Poll: Obama Stronger Nominee Than Hillary

Comments (17)

rssrai wrote on July 26, 2007 3:03 PM:

Why didn't they poll Edwards? He probably leads all the repugs by bigger margins than Hillary or Obama.

destor23 wrote on July 26, 2007 3:06 PM:

And why poll Fred Thompson rather than somebody who's you know, in the race?

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

RLAdlof wrote on July 26, 2007 3:11 PM:

AND more importantly . . . How did Biden do? Dodd? Richa. . .

Sigh.

terryhallinan wrote on July 26, 2007 3:14 PM:

Why didn't they poll Edwards? He probably leads all the repugs by bigger margins than Hillary or Obama.

It wouldn't be fair to the Republicans.

Nobody can catch an invisible man.

Best, Terry

RLAdlof wrote on July 26, 2007 3:16 PM:

Flavor o' the month . . . Ten Flavors of Vanilla pulled McCain Mania from the market and is hocking Freddy Fucked-up this month.

CT Voter wrote on July 26, 2007 3:19 PM:

Who are these respondents? Was this a telephone poll? Does 16% of the nation typically go to church more than once a week? And 23% of this group has a strongly favorable opinion of Bush?

Senator Clinton has some troubling "unfavorable" ratings, compared to the other candidates. 40% strongly unfavorable? Ouch. That can't be good news for her campaign.

And, drum roll, please: the top criticism of the Democrats was that they gave in to President Bush on the war.

RLAdlof wrote on July 26, 2007 3:27 PM:

As an Edwards supporter, I would hope so . . . BUT Dittoheads have hair on their brain so I'm not so sure.

As with all these polls design and sample poll is the tell . . . We need a trully random sample of a decent number of folk. Almost all of the pollster we keep reading reports from are re-fishing the same waterholes.

Barbie wrote on July 26, 2007 3:29 PM:

My gut still tells me it'll be Romney for the Republicans. He'll beat Hillary. He wouldn't beat Obama.

penalcolony wrote on July 26, 2007 3:47 PM:

No other polls show Hillary/Obama matchups with anything like these differences, and Battleground's track record is less than stellar. Disregard.

Eric Stepp wrote on July 26, 2007 3:53 PM:

Is there really a point in these polls, other than telling the MSM which candidate to hack down in order to maintain a horse-race?

We should be picking candidate on their policy positions, not who's the most popular.

Primaries are 6-8 months away. The general election 16 months away. Polls this far out are as predictive as The Great Carnak.

~~~~~~~~~~~
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity.

demwinger wrote on July 26, 2007 4:15 PM:

this poll is garbage, and the fact that the blogger even puts it on here without a disclosure is questionable in an otherwise great site.

... scroll down and see who they polled.

41% republicans... 42% democrats... LMAO. dems have more than a 10% advantage in voter ID.

63% are conservative... and 33% say liberal... so 2 to 1 conservative??!?!!!

also almost half consider them born again. LMAO. and just 2% say they never attend church.

compare all this to national exit polls from even 2004 and it doesn't come close

i think they polled Alabama.

oleeb wrote on July 26, 2007 4:33 PM:

I hate to be the one to say so folks, but the Republicans are salivating over the chance to take on either Hillary or Obama. These polls reflect a response in a hypothetical atmosphere that doesn't take into account the unethical assaults the Republicans will use to tear down any Democrat they face. The Republicans can see daylight if they face one of these two for the most obvious of reasons. The attacks almost write themselves. With a deft exploitation and understanding of the electoral map, the Republican swine can take those attacks and put together a winning 270 electoral votes and this poll (or any others) doesn't measure that scenario.

It doesn't mean the Republicans will win, but I'm sure they think they are at least still in the game in fall 08 if one of these two gets the nod. I think they are much more fearful of Edwards and they have reason to be afraid of having to face him. That's why they've spent so much time and energy working the media against him on the cheap smears. They hope to keep him down and out of the primary competition first and foremost. The attack points on Edwards wouldn't allow them to exploit the most visceral and base fears of the electorate as would the attacks on the others. It's despicable of course, but it's reality.

davet103 wrote on July 26, 2007 5:57 PM:

Agreed oleb, the media beats up who the Republicans want beat up and that is clearly Edwards. I don't think they can win no matter what but they WANT it to be Hillary or Obama. Just like they wanted it to be Kerry. My twin worked for Heritage back in 2004 and when it looked all Dean, she told me over and over, we want Kerry and we'll get him, they did.

bp wrote on July 26, 2007 6:11 PM:

Sorry: this is the kind of exercise that gives polling a bad name. For now I am concerned that both Hillary and Obama are being set up. If the former wins then the "she's a woman"gang will move into action. If Obama is the man then the man can expect the nudge nudge wink wink attack.

The race is getting interesting and the candidates must engage so as to derive strength and be prepared for the actial contest. And why is Edwards being dismissed?

slcathena wrote on July 26, 2007 6:45 PM:

In regards to the where are Dodd/Biden numbers comments, the truth of polling is that there is a limited amount of time, and money. If you want to get meaningful responses to your poll you cannot test every permutation of 7 or 8 candidates in each side, it's not possible, your completion rate would be horrendous.

Trust me, the campaigns are running those numbers internally, and if they were meaningful, they would be leaked in a second.

terryhallinan wrote on July 26, 2007 7:10 PM:

The attack points on Edwards wouldn't allow them to exploit the most visceral and base fears of the electorate as would the attacks on the others.

I disagree, oleeb, though I am coming around more and more to being a fan of Edwards.

I am assuming you are talking about Hillary's gender and Obama's race. Today those are probably strengths rather than otherwise.

Campaigns are won or lost for various reasons with rational thinking probably of far importance than emotion. Being tall, for example, is of great importance.

Given everything, the voters have clearly taken a leftward turn. Hillary's stated distaste for being labeled a liberal is echoed in wingers now calling Bush a liberal. I suspect these yo-yo's are about to learn that being called a liberal is not a bad thing at all these days. And who, pray tell, is not only a liberal but a populist?

Best, Terry

oleeb wrote on July 26, 2007 9:50 PM:

It isn't even really a question of whether one likes Edwards. He simply doesn't present as rich and easy a target as the other two.

Yes, the Republicans will, without any question, use her gender and his race to attack Obama and Clinton in ways designed to scare the living bejesus out of millions of white people and men. I don't think that in this day and age that those are insurmountable problems as they would have been in the past. I do, however, think they remain very significant political and strategic problems that must be taken into account.

Clinton and Obama can still win, but not in my opinion because the electorate has turned left. They are anti-Bush and anti-Republican at this point in time because of their revulsion at the corruption, incompetence, and the war the Bush/Republican crew have been responsible for the past 7 years. I don't think we can exploit those negative perceptions and feelings as well with a centrist at the top of the ticket.

It will be our team's job to get the electorate to turn left, but you can't lead left when you are committed to the center. I think they are ready for it, but neither Clinton nor Obama are campaigning to lead the nation to the left. They believe it is better to play it safe, not "risk" being too liberal. By choosing that "safe" course, I believe they actually make themselves more vulnerable because the distinction between Democrats and Republicans is blurred if you take the DLC clone road that both Clinton and Obama are on.

So, they run from a position that de-emphasizes the important differences between Dems and Republicans and they have the built-in attack points of gender and race to hand to the right wing attack dogs. It is not out of the question that 08 could be a massive Democratic landslide, but that's only possible if the top of the ticket is strong and helps create a huge groundswell for the party. I dont' see a centrist candidate, regardless of who that may be, generating the energy and enthusiasm necessary to power a leftward landslide because they'll be pinned down by the attack machine from Labor Day till election day defending their centrist agenda--playing into the Republicans hands.

The Republicans more than anything else will want voters to believe the differences between D's and R's are as inconsequential as possible. That's the only thing that keeps them in the game at this point. Only an open liberal will be able to attack the other side with vigor and integrity and accentuate the differences between Democrats and Republicans. That approach could generate the energy and power necessary to produce a landslide in 08. And thus, that's why I think Republicans are excited about the prospect of facing either Clinton or Obama as opposed to Edwards.

I'm voting for whoever the Democratic nominee is, I'd just like to see the strongest possible liberal leading the ticket so we can, in fact, turn the nation left.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)