elected delegates and votes, don’t count?”

The superdelegates are there as a “safety valve” - if, for example, a tape showed up of Obama himself saying what his preacher said, and the polls suddenly showed McCain beating Obama by 20 points and Hillary beating McCain by 20 points, OK, they step in and say we need to overturn the voters for the good of the party.

If the opponent were a white man, no. A white woman? Maybe.

If Obama’s current opponent wasn’t a white woman and was a white man, then this would already be all over and Obama would already be the presumptive nominee. This is as much a race for the first female President as it is for the first African American President.