« Edwards Urges No Vote On Mukasey | Home | 
Democrat Kay Hagan To Run In North Carolina Senate Race »
Democrat Kay Hagan To Run In North Carolina Senate Race »
Poll: Virginia Close In General Election
A new Rasmussen poll in Virginia shows that the state could be close in 2008, with three of the top Republicans holding statistically insignificant leads against Hillary Clinton:
Giuliani (R) 46%, Clinton (D) 43%
Thompson (R) 46%, Clinton (D) 45%
McCain (R) 46%, Clinton (D) 45%
Clinton (D) 48%, Huckabee R) 39%
However, Clinton would have some reason to worry here — her unfavorable rating is a solid 51%.
Meanwhile, former Governor Mark Warner (D) holds a 53%-37% lead over former Governor Jim Gilmore (R) in the open Senate race.
Advertisement
Just another waste of time...
October 30, 2007 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
rasmussen polls belong in the trash.
look at his bush approval ratings.. its a full 5 points higher than other polls.
he sucks at polling.
October 30, 2007 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rasmussen doesn't suck, its voter registration model is obsolete. If you look at how sample sizes are created from a base of registered voters, you would see the Rasmussen lives in a world where 36% of registered voters are Republicans. This absurd assumption may have had some credence in 2002, but is totally false today. Living in the fanciful past seems to be a general defect in many Republicans.
October 30, 2007 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
If things come to pass in such a way that in Decision 2008 we are talking about Virginia being a battleground; it's virtually certain that the Democrats will sweep.
October 30, 2007 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the message here is that Virginia is not a safe GOP stronghold as it was in 2000 and 2004. There is a chance. If Warner was the VP, this would lean Democrat, but without Warner, this could be a competitive race and I am sure that once Hillary campaigns there, her unfavorable ratings will go down.
I also think that with Warner on ballot, for the U.S. Senate, there will be alot of enthusiasm amongst the base and him campaigning with Sen. Clinton will produce beneficial results for him and her.
October 30, 2007 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
They didn't poll Obama, Edwards, or Romney?
October 30, 2007 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the message here is that even though virginia will have two dem senators, the dems will lose it if they nominate her majesty. Hopefully dem primary voters will wake up and send her majesty packing. Any dem, but her majesty in 08.
October 30, 2007 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
See, this is what I don't get about Hillary-bashers like Michael: You say she's "unelectable" in a general election, but she has generally uber-dominant numbers in most primary matchups. She is obviously very, very popular amongst Democrats nationwide.
So where is all that primary support for her going in the general? And do you really expect a sizeable number of Republicans to cross over and vote for ANY Democrat?
In other words: Aren't we still looking at roughly the same universe of potential Dem voters in both the primary and the general?
Yes, I understand -- "it's all about the independents" -- and certainly HRC could stand to do better among independents. But "unelectable?" I don't see it.
October 30, 2007 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jim J,
"Unelectable" is obviously too strong. The more accurate description of the problem is that nominating someone who could increase the opposing party's turnout and get a relatively low share of independents and cross-overs creates an unnecessarily high risk of losing. There are also additional problems caused by such a candidate, such as the potential effects on downticket races in areas where members of your party will be relying on getting a big share of independents and cross-overs.
By the way, on the subject of cross-overs: the thing is that even small differences in the potential number of cross-overs can have large effects, for the obvious reason that you are simultaneously increasing your voter pool and decreasing the other party's voter pool. And there is in effect a "hidden" cross-over vote of registered independents who lean toward one party but might consider voting for your party's candidates, and even registered members of your party that have recently been crossing over regularly but might come back. Again, even if in each case we are just talking about a small segment of the voter pool, all this adds up.
To be sure, though, a candidate could still win just by being overwhelmingly popular among their own core party members. It is just a high-risk strategy, and one I wouldn't advise a party use unless they lacked any other viable option.
October 30, 2007 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jim, huh? Ok, let's take it slow, her "uber-dominant" numbers generally don't break 30% of dem primary voters, you are forgetting independents and repukes. The nationwide polls are obviously skewed by Cali and NY, where I am sure she is polling through the stratosphere, which skews the nationwide numbers. Also, you are ignoring the fact that repukes will come out in droves to vote against her. In addition, you are ignoring the fact that 50 and up to 70% of dem primary voters, more or less, may be disheartened to have a choice between two repukes for president, her majesty and whoever, and then not turn out to vote.
I am entitled to my opinion, and my opinion is that she is unelectable. She is not rallying the base of the dem party because she doesn't take a position on anything, generally, and she is trying to win over repuke votes by being an "uber-hawk," which she won't get anyway and which turns off her base. She is a total drag for dems and I hope she doesn't get the nomination. I believe that any dem would do better than her in the general, other than the loons kucinich and gravel.
October 30, 2007 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought Hillary was winning in Virginia before. Her negatives just keep coming back to get her. I think Hillary will be a drag on the democratic ticket for other democrats. She is the only candidate that gets negatives from her own party and the repugs.
October 30, 2007 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, Michael, I can take it REAL frickin' slow.
Any professional pollster will make sure a national poll does not oversample any particular area, so right there with your bit about Cali and NY you pretty much blow your own argument out of the water.
And HRC is by definition "rallying the base of the dem party" because she is way ahead in the primary polling. What is the Democratic base if not its primary voters? That's the very definition of the word "base" in a political context, yes?
What is this mythical "base" of which you speak that is not that subset of the electorate which usually votes in a particular party's primary?
And as for this gem, which I'll quote in its entirety because it defies paraphrasing:
"In addition, you are ignoring the fact that 50 and up to 70% of dem primary voters, more or less, may be disheartened to have a choice between two repukes for president, her majesty and whoever, and then not turn out to vote."
That's total conjecture on your part, as you admit with the "may be" qualifier. Do you have any data, any at all, to back this assertion up? Hey, what do I know, you "may be" right, but then again....
I don't know, man. Was all that slow enough for ya?
October 30, 2007 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just a couple of observations for what they're worth.
I think the conventional wisdom from Dog-knows-where that HRC would be unelectable in the general has been sufficiently debunked. I was an early believer, but have since realized that I'd been had by the same yahoo's who said that GWB was a good guy.
She's got powerful support from liberal-moderate dems (maybe not the far-left, but they voted for Nader last time so f-em). And she's looking real attractive to lots of independents who are realists about Iraq, health care, etc. and are sick of the repubs and their corrupt/inept ways.
She's run a great campaign, Obama hasn't. Trying to be tough with her at this point won't help, it didn't help Edwards, he dropped in the polls. Dems don't want to see dems bashing each other, why should we? We have Bush and his cronies to bash. I think Obama and Edwards hurt themselves more than HRC when they hit at her, especially with women.
Just my 2 cents worth.
October 30, 2007 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, Jim J. Then how do you explain nationally her numbers are much higher than in any state poll that's been published by this site, other than NY. They publish every freaking poll and the numbers don't add up with the national poll? I saw a poll for NY showing over 60 percent support and I haven't seen one for cali. Doesn't that explain the discrepency? Or, maybe I'm missing something.
Her positioning is clearly "right of center," probably farther right than center, so I ask you how does that rally a base that is anti-war and anti-corporate welfare? Nonetheless, I agree on the disheartening of the base of the party is conjecture on my part.
Isn't conjecture on your part that she is so unbeatable when she only has support of 30% of dems, that's only, what less than 20% of the voting population in a given state? You are assuming that all registered dems will vote and they will vote for her and not the repuke nominee. Isn't that conjecture? Even with that, that's not enough and you are assuming that she will get enough independents to overcome the tidal wave of repuke voters voting against her. Isn't that conjecture?
I think you misread my post, or misunderstood it. Bottom line, this VA poll shows that she's unelectable. She's 51% unfavorable. How can she win virginia?
I also find it funny that we are supposed to ignore her high negative poll numbers, BUT, we are supposed to buy hook, line and sinker that she has the nomination all rapped up, why, because of the freaking polls. Its way too funny.
October 30, 2007 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michael wrote:
"Bottom line, this VA poll shows that she's unelectable. She's 51% unfavorable. How can she win virginia?"
U2 wrote on October 30, 2007 1:38 PM:
"If things come to pass in such a way that in Decision 2008 we are talking about Virginia being a battleground; it's virtually certain that the Democrats will sweep."
Michael, she's statistically tied in Virginia. see U2's post above. Your argument that because she's unelectable in VA makes her unelectable everywhere else is crazy talk.
October 30, 2007 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gallup's recent analysis on Clinton's support among Democrats and Democratic leaners contained some helpful regional information.
By region in Gallup's September-October polls, her support is East 53%, South 51%, Midwest 44%, West 41%.
October 30, 2007 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Point of clarification. I did not mean to imply by my post that because she is unelectable in virginia makes her unelectable everywhere. My bad. There are a host of polls that show nationwide, she is the most unelectable of all dem candidates, with a higher negative rating and higher numbers that people will not vote for her under any circumstances.
On other point, on the "far-left," anti-war, looney toon dems, that her majesty's supporters keep throwing up for anyone against her majesty. Well the latest polling shows that 70 percent of the country want us out of Iraq yesterday. Is 70 percent of the country fringe lunatic lefties? Did 70 percent of the country vote for Nader last time? Of course not, so trying to paint her majesty as "center-liberal" or centrist is just patently false. She is a right-wing repuke and is playing to 30 percent of the country, the repukes. Why? I really don't get it.
October 31, 2007 8:38 AM | Reply | Permalink