Why McCain is tied with Hillary and Obama in the polls ??

[kentuck]

People scratch their heads. Why is it that the Democrats win by a huge majority on all the major issues, the war, the economy, fiscal responsibility? Yet they are tied with McCain in the national polls? No one has really looked deeply into this question. However, it is a quite simple explanation.

Some polls show that 26% of Hillary voters would not vote for Obama in the General Election while 22% of Obama supporters would not vote for Hillary. So when you poll Hillary against McCain, those Democrats that say they would not support Hillary would need to be factored into the polls. Likewise, with Obama. These two Democrats split the polls while McCain is standing alone as the Republican nominee. Yet, both of them are tied with McCain, the pollsters say. I htink these polls that show McCain tied with Hillary and Obama are meaningless until there is a head to head matchup between the Democrat and the Republican. Explain where I am wrong with this reasoning?

[Saturday]

1. I would think it was already factored in.

If only 2 candidates are named in the poll I don't understand what the non(anti) voters have to do with it? But, I agree, all the polls are useless.

[kentuck]

2. If McCain was still running against Mitt Romney..?

I doubt that he would do as well in the polls? I would think 2 candidates running would take away support in the polls for either Party? McCain is running alone.

[Me.]

3. Because He Has Largely Been Given A Pass By Both The Media & The Dems

He is hardly ever confronted about his gaffes, his flip flops or his policies. So far thia election cycle has been a skate for him. He is where our focus needs to be.

[kentuck]

4. It doesn't compute that on all the major issues....

McCain loses big. Yet, in a head-to-head with Hillary and Obama, he is tied with them? What would it be if he were running against just one of them. The Democrats are divided at this time. That would have to reflect in the polls also.

[Me.]

7. Agree About The Computations Being Off

One 'pundit' suggested this morning that the reason for that is people think, oh he doesn't really mean it, he's just doing it to get the base. Another form of insanity on so many different levels. Another thing suggested is that he comes off as the maverick, the fighter, and all that bs nonsense, but it plays to his advantage.

He didn't fight for his family when they were viciously smeared in SC. He's even hugged the guy responsible for it.

I suspect that there is a disconnect at the moment and it goes back to my immediate premise, the media and the dems. we need someone out there saying, "yeah, but...".

One more thing, the more pressure put on him and the more questions asked will bring out that nasty little temper of his. Not a pretty thing to see.

[still_one]

5. Any Clinton OR Obama supporter who WON'T support the Democratic nominee over mccain

are irresponsible idiots, and obviously DO NOT care about the Supreme Court, Civil Rights, the Iraq War, Social Security, Medicare, jobs, environment, etc. etc. etc.

They can go to hell for STUPIDITY, and having no idea what mccain's voting record is, and why he must be stopped at all cost

My personal view is that when the actual nominee is chosen, 99% of those who are supporting the Democratic nominee will vote for the Democratic nominee, even though they may not be happy about doing it. The alternative is far worse

[Awsi Dooger]

6. Default to the big picture

Those polls on switched allegiance if Hillary isn't the nominee, or Obama isn't the nominee, are short term frustration, desperate to make a point. Toss them. It's a 50/50 nation in federal terms, particularly at the presidential level. In '06 we won via surreal independent percentage, but that won't transfer to a presidential race. A second term midterm is a decisive situational edge. An open race after 8 years of the other side in charge is merely a slight situational edge.

Bush won't be on the ballot as a specific target of outrage, and Democrats in control of Congress but without obvious benefit naturally siphons away some of the benefit of a doubt swing voters, the independents who toppled our way in '06.

Plus, let's face it, when we nominate a never-never land candidate like first black or first woman we more or less challenge the electorate to dismiss any unease it may have, and not everyone is up to a challenge.

This will be very tight, regardless when we exit the primary, or how.

[kentuck]

8. But I think there are a lot of discouraged Republicans...

and Independents, that will not vote Republican again. They may even be bitter. :-)

[Awsi Dooger]

9. No doubt there's some truth to that

Even the bitter part. :)

Self-described Democrats have risen since '04, and self-described Republicans have trended downward. Encouraging, but that may be due to embarrassment at Bush and his regime, as opposed to a true shift. Some states like Virginia and Colorado are distinctly trending our way in demographic terms, but other states like Ohio appear to simply be leaning more Democratic based on short term disgust with the GOP. That's not foundational.

The most vital polling is percentage of self-described liberals and conservatives. If we make a dent there it tends to transfer cycle to cycle. Lately there's been a tiny move in our favor but only about a point. Very interesting to see how that plays out in November, particularly since we're apparently going to nominate the more liberal candidate. Swing states by definition are about 20% liberal and 32% conservative. That's the reality Obama faces.

[PseudoIntellect]

10. Whenever someone being interviewed on FOX News tries to scrutinize McCain,

the reporter IMMEDIATELY changes the subject or talks over them. It's hilarious, but also frustrating.

[bain_sidhe]

11. We really need to address this

McCentury should be at bushapproval levels, not tied with either of our candidates.

I'm not happy with Clinton's exploitation of Obama's remarks--as he acknowledged, it wasn't the best way to say it, but it's essentially true--but even given that, she would be a far better president than McSame.

How can we get people to see that no matter your dislike of one or the other of our candidates, there's NO WAY they wouldn't be better than another Publican president? If only for the Supreme Court and other judicial nominees. Not to mention all the regulatory agencies and cabinet posts. Imagine all those posts in the executive branch filled with Democrats, instead of Publicans.

Isn't that worth a little angst while pulling the lever?

**oops. Speeeeeling errrrrrrror**