Sure, but if Obama is elected, I won't have to listen to 4-8 more years of bullshit about Bill Clinton's cock.

That alone is enough for me to pick Obama over Clinton.

There's lots of other reasons, though.

Uh-oh. That's definitely *not* a good sign, since they were running pretty far ahead McCain a few months ago.

My thinking is that we'd better get used to the idea of a President McCrotchety.

How about we agree to let Bill back in the White House so long as he has a constant camera coverage on him, a sort of Political Truman Show? CSPAN ratings might go up...

ha ha....fox poll.

ok, those numbers are scary.

Erica, that also punches a big hole in the only-Hillary-is-battle-tested-enough-to-face-the-GOP-onslaught argument you Hillary backers have been foisting on us for months.

Given that this post was written in Barnettspeak, I realized “…both were within one statistically insignificant point of McCain” meant that Obama was ahead by a point, Clinton behind a point.

Erica,

We know you like Clinton. We know. You do not have to post things like this with such a defensive tone, "so much for the 'not electable' argument." There are more Slog readers who prefer Obama, if Eli's recent polls show anything. But we appreciate that you like Clinton, even without you trying to justify it all the time.

I think ECB's posts on Clinton need their own category. I'll let Poe decide what it should be called.

Erica, it seems you're being a little deceptive here with your description of the data. Both BHO and HRC trounce Romney. But Obama narrowly wins over McCain and HRC narrowly loses. It's within in the margin of error, but taken with the trends from other polls, we can conclude that Obama has a better chance of beating John McCain, the presumptive nominee.

Hilary's just not worth the risk!

Well if a poll says so it's GOTTA be true.

I'd still rather bet on the candidate that does NOT have a 49% unfavorable rating.

Plus, national polls mean nothing. Thanks to our Electoral College system its going to come down to swing-voters and independants in select states. From what polls I've seen Obama support is higher than Hillary support among Red State independents.

That's right evvvvvvvvverybody, ignore Erica's point because it doesn't fit into your carefully constructed view of the election.

And Trey? Slate says that this poll means that Clinton is MORE electable than Obama. Yes, the same Slate that has been giving your candidate one big continuous blowjob since before Christmas.

Jason@10?

From what polls I've seen Obama support is higher than Hillary support among Red State independents.

Please, by all means share with us your compelling data.

Seriously, what @10 said. The election is always decided by "independent" voters. Shall we compare the number of those people who use "hate" and "Hillary" in the same sentence versus the number of those who say "hate" and "Obama" in the same statement?

I think Hillary could beat McCain, I just think I want to go with the safer bet. The bet with less baggage.

Also, political dynasties suck. The whole ex First Lady becoming president thing has been done before. In fact Argentina did it this year. I always kind of hoped America's first woman president wouldn't be the same MO from the 20s and 30s how we had our first woman governors. Spouses. Widows. Name-recognition. Ma Ferguson. Lurlene Wallace. Nellie Ross. In 2008 I thought the USA could do better.

read the breakdown by party affiliation on that poll. in terms of "electability," obama decisively beats hillary where it matters most - independents [48-28] and republicans [43-18]; hillary beats him amongst dems [49-37].

and they also say obama is "untested when it comes to mudslinging", which is an arguable point at best.

@12 (minus the red state comment) look at the data! erica linked to it. pretty compelling.

Sven #12: Iowa? Wasn't CNN crowing the whole time about independents pushing Obama to the win? I don't fact check for CNN, though, so I can't say its gospel.

I meant swing-state not Red State, sorry.

But is Obama not polling better with independents even in questions? Hasn't the media been saying that for months now?

Obama: under 35, blacks, "latte liberal" Dems, independants...

Clinton: blue-collar Dems, over 50 Dems, over 40 women, Latinos.

Are you hearing something different? That these groups have changed?

Big Sven, "Slate" does not say that - one blog post by one blog-poster on Slate says that, and they say it only when coupling it with the observation that "Obama's relatively untested when it comes to mudslinging" (you, Erica, and your fellow-travelers seem to have twisted the ability to sling mud into a virtue).

This shows Hillary is more electable if you consdier the following facts, which are not fairly disputable:
1.HRC's had decades of sliming.
2. HRC won anyway in NYS, rolling up large nos. of independent and republican votes.
3. Obama: not yet slimed. Ever. By the GOP.
4. Obama: hasn't won an election against a tough GOP opponent. EVER.
5. It's reasonable to conclude his electability drops once he faces a tough GOP opponent and the slime machine.

Charlie Cook put it like this: HRC is like a stokck that trades in a narrow band. Obama is like one that trades in a very wide band. He could blow it out, or he could just get 40% of the popular vote.

The Obama supporters in general resist the realities mentioned at 3-5 above, preferring to dismiss it all. This is unsophisticated and reflects an analysis that correctly gives credit for his positives, but incorrectly refuses to acknowledge his negatives.
All the snarky comments directedat ECB are a form of this denial.

And what Svenson Magnus said, again.

Whatever may be said about their electability, the "Hillary is battle-tested, Obama isn't" argument is completely, utterly wrong. Neither candidate, truth be told, has faced a difficult opponent in elections. Both will face dirt thrown at them - new dirt. Yes, they will find something new to trash Hillary with - probably something designed to reinforce old dirt.

It's funny how Obama fans don't have ANY problem when fellow Obama fans describe leads of two percent and more than four percent (see below; slog comments only allow one link, apparently, but the other one was a poll showing Edwards more than four points ahead of Clinton at one point) as statistically insignificant when they favor other candidates. No poll in the world can capture numbers down to a one-percent margin--making one percent statistically insignificant by any measure.

http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/01/re_an_open_letter_to_the_liberal_media

Face it people, the whole 'hillary can't win the general' thing is a myth. It is a media lie they have been peddling for almost a year (remember the Time cover story that proposed McCain couldn't win the nomination and Clinton couldn't win the election?). She can win. So can Obama. Vote for who you like the most, but stand united as a Democratic party. That's how you win elections (see: Republicans). Either way, I am dying to see Hillary destroy McCain in a debate. She will hand that old coot his ass, kiss him on his cheek and send him off to retirement.

I think the real question is which candidate will do better in debates against McCain? I'm afraid to say that it seems like the answer is Hillary.

@20:
wrong.

When Hillary ran in NYC she had the whole right wing smear machine aligned against her. She'd already been slimed for years. To imply she wasn't slimed, or that that was a cake walk election, is wrong. Also, she was Bill's no 1 partner/adviser for decades and helped him deal with the negative attacks in Arkansas, in the 92 primaries, in the 92 general, in the impeachment fight, and in the reelection campaign.

Implying that she hasn't been slimed is totally false and wrong.

Suggesting there's new dirt on her when you don't even acknowledge the old dirt on Obama is wrong. Once again, you folks are just in denial in pretending that Obama's electability wn't be moved down when the GOP attacks him for flip flopping on pot, for taking a $300,000 gift from a fixer, from saying he isn't even sure he'd have voted against the war had he been in the Senate, for having no real experience compared to McCain, and so on.

Could he overcome this?

Mebbe.

What evidence do we have?

None. He's never been in an an election, or even in a poll, post sliming.

Do we know how many points he would drop post sliming?
5? 10? It didn't take much for Dukakis to drop what was it, 17 points in just a few weeks.......

I will be taking bets on hillary winning.

two conditions

hillary wins the primary
double or nothing on hillary winning the general.

any takers?

Political arguments in Slog comments are my new binkie. I swear I can't sleep at night if I haven't yelled through my computer screen at you people at least once a day.

In other election news, Snoop Dogg torn between Obama, Clinton

is it really so surprising that people would interpret these numbers in a way that makes them feel better about the candidate they prefer? are you not doing the exact same thing?

the nomination is totally up in the air at this point, so voters are actually paying attention to them rather than just reading the polls. this means whichever candidate gets the nom will have clearly earned it. so we should all feel a sense of relief at that, whether it's your guy-person or not.

@24 - oh, bullshit. I was around for that campaign (volunteered for her a bit, actually), and she was not facing a well-oiled political machine. She was facing a little pudwhacker from Long Island with little recognition beyond his district and all the charm of a pile of manure. Lazio was more electable than Alan Keyes, but not much. Now, Rudy - he might've been a strong opponent back then (shudder to think ...), but she lucked out there when his prostate ballooned.

As for her 2006 election - does anyone even remember who she faced?

As for there being new dirt on her - you don't get it. The dirt doesn't have to exist. They'll create it.

It's like, when Obama fans distort a fact or two, maybe ignore the margin of error on a poll, it just doesn't register. Not worth getting excited over. But when ECB does it, she has like this way of making it, you know, special. Like you sort of feel it more? Like you almost want her to keep going. Maybe you want to start an argument with her, just to so she will keep doing it.

I mean, I don't. I'm not one of them. But some people are into it, even if they will never admit it. I wonder if there is a word for what is wrong with them?

It's not that Sen Clinton can't beat Sen McCain.

It's that Sen Obama easily can beat Sen McCain.

Do you want to trust your future to a slim chance - or a very very big probability?

I say go for the hit it out of the ballpark probability with Sen Obama, myself.

@28
I disagree with all of your assessment, except the last sentence. Republicans do create the dirt. Democrats are the civilized party, and Republicans are the fighters, it's how they when elections.
Hillary has won tough battles, to imply otherwise is disingenuous. I hope Obama is ready if he wins the nomination.

Hillary might beat McCain because Ann Coulter said she'd campaign for Hillary in that situation.

Single polls don't matter. Polling trends do matter. This is an interesting poll taken in the context of what's been polled before and what's to come. Since it's the first big poll after the dramatic events of the past couple of days -- McCain taking a big overall lead against Romney, plus a bunch of high-profile endorsements; Giuliani dropping out; the Democratic field decisively winnowing down to two; some more endorsements there; and what is widely seen as a dull Republican debate that every candidate lost versus a riveting Democratic one that both candidates won -- it's big news.

It's neither as decisively pro-Clinton as Erica implies nor as pro-Obama as his supporters are suggesting. It's just a data point. There are so many unanswered questions, besides the obvious ones that will be answered on Tuesday.

What will the Republican loons who are currently calling McCain a "traitor" (yes, really) and threatening to vote for Clinton instead if he wins (like Ann Coulter, yes really) do if reality continues to piss on their umbrella? Will any of the "never in a million years" anti-Clinton types soften? I think that both groups of absolutists will weaken over time, because absolutists always do.

I'm excited to find out. And as an Obama supporter I think people who are accusing Erica of being dishonest in this post need to chill.

@28, @30:

1. He's not been slimed.
2. He's slimable. Eminently. $300,000, pot, not voting on Iran, lack of exp., his pastor likes Farrakhan, whatever. All the stuff you guys/gals are totally afraid to even mention, explain or address.
3. His electability will go down after being slimed.
4. We have no track record of how he does post sliming.
5. QED we don't know if post sliming he will drop 2, 6 or 24 points.

Cursing and swooning and quibbling and saying "let go for the bleachers!" in response, is just more denial.

The refusal to even look at pts. 1-5 is what is most alarming.

having Ann Coulter preferring a democrat over a republican is like accepting that wooden horse into Troy or carrying around the supposed diffused bomb in the back of a truck while driving in the backwoods. If I were Clinton, I would take her endorsement with a fine grain of salt.

McCain's going to be a tough opponent, but everyone needs to get some perspective. Both remaining Democrats are good candidates, and both can win. McCain is probably near his high point in popularity right now because he's at the peak of his "comeback" story. He'll probably go up a little more around the time he wraps things up. Assuming Clinton and Obama haven't gone nuclear on each other again, one of them will become the nominee and Democrats will rally around a historic candidacy at the very time voters in general are looking for change. McCain is going to look tired in comparison to either of them. Obama would have an advantage, which is one reason I'm voting for him, but Clinton would do just fine too.

I'm hoping the tone stays civil but the Democratic contest continues as late as possible, hopefully being decided just before the convention. That means free media coverage for the Democrats while McCain is forgotten. Then we have a nice unity convention in Denver. Both the economy and Iraq are likely to be worse off then than now, and Bush has lost his ability to scare people with false terror alerts, and Iran isn't cooperating with the plan for war, so it's going to be hard for them to pull an October surprise. Nothing is certain, but early indicators still favor Democrats despite what some half-assed poll says about McCain this week.

@34 - so you say.

And yet, last night, the ABC and MSNBC and FOX and CNN analysts were all saying what I'm saying.

Now, they may not have clued in that Blue Tidal Wave polling numbers are useless (since so many have never or rarely voted), but they do know what the purpose of debates is - it's a test.

Obama won it.

Cascadian, that's good analysis. Even the Republicans know it -- their candidates are old stale bread. If anything, Romney's older than McCain in every way except calendrically. Whereas the fire and energy of the Democrats -- both of them -- is being noticed everywhere. McCain peaks in a week, and again when Romney folds, but the curve is going to head downwards overall.

Hmm, they might be winning in national polls, but not in the electoral college according to http://hominidviews.com/

What worries me hasn't been mentioned here yet, which is that all these polls are not really capturing what voter behavior will actually be. People might say now that they would pick Clinton or Obama over a republican, but when it comes down to voting, they're going to have a last-minute panic attack about a black person or a woman in the oval office.

Erica: People have made up their minds, and they no longer wish to hear your opinion or logical argument, supported by fact, hearsay, speculation and wishful thinking that Hillary could beat McCain - with The Big O at her side.

It's a thankless Sisyphean task you have set for yourself, and one admires your tenacity. Actually, every ECB post simply encourages more vociferocity and repetitious "she-can, she-can't" babblespeak from the ObamaTrons and their willy-nilly justifications of how they're so right and you are so yesterday wrong.

I know that if you weren't a woman of taste, talent and intelligence, you would tell them to fuck off.

Thanks(?), Brad. I think I'll take a pill and go lie down.

The election will, like the last two, be decided by independents in a few swing states. Who are they going to vote for against McCain? My guess is Obama.

And if Hillary wins, how much will she be able to accomplish? The right wing media has made her into their favorite target and they certainly aren't going to sit down and shut up after she moves into the White House. We may get some good legislation passed in the next two years if Congress stays blue, but the voters could have a national temper tantrum in 2010 like they did in 1994 and put a Republican majority in the Senate and possibly the House (and yes, I know the same thing could happen under a President Obama). Hillary is a lightning rod for the right whether we like it or not. They'll Swift Boat Obama, but he doesn't have the baggage that HRC does. I'll vote for her in the general, but I think the Democrats must have a death wish if she is at the top of our ticket.

@39, that site's predictions are ridiculous. It actually claims that McCain will beat Obama in Massachusetts. Sorry, not buying it.

tsm,


"that site's predictions are ridiculous. It actually claims that McCain will beat Obama in Massachusetts."


"That site" doesn't predict that McCain will beat Obama in MA. Rather, that result follows from a 20 Jan -- 21 Jan SurveyUSA poll in MA that showed McCain beating Obama 50% to 45%.


FWIW, a December SurveyUSA poll showed Obama ahead 47% to 45% and a November SurveyUSA poll showed McCain up 47% to 44%.


Hey...I don't like it either, but those are the numbers we have now. Sorry.

I would pay good money for Obama supporters to stop pretending that Ann Coulter actually endorsed HRC. Comments like apres_moi@35's...

If I were Clinton, I would take her endorsement with a fine grain of salt.

...cause my bowels to reflexively empty.

@45: That proves it -- Big Sven IS Tub Girl.

Actually, @2 is FTW -- if that's the spread NOW, then we're toast. Get ready for a Supreme Court composed of Roland Freisler clones.

As far as who would do better in a debate with 100 year war McCain. Your apparently not listening. Would you rather have Obama, who was against the war from the beginning or Hillary stammering and triangulating about how she's against the war now but voted for it then. Ala Kerry. Who was effectively branded as a flip flopper by the right last time that was tried.

Not to mention a couple of Bill Clinton scandals being cued up that are out there in the weeds for release when they'll be most damaging.

Obama will blow that crumpy old foggy
McCain out of the water. Are you kidding me.

One more thing..

Women who are solely basing their vote for Hillary on the fact she a woman are
politically one dimensional. She is not the best candidate in the race unfortunately. If the damn primary system hadn't been basically designed to favor her candidacy Obama would be probably win easily. He may be in the lead soon anyway because he is trending up and she is either peaked or on her way down.

She a tired political hack and he's a new and rare political phenomenon. So come on everybody and ride the peace train now.

I don't think there is clear evidence that either Clinton or Obama would be a much stronger candidate against McCain. Both would have different strengths and weaknesses and polling data gives us contradictory answers.

On Iraq, Obama has a significant advantages. His opposition is not clouded by a vote for the war. It will allow him to present a clear, principled contrast with McCain. Hillary cannot do this. And Obama does better than Hillary among independents -- a big advantage in a general election since McCain has appeal to that group as well.

However, I am sure that McCain will play up his military credentials and experience. After 6 years of service on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Hillary is better prepared to counter. Joe Klein wrote that he asked a general which candidate best understood the military. The general replied, "You mean besides Hillary Clinton?" McCain, who supported immigration reform, did very well with Hispanics in the Florida Primary and might be the sole GOP candidate who could lure in the Hispanic vote. Hillary does much better than Obama among Hispanics.

Economic troubles are the final thing which have me slightly leaning toward Hillary right now. The economy is a weak issue for McCain and I think Hillary is better posed to capitalize, given the economic restoration the first Clinton White House oversaw after Bush I.