How much do these numbers change depending on who the nominee for President is?

There is a block of voters out there on the far right of the political spectrum who don't care much for Senator McCain as the GOP nominee.  The worry for the GOP has to be that this block of voters will sit on their hands come November 4.

They may not like Senator McCain but I imagine they hate the Clintons a whole lot more and would be more than happy to vote for Senator McCain to keep the Clintons out of the White House.

What does this do down the ballot?  The Democrats took control of Congress by winning "swing" seats...seats than normally are won by the GOP and could be battleground districts again this fall.

If Senator Clinton is the nominee and the anti-Clinton vote comes out for McCain does it jeopardize the Democrats' control of Congress?

Remember, some superdelegates have their own electability to worry about!

Democrats will win!!!!

Heck, with those kind of numbers, Rev. Wright can win the White House.

I am sick of the superdelegates who change their pledged  vote when the going gets too tough for them.  If they can be disloyal and dishonest after they have given their word and support to a friend, how can the voters these superdelegates represent expect any loyalty and honesty from them?

YES!!!!!


A light at the end of the tunnel!

If Senator Obama is the nominee and the anti-Wright gun-loving religious vote comes out for McCain, does it jeopardize the Democrats' control of Congress?

For all you Clinton people scratching your heads over Senator Obama's added super delegate endorsments, albeit Hillary won Pa., and Jeremiah Wright has yet to go away, this explains their motivation. The GE is a change election, (which inspires the supers to kick the Clintons to the curb, and the dung off their shoes. Lastly, the down ballot is not do-able with  Hillary, the kiss of death.

Yes, those coat-tails are a job for Super Candiate. It's a bird, it's a plane, no it's Super Barack!

49-34 then, 49-34 now. That's not virtually unchanged. It's unchanged. Just being nit-picky.

Pete - what about the anti-Obama vote, think we will vote for McCain?  I'm not sure yet, but still not in the Obama camp, and really don't think I ever will be.  So sad, I have always voted and I vote straight Democratic Ticket, I'll still go vote but if Obama is the nominee I'll probably leave that one blank, just don't trust him one little bit and I'm not alone.  He can not carry the south, did not carry Tennessee, and in modern day politics it is almost impossible for a candidate to win without us regardless of what NY, Ohio, or Pennsylvania do (who by the way also voted for Clinton).  I'm telling you fair and square from someone who has lived here all my life - Obama will not carry the south and as mean as his supporters have been to the Clinton supporters none of us are sure why we should vote for him if he gets the nomination.  Just a little brutal honesty here, it is not pretty or sweet but it is something all you Obama koolaid drinkers need to face up to.

Yeah except when you put names in there . Then Obama gets his ass kicked.

Joyce, NC:

Sorry to get off subject, but in answer to Joyce, there really isn't ANYTHING that can be immediately done to alleviate these high gas prices.  We, the American people and our government should've been working on this problem 10-20 years ago!  There is no quick fix, and do you know who you have to thank for this mess that we're in???  All of the so-called experienced politicians and/or career politicians who only care about one thing which is lining their own pockets with more money, and the auto industry who defiantly insist on making automobiles without fuel efficiency.  In addition, we are also the blame because we consistently buy these HUGE SUV's, trucks, and automobiles.  So don't expect a quick fix in the near future.  We've made our beds and now we have to lie in them for awhile until Sen. Obama can proceed to fix this mess!

Keep cheering for the Democrats, and we'll see if you can keep your "perfect" record intact when it comes to polls and predictions.

WATCH THIS:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-MzByUHIzw&feature=email

CLINTON STAFF: INDIANA? Those people are SH*T.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-MzByUHIzw&feature=email

Democrats always do well against on a "generic" ballot or a make believe opponent. Its when they have to run against an actual Republican they struggle.

I want to thank msnbc for the strong media teams they have reporting and analyzing the political news.  Namely, Joe Scarborough, Chris Matthews, David Gregory, Chuck Todd, Andrea Mitchell, Pat Buchanan, and Howard Fineman.Truly professional and concise in their reporting, they tell it like it is in a way for the average individual to understand and always give the rationale for their analyses.  I must also say, however, that the rantings of a new kid on the block, have turned me off.  Her name is Rachael Maddow and she is the rudest most self-centered media rep I have ever seen.  Has she no respect for her peers points of view?  What can't she just explain why she disagrees without trying to throw them under the bus?
Not what we tune in for.  You need to tame that shrew.
P.S.  I love starting my day with Morning Joe.  Keep up the good work Joe, Mika, and Willie.  

I live in a RED state (Utah) that will turn out even bigger if Clinton is the Democratic Nominee.  However, if it ends up Obama he will do better than any Democrat has done since Johnson (in Utah).  If McCain picks Huckabee as his running mate (and Obama is the Democratic Nominee) watchout The Mountain West (dominated by LDS)will either sit home or vote against McCain and Huckabee (Huckabee percieved as anti-LDS).

The center wins this election. Obama is to far to the left.

Senator Obama is the best to head the ticket in part because of down-ticket races.  

Why?  He seeks to unite us not divide us.  Every other candidate seeks to throw sand in our eyes to distract us from that call to unity, or tries to make certain that we start dividing up and soon.  

If your mind is still open, but you aren't certain that I am correct -- simply read the comments in the various threads here at First Read from Senator Clinton or Senator McCain supporters. Many of those comments are hate-filled tirades trying to fan racial fears and create real racial animosity.  Now, why would anyone want to turn the page back to yesterday?  Why would anyone want to risk the great progress we have made?

Is an election worth that sort of price?  I don't think so.  Wipe that sand out of your eyes and please visit

http://www.barackobama.com/index.php

You can stroll around and stay for awhile, check out Senator Obama's positions on the issues, find groups in your area (doing everything from some really good works, to simply getting together to have a good chat), read the blogs of Senator Obama's supporters and maybe, just maybe you too will catch the hope that is spreading across this nation--

maybe, just maybe you will feel the inspiration again that we can achieve absolutely anything so long as we stand together unified seeking a common purpose and common goals.

Try it -- I can assure you hope is much better for your soul than hate is any day of the week.  (And hope has the side effect of being very beneficial for these great States United of America).

Yes we can!  

Goldilocks with testicles .... I can hardly bear it!

Chuck, Mark and Domenion
first i really like FristRead thanks for maintaning it.
i have a question thougth for you why the news of Hillary Clinton Required to Testify in November to FEC Fraud never get the attention of the media same as every thing else - do i miss something here !!
Thanks again for your page.

And the gap will be bigger when Obama links McFossil to Bush's left hip. People are sick of Republicans and want a change. the change will be Obama.

Polls involving "Generic" candidates are often very misleading... when real names are inserted the results almost always change dramatically...

What Obama wishes he could say
By: John F. Harris and Jim VandeHei
May 1, 2008 03:27 PM EST

Thrown off his game by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright uproar, Barack Obama’s strongest answer to Hillary Rodham Clinton is one he won’t give: Senator, do you really want to get in a contest with me over who has more unsavory personal associations?

For all the coverage about the rising heat between Clinton and Obama, this year’s nomination race still is a mild affair by historical standards — restrained by a powerful sense on both sides that there are lots of things they could say but shouldn’t.

There is one theme, however, that runs through not-for-attribution conversations with both sides: Each candidate thinks the other has unmitigated gall.

The Clintons, to hear associates tell it, are more contemptuous than they ever acknowledge publicly about what they believe is Obama’s breathtaking arrogance — the way he blithely dismisses the ideological showdowns and policy achievements of the 1990s as “old politics,” the way he thinks his thin résumé leaves him qualified to lead the country. Lately, the contempt level on the Obama side toward his rivals likewise has been soaring.

More precisely, things that many people around the candidate have always believed about the Clintons — about their trail of controversies, about their style of politics — have in recent weeks seemed much more relevant. That’s made the temptation to say them in a more public fashion more powerful.

A couple weeks ago, we wrote a column about what Clinton would say if she said what she really thought.

Fairness dictates that we take a crack at the other side of the question: What arguments has Obama taken off the table, even though he thinks they are true?

Like the earlier column, sourcing on this one must stay pretty opaque. And like the earlier column, this one is intended as a reflection, not a validation, of the views expressed in a collection of not-for-attribution conversations with political associates about the behind-the-scenes thinking of the Obama camp.

The one line from the what-Clinton-thinks column that most agitated Obama supporters was our assertion that Clinton, for better or worse, was a known commodity. Her “baggage” has already been “rummaged through.”

Story Behind the Story
Why news gets covered the way it does

Politico’s top editors draw on their experience at the nation's largest news organizations to pull back the curtain on coverage decisions and the media mindset.

Obama's secret weapon: The media
What Clinton wishes she could say
Story behind the story: The Clinton myth
Obama's pastor: The backstory
How the sausage gets made
To which Obama supporters say: Oh yeah?

All manner of Clinton controversies, Obama partisans argue, have not been fully ventilated.

This includes old issues, like Hillary Clinton’s legal career, which includes lots of cases that never got much public attention even during the Whitewater era.

It also includes new ones, like recent stories raising questions about the web of personal and financial associations around Bill Clinton. Since leaving the presidency, he has traveled the globe to exotic places and with sometimes exotic characters, raising money for projects such as his foundation and presidential library and making himself a very wealthy man.

Which gets us back to gall. In the fantasies of some of his high-level supporters, Obama would peel off the tape to say something like this:

You want to talk hypocrisy? How about piously criticizing me for Jeremiah Wright when you have a trail of associations that includes golden oldies like Webb Hubbell? (‘90s flashback: He was one of Hillary Clinton’s legal partners and closest friends, whom she installed in a top Justice Department job before prosecutors sent him to prison.) It also includes modern hits like Frank Giustra. (In case you missed it: There was a January New York Times story, which did not get the attention the reporting deserved, highlighting how this Canadian tycoon and major Bill Clinton benefactor was using his ties to the ex-president to win business with a ruthless dictatorship in Khazakstan.)


Obama has never pressed Clinton to talk about Marc Rich, even though the former fugitive financier who won a controversial pardon from Bill Clinton gave money to her first Senate campaign.

He has never mentioned her brothers, even though Hugh and Tony Rodham once defied Bill Clinton’s own top foreign policy advisers by entering into a strange investment in hazelnuts in the former Soviet republic of Georgia (they later dropped the deal) and Hugh Rodham took large cash payments for trying to broker presidential pardons.

Obama is likewise galled to be lectured by Clinton for not being sufficiently committed to universal health coverage. Why is it, his team asks, that Democrats have done so little to advance a long-time progressive goal for the past 15 years? The answer has everything to do with Hillary Clinton’s misjudgments when she was leading the reform effort in 1993 and 1994.

Most irritating of all to Obama partisans is what they see as her latest pose: that she is selflessly staying in the race despite the long odds against her because of devotion to the Democratic Party and the belief that she is a more appealing general election candidate.

It is an article of faith among most people around Obama that the Clintons were a disaster for the party throughout the 1990s. When Bill Clinton came to town in 1993, Democrats were a congressional majority, with 258 seats in the House. When he left in 2001, they were a minority with 46 fewer seats. There were 30 Democratic governors when he arrived, 21 10 years later.

As for electability, the Obama side believes — for all his trouble winning lower-income whites in recent primaries — that it is ludicrous to believe she is the stronger candidate in the fall.

A recent ABC News/Washington Post poll found nearly 60 percent of voters think Clinton is dishonest. Think about that: Only four in 10 voters do not think she lies when she needs to. A majority hold an unfavorable view of her.

Will those numbers improve if she wins the nomination and Republicans resurrect the scandals, the Bill Clinton sexual affairs and her Bosnia fib with the same intensity they brought to the Wright uproar? Unthinkable.

Now that the Democratic superdelegates are facing their moment of decision in this close race, you might think it would be time for politesse to give way to an unvarnished discussion about both candidates' real strengths and liabilities.

The Obama side is frustrated with the news media for not carrying more of its argument. His operatives thought a Newsday story looking exhaustively at her legal career — including the revelation that as a young lawyer she attacked the credibility of a 12-year-old rape victim — would provoke a herd of other coverage. It did not happen.

If he really wanted, Obama could generate all the coverage he wanted about Clinton’s past by leveling accusations in his own words. But that is not going to happen.

Politically, he correctly believes that he would be called out as a hypocrite if he practiced the conventional art of attack politics after preaching against it.

And, to view his motives in the best light — a benefit of the doubt extended by his own team — he believes this campaign would also undermine his governing strategy if elected. He has told associates it would be impossible to win support for a progressive agenda unless he assumes the presidency as a uniting figure who can transcend the personality-obsessed brand of combat that has dominated Washington for the past generation.

“I told this to my team, you know, we are starting to sound like the other folks, we are starting to run the same negative stuff,” he told a crowd in North Carolina this week. “It shows that none of us are immune from this kind of politics. But the problem is that it doesn’t help you.”

© 2007 Capitol News Company, LLC
 

Well Carter the talk to Hamus people pres. wants Obama. Farrakhan and Wright  and Black Panthers have endorsed Obama. There is usually a reason people flock to another.Rezko and Ayers  are for Obama.The Palestine Activist he was on Woods with is for Obama. Obama got where he is by not allowing questions into him or his life. It would be bigoted,racist,fear mongering,or just mongering if anyone ask anything.The media fed him to us 24/7 and helped the light and ephiney theame.He is no one, has nothing and done nothing good for this country. Has a wife that has vowed to use her assets for Blacks and has a real problem with the white society in this country like her pastor. She cannt yet say the words to distance herself from him.She looks sad but is smart enough to know he had to be thrown off when he said Obama was a typical polititian.She I think needs to be looked into.There is a reason why he wants to rush his win so bad. I think some thing will come out before Nov.anyway.The Repubs are useing him and his pastor to win down stream votes already.He can raise money but cannt win anything even paying 4 or 5 to 1.He is Elitist and doesnt get it we arent for sale.There are small towns in NC and INd too.He was talking about them too when with his rich pals that he never takes money from. His people really believe that OMG.

Actually Pete there are a whole lot of people who LIKE and BELIEVE in Hillary and she has shown she is more electable than Obama. I plan on voting for her that's for sure. She makes more sense than either of the other 2 candidates. And what about the people who "hate" Obama and would vote for McCain? Give it a break....

The Dems need to nominate that generic candidate. Where is the problem for the SDs?

Who are we (Democrats) kidding?

We are not going to win the Presidency this year nor the Sentate. We might pick up a few House seats.

I just have to say that if I was NOT totally convinced before - I certainly am now... MSM & especially MSNBC do CONTROL this election - with all the major gaffes Shrillary has committed the past couple of days - there is  not a PEEP out of MSNBC!!

How about reporting on the Magnequench deal (at least ABC had the balls to!) How about the push polling that's going on?? How about the deceptive phone calls being made by the woman's group??

Nope... nothing... nada... zilch out of MSNBC!!!

Instead we get 'Goldilocks' GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!!!!

People are not as stupid as you believe and I for one am an bitter white woman who will now be turning off MSNBC (sorry Keith & Rachel you are the only voice of reason at this circus) on this bias media outlet!  WE get the point as to who you want as the democratic candidate... a woman who will lie cheat & steal her way to the whitehouse... GOD help us all!

Obama 08 - YES WE CAN!!

hillary must be the winner cause she is the onlyest one that has a vagina and thats all importannt to the smarter than men woemen voters GO HILLARY GO

Interesting to hear Clinton admitting to being an elite: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/1/141056/8407/338/507139

Why when you normally run a "super event" like "Michelle" (alll superstars go by one name) ..when you run such schmaltz for an hour or two are you running this p.r. all day ? Surely you can disquise your bias better than that...

SUPERDELEGATES, they are named. I am disgusted to read about those so named SUPERDELEGATES WHO pledge and then have the unashamed nerve to punlicly announce they are changing from Clinto to Obama. WE DO NOT NEED THIS TYPE OF SUPERDELEGATE WHO CANNOT KEEP A PLEDGE. D I S G U S T I N G SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE PRIVILEGE OF super deligating.

This congress poll rating has been lower than Bushs.That  does not  bode well for the democrats that were elected with promises of impeachment and ending the  war in Iraq.They have done neither.Now republicans are running ads against the dems using obama as a weapon.Already these dems are disowning obama.There are as many anti-obamas voters who have said they will vote for mccain as anti-clinton.This includes many democrats that have and are leaving the party.Lets be honest on this site once in a while. Boston Legal had a wonderful program about the DNC that was a real eye opener about this party and its archaic rules and voting irregularities. Superdupers are a joke.They vote how they want not how their state votes.They think the voters are too stupid and ignorant to know who to vote for.                          

Disgusted---YOU are a lost soul...it's not about friendship or loyalty...it's about saving this country and doing what's best for it....YOU MUST BE A Republican...they blindly look out for each other..and watched our country go to crap.....GET A CLUE ...

Union Baby,

As an Obama supporter, I've been called a kid, an Obamabot, an Obamapod, a Kool-Aid Drinker, an Obamaramadingdong, an Obamaton...

If you want 4 more years of Bush, by all means, vote McSame.

Kinda skeptical of "generics" since only name brands will be running in November.

Things look good for democrats.  If Obama is the nominee,  then we lose and he may take a few good congresspeople with him.  Obama cannot win in November.

I cannot preceive an Obama presidency and Michelle as first lady.  YUCKY!!!! Obama and Michelle are cut from the same cloth as Wright.  They probably planned this whole thing.  You can bet you bippy he isn't going anywhere and after the election he will be right back in the Obama's lives.

With Clinton or Mc Cain in the White House you know
what you're going to get: more of the same...as both
are veteran, beltway-insiders.

If you think we all can do better...the only logical
choice of the 3 is Barack Obama.

The worst that could happen if Obama becomes president is we find out he's no better than Clinton or Mc Cain.

Obama could be a 2008 version of a JFK type of leader. Those types don't come along very often in
our lives. Let's not lose the chance for a person who could be very special for our country and the world: vote Obama.

FYI: I'm a middle-income, baby-boomer, white male from the midwest.

Man, democrats are a sad group.  Just listen too yourselves bickering over who are the biggest Koolaid drinkers.  If you want the hard truth, Hillary supports are nuts... you are supporting a dishonest politician who has spent her entire career pandering to people who are to stupid to see through it (and if you disagree with me, well read that sentence again).  Obama supporters are way too optimistic, they are supporting a candidate who believes he can trust the intelligence of the American people (fat chance).  You people will continue to tear each other down until there is nothing left, and you know what, you deserve it.    

And a generic demo beats a generic repub by 30 points for POTUS. But "generics" ain't the candidates; people are.

GO HILLARY !!!
I do not hate obama - but - if he steals the nomination by blocking FL & MI votes - I will have to vote for McCain.  Obama is just not Presidential material - he is not ready or able to lead our country.  His background is just too questionable to ever by the President of the USA!
It is not about Dem or Rep - it is about the best person - Hillary or McCain!

Loyal Fan...you must watch MSNBC with blinders on.  Andrea Mitchell and Pat Buchanan are so anti Obama, must be the way he combs his hair. Na I'm sure they struggle with his race.  Then there is Chuck "CLINTON" Todd.  Rest my case.

Bob, Chicago

hey hillary for prez-

actually there are MORE people who dislike and don't believe hillary.  do you really think someone with a 60% disapproval rating is gonna win?

No Kool Ade in USA (Sent Thursday, May 01, 2008 4:42 PM)

Black Panthers endorsing Obama?  They don't even exist as an organization anymore. Now they are all old men and women.

Anyone who injects Black Panthers, Farrakhan, or even Rev Wright is trying to scare you.  This is a scare tactic.  Don't believe the hype.  

That seems to be the whole argument against Clinton: if she's the nominee, then the Republicans will be worked up into a frenzy and bring down the Democrats.  I'm sorry, but I just don't buy it.  Take a good look at her tenure in the Senate, and you'll see a larger than normal record of bipartisanship.  She's also managed to coopt, or at least quiet, many of those that went after her with a passion while she was first lady.  A number of her former political enemies now admit to having a certain amount of respect for her, even if it is a begrudging respect in some cases.  Either way, it's not like Obama is going to get a free pass from the Republicans.  If Obama wins the nomination, expect to see a lot of ads talking about Rev. Wright, Michelle Obama's lack of pride in America until her husband became the frontrunner, Obama's lack of outwardly-visible patriotism and many other ridiculous complaints.  Remember, these are the same people who claimed both that Hillary was secretly a lesbian at the same time they claimed she was having an affair with Vince Foster.  Facts aren't really all that neccessary for the attack dogs of the extreme right.  Add to this the fact that, while Hillary has become somewhat more centrist, Obama's record is solidly liberal.  You had better believe that the right wing attack dogs will work as hard as they can to make Obama seem every bit as objectionable to their base as Clinton.  They have to, because they're pretty much on the wrong (or at least unpopular) side of almost every issue.  The good news is that people are registering as Democrats at an unprecedented rate in many areas.  The bad news is that this campaign is threatening to fracture the Democratic base.  If Obama can't overcome the image of being too far removed from the day to day concerns of the middle and working classes McCain could pick off a number of the more moderate and conservative Democrats.  If Hillary appears to steal the nomination away from Obama, then some African-Americans and more likely some new young voters could stay at home on election day.  This may sound like heresy to many, but the most effective solution seems to be a Clinton/Obama ticket, with the added benefit of positioning Obama perfectly to take over after Hillary.  I don't care how much they may hate each other right now, they had better learn how to pretend to be best friends real soon, or we could end up still bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, while fighting a new war with Iran.

First Read, if you do ONE more Reverend Wright story, clip, or anything else, with giving the SAME light to John McCain and his seeking the endorsement of Pastor John Haggee, who has made statements such as:

"Your daughter can get an abortion in public school without telling you but she can't get an aspirin without your approval."

then I have no choice but to consider First Read hypocrites, who perpetuate a double standard in their reporting.  If Obama's judgement is to be questioned because of attending Wright's church, then what of John McCain's judgement when he has yet to reject Haggee, in light of all the comments he has made about Americans who are gay, Jewish, Catholic, Muslim, and even female.  

 Pastor Haggee has declared that God has cursed and doomed America.  How different is that from Rev. Wright's diatribe?  Either be fair and objective, or do not run any more Wright stories in the slightest.  Senator Obama has had two months based on his associatins, why should John McCain be given a free ride?

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):