When almost every poll says the exact same thing, which is the case here, that's when it means something.

Does winning really mean anything to the Democratic Party?  If so, you should support Barack Obama.

but I'm not buying. He may be up 7 points, but that's before the GOP smear machine gets its shot at him. I truly believe Hillary's negatives are as high as they'll ever get, and for her to break even in a poll is quite the accomplishment.

I'll give you credit, turning a clear showing by the stronger candidate into a "stalemate."  But I'm not buying what your selling, friend.  Obama's campaign is positive and hopeful.  Just like whenver Clinton has gone dirty on drugs and mistakes of the past, the GOP will pay for it.  Clinton's dirty tactis in South Carolina made this a tie.  If the GOP goes dirty on Obama, he'll crush them.  The man has plenty of dirty laundry.  But he always comes out above it.  

Now let me push aside your "negative ceiling theory":

Hillary, on the other hand, is nothing but baggage.  And I strongly disagree about the negatives .  It's been 8 years since we've had a Clinton scandal.  Many people have forgotten.  But the GOP can bring those right back to the forefront, remind people, and you can watch her fall further.  Clinton's personality makes it easy to pin scandals on her.

Obama's does not.  As Slick Willy proved, Charisma can get you out of a lot of trouble.  Obama makes Bill look like John Kerry.  Hillary Clinton makes John Kerry look like Bill.

is the dynamic at work. When Clinton went negative, it turned against her because she could not alienate Democratic voters.

In the general, that will be less of a concern for the GOP. Remember how we are complaining that the Swift boat attacks were unfair? That Willie Horton was racist? They don't care, because the strategy of such negative campaigning is to raise doubts, to peel off some independents who are leaning toward, but not committed to a candidate, and to motivate the base.

Furthermore, Obama still remains an unknown to many people -- several folks on this blog have noted that his money advantage will help him narrow the Name ID gap -- and so folks tend to project their own positions on him. We see this happen again and again with early polls. Again, negative campaigning works to define the candidate for some people.  

Sure, perhaps independents will, as a group, reject the tactic and turn toward Obama in the general. Anyone is free to think so, and can certainly point to South Carolina as evidence of that.

But there is considerably more evidence to suggest that the negative campaigning will take its toll on Obama.

Of course, Obama may overcome all of this. If he is the candidate, I sure hope he does, and will work and contribute money to help him do so, but at this point in the primary, the fact is I am not sure he will. The certitude of you and others that today's polls are a reason to support Obama, is IMHO, misplaced.

on anyone.  And...???

Hillary and Bill are inseparable whether we like it or not. That's twice the baggage.  

will go after any of our candidates.  There is absolutely ZERO reason to believe it will be any more effective against one candidate versus another one.  As far as I can tell, Republicans are salivating over the prospect of Hillary Clinton being the nominee, as it's the best shot at unifying their party.   Obama's a big problem for them, because many Republicans LIKE him, even if they disagree with him ideologically.

Hillary Clinton's prior electoral experience suggests that her negatives have reached her highest and when she starts actually campaigning in a hostile general election environment, she does well.

Hillary Clinton's approval ratings in upstate NY are at over 50%, I believe. They were much lower when she began her quest for a Senate seat back in 1999.

For those of you unfamiliar with this region of the country, upstate New York is a very conservative, Republican area -- small town rural and Reegan Democrats in the dying industrial cities of Utica, Syracuse, Binghamton and Buffalo, as compared to the liberal, elitist enclave that New York is typically stereotyped as.

That is why I believe her negative, as you see them in polls today, will go down over the course of the campaign.

You can agree with that or not, but it is not like I am just spouting an opinion here without something to back it up.

I think Peggy Noonan says it best in her column in the Wall Street Journal...

Mrs. Clinton is stoking the idea that Mr. Obama is too soft to withstand the dread Republican attack machine. (I nod in tribute to all Democrats who have succeeded in removing the phrase "Republican and Democratic attack machines" from the political lexicon. Both parties have them.) But Mr. Obama will not be easy for Republicans to attack. He will be hard to get at, hard to address. There are many reasons, but a primary one is that the fact of his race will freeze them. No one, no candidate, no party, no heavy-breathing consultant, will want to cross any line--lines that have never been drawn, that are sure to be shifting and not always visible--in approaching the first major-party African-American nominee for president of the United States.

He is the brilliant young black man as American dream. No consultant, no matter how opportunistic and hungry, will think it easy--or professionally desirable--to take him down in a low manner. If anything, they've learned from the Clintons in South Carolina what that gets you. (I add that yes, there are always freelance mental cases, who exist on both sides and are empowered by modern technology. They'll make their YouTubes. But the mad are ever with us, and this year their work will likely stay subterranean.)

With Mr. Obama the campaign will be about issues. "He'll raise your taxes." He will, and I suspect Americans may vote for him anyway. But the race won't go low.

Mrs. Clinton would be easier for Republicans. With her cavalcade of scandals, they'd be delighted to go at her. They'd get medals for it. Consultants would get rich on it.

The Democrats have it exactly wrong. Hillary is the easier candidate, Mr. Obama the tougher. Hillary brings negative; it's fair to hit her back with negative. Mr. Obama brings hope, and speaks of a better way. He's not Bambi, he's bulletproof.

The deal with the adjoining property and the slimy real estate developer (is that a redundancy)? Obama has admitted it was a "boneheaded" move and gave back the guy's donations. He said he was wrong and made a mistake. Kinda refreshing. Your turn, Senator Clinton. No? Umm, Senator McCain, there's this savings and loan thing, the Keating Five ...

Smoking pot when he was a teenager? He's admitted he did what surely a vast majority of his fellow citizens did and do. Nobody gives a rat's ass. What, Rush Limbaugh's going to say something?

That he's a congregant at a robustly Christian church in Chicago whose thing is black spiritual empowerment? Let's see how many judgmental angels dance on the head of that particular pin. Actually, it is on a point like this that some real victories are about to be won. Nurtured these last few years by the incubating lights of the GOP's 'big tent', practitioners of some of America's more moronic tendencies are, by definition, dumb enough to try casting aspersions on how and where someone practices their faith. Bring it on.

The emails pushing the urban myths about the poodle exploding in the microwave and, oh, that one about a U.S. Senator from Illinois secretly being a deep cover al-Qaeda agent? Once again, bring it on. The deevolutionaries are overdue their smackdown.

That's it?

see here.

Obama performs approximately 6 points better than Clinton against McCain in the general election.  If that's not an "electability" argument right there, I don't know what is.

if it's Obama and McCain, I think more independent votes will go to Obama, which will probably be the difference in not just battleground states but the electorate in general.

Independents, who likely will go much more for Barack than for Hillary against McCain.

I would imagine that if Obama gets the nomination he will drop a bit after the skeletons, mud, and GOP knives come out. Still, this is a good trend.

I would like to see both Democrats polling well against McCain.  After all there is a fair chance that it will be Hillary who will be the nominee even if people may not want to entertain that idea.

That said I am glad at least Obama is pulling strongly.  It would be very discourageing to see both Obama and Clinton trailing badly against McCain (especially after seeing John Edwards polling so well against McCain just over one month ago.)

Today's Rasmussen poll has the general election: McCain 46% Clinton 43% and McCain 42% Obama 47%

http://rasmussenreports.com/pu...

Obama beats McCain by a few points, Hillary loses to McCain by a few points.

On average, McCain beats Hillary.  On average, Obama beats McCain.  How difficult is this?

Hillary v McCain
http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

Obama v McCain
http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

This isn't a one time thing.  This is a trend.  As people learn more about Obama, they side with him over both Clinton and McCain.  My belief is that they can't learn anything new about Hillary: only remember bad things.

Obama wins independents in far greater numbers than Clinton does.  That's the key against McCain in the general election.  The question is, do Democrats want to win or not?  If they do, they'll nominate Barack Obama.

I'm going to say that while I think these polls are accurately reflecting the electorate today (snapshot in time and all that), their predictive value is limited, and then I'm going to stop challenging this contention in the future.

We just disagree on this matter.