This is exactly like the polls yesterday from AL and KY that also show Obama running 20 points behind. This has to call into question Obama's electability at this point.

I don't think this has to call into question Obama's electability. Things will change between now and then as people learn about the candidate. What I think this poll does is call into question Obama's repeated claim that he's the most electable Dem or more so than Clinton. I don't think people will stop repeating the "Clinton is unelectable line", but there is sufficient evidence to get people to at least stop using that line as a knee=jerk reaction against her.

Edwards is arguably the least "experienced" candidate of the entire lot (Dem and GOP), so his numbers in my mind are a bit questionable. However, that he has not been around that long could serve in his benefit. I expect not and that his race would be very tough (as would any other choice).

This poll should rightly cheer the Edwards primary campaign somewhat.

As a Hillary supporter, however, I must point out that the Republican right wing smear campaign hasn't really taken its best shot at Edwards yet, while Hillary has pushed back on them for over 15 years now and she remains very competitive in Ohio. This shows that she definitely needs to give Ohio more attention, not a problem after she wins the nomination.

These numbers roughly correspond to what I've seen and heard on the ground in Ohio, although Edwards and Obama still suffer from a lack of knowledge about them. I'm sure their name recognition numbers have gone up, but the number of voters who know anything of substance about them beyond a first impression is very low.

I think Edwards may be someone that makes the average Ohio swing voter more comfortable than Obama or Hillary. Whether that has to do with rhetoric or race/gender issues, I don't know. As Edwards frequently pointed out four years ago, the two most recent Dem presidents are from the South. I think it gives you a sort of credibility that also carries some weight in swing states like Ohio. Regardless of what the polls say, populism also sells well here, as you can see by Sherrod Brown's blowout victory in 2006.

What this poll says more than anything else is that running as Republican lite is a liability. Clinton and Obama both are running as centrists and positioning themselves much as our nominees have done since Carter. Edwards clearly is not a centrist. Instead, he is making a hard play as a full fledged liberal Democrat.

My read is the poll results reflect that in key states like Ohio, that are necessary to winning the Presidency, the message actually heightening the contrast between the parties and fighting against the rich and powerful interests plays alot better than blurring the differences between the two parties and their candidates.

Perhaps if our party would finally realize that voters yearn for a contrast with the Republicans instead of a pale imitation we would have less close elections that get lost and more clear victories. And, parenthetically, we also might have fewer DINO's in Congress as a result.

...although Edwards and Obama still suffer from a lack of knowledge about them.

What are Ohioans, morons? Edwards was the Dem V.P. nominee last time around when he and Kerry narrowly lost in Ohio. If just 4 years later Edwards has a "name problem" in Ohio then either the state is populated by morons or your assertion is simply bunk... my sense is that it is the latter.

Eric Kleefeld sez:

A new SurveyUSA poll of Ohio shows John Edwards as the strongest Democrat in the key swing state, well ahead of Hillary Clinton's performance:

Giuliani (R) 48%, Clinton (D) 47%
Clinton (D) 48%, Thompson (R) 47%
Clinton (D) 52%, Romney (R) 42%

Giuliani (R) 48%, Edwards (D) 47%
Edwards (D) 52%, Thompson (R) 43%
Edwards (D) 56%, Romney (R) 36%

Edwards' focus on class issues appears to play well here, while Obama's more cerebral approach doesn't look like it's hitting a nerve. Hillary Clinton could well win Ohio herself, but based on these numbers it would be a tight race.

Are you deducing all of this from the numbers you posted? My reading of the numbers do not paint a much rosier picture for Edwards than it does for HRC. They are both in statistical tie with Giuliani (this won't last much longer) and are both leading Romney; Edwards doing better against Thompson who has yet to appear in a single debate as a candidate (he'll flop).

DON'T GET TOO GIDDY ABOUT PEACE IN OUR TIME IF YOUR BOY GETS ELECTED -- HERE IS A REALITY CHECK FROM THE POLITICO:

September 20, 2007
Read More: John Edwards

Israel into NATO: Edwards, then Rudy

A blogger who's plugged into New York politics notes:

"Many in the blogsphere (Jewish or otherwise) are giddy today about Saint Rudy saying Israel should be in NATO. Did not John Edwards say it more directly, at the Herziliya conference last January?"

I'd forgotten -- but yes. Here's the January 22 Edwards quote:

"We should be finding ways to upgrade Israel's relationship with NATO. This could even some day mean membership. NATO's mission now goes far beyond just Europe. Therefore, it is only natural that NATO seeks to include Israel."

And that is a bit more direct than Rudy's line that "we should open the organization's membership to any willing state that meets basic standards of good governance, military readiness, global responsibility -- regardless of location," Giuliani said yesterday. "I think we should consider countries such as Australia, Singapore, India, Israel, Japan."

See also:

Giuliani's proposal for endless Middle East wars on behalf of Israel http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/09/21/giuliani_israel/index.html?source=newsletter

HRC on an Undivided Jerusalem
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/09/hrc_on_jerusalem.php

Hillary Supporter Dershowitz smears Obama
http://www.nysun.com/article/62439

FYI -- I am jewish and I don't appreciate jews and the security of Israel being used as political footballs by Edwards, Guiliani, Hillary or BUSH. Haven't we had enough of this unproductive posturing?

RESIST.

We here in Northern Virginia would be happy to cede Ohio to the South so long as our portion of VA can be ceded to the North. I also agree on the reverse coattails of Hillary. And that doesn't mean I think she's anything like a conniving patent-leather harpy or anything. Anyway the deal in Ohio is jobs, the economy, healthcare, the bread-and-butter issues Edwards has been campaigning on for what, 4 years now. Hillary is way late to that party and her proposals simply don't appeal as much.

dcshungu

OK here's one case where you can prove a negative. Where are the figures on her negatives compared to other candidates that prove that this is a Rovian myth?

These polls in states where no campaigning has occurred are arguably more meaningless than national polls. They are astonishingly volatile, and when polls are volatile and there's no obvious big event like a scandal to explain the volatility, it's a sign that opinions haven't formed, and that polling this early is meaningless.

I therefore call for a moratorium on all parsing of polls from states other than NH, Iowa, SC, and Nevada.

It seems that one of the underlying assumptions of the post is that general election campaigns don't really matter. But history doesn't support that very. At this time in 1979 many people thought the Republicans would be crazy to nominate Ronald Reagan, who was in fact twenty points behind Jimmy Carter in early 1980. Dukakis was leading Bush senior by 17 points after the Democratic National Convention. Clinton's position in the polls both nationally and in this one is almost identical to where she was at this stage (actually a bit later) in the New York Senate race. While New York is more Democratic than Ohio it's by no means an automatic win for Democrats. That Clinton won her first race by 12 points suggests that she has the ability to change some people's opinions of her. She is clearly the most experienced (given her participation in Bill's multiple successful campaigns) we've got. After Gore and Kerry having a candidate who actually knows how to run a winning campaign would be a refreshing change. Anyway that's the glue I'm sniffing.

LA Times polls in Iowa, NH, and SC were discussed recently at pollster.com. It's interesting that 85% in Iowa prefer a candidate, but when asked if it was possible they would vote for someone else, 59% said yes. In NH, it was 83% and 47%; in SC it was 87% and 45%.

There's nothing settled in these races. Voters state their preferences but it is not with certainty. Polls in years past indicate voters decide very late in the process, sometimes hours before going to vote....and by majorities of over 50%.

Add to this how many (56%) are already bored with the primary, and you have unsettled and volatile voters. Get used to it. It's called politics. Lots of folks are paying zero attention and if they happen to notice are simply annoyed.

My World Champion Cardinals were mathematically eliminated last night. The Chicago Cubs lead their division.

Cincinnati OHIO doesn't seem to be making much impact. But the Indians! wow!

New York still has two teams in the race, one in each league. How about those red Sox?

Don't know much now---there is a lot of time left before the 2007 champion emerges.

2008? We will know more by spring training.

dcshungu, if you think Ohioans know as much about Edwards and Obama as Clinton, and have as strong of opinions, then you are simply mistaken. Most voters simply don't know much about VP candidates.

I specifically did NOT say they still lacked name recognition:

Edwards and Obama still suffer from a lack of knowledge about them. I'm sure their name recognition numbers have gone up, but the number of voters who know anything of substance about them beyond a first impression is very low.

orwtywgh cool site!!! [url=http://fomar1.com]cool site!!![/url] http://fomar2.com gfgw6jh