The latest polls:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... rss-nation


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.

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."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... cking_poll

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows John McCain (R) leading Hillary Clinton (D) 46% to 43%. Barack Obama (D) leads McCain 47% to 42%.

Despite much commentary about McCain’s challenge in uniting the Republican Party, the Arizona Senator’s support from Republicans is just as solid as Obama and Clinton’s support from Democrats. Obama leads McCain among voters not affiliated with either major political party. McCain leads Clinton among the unaffiliateds.

Could anyone but the die-hard Hillary supporters be at all surprised by this? The argument that they're making, that Hillary is the only one who can beat McCain, is invented out of whole cloth.

Whole cloth gives them too much credit. My money's on thin air.

It's strange because, of course, electoral votes win elections and not the popular vote.

While Obama does better in states like Oregon, Washington, and particularly Iowa, Clinton does much better in theoretical match-ups against McCain in states like Ohio and Florida, two possible swing states. So I'm a bit hesitant to rely to heavily on polls. On the other hand I definitely know I wouldn't want McCain or any other Republican as president in '09 so, eh...

Strategically speaking, Hillary's base is much more limited than either McCain or Obama. She wins California and the other coastal states, no question. But Florida and ALL of the red states go to McCain. I think you end up with a map similar to Kerry's in 2004.

But Obama is destroying Hillary in the red state primaries and I think his support there is strong. And he certainly picks up the traditional blue states as well. I think his electoral chances are much better than Hillary's when this all plays out.

Obama has a lot of appeal in some of the purple states that like independents, like Montana, Colorado and new Mexico.

Every poll shows that if it's McCain verses Clinton, the independents go for McCain, but if it's McCain verses Obama, they go for Obama. A few percentage points in some of these states is all that is needed to tilt the electoral college map.

Obama would be a move beyond, as he says himself, red-state-blue-state partisan politics, waging trench warfare in "swing" states. Reagan won 49 states. While Obama is unlikely to sweep the entire nation, he can win enough "red" states to make the calculus obsolete.

Besides, McCain is terrible on the economy. Obama would crush him on that issue in Ohio and other states hit hard by the credit crisis.

Obama could win a few southern swing states like Virginia, Tennessee and Louisiana. Heck he could put some others like Georgia in play. He will get people to vote who normaily don't. Those people won't be showing up for Hillary.

Plus, I think Arkansas will go democrat....

Pre-election polls can often be misleading.

I can easily picture Hillary being more focussed and effective in the general election campaign than Obama. She can probably weather criticism better than he can, as well.

The primary campaigns have shown otherwise.

I disagree. I think both Obama and Clinton would beat McCain.

Peace,
Mike

It's not like he's received as much criticism as she has though...

What criticism would that be? On the other hand, he survived the South Carolina election. Not just survived, but survived unscathed and stronger than ever.

of course not, and youll here a to no bs as to how she could beat him.

What in blue hell makes you think that? Against McCain Hillary has to create a whole new campaign as he has way mroe expirience than she does.

Even that wouldn't be enough. McCain has plenty of issues to beat over her head with. Let's start with her wavering on the issue of torture, which he ardently opposed at all points. Or her relationship with the Iraq war; you can almost hear him saying "we both supported this war, but at least I'm straight up with you." Or her ambivalence towards ethics reform, which he personally championed. And look at McCain's website. In big letters, it says "READY TO LEAD ON DAY ONE." Whammy. He has been in elected office for more than three times as long as her. It would take about ten minutes for him to call her bluff on those "35 years". He has positioned himself well against Hillary; the opposite cannot be said. Obama's past-versus-future argument, on the other hand, only gains traction upon sight of him standing beside a septuagenarian McCain.

You mean like this one?



http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... wanted=all

Or this one?


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... A964958260

How about this one?



http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/ ... index.html

Huh?



http://www.amnestyusa.org/Amnesty_Magaz ... n1=2&n2=19

I won't even bother with your other mistaken impressions, because you continue to swallow what the corporate media tells you and think it is reality.

Well said mdana.

That "corporate media" slur has finally tipped me to believe that you are, in fact, a loony. The same kind of loony that proclaims the media as "being of two types, right and far-right." Of course, it may be a mistaken impression that you are one of those closet socialists that care less about the country than about ideological purity.

You would be a good complement to Clinton, an intellectual that often makes great sense, but occasionally uses policy wonkery to defend against common sense.

You conveniently forget to mention that McCain, a Republican at a time of monolithic Republican influence, is more a hero than anything for introducing the amendment. Or the unfortunate Graham-Levin Amendment. Or the October 2005 meeting between Dick Cheney and McCain, where Cheney tried to persuade McCain to allow civilian interrogators with more operational leeway, and McCain stood his ground. Or that Democrats, aside from Jon Corzine, voted unanimously in favor of the amendment, and that nine Republicans opposed it.

Or that if McCain trimmed your hair, mowed your lawn, cooked you breakfast, vacuumed your house, and scooped your kitty litter, you would still hate the man because he is Republican. It's a little disconcerting watching someone as intelligent as you get knocked senseless by zeal. In the meanwhile, please ponder over what Hillary Clinton considers to be an "imminent threat to millions of Americans". As a liberal, you should understand better than me the Bush-iness of such language.

These discussions are interesting. They only highlight how a Clinton-McCain election would be a contest of who is less evil. It would be enjoyable to wonks picking apart these nitty-gritty details, all the while the rest of America, trying to live normal lives, coast onward.

Yep, and after mdana just posted links from the NY Times and CNN.

It's easy to see what's going on here. Mdana has stated rather plainly that he believes that doing "whatever it takes to win" is justified. The ends justify the means. Therefore any tactic, including lying, cheating and smearing is fair game. As long as his candidate, Hillary, wins. Period. And Obama supporters are supposed to be the cultists?

It is, quite frankly, the kind of politics that Hillary herself engenders. It's the kind of stuff that most people hate but that these people advocate and relish in. It's Rovian and it's disgusting.

According to Angela I am a closeted socialist that has ideological purity ahead of the good of the country.

According to Beeble I am a win at all cost Rovian hack.

I sense a dichotomy.

This post from Atrios goes out to both of you...



http://www.atrios.blogspot.com/

...And me.

When the US invaded Iraq in 2003, public opinion was split with slightly more supporting the war than against. Most was due to the phrasing of the questions, and if more than two options were given support dropped below a majority.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_p ... on_of_Iraq

Well, if the public was somewhat spilt on invading Iraq that must have shown up in the media, right? How many articles and talking heads did you see before the Iraq invasion arguing against the attack?



http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2627

That's odd, you'd think that the media would reflect the American public's conflict over something so monumental. Usually, when the media spotlights a subject, even when most experts agree on something like evolution or climate change, the media has one advocate supporting one side of the issue and another attacking that arguement. Could there possible be some sort of conflict of interest involved by these corporations?




http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2627



http://www.media.mit.edu/events/movies/ ... 2007-03-06

I hate my country so much, I get a tad bit upset when it is lied to and scared into actions that do not promote its best interest.



Any possiblity you could ever factually support your half-baked assumptions? You may disagree with me, and my supporting links. However, at least I back up my perceptions and my opinions with documentation. I don't just think X must be a centrist, insane, or whatever, because the media always frame X as that characteristic. I look at what they actually have or haven't done and then judge them on their actions and inaction. I know that makes me crazy. I used to like Republicans like John Lindsey and Nelson Rockefeller, but there are not any Republicans like them. Chafee was pretty good, but he still voted to often in their interests to help the country outside of his Iraq vote. I would have gladly supported him joining the Dem. party or caucusing as an independent with the Dems like Jeffords, but he was too scared.



McCain introduces something that looks good for the cameras and he can point to as being a strong rebuke of torture, if no one bothers to look at the fine print or studies the actual results. However, the actual results of the legislation don't change anything in reality. Why exactly is he a hero and not a craven politician protrayed by a compliant media as a maverick standing against the Evil Bush administration when he is just doing it for show? Just because you are too lazy to look behind the smoke and mirrors show, is not my problem, but yours.




Hypothetical bullshit, masquerading as honest inquiry. I assume you are referring to this.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... s_opinions



Much like 2000 when trying to decide between Gore and Bush was so inconsequential. That had no meaning for "the rest of America" or the rest of the world, America and the globe thanks you for your mock concern. It must be nice to be so flippant when you don't have to suffer for your foolishness. It would be nice if you realized others do.