The title of this link completely misses what is important about this poll. It shows that John Edwards is the most electable. That is far more important to readers, because the primaries start in one month. Readers need to know which Democratic candidate has the best chance, and these results show it is Edwards. And it is one of many polls that show this.

Despite the headline at CNN, that is actually what the CNN story is about. Please read it again, and then change your link to reflect this important information.

I ditto xyz,
According to this poll, here it is: against the Republicans
strongest is Edwards,
second strongest is Obama,
least strong is Clinton.

Steve on the one hand you are correct, he is not as know as the others right now. However, there is definitely name recognition there from 04, which probably gives him a boost. The problem is that his policies and rhetoric has swung far to the left from 04 to win the nomination, which would hurt him eventually in the general election. I still have a problem with the facts that he can't win in his own state, NC, and he is trailing heavily in SC. It kind of is counter-intuitive.

As it happens, I am an Obama supporter, so I have no great desire to see this aspect of the race played up, but I have long wondered that no one seems to be giving any attention to Edwards' obvious advantages. Bill Clinton showed that a southerner (at least a white southern man) can still win some southern states for a democrat. It simply is not possible for a democrat from outside the south to win even the purple southern states (cf John Kerry). Simply put, if we nominated Sen Edwards we would put a number of vote-rich states in play which will simply be off the table from the start for either Sen Obama or Sen Clinton. I am delighted that Sen Edwards has not gained much traction against my man on these grounds, but I am still very much puzzled by that fact.

Of course to be entirely accurate, I am not sure how much we can take away from this poll, as it simply measures a homogenized American public opinion, as opposed to the really relevant state-by-state opinions which actually matter in the electing of a PotUS.

It is important to remember that this is a national poll.

In the states where the candidates have actually campaigned, Obama is gaining ground. The more he campaigns in Iowa, the more people like him--South Carolina too, for that matter.

The more (Hillary) Clinton campaigns in Iowa, the less people like her. Why else would Hillary only be spending two days in Iowa this week while sending Bill out to inspire the troops?

Edwards is a known commodity in Iowa, having been active there for the past four years, and he hasn't been able to break above the low 20's. He is definitely more likeable than Clinton, but he hasn't been able to break out of a narrow base of support. An inability to win one's home state (or a neighboring state where one was born, in the case of South Carolina) does show electoral weakness.

Obama would have a stronger crossover appeal in a general election than would Edwards (hard left rhetoric) and Clinton (many independents and Republcans simply will not vote for her, no matter what). He would also have the ability to win Midwestern states such as Ohio, Wisconsin, and, yes, Iowa, which will be much more important than Southern states in the upcoming election.

Why isn't Edwards only Dem to beat all Republicans the title?

While this poll actually says what I want it to say (Edwards/Obama are more electable than Hillary), I'm going to call BS!

National head to head polls are worthless at this stage. The only ones that matter are generic dem vs generic GOP. The campaign hasn't started, the narratives haven't been written, and the candidates haven't met the voters.

And yet if you ask most dems why they're voting for Hillary - "She's the most experienced and most electable." I shouldn't have to point this out, but just in case, that's the same thing people said about Kerry in '04.

I'm an Obama guy, and he's got my vote in January because I think he'd be the best president (which is, or at least should be, most important), but I've agreed all along with the Edwards camp that he's the most electable.

At the risk of broadcasting my ignorance, I'll ask again. Since this polled registered, not likely, voters, is it reliable? DTM or any other poll expert?

The reason this poll is nearly meaningless is that it is showing the results of campaigns that aren't actually being run. Is McCain running against Edwards? No. If he was, would these be the numbers? I guarantee you they would not...not even close. It's simply impossible that McCain beats Hillary but Edwards crushes McCain. In real campaings, both of those things just certainly can't be true.

I think democrats can take heart from this poll though. What it does show is that the country has surely moved left. McCain is by far the Republicans strongest candidate, which, some of his stupider statements of late not withstanding, makes me feel a hell of a lot better about America than I did four years ago.

Bupalos-"In real campaigns, both of those things just certainly can't be true."

Why? Because you do not like the outcome? Hillary infuriates many people. Edwards does not. It is that simple.

And NO one is more vetted than Edwards, because of the 2004 race. The Bushies would have found and used anything they could against the Dem VP candidate in 2004.

Ah, the return of the polls showing Edwards as being more electable.

I have to agree with the above poster who says that these trial heat polls on the general election are unreliable. The are just paper match-ups.

I am not sure how well Edwards will stand up when faced with the experience of McCain or Guiliani. He may lose stature in comparison.

When faced with Romney, Edwards might come off as the slick salesman while Romney comes of as the earnest salesman.

Even Huckabee folkiness might seem more genuine than Edwards' folkiness. This is just speculation but so, in effect, are the trial heat polls.

In a way, Edwards has caught a break, because he has never been a frontrunner in this race so he has escaped a lot of scrutiny. That would change if he actually becomes a frontrunner or in the unlikely event that he actually wins the nomination.

I am hoping that this poll will give Edwards a boost in Iowa. If Hillary cannot win Iowa she would love for Edwards to win it even if she comes in 3rd. That will interesting situation for Obama in NH and SC.

Anonymous at 12:34,

I think the best way to deal with these polls is to remember that they provide useful data about what people think right now, but cannot predict what people will be thinking in 11 months, after a lot of different future events occur.

So, for example, it is true that right now, Hillary tends to draw higher negatives than Edwards, largely due to relatively high negatives among Republicans and independents. That in turn pretty much explains why Edwards did better in these hypothetical matchups. And I agree all that is important for people to keep in mind as they are considering the issue of "electability".

But if you then try to project those results forward to next November, you are entering the realm of speculation. Of course, such speculation may be necessary when you are deciding for whom you will vote in the primaries, but it is important to note the polls taken right now can't directly address the issue. Rather, these polls can give you the current states of affairs, and you have to fill in the rest of how you think the political process will unfold from such a starting point, until it all ends on Election Day.

DTM-Primary voters have to decide now. And they have quite a bit of stable data that say that Edwards is more electable. We have had almost a year of campaigning, and the polls still say Edwards is more electable. Consistently. Edwards and Hillary are already known by the public. Edwards because of the 2004 VP slot and Hillary because of Bill. So, the horse-race will not be educational. This is what it will be, because they are known.

>>"I guarantee you they would not...not even close. It's simply impossible that McCain beats Hillary .but Edwards crushes McCain. In real campaings, both of those things just certainly can't be true."

>DRinOH wrote on December 11, 2007 11:17 AM:
>Bupalos,

>Why not?

I guess I should just say I find it highly unlikely, not impossible. I find it hard to believe that the populist Edward's produces significant crossover votes. What you've got here I think is a bunch of Republicans who don't want McCain to be their nominee (he's at like 8% in their primary) "crossing over" in a poll for what they perceive as an unlikely nominee on the dem side. I think whoever was the least likely candidate would be drawing this effect. I wouldn't be surpised if Obama got some of this too. But I'm just guessing. What I do know is that it isn't very helpfull to handicap campaigns that don't exist, and there simply isn't a McCain v. Edwards campaign right now.

If I were to speculate, I'd say that supposing McCain really was the nominee--which I think is a much higher liklihood than is currently CW--he'll be tough to beat. His only real vulnerability is Iraq, and neither Hillary nor Edwards could effectively exploit that.

Anonymous at 1:11,

But that is precisely the problem: we have had a year of PRIMARY campaigning. We have had no general election campaigning at all. And we know that the general election campaign can lead to large shifts in voter sentiment, and this is true even when the candidates are well-known.

To give just one example, in 1980 Carter was of course well-known as the incumbent President, and Reagan was relatively well-known as Governor of California and having run several times in the past for the Republican nomination.

Most people know that race ended in a blow-out. But it actually began badly for Reagan, with him committing a series of gaffes. The Iranian hostage situation and continuing economic problems were a constant drag for Carter, however. Nonetheless, by the end of October it was still extremely close. However, Reagan stomped Carter in a debate held the Friday before the election (that debate gave us "There you go again ..." and "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?"). He proceeded to win by ten points.

So that was the 1980 campaign, and we have seen in many other campaigns these head-to-head numbers fluctuate in response to events both internal and external to the political process. So, the idea that these hypothetical head-to-head numbers will somehow remain "stable" simply because the candidates in question are well-known is just unrealistic.

Again, though, I agree it is reasonable for people to take these polls as a starting point and then speculate from there about how the political process will unfold once the general election campaigns actually start. But assuming they are reliable indicators of the ending point of that process simply is not warranted.

Edwards is probably the strongest candidate in the Dim column, across the board.
His main problem is that he happens to be a candidate competing with two iconic--but basically hollow--candidates: Clinton & Obama. One of them will, sadly, probably be the nominee.

To anonymous at various times:

In the 1988 campaign, Mike Dukakis had a ten point lead after the Democratic Convention and there was a shift to HW Bush after the Republican convention. To say there will be no movement in the polls during the general election campaign with Edwards or anyone else as the candidate defies logic.

We don't know what the political landscape will look like in November of 2008 so these trial heat polls have limited use at best. Maybe they would be a sidebar that would provide confirmation for support of a candidate but not a reason alone to support that candidate.

Although the candidates would never admit it, their messages will change between now and November. If you don't win your party's nomination, it just doesn't matter how you match up against the other party's nominee. There'll be plenty of time for the eventual nominee to "recalibrate" his/her message, steering towards the center, between Super Tuesday and Election Day.

And don't you think Edwards would rather be leading the field NOW, than in these pie-in-the-sky polls for next November?