the truth about the Clinton's "popularity"

[fuzzy otter pop]

quoted from the Las Vegas gleaner:

"Rasmussen polls Nevada, finds McCan't beating the Clintons 49 to 40, but Obama thumps McCan't 50 to 38. (gracias, as they say in Clinton HQ, to Ralston's Flash for the notice). From the pollster's commentary:

Nationally, Obama outperforms Clinton in general election match-ups against McCain. However, the gap is not as large nationally as it is in Nevada. A similar dynamic was found in New Hampshire and Colorado. Clinton and Obama are essentially even with McCain in Missouri.

When matched against Clinton in Nevada, McCain enjoys a seven-point lead among unaffiliated voters. However, among those same voters, Obama leads McCain by thirty-two points.

Not only that, McCain leads Clinton 76% to 11% among Republicans. However, when matched against Obama, his advantage with the GOP faithful is only 63% to 25%.

Obama is viewed favorably by 59% of Nevada voters and unfavorably by 38%. McCain earns favorable reviews from 45% and unfavorable assessments from 53%. Clinton’s numbers are 41% favorable and 59% unfavorable.

As Rory Reid or any other good little Hillbot (along with assorted smarty-boots either of the genuine or would-be variety and their cult of personality preference notwithstanding) will no doubt blurt to anyone who will listen, all the polls this far out suck, so there.

Besides (Rory and the 'Bots might add), no matter what the polls say, everybody knows that the Clintons deserve the nomination because they are magnificently battle-tested and tough campaigners (the "experience to lead" ... a campaign!) possessed of superior strategy and tactics. Why, the Clintons' fabulous political skills would have taken that young whippersnapper Obama right out of the contest on Feb. 5 if not for ... um ... well ... something."

Obama, by contrast, remains an untested commodity able only a) to inspire voters in a way the nation hasn't seen in 40 years, and b) to first withstand and then take the lead from the people who are generally renowned for being the best campaigners in the Democratic Party in the last 40 years. And why on earth would the Democrats want to nominate somebody like that?"

http://www.lasvegasgleaner.com/las_vegas_gleaner/2008/02/by-all-means-le.html

[TexasObserver]

1. If our party fails to nominate Obama, it has lost its damn mind.

I've waited a lifetime for another candidate as good as Bobby Kennedy. He's here, and we won't see another this great for a long time if we pass him up for someone who can't carry over 15 states.

[NMMatt]

2. Exactly

It is good to see someone else who has been through a few of these and has not been completely lost to cynicism. I have not been around nearly as long as you, but I agree completely. This is a once in a generation opportunity. I have faith in my fellow Democrats to come around, some kicking and screaming, but all of us celebrating in November.

[lligrd]

3. Advice To Hillary Fans - It Is Over - Admit It & Move On

I used to love her too but I got over it. You can do it. It is an abusive relationship. She votes against your best interests and everything you hold dear and yet you keep supporting her. There will be another woman you can support. We have plenty of good ones, Boxer for one. Let this one go and move on.

[karynnj]

12. It is not over yet, though it may be soon. Until then she has the right to run

I support Obama and before that supported Kerry. I hated the comments made 2 years ago that she was inevitable and that everyone else should just admit it. Obama is in a good place to possibly win, but he hasn't won yet. Rather than insist on a victory not yet achieved, we need to work for it.

[katmondoo]

4. McCain is a pathetic old man

No way is he going to beat either Obama or Hillary.I have been disappointed in the American people many times but to put another Bush type in charge is just not going to happen. It would mean all the present warmongers will again be in charge with Cheney in the Cabinet as advisor. God, that thought is enough to make anyone sick.

[TexasObserver]

10. Yes, he is pathetic, but don't kid yourself. He could beat Hillary.

She cannot win any state Kerry didn't win. In fact, she would win fewer than he did.

[Tesha]

13. And George Bush will never defeat John Kerry. (NT)

[Perry Logan]

5. Let's see what people think of Obama after fifteen years of incontinent slander.

[Skidmore]

6. You know, the Clintons brought some of that on themselves.

They were not entirely without blame in the way they have conducted themselves, and we are seeing more of that self-absorbed tone deafness in Hillary's campaign. I'm not one to excuse people in my own party while lobbing grenades at the other party for similar behavior. Doesn't fly. These people are not as pure as the driven snow.

[Perry Logan]

7. It's the Clintons' fault? I sure never heard THAT one before.

[Skidmore]

9. Some of it is.

My opinion, and I'm certain others share it. Yep, other Dems so don't even go down that road.

[Tesha]

15. "I did not have sex with that woman!" (NT)

[lligrd]

8. Incontinent Slander?? Good Grief, Where Do You Guys

come up with these ridiculous terms? And to think Rove has been slaving away to come up with dribble like this while you guys had it all along. Is that anything like the flatulent rhetoric Clinton has been spewing for these last 7 years?

[pretzel4gore]

11. the terms perfect our existence, in understand-ability

flatulent rhetoric? that's 'rush limbah, the concept'....

[Tesha]

14. Doesn't matter; we're electing him now, not in 2023. Hillary's done. (NT)

[Renew Deal]

16. Nevada and NH have buyers remorse.

I don't blame them. Someone posted that Obama and McCain would redraw the map because of their unique appeal. I think Obama will also redraw the map because he'll run everywhere.

[K Gardner]

17. Wow.. what happened with those NH/NV poll numbers? That

makes no sense to me. They voted for her then but they don't like her now? Interesting indeed.

[Renew Deal]

18. NH voted for McCain in 2000

and voted for Bush in the GE. Figure that one out.

[NashVegas]

19. The Truth About Early Polls - They're Worthless

Polls only measure the persuasions of people who've already made up their minds who they will vote for.