MyDD :: BREAKING: New Gallup, Hillary Wins Over McCain, Obama Loses

BREAKING: New Gallup, Hillary Wins Over McCain, Obama Loses

by LindaSFNM, Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:19:48 PM EST

Just released today, Gallup's Daily tracking is showing that Hillary Clinton continues to be the Democrats choice and chance to win against John McCain.

Hillary currently leads McCain 49-44 in a matchup.

May 25, 2008
Gallup Daily: Clinton Maintains Lead Over McCain

Tracking from April 30 to now, May 24, shows Hillary's continuous strength to be able to win the Presidency.

Whereas Hillary's opponent does not fair well. Consistently struggling to stay competetive against John McCain, currently Obama again falls in his numbers, losing to McCain 47-45.

This plays well with Hillary's position that she is the best candidate to defeat John McCain in the General Election.

Tags: Hillary Clinton, Gallup, General Election, Obama, Hillary (all tags)

Permalink :: 60 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: BREAKING: New Gallup, Hillary Wins Over McCain (2.00 / 2)

Once Hillary drops out, Obama will pass 50%.

by Bobby Obama on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:21:03 PM EST

Re: BREAKING: New Gallup, Hillary Wins Over McCain (2.00 / 2)

hmmm, I thought, according to all Obama supporters, Hillary is toast. If so, that toast must be very yummy and chock-full-of-goodness if she still beats him in the polls.

by colebiancardi on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:22:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: New Gallup, Hillary Wins Over McCain (none / 0)

Yeah, there's no nuance or deadenders or a total lack of McCain versus Clinton action that'd be skewing these polls, no sir. You took a complete unbiased and even-handed look at these numbers, and came to an entirely non-partisan solution. Kudos to you, sir.

Hooray for John McCain!

by ragekage on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:58:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: New Gallup, Hillary Wins Over McCain (none / 0)

not a sir.

by colebiancardi on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:01:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: New Gallup, Hillary Wins Over McCain (none / 0)

Kudos to you ~~sir~~ ma'am.

Hooray for John McCain!

by ragekage on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:05:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: New Gallup, Hillary Wins Over McCain (2.00 / 3)

LOL....that's a funny argument. And why would Hillary be winning, CONTINUOUSLY, with even stronger numbers.

It's time for the Super D's to declare Hillary the nominee.

by LindaSFNM on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:22:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: New Gallup, Hillary Wins Over McCain (2.00 / 1)

If someone called you and your candidate was losing and you wanted to spite the other person beating your candidate what would you say?

I suspect that is what is going on now as Obama supporters have no problem saying they would support Hillary because they know that she has lost. I know I would

by sweet potato pie on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:25:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well OF COURSE Obama's (2.00 / 1)

supporters have no problem voting for Hillary. It's the Hillary supporters who will not vote for Obama that's the problem. Duh.

Obama actually got it wrong a couple months back...Hillary can get his supporters because his supporters, AAs & Eggheads ALWAYS vote democratic. It's Hillary supporters, Reagan Dems, Hispanic, Asian, Older Voters that swings republican. Duh.

This poll is just proving what anyone with common sense knows.

It's an election, not an auction.

by cosbo on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:49:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well OF COURSE Obama's (none / 0)

Mmmm, trolly goodness.

Obama was referring to independents and moderates, with whom he still cleans up with. And odd that he's polling ahead of Clinton in California, and winning NM and CO because of a strong showing of Hispanic support.

Ooh, look, this just in over the news- "A co-chair of Clinton's Hispanic council defects and endorses Obama."

Weird, he's also winning Ohio and Virginia. And Pennsylvania. And Michigan and Wisconsin, where Clinton's not. Isn't that just weird?

Hooray for John McCain!

by ragekage on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:01:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well OF COURSE Obama's (none / 0)

Of course we should listen to Hillary supporters and their "I'll hold my breath until I get what I want" mentality. When Obama wins the nomination a good majority of Hillary's supporters will come over because they know a candidate who has the same position as theirs 95% of the time is better than the third coming of Bush.

All you faux democrats who are threatening to move to McCain or to stay home; go ahead, you are a very small minority and don't matter nearly as much as you have deluded yourself into thinking.

by matchles on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:24:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Or you could read the exit polls. Like the one (none / 0)

on CNN last week that said that 32% of Hillary voters said they would vote for Obama, 43% would vote for McCain and the rest would stay home ( or perhaps skip President and vote down ticket for other Dems and isses of concern.) Norah ODonnell also did a report on the same data and added a look at how people who said they would not support if their candidate was not nominated in the last two elections. Turns out more of the dems who didn't like the eventual nominee voted for the Republican than had said they would to polsters.

So the meme that no one supporting Obama needs to look at this with care and figure out a solution is the kind of meme that loses elections. And the one about no superdelegate should notice this with concern and take appropriate action on these and other data showing how easily Hillary could win and all the obstacles in the way of an Obama victory...that one is an election loser too. The problem with the fingers in the ears tactic is that it doesn't prepare for reality.

We can argue strawmen till it is too late to fix this, but it won't get us the White House. People in the party who really want it better wake up and act like it. We cannot afford to hide from the problems that Obama has and how they influence his ability to win the general.

by itsadryheat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:59:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Or you could read the exit polls. Like the one (none / 0)

What we also need to realize is that he doesn't owe anything to Hillary. She doesn't deserve the VP spot and it isn't right for her supporters to demand it in return for their vote. Anyone who still believes he isn't trustworthy, or is a dirty politician or is stealing the election from Hillary is too deluded to convince otherwise and frankly not worth the time to try and win back.

There are many ways to lose an election. True ignoring one's faults with voters is one way to, but you can just as easily lose an election shaping and bending your policy to fit a very vocal but very small minority of voters.

The CNN poll is skewed anyways. Hillary's approach to the campaign lately has been that she is more electable than Obama, having her voters say they won't vote for him is the best way they can help show her argument. Before she started making these arguments very few people said they would stay home or vote for McCain. Those numbers won't stay that way, I have a hard time believing 43% of her supporters are foolish enough to give us Bush's 3rd term to prove a point.

by matchles on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:22:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A measure of their appreciation of Obama's (none / 0)

candidacy. The sell job isn't working with people who are finding that they don't like his tactics, or maybe what they see of his character, his lack of qualifications and, for a lot of women and working class men in particular , don't like at all how he treats Hillary and her candidacy. The number grows as Obama and his supporters and his media fans behave in ways a lot of democrats don't think are right or democratic. Another one of those campaign facts that look bad for him.

It may be hard to imagine, but more and moe people are liking Hillary late in the campaign, when they maybe didn't early on. And more and moe people are showing signs of not liking Obama, though maybe at first they had. Then there are the ones who could not bring themselves to put him in charge of the country because of how they think he has behaved,regardless of whether his supporters ever seee that or not.

by itsadryheat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:15:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A measure of their appreciation of Obama's (none / 0)

Please tell me some of these tactics. I find this to be the most baseless attack in the campaign. People twisting every media response, trying to link it as if the Obama camp is behind the attack. I don't blame the Hillary camp for the Rev. Wright coverage, her campaign took a pass and didn't fuel the media frenzy. However, those here trying to say the Obama camp is responsible for the media's reaction to Hillary's assassination remarks or Bill's racial remarks are ridiculous.

Obama has given Hillary the utmost respect through this campaign process. Every reason you've given sans the qualifications argument is ludicrous. He has run the cleanest and most respectful campaign of anyone who has ever made it this far in the process. Anyone who sites character as the reason they aren't voting for the man obviously is doing it for other reasons because by no measure does the man lack character or respect for others.

by matchles on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:04:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree. When some dems don't vote Obama (none / 0)

you won't have a clue about why. A lot of your fellow posters have put good time into try ing help you see and understand, in hopes that the more who understood, the more chance there would be to fix or replace the party with one more democratically inclined, like THE Democratice Party or the Real Democratic Party or the Democtaric Values Party.

If millions of loyal Democrats, many lifelong, many who have dedicated a lot of work and money and caring to the Democratic Party over short and long lives,think that they may have no choice but to start a new party in order to stay Democrats, and the people who are pushing them out don't know why or care, the party has a problem. If it is denied by everybody left, there is not much to base hope for unity on and it may be the start of the end of the two party system.

The fierceness with which so many Hillary supporters have pushed back is a measure of how alien this new wave is to what we have thought held us together, what we always stood for and aspired to evolve toward.We have thought we were fighting for the good of our country and our families futures. If Obama ever becomes President and you folks are still interested in politics and policy, maybe you'll get it, then.

For the sake of living within the rules, I'm seriously restraining from being as blunt as I'd like. I dearly hope that it turns out that the problem came from Republicans and that it was all a campaign dirty trick played on hard working site managers and posters to tear the party apart. Then there is Senator Obama and whatever caused him to choose to think running was a good idea.

We always come back to the key indicator that something is very wrong in the party: If this campaign is so clean and legit, why make tremendous efforts and take enormous risks to end the race and push out the competition before the vote, and why always come down on the side of disregarding and not counting the people's votes?

by itsadryheat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:37:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree. When some dems don't vote Obama (none / 0)

You still haven't given me any example of how he lacks character or what these dirty tricks are. All I've seen is you allude to it being a dirty trick for him to enter the race or that he is a dirty campaigner because his supporters have said things you find out of line.

A man can only be responsible for his own actions and we have the right to talk about those he choses to run with in his campaign as an indicator of the type of person he'd put in power in his administration. But this notion that he is responsible for the actions of bloggers or the media is ridiculous and completely baseless. Any "proof" that has been posted on here that he is doing this sort of thing is heresay, no evidence to back it up.

No one, not you, not the Clintons, not the lifelong democrats have complete claim over the party, as you are suggesting. There may be millions that want things to stay the same but there are at least as many (possibly more) that want the party to change. I've been a democrat as long as I've been politically conscious, which is longer than I've had the right to vote. Your suggestion that most of Obama's supporters are fleeting and don't have an interest in politics is specious.

This change in the party is not the insurgency you suggest, it is a movement within the party. Many in the party have gotten complacent and decided that holding the status quo was enough. But if that is what you think the democratic party is, then you are in the wrong party. By definition liberalism is about change and you need to accept it as part of the party's ideals. The republicans aren't entirely responsible for the condition of the country right now. Many democratic leaders are part of the problem too. Which is why we need to change the way things are done in the party as well as in Washington. Partisanship needs to end and Obama is the only one who is reaching out to work with independents and republicans alike.

by matchles on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:22:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Posting mixup? or Comprehension problem? (none / 0)

by itsadryheat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:46:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Posting mixup? or Comprehension problem? (none / 0)

Agreed you haven't understood a single issue I've brought up and skirted every argument.

by matchles on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:00:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Make the GE a huge Caucus! (none / 0)

LOL

You may not agree with What I say but don't forget I am a Democrat

by indydem99 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:44:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not based on evidence like this (2.00 / 1)

Polls are all over the place. For all we know, this result could just be random noise. The evidence just isn't convincing enough to overturn the pledged delegate leader (Yeah, yeah, I understand the rules of the contest were problematic, but those are the ones we have now). I wish the evidence were more convincing but it is not.

by lombard on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:09:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: (none / 0)

Oh, I'm sure they will very soon.

by Becky G on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:36:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Diarist conveniently omits... (none / 0)

... that both polls fall well within the poll's margin of error. In other words, until Hillary drops this suicide-pact campaign, both candidates poll as a tie with McCain.

Once Hillary faces reality and tells her dead-enders not to vote for McCain, and her dead-enders stop telling pollsters that they will vote for McCain over Obama, he'll have at least a ten-point lead over McCain, and probably more.

Ignorance is weakness. Get strong.

by tbetz on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:53:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Check RCP and electoral-vote.com (none / 0)

Or 270TOWIN.com or USElectionAtlas.org

That's realclearpolitics.com for the latest polls,collected and linked, and a version or tow fo the pop vote, delegate count (one of many versions) and the averaging of recent polls.

Look any state you think may go either way and see the latest poll and number of electoral votes. On the other sites you can look at electoral maps much less generous to democrats as those on mydd. Even make your own on one site.

And link to the polls you like or don;t like and see the details and judge for yourself how it looks for Hillary and how it looks a lot less good in the swing states and electoral votes for Obama

by itsadryheat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:10:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Frankly, this time of year... (none / 0)

... no poll reflects anything like how the one November poll that really matters will turn out.

This time in 1992, both GHW Bush and Ross Perot polled higher than Bill Clinton.

Relying upon May head-to-head D/R polling to determine your Democratic nominee is flat-out stupid.

Ignorance is weakness. Get strong.

by tbetz on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:54:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

And when McCain drops out, (2.00 / 1)

well, Obama will do 100% or maybe even 120%!

by Molee on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:01:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

wishful thinking... (2.00 / 1)

I'll bet McCain will go to 60%

by nikkid on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:33:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: New Gallup, Hillary Wins Over McCain (2.00 / 1)

she said many times: she will not drop out, until we will have a nominee at convention.
And if you use just state polls instead of a national poll, you will get even more confirmation:
she will win 319-202 in EV:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Cl inton/Maps/May25.html

Welcome to a Landslide without white Working class, Latinos, Women, Seniors and holding-on sweeties

by engels on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:03:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

New Gallup, Hillary Wins Over McCain (2.00 / 2)

With Hillary.....all the way to the WhiteHouse.

by LindaSFNM on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:21:07 PM EST

Re: New Gallup, Hillary Wins Over McCain (none / 0)

Who are you trying to convince? Us, or yourself?

Hooray for John McCain!

by ragekage on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:01:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Haystacks, waiting for the strawman builders' (none / 0)

guild to show up for work.

by itsadryheat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:19:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Gallup, Hillary Wins Over McCain (none / 0)

Let's use our polls correctly. Tracking polls are used to measure movement. They are not there to measure actual support.

Second, the figures you cite are within the margin of error -- in other words, a statistical tie.

Finally, let's remember that polls are snapshots in time. We do not know what will be on the voters' minds six months from now. We do not know what will transpire in the campaign during the next six months. That's why we shouldn't put a poll on par with actual votes cast.

If Hillary Clinton were ahead by 10 in the polls, and Barack Obama were down by 5, then you'd have a case. If Hillary Clinton were able to cut into Barack Obama's base -- i.e., come within 5 in NC and/or OR, then you'd have a case.

by Brad G on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:39:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Please explain (none / 0)

what you mean by, "Tracking polls are used to measure movement. They are not there to measure actual support."

I mean this sincerely, as one thing I am trying to understand is how the daily Gallup and Rasmussen national polls ensure they have an appropriate national cross-section. I am a stats major (math, not business), so I understand the concepts, but I do not know details about how these two sites do their daily national polling.

I hope you don't mind explaining.

Thanks!

by sasatlanta on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:27:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please explain (none / 0)

Tracking polls aren't there to capture the magnitude of a candidate's support (i.e., x% support candidate a and y% support candidate b). They are only there to detect trends (i.e., candidate a's support has been on the rise this past week.).

by Brad G on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:54:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please explain (none / 0)

When you say they "aren't there to capture the magnitude of a candidate's support", why?

I am not asking what Gallup and Rasmussen's motivations are. What I am trying to understand is whether there is something in their methodology that makes them unsuitable for tracking magnitude.

And again, I am seriously curious and am trying to understand if there is a methodological issue that makes the "raw" results invalid but where the trends do present validity.

Thanks!

by sasatlanta on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:48:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: New Gallup, Hillary Wins Over McCain (none / 0)

2 points is within the Margin of Error.

And certainly this isn't that important considering we have an electoral college system.

Jeez....do you think the supers are going to overturn the pledged delegate number because one is two points ahead in the gallup tracking and the other is 2 points behind?

by Deadalus on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:21:22 PM EST

Re: BREAKING: New Gallup, Hillary Wins Over McCain (none / 0)

I guess you just want to ignore anything that doesn't look good for B O. And......the trend paints a really good picture.

by LindaSFNM on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:23:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: New Gallup, Hillary Wins Over McCain (none / 0)

I've been ignoring the polls in a national tracking for quite some time. Until they narrow down between candidates and we move into the general election phase, they're pretty useless. I mean, hell, why didn't the superdelegates just go towards Obama back in February, when he polled 15 points over Clinton, or in late March, when Clinton was ahead by 8?

Hooray for John McCain!

by ragekage on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:07:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

One is four ahead (2.00 / 1)

the other is two behind, just so you know. I am sure you are fond of facts.

by linc on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:25:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One is four ahead (none / 0)

He's ahead in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Michigan, Virginia.

With those states, he'd win.

If you want to have a factual discussion about our chances, fine, but just throwing up the Gallup Tracking Poll does little to advance that end.

by Deadalus on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:40:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One is four ahead (none / 0)

Both within the margin of error, so that means a statistical TIE.

"In the primary you should vote with your heart, but in the general, you should vote with your head" Hillary's husband

by venician on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:43:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: New Gallup, Hillary Wins Over McCain (none / 0)

Actually it means nothing.

The problem right now are HRC supporters telling pollsters that they will vote for McCain out of spite.

When polls are taken without Hillary Obama leads McCain.

by sweet potato pie on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:21:39 PM EST

Re: BREAKING: New Gallup, Hillary Wins Over McCain (none / 0)

oh really? If all those so-called spiteful HRC supporters are going to vote for McCain, then wouldn't those polls with just Obama-McCain (and no Hillary) still show McCain beating Obama?

can't have it both ways.

by colebiancardi on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:23:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: New Gallup, Hillary Wins Over McCain (none / 0)

No, they aren't. The polls with just OBama v. McCain show Obama winning. The problem is that the pollsters are including Hillary in the poll. Once you eliminate her all together Obama is ahead.

by sweet potato pie on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:27:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: New Gallup, Hillary Wins Over McCain (none / 0)

are you just moving all of Hillary votes over to the Obama column?

hmmm, doesn't sound right to me.

by colebiancardi on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:38:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: New Gallup, Hillary Wins Over McCain (none / 0)

No, she is saying that it is a polling artifact. If you prime the people you are polling with the names of Clinton, McCain and Obama, and then ask whether they would vote for Obama or McCain, a small fraction of Clinton supporters declare that they would vote for McCain. If you don't prime the people you ask, and the survey is purely about Obama and McCain, then Clinton supporters say they would vote for Obama. Since Clinton will not actually appear on the GE ballot, and Clinton will have been actively campaigning for Obama for months by the GE, Clinton supporters will not have the same priming when they actually vote in the GE.

by letterc on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:00:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: New Gallup, Hillary Wins Over McCain (2.00 / 1)

An honest question: do you believe any path to the nomination by which she is not the leader in pledged delegates would not have a detrimental affect upon her poll numbers?

by Casuist on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:23:33 PM EST

Is this a "poll" battle? (2.00 / 1)

Or is it who is ahead in the delegates?

No way. No how. No McCain!

by spacemanspiff on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:25:34 PM EST

Re: Is this a "poll" battle? (none / 0)

It's a battle by whatever metric favors Clinton.

"I'm all for the delegate battle, and now that Obama's campaign is too, I'm all giddy. It's going to be the supers as kingmaker." J.Armstrong 01/19/08

by obscurant on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:35:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: New Gallup, Hillary Wins Over McCain (none / 0)

Um,,,your dates on the Gallup Poll, the chart above.

They are listed as April 30 - May 4th.

You seem to have equated May 4th with May 24th.

This is 20 day old news.

by IowaMike on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:35:17 PM EST

Re: BREAKING: New Gallup, Hillary Wins Over McCain (none / 0)

I'm looking closer, the chart appears to show a later date, but your headline and Gallup story only go to May 4. Is there a cut and paste issue?

by IowaMike on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:39:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: New Gallup, Hillary Wins Over McCain (none / 0)

I think it is a problem with how Gallup chooses to title their graphs. The graph shows the trend since the April 30-May 4 polling period, meaning that the data point shown on the left edge of the plot is the results of the Apr 30-May 4 poll. The title accurately describes this (trend since Apr 30-May 4) but it is confusing, since the reader expects the date range to describe the period displayed in the graph, not the starting point of the graph. The title is designed for the reader who is looking at the current state of the daily Gallup poll, where the information of interest is "how far back does this graph show?" Once it is in a context where it could be old data, the title becomes confusing.

by letterc on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:06:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: New Gallup, Hillary Wins Over McCain (none / 0)

It doesn't matter. It's still over. The sooner you support the democratic nominee, Barack Obama, the better for the party, & the country. It's time.

by Democrat in Chicago on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:44:57 PM EST

Why bother? (2.00 / 2)

Why even bother with the state by state primary/caucaus system of electing a candidate of a party? Why don't we just take a poll in August and then let the leading person be the nominee? This democratic system that we have is downright silly!

by sbbonerad on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:47:15 PM EST

Re: BREAKING: New Gallup, Hillary (none / 0)

Oh, a poll that shows Hillary doing better than Obama.

I guess Gallup matters again. I doubt it'll last.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:01:31 PM EST

Now this is... (none / 0)

What I call good news.

by handsomegent on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:10:32 PM EST

Good Grief (none / 0)

And last week it was Obama and next week it may be Obama again. When is everyone going learn that May polls are meaningless for a November election.

Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.

by jsfox on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:25:17 PM EST

BREAKING: straw shortage (none / 0)

reports indicate a small number of Clintonoid wackos are grasping at every straw in sight, leading to a shortage and consequent sharp drop in demand for milkshakes.

Hillary Clinton's milkshake, of course, has already been drunk by one Barack Obama.

by JJE on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:36:36 PM EST

Oh please (2.00 / 1)

This is just the same nonsense of hard-core Clinton supporters telling Gallup they'll vote for McCain or stay home (and Obama supporters not saying this in similar numbers).

by IncognitoErgoSum on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:37:52 PM EST

Re: BREAKING: New Gallup, Hillary Wins Over McCain (none / 0)

Sure. Have the Superdelegates overturn the pledged delegate lead and watch what happens to Hillary's and Obama's numbers. They will go in opposite directions.

Hillary's will plummet as Obama supporters who are currently striving towards party unity suddenly get extraordinarily pissed off at the person and the party they perceive to have stolen the nomination from their candidate.

Obama's numbers will suddenly rise as Hillary supporters strive towards party unity, and the hostility towards Obama recedes.

The victor of this nomination, no matter who he or she happened to be, was going to suffer a polling setback near the end as the opposition vents their frustration to pollsters.

Hillary is indeed the stronger candidate...when she is losing.

by Saintcog on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:15:44 PM EST

Re: BREAKING: New Gallup, Hillary Wins Over McCain (none / 0)

I hate to say this, but NATIONAL polls mean shit.

we don't elect a president based on national polls, but by state EV's - winner take all.

by colebiancardi on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:52:43 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.