Obama no longer outperforms Clinton against McCain. He once did 9 points better, lost 5 pts in March

[jackson_dem]

One of the top arguments of Obama's campaign has always been that he was more electable than Clinton. For a year poll averages consistently showed the Illinois upstart outperforming the old warrior against rethugs. There was polls here and there that showed Clinton doing better but 90% of the time she was behind in the poll average, the only reliable measure given how much a given poll can vary due to methodology. No more. For the first time Clinton is even with Obama in the rcp poll averages. These polls were taken before pastorgate and the subsquent revelation that Obama knew about Wright's views but lied to the nation anyway last night. The fallout from pastorgate has not been completed. This is about much more than one scandal, though. This confirms what some of us had long been saying. As Obama got more scrutiny from the media and even suffered the occasional attack his negatives would increase. The belief that a pristine candidate who received more positive press than any other major candidate in recent memory would be as strong in such match ups after receiving some fire was always a very naive or overly optimistic one based on a belief in Obama having superhuman qualities as a politician that would allow him to defy political gravity. Keep in mind he still has yet to be attacked by the rethug machine and the msm has barely touched him thus far. Even pastorgate was ignored by the nightly news and the major papers. The latter finally covered it after Obama gave them a pro-Obama script with which they could spin it in the form of his public, sorry, a spade must be called a spade, lying on the matter. I didn't see the nightly news tonight but I suspect it must have been covered there as well.

I am sure an Obama supporter will look at this and say "well, he still matches Clinton". That is dangerous. He will only get weaker. He should be thrashing a candidate who the msm, rethugs have fired their artillery at for 16 years. Even a large chunk of her own party has spent the better part of this decade pounding away at her. In contrast Obama has gotten probably less the 16 days of negative msm coverage, has not been touched by the rethug machine yet, and is a hero to the same flank of the party that despises Clinton for believing what Obama believes. Clinton is at her floor; Obama peaked a while ago. If you are voting for Obama because you like him the best keep supporting him. However, if you are supporting him due to electability you need to accept the writing on the wall and switch to Clinton.

Here are the numbers:

The current rcp average: Clinton exactly tied with McCain, Obama leads McCain by 0.3 (not statistically worth a penny)

Let's travel back in time and watch the trajectory.

3/9/07: Obama +1.4, Clinton -1.6
4/9/07: Obama +6.4, Clinton -3.0
5/10/07: Obama +7.2, Clinton +2.0
6/10/07: Obama +7.8, Clinton -1.5
7/11/07: Obama +6.0, Clinton +4.8
8/11/07: Obama +5.7, Clinton +2.8
9/11/07: Obama +6.6, Clinton +3.7
10/12/07: Obama +3.7, Clinton +4.6
11/12/07: Obama +3.8, Clinton +3.8
12/13/07: Obama +1.0, Clinton +2.8
1/13/08: Obama =0.0, Clinton -5.0
2/13/08: Obama +4.0, Clinton -1.5
3/15/08: Obama +0.3, Clinton =0.0

Here are the differentials between their performance by month.

3/07: Obama +3
4/07: Obama +9.4
5/07: Obama +5.2
6/07: Obama +9.3
7/07: Obama +1.2
8/07: Obama +2.9
9/07: Obama +2.9
10/07: Clinton +0.9
11/07: Tied
12/07: Clinton +1.8
1/08: Obama +5.0
2/08: Obama +5.5
3/08: Obama +0.3

The trajectory is clear. Obama started out doing over 9 points better than Clinton against McCain but now they are even. Obama suffered a decline of over 5 points in the last month--the first month he has gotten a smattering of msm scrutiny.

[muntrv]

1. The republickers want Hillary as the nominee. That way she will turn out

people to vote for McCain.

[jackson_dem]

2. Unbelievable. Just ignore the facts and repeat the Obama machine's propaganda

[Obamaniac]

10. You make that deduction based on ONE FUCKING POLL!

lol.

That's sad man, real fucking sad.

I can't help but notice how you conveniently omitted the ABC poll where Obama did 8 points better than Hillary released last week. Or any other poll showing a similar spread.

What happens when the one poll you site shows an increase for Obama? I guess you come back using some other bullshit statistic and will ignore that one.

How nice it must be to live in Hillaryland where you can make up facts to best suit your purpose, whatever that might be at the time.

Obama is the better candidate, simple as.

[jackson_dem]

13. You obviously didn't read the OP. Why? Fear of truth?

These are poll averages from four or five polls and the changes were posted month by month.

Those polls are included in the poll average. If you read the post instead of burying your head in the sand you would know that. You obviously have an instinctive fear of the truth on this. Maybe you really know who the stronger candidate is...

[Upton]

6. That's right, Republicans that haven't voted in years

will turn out to vote against Hillary. State and and local contests will be affected all over the country and not for the good. She's the most polarizing figure in American politics, that cannot be denied.

[jackson_dem]

9. Another Obama supporter who ignores the data and instead buys Obama's propaganda

Obama is less electable. Look at the trajectory. He should, as a new and almost completely pristine candidate, be solidly doing better than Clinton--like he once was...

[Upton]

19. Trajectorys?

What about Hillary's negatives that straddle 50%, ignoring them? Are you disputing the fact that Hillary is a one woman GOP get out the vote drive? They'll come out of every nook and cranny.

[jackson_dem]

25. The trajectory for her negatives are static. For Obama they are rapidly rising

I go by facts. The facts speak for themselves. You are reciting Obama propaganda. The fact is she, despite 16 years of attacks, performs as well against McCain now as the pristine Obama. Obama once did almost over 9 points better than her against McCain...

You are deluding yourself if you think a rapidly falling Obama, as far as general election strength goes, whose negatives are rising fast isn't going to produce the usual rethug turnout.

[Upton]

36. She's in danger of losing to McCain here in Wa.

latest poll has her 8% points down to McCain, Obama is in a dead heat. We need a strong presence at the top of the ticket. Your national trajectories mean nothing when you're looking at the state level.
http://race42008.com/2008/03/05/poll-watch-rasmussen-washington-state-general-election/

[jackson_dem]

59. The state level is an electoral vote difference of four. They both win right now

The trajectory matters because Obama won't be winning by August if this continues, as it should given political realities...

I addressed the electoral college issue in more detail downthread. A quick example is Obama loses Pennsylvania and New Jersey while Clinton wins. That is a loss of the 5th and 9th largest electoral prizes. That translates to losing 36 electoral votes.

[Frank Booth]

83. Yes!!!!!! Now, thanks to this over the top campaign we have two candidates with high negatives!!

I think this is something we can all be happy about as Democrats, and I am excited to see you so pleased!! :toast:

[Frank Booth]

84. Yes!!!!!! Now, thanks to this over the top campaign we have two candidates with high negatives!!

I think this is something we can all be happy about as Democrats, and I am excited to see you so pleased!! :toast:

[muntrv]

92. Yep. Obams is in free fall. Never mind that 3 months ago, Hillary was expected

to clinch the nomination by Valentines Day, Obama is in free fall.:sarcasm:

[bilgewaterbill]

23. It ain't propaganda. People who are disillusioned and non-voters

will get up and vote if it means keeping Hillary from being POTUS. How many of those people did you poll reach?

[jackson_dem]

31. Where is the data to support that Obama machine myth?

[bilgewaterbill]

40. The only "machine" in this election belongs to HRC. And the wheels....?

[jackson_dem]

48. Has the Obama machine produced any proof of its claim?

It tends to have trouble doing that for some reason... ;)

[bilgewaterbill]

52. Umm.... JD? Back away from the JD! What Obama "machine"??

[Tesha]

91. *NEITHER ONE* is particularly "electible". The electible Democrats were all ejected earlier.

Did you figure this was an accident?

Tesha

[emilyg]

68. Yawn.

[Selatius]

3. I can see McCain winning the presidency because of the internecine conflict within the Dems.

McCain has the advantage in that he can sit there and simply plug away at the Dems or simply sit back and further plan his way around the Dem nominee.

[BeyondGeography]

4. Hillary's campaign now consists largely of raising Obama's negatives

Meantime, McCain runs unopposed.

What do you expect?

[jackson_dem]

5. That is typical. Blame Clinton for what naturally happens to a "new" candidate

Yeah as if Obama didn't come out swinging against Clinton from day one. :eyes: Obama is not entitled to the presidency and will have to earn it like everyone else.

His top slogan is "change we can believe in." Notice anything odd about that?

[BeyondGeography]

16. It's not blame, it's just the reality of where the race is right now

She had to go negative in order to survive. Notice how she hasn't improved against McCain as a result, she's just not doing much worse than Obama anymore. This is supposed to make us believe she's all of a sudden a better alternative?

[ProgressiveEconomist]

20. What's your alternate explanation for the trend change? And why would it coincide

EXACTLY with Hillary's repeated statements (more that 5 times) that "McCain passes the CIC test, HRC passes it, and Barack Obama has a speech he gave in 2002"?

Evidently Hillary has a two point plan:

(1) Pull out the stops to portray Obama as a candidate inferior to John McCain

(2) Then go to the superdelegates to complain that Obama does not perform as well as HRC against John McCain.

IMO, this shows even more unmitigated gall than HRC's offering Obama the Vice Presidency, while she trails him in delegates, popular votes, and states won.

[jackson_dem]

30. The msm has given him some scrutiny for the first time during that period

Clinton has been attacking him for months. That didn't change. What changed was the msm finally started talking about, to an extent, Rezko, Obama's ties to unsavory other people like Ayrers and Wright, NAFTAgate, Michelle Obama's "first time I am proud of my country comment" (this takes on a whole new meaning in light of pastorgate), and even minor things like Farrakhan's endorsement. The notion that Obama was somehow immune to what happens to every "new" candidate was always a fairy tale. It is illogical to think a pristine candidate will poll worse than a candidate who has been bloodied. Obama's early numbers, when he spanked Clinton as far as GE strength goes, were always a peak...

[ProgressiveEconomist]

39. "Clinton has been attacking him for months. That didn't change" HUH???

[jackson_dem]

49. She has consistently attacked him since at least November

The numbers didn't move when she did that. What changed over the past month was the msm's role.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

67. No; what changed in March was Hillary began glorifying McCain at Obama's expense

[kerry-is-my-prez]

75. Just wait til the Repubs were to go after him for being "The most liberal senator"

His numbers would have plummeted then also.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

27. ALSO, WHY ARE LEVELS FOR MCCAIN MISSING FROM YOUR DATA?

IMO, it must be because they show that the desperate game Hillary is playing to drive Obama's approval numbers down ultimately has one winner--John McCain.

HRC is DESTROYING THE PARTY'S CHANCES IN NOVEMBER just to spite Obama.

Your data source must show this--that must be why you are hiding approval levels for McCain.

[jackson_dem]

33. McCain is included. The first set of numbers is their lead/defifict to McCain

Obama supporters ignore history. This is what always happens to "new" candidates. Obama doesn't have a special shield from this. If Clinton dropped out tomorrow Obama would be sliding back even quicker since the msm would fully turn its guns onto him.

Clinton is our only chance to win.

McCain, too, will see his negatives rise. However, not as much as Obama since he is far more well-known and defined. Here are some past analogues: McCain will be like Kerry, Clinton like Gore (two universally known candidates who everyone had a clear idea of and well-defined), and Obama like Bush 00' or Dukakis as far as negatives go.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

57. McCain is NOT included. Are his levels going up or down? Can't tell from what you've posted.

Levels are relative to McCain, but presumably McCain is not standing still while Hillary drives up Obama's negatives.

[Brundle_Fly]

73. Hillary's biggest mistake at the beginning was

misunderstanding Obama's appeal.

I think you might be suffering from a similar mental stunting. :P

[LisaL]

7. I am not sure what do you expect of GE?

Do you think republicans are just gonna sing Obama praises?
Where do Obama's negatives gonna go but up?

[Doctor_J]

8. This is because hate radio and cable "news" are campaigning for Clinton

as soon as they ram her down our throats as the nominee, they will turn on her like the slimy sub-human filth that they are.

The revolution can't come soon enough for me.

[jackson_dem]

11. That doesn't make any sense. This is about their general election performance

Clinton has improved from a weak start--which is what happens when folks realize she is not bad as the far right has told them. It happened in New York as well. What is happening to Obama happens to every "new" candidate. The difference is Obama never had a big lead to begin with like you would expect from a "new" candidate in a change election.

They will oppose any nominee. It was always a fairy tale that Obama would be immune to what happens to every major party nominee, especially the "new" ones.

Clinton has won over a million more Democratic votes than Obama. It is Obama who has carrying the rethug vote by obscene margins.

[Doctor_J]

14. What? Bis Media's incessant attacks on Obama don't affect his "Will vote for" numbers?

:crazy:

[jackson_dem]

18. Another Obama supporter who didn't read the OP

No surprise there. Obamites are averse to data.

[Selatius]

12. I think Rush Limbaugh constantly reminding listeners to vote for Hillary is playing dirty.

Of course, I expect that with the authoritarian right. They simply do whatever they can to sink the Dems so the Repubs can win. I can see McCain winning the presidency since Obama and Hillary are so bloodied in the primary battles.

[wileedog]

15. Polls mean shit in March

[jackson_dem]

22. Trajectory over 12 months matters. Guess where Obama will be in Sept. if he is the nominee?

Obama should be doing far better than Clinton right now as a "new" candidate in a "change" year. He isn't. He is tied with McCain. Kerry was 8 points ahead of Bush at this point and 2004 was far less of a change election than 2008. Bush was up by 11 against Gore at this time in 2000. Again, far less of a change year than 2008. Obama should be up by around 15...

[wileedog]

24. HIllary was up 30 points in every category 3 months ago

Apparently she can't close the deal either.

[jackson_dem]

35. No. She started out doing over 9 points worse than Obama in GE strength

She improved, just like Gore and Bush 88' did. They are two good comparisons for her as they were as well-known, well defined, and associated with an administration as much as Clinton.

[wileedog]

43. So her campaign of "Inevitability" was based on her 9 points down?

Go back and check the numbers. 12 month tracking and whatnot.

And again a GE poll in December is beyond useless, albeit slightly less so than March.

Do you just make shit up?

[jackson_dem]

50. Obama supporters keep confusing primaries with a general election

She was always a very weak general election candidate in the beginning of the campaign. She improved. Is this because she is a magic politician? That is what the attribution of the rise would be if it happened regarding Obama. No. She improved for the same reason Gore did.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

65. Can I have a hit of what you're smoking?

[Doctor_J]

17. Don't tell that to the Hilbots. They don't think hate radio's campaign has

anything to do with her surge.

[ProSense]

21. Winning in November: Obama Still Stronger Against McCain

Winning in November: Obama Still Stronger Against McCain:

New polling in California shows Barack Obama with a 15% lead over John McCain in a hypothetical head-to-head match-up, more than double Hillary Clinton's lead. According to the poll conducted by Rasmussen, Obama is viewed favorably by 59% of the state's voters, McCain by 49%, and Clinton by 47%.

In addition to Democratic strongholds like California, Barack's competitiveness in traditionally "red" states could dramatically shift the electoral map in November. A new SurveyUSA poll shows that Barack would carry the state of North Dakota 46% to 42% against McCain, while Clinton trails McCain 35% to 54% ...

<...>

A comprehensive, nation-wide SurveyUSA poll shows Barack Obama defeating John McCain in a hypothetical match-up by a margin of 280 electoral votes to 256. Obama carries 24 states plus the District of Columbia. In Nebraska, which divides its electoral votes based on congressional districts, McCain wins three electoral votes while Obama wins two.

Of the states which McCain is currently predicted to carry, the race is extremely close in Texas (47%-46%), Florida (47%-45%), North Carolina (47%-45%) and South Carolina (48%-45%). And with Barack as the Democratic candidate, nearly every state west of the Mississippi could be in play:

<...>

Barack performs especially strong in states were he has actively campaigned already this year:

• In Iowa, Obama leads McCain by 17 points and Clinton trails McCain by 9 points, an incredible 26 point swing. In Virginia Obama leads by 6 points, while Clinton trails McCain 45%-48%.
  
  
• In New York, Obama leads McCain by 21%, almost double Clinton’s lead of 11%.
  
  
• A SurveyUSA poll of Wisconsin from earlier in the week shows Obama again leading McCain by double-digits, while McCain beats Hillary Clinton 49% to 42%.
  
  
• Obama also outperforms Clinton in recent state polls of New Hampshire, Colorado, Nevada, and Virginia.
  
  
• In Pennsylvania, a state were Barack has yet to actively campaign, he already holds a commanding double-digit lead over John McCain, while McCain edges out Hillary Clinton in a close race.
  
  
• Obama also leads in Oregon and the important state of Michigan.

With a surge of support from young voters and new voters, and with a broad coalition of Democrats, Independents and even some Republicans, Barack Obama has emerged as the strongest general election candidate.

According to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll:

In the past two months, Senator Barack Obama has built a commanding coalition among Democratic voters ... and is now viewed by most Democrats as the candidate best able to defeat Senator John McCain.

[BeyondGeography]

26. He outperforms Clinton in her own state

Gotta love that.

Plus, they really love her in Iowa, don't they? She permanently pissed them off by dissing the caucuses there. She will never in a million years take that state.

[jackson_dem]

37. Playing the electoral college game is a separate issue. This is about the trajectory

Frankly it is a moot point to talk about Obama's electoral college status at this point since it, if he is nominated, will be far worse by August. At this point, though, he loses some big key states like Florida, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. Clinton wins all three. Still they wind up with about the same number of electoral votes because he currently does better in some purple states. That will change when his consistent decline continues...

[BeyondGeography]

42. Yeah, if you say so, jack

After all, you've got quite the track record. I remember when you said Obama's situation was similar to Romney's prior to Super Tuesday.

How'd that work out?

[jackson_dem]

51. I didn't say anything. The trajectory speaks for itself

Romney got killed and he left the race. Were you surprised by that? Obama delivered the goods; Romney didn't.

[jefferson_dem]

29. Nice rebuttal. Obama does better than Hillary in CT too.

He wallops McCain by 12 points while she wins by a statistically insignificant three points.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/connecticut/connecticut_presidential_election

[jackson_dem]

38. See post 37. You can cherry pick states all day long

[Juche]

28. interesting article

However there are a few issues that I feel need to be addressed.


Obama does great with young people, he can probably beat mccain among young voters by 30 points or more (a 65/35 split). young voters not only make up 1/4 of the electorate (50 mil possible voters) but if they consistently vote progressive, they will carry that agenda with them for life.

Obama has also built an amazing grassroots movement that after he either loses or wins will still be in place. Dean, after he lost started the 50 state strategy. Obama's energy will not go away, it will just be redirected.

So you have to plan for the long term, the fact that Obama can pull in the youth and can build a grassroots movement that will start to pay dividends in the next few elections is worth considering.

And a problem with clinton is that she really is so polarizing that she will energize a disappointed GOP base. Plus she doesn't raise money nearly as well as Obama (if Obama outraises her, that means the DNC doesn't need to give him money and can give it to democrat congress candidates).

I understand what you are implying, that as the media actually investigated Obama he may sink like a tank, but I still think with Clinton's high negatives, lesser ability to energize the young and raise money and create a grassroots movement that Obama is still the better pick.

Obama is also more well recieved internationally than Clinton, and will do more to improve our relationships abroad.

And again, clinton lost a 20 point lead in Ohio & Texas. If she can lose a 20 point lead and have it cut to 3-10 points in 2 weeks, what do polls taken in March really matter?

[jackson_dem]

47. Those are commonly held views but the data don't suport them

1) Ironically Clinton actually polls better with 18-29 folks against McCain. She gets 68%. Obama gets 65%. Obama does do six points better among folks 30-49. However he does four points worse among 50-64 folks and five worse than 65+. Since the latter two groups account for a far greater number of voters if you are voting based on who is the most competitive based on age groups Clinton is your candidate.

We can look at groups until we are blue in the face. In the end, as the poll average in the OP shows, they come out the same. Even in the electoral college the current difference is four. The OP is more about the trajectory. Obama is declining consistently. Clinton is holding steady and actually has improved a lot from the first half of 2007 when she did very poorly against the rethugs. There is no reason to believe the trajectory for Obama will change and Clinton is unlikely to suddenly drop either. She will follow Gore 00' and Bush 88'.

2) Yes, to support Hillary Clinton and the other Democratic candidates. Dean's voters went to Kerry, despite the fact they didn't hold the IWR voter in the highest of esteem at this time in 2004. This is what always happens. Democrats vote Dem. Rethugs for rethugs. The exception is Obama who bleeds an unusually high number of Democratic support against McCain if he is nominated...Think "Reagan Democrats" except that McCain can only do this against Obama. Clinton keeps the Democratic base.

3) Obama is becoming increasingly polarizing and that is why you see his numbers steadily declining. This is natural. He was new. Why would anyone not like him? The only folks who disliked him as of the announcement of his candidacy were hardcore rethugs who don't like any Democrat and racists. His negatives had only one place to go: up. Any major party nominee will have high negatives by November.

Thanks for bringing this up. I forgot to mention this in the OP. Why does Clinton do as well as Obama as a GE candidate despite as of now having higher negatives? It is clear some folks who like Obama won't vote for him. Is there any reason why this could be? Yes! Experience. Many voters who like him apparently don't think he is up to the job. As of right now they are equally strong. Unfortunately for us, if we nominate Obama, the election isn't on March 19. It is in November...

Look to history. Gore is a great example. He too had high negatives at this point in 2000 and trailed the "new" candidate of "change", Bush, by 11. Yet he won by 0.4. What happened was Bush's negatives increased and Gore's remained basically static.

4) I have never seen any hard evidence for that. There is some anecdotal evidence but you can do the same with Clinton given her relationships with many world leaders. I like the blogosphere two step on Clinton. They associate her with everything bad under Bill Clinton but none of the good. Everyone else, both here and abroad, associates her with both. Let's not forget America never enjoyed a higher global standing than when William Jefferson Clinton occupied the White House. She will also bring plenty of good feelings abroad to the White House due to this. Obama will as well but for a different reason. He represents a "fresh start" abroad, although on substance they are both about the same. This is another area where they both wind up about even.

5) That was in a Democratic primary. Here general election strength has a positive trajectory; Obama has spent months consistently declining. How do you reconcile the two? Here is a big reason: 90% of Obama supporters will vote for Clinton but only 75% of Clinton supporters will vote for Obama. In other words, even if she lost a given state to Obama 90% of his Democratic support will transfer to her. She hasn't lost, as the netroots which views her as a monster, because folks dislike her. Her favorables among Democrats are very high. She has lost some states because folks simply liked Obama better. There is less of this feeling on the Clinton side.

[karynnj]

32. Now what likely caused that shift? Something Obama did? Or what someone else did

when she - by her own account threw the kitchen sink at him? HRC may well have hurt our nominee - I hope she and her husband are very proud of themselves.

What Hillary Clinton did hurt both her and Obama. I suspect that Obama will recover a good deal of those points when the attacks from his own party stop. I don't think HRC will recover hers. Now, I am for Obama, so you have every right to ask why the difference. the difference is that Obama will continue to answer those attacks as will his surrogates. For HRC, what it did was likely add to those who plain don't like her. She SAID she was throwing the kitchen sink - no one says that!

PS The trajectory is not obvious and you are very influenced by the last point that may well be an outlier, as it came after several weeks of negative Clinton attacks. Also look at the fact that Clinton pulled ahead in Oct-Dec 2007 only to lose it - the pattern looks more complicated than a straight line.

[jackson_dem]

53. Political realities. Aren't you a big Kerry fan?

The same thing happened to him just as it did to Bush 00'.

Obama's decline began long before Clinton went after him. It is an irrelevant cop out to blame it on Clinton given that. After she began going after him around about November Obama held steady and even rose when the msm gave him glowing coverage after Iowa up to the week before 3/4. What changed in the last month? The msm. Any "new" candidate who receives scrutiny inevitably declines a bit. Obama isn't immune to political gravity.

Poll averages aren't outliers. They are used for the very purpose of weeding out outliers but looking at an aggregation of polls.

Obama continued to decline substantially versus McCain during that same period. The difference wasn't Obama. The difference was Clinton basically held steady against McCain, although she also lost a bit. That led her to surpass Obama. The only time Obama really made gains against McCain was the month when he was the toast of the msm after Iowa.

The excuse that Clinton is to blame is irrelevant. He will be attacked. That is what happens to politicians. The point is that as he gets attacked his electability will continue to decline. Obama supporters are unwittingly accepting that proposition on one level...

[kerry-is-my-prez]

78. What Hillary did to Obama was about 1/20th of what the Repubs would do.

This pastorgate thing was started by Sean Hannity.

[karynnj]

79. HRC did not realize that she was losing until SuperTuesday

It was the last month when she doubled up her disgusting negative attacks - the problem with your analysis is that there are 3 people involved in every data point - and the movement could be due to any of them, any 2 of them or all of them. Some of that is McCain getting a lift by winning the nomination. There is also only one data point at the end that you are basing your entire analysis on. A point I might add where he is still ahead of Clinton.

This has nothing to do with the character assassination the media played along with in 2004. No candidate - certainly not HRC - could have withstood that attack and nearly win, as was the case with Kerry. You might want to consider that "swiftboating" has been taken to mean despicable politic lying - meaning that Kerry, though he lost a race the Clintons had thought unwinnable, did end up with most fair minded people knowing that he was a hero. The Clintons are considered unethical even by some Democrats. You might also want to remember that HRC is losing the battle for the nomination in an ugly way, while Kerry ran an excellent campaign to get the 2004 nomination - not to mention - if Kerry were still in the race, HRC wouldn't have been able to do her 3 am ad. He has credentials that far exceed hers.

Nothing you show says that ultimstely Clinton is more electable - that she keeps losing those match ups and the actual elections shows it's not true.

[Frumious B]

34. Considering that McCain has nothing going but to plan his campaign and pick up endorsements...

...it's no surprise that he is enjoying an uptick in the polls. Life is good for John McCain right now, damned good, now because he can take all the potshots he wants at Obama knowing that Hillary will be doing the same. Nobody is campaigning against him while Hillary and Obama campaign against each other. If Obama is the nominee then he'll be softened up from fighting on two fronts. If Hillary wins then she'll have exhausted so much in her comeback that she'll be a pushover too. I guess it's time to get used to the phrase "President McCain" unless the Dems get their shit together and settle this fast.

[jackson_dem]

54. The OP is more about Obama declining than McCain

Compare their relative strength against McCain. Obama started out early in 2007 9.4 points stronger than Clinton. He is now tied with her.

[Freida5]

41. The attacks from the right republicans are just beginning to tick up his negatives.

[Upton]

45. Yeah, attacks that are echoed by many Clinton supporters

who ever thought that part of the right wing echo machine was going to consist of some supposed Democrats?

[jackson_dem]

60. One polling firms has he negatives tripling from last February to this February

This is only the tip of the iceberg if he is our nominee...

[Freida5]

66. It is better we find out that Obama is unelectable in the primary than in the general election

[Egnever]

44. Surprise surprise ... The kitchen sink is in effect.

What did you think would happen? Happy how we got there? Are you proud of what Clinton has done to the nominee apparent?

Will two or three more weeks of this make you feel even better when she limps into the convention still behind in delegates and the popular vote? Will he have been badly damaged enough by her spew by then to where she can take her losing position point at him and say see he's a mess you must vote for me?

That is the Clinton plan at this point. I guess its yours as well.

[jackson_dem]

56. Did Obama supporters actually think Obama would get coronated?

2008 will be a campaign just like every quadriennel year since 1800 (minus the freak years of 1816 and 1820). Obama inevitably was going to get hit and his numbers would fall. They will fall even more if he is the nominee when the rethug machine goes after him and the msm turns on him. The real point is his past polling better than Clinton was meaningless. It was always misleading and inflated. He had nowhere to go but down. How down will he be by August if we nominate him? Kerry was down by close to double digits by September after leading by 8 at this point (do the math. He suffered something like a 16 point decline from March to September. Obama will suffer even more. We could be down 20 heading into the debates in September...). Obama doesn't even have a lead right now...

[mnhtnbb]

70. No, but they did believe he would walk on water.

[TheDonkey]

46. Not scrutiny but smearing. Congrats Hillary.

[jackson_dem]

58. You think the msm didn't know about Rezko, Obama's other "friends", and Wright until now?

This stuff was reported in various outlets, chiefly the Chicago media but the national msm ignored it. It is no accident all of it suddenly hit the msm at the same time after a year. The media didn't just wake up...They whored for Obama until he got a sizable pledged delegate lead.

[wisteria]

55. Polls smolls. Who cares about them until the election is upon us?

They go up and down and around and around.

[jackson_dem]

62. When a candidate is making an argument on words we need to see if the facts support his words

:)

Frankly, I am terrified at Obama's trajectory. Clinton is far stronger general election candidate and that is why I support her.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

61. There's only one thing that matters. Here's a hint: DELEGATES!

[Johnny__Motown]

63. Yes, frontrunners get hit hard. 2 Clintons + McCain and Bush all attacking him

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZsYWiywdCA&feature=related

[Carrieyazel]

64. Both of them are essentially unelectable. That's the reality now and it can't be fixed.

Even against McCain, any hypothetical Dem should have been at least 10 points up in polls taken in March/April of an election year. They're not, and their numbers are only going down as the months go on.

Evem given the putrid state of their party, we are going to running from behind in this race. It's sad, but they're isn't much to be done as far as the top of the ticket this Novembe.

[LisaL]

69. Boggles the mind.

Especially considering that McCain is over 70 years old.

[mnhtnbb]

71. It was the reality months ago and ignored in the fervor to nominate

a first.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

74. I was praying for anyone but those two because of this......

Hillary's high negatives and Obama's lack of experience and the unknown about him. You knew there just had to be something that they would use against him. Let's face it - the reason a lot of moderates were comfortable and not threatened by him was because they saw him as a suburban-type moderate guy.

[shimmergal]

77. Actually, it could be fixed, if

the party leaders and convention delegates had the courage to nominate a third, "unity" candidate who has fewer negatives. But don't expect it to happen!

[kerry-is-my-prez]

72. He was getting 80% positive coverage - you knew the numbers would have to drop.

That's what I had been afraid of all along. It's better to be realistic when you support a candidate - otherwise you will probably get devastated and caught unawares.

When I worked on the Clark campaign - I kept on telling my friend that Clark's numbers were falling and he would probably be dropping out - my friend got very angry with me and wouldn't believe. He ended up absolutley shocked and devastated and was turned off of politics for quite some time. I was sad but not surprised - it was much easier for me to get over.

[quiet.american]

76. Well, guess Hillary's work is done. nt

[dkf]

80. Thank you Hillary! You are a disaster for the Dem Party.

That is just great.

[aquarius dawning]

81. Obama is the Democratic primary equivalent of Katrina.

you're nuts if you think this disaster is Hillary's fault.

[dkf]

82. Oh, I'm sure Hillary's McCain endorsement hasn't made a lick of difference.

Denial denial denial.

[aquarius dawning]

87. It would have gone largely unnoticed if ya'll hadn't turned it into the crime of the century.

[dkf]

88. Hillary blasts her messages to the media constantly.

This was one of her messages that she repeated. It wasn't just one clip that was used, it was several so she said it to several media outlets.

This was direct to the press. It was the message of the day.

And it was her goal...which is to make sure Obama is unelectable, so that either he will lose the primary or the general. She cannot have any Dem President other than herself, or her chances for ever gaining the Presidency fall.

[cooolandrew]

85. There is nothing written on the wall yet this is way too early to call it that way.

He's a comeback kid. As long as a chat room I know "republicans for Obama" exists. Then I am not going oh lets vote hillary aint going to ahppen. Get a pen write on wall OBAMA 2008. TY.

[superkia]

86. I would think that it would have something to do with a well known...

senator that has been trying to destroy him and has also been telling the American people that we are better off with McCain. The elite wanted and thought Clinton was a shoe in and now the plan has turned to getting McCain in, I just hope Americans have finally woke up to the games and choose to go against the elite.

[Perry Logan]

89. Tch tch tch! Even with the press helping him along, he has steadily lost ground.

[Teaser]

90. Not worried. It'll rebound

.

[Vinca]

93. Considering it's been an Obama bashathon 24/7 on MSM,

he's doing fine. I only wish the other primaries were in the next couple of weeks so we could get this wrapped up. We need to be campaigning against McBush.

[Dinger]

94. Interesting Post

Thank you:)