but looking at these Pew Research numbers there isn't any question right now that Obama presents the better general election match up . . .

Amongst independents --
Barack Obama: Favorable 62% Unfavorable 27%
Hillary Clinton: Favorable 46% Unfavorable 47%

Amongst Republicans --
Barack Obama: Favorable 37% Unfavorable 53%
Hillary Clinton: Favorable 14% Unfavorable 82%

http://people-press.org/report...

In other words, if Democrats want to have a chance to have a shot at the independent vote, which swings elections in states like Virginia, then they're better off with the candidate who has a net positive 16% positive advantage -- with 10% still undecided (which could break either way for him); versus the "known" candidate whose performance with independents is likely to be at best a wash.  The unfavorable #'s also would serve as a rallying point for GOP voters.

We're voting as much for a winner in the general election as we are within the context of a party primary.

Please, people, don't vote for who you think is going to win.  Vote for who you WANT to win.  That's why Hillary is leading in early voting: people think she is going to win, and want to be on board the winning team.  Barack Obama can win, but only if his supporters stay strong.  

If you WANT Hillary to win, vote for her.  But if you want Obama to win, vote for him.  That simple.

Cut it out, Lee.

Before I signed up to Blog on this blog,  a friend said I shouldn't, cause it was loaded with a bunch of insulting people.

I quess I was warned correctly, for out of 4 comments only one gave a good point back. The other 3 had no merit, except insults.  

Mostly, I've found the discussion at RK to be very interesting, informed, and respectful.  Of course, there are always exceptions.  Also, I'd point out that the blogosphere generally is rough and tumble; go check out any other blog and see what you think...

Why does anyone think Barack Obama ultimately had to start throwing some punches with Hillary Clinton?

I have not opened a post saying "Barack Obama is going to win."

This is politics, not bean bag.  It is ridiculous and useless to open a post, at least in this particular race, saying who the nominee is going to be.

You got called on your ridiculousness.  Deal with it by coming up with a rational argument.  Too bad for you that you don't have one.

NelDem,

At the start of this primary season, it was Clinton's supporters who made the trollish, rude, and outright disrespectful comments towards Obama supporters... driving some independents away. Ever since Obama began surging... his supporters have started adopting the same negative tactics, tone, and comment style they decried at the start of this process.

Yours was a thoughtful post. Don't let the less respectful members of the RK community drive you away from contributing.

The bandwagon argument was used widely by the Republicans both before 2000 and  before 2004. They also used it to drumb up support for the Iraq war. I can't think of a worse argument and substitue for thinking than to get on the winning bandwagon.

Hillary will be the nominee and the winner in the General, so jump on the band wagon now. Don't feel like you have been left out after the Denver Convention. Do the hard choice NOW, back Hillary.

The argument is that we should all jump on board with Hillary because you say she'll be the nominee, despite the fact that 90% of us support Barack Obama and believe that HE will be the nominee?  And, if we don't do so, we'll be "left out after the Denver Convention?"   No comprendo.

do tell a different story about general election prospects.

Let's take Iowa for example:

Clinton 44 - McCain 48
Clinton 47 - Giuliani 43
Clinton 49 - Romney 43
Clinton 49 - Huckabee 43

Obama 52 - McCain 40
Obama 52 - Giuliani 39
Obama 53 - Romney 39
Obama 56 - Huckabee 35

http://time-blog.com/real_clea...

Granted these are November 2007 numbers, but I've seen quite a few match-ups where Clinton doesn't perform nearly as well as Obama in head-to-head match-ups with McCain -- especially in swing states.

If Romney wins, well I guess it's all gravy.  But seriously . . .

that Obama would hold the "blue" states and be competitive in more "purple" states than Hillary Clinton would be.  For instance, I've talked to a lot of people in Virginia who feel that Obama would be much stronger in the Commonwealth, both for himself as well as "downballot," than Clinton would be.  

enough in reliable red states (South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia) that the GOP is forced to dedicate money to those states in order to check against an upset in the general election.  Money dedicated to usually reliable states is money that comes from swing states.  That's half the battle strategy in actually WINNING those swing states.

At a minimum there's no question though that Obama helps down the ticket in other battleground states (which is why he's getting all those purple state endorsements -- including Virginia!)  

McCain 46.9% - Clinton 45.0% = McCain +1.9%

McCain 44.6% - Obama 44.0%  = McCain +0.6%

http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

Obama up 3 points over McCain, Clinton down 3 points versus McCain.  That's a 6-point advantage for Obama, and personally -- I'll take it! :)

I find those numbers irrelevant and bogus.

Although real choice does not show the Obama vs Clinton poll or Lowells example does not show those same polls, I am betting that the same question was asked of the same people.

Here is my point and I will use Lowell posting.

I will bet that Obama beats Clinton by 3 points, and Obama beats McCain by 3 points and I will bet the same people were asked those same questions. And when it comes to Clinton the results are the same. Down by 3 on both questions.

When asking the same people the same question does anyone expect a supporter to put their candidate in an Unfavorable light? I would say NO, so the results are bogus and hold no weight.

...you find the numbers "irrelevant and bogus" because you don't like them.  That all you got?

But that really isn't that great of an argument.  It really seems like you don't like the numbers, so you're just discounting them.

Though it's still marginal, the trendline of Obama doing better against McCain than Clinton continues to grow.

Today's RCP updated rolling average numbers have it as:

McCain 46.0% - Clinton 44.4% = McCain +1.6%

Obama 44.9% - McCain 43.9%  = Obama +1.0%

http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

that both Hillary and Obama would likely beat McCain, given the broader trends and issue polling, not to mention McCain's problems with the GOP base.

These head-to-head polls mean little at this point. Sure, they're interesting to talk about, but don't base on a vote on them because you think one candidate would be more competitive come November.

Because he attracts many independents, perhaps Obama might carry some states Hillary wouldn't. Virginia is an example (although I think Hillary could carry Virginia). But sure, put North Carolina on that list as well.

Also, it appears that should Obama be the nominee, he will gain the almost universal support of Hillary supporters, while should Hillary be the nominee, there are clearly many Obama supporters who would abandon her.

That's not a criticism, just an observation.

Politics is trying to get others to agree with ones position on a certain candidate. And the position is about 50-50 in the outside world, not 90%  

I'm a Hillary supporter, but lets not kid ourselves -- the momentum in this election is clearly against her. It's not just the weight of opinion here at RK, but it all over. In the endorsements, in the tracking polls.

I think Hillary will make a far better president that Obama. And the more I learn about Obama, the more concerned I am how he will stand up to the Republican slime machine -- the fact of the matter he is untested in that particular crucible, but Hillary is not -- but the enthusiasm and tide are clearly with him.

As I have said, should Hillary lose California, then the followingTuesday will be a tough day for her as well. She will need to find a graceful way to exit.

Perhaps Justice Clinton? I don't know -- just a random idea.

Hillary could lose CA and still win the day.  It's more symbollic than anything else.  A win in California, where Hillary was up 20 points about a week ago, would be a massive turning point for Obama.  A good place to start the rest of the campaign.

And just because Obama is starting to lead in the polls doesn't mean it's over.  Remember, early voting and the like.

I still think Obama will lose CA.  But they will come out with similar numbers in terms of delegates.  And if Obama can keep it close in Jersey and Mass, then Hillary may have some trouble.

that the Clinton campaign itself has characterized California as a firewall for them, believing that the Hispanic vote was solid behind Hillary.

BTW, saw some talk that Richardson endorsed Hillary, according to NPR, but could not confirm on my own.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/...

Apparently, Richardson was going to endorse, but decided against it at the last minute.  Or at least that's what the rumors say.  But Clinton said not to expect an endorsement before Tuesday, where it could make a difference (most of the Hispanic-heavy states, like Colorado, California, Arizona, New Mexico, New York, New Jersey, and the like are going tomorrow; all that's left in terms of massive Hispanic voting bloc is Texas) in this campaign.  

I just finished calling my sisters over in California and they seem to be backing Hillary solidly, although one of them seemed a bit less likely to vote for Hillary after our conversation.

Yes, and the "left out" after the convention argument sounds a bit like a threat to me. It sounds a lot like locked out. Does that mean the Hillary people won't be on speaking terms with the Obama supporters?

I'm sorry if I cam across as rude earlier (i didn't intened to), so let me clarify.

Why should we vote for who you assume the winner will be?  Just so we can say we were on the bandwagon early?  That doesn't really matter to me, and I bet that argument doesn't matter to most other people here.  In the end, I think it's better to vote for who you want to win rather than who you think will win.  I want Obama to be President.  I'm still think Hillary will get the nomination.  The fact that I think Hillary will win doesn't change the fact that I'm still going to do everything I can to help Obama.  To do otherwise would be dishonest to myself.  

You can push the "hop on board with the winner early" argument, but that really doesn't seem to be working right now.  Obama has momentum.  Will he win more delegates than Hillary on Tuesday?  No.  But he will certainly still be in the race.

She's inevitable!  Why am I even considering voting for someone elese!?

Silly me.

I noticed how you closed your entry, NelDem:

"Do the hard choice NOW, back Hillary."

An interesting slip there. As if supporting Hillary is some bitter medicine that we must take. As if supporting Hillary were the mate that we are settling in for, uninspiring, but dependable. As if supporting Hillary is some punishment that we will get sooner or later, and we may as well get it out of the way.

How about this, NelDem:

Let's vote for hope.

Let's embrace hope the way our grandparents and great grandparents embraced it when they voted for FDR while they were living through the darkest months of the Depression.

Let's embrace hope the way the Civil Rights movement embraced it when they stood up with courage to 60 years of legal segregation to end it.

The greatest achievements of America were done by Americans embracing hope and standing up with courage to great adversities, be it economic or racism.

There was no New Deal triangulation. There was hope and bold plans to save the nation.

There was no Civil Rights triangulation. There was hope and courage to stand up by sitting down at buses and counter-tops.

There must be hope before courage. Those defeated in the heart with despair do not have the strength to stand up to greater challenges. There is no courage without hope.

NelDem: let's bring our Democratic Party back to life by tapping into that powerful current of hope and courage that was the best that our party offered America. Let's have the courage to act our convictions.

NelDem: Don't swallow the bitter pill; don't make the hard choice.

Make the choice for hope, and do the courageous act: join us and vote for Obama.

Will we win?

Yes we can.

If she doesn't win by 10 points in California and capture a huge majority of the other states, except obviously for Illinois, it'll be a disaster for Clinton.

She's been the Dem frontrunner since December 2004, but no longer.

This feels strangely like Allen v. Webb all over again.  

It's just the kind of thing to give a Democrat HOPE!