Hillary Gives Some NJ Primary Voters “Buyer’s Remorse”

  • Posted by Joseph
  • April 30, 2008

A new poll from Monmouth University shows that some New Jersey Democrats have changed their mind since voting for Hillary in February’s primary…

Clinton bested Obama in the New Jersey presidential primary on February 5th by a 54%
to 44% margin. However, the ongoing nomination contest seems to have given some Garden
State Democrats second thoughts. Currently, more Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents say they would like to see Obama (45%) rather than Clinton (38%) get the party’s
nomination.

“It appears that less than three months after giving Hillary Clinton a 10 point victory in
the state’s primary, some New Jersey voters feel buyer’s remorse,” said poll director Patrick Murray. “Many state Democrats are concerned that the prolonged battle could hobble their party’s eventual nominee in November.”

Information and Links

Join the fray by commenting, tracking what others have to say, or linking to it from your blog.

Information
April 30th, 2008
6 Responses
Feeds and Links
Comment Feed
From This Author
Del.icio.us
Digg
Technorati
Categories
2008 Elections
Hillary Clinton
Plunderbund

Other Posts
House Republicans Amend Anti-Keno Bill to Pay Day Lending Legislation
Clinton Backed 527 Group Illegally Robocalling North Carolina?


Say Something!

Because we value your thoughtful opinions, you are encouraged to add a comment to this post. Don't be offended if your comment is edited for clarity or to keep out questionable material. Comments may even be deleted at the discretion of the Plundercrew. You signal your agreement to this by clicking 'Submit Comment' below. Everyone who comments here is responsible for them.

Plunderchat:

Comment Number:
1
Written by:
Eric
Posted on:
April 30, 2008 at 2:09 pm

If the roles were reversed here, we’d no doubt hear Hillary surrogates and backers making an electability argument here. I’ll just say we lost and were able to gain a delegate lead anyway.

We’ll need you in November New Jersey! Keep hope alive!

Comment Number:
2
Written by:
Modern Esquire
Posted on:
April 30, 2008 at 3:03 pm

Well if one wanted to make an electability argument for Hillary, one could point out that on state-by-state polling, Hillary continues to do better than Obama in the key battleground states of OH, PA, and FL.

And that current state-by-state polling shows that Hillary has a sufficient lead in enough states to get 291 electoral votes in the general while Obama gets only 243 to McCain’s 269, and would have to win both Indiana and North Carolina in order to still beat McCain.

Comment Number:
3
Written by:
Modern Esquire
Posted on:
April 30, 2008 at 3:04 pm

Sorry, let me correct that, tie McCain and then beat him with a vote from the majority of the House of Representatives, assuming we still have the majority.

Comment Number:
4
Written by:
Eric
Posted on:
April 30, 2008 at 3:17 pm

Hah! The old electoral college argument. I love it. Rule changing at it’s best. Your entire argument assumes primary polling in a general election. You should know better than that.

None of these polls mean jack squat…yet. Hell, McCain hasn’t even been in the news yet has he? LOL.

I’d say the person who has won more DEMOCRAT voters (and don’t even go all Jerome Armstrong on me), more DEMOCRAT caucuses, more DEMOCRAT delegates, and more STATES is the one who gets the nomination.

I personally don’t think there is that much difference in either one’s electability, but I sure have fun watching Hill Shillers go on about it. You guys act as if no Hillary voter will vote for Obama in a general - and perhaps they won’t.

Comment Number:
5
Written by:
Modern Esquire
Posted on:
April 30, 2008 at 4:22 pm

Um, the Electoral College has been THE standard of electibility since the Constitution was ratified. It’s hardly a “rule change” since that is, by definition, how one gets elected President. Thus, it’s the only standard for electibility that matters.

BTW, if you had checked the site (which came to me from a recommendation by Kos), you’d see that these aren’t primary polls, but head-to-head. But if “none of these polls mean jack squat” then I guess this post is meaningless.

By the way, it’s DEMOCRATIC voters, don’t go all right-wing talking points on me and say Democrat.

All I’m saying is right now it looks like OH, PA, and FL are all out of reach for Obama in the general according to all available polling.
I can’t think of a single candidate who ever won a presidential campaign that lost all three states. Hillary also makes MO competitive.

You said the electibility argument, solely, don’t go trying to pretend that the topic was something else.

I think it’s odd that you’d put so much stock in a buyer’s remorse poll (which actually may only reflect a desire to see this contest end) as an argument against Hillary’s electability, but you’d discount actual polls that shows nationally she could win the election against McCain while Obama loses.

Or that you think the electoral college argument is not important.

Comment Number:
6
Written by:
Eric
Posted on:
April 30, 2008 at 7:14 pm

Um, I never put any stock in this poll. Most of what I’ve been commenting on is your comment. You have a point with electoral college and electability. I guess I’m speaking in terms of the primary. It’s meaningless. Only delegates matter - or should. The only reason we’re talking “electability” and “electoral college” is because your candidate got her ass kicked 11 times in a row and didn’t have a plan for after Super Tuesday…

Right wing talking point? A Hillary supporter telling me not to use a right wing talking point! That’s funny I don’t care who you are. I think it was YOU who used McCain talking points in a DEMOCRAT primary. Last I checked the party was called Democrat.

I do think electoral college and electability are important, but I don’t think these polls accurately reflect the nature of the game when we have a candidate and the press gets to start paying attention to McCain. That’s all. You essentially have two against one right now and that is surely affecting polling.