Poll: McCain bests either Obama, Clinton

[Bono]

www.newsdaily.com/TopNews/UPI-1-20080227-13404700-bc-us-politics-timespoll.xml

Poll: McCain bests either Obama, Clinton

LOS ANGELES, Feb. 27 (UPI) -- Republican presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain appears to be the one to beat in the November U.S. general election, no matter his opponent, a poll indicated.

About half of the registered voters surveyed indicated they preferred the Arizona Republican as the person more capable of addressing the war in Iraq, the latest Los Angeles Times-Bloomberg poll released Wednesday.

Both Democratic hopefuls -- Barack Obama of Illinois and Hillary Clinton of New York -- have made the war a focal point of their campaigns. Poll respondents gave McCain higher marks than either of the two Democratic senators on issues of experience, fighting terrorism and dealing with Iraq.

In head-to-head contests, the poll found McCain holding a 46 percent-to-40 percent edge over Clinton and a 44 percent-to-42 percent edge over Obama.

The survey of 1,246 registered voters was conducted Feb. 21-25 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

In the Democratic race, the survey showed Obama holding a 48 percent-to-42 percent advantage over Clinton among Democratic primary voters nationally, a major turnaround since his double-digit deficit in 2007.

Copyright 2008 by United Press International. All Rights Reserved.


Now this is the kind of 'change' I like.

[Eraserhead]

lol LA Times.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

lol LA Times.

[Sam Spade]

The LA Times poll is a junk poll (like CBS).

Though if said something positive, it would be trumpeted around here.

[Eleden]

The LA Times poll is a junk poll (like CBS).

Though if said something positive, it would be trumpeted around here.

Obviously.  This forum is Hack City, USA. 

Survey USA could come out with a poll showing Obama with a 50 point lead and it still wouldn't matter... it's too early for any poll to really mean much. 

[Duke 🇺🇸]

This poll would only be accurate if Obama was leading.

[MODU]

Polls are only worth the paper they are written on.  Take them for what they are.

[Speed of Sound]

This poll would only be accurate if Obama was leading.

Hah! Coming from a hack like you? There is only one man on this forum that would truly complain if the forum was biased towards the candidate they prefer, and that is Sam Spade. The almost everyone else is as much a hack as the next.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

Sam Spade and Al are the only people who don't engage in hackery here. So if they say a poll is crap, listen to them.

[Speed of Sound]

Sam Spade and Al are the only people who don't engage in hackery here. So if they say a poll is crap, listen to them.

Al? Al?!?!?! Please! Outside of this part of the forum maybe, but here he is possibly the biggest anti-Obama hack around. Sam Spade Ill give ya, but certainly not Al.

[Bay Ridge, Bklyn! Born and Bred]

It's going to be an uphill battle for Obama.  Most Americans will simply not trust an inexperienced black liberal senator with the White House.   Especially one with such a huge following amongst the young.   

God, how I wish Evan Bayh or Mark Warner would have stuck through the race.

[Democratic Hawk]

Any one would think this was the first time, McCain was ahead of Obama and Clinton in head-to-head matchups. Surprising as it may seem, it isn't. The situation, if anything, is rather fluid

Dave

[NHPolitico]

Nonsense. Giuliani will defeat Hillary in November.  Also, Dukakis will beat GHWB and Kerry will beat GWB.

General election polls this far away are worthless.

[Eraserhead]

Sam Spade and Al are the only people who don't engage in hackery here. So if they say a poll is crap, listen to them.

Al? Al?!?!?! Please! Outside of this part of the forum maybe, but here he is possibly the biggest anti-Obama hack around. Sam Spade Ill give ya, but certainly not Al.

They have both had hackish moments. I doubt there is anyone on this forum who hasn't had a hackish moment or two (or eight).

[Flying Dog]

It's going to be an uphill battle for Obama.  Most Americans will simply not trust an inexperienced black liberal senator with the White House.   Especially one with such a huge following amongst the young.   

God, how I wish Evan Bayh or Mark Warner would have stuck through the race.

Same argument made when he entered the race a year ago about winning the primary.

[Democratic Hawk]

From the article:

Even though McCain has joked about his lack of expertise on economic issues, voters picked him over Obama, 42% to 34%, as being best able to handle the economy.

Clinton leads McCain 43 to 34 on the economy

This finding is corroborated by Rasmussen too; 45% of voters prefer McCain on the economy to Obama's 39%; where they even favor McCain on taxes by 42% to 37%

And this is the same man, who opposed the Bush tax cuts for much the same reason as Democrats only to later say that he opposed them because they were not accompanied by cuts in spending. Indeed, the same man maintains that he was right to oppose them, though he now favors extending them but would still have voted against them, at the time

There is no consistency, whatsoever, from the Straight Talk Express on taxes

I'd be voting Democratic in November on the economy and taxes alone given that the average American family is $1000 worse off on eight years ago. I seem to recall Clinton saying that in one of the Democratic debates

Dave

[Lincoln Republican]

When it comes right down to it, I believe that McCain will be elected President in November.

In the final analysis, voters will choose McCain's experience over some vague rhetoric of change and hope from Obama.

The voters will not put the security of the nation into the hands of Obama, an untested first term  very liberal young Senator who is, unquestionably, a great orator, but as well is woefully unprepared to navigate the ship of state through the turbulent and treacherous waters that lie ahead.  

[NDN]

Riiiight.

Even though on virtually every issue, the public thinks the GOP is incompetent or out of touch on. And guess what? McCain is running as a party line Republican this time. But whatever, go back to your usual hackery.

[Democratic Hawk]

It's going to be an uphill battle for Obama.  Most Americans will simply not trust an inexperienced black liberal senator with the White House.   Especially one with such a huge following amongst the young.   

God, how I wish Evan Bayh or Mark Warner would have stuck through the race.

Same argument made when he entered the race a year ago about winning the primary.

Of course, Obama is just running on words and hope and he's too liberal to win. I kind of recall the same thing being said about Reagan, only he was too conservative to win. America is in much the same pits now as it was back in 1980. Of course, Reagan was a former governor of California; but Obama is still pretty much a fresh face on Capitol Hill. He certainly hasn't been there long enough to get 'Washingtonized' to the extent Clinton and McCain have

Dave

[TheresNoMoney]

Even though on virtually every issue, the public thinks the GOP is incompetent or out of touch on. And guess what? McCain is running as a party line Republican this time.

That's true, but no one knows that. The guy has always gotten a completely free pass from the media, and I expect that to continue.

For the Obama campaign to win, they really need to nighlight McCain's many similarities to Bush. They will need to be aggressive. If the race were tomorrow, McCain would win.

[angus]

In head-to-head contests, the poll found McCain holding a 46 percent-to-40 percent edge over Clinton and a 44 percent-to-42 percent edge over Obama.  The survey of 1,246 registered voters was conducted Feb. 21-25 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Three salient points are evident here.  No candidate is receiving a majority at this time.  Clinton loses to McCain.  Obama and McCain are within one another's margin of error.  This seems reasonable.

I wonder if this will be another year in which no candidate receives a majority of votes in November.  Since I have been old enough to vote, this has happened only twice.  Bush won 51% of the vote in 2004, and his father won 53% of the vote in 1988.  In 1992, 1996, and 2000 no candidate won a majority.  New articles, at the time, were comparing the period to the late 1800s, when a similar thing happened.  Weak candidates and general apathy were the reasons, according to most analyses.  It would seem that we have neither weak candidates nor voter apathy now, but we do have some rather unsavory candidates.  If there's a strong third party (or unaffiliated candidate) showing in November, no one may eek out at least 50%+1 of the popular vote. 

Not that it is a practical matter.  I'm sure either Obama or the eventual Democrat will win a majority of the 538 votes that count.  But it's interesting to ponder whether we're stuck in the phenomenon and 2004 was just a fluke, perhaps owing to national security concerns, or whether the weak candidate/voter apathy period was just a passing phase and we're out of it.

I suppose we'll find out in eight months.

[TheresNoMoney]

I'm sure either Obama or the eventual Democrat will win a majority of the 538 votes that count.

What makes you so certain? I would like to hear your argument here.

[Lincoln Republican]

Riiiight.

Even though on virtually every issue, the public thinks the GOP is incompetent or out of touch on. And guess what? McCain is running as a party line Republican this time. But whatever, go back to your usual hackery.

My statements are realistic.

It is actually your concluding sentence that is pure hackery.

[NDN]

It might be taken seriously by me if you didn't say something similarly dismissive of essentially every Democratic candidate.

[exopolitician]

From the article:

Even though McCain has joked about his lack of expertise on economic issues, voters picked him over Obama, 42% to 34%, as being best able to handle the economy.

What, do people think he'll blink his eyes and suddenly he'll be a mastermind of the economy and fix all our problems? Even I trust Clinton more on the Economy then this ole coot.