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

[GhostOfSchlesinger]

I was talking to a friend of mine from Seattle last night during a forum. She said, "I just don't get it. All the polls say that we win with Obama. The projections are uniform, across the board. We've even got a chance to win a landslide."

In essence, she was arguing that she has yet to encounter a voter - for OR against either candidate - that doesn't admit that we have a MUCH better chance of taking the White House and a double majority in Congress if we nominate Obama, because Independents tilt toward Obama in a head-to-head with McCain, but tilt toward McCain if we nominate Hillary.

I believe all of that's true. After several months of looking at every poll, everywhere, every demo in the context of the general elections, I have NO doubt that our best-case scenario with Hillary is to win by a slender margin and suffer four more years of gridlock. Indeed, Hillary will MOBILIZE REPUBLICANS, making it more likely that John McCain will sweep to power and to a Republican majority (most likely in the Senate).

CONTINUED BELOW . . .

[GhostOfSchlesinger]

CONTINUED FROM ABOVE . . .

BUT, I had to caution my friend. It is not a given that every Democrat cares about winning a majority that has a mandate to govern. Many are uncomfortable with ANY name that is new or different. And there's a lot of loyalty to the Clinton's among Democrats that were active in politics during the 1990's. They are a significant block (obviously) in the party. And if they are not made comfortable with a choice that allows us to recruit Independent voters, they can stand in the way, regardless of how much they undermine our chances in November.

So, our approach needs to be gentle and understanding, as this campaign has become very emotionally charged. There are many good and decent people that support Hillary because they feel like they know her. Many even disagree with her on core issues - like her health care plan that's based upon Mitt Romney's Massachusetts plan (which has left 20% of the people UNinsured - "mandates" don't mean the financials of mandates actually work); her votes in favor of every Bush War resolution; her support of the bankruptcy law that is wreaking havoc on middle and lower income Americans; or her inexplicable co-sponsorship of a bill that would make flag burning illegal (we Democrats, always advocates of free and symbolic speech, usually believe that the symbol should never be more important than that which it symbolizes).

But even the issues aren't the most important thing here. Barack Obama is passionate, appeals to Democrats, Independents and even some dissatisfied Republicans, and has run the most disciplined campaign in terms of message and movement that we've seen in a generation.

That's not enough, though, for folks that feel an understandable emotional pull toward the years before 9/11 - toward a world that was simpler and easier, and in which most of us didn't get overly involved in politics.

CONTINUED BELOW . . .

[GhostOfSchlesinger]

CONTINUED FROM ABOVE . . .

We that support Senator Obama need to learn to reach out gently to our friends on the left side of our party. We need their support and must be understanding when they feel unable to support anyone other than their early choice, even if that might mean sacrificing the presidency and Congress for another eight years.

[AnninCA]

Because the polls are wrong. That's why.

[lexicoscott]

If Obama is better then Clinton and McCain, then the debates in the future with Clinton will only make him better right?

So if you are so enamored and confident with Obama, you should just be able to sit relax and watch it all come about right?

There is no reason then to check on someones taxes, or constantly resort to twisting history, if you are the better candidate for the job right???

Why do the ones who claim Obama is better, and will beat mcCain fear Clinton, debates, or verbal policy discussions? I mean, they have nothing to fear apparently... I don't think it's in the bag for Clinton and won't pretend that is the case..

Yet, on this article, I've read 3-4 times that Obama is better then both McCain and Clinton and kills them in the polls, and in the debates and has more chance of uniting this country... then why are you working so hard at it?

Anyone else see this as a veil?

[NC4Obama]

When Clinton was running for senate how many debates did she have with the person running against her?
How many times did that person ask for a debate?

[engineer68]

Rick Lazio (R) was a one term joke.

[anghiari]

Lexi---Hillary clinton has the gift of gab...she was the debate queen in college and I suspect those many nights when Bill didn't show up home helped her hone her debate skills. She has clearly burnished those old skills with a visit to the Mary Matlin school of Republican speed-speak. Hillary employs the same speaking technique as the repugs...she will Overtalk you and with someone like Senator Obama who attempts to be clear and concise...she steamrolls him...though not so much each time they meet. She talks a good game, but he is clearly smarter. As colleagues in the Senate, he had presumed that she would offer up the same courtesy shown on the Senate floor on the campaign trail. It seemed to be going that way until Iowa...after which time Hillary Clinton went into full attack mode. Her remedial Republican attack dog seminars kicked in and she was in full blown whine/kick butt mode.

[teahead]

Kerry was a better debater than Dubya.

Look where that got him.

Obama doesn't need free press from debates, much less giving FAuxNews ratings.

Clinton wants to give her fundraiser buddy Rupert Murdoch a favor by going on his show.

Shameful and desperate she is.

[AnninCA]

This election is tough in one respect. Obama really is so inexperienced, you can't grab the easy path and attack his voting record.

You have to get the details in front of people so that they SEE the differences.

If you're confident of his platform, that should not bother you.

[GhostOfSchlesinger]

Boy, you just, uh, sorta slipped in (woops) that little statement, "There is no reason to check on someone's taxes . . ."

Many thanks for helping all of us over-informed voters from . . .

that pesky and unnecessary truth stuff.

Bravo.

[GhostOfSchlesinger]

PS - Who is "someone" as regards that little "no need" to check up on "taxes" remark?

Is it . . . no, it's not him. He provided his tax returns.

Hmm. I guess I'm a little . . . Oh, gosh, what the hey. Why don't ya' just tell us. The anticipation's killing me!

[ayc]

"We can't help but recall when Tasini in 2006 challenged Hillary in the Democratic Senate primary, he had the audacity to want her to be held accountable for her vote authorizing the Iraq war by participating in a debate. The League of Women Voters also had the naive notion that even Hillary was not above a debate or two, and offered to be a sponsor.

Remember how funny it was when Hillary and her brilliant communications strategist, Howard Wolfson, kept saying "we will see how the campaign develops" every time they were asked about debates -- pretty much right up until election day? What a hoot! What sport it was to mock the silly anti-war guy who was, like, 60 points down! And thought he could get a debate with the extremely important Sen. Hillary
Rodham Clinton!

So now, these are the same people who are preaching to Obama: "In an era when Americans are rightfully skeptical about the quality of our politics, let us set an example [they] can be proud of and give them the kind of campaign they deserve."
http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/2008/02/debates_tasini_wanted_them_too.html

[Bagger]

Electibility....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120241915915951669.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

[kishaaann]

Wow the Obama jealousy is real... You would have thought that Clinton supporters feel as if Billary was entitled to the Presidency.. They wanted a coronation and instead got a contest..

[Lalo]

I don't agree. They didn't get a contest, they got a second coming

==================================
"Our Savior and our Redeemer, Prince of Peace and King of Kings, Barack Obama"
==================================

[Bagger]

Lalo, You scare me.

[GhostOfSchlesinger]

I like your whole copy/paste thing. Very cool approach.
====================================================
CLINTON'S SENATE RECORD

Bush's WAR RESOLUTIONS = Yes

Bankruptcy law to attack poor and middle class = Yes

Co-sponsored law to make flag burning a crime = Yes

MOVING BACK INTO THE WHITE HOUSE TO FULFILL THE WALMART AGENDA = Priceless

==================================================

[kishaaann]

No people that was Zogby C-Span.. This is a different poll..

[sonofloud]

From the people that brought you polling in New Hampshire and California LOL

[Mystery954]

The SurveyUSA poll had Hillary winning by 10 in California.

Only the Reuters/CSpan/Zogby had Obama winning by 13.

[knosiswar]

Hillary Clinton Refuses To Pledge to Restore Constitutional Liberties

http://www.reuters.com/article/blogBurst/politics?type=politicsNews&w1=B7ovpm21IaDoL40ZFnNfGe&w2=B7tmRCRJt2YFzDsa7MJ1CblL&src=blogBurst_politicsNews&bbPostId=Cz1VeFnrO5fmhCz7sNEgkr6eaqCz3hWJURc5eE5Cz8bp0emPnej3&bbParentWidgetId=B7tmRCRJt2YFzDsa7MJ1CblL

[AnninCA]

The Poll Story is dead. Zero credibility. And, frankly, so is the news organization which continues to print this garbage.

[greejambri]

Annin is still in such DEEP DENIAL! Honestly, you're gonna need a shovel soon to dig your way back out to reality. Hillary Clinton is the WORST of all the Democratic candidates, and she WILL lose, either in August or in November.

[Lalo]

Don't worry jambri, like you and like me, she will be touched by "THE ONE" eventually. And then, like you and like me, she will no longer need intellect, reason or facts. She'll join us in making them up.

==================================
"Our Savior and our Redeemer, Prince of Peace and King of Kings, Barack Obama"
==================================

[anghiari]

Annin is a guy who works for Hillary!

[GhostOfSchlesinger]

Excepting (to include print and broadcast) TIME, Newsweek, US News & World Reports, The New York Times, CNN, MSNBC and . . .

Your candidate's favorite: FOX News . . .

Home of Rupert Murdoch, one of your candidate's BIGGEST FUNDRAISERS.

[teahead]

Tell me one independent that will vote for Hillary over Mccain!

nada.

[Lalo]

Didn't the polls also say he would win New Hampshire, California and maybe New Jersey?

==================================
"Our Savior and our Redeemer, Prince of Peace and King of Kings, Barack Obama"
==================================

[Lesjoan]

Hillary would do better at the debates and I think she know where McCain's weaknesses lie. McCain would get Obama on the youth and lack of experience. I believe the boomers and the seniors will make up most of the elective.

[greejambri]

denial denial denial denial denial denial. every republican I know wants to run against hillary, and either dreads running against obama or would consider actually voting for him. open your ears, listen to the tv and radio. ALL the right-wingers say they are willing, ready, and waiting for a Clinton nomination. She is the one person that will unify their party! McCain can't do that on his own!

[prob]

That's right!...good response!...I don't believe any poll out there....they are all rigged in Obama's favor!

[GhostOfSchlesinger]

Right . . .

It's all part of the "vast right wing conspiracy."

Any "theories" on the Kennedy thing in '63?

Oh, gosh, we're all waiting with baited breath. Do tell!

Jeez. You and your friend, LahLah, seem to have forgotten about the very substantive differences between three-day state-by-states and truly longitudinal data samples . . .

[Countess]

Poor Mrs. Clinton with everything rigged in Obama's favor she will have to dig deeper into her bag of dirty tricks and continue to slime or will she do an about face like on the Iraq war. We can't wait to find out.

[GhostOfSchlesinger]

I'm stretching credulity here, as I understand the old gray matter took a southerly turn a while back, LahLah BUT . . .

I'm assuming (I wince as I type) that you've actually familiarized yourself with the notion of longitudinal data versus the much smaller three-day samples common in state-by-state polls.

I'm sorry. You're right. I shouldn't have assumed.

I recommend heartily that you return to your game of catch with the poodle.

Really, it's okay. We understand.

Just whistle. I'm sure the cute little dog will be nearly as thrilled as you are.

[teahead]

Nope.

NH was an anonomly due to the Bradley Effect.

Clinton was ALWAYS ahead in the polls in CA and NJ.

Clinton was ALWAYS ahead in nationwide polls and still is.

[Dalpine]

Clinton couldn't manage her $100 million war chest. She is funded by more lobbyists and special interests than any other candidate. She is just like Bush. She shouldn't run a country.

[GhostOfSchlesinger]

Interesting. I never looked at it that way.

====================================================
CLINTON'S SENATE RECORD

Bush's WAR RESOLUTIONS = Yes

Bankruptcy law to attack poor and middle class = Yes

Co-sponsored law to make flag burning a crime = Yes

MOVING BACK INTO THE WHITE HOUSE TO FULFILL THE WALMART AGENDA = Priceless

==================================================

[teahead]

yup: http://youtube.com/watch?v=7ZVpPGxuafA