Real Clear Politics Average of 6 Most Recent National Polls: Obama +7.5

[tekisui]

With two polls now going to Obama with double digit leads: LAT at +12, and Bloomberg at +15.

Check out the graph or the polling average since Jan. 1.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

[phrigndumass]

1. That LA Times poll had numbers for Nader and Barr :)

This might be a repeat of 1996 after all, if we combine Nader and Barr into one candidate: Naderbarr :7

Obama 48, McCain 33, Nader 4, Barr 3 (or ... Naderbarr 7)

Naderbarr has the support of about one-fifth of McCain's support and one-seventh of Obama's support.

K/R

[karynnj]

3. Why combine them?

I think that we need them separate. Nader being at 4% is troublesome as it is near the range that he actually got against Gore. In 2004, by election time, Nader was around 1% or less. I suspect that as in 2004, many now saying Nader will move to the Democrat.

It does suggest that we need to counter the primary induced meme that Obama was more a centrist than other candidates. Obama's background as a community organizer and his record - that is far more progressive than Edwards' was - should be enough to get many potential Nader voters to see him as the only viable alternative to McCain, even if they do it holding their noses. It would be great if Obama could hold Nader to 2004 like numbers.

Barr is the mirror image of this - and though it helps us, just hoping he gains steam is the best we can do.

[phrigndumass]

4. For statistical purposes only, to compare it to Perot's 8% take in 1996

I'm not proposing a Barr/Nader ticket, lol

Yep, they're better separate.

[karynnj]

5. I understood that

I do realize that Perot took from both sides - as he really didn't completely fit on the typical left/right spectrum. I do agree that the potential level could (in total) end up about the same.

The reason is questioned it, is that the dynamics are different. I may be biased because I am a moderate/liberal (Kerry is the nominee I agreed with more than any since McGovern), but I really think that many people now unhappy with Obama saying Nader will move to Obama - because the difference from where McCain and Obama really are is huge. In 2004, Nader did not make as whole hearted a case against Kerry as he had done in 2000 against Gore. He is too egotistical for me to believe that it was due to the awareness that he was both wrong and instrumental in the Bush win. I think there was something to the fact that he had admired Kerry for 1971 and later anti-corruption efforts. Even more importantly, voters learned a hard lesson in 2000, that equating Bush and Gore and voting a protest vote led to very bad results.

The Republicans have not personally had this lesson. In fact, I heard one radio conservative touting the Reagan/Ford example - saying that because Reagan after losing to Ford was lukewarm in his support of Ford - led to Ford's lost to Carter and the 4 year later triumph of conservatism. I hope others pick that up - because it implicitly equates McCain with Ford, for whom they have little affection, and the message is that by waiting you really win. (Your side of the party dominates rather than having someone with your label that you don't like for 4 or 8 years - making your subgroup weaker than if the Democrats won.)

[Cali_Democrat]

2. w00t

:bounce: