PEW Poll exposes Obama's weakness as a nominee

I couldn't get my thoughts together and explain to myself the things that may not work for Obama in general. After I saw PEW research poll, I thought it spoke to my concerns about Obama as democratic nominee.

Here is the link:

http://people-press.org/...

I have also written a diary on the same subject:

Obama attacks on Bill Clinton years creates new swing voters

Here are a few worrysome findings in the PEW poll with Obama as the nominee:

Finding # 1:

20% of white Democratic voters say they would vote for McCain if Obama is the Democratic nominee. That is twice the percentage of white Democrats who say they would support McCain in a Clinton-McCain matchup. Older Democrats (ages 65 and older), lower-income and less educated Democrats also would support McCain at higher levels if Obama rather than Clinton is the party's nominee.

Finding # 2:

However, the survey results point to several potential hazards for Obama. A solid majority of voters (56%) says Obama has not provided enough information about his plans and policies; in contrast, most voters say Clinton and McCain have disclosed enough information about their plans. Moreover, a plurality of voters (43%) says that Obama would not be "tough enough" in dealing with foreign policy and national security issues.

Finding # 2:

Obama edges McCain by 49% to 43% among independents in a general election matchup. For example, in a matchup against Barack Obama, McCain does 31 points better among independents who believe the war is going well than among those who think it is not going well.

•  Serious comments only. You can disagree politely!

  by Texas Ram on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:55:44 AM PDT

  •  ..

    Latest CBS Poll: "Obama Surges Ahead":

    Obama 54 - McCain 38.

    Will there be anything else, or can we move on?

    by nocore on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:58:45 AM PDT

    •  If he had that 20% of white voters

      it would be 58-36 Obama.

      It is March, right? 8 months of John "Savings-and-Loan-Scandal" McCain mumbling into a flashlight while the microphone feeds back on the dais will inform the electorate.

      by JohnGor0 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:01:29 PM PDT

    •  Even if it's hard to elect Obama it's worth it

      I for one don't mind breaking a sweat to get it done

      by St Louis Woman on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:24:22 PM PDT

    •  Link?

      by IhateBush on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:37:19 PM PDT

      •  ...

        Google?

        by nocore on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 04:50:03 PM PDT

        •  Thats Obama 54 Clinton 38

          by IhateBush on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 07:49:43 AM PDT

  •  seriously

    I am not worried about polls.  I am not basing my support of candidate XYZ based on anything other than who I feel would be the best next president.  for evey poll you can find that will tell me "A is true" we can find another that will tell me "B is true".  so in other words, I dont care about this poll.

    by ratador on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:01:25 PM PDT

  •  I think we lose

    20% of the Dem vote to McCain no matter who the nominee is.  People always cross the line to vote for the candidate of the other party.  I think either of the Dems can win, though, and that is the issue.  So yes, 20% may vote for McCain, but 20% may vote for McCain if Hillary is there.  If you aren't really paying attention, McCain is an attractive candidate.  If you are paying attention, though, he is batshit crazy...

    by annetteboardman on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:08:52 PM PDT

  •  Your second Finding #2 is flawed

    All it does is compare McCain's performance between those who think the war is doing well and those who think the war is doing poorly.  MOST PEOPLE THINK THE WAR IS GOING POORLY.  Who cares if he does better than Obama among people who think the war's going well when it's more than 2:1 for those who think the war isn't going well.

    by NotablyZen on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:11:30 PM PDT

    •  I agree but should note

      that one of the poll's findings (from the discussion I heard with the pollster on NPR yesterday) is that the percentage of people that think that the surge is working has increased. The pollster used that to argue that Obama is weakened by this. Of course, I would argue that properly informing the voters as to the nature of the surge, i.e. its objectives, would swing these numbers around to strengthen Obama's lead. I expect that, should he get the nomination, Obama will make such an argument to the electorate.

      by dpryan on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:31:39 PM PDT

  •  Obama beats McCain by 4%, HRC loses to JM by 1%

    in RCP matchup averages: Obama | Clinton

    Poll		JM (R)	HRC (D) JM (R)	Obama (D)
    RCP Average	46.4	45.5	43.4	47.5
    LA Times/Bloom. 46	40	44	42
    AP-Ipsos	43	48	41	51
    USA Today/Gall. 50	46	48	47
    CBS News/NYT	46	46	38	50
    Pew Research	45	50	43	50
    Research 2000	46	46	44	50
    FOX News	47	44	43	47
    Rasmussen (Sat) 48	44	46	43
    

    by NeuvoLiberal on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:18:35 PM PDT

    •  not accounting for ground game, either

      that's the great thing, is that all the energy, motivation, volunteers, and talent seems to be on Obama's side.

      Good work by the way Nuevo.

      by mihan on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:26:05 PM PDT

  •  Serious comments only?

    WHy, when it is impossible to take this anti-Obama diarrhea seriously?

    

    by GW Chimpzilla on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:18:38 PM PDT

  •  To be fair, the poll also said

    that Hillary loses ~11% of Democrats (at least from what they said on NPR yesterday when discussing the poll) but is unable to carry independents (Obama carries them). So, the question becomes how much will you and new voter turnout increase under an Obama nominee and will the fact that he carries independents give him the win in a theoretical general.

    I propose that the answer is significantly and yes, though perhaps others disagree. Of course, the poll has them both beating McCain...and Obama doing so by a slightly larger margin, so I'm not sure how strong your argument is (assuming you're trying to argue that Hillary is stronger instead of noting imperfections in Obama as a candidate, of course).

    by dpryan on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:27:12 PM PDT

    •  Plus

      We're told McCain wins the disproportionate support of Independents who support the war.  That's like sixty people!

      by deminva on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:39:13 PM PDT

      •  Yup, I think one of the polls main findings

        is that Obama wins by a larger margin than Hillary. So, while he does so by taking different demographics the poll suggests that he's an easier sell. So, the end argument of the diarist seems a bit specious.

        by dpryan on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:43:20 PM PDT

  •  Obama campaigns, he wins people over.

    Same story every single state during the Primary.

    When I turns his attention to the general race, I suspect he'll win over plenty of the rest of the country.

    by pat208 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:46:09 PM PDT

  •  Obama beats McCain by 7 pts in this poll.

    And you're cherrypicking internals to try paint Obama as weak?

    You'll admit that not mentioning that Obama soundly defeats McCain in the Pew poll is rather dishonest, right?

    You are an honest diarist, right?

    by Maxwell on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 01:39:02 PM PDT

•  PPFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFffffffffffft!

  Thanks for your "concern."

  by Man in Black on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:56:00 AM PDT

•  It's the middle of a heated primary

  There are 5000 people on this website vowing not to vote for Hillary Clinton if she's the nominee. Doesn't mean any of them will follow through on it.

  by AnnArborBlue on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:56:19 AM PDT

  •  Exactly

    Thoughts of a far right supreme court instead of a center right supreme court should scare any Democrat into voting for whoever the nominee is.

    by marcvstraianvs on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:57:30 AM PDT

    •  And, if it doesn't

      those people have strange priorities.

      Seriously, I've been trying to discuss sense with some of the reactionary posters when they are in flame mode - it's like speaking to True Believers Without A Clue or similar.

      This is politics, not our lives being saved.  Just hopefully being put onto a path where government will actually slow down the drive to kill us all in the name of corporate money :) .

      by wader on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:06:41 PM PDT

  •  Thank god she won't be the nominee and put us all

    to the test.

    by Man in Black on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:02:40 PM PDT

    •  Exactly!

      She lost me when she questioned college students voting in Iowa and union people voting in Nevada. I thought I would hold my nose and vote for her but not now. If winning is the ONLY thing that matters you will never get my vote.

      Thankfully she will soon be out and we will have THE best Democratic nominee since JFK.

      by Better Days on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:17:56 PM PDT

  •  except that in certain states

    that could possibly go for Obama there is  no chance for Clinton e.g. VA & NC, so for me here in Va there is no point in voting for Clinton

    by virginia cynic on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:29:24 PM PDT

  •  Sorry, but...

    ...it does mean that we are less likely to work for the candidate, particularly if we perceive the nomination to have been stolen.  As a result of what many of us perceive as a betrayal, placing her ambitions above the party and the nation, a few of us might not pull the lever for McCain, but might just decide to stay home.  I imagine that many of the new voters and many in the African American community who would turn out in droves for Obama, might do the same.

    4 years ago, my absentee ballot never arrived so I got on a plane at 11pm to fly from Bogota to New York, drive four hours to my home precinct to vote, returned to New York, flew back to Colombia in the afternoon, and was at work the next day.

    Regardless of what you say, at this point I don't see myself making the same effort for a Hillary candidacy, in light of the "politics as usual" way her campaign has acted the past month or so.  There is no question I would do it, and much, much more, for Obama and the drastic change he represents.

    by bogbud on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:42:18 PM PDT

•  Ohmigod he's barely better than Hillary!

  What a disaster.

  by Geekesque on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:58:03 AM PDT

  •  Yeah, and he's going to need help to win

    July like this guy  What a fuckin' nightmare!

    by St Louis Woman on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:32:18 PM PDT

•  Like I said

  Clinton loses Independents, but unites the party. Obama makes up for his losses in the party by getting independents.

  The Democratic Party alone can't win elections and the Independents are more likely to be spin on Iraq progress, which according to the poll, favors McCain.

  This is going to be just as tough at 2000 and 2004.

  by nrafter530 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:58:17 AM PDT

  •  She doesn't unite the party.

    She might have if she won fairly, but since she can only win by shenanigans now, a Clinton nomination would almost assuredly fracture the Democratic base.

    by filmgeek83 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:00:58 PM PDT

    •  She apparently does

      every poll I've seen shows she gets more Democrats than he does.

      by nrafter530 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:01:29 PM PDT

      •  Links?

        by filmgeek83 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:04:18 PM PDT

        •  SUSA

          Almost every state shows her getting more Democrats, although she loses Independents

          by nrafter530 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:07:36 PM PDT

          •  Are you talking Primary polls

            or head-to-heads with McCain?  Because those are two very different things.  If you're trying to extrapolate that because Hillary gets more Democratic voters in a primary, she would also do so in a GE, that's some very faulty logic.

            Otherwise, links, please.

            by costello7 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:48:13 PM PDT

            •  head to head

              w/ McCain...it seems to be why, despite better the more electable candidate, he's not running away with it.

              He barely wins Massachusetts, loses badly in Florida, and is struggling in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania

              by nrafter530 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 01:19:16 PM PDT

        •  look at any poll

          people on this site seem to like SUSA, so let's cite that one:

          In a Democratic Primary in Texas today, 02/18/08, 15 days to the vote, Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama 50% to 45%, according to a SurveyUSA poll conducted exclusively for KTRK-TV Houston, KTVT-TV Dallas, and KRLD-AM radio Dallas.  BUT: there is "give" in these numbers that must be mentioned in the same breath. Among Hispanic voters, Clinton leads 2:1. SurveyUSA estimates that Hispanics make-up 32% of Democratic primary voters in a Primary today. If Hispanics vote in larger numbers, Clinton's lead is larger than the 5 points shown here. If Hispanics vote in smaller numbers, Obama runs stronger than these numbers show. Among white voters, Clinton leads by 12. Among black voters, Obama leads by 57. Race Gap is 69 points. Among males, Obama leads by 20. Among females, Clinton leads by 27. Gender Gap is 47 points. Among registered Democrats, Clinton up 14. Among Independents, Obama up 28. Among voters under age 50, Obama by 6. Among Voters 50+, Clinton by 17. Age Gap is 23 points. Clinton ahead in South Texas and West Texas. Obama and Clinton within the margin of sampling error in North Texas, East Texas, and Central Texas.

          SUSA

          That's a two week old poll but I couldn't get the data on the last one.  It's not the only poll with this result, its been the trend for Obama to do well with independents and Clinton do better with core dems.  

          by chick ghandil on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:53:57 PM PDT

          •  That's PRIMARIES!

            You've got an apple and an apple and you want to extrapolate it to an orange.  You can't do it.

            Show me a head-to-head (Clinton & Obama v. McNutjob) where Hillary is pulling more Dem votes than Obama.  I'm not saying such a poll doesn't exist, but I haven't seen it.

            by costello7 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 01:12:56 PM PDT

            •  this is like the hole in the bucket song

              I really don't have time to look for polls when you haven't even clinked the link on the pew-poll that this diary cites.  It's all right there.  He loses a lot of older white democrats in a head-to-head with McCain

              by chick ghandil on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 01:29:09 PM PDT

              •  I apologize; you are correct

                with the proviso that nrafter530 said "every poll I've seen" and the polls you specifically had cited were primary polls.

                But, yes, I had not clicked on the Pew poll linked.  So shame on me.

                Now that I have, I can only scratch my head.  

                by costello7 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 01:55:42 PM PDT

                •  Welcome to the club

                  of head-scratchers.

                  I can sorta attest to this; every Democrat I know over 50m supports Hillary and would never vote for Obama.

                  Every Democrat I know under 50 would vote for either, and are split about 55%-45% for Obama.

                  by nrafter530 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:23:49 PM PDT

                  •  Here's one over 50...

                    ... who would prefer Obama to Hillary big-time.

                    He's the only hope of my retirement fund retaining any of its value.

                    by tbetz on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:29:13 PM PDT

  •  HUH?

    I know we're supposed to run like we're down 30%, but let's not buy into the DLC spin and poormouth the party.

    We did pretty well in an off year in 2006. Obama is Reagan, McCain is Billy Carter.

    by JohnGor0 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:04:13 PM PDT

  •  Unites The Party?

    Not according to ANY Democrat that I'm personally familiar with.

    Are you presenting this "evidence" on behalf of the Clinton campaign?  If not, you should be.

    by brentmack on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:07:28 PM PDT

    •  She also unites

      the Republicans squarely against her and that would kill us in downballot races.  

      by UpstateDem on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:17:43 PM PDT

  •  Independents have made up their minds on the war.

    Even through the relative decline in U.S. casualties the past year, the Rasmussen numbers on withdrawal have been shockingly constant, with 61% supporting withdrawal the past year. Numbers on whether it was right to go into Iraq are very similar. Moreover, as the news in the past few weeks have shown, there is actually an uptick in violence there.

    If John McCain wants to fight the campaign on the Iraq War, he's winning himself a one-way ticket to a result the same as the last Arizonan Republican nominee.

    So, yes, by all means if there are independents out there who believe the war is going well we can afford to lose them in favor of the many more independents who think the war is going badly, and unite the party around the great passionate issue of our time, ending the damn war.

    The bottom line is that a decline in new casualties will not change the minds of people who were convinced long ago that we have sacrificed far more to Iraq than what the war is worth.

    by andydoubtless on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:27:55 PM PDT

    •  No, but

      it changes their opinion on how to get out. Independents never supported cutting funds or immediate precipitous withdrawal.

      by nrafter530 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 01:20:44 PM PDT

  •  Clinton does not unite the party IMO

    Exit polls from Wisconsin and Virginia.

    31% of Wisconsin primary voters are unsatisfied as nominee with Clinton, as opposed to 17% with Obama.

    In Virginia, the numbers were 36% were unsatisfied with Clinton, 17% with Obama.

    http://www.cnn.com/...

    by IhateBush on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:30:54 PM PDT

•  Yet he has a wider lead than Clinton over McCain

  in the very Pew poll you cite.

  Is that troubling to you?

  by Erik W on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:58:50 AM PDT

•  Clinton has a bigger problem

  and that is with independents.  They absolutely despise her and you can see this as McCain usually leads her by about 20 points among this group.  

  by UpstateDem on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:58:57 AM PDT

  •  Actually,

    Her problem is with men.

    by red 83 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:18:09 PM PDT

    •  Actually

      she has many problems.

      Here's another--telling everyone outside of people in only ten states that they aren't really relevant.

      by costello7 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:51:25 PM PDT

    •  Anecdotally,

      some of the people I know who are most vociferous in their opposition to Sen. Clinton are Independent women. Granted, these are former Republicans who have bought into the Republican smears of her, but they will likely vote for Obama but not Clinton.

      by AaronInSanDiego on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 01:13:43 PM PDT

•  Those 20% are just Hillary Clinton Fans

  They will switch to Obama once Hillary Clinton throws her support behind Barack Obama.

  It is not an accurate reflection.

  by Insiteful on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:59:15 AM PDT

  •  No they won't

    they're older moderate Democrats more likely to vote Republican. They may very well see McCain as an acceptable alternative. They're lower educated Democrats, and are more suseptical to spin.

    McCain is NOT Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani or Bush.

    by nrafter530 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:00:29 PM PDT

    •  maybe so

      but I'm more sanguine about Democrats coming home to Obama against McCain than I am about Independents coming home to Clinton.

      Both nominees have a demographic problem at the moment. From where I sit, Obama's is easier to solve.

      by AnnArborBlue on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:01:43 PM PDT

      •  Yes

        they both have problems, but at least Clinton supporters KNOW their candidate has a problem.

        by nrafter530 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:04:09 PM PDT

        •  They do?

          Because I've heard a lot of supporters say things like "Obama only wins open primaries because of independents and Republicans" which, in my mind, suggests that they don't fully appreciate how important it is to win over non-Democratic voters in the general.

          by AnnArborBlue on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:05:23 PM PDT

          •  Yeah they do

            every Clinton support I talk to know she'd have a tough time in the general because of her high unpopularity, but they like to point out...so will Obama.

            by nrafter530 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:07:00 PM PDT

            •  sure

              but there are two candidates here, so the calculus has to be relative. The question isn't "will Barack Obama have a tough time in the general election?" It's "will Barack Obama have a tough time in the general election as compared to Hillary Clinton?" I've yet to see a really convincing argument for Clinton on that point.

              by AnnArborBlue on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:12:03 PM PDT

              •  There's no convincing argument with Clinton

                that's not the point. Clinton's campaign is pretty much over. She's staying in just to make that gradual exit because her supporters feel she's been railroaded out of the race by Obama supporters and the media. If she fights on enough to win another primary or at least come close, she can exit saying "I did the best I could and I did well"

                Now it's the question can Obama win? Can either candidate win?

                by nrafter530 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 01:22:55 PM PDT

            •  Yes

              and they also seem to like to ignore the fact that Obama consistently outperforms Clinton in head-to-heads against McCain.  They dismiss these early polls as "pointless," then proceed to write diaries explaining why Obama is unelectable.

              Also, I've seen many pro-Clinton diaries (rightly) decrying the sexism she has had to cope with, but I've yet to see one of her supporters discuss how Clinton could meaningfully reduce the gender bias that hurts her with men.

              by deminva on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:44:25 PM PDT

        •  If that was the case

          then we might not be reading of Super Delegate defections to Obama more often to Clinton, I suspect.  Just one teeny example, of course - there's loads more visible at just this site, alone.

          I've know what Hillary was about for years.  None of this campaign style right now surprises me or makes me think less of her.

          I have never desired her to be our nominee, for those very reasons, though.

          by wader on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:09:56 PM PDT

      •  Great point AnnArborBlue...

        Obama will trounce McCain.  Clinton will be like an infected blister for repubs and indies.  Rightfully or wrongfully folks sincerely and abidingly hate her.  She has also managed to entirely alienate Dems like myself and many that I know...I will RELUCTANTLY pull the lever for her but I ain't gonna work and I ain't gonna contribute to her campaign should she somehow get the nomination.  The Dem party will go flat if the party overlords shoot this to HRC.

        by mayan on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:04:46 PM PDT

        •  McCain after 4 months of campaigning

          will make Fred Thompson look like MC Hammer.

          All the GOP has for the next 8 months is:

          1. "Hussein"

          2. flag lapel pins

          3. "I'm proud of America for the 1st time"

          4. inexperience

          5. silly pictures

          Can you imagine talking about Whitewater, Rose law firm billing receipts and Vince Foster for the next 8 months? It's all bullshit, but Obama slots in nicely this election. I love Hillary, but she looks like part of the problem.

          by JohnGor0 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:13:31 PM PDT

          •  ROFL!!!

            by mayan on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:22:11 PM PDT

        •  Republicans Will Rise From The Dead...

          ... to vote against HRC.

          I'm not one to trash diaries too often - but this one strikes me as a little ridiculous.

          If any of these candidates could swap places with one another, I believe McCain and HRC would love to standing in Obama's shoes.  

          The quicker we can get this lady out of the way - the sooner we get on with a better future.

          by brentmack on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:16:34 PM PDT

          •  At least rise from their bottle...

            of Geritol.

            As it is...they've already hit Obama with their best shot.  He's a terrorist loving, Muslim extremist, right?  Sure, it'll get even more scurrilous but if calling him an immature traitor ready to sell our country out to bin Laden isn't working...and republicans are still crossing over...it seems to me that they've already sorta peaked.  Next shot is to claim that he has black babies.  

            by mayan on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:24:48 PM PDT

      •  Exactly

        and we're lectured by the diarist to offer serious points only, when he give us a lame argument on these 20% of Democrats while ignoring the fact that Independents would flee from Clinton in far higher numbers.

        by deminva on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:41:41 PM PDT

  •  I would imagine there's an absolute percentage

    of blacks who "will never vote for a black candidate". Alan Keyes probably chairs that group.

    by JohnGor0 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:06:02 PM PDT

    •  It must be tough for him

      when he goes into a voting booth.  His little brain cells spin and spin and spin....

      by annetteboardman on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:11:04 PM PDT

•  Hmmm

  Whenever we get one of these diaries describing the alleged holes in Obama's support, I try to reconcile it with the polls that consistently show Obama running stronger than Clinton against McCain.  If all these Democrats are going to abandon Obama and not Clinton, who the hell is voting for him then?  

  by Mia Dolan on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:59:19 AM PDT

  •  Independents--in droves

    what diaries like this tend to ignore is that, nationally, Dems represent less than 40% of the electorate, and in certain key states like Ohio the % is even less (like around 35), while independents make up sizable chunk (in Ohio I think it's around 25%).  

    If we're talking about 20% of "white democrats", then that translates into something like 5%~6% of total electorate (back of the envelope numbers there).  The difference between that 20% potentially pro-McCain in case it is McCain-Obama, versus the 10% that potentially pro-HRC if it is McCain-HRC, is only a 3% difference.

    ....Maybe significant--but not that big a deal, when independents are over 20% of total electorate and mostly detest HRC

    by TomY on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:13:40 PM PDT

    •  New Hampshire

      is another strong example: a smaller percentage of Democrats and a larger percentage of Independents.  Not surprisingly, Clinton is actually losing to McCain in early polling there, whereas Obama is cleaning McCain's clock.  

      Poblano's latest analyses are the best resources to rebut diaries like this one.  You can see the many states where Obama outperforms Clinton against McCain and the teensy handful of states where it's the reverse.  

      For my money, FL and AR are the only two states where Clinton might be the stronger GE candidate than Obama.  

      by deminva on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:47:15 PM PDT

      •  New York too

        I can see Clinton being stronger here in New York. Obama will win comfortably, but he could win 58%-60%, I think she can win with over 60%.

        by nrafter530 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 01:24:13 PM PDT

        •  Maybe, but Not Definitely

          Seems to me a recent poll showed Obama doing better in NY than Clinton against McCain.  Again, it came down to Independents.

          by deminva on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 01:37:17 PM PDT

•  I would bet 10% of the electorate

  would say they'd vote for Reagan, and express surprise that he died.

  by JohnGor0 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:59:25 AM PDT

  •  I've seen Jay Leno's "Jaywalking"...

    ... so I wouldn't take that bet.

    Nossir.

    Then again, I doubt that any of the Jaywalkers actually vote.

    by tbetz on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:32:05 PM PDT

•  I saw that study

  I think it is a cause for concern for Obama. I do. The truth is there is a narrative about him now, that unfortunately, includes "not being specific" and "not being tough". We can all thank Hillary for that...who also managed to turn a primary that was about having too many GOOD choices into one where the woman get's shafted by the male upstart. Honestly, I don't think I will ever not be mad at her for the way she has conducted this campaign.

  BUT.

  Obama has a lot of time, as the nominee to fix that. The truth is that, if you see Obama in a debate, or watch him live, he quickly proves the narrative false. I do think he needs to make progress with older democrats, and Hillary's base in general, but I also think he can. Obama is overwhelmingly beloved in Illinois, and that includes older white, older women, working class...all the groups that are suspicious of him now. And that's because they had the chance to get to know him. I think in this case, time is his friend. If Hillary drops out on Wednesday, he will have 8 months to make his case. I really think those numbers will change.

  by jenontheshore on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:00:39 PM PDT

  •  Hope you are right!

    by Texas Ram on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:02:19 PM PDT

  •  He can fix it

    he cannot fix it if he doesn't think there's anything wrong and primary turnout will win him the day.

    I'm not worried about him, I'n worried about his supporters putting their fingers in their ears and screaming LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA everytime there's a warning about party unity or Obama's weakness.

    by nrafter530 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:03:22 PM PDT

    •  Bingo. The cult doesn't want to hear any negative

      by Texas Ram on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:06:46 PM PDT

      •  or what pisses me off even more

        is when you express a concern about Obama, you hear "BUT HILLARY..."

        We ALREADY KNOW she can't win, I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing there's a chance he can't either.

        by nrafter530 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:09:13 PM PDT

        •  Get on board and start working then

          stop with the apparent handwringing and start humping the load. We're not going to get a better candidate this time around, and I'm not about to throw in the towel. I'd be saying exactly the same thing if it was Clinton with the nomination, too. We have no candidate who is a shoo-in. The nation is polarized and heavily beaten down by all kinds of bullshit propaganda. The only way to win it for the Democrats is to get in the trenches and start fighting the good fight. There are going to be all kinds of bad looking polls and bad days between now and November. The Republicans are going to throw all kinds of ugly shit at us and some of it will have an effect. The only way out is through.

          Thanks for your concern. Back to work.

          by hyperstation on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:36:01 PM PDT

          •  You're making my exact point

            it's difficult to fight for a guy every Democrat I know over 50 thinks is "an arrogant kid"

            There's a real image problem with some older Democrats we're ignoring.

            by nrafter530 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 01:34:27 PM PDT

            •  Look, I'm not saying there aren't problems

              What do you suggest we do about it?

              Just pointing out problems won't fix them. That's my point. And I'm 43, so I can see both sides of this age "problem" that a lot of people are kvetching about and honestly, sure, there is a lot of arrogance, but it's across the spectrum.

              My take is that we are 90% likely to be going with Obama as the Democratic candidate. He wasn't my first choice. I was all for Gore, then I was leaning Edwards. Now I'm fully behind Obama, but if Hillary wins it, I'll bust my ass getting her into office. I plan on holding everyone's feet to the fire as well.

              Not everyone is going to like Obama. Fewer people seems to like Hillary. I think we can win with either of them, certainly over McCain; either way, it's going to take a hell of a lot of hard work. That means talking, talking, talking, calling, calling, calling, donating, donating, donating, arguing, placating, cajoling--whatever it takes. We have better ideas. We're the better party. We cannot take another four years of Republican nongovernance.

              I'm not going to convince every Dem to embrace Obama, but I'm sure going to try. He's a far, far better man than McCain.

              by hyperstation on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:02:33 PM PDT

              •  Focus on Hillary's supporters

                try to make the case to win rather than dismissing them. Those in Clinton's camp who don't like Obama don't like him because they see him as some ignorant arrogant stuck-up young kid with no experience who doesn't deserve to outshine the older more experienced crowd. As much as people will troll me for saying, I do think it's part of a large generational war that's unseen; young folks feeling like the older crowd has failed them and older folks feeling like the younger crowd should sit down, shutup and learn a few things. When the GE rolls around, the older Democrats who are more moderate and don't like Obama will feel a natural bond with McCain. They may or may not vote for him, but that bond is similar to the one felt toward Obama in younger Republicans. If that plays out, Obama will be in no better place than Kerry, except he'll get like 70% of the youth vote and like 30% of the older vote. Focus on the older crowd.

                by nrafter530 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:40:12 PM PDT

      •  You mean the Hillary cult, right?

        The one that can't see what a poor national candidate she really is, and ridicules the majority of the Dem voters so far?

        Like many Obama fans, I only joined the 'cult' recently, in part due to the obnoxiousness of your candidate, and the likelihood that The Cadaver will actually beat her and her miniscule Dem hardcore support in November.

        I mean, really, her negatives are very high and very steady, McCain crushes her 'experience' argument, and she has no leverage against the war. I want to win this thing, really. With Hillary as candidate, and the campaign she appears to 'run' I seriously worry we will lose.

        by Imipolex on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:47:08 PM PDT

        •  I seriously worry we lose

          with either candidate, so I'm just waiting for a nominee to be decided.

          by nrafter530 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 01:29:59 PM PDT

    •  Ya know...

      Obama has put together the most savvy, well organized and hard hitting campaign for the Dems since before Dukakis.  Superior to Bill's even. His team is nonpareil and they are building a coalition, the likes of which have not been seen since FDR.  And doing it well.  

      All this backbiting and/or handwringing makes no sense to me.  Clinton, of course, is only fighting against Obama while Obama is fighting a war by fending off Clinton AND attacking McCain.  Daunting but he's pulling it off.

      by mayan on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:09:09 PM PDT

    •  I'm Not Deaf

      to reasonable concerns about Obama's electability, nor do I think are most people here.  The problem is that these electability arguments are consistently offered by Clinton supporters as a reason why she should be the nominee instead of him, whereas the mountain of available evidence shows this to be wrong.  To wit: Early polling consistently shows Obama greatly outperforming Clinton against McCain.  Obama performs much better among white voters than Clinton does among male voters, suggesting that --at least with these two candidates -- America's sexism is a greater electoral concern than its racism.  Obama completely destroys Clinton among Independents and moderate Republicans, while simultaneously motivating more voters to come to the Democratic party.  And of course, his ground game runs circles around hers.  Oh, and the fundraising edge.  And the lower negatives.  

      I strongly disagree with your proposition that Obama supporters are whistling past the graveyard here.  Rather, we call bullshit on diaries that question Obama's electability while ignoring Clinton's.

      by deminva on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:53:34 PM PDT

    •  There is no "LA LA LA I can't hear you" going on

      Obama supporters are not putting our fingers in our ears and ignoring reality -- November will be hard to win, no matter who the candidate is.

      I'm been working in elections for more than 35 years and I have no illusions about what lies ahead. Part of the reason I am supporting Obama is because it is clear to me that he has a better chance of getting elected than Clinton does.

      There are many reasons for that -- the appeal to independents, the enthusiasm of the African-American base, bringing new voters in, the strong desire of the electorate for meaningful change, his campaign skills, Clinton's high negatives, the contrast he'll present with an elderly McCain, etc.

      Yes, the Obama campaign will need to work to hold the Democratic base  - especially white "Reagan Democrats"  - and once the nomination is wrapped up, addressing that "20%"  should be one of the priorities of the campaign.

      You insult the intelligence of Obama supporters by alleging that somehow we believe that Obama is going to walk into the White House without having to fight for every vote -- especially when you fail to address the equally fundamental questions of why Clinton fares worse in polling against McCain than Obama does, how she can overcome the the disadvantage she has with independent voters, and how her sky high negatives and hostility from such a large part of the electorate can be overcome.

      If anyone has their fingers in their ears it is you and other Clinton supporters who are unable/ unwilling to acknowledge the serious weaknesses she would have as a general election candidate.

      by terjeanderson on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 01:05:34 PM PDT

      •  Not a Clinton supporter

        just a realist. Clinton supporters really feel she's the best choice for President and they are not going to walk away from her because her polls don't look good. His aren't that much better.

        Why will Obama lose this election? Because his supporters are telling 47% of the party they're morons for supporting someone they believe in but won't win. If it seems like I'm a Clinton supporter, it's only because sometimes Obama's supporters and their attitudes for them make me feel sympathy for them.

        I can understand why they wouldn't want to vote for Obama now.

        by nrafter530 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 01:32:36 PM PDT

        •  As opposed to the candidate herself

          telling the 53% who voted for Obama are morons?

          Here's a tip: Obama supporters are less unfair to Hillary supporters than Hillary herself is to them.

          by Nick Blas on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 01:56:17 PM PDT

          •  when did she say that?

            didn't catch that one

            by nrafter530 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:40:45 PM PDT

            •  Last Sunday in RI. n/t

              by Nick Blas on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 03:04:27 PM PDT

        •  You're spending too much time reading blogs

          if you believe that Obama "supporters are telling 47% of the party they're morons for supporting someone they believe in but won't win"

          Yeah, the dialogue on sites like this is out of control -- if you want an extreme view in the other direction go see what the folks on MyDD or Hillaryis44 have to say about Obama supporters. The ugliness there exceeds anything you'll see here.

          Clinton supporters on the blogosphere spend an amazing amount of effort dismissing Obama supporters as naive kool-aid drinking cultists -- that's a pretty compelling way to attract supporters isn't it?

          Out in the real world, where people have to use their real names and speak to people face to face, the kind of vitriol you see on the blogs disappears.

          I don't maintain that Clinton supporters should bail on her just because her polls are worse than Obama's -- good for them for sticking to their convictions. But that doesn't mean that I (or other Obama supporters) shouldn't challenge a diary that cherry-picks data to claim that Obama will be a weak general election nominee while ignoring the even more profound weaknesses the same poll shows for Clinton.

          by terjeanderson on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 03:07:31 PM PDT

    •  Clinton is doing more to hurt party unity than

      Obama. Her negative campaigning won't help her or him.  Worse, GOP will be more likely to be successful in portraying the lies of HRC as truth by putting those words in Hillary's mouth.

      Obama's biggest crime is having the audacity to oppose Hillary "the inevitable nominee" Clinton.

      by ecostar on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:28:01 PM PDT

      •  that would be true

        if half the party wasn't still behind her.

        by nrafter530 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:41:17 PM PDT

        •  She's not hurting party unity b/c Obama is

          winning or b/c the other half isn't supporting her.  She's hurting party unity b/c her and her advocates have engaged in serious negative attacks.  

          I'm not just talking about advertising.  I'm talking about being dismissive of party activists in small states, mocking Obama supporters as cultists and Kool-aide drinkers, suggesting that it is reasonable that the super delegates SHOULD override the will  of the people, and suggesting that wins in some states has only occurred due to the black vote.  Those things anger activists in Red states like myself.  WTF right does she have to tell me I don't matter, or that the higher number of African Americans in my community means my vote really doesn't count.

          The fear-mongering doesn't help of course.  But the seeds for dividing the party were already there.

          by ecostar on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 08:50:28 PM PDT

  •  Bingo.

    The cause for concern is real, no question (and Hillary would have enormous cause for concern in the general as well, for different and fairly obvious reasons). But the cause for optimism is real as well.

    He does exceedingly well where he has the time and opportunity to sway skeptics in precisely these demographics.

    Conversely, I don't see McCain wearing well with swing voters over the course of a general election campaign.

    And even if Obama fails, we'll still end up with a Kerry/Gore close election that can be won with turnout.

    by insects8mybrain on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:11:34 PM PDT

  •  I call on all older white Illiniosan women

    to get out and cover the country. Explain to your peers in other states why Obama is the right choice.

    Any who get to Memphis, please pick up some BBQ for me, preferably Hog sandwich.

    by JohnGor0 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:17:01 PM PDT

•  I hear that "he doesn't have a plan"

  meme all the time.  People are parroting RW talking points and the MSM.  He has very detailed plans, but people who say that are too uninformed to know about them.  Many people who say it don't use the internet much, and many are just too lazy to inform themselves.  Call them on it - have they compared Sen. Obama's plans to Clinton's?  to McCain's?  

  by myrealname on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:01:05 PM PDT

  •  people don't want to read, I suspect

    I dunno, but I suspect a laundry list of what one plans to do is difficult to make sound inspiring.

    We should encourage voter LITERACY. :-)

    by billlaurelMD on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:23:26 PM PDT

  •  It's like the 'no record' meme

    When in fact, in his much more limited time in the Senate, Obama has done much more than Clinton, who is actually the 'no record' candidate. Thirty five years of 'experience', and very, very little to show for it.

    by Imipolex on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:29:19 PM PDT

  •  Yes, the polling data cited in the diary

    would seem to me to be largely name-recognition based...at least on the "detailed plans" question.

    Cause, honestly, other than 100 years of war, what IS McNutjob's plan?  Has anybody heard him say anything about repairing the economy?  Oh yeah, that's right, "(monotone): Your jobs are gone and they're never coming back."

    by costello7 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 01:00:11 PM PDT

•  No Worry Here At All

  I don't project McCain as running a particularly effective campaign.

  And all polling thus far indicates that Obama will have a much more positive impact on the down-ballot races.  And those are extremely vital to effecting significant change.

  by brentmack on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:01:12 PM PDT

  •  Exactly

    If Clinton is the nominee, we will probably pick up no seats in Congress or actually lose them, which will not allow her to get any of her agenda passed.  

    by UpstateDem on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:03:01 PM PDT

  •  McCain will benefit

    from the evangelical get out the vote stuff.  Any Repub will.  You get nowhere by underestimating a republican campaign.  You have to assume theirs will be strong and make sure yours is stronger.  Obama certainly has shown he can run a good campaign.

    by annetteboardman on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:13:22 PM PDT

    •  I actually am

      not so sure.  My sister is a batshit crazy, stick her fingers in her ears God=Republican, BUT I am sure, without a doubt if I get her to actually listen to Obama in person all she will hear is the cadece of his voice and from thereon associate him with a Pastor.  Democrat=Evil, except maybe "that black guy" as she refers to him now. Especially if he gets an Amen moment (which personally makes me cringe, but whatever)

      by housesella on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:50:42 PM PDT

      •  She has someone who will try to make her listen

        but the Repub get out the vote types I am talking about live in an echo chamber.  Fox news, if that, and Pat Robertson more likely.  They will vote McCain and see any Dem as the devil incarnate.

        by annetteboardman<