What's the representative percentage of D/R/I in America, and what is the percentage in terms of those voting?

I have noticed that for presidential approval, Gallop uses about 1/3, 1/3, 1/3. So Obama loses 8 percent of democrats, but gains 5 percent of independents and 3 percent of republicans. Say all of these hold true. So he loses 8%*33.3=2.66, and gains 5%*3.33 + 3%*33.3=2.66.

It's a wash.

So, at least this poll shows that all this talk of Obama's amazing support among independents and republicans is really much ado about nothing.

But don't expect press to do math. They are good at feelings, though.

One obvious possibility is that a portion of the Democratic defectors simply can't bring themselves to vote for an African American.

More charitably, it might be that portion of the Democratic party that drinks beer rather than wine (Hillary allegedly being the "beer" candidate of the working class, while Obama allegedly being the "wine" candidate of the educated classes).

One consequence is that Obama might have a better ability to hurt down-ticket Republican candidates. Or not.

Democratic registered voter sample: +/- 5.5 percentage points margin of error. These differences you and Daniel Larson think you are pointing out may not even exist.

enplaned has certainly identified one possibility.

But the possibility that occurred immediately to me are low-information Democrats that consider "experience" very important.

Over the course of a campaign I suspect a lot of those voters will migrate towards Obama as he becomes more familiar to them.

All that said, I'm think quisxt is right. We're probably discussion phantoms here. If the margin of error on the whole thing is +/- 5.5, then the margin of error on the sub-samples is higher -- a lot higher!

I have a bad feeling that if Obama loses, his supporters will vote for McCain or just not vote.

Doubtless it's a sign of the apocalypse, but I agree with Al's comments. Obama's appeal is more centrist than Hillary's: he attracts more Independents and moderates from both parties than Clinton does. This makes him stronger in a general election than Hillary, since he will secure more Independent and moderate Republicans than Hillary would.

Obama's comparative weakness among Democrats - if it even exists - may be partly attributable to the nature and duration of Hillary's campaign. The Clintons' negative attacks on Obama certainly can't help. Also, Hillary has been on the national spotlight for about 16 years, Obama only about 4 years. The longer you support a politician, the less willing you will be to defect and support a rival.

Nevertheless, Obama's weakness among Democrats will almost certainly shrink if not entirely vanish once he secures the nomination and the party unites behind him.

disagree. in texas right now. its 2 to one for obama.everywhere , bumpEr stickers, yard signs. stoOD in line to vote around 3 pm in afternoon, , line a half block long. all ages, but conversation was the big "O".

If you had asked me last February if I would vote for John Kerry in the general election, I probably would have said no, the hurt from losing was that bad. I think a lot of HRC supporters are hurting right now and blaming Obama for the pain. It's perfectly understandable. It takes several weeks to work through to acceptance that your favorite candidate is not going to be the nominee.

I have a bad feeling that if Obama loses, his supporters will vote for McCain or just not vote.

It's clear that Hillary is less able to attract Independent voters than Obama, so Clinton would lose votes there.

The Clinton campaign isn't exactly making friends with Obama's supporters. Bill Clinton made racially suggestive remarks about Obama's win in South Carolina. Hillary has ridiculed Obama's supporters as naive, fad-followers, cult-members, and such. She has accused him of plagiarism in the very same speech she gave closing remarks lifted from an Edwards speech. She has compared Obama to Karl Rove and to Bush. Her campaign has been accused of narrow-casting bigoted stories (Obama attending a 'madrassa', Obama wearing 'Muslim' garb, etc.). She has been introduced on the campaign trail by people who ridiculed Obama's supporters as being extreme parodies of ugly right-wing stereotypes of Liberals ('latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing...'). Her campaign systemically insulted the voters of the last 11 states Obama won by dismissing those states as 'insignificant'. She is also trying to seat Florida and Michigan (despite having drafted the rules to remove their delegates, and despite having broken her signed a pledge not to campaign in either state and to remove her name from the ballot in Michigan).

So yeah, it's not hard to imagine that Hillary has alienated a lot of those voters.

The difference is that Hillary will attract some of the Lieberman democrats who would otherwise vote for McCain. Obama would not be in the running for their votes anyway. I think that's pretty much it.

I'm confused by some of the comments. Obama is not more centrist than Clinton; his Senate voting record is more liberal than hers. To be fair, it isn't a big distinction; for the most part, their voting records are similar.

One important subcategory that Pew DIDN'T mention is how self-proclaimed Southern white Democrats feel about Obama. The fact that he's a lot weaker than Hillary is against McCain among DEMOCRATS as a whole -- but just as strong against McCain as she is among ALL white voters (including Independents and Republicans) as a whole) -- is suggestive, and the state polls I've seen suggest that in the Southern states he does indeed run a lot weaker against McCain than Hillary does, at the same time that he runs STRONGER against McCain than she does in Northern states. One guess as to the reason.

Now add to that the recent NY Times story interviewing Southern white voters and discovering their fondness for calling him "Osama", and the extent to which the "he's really a Moslem" story has taken hold in that region. In short, the country hasn't changed all that much.

Obama hasn't been trying very hard to get Democrats to vote for him. He's been running the general election all along, taking his base for granted. It may be a winning strategy but it's the strategy we sneer at the Republicans for using. No, it's a strategy we sneer at the radical right wing falling for year after year.

I suspect strategy, that is dishonesty. It is very well known that, when a hopeful becomes the candidate, his or her support jumps up. My guess is that the Democrats for McCain are hard core Clinton supporters who are trying to convince voters via the poll that Obama is not electable.

I am not suggesting that Clinton supporters are less honest in general than Obama supporters, just that, at the moment, their backs are against the wall and they are trying the kitchen sink strategy. By the way, I am neutral.

Of course it is also possible that Obama's talk about bi-partisanship has convinced people that he is a centrist and the presses love of McCain has convinced them that he is a centrist, and so some Democrats have decided they are ideological similar and go for experience. This would require a degree of ignorance that political addicts, like me, find almost unimaginable, but it is possible.

We're in the midst of a hotly contested primary in which HRC is regularly charging that Obama is not ready to president. Obama isn't making similar charges about Clinton.

Clinton has enormous credibility with Democrats, and so it's no surprise that her charges about Obama's unreadiness have a lot of good Democrats very nervous.

Once the conflict of the primary contest is past and Democrats begin to compare/contrast the Democratic nominee and John McCain, the Democratic nominee--Obama included--will do just fine among Democrats.

HRC's lack of cross over appeal is pretty terrifying to me. One thing we know about her campaign--amply demonstrated throughout--is that she has a low ceiling of support. Her numbers never do go up.

I don't quite know what this means, but it's worth thinking about.

Warmongers, racists, and old farts.

I'll add my hypothesis. That there is a portion of hard-core Hilary-ites who think that it will help their candidate to say to a pollster that they will not support Obama the election, making his core support look softer than it really is.

Hillary being stronger among self-identified Democrats is a reflection of Obama's strength among the young voters, who haven't established a "brand loyalty" yet.

I have said this before, and I know your job is to try to make sense of politics, but this is an anomalous election year. There are too many undercurrents and subthemes going on this year for polls to be meaningful at this point in the election cycle. Pardon my English, but I say, fuck the polls, lets work like hell to get these goddamn Republicans out of political office!

"It's perfectly understandable. It takes several weeks to work through to acceptance that your favorite candidate is not going to be the nominee."

Takes a while to get over being mugged, sometimes you don't.

Many Hillary supporters (like me) are put out by Obama and Axelrod. This may just reflect sore loser thinking, which in most cases, will recede. Obama's Democratic numbers will go up as Hillary's people rethink their support of McCain.

I think it is simply a result of the passionate Hillary supporters not wanting to say that they will vote for Obama at this point in time.

It's the Taylor Marshes of the world. This will change. Especially if Hillary is VP nominee.

Mugged, Pat? So you're saying that Hillary was OWED the nomination, even when she chose not to contest over half the states, and the scary black man STOLE it from her? Congratulations, you've managed to be both ignorant and racist in one short sentence.

Give me a friggin' break. Hillary entered this race as the overwhelming favorite; it was hers to lose. If you can point out how she was somehow "cheated" out of it or had it "stolen", please do so. I won't be holding my breath because we both know that isn't what happened. Perhaps you should take out your disppointment on the people who ran her campaign and Hillary herself for accepting their crappy advice.

McCain has similar problems: both he and Obama are seen as compromisers so they have to see who will lock down the base first.

I'd be interested in a poll that showed turnout numbers for Obama vs Clinton. I for one won't be voting if Clinton gets the nomination (it's a bit complicated to vote from Colombia) as I don't particularly like her as a candidate and it doesn't seem worth the trouble. But if Obama gets the nomination, I'll do what I have to. Intensity of support is a very important variable that doesn't seem to be measured here.

An aside:
I am Europe right now where John McCain does not exist. You don't see him on the teevee and no one mentions his name. Everyone here thinks Hillary and Obama are running for the presidency right now. One French friend who is a little more politically savvy asked why McCain was not allowed to come to the debates!

I agree that McCain's numbers among Democrats have a tremendous downside -- but I don't think it has anything to do with "sore loser" syndrome or a reversal in "racist tendencies" [jesus christ you guys are jerks]. There's a limit to the extrapolations you can make from hysterical blog postings.

McCain's numbers will go down among democrats if they learn more about his politics.

The Clinton supporters who are pissed at Obama and Axelrod are a very small percentage of the electorate. Most Clinton supporters are not paying close attention and if they are angry they're angry at the media or Clinton.

The more likely explanation for the 14% defectors is that McCain has been talked up as an experienced war hero and a reasonable post-partisan moderate maverick for at least a decade. Strong conservatives who pay attention to his image and not his politics are having a hard time supporting him. Democrats who aren't paying attention are behind him.

The whole thing is about feel and image and all three candidates have people supporting them who wouldn't based on policy.

I don't quite know what this means, but it's worth thinking about.

It means that there are bigots in the Democratic party too. Bigots who won't vote for a Black (who also is a secret Muslim Terrorist).

I will be voting for Ralph Nader if Obama gets the nomination. I am not a racist. I believe that Obama is not right and that it will be unfair to the better qualified candidate if he is nominated. I am unimpressed by Obamania because it is unthinking and a projection of hope onto a blank canvas. I am a lifelong Democrat with a Ph.D (not a beer-drinking, working class or uneducated person) but I cannot vote for a man who supported Joe Liberman, who threw gays under the bus with Donnie McClurkin, who lets Oprah speak for him, who has used sexist references against Clinton and who has done nothing of consequence in the Senate. He is too conservative and I do not trust him to make hard decisions or take bold steps needed to fix the country.

I suspect that the huge crossover vote from Independents is the result of conservative efforts to defeat Clinton and make Obama the candidate, because they would prefer to run against him. The so-called Independents are conservative at heart and will go back to their party in the general election. Obama has won no large states with Democratic majorities but only red and swing states with smaller constituencies because these are easier to sway with these "ringer" conservative Independents. It won't give him strength in Nov because they will go back to McCain and Obama will lose, especially once the Republican noise machine gets going. I further suspect that Obama has a thin skin about rough politics and that he will self-destruct.

What you should be paying attention to is the strength of preferences. This tells us a little more how volatile the election season might be.

There's a certain amount of support that the candidates have locked up and there are certain number of people who would be fairly happy with both party's candidates. Jon Stewart, for instance, seems to have telegraphed that position concerning Obama and McCain.

The difference is McCain and Obama have the same meme, they are the outsider candidates.

McCain does something to Democrats. You talk to a self-identified Obama supporter, a number of them will tell you "McCain is my second choice." These are two guys who agree on nothing policywise. But McCain has the Maverick tag and that's what people care about, in order to win the democrats will need to paint McCain as a loyal Bush-Republican Foot Soldier.

Of course, it would help we Clinton supporters support Obama if his supporters wouldn't rub our faces in it because we dare to oppose Obama. We are called sore losers, closet racists, low information voters...just on this thread alone.

If Obama wins the nomination, I will be watching to hear how concilatory he is to the Clinton supporters. It should be a no brainer. You don't read 45-48% of your fellow democrats out of the party. But on the other hand, if he doesn't reach out, I am perfectly willing to stay home come next November. I've been voting democratic since '72.

"Most remarkable of all is that Obama is weaker among Democrats in all age groups than Clinton. "

I'm really confused gang....isn't BO handing HRC her -ss in just about every demographic in the primaries except maybe elderly white females?....So how does he poll weaker suddenly?...Or am I reading this wrong?

If Obama wins the nomination, I will be watching to hear how concilatory he is to the Clinton supporters. It should be a no brainer.

Kindly provide an example of Obama dissing Hillary supporters, or not "reaching out" to Democrats.

I look forward to your response.

Well, the results of this poll sure aren't borne out by the election results themselves (see Potomac primaries), which is where the rubber actually meets the road.

Its the SUPREME COURT folks. McCain = Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito, John Roberts and Antonin Scalia. One more of those and the court is lost to anyone who truly cares about progressive policies. Nader = a vote for McCain, and you get the same results. I could not permit that in good conscience. We simply MUST have a Dem president elected this fall. Keep your eye on the prize, and care more for your country than any of the personalities involved.

I believe that Obama is not right and that it will be unfair to the better qualified candidate if he is nominated.

Unfair? Sorry Mary, it's called a democracy. If you could show that Obama broke the rules or did something unethical then maybe you have an arguement. But the fact is that we've got two candidates who are making their case to the voters and one of them is going to win.

I know that we Obama supporters are supposed to be cultists who drank the Kookaid, but when I see statements like I suspect that the huge crossover vote from Independents is the result of conservative efforts to defeat Clinton and Obama has won no large states with Democratic majorities but only red and swing states with smaller constituencies then I have to wonder what you've been drinking.

I caucased in Minnesota. Democrats tripled their previous record number for turnout. They were Democrats. They were young voters who haven't been out before and are in no way going for McCain in November. Obama is solid.

Takes a while to get over being mugged, sometimes you don't.

For me, the sense of entitlement coming from the Clinton Campaign has been their biggest problem.

It's true that Obama is just as liberal as Hillary. Maybe moreso, although I put no stock in these "ratings" for most liberal Senators and the like. However, I don't think voting records reflect the perception people have of him and her. Obama is more centrist because that's his message and that's the way the mainstream see him. Reagan was viewed as a "centrist" in 1980 and I think we can all agree that his policies and record didn't reflect that, it was his "centrist" appeal which is strikingly similar to Obama's.

I live in South Carolina and most of my friends are hardcore Republicans. They all of course prefer Obama to Clinton, but what's strange is they seem to at least be considering voting for him, especially since they all seem to inexplicably despise McCain.

It's clear that Obama gets more independents and Republicans. Crystal. Clear. Cite all the voting records and all the polls you want, in the general election he is much stronger against McCain than she is or could ever be.

By the way, I was disturbed to hear Jon Stewart remark to Madeleine Albright the other night that he's "comfortable" with all three candidates (that could only mean Hillary, Obama, and McCain).

WTF.

I agree with augustus - There is a HUGE laundry lists of insults and slights committed by Hillary herself against Obama and his supporters along with her shenanigans to avoid the party's rules and processes.

If she somehow gets the nomination she will not be able to win many Obama supporters back. Will they vote for her? Probably most will. Will they donate and organize for her? Doubtful. Will she get alot of independents? Unlikely. Will she win in November? No.

Jennifer:Congratulations, you've managed to be both ignorant and racist in one short sentence.

Now THAT'S ignorance. If Obama supporters keep that up, they'll have a hard time bringing Clinton supporters into the fold in November.

I am a lifelong Democrat with a Ph.D (not a beer-drinking, working class or uneducated person)

Well, that's the problem right there. You know what Ph.D. stands for, right?

Even I got one of those.

Hillary will attract some of the Lieberman democrats who would otherwise vote for McCain.

There are more "Lieberman democrats" among self-identified Democrats than independents? Sure there are.

I am a lifelong Democrat with a Ph.D (not a beer-drinking, working class or uneducated person) but I cannot vote for a man who supported Joe Liberman, blah blah.

Mary is too noble to vote for Obama on this count, but the Democratic candidate who ran against Independent Joe Lieberman in the 2006 CT Senate race, Ned Lamont, endorsed Barack Obama.

Jennifer:Congratulations, you've managed to be both ignorant and racist in one short sentence.

Now THAT'S ignorance. If Obama supporters keep that up, they'll have a hard time bringing Clinton supporters into the fold in November.

Posted by: sj

sj - oh, screw you.

You think there's no racial overtones to the patently false statement that Hillary was "mugged" by Obama and had the nomination, rightfully hers (by what calculus, pray tell?), stolen by him?

You're an idiot, too.

The Oval Office holds a lot of power. Handing over the keys to a neophyte gives me pause, and I hope that's why all those Democrats are reluctant to vote for him, too. That's why given their similar platforms, I prefer Clinton to Obama. She knows the limits of the White House's power, and she still wants it. That says to me that she will use it responsibly. Obama talks change, and gives people hope that he will sweep away all manner of demons, known and unknown. It's flattering, but hardly grounded. If it should come down to Obama and McCain, the latter is the one I would prefer to have with me in a tight situation. POTUS gets into those!

The unfairness of selecting a less qualified candidate arises from the treatment of Clinton by the media, which Obama has aided and abetted. Witness the piling on Clinton by Obama's people when Drudge posted the picture of Obama is Somalian dress. They went after Clinton without bothering to wonder about Drudge's accuracy or the fact that the picture was already circulating on conservative websites.

Regardless of how you figure their respective experience, Clinton has been at it for 10 years more than Obama. Clinton has paid her dues. Obama came out of nowhere with no national reputation at all. Obama may be charismatic, but it takes more than that to be president -- although that may be sufficient to win an election. Clinton supporters are accused of being "low information" but how much lower in information can you be than a 20-something voting for the first time?

There is clearly a blog groundswell for Obama and his supporters have been vicious in the comments. However, despite the enthusiasm at rallies, people in real life are less impressed by Obama. Attributing that to racism ignores Obama's weaknesses and implies that they are trivial when they are not. Democrats want to win and they want to undo what the Republicans have done. Independents don't caring as much about party success and aren't as pissed off about conservative manipulation of the Congress. I believe they are less motivated to choose the person who would accomplish change because they are more focused on an unachievable unity or bipartisanship (something even Obama would not be able to bring about). Long time Democrats don't want a sell-out. Independents don't understand party politics.

Mary: I will be voting for Ralph Nader if Obama gets the nomination. ... it will be unfair to the better qualified candidate if he [Obama] is nominated. ... I am a lifelong Democrat with a Ph.D.

Qualified for what? We're electing a leader. One of the key qualifications has to be an ability to lead, as in get people to follow. The proof is in the pudding: Obama is clearly qualified on that score.

As a Ph.D. myself, I think it would be really cool if democracy was effectively the same as technocracy! I'd have so much more power! But my Ph.D. did little to nothing in conferring leadership abilities. Honestly, though, I think technocracy is a bad idea. A brilliant person can only accomplish so much on their own. Put a genius in charge that has no ability to lead (i.e., get people to follow) and you're looking at an ineffective reign.

Ability to lead is not the only qualification --- I think Obama is strong on others as well --- but it is an absolute requirement. That fact makes Nader supremely unqualified to be president. (He couldn't even bring himself to smile for his campaign literature in 2000! Does he think he's running for scold-in-chief?) Well educated supporters of Nader strike me as vain in the sense that they're pretending that technocracy is a viable form of government.

I don't buy it. A couple of factors to take into consideration here. One, the Clintons, understandably so, are fondly remembered by many democrats. Obama, for all of his charisma, is still largely unknown to many dems. And two, Obama's ground game hasn't yet gained traction in many states, that could switch a number of dems over.

Needless to say, an overwhelming majority of dems will support either dem candidate in the general election. If they choose to stay home, they get what they deserve.

I suppose, if I were to mistake the political press' disdain for Sen Clinton and childish impatience with the process for actual material and relevant information, I would find this surprising, too.

Mary continues: but I cannot vote for a man who supported Joe Liberman, who threw gays under the bus with Donnie McClurkin....

Come on, Mary, be honest.

bark! bark! bark! . . . bark! bark! bark!

Most progressive democrats I know realize that the "so called hard-core democrats" have most times, no loyalty to their party. They are responsbile for getting more Republicans nominated around the country than Republicans, themselves. When I see or hear them pleading a cause, I switch.

In time these "Democrats" will kill the interest of new people wanting to call themselves Dems. We will in time shift to become Independents!.

If it should come down to Obama and McCain, the latter is the one I would prefer to have with me in a tight situation.

Why some dems trust this ass-kissing, lying, senile, mean-spirited, old clown McCain, I'll never know.

You're going trust an idiot who said he wanted to be in Iraq for a hundred years? Pull your head out of your ass.

Econobuzz summarizes almost everything else written nicely!

Mary, you and other Nader supporters need to take a step back and consider what is at stake when you consider a protest vote (in the General Election): You weaken the *electable* candidate who supports more of what you agree with than the opposition.

What you are saying is it's OK with you for McCain to nominate the Supremes...and remember, this will likely be 3 or 4 this time!!

Also, the carpetbagger said exactly why he will be fully support whoever is the nominee: McCain as the successor to the current administration!
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14602.html

HAGA CLIC ESTE ESLABÓN Y VER A MI BEBÉ DULCE!

I am a lifelong Democrat with a Ph.D (not a beer-drinking, working class or uneducated person) but I cannot vote for a man who supported Joe Liberman, who threw gays under the bus with Donnie McClurkin, who lets Oprah speak for him, who has used sexist references against Clinton and who has done nothing of consequence in the Senate.

So instead you want to vote for a woman who supported Joe Lieberman, who threw gays under the bus with the Defense of Marriage Act (which Obama supports repealing, by the way), whose surrogates have exploited a variety of prejudices in their rhetoric against Obama, and who has done very consequential things in the Senate, such as vote to authorize the Iraq war and to designate part of Iran a terrorist organization.

Can't agree with your police work there, Mary.

despite the enthusiasm at rallies, people in real life are less impressed by Obama.

And in primaries and caucuses, Mary. You know, real life, where the votes are counted?

Pat: Takes a while to get over being mugged, sometimes you don't.

Dagome: For me, the sense of entitlement coming from the Clinton Campaign has been their biggest problem.

My thoughts exactly. Pat's comment is fairly telling in its contempt for the democratic process.

What it means is stop this crappy back and forth and get a ticket that can beat the pants off ANY REPUG out there so we have half a chance of correcting the direction the "ship of state" has been sailing on since 2001! No, Democrats won't be perfect and will need watching and poking BUT we cannot afford any more REPUG administrations for a LONG, LONG TIME!!! And, yes Ralph Nader does speak to the ISSUES that really concern most regular Americans (those without huge portfolios or who own companies)...it's a shame the candidates don't stand up to our manipulative celebrity driven MEDIA and actually discuss what people care about!!!

Why some dems trust this ass-kissing, lying, senile, mean-spirited, old clown McCain, I'll never know.

Then why don't you shut up, since that's what this thread is about?

Before any progressive votes for McCain (or Nader, which is the same thing), they should be damn sure they understand what it means for a Republican president to appoint a replacement for Associate Justice John Paul Stevens (may he live forever).

Mary proceeds apace: who lets Oprah speak for him, who has used sexist references against Clinton and who has done nothing of consequence in the Senate. He is too conservative...

You know, I recall Hillary cultivating Oprah's allegiance over time. Do you think Hillary would have rejected Oprah's support in her campaign if offered?

What were Obama's "sexist references"? This question is rhetorical, but feel free to make your case.

What has Senator Clinton done "of consequence" in the Senate? I can think of one thing "of consequence" that Hillary did do: vote in favor of authorizing the president to commit the worst foreign policy blunder in US history.

To call Obama conservative is sheer demagoguery. Put up or shut up.

Er, not unexpected. See Paul Lukasiak here.

And if the primary numbers end up being like these numbers, it could mean that Obama's margin of victory for the Democratic nomination is provided by non-Democrats. That would be bad.

I think this poll reflects the fact that we are in the thick of a very intense nomination battle. Once that battle has been over for a few months, and I hope it is over sooner rather than later, you will see more Dems come around for Obama.

Clinton and Obama are both fine candidates, but I think there is a big danger in having two viable candidates after March 4th. If Obama wins Texas and Ohio, he can focus that huge money machine on John McCain. If Clinton wins both states, she will still be way behind in delegates and the fight will drag on for months. Make no mistake, this is very good for John McCain. McCain is not just attacking Obama because he is the front runner, he knows that the Democrats will be much stronger if Obama can lock this thing up early.

This is Chuck Todd on Meet the Press Sunday morning ( emphasis mine):

MR. TODD: Well, you know, John McCain has a bigger problem. I mean, yes, I think he successfully won this battle. But he's got a bigger problem in what's coming, potentially coming at him. If Barack Obama wraps up this nomination on March 4th, he is going to be facing a financial juggernaut that he's not ready for. They are having some problems raising money, even as the presumptive Republican nominee now. A story like this actually slows down the big donor donations for a little bit because you're, you're frozen in time a little bit, you're having to fight this battle over here. If--this, this time between, say, March 5th and the convention, could be a very dangerous time for John McCain. If Barack Obama's raising 40 to 50 million dollars a month now, what's he going to raise if he actually is the Democratic nominee? What's that going to mean for television advertising? You know, this--he won this battle, but I think John McCain is facing a much bigger problem. He need--nobody needs Hillary Clinton to do well on March 4th more than John McCain because he, he's, he's facing a freight train coming at him in Barack Obama.

Anonymous:

Yeah, McCain's a man of discretion and judgment.

"Bomb, bomb, bomb,
bomb, bomb Iran . . ."

PhD = "pretty hair doctor" = beautician

Seriously, that was a joke. If that's the best you can come up with, then no wonder some Dems are considering McCain. Look, when the time comes, I'll probably vote for Obama. But it will be half-heartedly (for policy reasons only), and not because I think he would make a good president. Because he won't. He'll bumble, the way all neophyte presidents bumble. American myth-making will inevitably decide differently, but the fact of the matter is, he won't do that much good for Americans. Ideologically, he may even succeed in making conservatism more palatable, as he is hardly selling a liberal world-view. I can't really see him successfully installing a liberal SC justice, can you? He can't even argue for universal health care in a Democratic primary. So, yeah, he's of the left, but is he qualified? No. McCain, on the other hand, is.

We place way too much emphasis on polls, but it is compounded by otherwise smart guys like Kevin not understanding what they mean. He says this poll "shows that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are likely to beat John McCain in a general election." It really does not show what is likely to happen in the November general election (after a campaign between the two nominees). It shows what would happen if the election was held in February. Does anyone really think that the February polls accurately forecast the result in November? Heck, the Texas polls from three weeks ago will prove to be remarkably inaccurate come Tuesday.

Kevin's other point about the different levels of support for Clinton and Obama is more interesting, but the numbers probably have a large margin of error and they also are from the February point in time.

PhD = Piled Higher and Deeper.

I am not comfortable with Barack Obama at this point. He reminds me less of JFK than Jimmy Carter. And Carter had the advantage of running a state and successfully building coalitions in that state. Carter taught us all that what works on the state level does not always translate to the national.

As a liberal activist I have always liked McCain. For the last several election cycles he has run for president but lost the nomination to someone else. My liberal friends and family are all very familiar with McCain and we all like him. He really is a decent person who would make a good moderately conservative and sometimes liberal president.

I will never vote for Obama and I suspect that some of my liberal friends feel the same way. Nothing is going to change my mind about him. He is unqualified now and will be unqualified in November. His entire campaign has been based upon personality rather than competence. I am a liberal but I am not stupid. Obama is simply not qualified.

Two comments:

1) Don't take one poll as gospel - particular the breakouts within the poll. The overall error range might be 3%, but the error range for a breakout is much higher.

2) Both candidates have their weaknesses.

But - from what I've heard from abroad, it's not a contest. They really Obama a heck of a lot more because he doesn't sound like a narrow-minded American. I've heard repeatedly that they really hear when Obama says it wasn't just Iraq - it was the mentality that got us into Iraq.

And they hear that difference in tone on a lot of issues.

So, yeah, he's of the left, but is he qualified? No. McCain, on the other hand, is.

Did you even watch McCain at the 04 Republican National Convention, when he abandoned all scruple to suck up to the Bushies who 1) shamelessly slandered him in 00, and 2) who he knew damn well were a disaster for the country he proclaims to love so much? Pretty much the great maverick's substance in a nutshell.

Color me unsurprised about seniors not voting for him.

It could be that the people who vote on "image" prefer Obama > McCain > Hillary or McCain > Obama > Hillary, but the people who vote on "substance" prefer Hillary > Obama > McCain or McCain > none of the above. That would certainly jibe with my personal experience. Since liberals tend to be issues voters, Hillary wins amongst liberals, but as you move farther right, you wind up in image voter land, and Obama competes with McCain for those votes.

Kevin,
Given the number of variables involved and the public's increasing familiarity with Obama, I don't think this 8% is statistically significant.

McCain's "qualified" is he, Anonymous (concern troll)? Check out Mr. Toad's comment (two above yours) and come back and say that with a straight face. Qualified to make bad decisions, maybe.

A lot of "qualified" people helped drive the bus into the ditch in Iraq and John McCain was one of the idiots leading the charge. If you are happy with the way things have gone in the last 7 years, then McCain is your man.

It means that Democrats are not as stupid as Republicans.

It means Republicans are screwing up our primaries.

It means Preznit Obama will be a fence straddling Lieberman because he got his damn margin of victory from Republicans. But that's no surprise, cuz that's what he's been doing in the Senate (not that Hill isn't almost as bad in that department).

As a liberal activist I have always liked McCain. ... He really is a decent person who would make a good moderately conservative and sometimes liberal president.

Right, like his bud, GWB, the compassionate conservative. Once again, McCain is a nasty, self righteous, lying, bought-and-paid-for repug.

Lambert,
If Obama wins the nomination, will you vote for McCain?

He really is a decent person who would make a good moderately conservative and sometimes liberal president.

Right, McCain is so decent he voted in favor of the Miltary Commissions Act, which conferred upon the King of the United States of America the authority to torture at his pleasure and dispense with such formalities of the rule of law as habeas corpus.

Get real.

Is it just me or do these Hillary v. Obama comment threads seem to attract more spin-type comments than most? I find it depressing that Dems might be stooping to the type of behavior that always seemed to be the province of the more seedy republican commentators.

Second vote for this post being all about Marge Inovair.

Democratic Voters sampled: 456
Plus or minus: 5.5%

As a liberal activist I have always liked McCain. ... He really is a decent person who would make a good moderately conservative and sometimes liberal president.

Hmmm...what liberal causes were you active in exactly?

I think this one is going to be won on style vs substance.
As Dervin said, "You talk to a self-identified Obama supporter, a number of them will tell you 'McCain is my second choice.'"

Never mind the contrast in policies. People aren't voting on policies here as much as perceptions.

Now add to that the recent NY Times story interviewing Southern white voters and discovering their fondness for calling him "Osama", and the extent to which the "he's really a Moslem" story has taken hold in that region. In short, the country hasn't changed all that much. -Bruce Moomaw

It is precisely these people that need to have their car keys confiscated and not allowed to drive anymore. I have had quite enough of these idiots dominating the political landscape and look forward to them being swept out of earshot in November. Thank God that independent voters are finally coming around to this conclusion and will once again relegate them their deserved minority status.

Anon.,

Apparently you find it very presidential that McCain thinks it appropriate to make a stupid joke about killing thousands of people and potentially setting off a regional war in the Middle East. Me, I think it's reckless and shows disregard for human life.

But no, that's not the worst I can come up with. McCain's politically convenient swerve to the right on Iraq is a big issue for me. He also wants to extend the Bush tax cuts, which he originally (and correctly) opposed. His environmental and economic policies would be regressive as well, and he would continue the Republican domination of the federal judiciary.

I also am certain that any Republican president, but especially one who feels the need to prove his conservative credentials in order to keep his base together, would put a fifth conservative idealogue on the Supreme Court to replace Stevens. The next twenty years of American law would not be a pretty sight. Google "Lochner v. New York" if you want to know how bad a Supreme Court full of reactionary ideologues can be for progressive policies. Then add the fact that Roe v. Wade would be overturned. I'm not scaremongering. There are four votes on the Supreme Court to overturn it now, and a Republican replacement for Stevens would be the fifth. Five is a majority of nine.

it doesn't seem worth the trouble

The next president will likely determine the makeup of the Supreme Court for decades. All of the liberal justices are over retirement age (Stevens is 87). Take the trouble.

Aside: It isn't "true" that HRC has more experience than Obama. It all depends on what and how you count as experience. Big lies get started when little frames stop being questioned.

Back on task: If the 8% is real, I suspect it reflects a mixture of risk-averse people and Clinton's hard-core base. Why would Democrats NOT support a Clinton? Whereas Obama forces us to think outside the box...he may be a once-in-a-lifetime leader or he may be a terrible disappointment. I love Obama, but after seven years of GWB, a lot of Americans can't afford to take any chances.

I've had my period of swearing I would vote for McCain if the other Democrat got the nomination, but in my case the other Dem was Clinton. So I totally get why HRC supporters insist they'll vote for McCain. Both HRC & McCain are war supporters, both are part of the establishment, both seem like seasoned pros. If the Dem nominee is Obama, of course some Clinton supporters will prefer McCain: Some people who find themselves stuck at the bottom of a pit think the best strategy is to keep on digging.

Maybe running as hard as you can from the word "liberal" doesnit make you "conservative." I don't know. Probably today's resident Oborg would call that "post-partisan" or some such glossy bullshit. Who knows and who cares.

It's more important to lambert strether that the rhetoric be "liberal" than the policy.

And Clinton supporters accuse us of being facile.

So I totally get why HRC supporters insist they'll vote for McCain.

Whether Obama is the nominee and you're a dem who supports Clinton, or Clinton is the nominee and you're a dem who supports Obama, voting for McCain would be nothing short of traitorous.

Maybe Obama as president won't be able to deliver on all of his promises. Maybe Clinton as president won't bring "enough" change. But either is a godsend compared to a senile old asshole who will spend 4-8 years trying to get his tongue as far up Rush Limbaugh's and corporate America's ass as possible.

Whoever the nominee, they have to drop this bullshit about a war hero who is an expert on defense and terrorism. S/he has to stop mindlessly playing into the false narrative that the MSM has created for this guy.

One can be a war hero and know nothing about how to defend the country -- and be the worst alternative for governing one's country. As St. McCain would say, "My friends, there's no necessary connection between the two."

strikes me as almost too obvious? i would never ask like-minded friends (highly educated hipsters) their party affiliation, but i assume they would all identify themselves as independents* (wary as they are of where the twain parties meet), and that they would most likely choose obama. to me, this is the story of the race -- the naderites, the greens, the apathetic trust-fund kids in williamsburg joining blacks in dc and disenchanted conservatives in idaho in backing one candidate.

*i never see my (very aware, active + lefty) demographic at the polls on primary day.

I am not comfortable with Barack Obama at this point. He reminds me less of JFK than Jimmy Carter.

Yeah, that makes virtually no sense. I mean, Carter was a Naval Academy grad, a farmer and a southern governor. Obama is a Harvard educated lawyer who worked as an activist and organizer, a legislator, and now a Senator.

Their backgrounds are about a dissimilar as you can get.

Lucy writes: It's more important to lambert strether that the rhetoric be "liberal" than the policy.

Obama is not particularly liberal, policy-wise. Certainly more liberal than any Republican, but not for a Democrat. I think that it is important not to run away from the "liberal" label, because that gives voters the impression that being liberal is something to be ashamed of, which makes it very easy for Republicans to demonize Democratic policy initiatives.

In the words of the great Warren Oates playing Sergeant Hulka in the movie Stripes:

Lighten up Francis!

This bickering is tedious and could be harmful.

"You people did this." "My candidate never said that." "You started it." "No you started it." "You are worse." "You are even worse."

For any Democrat contemplating staying at home and not voting in the next election I say "Look at what the Nader voters did in 2000." They said both the Democratic and Republican candidates were identical so they voted for Nader.

The candidates were NOT identical and look at what we got left holding.

It would be great if this was a game of hail Mary passes with wild swings in the score but politics is a game of inches and the Republicans, with the backing of huge money and patience, have been kicking our butts for the last 35 years and I am sick of it!

So everyone just shut your pie holes and when November comes march yourself to the polls and vote Democratic. If you have to hold your nose to do it then by God hold your nose but get the frigging job done!

I am a solid liberal democrat. Neither Clinton nor Obama were to the left enough to me. When I had to choose in my state's primary, I chose Clinton. I believe that there are only so many things that might actually get done in the next four years. Public financing of campaigns or some general "change in the way Washington works" (Obama's planks) isn't one of them.

We might, however, see some withdrawal of troops from Iraq (both), universal health care (Clinton), negotiation on Israel/Palestine (Clinton b/c "only Nixon could go to China"), green jobs and better trade policy (both, but probably better with Clinton), reform of NCLB (Clinton--merit pay for teachers, a Republican and Obama idea, is a very bad idea)--anyway, I came up with Clinton, as between the two.

I live in a deep blue state. If Obama is the nominee, and the polls just before the election show that my state will not go with McCain, I will vote Green, in accordance with my beliefs, and I would tell a pollster that.

So the national polls are a bit meaningless and I expect a number of Clinton/Edwards/Kucinich types in blue states will vote Green or Nader, but it won't matter in the general election, and we won't mean for it to matter.

But I have no illusions that an Obama presidency is going to be the best thing since sliced bread. Something between Carter's ineptitude and Clinton's triangulation would be my bet.

Um, Ken "as a liberal activist I've always liked McCain," what liberals have you supported in past elections that you think have comparable values and policies to McCain? For example, which liberals have you supported whose highest priority is to keep the Bush tax cuts permanent?

As a liberal activist, are you OK with keeping one hundred thousand plus troops in Iraq for a hundred years if it's "necessary?" Who gets to make this determination of necessity? Does the Iraqi government get to determine if it's "necessary?" How long are you and McCain willing to go on accepting troop casualties and high Iraqi casualties caused by U.S. airstrikes before the hundred years of peace starts where no troops are being harmed? Ten years? Twenty-five years? Fifty years? I guess telling would be a timetable, wouldn't it?

Doesn't it bother you that a man who was tortured in Vietnam, along with his fellow soldiers, now goes along with the Bush "it's not torture when Americans do it" doctrine? Why doesn't he want to strengthen rather than trash the Geneva Conventions that afford our troops a modicum of protection from torture?

Obama is not particularly liberal, policy-wise.

Please elaborate.

Whether the Democratic nominee is Hillary or Obama, I think that the strategy against McCain should be an attack on Republicanism, rather than a personal attack on McCain. McCain is personally appealing to many people, being a war hero, a "straight talker", a "maverick", etc. But in spite of his being personally more appealing than Bush, electing McCain will mean a continuation of Bush policies, particularly on war and economics. Demonize those policies, and force McCain to either defend them or renounce them. Either way is a win for progressives; if he defends them, then McCain has to deal with the enormous anti-Bush sentiment in this country. If he renounces them, then he is ceding the point that the country needs progressive (aka "liberal") policies, which is a boon to progressives.

The Republicans are trying to force Obama to make the same choice: he must either defend liberalism, and get labeled a liberal, or renounce it, in which case he is ceding the Republican point that liberalism is something bad.

It simply means that Senator Obama has pissed off alot of lifelong loyal democratic voters.

I won't vote for him because I simply don't trust him.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Thursday he would be more willing than Hillary Rodham Clinton to work with Republicans.

"Her natural inclination is to draw a picture of Republicans as people who need to be crushed and defeated," Obama said during a telephone interview from Texas with the Cincinnati Enquirer editorial board. "It's not entirely her fault. She's been the target of some unfair attacks in the past."

"I'm not a person who believes any one party has a monopoly on wisdom," Obama said.

It's not "entirely" her fault. What a cretin.

Right-wing "concern troll" Ken, posing as a "liberal activist", wrote: "My liberal friends and family are all very familiar with McCain and we all like him. He really is a decent person who would make a good moderately conservative and sometimes liberal president."

McCain is a crook and a liar. He claims that he is "the only one the special interests don't give money to" when in fact he is one of the top recipients of corporate bribes in the Senate and his campaign organization is packed with and run by corporate lobbyists. McCain can be absolutely counted on to continue the blatant corruption and criminality of the Cheney/Bush administration.

And McCain is in no way a "moderate conservative." His domestic and foreign policies will continue the right-wing extremist, corporate imperialist policies of the Cheney/Bush administration.

A vote for McCain is a vote for four more years of the Cheney/Bush organized crime dictatorship.

These polls are all very interesting. But the most important challenge facing the Democratic nominee, whether it is Obama or Clinton, will be to prevent the Republicans from stealing a close election through voter disenfranchisement, intimidation and fraud, as they did in 2000 and 2004.

And it will be close, once the corporate-owned media is through with their character assassination of Obama or Clinton, and their deification of the utterly corrupt McCain as the straight-talking foe of the "special interests" who in fact own him as completely as they own the mass media.

the only subgroup of Democrats that supports Obama more than Hillary is African-Americans — and even in their case only by a tiny margin. I don't quite know what this means, but it's worth thinking about."

Maybe this will help clarify:

"“Overall, 20% of white Democratic voters say they would vote for McCain if Obama is the Democratic nominee. That is twice the percentage of white Democrats who say they would support McCain in a Clinton-McCain matchup."

Now what do you think is the key adjective in that sentence?

Lucy,

Two big issues where Obama is not liberal enough for my tastes are (1) health care, and (2) social security. On health care, he seems too hesitant to push for universal health care for all, and he is even repeating Republican talking points about not wanting the government to dictate health insurance decisions. On social security, he has campaigned on the issue of addressing the "social security solvency crisis". It isnt' a crisis, at all. Social security is in good shape (at least compared with Medicare. Calling it a crisis is feeding into Republican propaganda, whose purpose is ultimately to eliminate social security. I'm not saying that Obama is wanting to eliminate social security, but his rhetoric about it aids the Republicans.

*

One thing we can surely expect to see a lot of on this site during this election year, is weak-minded ignorant right-wing mental slaves posting comments in which they claim to be "liberal activists" or "life-long Democrats", say that they will under no circumstances vote for Obama/Clinton if he/she is the nominee, and regurgitate inane, RNC-scripted talking-point drivel about how wonderful McCain is.

ken writes:

As a liberal activist I have always liked McCain. For the last several election cycles he has run for president but lost the nomination to someone else. My liberal friends and family are all very familiar with McCain and we all like him. He really is a decent person who would make a good moderately conservative and sometimes liberal president.

You and your friends are making a big mistake. Whether or not McCain is a decent person is irrelevant---on all the important issues facing America, McCain would mean a continuation of the disastrous Bush policies.

mhr snuck something civil in. Congrats! Hope he's happy. Maybe he should have some chats with the mothers of the thousands of dead soldiers and the hundereds of thousands of dead civilians in Iraq to solidify his view that this has been a Grand Adventure.

mm,

That's not Obama being a cretin. That's Obama being a politician trying to win an open primary in a swing state.

Jeez, and they say Obama supporters are sensitive.

In fact, in a matchup against McCain, the only subgroup of Democrats that supports Obama more than Hillary is African-Americans — and even in their case only by a tiny margin. I don't quite know what this means, but it's worth thinking about.

I suspect it means that Hillary's supporters tend to be more strongly politically attached and involved partisan Democrats, and therefore are more likely to be consdering how polls impact coverage of campaigns when responding to survey questions. Whether or not they would vote for McCain over Obama, they know that if they say they would vote for McCain over Obama, it helps to create an electability argument for Hillary in the remaining primaries.

(I suppose it is also possible that Hillary is supported by "Democrats" who are more emotionally invested in the idea of a war between the two major parties than in the political ideology or policy prescriptions of either side or even tribal affiliation with one side, and that the expressed preferences are therefore generally honest.)

People often focus on the margin of sampling error in a poll, but when people have an interest in what other people see in the results of the poll that provides a motive to provide dishonest responses, that's a significant potential source of nonsampling error.

"Pew reports that the US public now believes the US will succeed in Iraq 53-39. That's good news, isn't it?"

What does "success" mean? Getting back to the status quo ante, in which Iraq was a non-threatening, secular society unconnected to Al Qaeda? Such a deal at only $3 trillion, 4000 dead Americans, perhaps 1 million prematurely dead Iraqis.

"As a liberal activist I have always liked McCain. For the last several election cycles he has run for president but lost the nomination to someone else. My liberal friends and family are all very familiar with McCain and we all like him. He really is a decent person who would make a good moderately conservative and sometimes liberal president."

Guess even a "liberal activist" can be an idiot. And probably a liar. SecularAnimist really pegged this one. It's going to be a lousy election season, since the Republicans have no moral scruples about lying to win, and lying seems to be their only hope.

"Hillary has far fewer defections among Democrats. In all, 89% of Democrats would vote for her while only 81% would vote for Obama."

"far fewer"?? Good grief, Kevin, try not to write so late at night. This is a distinction without a difference given the MOE of the polling.

Besides all these stupid matchups against McCain are wholly meaningless in the middle of primary season and 8 months from the GE.

mhr writes: Here's a poll result liberals will ignore- Pew reports that the US public now believes the US will succeed in Iraq 53-39. That's good news, isn't it?

Why? What does "succeed" even mean at this point? The Iraq war has cost in the neighborhood of a trillion dollars. It has cost over 3000 American lives, and tens of thousands of innocent Iraq