Bill Clinton's "Coverup" comment.
Bill Clinton is saying that the in what amounts to a coverup, the media is neglecting polls showing that HRC will do better against McCain in November. (They're also neglecting polls that show Democrats prefer Obama by 5-10% or so).
I wonder how accurate polling is this far from November, and especially when the candidate isn't confirmed.
A quick google reveals:
Gallup Poll May-June 1992: Perot: 34 percent; H.W.Bush: 32 percent; Bill Clinton:24 percent.
Gallup Poll June 26 2000: Bush 52 percent; Gore 38%.
Gallup Poll June 2004: Kerry 49 percent; Bush 44 percent.
Those poor, tired Clintons must not have anybody to do research for them.
I wonder how accurate polling is this far from November, and especially when the candidate isn't confirmed.
A quick google reveals:
Gallup Poll May-June 1992: Perot: 34 percent; H.W.Bush: 32 percent; Bill Clinton:24 percent.
Gallup Poll June 26 2000: Bush 52 percent; Gore 38%.
Gallup Poll June 2004: Kerry 49 percent; Bush 44 percent.
Those poor, tired Clintons must not have anybody to do research for them.
Advertisement
I cut Bill some slack on this. Although I really don't think there's a conspiracy, he's basically right.
See my post here for a run-down of the new polls that virtually unanimously show Clinton running ahead of Obama nationwide, and the electoral map predictions that show Clinton beats McCain by wider margins than Obama. And then there's the evidence that Clinton will end the primary race with a possible popular vote victory over Obama.
None of this convinces me that superdelegates should overturn Obama's clear delegate victory. But you don't have to look far to see some Obama supporters absolutely frentic to stop people from looking at the polls, examining the electoral maps, or claiming that the popular vote means anything. They want to shut down the discourse.
I'd much rather get all the pro-Clinton evidence on the table, and then offer it up to Obama as a possible argument for offering Clinton the No. 2 job on the ticket. And then it's in his hands.
May 28, 2008 5:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the reason Clinton is out-performing Obama vs. McCain is exactly because she's losing the primary. Right now, Obama supporters can afford to feel magnanimous, so when asked Clinton vs. McCain they're able to think more with their brain. Clinton supporters right now are much more likely to be upset that their candidate is losing, so when asked Obama vs. McCain they're thinking with their heart (and wanting to stick it to Obama), so more of them say they'll support McCain. I've no doubt this'll change once Clinton gets fully behind Obama.
Don't get me wrong: this is in no way a criticism of Hillary or her supporters. If she were winning, I think we might be seeing the opposite effects with more Obama supporters saying they'll vote McCain than Clinton supporters, and therefore with Obama outperforming Clinton vs. McCain.
May 28, 2008 7:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly, Ben. If I was a Hillary supporter, I'd probably do the same thing.
I mean, how else do you explain that Obama consistently outpolls Hillary in the Dem nomination race? Does anyone seriously believe that Hillary gets more Independents, let alone Republicans than Obama?
May 28, 2008 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good point and good use of logic to explain the anomaly of Obama polling higher against Clinton, but clinton polling higher against McCain. An additional factor could be that Obama is being hammered from all sides, while no one is hammering Clinton at this point. Republicans have always favored her candidacy as an easier target in November, so they have not attacked her and have repeated and reinforced her attacks against Obama. And Obama pulls his punches against her in the interest of Party unity.
May 28, 2008 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it was John Harwood who said yesterday that when it becomes apparent that a candidate is out of the race and the presumptive nominee starts the GE campaign, historically the losing candidate does better in the polls the weeks following. There's some sympathy, some hardening of disappointed supporters, but it changes after the nomination is absolutely clear.
May 28, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have to ask: Did you look at the polls that show Obama ahead of McCain, and in swing states as well? Even the swing states Hillary acknowledges?
Not to mention the states that Obama puts in play that Hillary doesn't stand a chance of winning?
And there have been some serious -- not frantic, frenetic supporters -- but serious questions about the assumptions of this alleged electoral map match-up that is being touted. By serious statisticians.
May 28, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Joe is right. Clinton is polling stronger against McCain than Obama in several states. But the interesting thing is that Obama is still beating McCain overall in the polls. He can win without Clinton on the ticket right now, without a strong VP pick. With the right VP, he will only improve his results.
Clinton is the wrong pick because she will depress the enthusiasm of his base. To put it mildly, we don't like her and are planning to support a primary challenger for her Senate seat. If she is on the ticket, the ground game will suffer.
Obama obviuosly knows what he is doing. I think we should let him play this game his way. I like the results so far.
May 28, 2008 6:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
A May 14, 2008 survey (margin of error of +/- 2.4) shows some reasons Clinton may not do well on the ticket and who seems to give Clinton the advantage we see.
Answer to the latter,Democrats of course. Although Obama is ahead in surveys of Democrat's preference it is the Democrats who say they won't vote for Obama that makes him look weaker, the percentage of Hillary supporters who say it's her or no Dem vote.
I hope these tables work out, don't see a preview button.
They both beat McCain in this poll. Here is the differential against McCain with each group
Obama does 5% better with Republicans, 11% better with Independents but 7% worse with our own party
No, it's not those working class white voters we talk about. They broke that group into a category too and here is how they did against McCain within the subgroups of the White Working Class
(I have to use an n for - sign or I get a strike out due to html codes)
white working class
So the specific group Clinton mentioned, the white working class who haven't gone to college they both lose to McCain by 7%
Clinton does better than Obama by 2% with women, Obama does better by 3% by men although men are strongly McCain
Obama does 12% better than Clinton with the under 44 year old voters, though they both beat McCain
Here is why her addition to the ticket concerns me since he will certainly need all the outside the party votes he can get. Dems REALLY like Hillary. It's the only group where she has a higher favorable than unfavorable. Here is the differential of favorable - unfavorable for each candidate.
5% more Democrats rate Clinton favorablely than they do Obama but he has a huge advantage with Independents, not just 33% over Clinton but 12% edge over McCain. He does better than Clinton with men, better than McCain or Clinton with women, better than Clinton with whites and better than either with black voters.
We can guess that some Dems who now say they will not vote for Obama will consider the age and health of the Supreme Cort, consider Iraq, consider health care, consider banking regulations, consider the restoration of balance of power and all the things that supposedly matter to us and will grudgingly vote Obama.
But how many of the Independents and even small number of Republicans who plan to or might vote Obama will decide not to because of their anti-Clinton bias?
May 28, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink