Reminder: Clinton polled far better than Obama at this point in 2008

[IceSpear]

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May13.html
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/May13.html

McCain 290
Obama 237
Tie 11

Clinton 280
McCain 241
Tie 17

Hmm... I wonder how certain people will spin this one.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

If this election season teached us anything it is not to trust blindly in the polls.

[IceSpear]

If this election season teached us anything it is not to trust blindly in the polls.

The point is, I bet the people like jfern and ProgressiveCanadian who constantly gloat about how Bernie is polling better were singing quite a different tune in 2008. Just like Hillary is now, Obama was the nearly certain nominee, and thus was facing far more scrutiny and attacks than Hillary was, which artificially inflated Hillary's numbers and deflated Obama's. One would think this is common sense, but it doesn't seem to sink in.

And by the way, Obama was steadily gaining superdelegates even during this time, so there goes that fantasy about them switching over en masse because of muh early polls.

[Meclazine for Israel]

It's a different election, and it's interesting to see how things can change.

Interesting find. Nice one.

[Joe Biden is your president. Deal with it.]

If this election season teached us anything it is not to trust blindly in the polls.

The point is, I bet the people like jfern and ProgressiveCanadian who constantly gloat about how Bernie is polling better were singing quite a different tune in 2008. Just like Hillary is now, Obama was the nearly certain nominee, and thus was facing far more scrutiny and attacks than Hillary was, which artificially inflated Hillary's numbers and deflated Obama's. One would think this is common sense, but it doesn't seem to sink in.

And by the way, Obama was steadily gaining superdelegates even during this time, so there goes that fantasy about them switching over en masse because of muh early polls.

I am guilty of being one of those Hillary supporters saying "Obama is gonna lose!!!" Lol

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The national polls show a different story.

Here's Hillary's advantage in the margin of victory in the May polls
1, 4, -9, -6, -10, 0, -2, -4, -6, 3, -2, 1, 1, -1

Obama did better in some and Hillary in others. The average was a small Obama advantage. Very different from Bernie's consistent advantage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2008#Democratic_nominee_vs._Republican_nominee_2

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

If this election season teached us anything it is not to trust blindly in the polls.

The point is, I bet the people like jfern and ProgressiveCanadian who constantly gloat about how Bernie is polling better were singing quite a different tune in 2008. Just like Hillary is now, Obama was the nearly certain nominee, and thus was facing far more scrutiny and attacks than Hillary was, which artificially inflated Hillary's numbers and deflated Obama's. One would think this is common sense, but it doesn't seem to sink in.

And by the way, Obama was steadily gaining superdelegates even during this time, so there goes that fantasy about them switching over en masse because of muh early polls.

There is really no point to create such thread just to troll (and provoke) certain people.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Clinton would have beaten McCain by more than Obama did in 2008 though.

[Fusionmunster]

Clinton would have beaten McCain by more than Obama did in 2008 though.

Im not sure, Hillary had a chance at West Virginia, Arkansas and Kentucky and her appeal with whites might have helped her carry Missouri but im skeptical about her chances in North Carolina and Indiana.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Clinton would have beaten McCain by more than Obama did in 2008 though.

Without a doubt.  She would have had a massive swing in the fringe south, certainly flipping Missouri, and possibly Arkansas.  Kentucky and Tennessee would have out of reach, but a lot closer.

No chance in West Virginia.  The Democrats were a dead brand by 2008.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Clinton would have beaten McCain by more than Obama did in 2008 though.

Im not sure, Hillary had a chance at West Virginia, Arkansas and Kentucky and her appeal with whites might have helped her carry Missouri but im skeptical about her chances in North Carolina and Indiana.

Didn't Clinton win the Indiana primary, long after the nomination was a done deal?  The minority vote certainly helped Obama in North Carolina, but the Clintons were and still are extremely popular in that community (Crime Bill notwithstanding).

[Fusionmunster]

Clinton would have beaten McCain by more than Obama did in 2008 though.

Without a doubt.  She would have had a massive swing in the fringe south, certainly flipping Missouri, and possibly Arkansas.  Kentucky and Tennessee would have out of reach, but a lot closer.

No chance in West Virginia.  The Democrats were a dead brand by 2008.

I think your underestimating her chances in West Virginia. The Dems are almost dead now, but in 2008 Robert Byrd was very much alive and Joe Manchin and Jay Rockefeller were popular incumbents. West Virginia was still up for grabs if the right democrat came along.  

[Fusionmunster]

Clinton would have beaten McCain by more than Obama did in 2008 though.

Im not sure, Hillary had a chance at West Virginia, Arkansas and Kentucky and her appeal with whites might have helped her carry Missouri but im skeptical about her chances in North Carolina and Indiana.

Didn't Clinton win the Indiana primary, long after the nomination was a done deal?  The minority vote certainly helped Obama in North Carolina, but the Clintons were and still are extremely popular in that community (Crime Bill notwithstanding).

I know Hillary won the Indiana primary but I don't think her appeal with white voters would be enough to offset the drop in turnout from minority voters to flip Indiana or North Carolina.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Clinton would have beaten McCain by more than Obama did in 2008 though.

Without a doubt.  She would have had a massive swing in the fringe south, certainly flipping Missouri, and possibly Arkansas.  Kentucky and Tennessee would have out of reach, but a lot closer.

No chance in West Virginia.  The Democrats were a dead brand by 2008.

I think your underestimating her chances in West Virginia. The Dems are almost dead now, but in 2008 Robert Byrd was very much alive and Joe Manchin and Jay Rockefeller were popular incumbents. West Virginia was still up for grabs if the right democrat came along.  

Not dead within the state, but for nationwide office.  Between NAFTA sucking blue collar jobs out of the country* and the Democrats' war on coal?  Though Hillary was, bafflingly, leading in the May polls.

*Not my opinion, theirs.

[Intell]

Clinton would have done better in 08 (nationally), then McCain yes, and would have won WV and MO, but lost CO, IN, VA and maybe NC.

[Adam Griffin]

Clinton would have beaten McCain by more than Obama did in 2008 though.

In the overall popular vote? That is very debatable. The black population nationally remained virtually unchanged between 2004-2008, yet their share of the electorate increased by two points and their support for Obama was 6 points higher than it was for Kerry. That alone gave Obama 3 additional points nationally when compared to Kerry.

In contrast, Hillary would have needed to do four points better with whites to generate the same amount of improvement (47% of the white vote nationally). Could that have happened? Perhaps, but this doesn't even include the (likely) swings  and increase in turnout among Latinos and Asians to the Democrats, a good chunk of which was definitely inspired by electing the nation's first non-white President. Hillary would have likely needed to win right at a majority of the white vote to perform as well as Obama did nationally.

I really don't think that there were that many racist presidential Democratic voters remaining, even in 2008.

[°Leprechaun]

IceSpear,
Not to be rude, but have you lost your mind? Obama and Sanders appeal to totally different voters. So what if Clinton would have won by a bigger margin? After 8 years of the worst POTUS in history, of course people would vote for any Democrat. They would have voted for William Jennings Bryan over McCain PALIN.

You just want to ignore the facts.
Sanders outperforms Clinton Trump in over TWENTY STATES:

AZ
CA
CT
GA
IL
IA**
KS
MA
MI
MN
MO
NH**
NJ
NC
OH***
PA***
UT
VA***
WV
WI***
She does the same in in FL
and outperforms Sanders in only TWO

MD
NY

A VOTE FOR CLINTON IS A VOTE FOR TRUMP

[°Leprechaun]

Unfortunately Sanders doesn't appear to have much of a chance of getting this fact across to people in time. So it's all moot.

[Beet]

Unfortunately Sanders doesn't appear to have much of a chance of getting this fact across to people in time. So it's all moot.

He's planning on knocking on over 1 million doors in California, so I'm sure he'll "get the message out". Whether the "message" is true or not.

Anyway, neither candidate was doing as well against McCain as Obama would ultimately do. The fact that there was a primary going but none on the GOP side meant the Democratic supporters weren't consolidated and didn't have a unified message. Same as this year.

[Wiz in Wis]

Unfortunately Sanders doesn't appear to have much of a chance of getting this fact across to people in time. So it's all moot.

Again, the idea that Bernie Sanders, who has had zero negative ads run against him, who has been embraced by the GOP while he runs against Clinton, would not get pummeled by the right wing and see this "lead" evaporate should embarrass people making the argument.

[Figueira]

If this election season teached us anything it is not to trust blindly in the polls.

The point is, I bet the people like jfern and ProgressiveCanadian who constantly gloat about how Bernie is polling better were singing quite a different tune in 2008. Just like Hillary is now, Obama was the nearly certain nominee, and thus was facing far more scrutiny and attacks than Hillary was, which artificially inflated Hillary's numbers and deflated Obama's. One would think this is common sense, but it doesn't seem to sink in.

And by the way, Obama was steadily gaining superdelegates even during this time, so there goes that fantasy about them switching over en masse because of muh early polls.

I don't know about jfern and ProgressiveCanadian, but not all Sanders supporters were on the Obama train in 2008.

[jaichind]

Actually I am pretty certain that if Clinton ran in 2008 she would have done better than Obama.  On the flip side, Sanders,  I do not believe, is seen by anti-Dem GOP and Independent voters as a realistic candidate so any polls showing Sanders beating Clinton vs Trump I do not feel is realistic.  The numbers will be very different once Sanders is the nominee.  In 2008 Clinton was seen as a realistic candidate almost toward the end.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Unfortunately Sanders doesn't appear to have much of a chance of getting this fact across to people in time. So it's all moot.

Again, the idea that Bernie Sanders, who has had zero negative ads run against him, who has been embraced by the GOP while he runs against Clinton, would not get pummeled by the right wing and see this "lead" evaporate should embarrass people making the argument.

When I try to explain this on social media, I'm called a brainwashed shill, so I just give up.

[RaphaelDLG]

Unfortunately Sanders doesn't appear to have much of a chance of getting this fact across to people in time. So it's all moot.

Again, the idea that Bernie Sanders, who has had zero negative ads run against him, who has been embraced by the GOP while he runs against Clinton, would not get pummeled by the right wing and see this "lead" evaporate should embarrass people making the argument.

When I try to explain this on social media, I'm called a brainwashed shill, so I just give up.

Stop lying about sanders' supporters, you brainwashed shill

[IceSpear]

The national polls show a different story.

Here's Hillary's advantage in the margin of victory in the May polls
1, 4, -9, -6, -10, 0, -2, -4, -6, 3, -2, 1, 1, -1

Obama did better in some and Hillary in others. The average was a small Obama advantage. Very different from Bernie's consistent advantage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2008#Democratic_nominee_vs._Republican_nominee_2

I'm sure you know that dozens of state polls are more reliable than a few national polls. This has been proven time and time again.

Regardless, the point is: early polling means very little. I mean, for f**k's sake, the fact that Obama was LOSING to McCain in both the state polls and many of those national polls should clue you into that.

If this election season teached us anything it is not to trust blindly in the polls.

The point is, I bet the people like jfern and ProgressiveCanadian who constantly gloat about how Bernie is polling better were singing quite a different tune in 2008. Just like Hillary is now, Obama was the nearly certain nominee, and thus was facing far more scrutiny and attacks than Hillary was, which artificially inflated Hillary's numbers and deflated Obama's. One would think this is common sense, but it doesn't seem to sink in.

And by the way, Obama was steadily gaining superdelegates even during this time, so there goes that fantasy about them switching over en masse because of muh early polls.

There is really no point to create such thread just to troll (and provoke) certain people.

I don't see how pointing out facts is trolling.