Electability Question A Hard One To Answer
A relative of Ahmed Abu Nasr shows his photograph at his home in Khan Younis Refugee Camp, Friday, June 1, 2012. Abu Nasr and an Israeli soldier were killed in a shootout near the border with the Gaza Strip early Friday, the Israeli military said. The exchange of fire began after the militant crossed the fence separating the Hamas-run coastal strip and southern Israel. (AP photo/Hatem Moussa) / Hatem Moussa
This column was written by CBS News director of surveys Kathy Frankovic.
I worry when candidates start citing polls that show them ahead of their rivals. Candidates are expected to claim to dislike polls -- to attack those that say bad things about their prospects, often with characterizations like "The only poll that counts is the one on election day". Sometimes they just blame the pollsters by claiming they are biased. There was a lot of that in 2004.
This year, one leading candidate is citing polls in his claim to be the most electable.
In his 60 Minutes interview on Sunday, Sen. Barack Obama told Steve Kroft: "I don't start off with 47 percent of the country thinking they're not gonna vote for me." Making the case that polls show him more electable than Sen. Hillary Clinton, he added: "The polls consistently show that … she's got problems with independents. And she's got problems with even moderate Republicans."
In her own 60 Minutes interview, Clinton claimed (without reference to polls) that she was already "vetted" for the fall campaign and could withstand Republican scrutiny. She added that Obama has "never had …a single negative ad run against him. …Until you have been through this experience, you have no idea what it's like. And he hasn't been. He's never, ever had to face this."
Do the current polls really tell us who is more electable? Actually, right now they don't even tell us who is ahead among Democratic voters. And when it comes to preference for the nomination, two different Gallup polls, conducted at the same time, have two different leaders, both within the polls' margins of error. So far in the primaries, neither candidate has won a majority of all votes cast, and calling one or the other the leader depends on whether or not you count the Michigan and Florida primaries.
As for electability, registered voters who said they had or would vote in a Democratic primary or caucus gave the edge to Clinton -- barely. In a CBS News Poll, 46 percent said Clinton had the best chance of winning in November, while 41 percent said Obama did.
Obama is touting national polls that pit him and Clinton against John McCain, now the clear Republican leader. In Obama's words: "There are lot of people out there who say, 'I'm trying to figure out who to vote for, McCain or Obama.' There aren't that many who are saying, 'I'm trying to figure out who to vote for, Clinton or McCain.'".
Time Magazine interviewed nearly 1,000 "likely voters" before the Super Tuesday primaries, and found Clinton running even with John McCain, 46 percent to 46 percent. Obama led McCain 48 percent to 41 percent. The latest USA Today-Gallup Poll (February 8-10) of just over 700 likely voters, shows an even smaller difference: Obama ahead of McCain 50 percent to 46 percent, and McCain and Clinton about even (49 percent McCain, 48 percent Clinton).
These are not big differences, and there isn't a "47 percent" in sight, as Obama had claimed. But there are other questions about November. The January CNN/ORC poll asked explicitly about whether people would definitely vote for Clinton (or Obama) if she (or he) won the Democratic nomination, would consider voting for her (or him), or would definitely not vote for her (or him). Forty-three percent said they would definitely not vote for Clinton. Thirty-eight percent said they definitely would not vote for Obama. But 37 percent said they would definitely vote for Clinton and 30 percent would definitely vote for Obama.
A lot can change between now and November. Negative sentiments in the heat of a primary battle often disappear by the time people start thinking seriously about a Republican-Democratic contest.
For many voters, being asked to imagine a complete scenario eight months in advance is hard: someone has to win the party's nomination and conduct a long campaign. There is still uncertainly about whether most Republicans will ultimately rally behind McCain.
Horserace results in February don't always predict elections. Four years ago, in late winter about one in ten voters in a CBS News/New York Times Poll were undecided when faced with a horserace question pitting John Kerry against George W. Bush, and another quarter admitted that, whatever they said at that time, they knew their minds could change. And ask Mike Dukakis how he feels about early fall horserace questions. In March 1988, he led George H.W. Bush in the Gallup Poll, 53 percent to 44 percent. In the November election, the figures were just about reversed.
This year, only 9 percent of exit-polled voters in the Super Tuesday Democratic primaries said electability was the most important candidate quality that affected their vote; and just 7 percent said that Saturday in Louisiana. All through the primary season, this small group of voters who deem electability all-important has pretty much split between Clinton and Obama -- just like the rest of the country. So, the good news is that electability is apparently a quality that matters more to pundits than to voters!
By Kathy Frankovic
Copyright 2009 CBS. All rights reserved. I worry when candidates start citing polls that show them ahead of their rivals. Candidates are expected to claim to dislike polls -- to attack those that say bad things about their prospects, often with characterizations like "The only poll that counts is the one on election day". Sometimes they just blame the pollsters by claiming they are biased. There was a lot of that in 2004.
This year, one leading candidate is citing polls in his claim to be the most electable.
In his 60 Minutes interview on Sunday, Sen. Barack Obama told Steve Kroft: "I don't start off with 47 percent of the country thinking they're not gonna vote for me." Making the case that polls show him more electable than Sen. Hillary Clinton, he added: "The polls consistently show that … she's got problems with independents. And she's got problems with even moderate Republicans."
In her own 60 Minutes interview, Clinton claimed (without reference to polls) that she was already "vetted" for the fall campaign and could withstand Republican scrutiny. She added that Obama has "never had …a single negative ad run against him. …Until you have been through this experience, you have no idea what it's like. And he hasn't been. He's never, ever had to face this."
Do the current polls really tell us who is more electable? Actually, right now they don't even tell us who is ahead among Democratic voters. And when it comes to preference for the nomination, two different Gallup polls, conducted at the same time, have two different leaders, both within the polls' margins of error. So far in the primaries, neither candidate has won a majority of all votes cast, and calling one or the other the leader depends on whether or not you count the Michigan and Florida primaries.
As for electability, registered voters who said they had or would vote in a Democratic primary or caucus gave the edge to Clinton -- barely. In a CBS News Poll, 46 percent said Clinton had the best chance of winning in November, while 41 percent said Obama did.
Obama is touting national polls that pit him and Clinton against John McCain, now the clear Republican leader. In Obama's words: "There are lot of people out there who say, 'I'm trying to figure out who to vote for, McCain or Obama.' There aren't that many who are saying, 'I'm trying to figure out who to vote for, Clinton or McCain.'".
Time Magazine interviewed nearly 1,000 "likely voters" before the Super Tuesday primaries, and found Clinton running even with John McCain, 46 percent to 46 percent. Obama led McCain 48 percent to 41 percent. The latest USA Today-Gallup Poll (February 8-10) of just over 700 likely voters, shows an even smaller difference: Obama ahead of McCain 50 percent to 46 percent, and McCain and Clinton about even (49 percent McCain, 48 percent Clinton).
These are not big differences, and there isn't a "47 percent" in sight, as Obama had claimed. But there are other questions about November. The January CNN/ORC poll asked explicitly about whether people would definitely vote for Clinton (or Obama) if she (or he) won the Democratic nomination, would consider voting for her (or him), or would definitely not vote for her (or him). Forty-three percent said they would definitely not vote for Clinton. Thirty-eight percent said they definitely would not vote for Obama. But 37 percent said they would definitely vote for Clinton and 30 percent would definitely vote for Obama.
A lot can change between now and November. Negative sentiments in the heat of a primary battle often disappear by the time people start thinking seriously about a Republican-Democratic contest.
For many voters, being asked to imagine a complete scenario eight months in advance is hard: someone has to win the party's nomination and conduct a long campaign. There is still uncertainly about whether most Republicans will ultimately rally behind McCain.
Horserace results in February don't always predict elections. Four years ago, in late winter about one in ten voters in a CBS News/New York Times Poll were undecided when faced with a horserace question pitting John Kerry against George W. Bush, and another quarter admitted that, whatever they said at that time, they knew their minds could change. And ask Mike Dukakis how he feels about early fall horserace questions. In March 1988, he led George H.W. Bush in the Gallup Poll, 53 percent to 44 percent. In the November election, the figures were just about reversed.
This year, only 9 percent of exit-polled voters in the Super Tuesday Democratic primaries said electability was the most important candidate quality that affected their vote; and just 7 percent said that Saturday in Louisiana. All through the primary season, this small group of voters who deem electability all-important has pretty much split between Clinton and Obama -- just like the rest of the country. So, the good news is that electability is apparently a quality that matters more to pundits than to voters!
By Kathy Frankovic
When Bill Clinton trash his presidency with scandal, putting self-gratification ahead of family, society, country, and the world, he was preaching self-love, narcissism, and self-seeking. That is setting the worst example any leader could to harm a world of youths and their tomorrows.
Does Bill care about anyone?
When Hillary dismissed the scandal as if it were no big deal, She was protecting her candidacy and both of their images. Were she to be concern about today''s youth and their (moral) education, she would have dismissed Bill instead.
Where is her sincerity?
Bill and Hillary, if only you would hold children close to your hearts, you should have no room for lies, wrongdoing, and self-gratification. And only then would you see wisdom, compassion, and courage!
Bill and Hillary, you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. Our nation''s youth is smarter than you think. By voting WISDOM, COMPASSION, and COURAGE in OBAMA, they have thus dismissed the self-seeking-dead-end-street of such calculating Clintons.
So be it that the nation''s youth sees HOPE in UNIVERSAL TRUTH in OBAMA:
"Love each other or perish."
"From caring comes courage."
"LIVE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN THE WORLD."
Obama: lover of wisdom
McCain: lover of honor
Clinton: lover of gain
Obama appears to have greater appeal to highly educated Americans. WHY?
Highly educated people are those who have acquired imparting of knowledge, positive judgment and well-developed WISDOM - consisting of ideals and principles that govern all actions and decisions to maximize the LONG-TERM COMMON GOOD, and so are the highly educated Americans.
It is for LONG-TERM COMMON GOOD we EDUCATE our YOUTH, and so be it that the highly educated seek PURPOSE in LONG-TERM COMMON GOOD. This is called COMMON SENSE.
So be it that the highly educated seek WISDOM and its TRUTH in their choice of a president!
If you seek not WISDOM in a leader, what then, do you seek? If you hold not TRUTH, FAITHFULNESS, and SINCERITY as your first principles, what then, do you hold?
If you are A PARENT, AN EDUCATOR, OR A COMMUNITY LEADER, and if you seek not such LONG-TERM COMMON GOOD, you care not about the children, family, community, society, country, or THE COMMON WORLD.
How can we let our CHILDREN follow such self-gratifying calculating Clintons??
"LIVE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN THE WORLD."
This is what the highly educated are going for.
That said.
OBAMA WILL BEAT CLINTON AND McCAIN BECAUSE NO EDUCATED PERSON WANTS TO ATTACK HIM.
"Only once in a very long time does politics become more than politics, that is something more than partisan struggle, vote bartering, or arena of ambition...
... on rare occasion, old arrangements and conventional wisdom come unstuck. This happens in periods of rapid if not revolutionary change. We find ourselves now in one of those periods. The forces of globalization, information, eroding sovereignties, and transformation of war ensure that traditional leaders and conventional politics can only muddle through at best and fail badly at worst."
"Therefore, the good of man must be the end of the science of politics."
"There will be no end to the troubles of states, or of humanity itself, till philosophers become kings in this world, or till those we now call kings and rulers really and truly become philosophers, and political power and philosophy thus come into the same hands."
So let it be that our YOUTH sees HOPE in UNIVERSAL TRUTH, NOT POLITICS:
"Love each other or perish."
"From caring comes courage."
"LIVE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN THE WORLD."
GO! OBAMA!
Posted by denn034 at 06:58 PM : Feb 14, 2008
With 50% negative rating, she can''t be all that bad. Go Slick! If nominated, she has my vote.
Hillary, one of the ten biggest porkmeisters in Washington.
Posted by tibu987 at 09:24 PM : Feb 14, 2008
Yeah, new outrageous allegation, bandied about without proof. Nothing really new, is it? I''ve heard it all. You''re another big liar, tibu. You''re the folks Obama wants to work with in the spirit of unity for the good of this country? I say forget it. People who lie are not to be trusted. Not ever.
(CNN) -- NAACP Chairman Julian Bond''s decision to weigh in on the Democratic Party''s conundrum when it comes to seating delegates from Michigan and Florida has created a firestorm of discussion on blogs and talk shows, and frankly, I''m still unclear as to what his intent was.
Gee Roland, I think his intent is to see that all the people of the USA have their votes counted.. Just because your a very vocal supporter of Obama, doesn''t mean that all Black''s have to follow your lead.. Some have supported Hillary Clinton all along, and will help put her in the White House.. The DNC must seat both States, or pay to hold another Election.
--------------------------
Internet is a good place to share information and meet friends. I recently found a nice web site called pubspa.com where you can meet friends who have same interest in beauty care, massage, wellness and spa treatment. You can also share blog, video, game, photos, etc with people from all over the world. Unlike other online dating sites where you have to pay membership fee, this site is totally free. I already made several interesting friends there
Hillary, one of the ten biggest porkmeisters in Washington.
Do you really want four more years of the Clinton twins?
I don''''t.
And just where does all the experience Hillary claim to have, come from?
A shyster lawyer in Arkansas linked to scandals there.
First Lady for eight years, DUH!, she did not sit in on any national or international meetings.
A Senator from New York, gee, and she bought that one.
And yes, she also received major contributions from an indicted major donor named Norman Hsu, monies that she had to return.
And let''''s go back to the scandal that Hillary was involved in in Arkansas that had to do with fraudulent cattle trading that made Hillary over almost two hundred thousand dollars.
Ladies, please don''''t vote for Hillary simply because she is a woman. That would be the worst, simplest, and most naive of reasons to vote for her.
Incidentally, I am a male, white, 72 year old veteran, who voted for more women than men to hold my state''''s political offices.
A woman will undoubtedly become president one day, but it won''''t be Hillary.