Herein lies the problem in the 2008 Dem primary...from LAT

[elizm]

New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton maintains a solid lead at 33%, followed by Illinois Sen. Barack Obama at 22%. Running third, with 15%, is former Vice President Al Gore, who continues to say he has no plans to seek the office he barely lost in 2000. Fourth is former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards at 8%.

Despite Clinton's lead, Obama is the strongest Democrat in hypothetical match-ups with Republicans in the general election, running even or well ahead of the GOP's top contenders.

Clinton, in a showing that could spark concerns among some Democrats, does not fare as well. Against Giuliani, for instance, the poll found she would lose by 10 percentage points.

General election match-ups:

Clinton 41%, McCain 45%
Clinton 41%, Romney 43%
Clinton 39%, Giuliani 49%
Edwards 40%, McCain 45%
Edwards 46%, Romney 32%
Edwards 46%, Giuliani 43%
Obama 47%, McCain 35%
Obama 50%, Romney 34%
Obama 46%, Giuliani 41%

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-poll12jun12,0,2870118.story?coll=la-home-center

[Buzz Clik]

1. Yeppers. It seems that, once again, the darling of the Dems doesn't play well elsewhere.

President Romney.

Has a ring to it, doesn't it? We need another vacuous, empty suit in the White House, so let's make sure it happens.

[Clark2008]

2. Except that we don't elect presidents nationally.

We elect them state-by-state.

I tend to discount this type of polling because it's not broken down by how many Electoral College votes we could garner out of any given state.

Sad to say but I don't think any of our front-runners can wrap up enough purple/red states to win at this point. This poll, as with others at this juncture, are only barometers and not actual weather stats.

[elizm]

5. I would imagine...

State by state general election match-ups would have the same results.....they just don't do those now. The 'concept' remains the same.

[wyldwolf]

3. As a post said on MyDD yesterday...

I think this is largely a factor of Clinton's near universal name recognition, which any Democratic nominee would have by the time voters decide the next President in November 2008, and thus it is not necessarily the case that Clinton would be a weaker general election candidate than either Edwards or Obama

Also, a poll from yesterday puts her ahead of the top three Republicans in head to head match-ups.

[flpoljunkie]

4. Not necessarily weaker? Clinton would unite the base-the Republican base-if she were the nominee...

while Barack Obama is the one who offers the best hope to unite the country.

Republican analysts think their best chance to win in 2008 is with Hillary as our nominee. We need to think long and hard about nominating Hillary Clinton as our standard bearer in 2008.

[MGKrebs]

7. Republican analysts may want that, but they only get one vote

just like the rest of us. They have unleashed and fed a right wing hate monster for the past 10 or 15 years that is now substantially out of their control. They want to try and put a leash on that thing now? Good luck. Not only that, but the Republican base isn't really the biggest problem anyway. Yes, the Repub base showing up would make her job more difficult, but I think she is clearly counting on attracting enough moderates and swing voters her way (who maybe only have a very general negative feeling about her but they aren't sure why) to overcome the repub base.

I think any candidate should assume that the Repubs will do almost anything to get their base to turn out. A Clinton nomination might make things a little easier for them, but we should assume that they will find a way no matter who the nominee is. They have shown no reservations to using the most divisive, ugly, criminal, vicious, and deadly tactics in the past. What makes us think they will stop now.

Disclaimer: Several assumptions in here for the purposes of argument that I do not necessarily believe:
1. The Repub analysts want Clinton.
2. A Clinton nomination would turn out the Repub base more than other things.
3. "Name recognition" shows up as positive for Clinton in polls.
4. "Name recognition" shows up as negative for Clinton in polls.

[wyldwolf]

8. no proof of what you say. Just banal Obama worship from you

[flpoljunkie]

9. The phrase "banal worship" is truly astounding coming from your lips.

[wyldwolf]

10. why, whatever do you mean? Can you show me one instance...

where I've made a statement about Clinton that I did not have stats or sources to back it up? Unlike the truthiness that floats out of the left's ass all day long.

[flpoljunkie]

11. ..."unlike the truthiness that floats out of the left's ass all day long." You have outted yourself.

Center right? I am proud to be a part of the Democratic left.

The truth about Hillary's candidacy does indeed, hurt.

[wyldwolf]

12. Not only did you dodge, divert, and spin from my question, but the fact remains...

... I have never been "hidden," so there is certainly nothing to "out," especially after 5.5 years on DU.

[flpoljunkie]

15. The truth can sometimes hurt. Hillary will unite the Republican base like no other Dem candidate.

[wyldwolf]

16. ...and then reply with utter irrelevancy.

[flpoljunkie]

22. That Hillary will unite the Republican base & we nominate her at our peril,couldn't be more relevant

[flpoljunkie]

13. The quote about Hillary uniting the Republican base came from David Gergen two days ago.

Gergen said this on Hardball. Check the transcripts.

Not only do Republican analysts say this, write this--it is pretty much obvious to anyone who understand the political process.

[wyldwolf]

18. so you not only quoted someone without attribution, you think someone else's opinion is "proof."

:rofl:

[flpoljunkie]

23. Gergen is not the only one who's said this-just the latest. It's obvious to all, but the Hillaries.

[Tejanocrat]

14. Well if a post on MyDD said it then it MUST be true. Let's skip right to the coronation!!!

[GeorgeGist]

6. For all those touting the necessity of political compromise to win the WH in 2008,

I assume you'll also exercise political compromise come the primaries.

[illinoisprogressive]

17. Clinton is very devisive and polarizing. No swing or indie will vote for her.

It' long been known she will unite the republicans against her.
hell, half her own party refuse to vote for her.

[wyldwolf]

19. yet, she lead Edwards and Obama in Independent voters... hmmm...

[illinoisprogressive]

20. actually she doesn't. most breakdowns show her in trouble with indies

And if i remember correctly, lieberman was leading in the polls before the primary.
she has much in common with lieberman

[wyldwolf]

21. actually, today's polling says she does

And if i remember correctly, lieberman was leading in the polls before the primary.
she has much in common with lieberman

Lieberman never led by this large a margin in national polls, state polls, and money raised.

[Totally Committed]

24. For Hillary Supporters: If this polling holds true through the primary,

and it looks as though she will be the nominee, but with another candidate doing better against the other side, do you think she is capable of doing the right thing for this country and this Party, and stepping aside, and endorsing the candidate that CAN win?

Are either of the Clintons able to be that selfless in the face of their raging ambition?

TC