L.A.Times/Bloomberg poll shows Clinton and Obama beating McCain

[DeepModem Mom]

Source: Los Angeles Times

By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
May 9, 2008

Washington -- Although Democrats are still tangled in a fractious presidential primary, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would probably beat presumptive GOP nominee John McCain in the popular vote if the election were held now, according to a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll released today.

McCain remains competitive, but the poll identified one important vulnerability: Voters ranked him lowest among the three candidates on who could best handle the nation's economic problems, by far the most pressing concern for the public irrespective of party, gender or income. Of the three main candidates, Clinton inspired the most confidence on the economy, even though she appears unlikely to win the Democratic nomination.

In a hypothetical matchup between Clinton and McCain, the New York senator led the Arizonan by 47% to 38%, with 11% saying they were undecided. And in a contest between Obama and McCain, the poll gave the Illinois senator a 46% to 40% lead over the Republican, with 9% undecided. The nationwide poll had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

The results represent a slight shift from a Times/Bloomberg poll in February, in which McCain led Clinton by 6 points, and Obama by 2 points, within the poll's margin of error. The direction has now changed in favor of the Democrats.

"Although there is such infighting now between the two Democratic candidates, we are finding that both Democrats are beating McCain, and this could be attributed to the weakening of the economy," said Times polling director Susan Pinkus, who supervised the survey....

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-poll10-2008may10,0,6816866.story

[BlooInBloo]

1. Who's this "Clinton" you speak ok?

[Journeyman]

2. So from February to now, McCain's gone from 6 points ahead of Clinton to 11 behind. . .

and from 2 points ahead of Obama to 6 point behind, yet the article says this is "within the poll's margin of error." Is that for the comparison between the two polls, or just the February lead over Obama?

This sounds like a very sloppy poll -- or at the least, a sloppily-written article -- to say the least.

A very telling comment from the article: . . . among the 78% of voters who said they believe the economy has slid into a recession, 52% would vote for Obama, compared with 32% for McCain. A matchup between Clinton and McCain showed nearly identical results. This explains the recent "happy talk" from Treasury Secretary Paulson that the "worst of the credit crisis may have passed."

[Jackpine Radical]

3. I read that sentence a bit differently.

I thought the "within the margin of error" bit referred only to the 2-point difference between McCain & Obama in the earlier poll. But you're right--sloppy writing.

[Journeyman]

4. It really only make sense if it's the February poll. . .

though I've gotta say, if I had written the article, I'd have put more emphasis on the turn of events against McCain than the article does.

But yea, sloppy writing.

[bhikkhu]

5. This is what the RW have been worrying about since January at least -

They never had a candidate who polled well against our frontrunners, and McCain was as bad as any. Hence the tacit string-pulling and media cooperation with the bloodying up of our race.

McCain is still not much of a runner.

[DarthDem]

6. I Agree

He seems like a credible candidate now with the media pumping him up, but ultimately, I expect Obama to beat him as convincingly as Bill Clinton beat Dole - - another old fool with weak, drastically inflated Senatorial credentials.