One of the problems with these general election match-ups, particularly in the South, is that they probably don't take into account higher black turnout if Obama were the nominee.

Well, the poll is what it is, and I will certainly agree that, as it stands, it is an argument in favor of Sen Clinton's potential to win the GE. That said, you will have to forgive me if I find it really hard to believe that either Clinton or Obama stand much chance in any southern states, even the "purple" ones like VA and FL.

Clinton might not run better than Obama everywhere, but she almost always runs much better in red states and in the South:

- Here's evidence from Kansas.
- Or here from Kentucky where she leads and Obama loses.
- She also is tied with Rudy in Tennessee and Georgia (no comparison points with Barack here).

It is funny they used 4 republicans in the poll and they did not even go to 3 Democrats.
Leaving Edwards off intentionally is total BS - Edward is Leading in ALL the head to head polls against the republicans. Hmmm why would Survey USA leave Edwards off of the poll??? Guess they do not want YOU to know the results.

Michael, Webb would be an awesome vp nominee. He has the military creds that obama is lacking and his policy positions are very good. He's done a great job in his short time in the senate and he was against this horrible war from the beginning. Also, I believe that he would put into play alot of southern states and help with purple states. Webb for vp.

Greg, I have to respectfully disagree on your point about purple states. Red, I would agree on, but purple and swing obama should do very well. I haven't seen a recent poll of this, but the last one I saw, a gallup poll, had obama drawing 39% support from republicans vs. 43% against and 18% undecided. Throw in the same type of spread with independents and obama would do very well in all states other than the deep south, which odds are no dem would carry. You are talking a substantial electoral victory and a potential unifying candidate in obama. Maybe we can actually get things done in this country.

On the other hand, with clinton II you have the reverse situation, with purple probably out of the question and light blue in jeopardy. The only maybe sure bet for her would be royal blue, which obviously isn't enough to win. Plus, four more years of bickering, divisiveness, stagnation and politics as usual.

I do think obama will do well in southern purple states. Virginia is trending more and more democratic. If you put webb in the mix, I would think virginia would be very winable. Florida is definitely winable, Missouri, and tennessee. I think the remainder of the csa is probably not winnable, but it might be in play with obama and webb. It would never be in play with clinton II.

The point was as you pointed out the cross-over appeal from republicans as indicated in the gallup poll that I referenced. Incidentally, it was tied into an ap article discussing how republicans were rallying to help obama caucus in iowa. You wouldn't hear that about clinton II in a million years. Nominating clinton II will automatically write off a large part of the country and make the margin of error for a dem win extremely narrow.

arbistrista wrote
"One of the problems with these general election match-ups, particularly in the South, is that they probably don't take into account higher black turnout if Obama were the nominee."

I think it's a non-factor. Because it's probably equaled or overwhelmed by the Bradley Effect.

This is when white voters tell pollers (and their friends) that they're voting for Obama, but really vote for McCain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect

I do think obama will do well in southern purple states.

From your lips to God's ears. For my part, I think that you are overly optimistic on this point, but I would be delighted to be proven wrong, and besides an Obama supporter like myself can hardly fault someone for having too much hope.

I believe the Dem ticket will do well in VA by virtue of the Senate race between Mark Warner and whatever GOP loser ends up running against him. Warner will generatee the coattails for the presidential candidate not the reverse. With Webb and Kaine both popular and both campaigning for the Dem ticket VA is looking bluer and bluer.

You may be right Gregg, I may be overly optimistic and I am sure that I will get slammed by clinton II people. But I believe that this country is much greater and more unified than what we have been experiencing. Not all republicans are loonie like their leadership. There are moderates and there are republicans that despise this war and the waste and the corporate profiteering.

We need a leader who can truly unite people and reach across the aisle to get things done. You can call it hope, but I refuse to give up hope and assume all hope is lost. That's truly a depressing thought.

Incidentally, the more I think about it, if its approached right, there is no reason to write off even the deep south. The country is hungry for change and hope. Maybe we could actually get a landslide. Who knows? The one thing that is a given is that clinton II is not the candidate that has a shot.

I refuse to give up hope and assume all hope is lost.

Good. That makes two of us (at least).

Why do they not poll JRE??? It could be because he is the most electable, and will stomp the repugs in red of purple states. Hillry is a time bomb waiting to happen. Her negative go up every time they poll her on that. Democrats need to wake up and smell the stink.

this suggests the order in which questions are asked has an effect on polling. susa always lists hillary first.

on polling:

The Prospect's reviewer of the Limbaugh poll, Cornell University communications professor Dietram Scheufele, notes, "It is possible that the answers to some of these questions were influenced by questions that were asked before, i.e., by question-order effects." In other words, the premise of the first question could influence responses to subsequent questions. Unless the questions were randomly rotated, this would skew later answers.

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=john_zogbys_creative_polls

I found the poll

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/10/poll.head.to.head/index.html

It was CNN's national poll taken December 6th through December 9th.

Edwards was the only Democratic candidate to beat all the Republicans in these hypothetical match-ups.

Clinton and Obama both had trouble with McCain.

It's interesting that despite the conventional wisdom that Hillary Clinton is too polarizing for red/purple states, she actually runs better in this particular state than Barack Obama does.

Never been south of the Metuchen exit on the NJTP

yesterday is gone wrote:
national polls are meaningless before iowa.

You're mistaken.

Sure, Iowa has a massive impact on the eventual nominee. National nominee polls aren't much use before Iowa. But that's not the sort of poll we're talking about.

CNN's national, hypothetical match-up address all the likely eventualities, regardless of what happens in Iowa. So this poll probably won't change very much because of Iowa. In the case of these specific type of polls, Iowa is not very relevant.

Right now, Edwards is the only Democratic candidate winning a national race against all Republicans.

The press doesn't give this fact much mention. I don't think the media has it in for Edwards (except Fox). I simply think they know that making this "the topic" will inevitably lead to the electability/race/gender/ question. And that just asking "the question" will draw accusations of racism or sexism.

The press doesn't want to be there, so they don't make much mention of Edward's dominance in general election match-ups.

It is so funny to see TPM/EC/HRC-Pres-Team continue to post polls from states that have not focused yet on Mrs. Bill Clinton as an individual and candidate on her own merits. As soon as voters take a close look at Hillary, hear directly her pandering, obfiscation and negativity, they move to other more appealing candidates.

The measure in VA is still name recognition. Watch Hillary drop against Republicans and Democrats as soon as VA voters start paying attention, just like in IA, NH, SC, NV and now CA.

Good try EC, spin as fast as you can for Hillary, so want be viable after Feb.

Michael A wroteL

"National polls are meaningless regardless of iowa. There is no national primary and the national polls are largely name recognition more than anything else. Edwards has it from the 04 race and clinton II has it from her white house years. That's about all they mean.

By the way, Edwards can't even win his home state of north carolina. I think that speaks volumes about his viability."

What's your point? It doesn't matter that there isn't a national primary. Primaries are about choosing nominees, this sort of poll has nothing to do with choosing nominees.

The hypothetical match-up is a very specific type of poll. Because these match-ups give voters every likely choice they'll have, primaries have no direct impact. This is apples and oranges.

Sure, name recognition is part of it, but it's certainly not everything. Are you seriously suggesting that John Edwards has more name recognition than Hillary Clinton? Of course he doesn't.

So why is John Edwards trouncing Hillary Clinton against every single Republican?

I suspect it's because her negatives are so high. And once the eventual Republican nominee starts attacking her, I don't see her negatives dropping any lower.

When I see polls like this, I can't help but think that Hillary boosters are over sampled. Nationally, Obama polls better than Hillary against the Reps., but here he does worse. Who would say they would vote for Hillary against Republicans, but not for Obama?

Also, the poster "Changed my mind" is an obvious fraud. He/she's a Hillary booster pretending to be a recent convert.

It's NOT "interesting," Kleefeld. Virginia is not an early primary state, so of course she's running more in line with her national numbers, the ones that are highly influenced by baseline name recognition.

Seriously, what are you, 23 years old? Get yourself a haircut, get yourself to graduate school, maybe take a statistics class or two, and then maybe come back to the NFL. For now however, just stop.

"Michael Stevens wrote on December 20, 2007 7:41 PM:
...
Right now, Edwards is the only Democratic candidate winning a national race against all Republicans.

The press doesn't give this fact much mention. I don't think the media has it in for Edwards (except Fox). I simply think they know that making this "the topic" will inevitably lead to the electability/race/gender/ question. And that just asking "the question" will draw accusations of racism or sexism.
..."

I agree about the findings that Edwards beats all Republicans (check out the huge leads Edwards has in Ohio compared to Clinton/Obama both of whom lose some match-ups) but disagree with the reason given for the state of press coverage.

Clinton/Obama is a storyline. First woman and first American of African descent with a fairly good chance of being a major party nominee. That's the storyline and the press just won't abandon a storyline no matter what.

The press wants Edwards trivialized as much as possible. They want their storyline. PERIOD.

The press is picking our nominee.

And that scares the bejesus out of me as it should scare everyone else.

We're being had people.

A key component of Cognitive Dissonance is that if the map differs distinctly from the reality – go with the map. A key component of Hillary hating is that she is completely unelectable. That is because the Hillary haters project their own warped ideas on normal American voters. For Hillary haters accordingly, when polls show her the most electable the polls must be wrong. Perhaps the polls are not sampled correctly, perhaps not reflecting all of the imaginary things that Hillary haters think will happen if she is nominated, or some other reason they will think up. For whatever made up reason the polls must be wrong and the Hillary haters must be right. Otherwise their Cognitive Dissonance brains would just boil to pieces.

The press is picking our nominee.
And that scares the bejesus out of me as it should scare everyone else.
We're being had people.

the media is a convenient all purpose scapegoat. people aren't connecting with obama because of the press.