Read other letters about this article

• Wednesday, February 20, 2008 01:25 AM

  @ JasonF: Every Objective Measure?

  Every objective measure that I've seen indicates that Senator Obama will be a stronger general election candidate than Senator Clinton, yet Clinton supporters often maintain the opposite without supporting evidence. Why?

  Obama's followers are paying far too much attention to these "measures" of electability. If you go back -- even to the 1980 GE between Carter and Reagan, Carter was favored and had a 10-point lead in polls; that eventually fell to 5-6 points, all the way up to election night. He lost...

  In 1984, Walter Mondale started out (even before the Democratic convention) with an 8-10 point lead over Reagan. It slipped to 4-5 points by the GE. He lost big - winning only his home state.

  In 1988, Michael Dukakis had a 16-point lead over Bush I. He lost points, which happens as elections tighten. He still led Bush going into the GE. Result? He lost.

  In 2004, John Kerry had a double-digit lead early in the campaign. He lost.

  These polls now mean very little. All polls -- but especially this early on -- are very misleading. Any poll, generally, can be very misleading unless you know the methodology, the questions, and the key demographics.

  More than this, however, is another factor. Few of these polls look seriously at battleground states (OH FL PA). Quinnipiac did a poll over the weekend of these very states that found something more in line with what Dems will likely face in November. It shows that McCain beats both HRC and BHO in these states by 2-4 points. Independents make no difference. Both HRC and BHO get between 34-36 percent of them; and white men make no difference. HRC and BHO get between 43-45 percent. This poll is far more accurate and represents far more realistically the truth than those being put out by MSM every other day/week.

  And, if you look at previous GE maps (1984, 1988, 2000, 2004) in battleground states (and "red" states) where Dems. captured some Independents and Republicans during primaries/caucuses, these same voters went Republican (or didn't vote at all) in the general.

  So, one shouldn't put stock in the polls being touted now that show Obama "beating" John McCain for three reasons: a) they aren't that significant 9 months away from the GE; b) they do not look at how "battleground" states vote.

  Beyond this, Battleground states are and have pretty much always been the keys to who wins the presidency.

  —ljwalker53 Read ljwalker53's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel