McCain losing votes to Obama in N.H.
By Maeve Reston and Doyle McManus, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
December 30, 2007
NASHUA, N.H. -- Like many New Hampshire voters, Dave Montgomery considers himself a dyed-in-the-wool independent -- which in this state means he can vote in either the Republican or Democratic presidential primary when he goes to the polls Jan. 8.
This year, the semi-retired school bus driver from Milford finds himself torn between two candidates, one from each party: Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Barack Obama of (D-Ill.).
Montgomery likes McCain, he said, because "he seems to be enough of a rebel." He likes Obama for pretty much the same reason -- because he seems to be "his own man."
"I think either one of them could do the job," he said.
Independents like Montgomery may be the decisive factor for both major parties when New Hampshire holds the nation's first primary next week, hot on the heel's of Iowa's caucuses on Thursday. And the choices these nonaligned New Hampshire voters make almost assuredly will shape the nation's later primary races.
"This big group in the middle . . . has a chance to really transform the election," said Tom Rath, a veteran New Hampshire Republican strategist who is advising former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-Mass.). Describing the efforts to woo independents, he added: "It's more like a general election here."
If Obama bests national front runner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), he probably will owe his New Hampshire victory to independents, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll suggested last week.
Among the state's registered Democrats, the survey found Clinton led Obama, 35% to 28%. But among independents who plan to vote in the Democratic primary, Obama led, 37% to 24% -- turning the contest into a virtual tie.
Rest of the article is HERE.
The reason why this article is important, is because it points out the fallacy of Barack Obama's ' Unelectability'.
In the last month, poll after poll has consistently shown that Barack Obama polls well, against every major GOP Candidate in the General Election. He consistently polls BETTER than Hillary Clinton.
Because of his appeal to independents and some Republicans.
You see in this article that Hillary wasn't remotely a choice for him. It was Obama or McCain. Independents have already told the pollsters that they aren't voting for Hillary Clinton. They will consider Obama.
You win elections by trying to appeal to the broadest possible constituency. Of course you CAN win with '50%+1', but what has that brought us in this country the past seven years? Nothing but bitterness upon bitterness. Why set ourselves up for that AGAIN (with Clinton), when we don't have to. When you have a candidate that can gather a broad coalition to govern.
Barack Obama is electable.
He's NOT the one that HALF THE COUNTRY says they will NEVER VOTE FOR.
I have said it before; I'm not naive to think that Obama couldn't be victim to some sort of Bradley Effect. But, I stand by this: for him to catch up to where Clinton is RIGHT NOW?
It would have to be the size of a tsunami.
Cross-posted at BrownIowa