Hillary: Strongest Dem In Key Swing States

Here are the results of two polls that don't seem to be getting much play by the Obama-loving media. They clearly show, as many other polls do, that Hillary is the Democrat best positioned to win in 2008.  The polls that are shown by the media show Obama and Edwards doing better across the board, in a popular vote scenario.  But Obama and Edwards do little to nothing to win states that weren't won by Kerry and Gore in the previous two elections.  As we all know, it is not the popular vote that will matter in November, it is the electoral vote.  And when you look at the two most important swing states---Ohio and Florida---it is clear that Hillary has the advantage.

Florida Quinnipiac Poll (full polling here):

-Hillary 48%      Rudy: 41%

-Obama 37%       Rudy 45%

-Edwards 39%    Rudy 43%

Although it is highly unlikely that Giuliani will be the GOP nominee, poll results are similar when the top Democrats are polled against McCain, Romney, and Huckabee.  Hillary beats McCain by 7%, Romney by 14%, and Huckabee by 15%.  Edwards and Obama either lose or win by a much smaller margin.

Ohio Survey USA Poll  (full polling here):

-Hillary 49%     Rudy 40%

-Obama 40%     Rudy 46%

-Hillary 51%      Romney 40%

-Obama 43%     Romney 42%

-Hillary 51%      Huckabee 39%

-Obama 43%     Huckabee 42%

-Hillary 45%      McCain 45%

-Obama 38%     McCain 47%

Sorry Edwards supporters, he was not polled here, but as is demonstrated yet again, Clinton can win those swing states; it would be much harder for Obama to do so.  And if these Ohio polls weren't convincing enough, Ted Strickland, Governor of Ohio, has said that Clinton has the best chance to win Ohio and also said he would campaign heavily for her.  

Another potential victory for the Democrats, if Clinton is the nominee, is Virginia, a state that has not been considered a swing state in years.  But, as a new Survey USA poll shows (available here), Clinton beats Giuliani 47-46, Romney 51-41, and Mike Huckabee 52-28.  In Kentucky, another GOP stronghold, Clinton also does surprisingly well.  She beats Giuliani 47-45, Romney 50-41, and Huckabee 49-39.  

So remember when voting on who's most electable, that it's the electoral vote that matters, not the popular vote.  So while Obama and Edwards may do better across the board with Republicans, they do not win over any states that Clinton doesn't, but Clinton does win over states that they do not.  

Obama Sounding More And More Republican---Attacks Fellow Democrats

Barack Obama, under the masquerade of "change", is eerily sounding more and more like a Republican---that is---attacking some of the most well respected Democrats.  

If all his talk of a social security "crisis" wasn't sounding Republican enough for you, it was just yesterday afternoon in Iowa when Obama went after, get this, former Vice President Al Gore and Sen. John Kerry, saying:

"I don't want to go into the next election starting off with half the country already not wanting to vote for Democrats -- we've done that in 2004, 2000."

Obama proceeded to make the case that it was Gore and Kerry's fault that they were not elected; that somehow he is a much better Democrat than they.  

And although he tackled Sen. Hillary Clinton on the issues and on policies in the past (which is fair game in an election), he is now going after her character, just yesterday calling her "just like George W. Bush."  Now I understand that he and many others may not agree with Sen. Clinton's positions, but it is factually inaccurate, not to mention just plain insulting, to make the case that Hillary Clinton is a Bush clone.  Obama also recently attacked Hillary's experience saying that is was limited to "having tea" with foreign officials.  You just have to look at her record as First Lady and Senator to know that she did much more than that.  This from the same guy whose claim to foreign policy experience comes from spending 4 years overseas when he was a child.    

Obama then went on to attack former President Bill Clinton, telling the audience that Bill resented him because he was new to Washington and stood for change.  He went on to imply that he (Obama) has more experience now than Bill did when running in '92.  (hmm...let's see, Bill was Attorney General for 2 years and Governor for 12 years.  Thats a total of 14 years being elected by the entire state.  Obama, on the other hand, was elected by just one district to a State Senate seat, which hardly prepares you for the Presidency, for 7 years.  Obama has just been in the U.S. Senate for 3 years, one year of which he has been absent more than any other Senator because of his campaign.---- You decide who had more experience----it should be pretty clear.)

Democrats need to look long and hard at this guy.  Maybe he thinks that if he acts more like a Republican and insults his fellow, well respected Democrats, he will win over more GOP votes.  And he maybe right on that account.  But Democratic caucus goers and primary voters need to decide if thats what they really want---someone who is not only willing, but eager to go after people from his own party, just to gain the votes of people from the opposing isle.  I suppose I could attribute his going after Bill and Hillary to desperation in this election, but Gore and Kerry?  What does he hope to accomplish by going after them and insinuating that he is a better Democrat than they are?  Well, I have news for him, he is not, nor will ever be, as good of a Democrat as Al Gore or John Kerry.  Or for that matter, Bill and Hillary.  

Des Moines Register's Latest Poll Analysis

Mark Penn, chief strategist for the Clinton campaign, has a new post up at hillaryclinton.com where he tackles the latest Des Moines Register poll.  The latest DMR poll shows Sen. Barack Obama leading Sen. Clinton 32-25%, and this has sent the Obama campaign and many liberal Obama bloggers into a frenzy.  However, what Obama, his surrogates, and his supporters fail to mention are other polls that show a slightly different trend.  

-An Insider Advantage poll conducted 12/28-29 shows Clinton leading Obama 30%-22%.

-A Zogby poll from 12/27-30 has Clinton with a 4 point lead over Obama

-An American Research Group poll from 12/26-28 has Clinton at 31%, followed by Obama at 24%.

And to top it all off, two of the latest polls, conducted within the same time frame as the DMR's poll, shows Clinton, not Obama, coming out on top:

-A CNN poll shows Clinton in the lead with 33%, compared to 31% for Obama.

-A Reuters/C-Span poll has Clinton winning 30%-26 over Obama.

So why the clear difference in the DMR poll from other recent polls?  Here is Mark Penn's analysis:

"The Des Moines Register poll adopts an unprecedented new turnout model for the caucuses, and its new poll is out of sync with the other polling done in the race.

When you look at Democrats who last time were 80% of the turnout, Hillary wins with that group by 6%, 33 to 27 for Obama and 25 for Edwards. And as David Yepsen points out, had their pollsters used the 2004 turnout model, Hillary would lead by 29 to 27, figures in line with the other polls.

The Des Moines Register Poll this time has 40% independent voters and 5% GOP voters in the poll when past independent participation has been 15% in 2000 and 19% in 2004, and the GOP has generally made up 1% of the vote. So they are depicting an unprecedented departure from historically established turnout patterns in the caucus. Under their model, only 55% of the caucus goers would be Democrats.

So we do not see this poll as accurately reflecting the trends we are seeing in other polls, on our nightly canvasses or in our own polls, and voters should understand this is a very close race, and that their participation on caucus night could make all of the difference."

So, while the DMR poll certainly has to be taken into account, it should not be taken to mean that this race is all but over, with Obama being the victor, as many have exclaimed.    The DMR poll, although historically accurate, has factored in some rather unknown and unprecedented variables.  That's why the poll must be analyzed in context with other historically accurate and recent polling.  

Bottom Line: This race is still extremely close and anyone of the top three Democrats could win the Iowa caucus and hence the nomination.