Poll: McCain Beats Hillary, Obama in November
Tags: Polls.
Click here to get Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan.
The Los Angeles Times has the story…
As he emerges from a sometimes- bitter primary campaign, presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain poses a stiff challenge to either of his potential Democratic opponents in the general election, a new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.
The findings underscore the difficulties ahead for Democrats as they hope to retake the White House during a time of war, with voters giving McCain far higher marks when it comes to experience, fighting terrorism and dealing with the situation in Iraq.
Both Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton have made ending America’s involvement in the war a centerpiece of their campaigns. And even though a clear majority of those polled said the war was not worth waging, about half of registered voters said McCain — a Vietnam vet who has supported the Bush administration’s military strategy — was better able to deal with Iraq.
In head-to-head contests, the poll found, McCain leads Clinton by 6 percentage points (46% to 40%) and Obama by 2 points (44% to 42%). Neither lead is commanding given that the survey, conducted Feb. 21-25, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
The Arizona senator is viewed favorably by 61% of all registered voters, including a plurality of Democrats
So, not only does McCain beat both Hillary and Obama in head-to-head match ups, but when it comes to dealing with the most important issues facing our country, McCain clearly has an edge as well.
This is good news, but we shouldn’t give too much weight to these polls. For starters, various other polls have shown different results, and a poll — even a scientific one — isn’t going be able to account for voter turnout factors, particularly the potential effect an Obama candidacy in the general election on the youth and minority votes, both of which lean Democrat.
But, liberals should stop pretending they have a landslide victory coming for them.
Thank you for visiting Blogs For Victory. If you enjoy our content, please consider making a donation to help us cover the costs of our servers.Matt Margolis is co-author (with Mark Noonan) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at The Buffalo Bean. Follow Matt on Twitter.
73 Responses to “Poll: McCain Beats Hillary, Obama in November”
Caucus of Corruption
WTF? I’m not just blaming Republicans. I’m saying that both parties are WRONG. Why do you want to keep saying I am being partisan here?
This conversation is going around in circles.
Blame Kennedy all you want. I blame him too. But because Kennedy did this, you can’t say that the entire Democrat party is doing this. I am simply pointing out that both Dems and Repubs are blocking these things for different reasons. Neither is correct on the issue.
Man. And you are saying all I want to do is blame Republicans?? Geesh.
Next topic.
WRONG two bills See above.
Still can’t bring yourself to condemn Kennedy? THAT’s my point now. Why should I take you seriously on Global Warming.
Here’s a link to freakin’ Greenpeace, for cryin’ out loud.
http://members.greenpeace.org/blog/hottie_off_the_presses/2006/05/08/title_334
Kahn: It’s good that the Sierra Club sued. But why didn’t they attack Kennedy for writing and getting the law passed in the first place?
My understanding is that they did attack Kennedy — and the others as well. As did Greenpeace, and various congresspeople on both sides of the aisle. However, the connection between Cape Wind and the Midwest farms is a little harder to understand. You say, “Kennedy wrote and introduced this bill.” What bill? Your Globe article indicated that the problem was that Kennedy et. al. attempted to attach an ammendment to a Coast Guard authorization bill that would provide state governors veto powers over offshore wind projects (and in fact it was Don Young that got the ball rolling in the House before the Senate took it up). Be that as it may, how that would affect the Midwest farms is not clear. Both your article and mine (linked to on the other thread) fingered the FAA as the agency that pulled the plug on the Midwest farms. Mine further indicated that the reason they did was because the Pentagon didn’t provide an environmental impact review in a timely manner. Yours simply implied that “a handful of people” were behind it — as well as the Cape Wind controversy. They didn’t really say they were the same handful though.
So I did a little more research. And interestingly, it appears that Sen. John Warner is responsible for getting the Pentagon involved: The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 contained a last-minute amendment, inserted by Senator John Warner of Virginia, requiring Donald Rumsfeld and DOD to complete a study on the effect of windmills on military readiness and the operation of military radar installations by May 8, 2006. Interesting. Your article provides the other half of the connection, the one to Cape Wind: Another opponent is U.S. Sen. John Warner, R-Va., who has tried several times to block the Cape Wind project. So there is indeed at least one common link. And since he’s good buddies with Uncle Ted, it seems reasonable to at least wonder whether he was aware of what Warner was up to.
As for Ted Kennedy, it’s quite clear he’s tried many different ways to prevent the Cape wind project. And despite all the reasons he’s tried to come up with, it’s also quite clear that the real reason is that he thiks it would be an eyesore when he’s sitting around on his veranda sipping mint juleps with his buddies looking out on Nantucket Sound. Well boo hoo.
Rico – thank you. Long winded, but thank you.
Look at every other poll, fellas. McCain’s got his work cut out, especially with Clinton done for.
Rico,
Please don’t forget the Sierra Club’s opposition to Maryland Wind Farms as they pose a threat to migratory birds.
And speaking of birds, wasn’t it a democrat (Rahall) that introduced H.R. 2337 that would have effectively shut down wind farms in the US? in fact it’s still being considered by the House, isn’t it?
Sorry, wrong thread.
Rico, Did you get my note on Thomas Sowell?
Kurt:
“Heads up: watch Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Ohio(again). I like McCain’s chances in all of those.”
And why do you like McCain’s chances in those states?
Michigan went Dem in ’92, ’96, ’00 and ’04. Minnesota hasn’t gone GOP since 1972. Wisconsin went Dem in ’76, ’88, ’92, ’96, ’00 and ’04. Ohio went Dem in ’76, ’92 and ’96 and of all your states mentioned it is the only one close to going for McCain.
Mark my words, you guys are going to lose, it might be close, but you are going to lose. You have an unpopular war, an economy losing steam and a Congress that is going to stay in the Dem fold (and increase its numbers) and you still think McCain will win?
[...] Poll: McCain Beats Hillary, Obama in November [...]
Dasein: Did you get my note on Thomas Sowell?
Yes, thank you.
Please don’t forget the Sierra Club’s opposition to Maryland Wind Farms as they pose a threat to migratory birds.
I promise I won’t. I’m not sure what to make of it, though. That little sound bite you offered seemed rather silly. And if you Google [western maryland wind power] you get the impression that there’s considerable debate within the MD chapter of the Sierra Club about it.
Kahn: Rico – thank you. Long winded, but thank you.
Yeah, I wrote that last post before I read your #48 one. The link you provided pretty much covered what I did. By the way, it appears that another off-shore farm is in the works off Delaware.
One more thing (and again off topic)… I recently got an email from a regular here suggesting I email Matt and/or Mark about running a topic on the future of energy. I’ve been thinking about it and haven’t written back yet. But interestingly, one of the points I was going to make when I did has been well-illustrated on this thread. That is: future energy policies are very likely to cut across the typical partisan divides. I’m sure the regular ideological differences will still reveal themselves, at least on a knee-jerk level (if nothing else, most of us that frequent this site appear to have very strong reflexes), but I am convinced that superimposed on them will be other concerns that may in fact dominate. In the present case of siting wind farms we see that the divide is based more on how people feel about relative priviledge than it is partisanship. When it comes to other related issues like biofuels, engine efficiency, electric grid efficiency and deployment, cleaning up or replacing coal plants, drilling for oil, building nuclear reactors, etc., the battle lines are likely to form around the lines of power, prestige, and especially patronage. The deadly “Five P’s”: partisanship, priviledge, prestige, power and patronage. It’s going to be difficult sledding (assuming anyone remembers what “sledding” was, lol!). But really, is it possible for anyone to assume congresscritters in the position of, say, Richard Lugar or Don Nelson are not going to listen very closely to what “big agro” has to say about the ethanol industry? Or critters in the position of, say Charlie Dingle are not going to listen very closely to what “big auto” has to say about the car industry? I’m not saying that any side on any issue is necessarily right or wrong, but I AM suggesting that it will be important to be mindful of where the major players in the upcoming battles get their bread buttered.
Rico – exactly. Thats my point about hydro=electric plants. They provide decades and decades of electricity and gather water that can feed urban areas. But I doubt that one will ever be built again. Is that a party thing? No.
Ricorun,
I think that would be an excellent topic. I have relatives who are making big money right now growing corn, I also live in a state that can provide energy regardless of what direction things go (we have oil, gas, coal, lots of sunny days, and wind, way too much wind). It is a very important topic and one which crosses party lines.
Who knows, perhaps we could discuss it without the normal nasty name calling. LOL
BTW, did I mention we get lots of wind?
Of course, McCain does have problems with his appeal to some conservatives, such as George Will:
And Bill Donohue of The Catholic League:
Ann Althouse is piling on Senator McCain as well for the Senator’s embrace of what she terms “a raving anti-Catholic” (video in her blog entry):
Diana, but have you noticed that in every string dealing with Obama’s stated positions they are so ludicrous that it turns into a joke?
If Al-Queda is in Iraq, we’ll fight the. They are in Iraq. They’re there because of yoe. But they ARE there and so you’re going to fight them, right? No you’re not? I don’t get it.
Against NAFTA? Why? How will you circumvent this LAW?
Really – what the heck is he even proposing? Enough with the cut-n-pastes (your SOP), can’t you think for yourself?
Kahn,
This thread is about the ability of Senator McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee being able to succeed in the general election against whoever is the Democratic nominee which may be Senator Clinton or may be Senator Obama. Now if Senator McCain is the nominee and if he is to succeed then he has to appeal to Republicans who wouldn’t ordinarily support him, such as evangelical Christians and Republicans who don’t like McCain-Feingold. Frankly, his flip-flop on evangelical Christians is fairly embarrassing to watch.
So, it’s rather relevant to this thread to point out that a major conservative writer, George Will, thinks Senator McCain suffers from a “towering moral vanity” in regard to public campaign funding that leads him to a “disturbing righteousness” and two other conservative voices are lambasting Senator McCain’s very public and unequivocal embrace of an evangelical Christian minister who refers to the Roman Catholic Church as “The Great Whore”. So, if you’d like to expound on those points, I’d be fascinated. Of course, I’d really be fascinated if Mark, speaking as he often does as a Roman Catholic, should choose to comment on Senator McCain and John Hagee. We shall see.
Diana – fair enough. But the OTHER side of the equation is this:
1. A woman people feel would be a Democrat Nixon.
and
2. A man who is so wildly naive and clueless that we can hardly talk about his positions without laughing. Thats of course when you can actually figure out what his positions are.
Against either of THOSE alternatives, McCain looks good.
Oh and Diana – compare those Christians with Obama’s ties (yes – ties) to Louis Farrakhan. Again, McCain is looking good.
Deleted – off topic.
Deleted – off topic.
[...] Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Ohioagain. … RN made one observation to Bill that he asked be passed on.http://blogsforvictory.com/2008/02/28/poll-mccain-beats-hillary-obama-in-november/trackback/free internet t.v.smolinske belay croatia Pagemod ancient greece marathon city 3 31346 3778 5. [...]