Clinton crushes McCain in Massachusetts, Obama leads McCain by only 7 in bluest state

[jackson_dem]

Yes. Vote for Obama, put the bluest state in the nation in play. HOPE AND CHANGE!

Massachusetts is worth 13 electoral votes. This shouldn't even need to be said but ever since one wing of our party adopted the rethug myth the obvious must be stated: not all states are the same size.

-snip-

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in Massachusetts shows Hillary Clinton leading John McCain 54% to 39%. However, if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee, the race is more competitive—Obama 49% McCain 42%.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/massachusetts/massachusetts_2008_presidential_election

[cali]

1. So what?

Obama leads and that lead will continue to grow. Anyone who thinks McCain would beat Obama there is an idiot. Pathetic attempt.

[fascisthunter]

3. second that (nt)

[LulaMay]

46. It's called the GE, that's what.

[jackson_dem]

2. To ignored: who needs Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, NJ, and Mass.?

We have Idaho and North Dakota! 3 electoral votes each baby!

[Life Long Dem]

8. Put me on ignore also, because I agree with cali

[Coexist]

12. me too!

[jackson_dem]

24. You don't post like cali, neither does FLDem

[cali]

9. bwahahaha

wtf is the point of putting someone on ignore if you feel compelled to respond? As I said pathetic- from the most Orwellian, stick his head in the sand poster on DU.

[Life Long Dem]

13. I think he/she is watching.

:hide:

[Starbucks Anarchist]

15. Who needs Wisconsin, D.C., Vermont, Washington and Illinois?

:eyes:

[Occam Bandage]

39. If you think we're losing Penn, MI, NJ, and Mass., you're a joke. We'll probably win OH. Neither

will win FL.

[Pryderi]

4. So Hillary's going to run as a 3rd party candidate?

[rodeodance]

28. No---But there ARE petitions on the web for BO 3rd party candidacy!!

[angie_love]

5. Thats great news b/c a month ago he was only up by 2 in Gramps matchup

[jackson_dem]

14. That is progress but this isn't the first poll or first firm to show Obama putting Mass. in play

Money used to retain MA=money that can't be used in FL, OH, PA, and MI.

[yardwork]

43. Mass is not going to support McCain in the general election.

As usual, you are comparing apples and oranges. Just because Hillary won MA in the primary does not mean that Obama will lose to a Republican there in the General Election.

[VolcanoJen]

6. Hillary's leading Massachusetts by 15 points over McCain?

That's good... but, you know John Kerry won it in 2004 by 25 points. It was his home state, of course.

Al Gore, who is from the south, won Massachusetts by 27 points in 2000.

So if you're saying Hillary is winning by 15 and Obama by 7, I think the more interesting question here is, what the hell is going on in Massachusetts that Democratic presidential candidates including the most famous woman in America, Hillary Clinton, have lost their huge edge there?

[democrattotheend]

7. Even Clinton is leading by less than Gore won the state by in 2000

Gore got 59% in 2000. Kind of strange...I guess more people are open to McCain. I'm not comparing 2004 for obvious reasons.

Obama's had a rough week...it's reflected in the polls everywhere. Let's see if he can bounce back. At this point, these polls all reflect the same thing...that it's been a rough week.

[jackson_dem]

16. 19 is enough to not waste money in the bluest state

Obama can't win the big purple states of FL, OH, PA, and MI and would cough up big blue states like NJ and MA. Colorado and Iowa aren't enough to make up for the loss of these big states.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cali]

22. it can't

it's desperately afraid. It simply sticks it's head in the sand.

[rodeodance]

26. Name-calling is so IMMATURE

[NJSecularist]

10. Unbelievably dishonest

Massachusetts consists of 40% Democrat and 45% independent. Only 15% Republicans. To think that any Republican will win this state is just delusional, plain and simple..

[cali]

11. It's pure desperation

nothing more, nothing less. McCain has as much of a chance of winning MA as he does VT- in other words, none.

[blm]

17. That's silly - Mass is NOT going for McCain, no matter what. You forget that McCain has YET

to become the focus of the attacks - and when Obama concentrates on tying Bush and McCain togather, it is quite likely he'll have a huge lead on McCain there by the time of the debates.

Some of you are just so silly the way you hang your hats on polls now - as if you never went through an election before.

[VolcanoJen]

21. I can play prediction games too.

Seriously, is this, like, everyone's first presidential election or something? Isn't it a little maddening?

The obsession with daily tracking polls is maddening. Daily polls reflect one thing: the mood of the voter the day they were taken.

So, since it's apparently the OP's first presidential election, allow me to point out what's going to happen, since I've seen a few of these things before.

Polls in March = meaningless, for entertainment value only.

August after Convention = Democratic nominee (Obama) gets huge bounce in the polls. I have this feeling, I dunno, that he might give a really good speech and that more Americans watch the nomination speeches than any political event save for the presidential debates. And that speech is going to make a lot of Americans feel pretty good about this Barack Obama character. And he's going to leapfrog McCain in the polls, for reasons of change, age, hope, issues, what have you.

October = gas $4.50 to $5.00 a gallon, foreclosures and bankruptcies skyrocket, Iraq war is unending. Obama/McCain debates begin (they'll probably have three). America looks at this young, tall man of superior intellect standing next to a kind of short, older man with a bit of a brusque temper. America starts thinking, "Hmmm. You mean I get a third chance to vote against Bush? McCain is McSame. Obama sounds good to me. And Democrats really are way better on the economy."

I'm thinking of those debates in October, and I'm having that flashback of Bill Clinton just commanding that audience while Poppy Bush looked at his watch. During those debates we all could look at each other and say, "Wow. Next president, right there. He's gonna win."

So, predicting the outcome of November elections in March? I can do it without consulting a single poll. :-)

[biglefthander]

23. McCain isnt the focus of attack because...

Hillary insists on flogging this primary to death despite no chance that a reasonable person would accept given the obvious damage to the party brand this campaign is doing. Hillary is simply trying to destroy Obama's general election capabilities because that is her only--and still highly unlikely--path to the nomination.

It is the great misfortune of the party that the Clintons had to run again in a year that is so important for the future of America. If she gets out after Pennsylvania I might be able to forgive them someday.

[tiki161]

36. The media will not make McCain the focus of the attacks

History is an indicator thet they will gang up on the Democrat--Obama or Hillary.

[blm]

42. Sure - but our side has yet to unleash 100's of millions of dollars in ads tying Bush-McCain

into love knots. And Obama will have something neither Gore or Kerry had - a FUNCTIONING DNC that is working in EVERY STATE.

Bush is a LIABILITY now post Schiavo, postKatrina.

And McCain is a LOUSY debater on the issues and goofs up ALOT. And he won't have the RNC nearly as devoted to protecting him as Bush did.

[Armstead]

19. Unless the racists prevail in Massachusetts either candidate will win

When push comes to shove, Massachusetts will follow its tradition of going for the Democratic candidate.

The only thing that MIGHT change that is if the racist contingent in our state lets their bigotry override their common sense. If that happens, then it's not worth winning because we will have become certifiably insane.

[jackson_dem]

25. The point is with Obama we will have to waste money in Mass.

That hurts us in real battleground states.

Racism isn't an issue in Mass. It is one of only three states with a minority governor. Obama is doing worse there than Hillary, both in the general and primaries, because they already heard Axlerod's "hope and change" BS and know it doesn't live up to the hype.

[bicentennial_baby]

29. I wouldn't say that racism isn't an issue in MA, because to some degree

it certainly is. I have no false illusions about my state, which I have lived in for nearly all of my 31 years. Hell, I have racist family members here.

That being said, I have no doubt that Obama can beat McCrazy resoundingly in MA, and I don't think he'll have to spend that much more $ here. His ground game is excellent, and I will be one of thousands of volunteers wokring my ass off to get him elected.

And stepping out of my partisan suit for just a moment, I don't think head to head polls are really indicative of much at this point, I'd give them much more credence once we have our nominee and the two parties are actually battling it out.

Just my .02

[Armstead]

34. It is an issue in Massachusetts

Although it is a solid liberal Democratic state in many ways, there is also a paradoxical and unfortunate strain of racism in urban Massachusetts....Don't forget the worst anti-bussing stuff occurred in the Boston area.

The only way any Democrat will lose Massachusetts is if that racism overcomes the state's liberalism.

(Please note that I am not equating Hillary's strength here with racism. I am referring to those voters who would choose to vote for McCain over an African American Democrat based on race.)

[jackson_dem]

35. Relatively speaking it is low in Mass. compared to the other states

If we think it is going to be a big factor in a state that elected the first black senator and has a black governor how much will it be a factor elsewhere? Wasn't Rendell crucified for saying it would be a factor in PA?

I have no illusion that Obama would lose Mass. The problem is if it stays close and valuable resources are wasted there instead of being spent on rethug turf and battlegrounds.

[Armstead]

37. Wouldn't need that much resources -- And it wouldn't be bad if...

the Democrats actually did pay a little bit of attention to Massachusetts for a change.

[bicentennial_baby]

41. Word! And one of the reasons Patrick won so handily, other than

Healey being so lame and Mihos sucking votes from her, is that Patrick really paid attention to the entire state, kinda like a micro-50 state strategy. Especially rural NW MA. As my brother said "He came to Heath! A town hall meeting in Heath!" :o

For those that don't know, Heath is a teeny town in the middle of nowhere with a lily white pop. of approx. 800.

[susankh4]

20. Thanks!

K & R.

[rodeodance]

27. Thanks

[rodeodance]

30. REC

[rodeodance]

31. ****Rasmussen Reports: 3/20/08: West Virginia: Clinton 55% Obama 27%

x-posted

Rasmussen Reports: 3/20/08: West Virginia: Clinton 55% Obama 27%
Thu Mar-20-08 08:51 AM

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/west_virginia/west_virginia_democratic_presidential_primary

Thursday, March 20, 2008
Advertisment

Looking down the road to May 13, Senator Hillary Clinton holds a huge lead over Senator Barack Obama in the West Virginia Presidential Primary. The first Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of the race shows that Clinton attracts 55% of the Likely Democratic Primary Voters while Obama is supported by 27%. Eighteen percent (18%) are not sure.

Clinton is viewed favorably by 72% of West Virginia’s Primary Voters, Obama by 53%.

By a 48% to 31% margin, the West Virginia voters believe Clinton will be the stronger general election candidate against John McCain. However, by a 47% to 35% margin, they believe Obama will win the nomination. Even 32% of Clinton voters expect Obama to be the Democratic nominee in 2008.

If Obama is nominated, just 42% of Clinton supporters say they are even somewhat likely to vote for him against McCain. Eighteen percent (18%) of Clinton voters say that they are Not Very Likely to vote for Obama and 35% say they are Not at All Likely to vote for Obama.

On the other hand, if Clinton is nominated, 57% of Obama voters are at least somewhat likely to vote for the former First Lady. ...

MORE AT LINK ABOVE.

[SoCalDem]

32. Freeper pollsters would pump that number

they WANT to run against HRC.,. Republicans are great at Briar Patch politics:)

I suggest you look at the AVERAGES of all the pollsters before you get all sweaty & excited

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_primaries.html

[Alter Ego]

33. Next you'll be telling us that she wins RI

so therefore she MUST be the nominee!

Newsflash: If she's not the nominee, it does not mean that we cannot win traditionally Democratic states. Please try to understand this. Blue states are not suddenly going to pop red because *gasp* a Clinton is not heading the ticket.

[Upton]

38. I thought only the big states mattered?

[jackson_dem]

44. 13 electoral votes is big. That's good enough for 11th or 12th in the electoral vote count

[book_worm]

40. Jackson, any polls done during the height of the Wright controversy are suspect imo

for all the negative publicity that Obama was getting. I'll wait and see how things are a week or so from now.
p.s.
Obama will win MA handily in November.

[jackson_dem]

45. He was up by only 2 in the last Mass. poll by this firm. He actually went up

He's never been strong in Mass, probably because the people of that state already heard the Axlerod spiel before.

[LulaMay]

47. GO Hillary!