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

[sarnold49]

Everyone can say what they want to but in my lifetime we have only had one president that allowed us the luxury of giving a damn about who our president was sleeping with. Everyone raves about JFK but I lived during those times and we were too busy hiding under our school desks for bomb raid drills to give a damn about the fack that he was having affairs in the Oval office and even getting caught up in the death of Marilyn Monroe. With the mess our country is in it might be better to have a president that has plenty of time to work on the country's business while her husband is off cheating on her than someone being followed around by his groupies (Obama girl and Claire McCaskill's adoring eyes) all the time and compares himself to JFK.

[AnninCA]

Didn't you find it hilarious about the JFK stuff?

Talk about icon!

He was a great deal ruder to Jackie than Bill ever was to Hillary.

And he definitely never made it better in his lifetime.

She's another absolute role model for women, in my opinion.

NOT him.

But her.

To this day, I get chills thinking about her taking that job as an editor. What guts!

And she was darn good at it, too.

[sarnold49]

Hillary Clinton
Pledged: 840
Superdelegates: 193
Total: 1,033

Barack Obama
Pledged: 831
Superdelegates: 106
Total: 937

John Edwards
Pledged: 26
Superdelegates: 0
Total: 26

This is copied and pasted from CNN Obama around-the-clock news for you any time you want it channel. So let's leave Super Delegates out of it, now what kind of math has 831 beating 840? Could that be the republicans "fuzzy math?" I guess that's another thing Obama likes about the republican party and Reagan.

[kevenseven]

Dude.

Of the pledged delegates, Clinton has 50.25%, Obama has 49.75%.

Do you REALLY want to crow about being half a percent ahead?

Obama was the victor last Tuesday. Clinton's narrative of inevitability was demolished, and Obama's of momentum accelerated.

The Clintonians need to open a wider margin agains Obama, and quick. If Clinton does not best Obama this week by 10% of pledged delegates won, she will continue to be in trouble.

Expectations and perceptions are everything in politics.

[Lalo]

lol... "narrative".... I bet you quote the talking heads even in your sleep

[zreeb]

CNN's numbers are shit.

Use the AP.

[kevenseven]

Any way you cut it, Obama is right on her heels. If nothing else, her narrative of inevitability is done.

[Savanarola]

I know, I Know...reality is a bitch.

[joselopez]

I HAVE SAID THIS ALL ALONG: THE TIME ARTICLE CONFIRMS IT:

The difference, says Mark Schulman, CEO of Abt SRBI, which conducted the poll for TIME, is that "independents tilt toward McCain when he is matched up against Clinton But they tilt toward Obama when he is matched up against the Illinois Senator." Independents, added Schulman, "are a key battleground."

[AnninCA]

Based on what I've seen, they aren't real voters.

So maybe, maybe not.

[Lalo]

Well, if TIME itself says so.... then...

[cinnysmom]

we need to remember that these super delegates can change their mind. Just because they have pledged their vote for Hillary or Barack doesn't mean they will stick to it come November

[teahead]

Ahh..yes, the Clinton News Network.

[NCYvonne]

Stop with the "conservative blue-collar white people won't vote for Obama" crap. Look at these Super Tuesday results.

Idaho: Obama 80, Hillary 17; Kansas: Obama 74, Hillary 26; North Dakota: Obama 62, Hillary 37; Minneosta: Obama 67, Clinton 32.

[sarnold49]

So we should let the conservatives choose our candidate as well as their candidate?

[kevenseven]

Why put words in people's mouths? You cannot frame an argument on your own?

Obama will get the votes of the Dems of CA, NY, NJ, MA, FL, MI, shall I continue? in the general. The fact that he does well in purple states is a strong argument for his nomination.

[kamenwati]

It's idiotic thinking like yours sarnold49 that has kept the republicans in power. Without independents and new voters turning out the dems can kiss the WH goodbye.

[teahead]

Yes, you NEED conservatives to cross over to win.

Duhhh...where have you been for the past oh...however your insigificant life has lived?

[TruthLives]

Can we all pretty much agree that pollsters are being played for fools by those they poll... wrong info to pollsters seems to be the new "game" these days...

[kevenseven]

No.

[CAPTAINSKIPPY]

Yes, and TIME is the original Fox News, supporting conservatives over Democrats at every turn.

[Bagger]

So you would think they would support Hillary if this were the case?

[jhNY]

Either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama will win the presidency in 2008, because, whoever is nominated, democrats will turn out in large numbers to support them. Over 70% of Obama supporters say they'd vote for Clinton, and vice versa!

Super Tuesday brought out twice as many democrats as republicans to the polls. That's right. For every one republican who took the trouble to come out and vote, two democrats did so. Is it not reasonable to conclude that republicans are outnumbered at the polls to the point that there is very little chance that either democratic primary candidate could be beaten by them in the general election? Perhaps between now and November republicans will have opportunity to swell their ranks by a goodly number, but by 100%? Not likely.

This election year, it looks like the republican are a disheartened minority, and have chosen to run their 21st century version of Bob Dole, war hero, and old-school, no-longer-mainstream party leader. That would be John McCain, war hero, and old-school, no-longer-mainstream party leader.

The plan is to wait in the weeds till next time. Bush's wall-to-wall disaster of a presidency has taken them out of this one, however close some of our pundits (Chris Matthews et al)would like us to believe this election will be.

That's certainly Mitt's plan. Between now and 2012 he'll be making some version of his stump speech to any gathering of republicans, however small, who he can convince to sit through it. But by then, some other scrubbed up savior will doubtless have emerged who will begin slouching his way toward Bethlehem, or at least the repulican convention.

[ayc]

There is no question the Democrats will turn out, at least most of them. But there are a lot of independents, myself included who had to declare a party to vote in the primary. We have declared Democrat in overwhelming numbers to vote for Obama, and to vote for a new style of politics, a 50 state Democratic party, an end to division and lies and manipulation of the citizens.

39% of registered voters are unaffiliated, a lot of us have affiliated now with an Obama Dean type of Democratic party. If the Clinton Democratic type of party holds on to their power, this new Democrat will change back to unaffiliated. If I am going to vote for someone who supported the war, I will at least vote for someone who understand the terror war is.

I think a lot of new Democrats feel the same way.

[jhNY]

Wow. You get what you want or you'll quit and go home? And you think McCain, the promoter of a Hundred Year War On Whoever, has a better understanding of the "terror war" than Hillary Clinton? Both of them voted to authorize Bush before the Iraq debacle began, but only one of them wants to stop it now.

If you really are an example of the so-called "new Democrats", please take your deep critical thinking and affiliation elsewhere. You're obviously too fine a person for the actual Democratic Party.

[ALMAL]

McCain tells Obamaa;

My friend,
or you don't understand the nature of the ISLAMIC EXTREMISM and TERRORISM.

Or you,OBAMA PROTECTING THOSE TERRORISTS.

One part of this sentence will be true.

Which part do you want to be true?

[Bagger]

Obama has been right from the beginning. Obama wins.

[StephenDedalus82]

Give him a gold star! Won't that satisfy him? Why does he have to be the most powerful person on earth because he made a speech?

[SDgirl]

Obama will say "John I have nothing but respect for your service and sacrifice for this country, but on this issue I fundamentally disagree with you. Of course the threat of terrorists is real, I have never said differently. Which is precisely why this war in Iraq, that you are in complete agreement with, was a mistake at its conception. It's a war that should have never been authorized and never been waged. That is why I opposed it from the start. We took our eye off of the real enemy, the terrorists in Afganistan and distracted ourselves with Iraq, losing greatly in blood, treasure and world standing. With this war we have made ourselves less safe by fueling the flames of the various Islamic radicals you have mentioned. We need to be a country that not only is militarily strong, hunting down terrorists and lose nuclear weapons, but a country that once again leads diplomatically and with our values."

[ALMAL]

there is feeding ground for terrorists everywhere.

In DURFOR,KENYA and CHAD maslim extremists kill christians,take there land,burn CHURCHES ,burn women and children.

then they proclaim themsalves refugies,get status and wait depurture in EUROPE or UNITED STATES.

[SDgirl]

on the other hand McCain will be able to say to Hillary, "You were for it before you were against it." Sound familiar?

[StephenDedalus82]

Bravo, a brilliant argument about why Obama was right and McCain/Hillary were wrong. But I thought he was about the future? We don't care about who was right and who was wrong like this is kindergarten, we're concerned about the person's ability to get things done.

[letitgo]

The non caucus results do not match the polls because, similar to the Iraqi war, there is a lack of objectivity and serious inquiry. We are several months away from the big show. Events change. Many of the media pundits and BHO cultists concede that JC walked on water but BHO walks on air. Pass the hammer and nails. BTW. Someone please put Chris Matthews on prozac

[ALMAL]

In NY primaryes TV shown Obama's militia at the entrances of polling places,but at caucuses they would help Obama to herd sheeps inside.

[ayc]

Can you give me a source on this? I live int he tri-state area and have not heard anything about this.

[kevenseven]

Well, that is a crime in most states, you should report it to the authorities.

Unless it is all bullshit.

[N8Ma]

I live in NY and in an area that went 8-1 for Obama. It's a small village on the Hudson river, and there were no "shepherds" taking us to the polls and helping us pull the lever.

You're suggesting something shady went on. If that's the case, report it to the authorities. Otherwise shut up (and learn decent spelling/grammar while you're at it).

[SubparDude]

:
Paid overseas lying poster.

Forget it ALMAL.
:

[teahead]

Just b/c you say so it's true?

LOL! Another naive Clingon supporter.

[sugarmoes]

it's amazing that it's even that close for either dem.

[NC4Obama]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html
McCain vs Obama

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html
McCain vs Clinton

[IkeChicago]

Obama is going to have to invest all his capital in the primaries, his supporters only have so much money, he will have to start anew raising money for the general election. McCain will be sitting their waiting for him. Hillary need to be offered an incentive to get out of the way. Hillary can't win form here on out, you know it and I know it, Romney did the right thing, it is time for Hillary to do the right thing if she looses the upcoming primaries. There is no feasible way Hillary could win loosing all these primaries, Obama will split Texas and Ohio, then what.

Another point is that the Dems have a chance for a 61 seat in the senate, Obama could be out stomping for senatorial candidates to achieve that. Does anyone here think that Hillary could stomp for many of these marginal seats. Republicans crossing over will probably like to give Obama the Senate and House that would not block his programs, not so with Hillary, they would want to see a congress that blocks Hillary.

All in all Obama is the future of the Democratic party, he could successfully put it on a different path to success.

[sarnold49]

She won the popular vote, she has the most delegates but she can't win and should drop out? Did you drop out of school?

Romney dropped out because he had less than half as many delgates as McCain.

Hillary has the support of the democratic base so how can Obama be the future of the Democratic party? His supporters are blacks, independents, amd republicans, the last group disagrees with everything about the democratic party so why would we want to put them in charge of or a part of making any decisions relating to the democratic party?

[IkeChicago]

Obama has the lead in Committed delegates, not super delegates. For the last time Super delegates have been known to switch their votes and they will for the good of the party, lots of them committed even before Obama got in the race.

When the super delegates see Obama with the majority of committed delegates, they will switch to Barack Obama.

[AnninCA]

If she loses Texas and Ohio, then there will be a clear front-running.

But step aside because LA votes for Obama when we've seen the race divide?

Please.....that's silly.

[independentrepublicrat]

"The Democrats have it exactly wrong. Hillary is the easier candidate, Mr. Obama the tougher. Hillary brings negative; it's fair to hit her back with negative. Mr. Obama brings hope, and speaks of a better way. He's not Bambi, he's bulletproof."

Peggy Noonan(R)/Wall Street Journal

[ALMAL]

to prove his toughness he'll probably need to show US army,how mach he hates ISLAM,
then he is tough .

[ALMAL]

McCain ate Ramney in two weeks,there is a lot of time to very slowly chew Obama.

And McCain won't need swiftboaters for help,Obama swiftboated himsalf allready.

He did it first in2002 when he was against the IRAQ war.
Believe me, antiwar position will sink him fast.

Obama on the ticket,not even TITANIC.

It'll be Small boat with the big hole you know where.

And Clinton won't be the president ,if Obama on ticket,becouse of his antiwar position.

And if you all want to have democrat president,please,give Clinton a little space for manoeuvres to protect her forWAR position.

And for my AA friends,
Can you just forget about the race for a while?

[Bagger]

"And if you all want to have democrat president,please,give Clinton a little space for manoeuvres to protect her forWAR position."

You have no conviction my friend. War is unforgiveable. That's why Democrats are weak...no conviction.

And Obama cannot be swiftboated. The Republicans will tread water lightly. They have to be able to attack without looking racist. HUGE advantage Barack Obama.

[ProgressiveNotLiberal]

Can you not be more racist with your post?
Clinton didn't read the NIE and voted for the war. McCain did not read the NIE and voted for the war.
Obama can use that against both of them. Clinton equals bad judgment and bad leadership. She inspires no one but herself. She horded her cash in 2004 to run for the Presidency herself instead of helping other Dems like Harold Ford. If she were a team player it would be different, but she isn't and that makes her weak!

[ALMAL]

ROBERT DE NERO DIDN'T HAVE HOPE.

OBAMA GAVE HIM HOPE.

[SDgirl]

Also, McCain has caved to the conservatives saying he would continue the Bush tax cuts for people making over $250,000 a year. So he wants to continue on borrowing trillions from China for a 100 year war just so rich people can line their pockets. McCain is vulnerable to Obama because of Independents and because he came toward Obama and worked on Immigration Reform with Kennedy and Obama, worked toward campaign finance reform with Feingold and Obama, and supported rolling back the Bush tax cuts the first two years of voting. However, Obama has a clean difference with McCain on the war. Hillary voted for the war like McCain, voted for kyle-leiberman amendment like McCain. Both Hawkish, but Hillary will be the flip flopper.

[kamenwati]

Didn't the bell for recess just ring at your elementary school? Go out and play with the other kids.

[teahead]

Right.

Kerry was for the war before he was against it.

That did him well.

Clinton...same thing.

[IkeChicago]

The Republicans are dead scared of running against Barack Obama and his impressive campaign machine. Here is why

Obama was right on the war.

Obama attracts many new voters.

Obama attracts young voters.

Obama attracts cross over Republicans.

Obama gets a bigger bite of the independent voters than John McCain.

Poll after poll shows Barack Obama ahead of John McCain.

Here is the decision for the Super Delegates:
Does the Democratic party want to win the Presidential Election.

Or does the Democratic party want Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton come hell or high water.

Time to choose Democrats.

[Bagger]

And Obama can raise money like hell.

[NC4Obama]

its not just the amount of money he can raise its also the amount of different people funding it.

[mbrome]

That's because people believe in him. They have hope. Surprise, it works!

[AnninCA]

*tut tut*

Clinton just outraised him in money after Super-Tuesday.

Even so, it's not going to be JUST money that wins this.

[ALMAL]

Antiwar Obama's win,dems'loss

Republican helpers and prowar ,antiterrorist democrats will be long gone to McCain camp.

latino voters will switch for good,

and rest of stupids will hate Obama and his supporters for lost presidency.

And yes,Liberman's from Connecticut too

[Bagger]

Almal,
I can't understand a word you're saying.

[IkeChicago]

Two words, English lessons.

[AnninCA]

You may have a point. If Latinos consider the Republican party at all, McCain in the one to pull them in.

He's infuriated Republicans with his liberal stance on immigration.

That could well be a tipping point for McCain.

[independentrepublicrat]

"The Democrats have it exactly wrong. Hillary is the easier candidate, Mr. Obama the tougher. Hillary brings negative; it's fair to hit her back with negative. Mr. Obama brings hope, and speaks of a better way. He's not Bambi, he's bulletproof."

Peggy Noonan/Wall Street Journal

[AnninCA]

That is truly a legitimate point and about the only one.

However, I think it will play out a little differently.

I think McCain will pound on the fact that he's a "whippersnapper" who doesn't even know who to do lunch with yet.

LOL*

And then the supporters will take the race card and run with it.

He won't have to dirty his hands on that point.

[N8Ma]

I agree. And furthermore, a Clinton nomination means the general election will be entirely about the past, not the future. Instead of making the November '08 election about the last 8 years (which, if framed this way, would result in a huge democratic victory), a Clinton/McCain matchup would be reframed as an election about the 1990s and a referendum on the Clinton legacy.

Time to turn the page people. We need a Democratic nominee who can focus attention on Bush's failed policies and ideological CLASH with Republicans. NOT "I only voted for more inspectors and gee shucks Georgie just went and invaded Iraq! I didn't know he was gonna do that!" (Did anyone else feel that was the jist of Hilary Clinton's position in the CA debate?)

[MaryNY1]

Latest Rasmussen Poll:
Obama 47 : McCain 42
McCain 46 : Clinton 43
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html

[AnninCA]

Mary, none of these polls have even come close.

Try USA.....they were the closest.