Repubs chose McCain because he did the best in head-to-head polls against us.

[TwilightGardener]

They chose him not because they like him, but because he consistently has shown the most ability to beat our nominee. They did NOT choose Romney, in large part because of his WEAKNESS in head-to-heads. I would like to ask DU Hillary supporters, why does everyone here believe the head-to-head polls in terms of McCain's strength, but in the same exact polls, DISMISS Hillary's results in terms of weakness? So McCain is their best guy, and they chose well, according to those matchups--and we agree. But even though Hillary usually loses or barely ties, SHE'S somehow OUR best chance to win? Where is the fucking logic in this thinking?

[ingac70]

1. There is no logic in that thinking....

they obviously want us to lose in Nov.

[TwilightGardener]

2. I am going to kick this until the Hillary supporters can explain their logic.

[TwilightGardener]

3. Kick for an answer.

[TwilightGardener]

4. Kick, still waiting.

[theboss]

5. Close...But Repubs did not choose McCain

Independents did.

He used the same calculus as he used in 2000, except this time Bush's vote was split in half between Romney and McCain.

[TwilightGardener]

6. No, it wasn't all Indies choosing him--he won some closed primaries.

He has strength with Indies, but also moderate Repubs who logically want to win--his weakness is with those on a quest for ideological purity on the right. They tried to throw Thompson to the wall to see if he would stick, and that didn't work. So in the end, McCain's polling strength against our candidate was his ultimate weapon.

[onenote]

8. we have a winner!! McCain was not the repub base's first or second choice

In how many primary states did McCain get 50 percent of the vote? Three: NY, New Jersey, and Delaware. He didn't even get 50 percent in his home state. This doesn't mean that repubs won't support him in the GE -- they will. It just means that some theory about why repubs "picked" McCain assumes that they picked him as opposed to his winning because two candidates preferred by the repubs conservative base -- Romney and Huckabee -- split more than half the vote in most states.

[hadrons]

7. Most Republicans voted AGAINST McCain ....

Qitt Romney and Mike Suckabee split the vote enough for McCain to take the lead ... and besides, most McCain voters hated the rest of the bad bunch.

[TwilightGardener]

10. If McCain had done poorly in R-vs-D polls, how would he have won?

McCain was the default candidate because everyone else had their fatal flaws--but the reason why he ended up winning was because it was common knowledge that he was the most electable, and did the best against us. I think it's pretty clear.

[joeybee12]

9. The logic is because it's only February and these polls mean squat...

....in 1992 Bill Clinton lost badly in early polls to Bush I UNTIL the Dem Convention started, and he started leading and NEVER trailed.

[TwilightGardener]

11. Do you believe that McCain is their weakest candidate, then? Because

I don't think anyone made that argument here on DU. In fact, many here used the McCain-Edwards matchup to justify voting for Edwards. We didn't pick Edwards, though, because the Dems don't work that way. But Republicans do.

[joeybee12]

12. I do think they believed he was their best chance...the rest are

really trainwrecks. But once the GE starts, it's a whole new ballgame. He's half-asleep most of the time and he's made some really stupid comments that will make for great commericals palyed over and over and over.

[TwilightGardener]

16. So...what does McCain's weaknesses have to do with my original question?

Why did the polls show McCain was their best chance against us, but those same polls don't show that Obama or Edwards is our best chance against them? I'm asking, using the same polling info, why Hillary is our best chance? Or do we believe the info when it fits our assumptions, and discard the data that runs up against what we want to believe?

[joeybee12]

20. Because early polls mean squat...the polls have fluctuated so much

right now before each caucus and primary...there are 9 months to go...a well-run campaign changes people's votes...you can't tell me that this poll will hold up in November...there is no instance in which a poll this early has been an accurate predictor. you can highlight this poll all you want, but come the GE stuff like this is worthless...that's my logic, based on experience. It matters who runs a better campaign...and I believe Hilary will.

[TwilightGardener]

22. No, the head-to-head matchups have NOT fluctuated since the summer.

Edwards did the best, Obama did the second-best, Hillary does the worst. That's been amazingly solid. To assume it will change, and change IN YOUR FAVOR, is making a faith-based choice.

[theboss]

25. In Summer, Guiliani smoked everybody

These head to head match-up polls don't mean much until the campaign starts.

It should only take Democrats three weeks to drive McCain's numbers into the toilet.

[TwilightGardener]

26. Rudy didn't win. He didn't compete in the early states. Edwards didn't win--

you have to win to keep winning. Once McCain started winning in NH, that was it. Once Edwards lost Iowa, that was it. Obama, McCain, and Hillary are all on equal footing now, because all have won. No reason why the head-to-head polls will change, if they haven't yet.

[theboss]

28. Dukakis once buried Bush head to head

Perot once led everyone.

Don't pay attention to head to head polls until the summer.

[TwilightGardener]

29. We don't have the luxury of waiting to see what the head-to-head polls

will say in the summer in terms of choosing our nominee. We choose our nominee now.

[theboss]

30. Don't choose your nominee based on head to head polls

It's short-sighted.

[TwilightGardener]

31. I didn't. I chose Obama long ago, when he declared--I stay with him

because he seems like a winner--he has charisma, excitement around his candidacy, can speak well, can inspire, has judgment and policies and positions I agree with, ran a kick-ass campaign so far, handled smears and missteps with grace, didn't screw up very often, raised incredible money, got the media on his side and KEPT it there, played political jujitsu with a former President and won the round, and would contrast well against the Fossil in November--and I just downright like the guy, personally. The good head-to-head matchups just confirm to me that he's a winner. If he did poorly in them, I'd have to question my own political instincts, frankly.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. By Your Logic Hill And Barack Should Have Dropped Out Because Edwards Did Best Against McCain

They still can ...

[TwilightGardener]

18. No--but one of the reasons I supported Obama was because he usually

came out on top in those matchups, even if Edwards often had a bigger margin--I figured either of them could beat McCain, but out of the two, I liked Obama better than Edwards, and thought he was a better campaigner and money-raiser. Edwards was my choice ahead of Hillary, however, because of that poll performance. People who support Hillary, knowing what they know with this info, are willfully making a decision based on faith, not fact. We believe info that fits what we want, and discard that which doesn't.

[Iceburg]

14. Zogby: Obama beats Hillary by 17% in CA ...more poll nonsense /nt

[TwilightGardener]

17. So...you're just going to hope, and assume, the polls are wrong. Because sometimes

they are. But...what happens when they're right? Do we have six months to wait and see what happens before choosing our nominee?

[Iceburg]

15. Zogby: Obama beats Hillary by 17% in CA ...more poll nonsense /nt

[rinsd]

19. Hillary's "weakness" is a 1 to 2 pts deficit & Obama's "strength" is a 3 pt lead...9 months out.

[TwilightGardener]

21. That's consistent, though--Hillary has, at the most, beaten McCain by

one point. Obama usually beats him by 2-7 points. Will that hold up? Who knows? But it has been unchanging for months now, even though the other candidates are out of the race and it's down to three people. I don't discount it, myself. I think it should be something for everyone to keep in mind.

[Freddie Stubbs]

23. No, they chose him because the conservatives split their vote and

the moderates supported him.

[theboss]

24. Republicans don't think this way; Democrats do

Republicans historically vote for the guy who has waited his turn.

The only two real "grassroots" Repub candidates since the WWII are Goldwater and W.

Eisenhower was obvious. Whichever party he asked was going to nominate him.
Nixon was next in line.
Goldwater came out of nowher...and promptly got crushed.
Nixon snuck back in line.
Ford was an incumbant.
Reagan was next in line.
Bush was next in line.
Dole was next in line.
W jumped the line.
McCain was next in line.

[DrFunkenstein]

27. Because Immigration is Not As Big a Deal as People Make Out

Talking about undocumented workers is not as burning hot as the most vocal people would make out. It makes a nice scapegoat, but hardly a top priority. Just ask President Tancredo.