« 
Tancredo Calls ICE Against Durbin Press Conference | Home | Breaking: Bob Kerrey Won't Run For Senate »
Tancredo Calls ICE Against Durbin Press Conference | Home | Breaking: Bob Kerrey Won't Run For Senate »
Poll: Hillary Ahead Of Republicans In Wisconsin
A new SurveyUSA poll shows Hillary Clinton leading the Republicans in Wisconsin, with only John McCain able to really make it close:
Clinton (D) 48%, Giuliani (R) 41%
Clinton (D) 53%, Thompson (R) 41%
Clinton (D) 52%, Romney (R) 38%
Clinton (D) 54%, Huckabee (R) 35%
Clinton (D) 46%, McCain (R) 45%
Clinton (D) 54%, Paul (R) 33%
Wisconsin has voted Democratic in every presidential election since 1988, though the results have often been very narrow.
Advertisement
How did Edwards and Obama do??
October 24, 2007 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
THe LA Times released its national numbers of primary and general elections with great numbers for Democrats, who lead all match-ups with GOP. Check the poll out here.
October 24, 2007 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Notice that the only 2 repubs even close aren't really repubs: mccain and julieannie.
October 24, 2007 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Odd parallel between McCain and Edwards--onetime frontrunners who are now also-rans, taking public financing, and who poll better in generic h2h GE matchups than others in their respective parties.
October 24, 2007 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, where do we find the rest of the poll? I want to also know how the rest of the field is matching up. We keep reading that Hillary consistently beats out every Republican candidate, that she's the front runner, but other bits and pieces of polls that we run across often suggest that one or another of the Dems actually scores a bigger lead than Hillary in these match-ups against the Republicans. Are we being led astray or misdirected by the media? And is TPM helping?
October 24, 2007 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
According to the elitists in the M$M, Bush-Lite has always been the frontrunner.
October 24, 2007 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Again, we all know that Clinton is the most popular Republican running for President . . . What we want to know is how do the Republicans stack up against the Democratic candidates.
October 24, 2007 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
SurveyUSA never includes any other Democratic candidates in their automated polling. For convenience sake, those pesky Democratic challengers have been weeded out. SurveyUSA believes their polls should provide the shallowest possible, attention grabbing polling data for their local news clients.
More seriously, why keep posting these results? First of all, it takes approximately 30 seconds to find these results with a google search. It might have taken another 20 seconds to uncover Wisconsin's presidential voting history at Wikipedia. In fact, I'll time myself, and see approximately how long it takes me to produce one of these substance-free SurveyUSA postings:
time.gov for the timing, starting at 10:35:00. Lets see how long it takes:
"New SurveyUSA poll finds Clinton leading GOP competitors in Wisconsin
Democratic candidates have won in Wisconsin in every presidential election since 1988. SurveyUSA's findings also indicate there may be additional Democratic candidates in the running, though interns are still investigating the issue. Thus far, thorough research has uncovered no additional candidates in the Democratic race, though SurveyUSA officials are optimistic their efforts will uncover previously undetected candidates."
ok. done. 10:45:48. I had to look up Wisconsin on Wikipedia, because I forgot where it was located (I'm a genius). 95% of my time was spent copy and pasting. My thoughtful analysis and snappy closer took approximately another 20 seconds to produce.
October 24, 2007 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seanh,
1. You are just plain wrong. SUSA polled Obama and Edwards in Wisconsin on September 26th, less than a month ago. here is the link. So no need for your hysteria.
2. Clinton is leading the two by 30%. Taking polls costs a lot of money. I'm not sure why SUSA should poll Edwards and Obama every single poll. It's good they even poll Edwards at all given his likelyhood to win the nomination.
October 24, 2007 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
- Here Are The Results of SurveyUSA Election Poll #12799 (WI - Pres); 10/24/2007
Clinton only, Ron Paul included (at great financial burden)
- Here Are The Results of SurveyUSA Election Poll #12797 (WA - Pres); 10/23/07
Clinton only, Ron Paul included (at great financial burden)
- Here Are The Results of SurveyUSA Election Poll #12787 (NM - Pres); 10/22/07
Clinton only, Ron Paul & non-cadidate Al Gore included (at great financial burden)
- Here Are The Results of SurveyUSA Election Poll #12775 (IA - Pres); 10/21/07
Clinton only (seriously, wtf), Ron Paul & non-candidate Al Gore included (at great financial burden)
- Here Are The Results of SurveyUSA Election Poll #12785 (MO - Pres); 10/20/07
Clinton only, Ron Paul & non-candidate Al Gore included (at great financial burden)
- Here Are The Results of SurveyUSA Election Poll #12791 (OH - Pres); 10/19/07
Clinton only, Ron Paul & non-candidate Al Gore included (at great financial burden)
- Here Are The Results of SurveyUSA Election Poll #12777 (KS - Pres); 10/18/07
Clinton only, Ron Paul & non-candidate Al Gore included (at great financial burden)
- Here Are The Results of SurveyUSA Election Poll #12779 (KY - Pres); 10/17/07
Clinton only, Ron Paul & non-candidate Al Gore included (at great financial burden)
- Here Are The Results of SurveyUSA Election Poll #12769 (AL - Pres); 10/16/07
Clinton only, Ron Paul & non-candidate Al Gore included (at great financial burden)
When we go back to 9/24-10/04, we finally get a polls that include Obama & Edwards. From 10/4 onwards, I've excluded none of the presidential polls.Now, I'm guessing since these polls are commissioned by local news stations, those news organizations are (at least partly) responsible for the composition of the poll. If they're paying for the poll, I guess they can request the data set they want. I do think it's absurdly biased to include GOP candidates polling at 1%, but only include a single top Democratic candidate. This type of polling data propagates the myth that Clinton is the only serious Democratic option. Thoughtful readers, like those of us at TPMEC, understand there are other options. The common man who doesn't follow politics closely may be more unfortunately influenced by these ridiculous polls. TPMEC really ought to recognize the inherent and blatant flaw built into these SurveyUSA polls, and stop featuring them.
October 24, 2007 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
What about all the Dems that will go third party or not vote for Pres if Clinton is the nominee. (e.g. me).
Anyone measuring that?
October 24, 2007 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Brian wrote on October 24, 2007 11:57 AM:
"What about all the Dems that will go third party or not vote for Pres if Clinton is the nominee. (e.g. me).
Anyone measuring that?"
Yes, the success of that tactic by the progressiver-than-thous who rejected another liberal, progressive Democrat from the Clinton administration, Senator Al Gore, was immeasurably measured in 2000.
Keep up the good work and maybe we'll see President Guliani in there soon.
I begged all of your ilk to please vote for Senator Gore that time - that, indeed, it makes more than a dimes' worth of difference.
Now, one Bush, Cheney, Alito, and Roberts later, I see the same bunch of bananas making the same Quixotic, lunatic threats to sit out or go to a third party if their prefered and equally excellent candidate doesn't win the nomination, thereby spitting in the face of the majority of Democrats (ie, me) voting their choice in a democratic manner.
This time, I say don't let the saloon door hit you in the elephant on the way out of the party. The rest of us Democrats will be here raising a toast and celebrating the election of the first woman president in the long, progressive history of our nation.
October 24, 2007 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
seanh, is there any common linkage amongst these media outlets only looking at Hillary? Perhaps they are owned by the same Republican, for example?
colon, my vote is not yours to belittle to try and harangue from me. I have no intention of voting for Hillary in any election. I'm a Democrat activist and I'll vote in the other races and either write in a name or skip the Prez race. And I'm working like hell so I don't face having to do that.
But, for god's sake, when will my fellow Democrats stop nominating the most unexciting and passionless candidates for Prez. Gore now admits how much he hated campaigning--think about wooden faced Gore because it was true. Kerry was the most uncharismatic figure possible. The only two the Dems have managed to cough up since World War II were Truman, John Kennedy and Bill Clinton. It's not the issues--it's the damned unexciting candidates.
And apparently you are supporting doing the same damned thing again--and with someone who was absolutely on the wrong side of the Iraq War and who has spouted aggressive remarks about Iran. Hillary is a loser.
October 24, 2007 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
stlounick:
I see you've taken the time off from your five-day-per-week relentless canvassing to tell us all, once again, the obvious - that you, and the likely statistically insignificant minority of those who claim to be Democrats yet won't vote for a certain Democratic nominee with a 90% liberal voting record in the Senate that was democratically chosen by your former Democratic brethren and sistren.
See my above description of the likely outcomes re such a brilliant progressive tactical move on your part.
October 24, 2007 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
colon, I canvass for an hour and a half every evening and four hours on Saturday and four hours on Sunday. And I have yet to find more than a handful of Hillary supporters. If the Hillary supporters are in my ward in the numbers that the polls show, they simply are not admitting it.
I suspect that Hillary needs to be worried plenty about the more educated who support Obama and actually turn out to vote.
I simply won't vote for a candidate who supported the war and then flopped against it to blur the edges for her candidacy. And those Democrats who are allowing this blurring, shame on you. Hillary has bad judgment and that's what counts. The chips were down, Bush was in charge, Hillary said "yes sir" and voted "aye". If you want to call this sort of nonsense progressive, then I suggest you also add "propagandist extrordinaire" after your name.
October 24, 2007 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can live with another republican president. If Bush-Lite wins, the republicans have already won.
October 24, 2007 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
stlounick:
As I've stated before, I hate some of Hillary's votes, including her vote (like Kerry and Edwards, etc.) for authorization.
That said, I'm not a one-issue voter and her voting record in the Senate is rated the 12th most liberal and progressive there. That's a fact. Use it to sit out and help elect President Guliani if it makes you feel better.
I think it just renders you irrelevant in this year's presidential election since she will just have to win without you.
As I also said, I'm making an extra effort to drive a couple more Hillary voters to the poll in November in your honor.
October 24, 2007 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush-Lite? Giuliani? They are both the same.
October 24, 2007 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Liberal Larry:
Another scintillating, scathing one-liner just like every other same thing you've posted forever on here.
Yeah, the female Senator from New York with the 12th most liberal voting record is just like George W. Bush and Rudy Guliani.
Why don't you say "Bush-Lite" on about 15 posts tomorrow as well? It doesn't take any time or thought. It really suits you. And it increases your credibility all at the same time!
You're a one-liner yourself, Larry.
Have a nice election.
October 24, 2007 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush-Lite and her K Street allies will make sure that the Democratic Party stands for absolutely NOTHING.
October 24, 2007 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, Liberal Larry:
Who is your candidate? Where do they get their money from? Would your candidate - if they happen to become the frontrunner - eschew the money that is now flowing to Clinton because she's the presumptive nominee?
Seriously. Yes, corporations have too much financial clout in our elections and in our legislative process. That's a fact, not a Clinton phenomenon.
And you are 100% wrong if you really think that Clinton (either of them for that matter), is anything like Bush. Al Gore and Hillary Clinton are much closer to being nearly the same politically as I view it. There are differences, of course. I think Hillary was wrong on her war vote and on the Patriot Act. But all of the other candidates have warts as well. We're not voting for candidate for sainthood here.
October 24, 2007 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
We can't let the imaginary donors in Chinatown destroy our party.
October 25, 2007 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink