RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

MEMO #5 to Superdelegates: Gallup Polls Underscore Hillary’s Electability

By Truthteller on May 28, 2008 at 1:38 PM in Barack Obama, Democrats, Electability, Electoral College, Hillary Clinton, Superdelegates

Clinton maintains her lead over John McCain in a hypothetical general election, while Obama still trails the Republican in the latest Gallup Tracking Poll.

Why is Clinton and not Obama beating McCain? She and not Obama can win swing states.

She leads McCain overall in the twenty states in which she was victorious in the Democratic Primary. Obama, on the other hand, is tied with McCain in these states.

Clinton, in other words, leads McCain overall in MA, NY, RI, PA, KY, WV, OH, IN, TN, AR, NH, TX, NM, AZ, CA, NV, FL, MI, NJ and OK. Because Obama is tied with McCain in these states, one can assume swing states such as PA, KY, WV, OH, AR, NM, NV, FL, MI, NH and NJ will fall in McCain’s column in November.

More interesting, however, is the following data:

According to Gallup, Clinton and Obama fare equally well against McCain in all those caucus states and Southern states Obama’s supporters claim only Obama will make competitive. I guess Obama was wrong when he superciliously uttered the following:

“I am confident I will get her votes if I’m the nominee,” Obama stressed. “It’s not clear she would get the votes I got if she were the nominee.”

Not only does Clinton retain her votes and win Obama’s votes; Obama is unable to mobilize the support of Hillary’s base. This explains why Hillary is more electable. It also explains why Hillary will win in November.

Let us hope the superdelegates are reading and listening.

  • Obama

    I’m not unelectable, I’m a uniter damn it!! What the hell is wrong with you typical clingy gun toting religious white people?

    • workingclass artist

      ” Barry…I need that big old white house…Now do somethin about all those ignorant crackers who won’t vote for you ! ” Michelle to Barry

  • Osama-bama
  • Bleeding Heart

    This is important information, but the key is the swing states. The polls suggest that Obama would lose the solidly red states by less than Hillary and win the solidly blue states by more than Hillary. In other words, he “wastes” a lot of popular votes by not turning them into electoral votes. Hillary would use her popular votes more effectively by winning the close states. Thus, the national polls are even worse for Obama then they appear. He probably needs to win the popular vote by a significant margin in order to actually win the election.

  • http://lkcampbell.blogspot.com Lucinda

    The news people are all gleefully reporting that the DNC’s hands are tied over the FL & MI votes and the best they can do is seat half of the delegates, so it’s all over for Hillary, and she should concede the race after the June 3 primaries.
    Yeah, I believe they’ve been saying that ever since Super Tuesday. I don’t she’s listening and neither are her supporters.

    • http://lkcampbell.blogspot.com Lucinda

      Oops! I left out a word. I meant to say, “I don’t think she’s listening.”

  • AC-n-NC

    To the convention sweeties. He will not make it through the summer. It is funny how the Media is pushing her so hard. It is obvious even to republicans that hate the Clintons how in the tank the media is for Obama. Now that is bad.
    Hillary 08 !!!!!!

  • katmandu

    While looking to see which major media blogs discuss the Gallup results, I stumbled across a Boston Globe review of Obama’s electoral strategy.

    http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/05/28/questions_of_how_much_obama_can_redo_the_map/

    The Boston Globe analyzes six traditionally Republican states where Obama has signaled he will compete – Colorado, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. Its conclusion:

    “Much could change over the next six months, but analyses of each of the six states – which total 66 electoral votes – indicate that in some cases changing the electoral map will be a daunting task.”

    They quote guru Larry Sabato:

    “Larry Sabato, a specialist on national voting trends, said most so-called red (Republican) and blue (Democratic) states will remain so. “People shouldn’t think the map’s going to change to orange,” said Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia.”

    There is some chance of winning Colorado and Virginia. But problems abound. Such problems include Georgia:

    “The last time Georgia voters backed a Democrat was Bill Clinton in 1992, and only then in an unusual three-way race with George H.W. Bush and independent Ross Perot. “I would not expect Georgia to be in the Obama column,” said Alan Abramowitz, a political science professor at Emory University.

    North Carolina:

    “Obama, he would need a much stronger performance among white voters overall than any Democrat has managed since Jimmy Carter’s win 32 years ago. “I’d say spend your time and money in Virginia,” said Gary Pearce, a local Democratic strategist and former adviser to Edwards and former governor Jim Hunt.”

    SOUTH CAROLINA:

    “Barring a political cataclysm, Obama will not win South Carolina, political analysts said.” *** “Even under the most optimistic projections of African-American turnout, Ransom [poly sci prof at Clemson] said, Obama would have to win close to 40 percent of the white vote, a level that has eluded all recent Democratic nominees. In 2004, Kerry won only 22 percent of whites.

    Mississippi:

    “African-Americans make up more than a third of Mississippi’s voting-age population. If they turn out in big numbers and push their share of the vote to 40 percent, Obama would probably need at least 20 percent of the white vote to win. Kerry got just 14 percent of whites in 2004.”

    Does that sound promising? Not to me.

  • TeakWoodKite

    This is like watching “Back to the Future” where the DeLoren is speed towards the clock tower and Obama thinks lighting will strike….

    The fact is it won’t help him.

    Keep it coming Truth Teller, Thanks.

  • Mirlo

    How can we get the SDs to read and study this? It seems pretty clear whom they should choose if they want to win the WH. Trouble is, they probably just follow the DNC instead of checking facts. How can we push this more into the public opinion? Does anyone have their emails?

  • Ann MacN

    How can we get the SDs to read and study ANYthing? If they aren’t reading the Pringle reports, shame on them. And if they are, and aren’t responding, what possibly explains that? Does anyone know how to access her Sunday interview with John Batchelor, aside from that link at Rezko Watch? I’ve spent an hour trying to get there via that link, and it keeps taking me back to the Google sign-in page.

  • Clinton Fan

    Never mind those SWING STATES–Obama is going to have one helluva time winning blue Massachusetts.

    We’ve seen the Axlerod paradigm in Deval Patrick. He’s like Mitt Romney, only he’s around a little more, and he whines just a tad less. He ginned up a budget that counted on gambling money, but didn’t do the schmoozy legwork and compromise effort with the legislature to get the measure passed.

    He’s just…a DISAPPOINTMENT. A BIG disappointment.

    We’ve been sold that HOPE/CHANGE/BELIEVE bullshit once. We’re experiencing buyer’s remorse. You think we’re going to buy that crap again?

    Sorry, exhortations, even brain tumors aren’t going to turn us around. We can feel sorry for someone for their medical troubles, but that’s not going to make us go along with their hare-brained schemes. In fact, those very medical woes might explain why the Senator didn’t just keep his damn mouth SHUT and consider what the ELECTORATE wanted–which was for our represenatives to vote the way WE did–for CLINTON.

    • http://deleted AnninCa

      Exactly. He’s going to lose the Dem states, miss by a mile in the swing states, and basically humiliate the party leadership to the point that we’ll be in danger of losing the congress out of sheer stupidity.

  • Seattlemoss

    I just for the life of me can’t understand why the DNC wants to lose this year. We had this thing wrapped up with Hillary.
    Somebody mentioned that maybe they are deliberately doing this so that the Republicans get blamed for a coming depression.
    I thought Democrats were supposed to solve depressions like with FDR.
    What do I know except how to fill out a DNC survey with a big fat zero for a contribution.