« Dem Field Clears In Big Michigan Race | Home | 
Rudy Again Says That Anti-Petraeus-Type Speech "Should Not Be Allowed" »
Rudy Again Says That Anti-Petraeus-Type Speech "Should Not Be Allowed" »
Poll: Democrats Looking Strong In New Mexico
A new SurveyUSA poll shows the Democrats to be in good shape to carry New Mexico in 2008:
Clinton (D) 51%, Giuliani (R) 43%
Clinton (D) 53%, Thompson (R) 42%
Clinton (D) 54%, Romney (R) 39%
Obama (D) 46%, Giuliani (R) 46%
Obama (D) 52%, Thompson (R) 41%
Obama (D) 55%, Romney (R) 36%
Edwards (D) 48%, Giuliani (R) 44%
Edwards (D) 52%, Thompson (R) 37%
Edwards (D) 54%, Romney (R) 34%
New Mexico voted narrowly for Al Gore in 2000, and then switched over to narrowly supporting President Bush in 2004.
Interesting side note: It doesn't look like SurveyUSA even tested Bill Richardson as the Democratic nominee — even though he's the state's current governor.
Advertisement
These polls are indeed very good news, and it is strange (or, one might argue, revealing) that they didn't bother to test Richardson.
New Mexico is a state with a fair number of rural and suburban Hispanic voters who aren't necessarily partisan Democrats. These voters helped Bush move New Mexico from Blue to Red in 2004. I think Bush's failures and the GOP's shrill rhetoric on immigration will have more of these folks voting for Democrats in 2008.
September 24, 2007 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
This poll slightly contradicts the notion that Edwards is the best nominee and that Clinton would have a hard time in the West, but it also goes along with the theory that Obama is trailing the two other Democrats, as we saw a few days ago in the Missouri poll.
September 24, 2007 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I too, think they should have asked about Richardson.
I don't think this info contradicts any of the information that has come out lately. Take a look at the numbers and not just straight up and down. The performance of the three on the head to head matchup is statistically insignificant or put another way their numbers are very close to the same. The one area where a significant difference might be extant is when you look to see how many undecideds there are in each Dem. v Rep. matchup.
The D with the least potential for growth is Hillary. This means she's doing about as good now as she will ever do. One of her inherent advantages is that she is well known which, for all the notoriety they have had neither Edwards nor Obama, simply isn't the case.
On the downside, nobody needs to know anything else about Hillary. Their minds are already made up on her one way or the other and those who are opposed will be completely unpersuadable. What this means (and this survey confirms) is that it is true that there is a built in bloc of anti-Hillary voters out there and it ain't little: it's huge.
Any intelligent observer cannot ignore the fact that a rock solid bloc of around 45% (give or take a point or two) of all voters have already decided that under no circumstances will they vote for her. What does this high built-in negative response to Hillary mean for Democrats? Well it seems to me, it ought to mean something roughly equivalent to:
"Danger Will Robinson! Danger!"
September 24, 2007 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess I don't see the danger signs you're seeing, "vlb." In each case, Giuliani is the hardest nut to crack, and Romney is the easiest to sweep away. But every D is tied or beating every R. You say that 45% will never vote for Hillary, but it looks to me like the floor is 39% if Romney somehow wins the nomination.
My guess is that as Clinton goes through a set-piece battle against the Republican nominee, she indeed can reduce her negatives by simply working hard, campaigning hard, and running the disciplined operation she already put in place. The more exposure she gets, the less the FOX filter can define her by her past. And more people come away from her events wondering what all the fuss was about.
September 24, 2007 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
They did not survey Richardson because he has little chance of being nominated even though he has made some headway recently. It is almost a stretch to survey Edwards.
I have to agree that negative poll numbers for Clinton are not as big of a factor as many think. She has been running a smart and disciplined campaign to win the nomination. If she runs a similar campaign in the general election, she will be formidable.
New Mexico and maybe Arizona and Colorado are the only mountain west states that will be in play for any Democratic nominee.
September 24, 2007 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink