Dear Pennsyltucky
Out of context: Reply #44
- Started
- Last post
- 44 Responses
- ********0
"Rasmussen. 4/16.
Likely voters. MoE 4.5% (3/17 results)McCain (R) 43 (46)
Obama (D) 46 (46)McCain (R) 50 (52)
Clinton (D) 36 (38)"Obama makes Colorado competitive, Clinton kills it for us. And that's not just relevant at the top of the ticket. We have a top-tier Senate race in the state, and you better believe Mark Udall is better off with Obama at the top of the ticket than having to make up a 14-point Clinton deficit. Throw in CO-04, which is already on the DCCC's target list, and once again, it's clear why having Obama at the top of the ticket is so helpful to the Democratic Party not just at the presidential level, but down below it as well.
Same goes for another Red state we can flip with the right candidate (that "right" candidate being Obama): North Carolina:
Rasmussen. 4/10. Likely voters. MoE 4.5% (3/20 results)
McCain (R) 47 (42)
Obama (D) 47 (51)McCain (R) 51 (50)
Clinton (D) 40 (34)Clinton might make this one competitive, but it'd be tough. Obama immediately makes this a top-tier pickup opportunity in a state that McCain can ill-afford to defend. We also have a potentially hot Senate race and at least one solid House pickup opportunity (NC-08), both of which would benefit from 1) having the state be a presidential battleground, and 2) having a competitive candidate at the top of the ticket.
What about those "big states" that Clinton thinks only she can win? How about California?
Rasmussen. 4/16. Likely voters. MoE 4.5% (3/12 results)
McCain (R) 43 (38)
Obama (D) 50 (53)McCain (R) 42 (39)
Clinton (D) 47 (46)Not that either Democrat would lose California to McCain (even in the best-case scenario, he wouldn't have the money to contest it), but funny how Obama runs stronger than Clinton in the Golden State. And even those two points will matter to candidates like Charlie Brown in CA-04 fighting to eeke out tight victories in tough districts. Indeed, Brown only lost by three points in 2006.
What about the purple states, like Minnesota?
SurveyUSA. 4/11-13. Likely voters. MoE 4.3% (3/14-16 results)
McCain (R) 43 (47)
Obama (D) 49 (46)McCain (R) 46 (46)
Clinton (D) 47 (49)Minnesota won't be a state we can take for granted this fall. It will be a tough one for either Obama or Clinton, but it's clear that Obama fares better. And remember, this is all post-"Wright" and all that other nonsense that has supposedly crushed Obama time and time again. Same goes with Wisconsin, Iowa, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington:
SurveyUSA. 4/14-17. Likely voters. MoE 4% (3/14-16 results)
McCain (R) 40 (47)
Obama (D) 53 (48)McCain (R) 45 (47)
Clinton (D) 48 (47)Check out that Obama surge -- it was also post-"Wright", post-"Bitter", post all that bull. Yet after all that crap, they've decided they still like Obama and have now given him a comfortable margin in the must-win Democratic state. Clinton? She makes it a nail biter.
Obama even makes a difference in the "blowout" states, like McCain's home of Arizona.
Rasmussen. 4/15. Likely voters. MoE 4.5% (No trend lines)
McCain (R) 57
Obama (D) 37McCain (R) 60
Clinton (D) 32"But", say the Clinton apologists, "what does it matter if we lose by 28 points or just 20? A loss is a loss!" It matters to the two House Democratic freshman running tough reelection campaigns this year (Mitchell in AZ-05 and Giffords in AZ-08). It matters to the Democrats running in our two targeted races in AZ-01 (Renzi's old seat) and AZ-03 (Shadegg's seat). The smaller the margin at the top of the ticket, the fewer ticket splitters they need to win their races.
Really, I can go through polls all day (and likely will over the coming two weeks), showing how in most states Obama runs stronger and has greater coattail potential than Clinton. I'm even ignoring pre-"Bitter" polls to ensure the numbers aren't just fresh, but include all of Obama's baggage. Yet as we'll see in the vast majority of cases (the biggest exception being Florida, though there are several others), Obama does far better.
What about the daily national tracking polls? In Rasmussen's latest, Obama trails McCain by 3, Clinton trails McCain by 6. Advantage Obama. Gallup has one of those tracking polls as well, and they have Obama and McCain tied at 45, while Clinton trails McCain by (a statistically insignificant) 1 point.
So remind me again how is Clinton "more electable" against McCain than Obama?
She's lost more contests to Obama than she's won. She's raised less money than he has. She fares poorer in the polling against McCain than he does. She trails in the popular vote.
And somehow, despite the fact she runs behind Obama in the general, the supers are supposed to overturn the will of the primary electorate and spur intra-party civil war on her behalf? Is she really that narcissistic?
Apparently so."
- that's what I'm sayin'... Clinton gets the nom, McCain wins the general.flashbender
- Hear, hear.********