Time Poll: Obama Better Against McCain Than Clinton

Time:

Though the real election is nine months away, Sen. Barack Obama would fare slightly better than Sen. Hillary Clinton in a head to head match-up with Sen. John McCain if the general election were held today, a new TIME poll reveals.

Obama captured 48% of the vote in the theoretical match-up against McCain's 41%, the TIME poll reported, while Clinton and McCain would deadlock at 46% of the vote each. Put another way, McCain looks at the moment to have a narrowly better chance of beating the New York Senator than he does the relative newcomer from Illinois.

Read the whole story: Time

Comments

[Doofus]

A narrow lead in the popular vote is only a way of predicting an electoral vote defeat. Hopefully, Obama, once nominated, will get his popular vote approval ratings up over 60%, so most of US will breathe a little easier. Electoral vote trickery is arguably much harder to accomplish in the face of a popular vote landslide.

[Gatormouth]

In addition to the existing "super" delegates it appears the possibility of deals exist between the national and state Democratic parties in Michigan and Florida. All those "undeclared" votes could become extra insurance that the party favorite isn't hijacked by the voters. If "we" (the voters as opposed to the party bosses) say we need a heavy duty landslide to express the will of the people it is because we already recognize that heavy duty electoral vote trickery is being attempted or likely.

If it does happen, and if we are still able to pull off a win in the fall, I believe that it will be documented and that reform will be demanded. If the "anointed" party favorite wins, distrust and manipulation of the democratic process wins as well. By the way, that is how Leo Strauss' Neocons work as well.
Coincidence?

[Lalo]

I agree that DNC screwed up with the FL situation. But I also think the overall superdelegate system is fine. It's a mirror of electoral colleage and it ensures that Iowa doesn't get trampled by California.

If you want popular vote, than we should abolish primaries and caucuses altogether and have all candidates run against each other. And that makes no sense at all for D/R party wars.

[melann830]

hey doofus.

Read her website, then read his website, and then tell me if you can even breathe in the room your currently in. You won't be breathing under Obama, you'll feel and elephant on your chest.

[Eoin45]

FO Melan830. After reading 3 or 4 of your posts I've decided you're another good reason not to vote for Hillary - if you're at all typical of her supporters.

[Kantinflas]

If the popular vote mattered most, Al Gore would have won the presidency in 2000. Polls of state by state match-ups with their implications for electoral vote totals would reveal a lot more about a candidate's electability.

[JiminNC]

Jaded vs Cynical - Which is worse? The reason this is a good question is that it speaks to why I think many people support Hillary Clinton. Are her ideas better? Is she more ethical? Truly more experienced? We know the truth of that. They do too. Really they do. But many are convinced that sleazy politics is the only possible reality. If you accept that as given, Hillary Clinton becomes the most likely candidate to succeed in the November election. But what if we could have more than success as measured by the lowest of standards ... we win, they lose.

The real problem? So many people are jaded from a lifetime of political con-artists, cheaters and grifters. So many more are simply cynical, unwilling to tempt the experience of being marginalized, choosing rather the perceived high ground of non-participant and "above it all."

The real problem is that neither the jaded nor the cynical can easily cross the threshold, that of suspending their well-founded belief system for a few moments. The most difficult barrier is not race, gender, conservative, liberal or any other wedge label that has been hung around the neck of every citizen by decades of "divide and conquer" power-mongers. The most difficult boundary is belief. Belief that it might be possible for someone to enter politics that can be just as honorable, strong, reasonable, compassionate and respectful as ... me ... or as you.

Every one of us can recall a story of that one politician that we sent to DC that was going to be above it all only to watch them sucked into the blender and turned into a Washington insider.

The key to reaching people is not your ability to shout them down or eclipse their achievements in news-spin or money collections. The key is in convincing the cynics and the jaded to lower their boundaries long enough to consider the possibility that Barack Obama may actually be what he and half the country believe he is.

[itsnotmyfault]

JiminiCri...here is some real jaded cynicism to chew on....
From Kathleen Geier...
"Excuse me, but this sounds more like a cult than a political campaign. The language used here is the language of evangelical Christianity " the Obama volunteers speak of "coming to Obama" in the same way born-again Christians talk about "coming to Jesus."-----But he's not Jesus! He's not going to magically enable us to transcend the bitter partisanship that is tearing this country apart. And even if he is elected, in no way will that show that somehow we have "gotten beyond" race.------The Obama campaign's instruction to their volunteers to steer clear of policy questions. How can we truly bring about real political change if the movement the Obama people are building is devoid of ideological content, content merely to mouth gauzy generalities about "coming together" and "yes we can"? Such a movement becomes a cult or personality rather than engine for social justice and political transformation. And personality cults can be a huge turnoff to those who are not already drinking the Kool-Aid." -----------------------------------------------------------Oh and by the way...in 2000 half the country believed that George Bush was a compassionate conservative and a uniter able to bring the discordant factions in Washington together. The other half knew the reality, which did not make them cynical, nor jaded.

[illinoisan]

Obama has said from the beginning that cynicism is the biggest obstacle for our campaign.

[hugs4u]

Gore did win the popular vote plus the electoral votes. It was the supreme court and Florida who stole the election from him.

[SwingStateVeteran]

How 'bout them polls, huh? Didn't Zogby have Obama up by 13 points in California? The day of the primary!!! And what happened in N.H.?

[Bushgirlsgonewild]

.

What happened in H.H.

Let me explain:

about 40% of people who indented to vote were undecided.

Most of them went for Hillary once they were in the booth.

Next troll question will be handled by a four-year-old chimp.


(No, Bush is doing something else)

[SwingStateVeteran]

Need some more coffee?

[itsnotmyfault]

Yes and how 'bout them Giants, huh?'....that is why they play the game.

[Zhonni]

Zogby did not account for those who already voted. The USAtoday(guessing) did and was able to predict it a little more precisely.

The poll in N.H were CORRECT I am tired of that B.S. They stopped polling sunday and did not account for Hillary's emotional plea that was what won her N.H. People, especially women just didn't wake up and say, I will change from Obama to Clinton without a reason.

She was being pummeled by the media and they just couldn't let her be embarrassed like that because she was done had she lost N.H.

[horacekent]

I consider myself as an independent/moderate republican. However, I've been very inspired by Obama. If Obama wins the democratic nomination, I will vote for him in the general election. If Hillary is the nominee, I won't vote for her. However, I'm not if I'll vot for McCain either.

[Svenson]

Thanks for shring your thoughts with us..


Thats what I told my grandchidlren, great grandchidlren and greate, greate grandchildren too.

You are so deep.

I waited for nearly a 100 years for the second coming .. and it is so near now. November 2008.

[AnninCA]

LOL*......*sipping my latte*

I rather am enjoying being truly a "latte-sipping" gal who is a big Hillary fan.

It's my notion of rebellion. :)

[Silpat]

Is this really surprising.

Hillary is divisive and would only motivate masses of people to come out and vote against her in the General election.

Hillary is a Former First lady, married to one of the "most popular" Presidents in the Democratic Party, therefore she does not lack in name recognition. She also touts "35 years" of political experience, but still can't break away as the front-runner when up against the new guy, Obama. Not to mention the fact that people who have known her and Bill for many years are also backing the Obama. When you add it all up, without a doubt she loses.

[gernger]

Poll numbers like these are totally meaningless. In past presidential elections hugh margins at the beggining of the campaign don.t hold up. In one example, in 1988, Dukakis came out of the convention with a 17 point lead over Bush 41, and then lost by a landslide. In 1968, Nixon had a very large lead over Humphrey early on, but by election day it was very close. It makes no sense at all to look at these type of polls this early.

[ac1]

Right, because HuffPo suddenly validates polling, and the polls have been so accurate so far in this.

[kevenseven]

Tuesday was a MASSIVE victory for Obama. Perceptions matter, and Obama won the expectations race. The truth of this is displayed by the Clintons declaring defeat by anointing Obama the "establishment" candidate. Hah! HRC is the underdog, by her own declaration.

Assuming that I have this right, Clinton got 747 delegates, Obama 744.

That translates to Clinton getting 50.1%, Obama 49.9%. Clinton needed to beat Obama by AT LEAST 10% to claim victory. The front runner title is a hazard, it must be defended, and Clinton did not manage it. She bested Obama by a fifth of a percent.

The Clintonian narrative of inevitability is utterly shattered. It was a double edged sword and has come back to wound Clinton, perhaps fatally.

Meanwhile, Obama was able to deliver on his narrative of momentum, hugely so. Had he picked up two more delegates, he would have got more than she did. And consider his fundraising numbers for this year. There is no way anybody can rationally claim that Obama does not have the advantage at this time, and that Clinton looks to be going down to defeat.

I don"t assert that there is anything evil or ugly about trying to convince the world that your nomination is inevitable. It is the natural thing to do, to try to be seen as the prohibitive favorite. But it has come back to bite Clinton in the ass.

And no, the purpose of this post is not to "bring people together" it is to argue that Obama is now the front runner, and that he is the victor of Tuesday"s contests.

[AnninCA]

Massive? So how do you come up with that?

LOL*

He threw everything but the kitchen sink at CA.....

and lost big-time in all but 3 counties.

And that's not even counting the absentee votes. :)

[Lalo]

Kevin, I assume you have this written neatly in a Word document somewhere... How can you do this endless copy/paste over and over and over again and expect a different result??

[ALMAL]

Obama giving change-250$

President BUSH giving HOPE-1200$ for femily + 300$ for every child.

People, think twice about Obama

[kevenseven]

Bush is giving away tax dollars, sparky. He was supposed to be the conservative.

[Bushgirlsgonewild]

.

Femily?

Yes, Chimpy is hope.

He once put food on my femily.
.

[teahead]

Bush doesn't want his legacy to end w/a bad economy.

Let me pay you w/your money!


So, you think you should choose a President on how big the "bribe" should be?

[ALMAL]

i'm not choosing Bush for president,
it 's different year now.

[calfacon]

Bush is borrowing dollars from China, the Saudis and other oil rich countries to pay out this "rebate". He's putting our children in debt to up his Legacy a few points. He is continuing to hand over our financial stability to global corporations and enrich his cronies. Yes, indeed think twice about Obama, think thrice.

[DoninJoisey]

I'll say it again - if Hillary is given the nomination by the superdelegates, I will vote for McCain.
With Hill/Bill, we'll stay in Iraq anyway, and McCain once had a lot of integrity, and I feel he still has more left than Hill/Bill ever had.

[zreeb]

I'm with you there.

Though I'll probably just throw my vote at a third party candidate.

[SDgirl]

I will join you

[Cunningham]

Bolton is being considered as Sec. of State if McCain becomes president. Remember, McCain has promised us MORE WARS (my dear friends).

The Supreme Court, already full of crazy rightwingers, will likely lose a couple of justices during the next presidency. Do you really want to pack it with more extremists and their impact for decades to come?

I am an Obama supporter, and I hate the thought of the Clintons in our White House again, but I will vote for her if she's the nominee. The alternative is horrific.

[zreeb]

I am concerned about that, Bolton is a psychonaut.

[IkeChicago]

How do you know Hillary Clinton is a pigeon, when the neocons and the opposition like Rush would do anything they could to assure that Hillary is the nominee.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Rush Limbaugh Thursday said he's considering raising cash for Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign so as to ensure she's the Democratic nominee.

Earlier in the week Limbaugh said that if Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, is the Democratic presidential nominee, the GOP this November is "doomed."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/rush-says-he-ma.html

[Dalpine]

McCain won't let Hillary cheat or cry.

[Bushgirlsgonewild]

.

Because he'll "handle it" as a real republican would?


(in a men's room airport bathroom}


.

[GLU]

If you guys don't want to believe it fine. But here in Michigan, I know lots of "swing voters," people that really do not have a strong preference between the parties even after Bush. And these people laugh at the idea of voting for Hillary. And no amount of reasoning with them is going to work because they know all they want to or ever care to know about her already.

[Luc65]

Yes, and Obama was supposed to win by a large margin in NH and was supposed to take a wide lead on Super Tuesday...

Stop polling! Polls have absolutely no value except for those who are running them.. Polling influence people decision, which is absolutely against any democratic values.

If you want to predict accurately the outcome of the elections, get a crystal bowl.

[DoninJoisey]

1) It was NOT a large margin that was predicted in NH, and 2) the margin was there in paper ballots and exit polls - largely in agreement with pre-vote polls, but strangely, Hillary won via the electric ballots.

Polls have been quite accurate - there is a margin of error that they publish, and results are usually within the margin or error.

[Luc65]

OK, sorry for my french. According to the last NH polls before the vote, Obama had a 9 points leads, 40% to 31% for HRC.

You can still check the results of various polls on
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080108.htm

These numbers represent the average end the error margin for most of them were +/- 4.

This means that Obama results should have been between 38% and 42% and HRC, 27% and 35%.

Based on the fact that HRC did 39.07% and Obama 36.47%, it shows how the polls were completely off and simply the way they are conducted does not represent tangible prediction.

So, knowing that, does it make sense to poll a small population that is obviously not representative? I let you decide what the answer to this question is.

[DennyCrane]

I wonder what excuse Hillary supporters will use when she loses to McCain. Polls like these have value. They show who is more electable and clearly it's Obama.

[NoMoreDrama]

I wonder what excuse Hillary supporters will use to dismiss this dumptruck of lobbyist crap that are her campaign advisers. I didn't know Wolfson could stuff so much garbage in that sweater.
130 Million dollar Uranium Deal in Kazakhstan
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20clinton.html?fta=y
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?bl&ex=1201928400&en=34871ee7da314ab4&ei=5087%0A

Mark "Blackwater" Penn
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4436468

Mark Penn Anti Union, Pro Big Tobacco, Pro Big Oil
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mark_Penn

BM- Mark Penn represents Chinese and Central American, Mexican Governments lobbying Clinton's Admin
http://www.newsmax.com/morris/hillary_adviser/2007/10/16/41408.html

Mark Penn's conflict of interests
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/05/09/the_real_case_against_mark_pen/

Howard Wolfson is big part of pro Dubai Ports deal lobbying
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usclin144890633sep14,0,4200190.story?coll=ny-leadnationalnews-headlines

Clintons WalMart ties on ABC news
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2008/02/wal-mart-update.html

Wolfson's Group Undermines OpenNet and works with Murdoch's FOX
http://www.democraticmedia.org/jcblog/?p=101

Wolfson fights against asbestos claims, for Microsoft and Abramoff. Fights for Rupert Murdoch.
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=14064

More of Penn's greatest hit jobs
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070604/berman

[SDgirl]

I am pretty sure The Clinton supporters don't even bother to read this....since their response is usually yes but Obama has a double lot around his house, and he doesn't say the pledge of allegiance(who cares if everyone in the Senate has seen him do it, I saw that picture....)

[zreeb]

I don't know how these douchebags support someone who thinks lobbyists are great people.

Is it ok to call Hillary supporters douchebags? I don't want anyone to start crying.

[kellygrrrl]

HELLOOOOOO - HuffPost, what happened to your Anti-Poll Pledge? How hypocritical can you get? Do you have no value for your credibility?

[kevenseven]

You know, I missed this pledge.