Lets start with the general election head to head match-ups. I originally had Romney and Huckabee included, but I've decided to focus exclusively on McCain.
Clinton vs. McCain
1/9 - 1/22 (6 polls) - McCain - +.1%
1/16 - 1/22 (3 polls) - Clinton - +1.3%
Obama vs. McCain
1/9 - 1/22 (6 polls) - Obama - +.3%
1/16 - 1/22 (3 polls) - Clinton - +1.6%
This shows no serious advantage for Obama. The polls are a little outdated, so these numbers could change as we get new polls. For now, this is what we have to go on.
Looking at the electability in specific states, some common perceptions attributed to Clinton are:
- Can't win red states
- Too divisive and will fire up the Republican base
- Won't run a 50-state campaign
Lets analyze this....
Looking at polls of head-to-head match-ups in certain states (keep in mind there are not many of these out there). Any poll that is a truly old poll I will point out.
Clinton/Obama vs. McCain
Minnesota (Survey USA)
Clinton - -4
Obama - -7
*McCain gets 58% of the Independent vote in both match-ups, while Obama gets 34% compared to 31% for Clinton
Wisconsin (Survey USA)
Clinton - -4
Obama - -2
*McCain gets 46% of the Independent vote against Obama and 58% against Clinton , while Obama gets 43% compared to 36% for Clinton
New Mexico (Survey USA)
Clinton - -9
Obama - -9
*McCain gets 46% of the Independent vote against Obama and 45% against Clinton , while Obama gets 44% compared to 43% for Clinton
Missouri (Research 2000, 1/21 - 24)
Clinton - +1
Obama - +5
*McCain gets 42% of the Independent vote against Obama and 43% against Clinton , while Obama gets 48% compared to 44% for Clinton
Other States
In Ohio, the most recent poll from Quinnipiac (and keep in my mind this is an OLD poll, so it may be meaningless) showed Clinton tied or leading McCain.
In Florida, Clinton is a popular figure there. I've seen her up between from tied to between 5 and 7 points on McCain (though these polls were from early December and early/mid January and these polls were by Quinnipiac). Obama did not fare as well as Clinton in Florida, and judging by the results of tonight, he probably doesn't fare as well now.
Pennsylvania also falls into this category. I have to go back to an old poll again from Quinnipiac, but they had Clinton beating McCain by 7. My counterpoint is that when these Quinnipiac polls were conducted, McCain was consistently ahead of Clinton nationally and the Clinton still maintains a sizable lead over Obama in Pennsylvania.
Obama does better in a majority of the head-to-head match-ups. But both do well overall. Obama is better at drawing independents. But Clinton is not being rejected by independent voters, which is the big perception around here. And to contrast the advantages Obama does have, there have been a few polls showing New York, Mass., and California being competitive if matched-up with McCain, while Clinton has no such problems here. Do I really think Obama is going to lose any of those states? Of course not. But you don't want to have to spend any resources in those states.
A common theme I see from Obama is the thought of competing in all 50 states. But this is partly a survival strategy. The South has more black voters, and it is pretty safe to say that Obama does very well with black voters. So he will travel to Southern states that are traditionally deep red and have a high black population to make up for the advantages Clinton has in the bigger states. He will also attempt to capture many of the smaller mid-west (and deep red) states to make up ground. But we aren't going to realistically compete in those deep red states. And if we do? Fantastic because its blow out city then. A positive for Clinton is that she is doing well, at least for now, in many of the big and key swing states that are crucial for us to capture in November.
However, I have not seen sufficient evidence of Obama polling markedly better than Clinton in these red states. Not Oklahoma, Tennessee, Arkansas, and numerous otherRed states.
While Obama has an impressive endorsement list of democratic politicians from deep-red states, Clinton has her share as well (Beebe, Bayh, Kerrey, etc) but more importantly she has some key endorsements from key swing states (Nelson, Rendell, Strickland, etc), as does Obmama. And yes, I understand that many of Clinton's endorsements have come from a while back.
What about favorability ratings?
This is certainly a problem for Clinton. But we also know the Republicans have trashed her for years. She is a known commodity. However, I am sure perceptions have shaped a lot of people's opinions of her and she will have time to correct that.
The big point here is that the same thing will happen to Barrack Obama...as a candidate. If he becomes president, or Clinton becomes president and they do their job, you will see the favorability/approval ratings go up for both. As a candidate, while they campaign and come under attack everyday, you will see a partisan split in develop.
Just check NBC's poll that started out in 10/06 for Obama:
10/06 - V. Positive (14), S. Positive (17), Neutral (18), S. Negative (5), V. Negative (6), Don't Know (40)
1/08 - 19, 30, 22, 11, 14
Positive went up 18 points. Neutral went up 4. Negatives went up 14. Not much of a difference. And this is before any Republican machine starts attacking him. With that said, I think its clear at this point Obama does have more upside than Clinton in terms of voters being receptive to him and he has more wiggle room with voters, IMO.
Clinton, meanwhile in January - 24, 23, 11, 11, 30
The difference in favorability rating is 2 points. The difference between the two lies in the neutral area. And of course Clinton has the higher very negative rating. That is what 16 years of attack will do to a person.
According to Rasmussen, Clinton's favorability stands at 51. Unfavorability stands at 47. Obama has a favorability of 50, and an unfavorability of 44.
What about the new people Obama's bringing into the party?
It is true. Many young voters have taken to him, as have many independents and a few republicans. We have seen record turnout after record turnout. But Obama hasn't been the only one getting votes. There was record turnout in Nevada, where Clinton won the popular vote. There was record turnout in New Hampshire when Clinton edged out Obama. There was record turnout in Iowa when all three candidates did very well with Obama coming out on top. Michigan didn't get record turnout, but a hell of a lot of people showed up to vote for Clinton and Uncommitted when they knew their voices wouldn't be heard. And of course there was record turnout in Obama's South Carolina route. The point? We have three candidates involved in bringing new people into the party. It is not just Obama, though I can certainly see the case being made for him. But Obama has not done far and away the most to bring people in. If he did, he would be winning every primary like South Carolina.
And the passion for their candidates?
Obama has some extremely passionate supporters (as does Edwards). But don't underestimate the support of the Clinton's. For example, Rasmussen came out with a report today that asked how passionate and deeply committed you are to one of the presidential candidates...34% of Americans say they are passionate and deeply committed to their candidates. However, 47% of Democratic voters said they are passionate, but only 28% are deeply committed.
Among passionate democrats, 53% say they are deeply committed to Clinton's candidacy. 28% are deeply committed to Obama.
The bottom line is that Hillary Clinton is electable come November. Is that a guarantee for a win? No. Does she have more upside than Obama? Probably not. Is the electability theme overblown? Yes.
I can't say for certain if her candidacy will fire up Republicans. So far, it has not. I don't know if she will bring down lower ticket races. She may. She may not. Some of these polls are old and don't capture an Obama bounce if there is one. But I go with the flow, and adjust my opinions on the information I have available. Obama has a lot of momentum on his side. He is the media darling for now and Clinton is fighting to hang on. So this post could be meaningless in a few days, I just don't know. And neither does anybody else.
Expressing your opinion is fine, but the facts we have available show Clinton is an electable candidate come November against anyone. More electable than Obama or Edwards? I'm not sure...the polls say she probably isn't, but the difference isn't that big.
I also want to discuss McCain a bit. The Republican candidate is all but chosen and we have candidate to specifically target. Poll-wise, McCain looks difficult to beat. But is he really?
- He is old and looks it. Speaking is not his strength. He is scripted and lacks passion behind what he says.
- By trying to get back inside the inner circles of the Republican party, McCain has done a lot of flip-flopping and he is on record of doing so. Tax cuts, campaign finance, immigration, etc.
- Speaking of finances, McCain is not a well-funded candidate
- McCain will not have have the upper-hand in the debate about Iraq. Forget about initially going into Iraq - discuss it only in terms of how the administration lied and betrayed people who trusted them to make good decisions and tell the truth. Frame Iraq not on the past, but what will you do to get us out. There is no flip-flopping by Clinton. The position evolved as soon as it was realized the original premise for the war was wrong, little progress was being made, and it appeared we would mired in a civil war. You may not agree, but I'm saying how this should be framed. Clinton will get us out. McCain won't.
The bottom line -- McCain will campaign to CONTINUE an unpopular war he inherits from an unpopular president, where the original premise of the war was proven false and to make his point he will be using fear tactics that we have seen over and over again for the past 7 years. Even worse for McCain is his inability to sell his points to the public as he comes across as very scripted.
- On issue after issue, he is out of touch with America. You can neutralize him as the religious conservative and on immigration and take out the wedge issues of this campaign because of the perception is he is not tough on immigration and he does not share the values of the religious right (though he actually does).
He truly has no economic plan or knowledge of our economic system. He preaches to spend as little money as possible, make the tax cuts he voted against permanent, and then "get of the way as the American people pursue their dreams" or some rhetoric that he has been using lately.
Very little substance and very little inspiration. His bipartisan exterior will fold when he is effectively attacked for his inconsistencies and positions.
The key is to attack him, but not come on too strongly where it appears you are attacking an old war veteran for no good reason.
Obama can beat him on words and style. Clinton can beat him on policy.
And I think I am confirming the stupidity of any Democrat with progressive values who would actually consider McCain. Read about McCain's policies. He WILL stay in Iraq. There will be no universal (or close to it) health care. Almost every progressive principle you stand for will be left unfilled by electing John McCain and you will see the next four years reminding you eerily of the previous 8 years...and nobody wants that. This is why I would support any of the three remaining candidates.
I'll leave a tip jar, but I probably won't comment too much. I don't want to get too sucked in. I just want to correct some comments, that are IMO, off-based. Good luck to all the candidates the rest of the way.
