Why Is Jonathan Alter Saying Obama Is The Most Electable Democrat When the Numbers Say Otherwise?

Inquiring minds want to know why Jonathan Alter stated the following here on Huffington Post:

Most early head-to-head polls show John McCain and Barack Obama as the strongest candidates in a general election, a reflection of their slight edge over their primary opponents among independents, who make up at least a third of the electorate and often determine the outcome.

Now I read that and I scratched my head, because I don't remember seeing any general polling trend backing it up. An independent vote is worth no more, and no less than any other vote, what matters is how many votes you get total (and if Florida counts them).

And as HuffPo commenter IowaAndBeyond notes, the numbers seem to indicate that if anything, Edwards is slightly more electable than Obama. If you go to Real Clear Politics poll summaries you find that the weird thing is this, Edwards does better than Obama against every Republican opponent except Giuliani and in particular does better against McCain than Obama does--and McCain is the Republican candidate Alter thinks is most electable.

One can quibble that many of the polls are within the margin of error, but if so then the most generous conclusion one can draw from this is that both of them are, within the margin of error, about as electable as each other.

So I wonder, I really wonder, why Alter is saying that head-to-head polls indicate that Obama is the strongest of the candidates when they appear to say no such thing.

Odd. Very odd.

Comments

[VitriolAndAngst]

Google;
"defense firm counts iowas votes"
So much for the Iowa caucus folks. Whoever wins will probably reflect what the TV tells us to think.

Watch for restrictions on travel -- that's the last step before our country closes down into fascism.

[Nutcase]

I have seen many polls indicating Edwards is the most electable. I have yet to see any polls indicating that Obama is.

I will admit that the polls are close between them but there are two problems with Obama's electibility, of much more pertinence than Edwards' haircut.

The Obama staff is loaded with corporate lobbyists and he is heavily funded by corporations that own Congress. This would not be such a great point of argument for a Republican candidate but his hypocrisy on the subject will make it so. He will be very vulnerable on that point in the campaign generally and in the debates particularly.

The other problem is the Bradley Effect. Historically, it has ranged from 10-20 percent. One hopes that it has somewhat ameliorated but it is still a very real factor. Obama does not have a sufficient margin to feel safe.

There are two very important considerations in this election. One is to elect a Democratic President. The other is to elect as many down-ticket candidates as possible. With Obama, the first is iffy and, with regards to the second, I see absolutely no coattails on him.

[Trittydi]

Wishful thinking?

I want Edwards.

Hear that Edwards? I want you. So do millions of other Americans. In fact - we NEED you.

WE'RE NOT INTERESTED in letting the MSM pick our candidate for us.

We want EDWARDS. F**K the Main Stream Media.
*

[musetta]

Also check Rasmussen here: rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_democratic_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election.

Confirms how Edwards is way beyond the others, Obama in particular, in ability to beat Republicans.

[InformedMisery]

Pundits don't much care for facts. They choose a narrative and stick with it.

[Lemeritus]

At Thanksgiving, a very dear lady in her 70s (a consummate thinker and reader, and a naturalized citizen) said as she hugged me goodbye, "Don't waste your vote, dear."

My heart sank. I need not tell you which candidate I was blowing hot on at that time; we've all had our affairs with the unelectable. Her words sounded eerily similar to my father's (not a thinker or a reader, but a yellow dog Okie Democrat to whom ALL politicians were lying SOBS who died, vindicated, two years into Bush Jr's first term).

We must not, of course, waste our vote. But we must also wonder what our vote has come to mean in a field that is so narrowed by the time we come to cast our first primary vote that our only choice is often between "worse" and "worser".

It grieves me that neither Mr. Welsh nor Mr. Alter wasted a moment's thought or ounce of ink (figuratively speaking) in mentioning Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich. Why are these gentlemen forced from debates and from the front page? As a voter, I feel just a little herded and, maybe this year, I just might "waste" my vote on someone I believe in.

[lemonv]

Obama is an idealist and an ideolouge who will fall from the great heights of idealism and come crashing down to earth when reality hits his policies. Let us hope that he would be man enough to admit that he failed in his quest for hope and not be like our Pres. Bush who has become intransigent to change.

And, btw, Bush also was inexperienced and said one of his platforms during the last presidential election was for change, too. Think about that.

[bbln]

what a strange thing that has happened on Huffpost - where rabid Obama-ites would have comments in the the multiple-hundreds, suddenly, it's all quiet, leaving only a handful of Edwards supporters - did Huffpost charter a bus to Iowa for its Obama-ites?

[realitycheck7]

well the answer is that there was a poll that you missed, Mr. Welsh. I saw the poll that alter must be referring to that places Obama with the widest margin over the republican candidates.

However, it was only ONE poll, not many polls. alter probably made the mistake of exaggerating its importance. If we can learn anything from polls, is that they are often not reliable. Remember Zogby consistently predicting a Kerry win?

[Bobby]

I like Jonathan Alter, but I really don't believe much anymore from the MSM. After all, it was two so called liberal rags, the NY Times and Washington Post, the beat the drum the hardest in the lead up to the war in Iraq. The MSM has tried to steer Ameica wrong for years. They only tell you what their masters want you to hear. There are a few, and ONLY a few, that actually have the balls to be truthful and forthright in their reporting. The MSM is controlled by CORPORATE America. And Edwards wants to fight all that is wrong about CORPORATE America. That's why the MSM will play up Hillary and all of the CORPORATE candidates more.

[genmalia]

I'm an admitted Obama supporter, and admittedly NOT a political analyst.

One thing I do see as heavily in Obama's favor is that he is the most organized in the Feb 5th states. He has offices all over the country, and grassroots efforts actively in play.

I've spoken with Edwards supporters in my party in my city (5th largest) and they expressed frustration that even when volunteering to organize grassroots efforts in this Feb 5th state, the Edwards campaign has not been in contact with them.

Right now, Obama is the only game in town, and he already has 2 offices open in my state.

[Edmonsky]

Ian Welsh is hardcore John Edward’s apologist; hence his bias towards the latter impairs his intellectual ability to grasp what Jonathan Alter was saying. Mr. Alter has analyzed pros and cons of each candidate before surmising. Mr. Welsh is arguing based on poll’s results without contending the fact that those published poll results is a presupposition if the election were to be held today. But different criteria come into play if each candidate’s qualities are factored into the equation if the election is projected to take place in November 2008. He is elementary observation that will lead to Alter’s conclusion.

In the general election, Democrats and Republicans will respectively pull together to support the candidate of each party. If you give 40% to each and the remaining 20% will be the neutral percentage that will include the Independents, Democrats and Republicans that can be swayed in ether directions. Then the question become, which Democratic candidate has the potential to attract more Independents and Republicans to build a winning coalition? From all the polling data to date, it is only Obama that is polling more than any other Democrat among the Independents and Republicans. Jonathan Alter is suggesting that if the aforementioned polling data were to hold through the November election, then, Obama will be the most electable candidate among the Democrats. This is a very simple deductive argument that sounds very logical and practicable.

[Claisen]

America deserved what it got by electing Bush - twice. Now the dollar is worst than ever, with national debt skyrocketing, Americans are losing their homes, jobs, oil is at all time high, we've a health care system bordering on sham where you must wait weeks to get an appointment and cost 10 times more than most health systems in other countries.

American Values has gone straight to the toilet. It is taken over by corporate greed and a culture of laziness, money for nothing;

We suffer greatly from sins of laziness, greed and gluttony. Bush is the living icon of those vices. He's also a reflection of large percentage of Americans.

There is no 'ONE' person that can reverse decades of vices. Obama is a joke. He is just another ambitious Mr. Washington Outsider. Bush said he was an outsider.

Bush, Obama, they are the prime example of whats wrong with our country. Drug-addicts, drunkards, who think they don't have to play by the rules and can be elected president of the US. We lower the bar for the highest office and in the end and our countries immeasurably suffers.

There is no one savior, get it?

[rulerragingmain]

Watch “An Unreasonable Man,” on PBS. This bio of Ralph Nader should convince anyone, even the Nader haters, that he is truly a great American and far and away a better choice than anyone we have now. So many people who were once on Nader’s bandwagon now despise and ridicule him claiming that he lost the election for Al Gore. If Gore couldn’t even carry his own state of Tennessee and Bill Clinton’s Arkansas, it is pretty lame to try to blame Gore’s loss on Nader. Gore ran a lousy campaign and didn’t deserve to win. He presumed he would be the inevitable winner. Shades of Hillary without the guts, grit and hard work. He shunned Bill Clinton’s help and came across with the genuineness of a mannequin. He also aided and abetted in keeping Nader from participating in the debates. The DNC and RNC decide who does or doesn’t get to participate in the debates. So Nader’s percentages were not enough to allow him to debate but his percentages were enough to deny Gore’s victory. “Nice try.”

Ralph Nader hasn’t endorsed Edwards, but says Edwards has the most progressive position and the one that appeals to him most….. Nuff said.

If the corporate owned status quo Republicans and Democrats will not allow Nader, who makes them look like Lilliputians, to participate in “their democracy,” then I’m going with the guy Ralph likes. It takes a lot for Ralph to like you. Go John Edwards!

[moonjumper]

This argument is moot. The general election won't be held in a vacuum. Edwards has already opted for federal matching funds, which means he'd be fighting with one hand tied behind his back. I suppose if one believes money doesn't have an influence on politics then this line of reasoning might make sense.