Poll: Obama More Electable Than Hillary
The new Gallup poll finds that Barack Obama would be a stronger Democratic nominee than Hillary Clinton. Either of them could win when matched up against three top Republicans, but Obama has stronger margins and is above 50% support for himself in all three cases:
Clinton (D) 49%, Giuliani (R) 48%
Clinton (D) 53%, Huckabee (R) 44%
Clinton (D) 52%, Romney (R) 46%
Obama (D) 51%, Giuliani (R) 45%
Obama (D) 53%, Huckabee (R) 42%
Obama (D) 57%, Romney (R) 39%
Comments (91)
Anonymous wrote on December 18, 2007 11:45 AM:No Edwards! What is with the MSM and the promotion of a two-way race? Why do they care?
audiophileguy wrote on December 18, 2007 11:45 AM:Duh!!!
Most Americans don't like, trust, or respect Hillary. When is the press going to understand the obvious?
America wrote on December 18, 2007 11:46 AM:Thank you.
DTM wrote on December 18, 2007 11:47 AM:As I noted elsewhere, since their last such poll, Giuliani has gained 4 points against Clinton and Romney has gained 10 (Huckabee is new). Meanwhile Obama has gained 6 points against Giuliani and 1 point against Romney.
But of course these head-to-head polls are very unreliable.
In your heart, you know she is THE one! wrote on December 18, 2007 11:47 AM:Is America ready for a Muslim president?
DTM wrote on December 18, 2007 11:48 AM:Not that it should matter, but Obama is not a Muslim.
along wrote on December 18, 2007 11:48 AM:Could you add the astonishing results of the Survey USA poll of General Election match-ups in Iowa too?
(No visuals please. Thnx.)
POLL: SurveyUSA Iowa GEs
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_surveyusa_iowa_ges.php
A new SurveyUSA automated survey of 539 registered voters in Iowa (conducted 12/13 through 12/15) finds:
General Election Match-ups for President:
McCain 46%, Clinton 45%
Clinton 46%, Huckabee 45%
Clinton 48%, Romney 45%
Clinton 47%, Giuliani 42%
Obama 51%, Romney 39%
Obama 51%, McCain 39%
Obama 52%, Huckabee 39%
Obama 55%, Giuliani 36%
I suspect that had Edwards and McCain been included, the poll would have shown Edwards to be more electable on the Dem side and McCain would have been shown to beating all the Dems as he has been doing in just about every poll in which he'd been included...
iVoted4Nader wrote on December 18, 2007 11:51 AM:Of course, it doesn't matter who is the candidate if BUSH & Co. can eavesdrop on all the nominee's e-mails, phone calls, etc...like they probably DiD Do with the Kerry '04 campaign.
Thank you Senator Dodd for your courage and conviction in standing up against giving telcoms retroactive immunity.
How can anyone win when your opponents can SPY ON YOU.
-Obama for President Supporter
DTM wrote on December 18, 2007 11:52 AM:McCain and Edwards really should be included in all these polls. I'd actually prefer everyone, but I understand that would be too many combinations (with Obama, Clinton, and Edwards, and Giuliani, Romney, McCain, and Huckabee, that is already 12).
sadhana khan wrote on December 18, 2007 11:55 AM:
To think that any general election candidate will continue to enjoy favorable press and earn high favorability ratings is ludicrous.
Barack Obama advocates
-Raising taxes to save Social Security (there is some dispute as to whether this is something that should be lauded by all progressives or if hes seeting us up by using a republican talking point, but face it, this will not play well in conservative districts)
-Driver's License for Illegal Immigrants (although well intended, I think immigration is a federal issue and best dealt that way, so not sure what the correct position is here, but in any case, I know where the American public stands)
-Supports reproductive autonomy, supports strict gun control laws (again, all democrats are in harmony on this issue, and as the general election approaches and people think about supreme court picks, the electorate becomes polarized)
-Experience (hasn't finished first term in senate, and even people who think that shouldn't be held against him and shouldn't disqualify him, agree others have been more dedicated in terms of actually being there and holding hearings. (see david brooks in NYT) In any case, the GOP will pound this issue saying hey, OBAMA in 2004 said we should strive to be a colorblind society where merit holds ultimate sway.. what has he done in the senate? Obviously supporters will say his life experience matters, but experience will be an issue regardless of how you feel.
State polls in conservative parts of the country prove my point.
These are just polls from Rasmussenreports released today. There are some other polls from Surveyusa showing Clinton running stronger in states like Kentucky and Alabama.
MISSOURI
Huckabee 45
Clinton 43
Huckabee 45
Obama 41
Clinton 45
Giuliani 39
Obama 44
Giuliani 43
New Jersey
Clinton 50
Giuliani 37
Giuliani 41
Obama 42
Remember, democrats like Michael Dukakis had large leads but once the election approached, it all but disappeared. Edwards and Obama have questioned Clinton during debates, and republicans have hammered her during their debates. Her missteps have been magnified because she is the front runner, and conservatives who have always disliked her have been eager to jump in on the anti-clinton bandwagon.
This will happen to Obama or Edwards, but the unpredictability lies in whether Obama will be able to hold the 51-48 52-46 leads once we get in general election mode. He might be able to, he might not. I think Edwards in that case would be far less risky.
I would support Obama regardless, but I know who ever the general election candidate is the favorability negativity ratings will be similar to Clinton when we get into general election mode.
along - wow, those are incredible numbers. I typically dismiss GE matchup numbers because it's way too far away, but one could make the case that Iowa in its current state is a microcosm of what the GE will look like. All the candidates have been there for months and months -- it's not just name ID driving these numbers. I still take with a grain of salt, but perhaps a bigger grain.
M wrote on December 18, 2007 12:01 PM:Quick hit:
To the troll, America should be ready for a Muslim President. We do not discriminate (or at least we try not to discriminate) on the basis of race, color, or creed (and, to a lesser extent, gender (read: intermediate scrutiny)).
Besides, as pointed out, Obama is not a Muslim. Of course, I am not really much of a Christian, so religion doesn't matter.
And finally, I am from Minneapolis. We have a Muslim Representative. I voted for him and he kicks ass. Eat my shorts.
along wrote on December 18, 2007 12:03 PM:cms - oh yes, a grain of salt, as always. and more so with this automated survey. but the differences, which must reflect the choices of Independents and some Republicans, are striking.
DTM wrote on December 18, 2007 12:06 PM:By the way, the cross-tabs for the SurveyUSA Iowa poll show that the big differences are among Republicans and independents.
Peggy McGilligan wrote on December 18, 2007 12:08 PM:I was surprised by how many digs John Kerrey could take at Barack Obama, and how backhanded the remarks were. Both Kerrey and Hillary Clinton - upon whose endorsement John took the opportunity to deride Obama - ought to respect a candidate who has treated them with respect. It's the trademark attack on others that characterizes the Clintons. Well, Hillary has something she wants to tell you. She’s just too shy to tell you herself. Do you remember, after the fall of the old Soviet Union, the 1990s economy was driven by massive military cutbacks? The Clintons were savvy enough to plow lots of that dirty old money into the US Department of Education. (Teachers Union, already onboard with Hillary.) Beating swords into plowshares, the “peace dividend,” it was a job of work. Then, in 1995, Bill & Hillary founded the incredibly lucrative West Coast Finishing School for Thugs. The rest, you know, is history. But again, Hillary should be telling you this: http://theseedsof9-11.com
Bupalos wrote on December 18, 2007 12:10 PM:I really think these polls are close to meaningless. You simply can't poll on races that aren't happening. You just can't. All they tell you is that if a situation that does not and cannot exist existed, this would be the outcome.
All that you can realistically say about the general election is that any Democratic candidate will enjoy a historically large advantage over the Republican candidate. We've never been in as strong a position in my lifetime (44yrs) and we may not be again, since screw ups like GWB are one in a million. So there is no way I'm going with the DLC on this one. Plus I just think Obama is a game changer for us. He may be a bit of an unknown quantity, but when you compare that with the known quantities running against him, I think it's a winning bet on many levels.
DRinOH wrote on December 18, 2007 12:14 PM:Peggy, it's Bob Kerrey.
mo husseini wrote on December 18, 2007 12:14 PM:Peggy McGilligan....
Bob KERREY... not John KERRY...
different beasts.
Jeremy wrote on December 18, 2007 12:20 PM:Obama starts off well liked and people like him more the more they see. With Hillary, it's just the opposite.
Nickal1 wrote on December 18, 2007 12:21 PM:TPM is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Obama for President. Report all the polls, TPM, not just the ones that cast your chosen candidate, Obama, in a favorable light. You are no better than Fox News when you slant coverage the way you have.
Jeremy wrote on December 18, 2007 12:23 PM:Oh my. Looks like Hillary's haters are really going after Obama in this thread. To respond to one point made. . . Americans believe in fairness. They think the wealthy, for example, should pay the same social security taxes as anyone else by a margin of 60:40. None of Hillary's Bush-Lite tax demagoguery changes that. Moreover, people like Obama's more candid approach to ss than Hillary's "after the election we'll have a bipartisan commission". Her approach cuts the American people out of the conversation. This is still a democracy, you know.
along wrote on December 18, 2007 12:25 PM:DTM - Yes, thanks for noting that, I hadn't looked them up. The crosstabs also show Obama earning from 1% to 10% more support from women across the board than Clinton.
Gnopple wrote on December 18, 2007 12:25 PM:TPM is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Obama for President. Report all the polls, TPM, not just the ones that cast your chosen candidate, Obama, in a favorable light. You are no better than Fox News when you slant coverage the way you have.Nickall, many Obamites had argued the that all the TPM slant was towards Hillary only a few weeks ago. You have to at least acknowledge that these polls are shifting. To be fair to TPM, they've published all the polls all primariy season long (and it's been a loooong primary season). Kefa wrote on December 18, 2007 12:26 PM:
The only reason the numbers match is because the MSM and Beck/Rush/Hannity/Matthews/Russett/Fox have not set their sights on BHO as of yet. That is the plan. They want to give him a free ride until he's the man and then BAM, POW, ZOWIE, take him down, capture the White House and again play dirty and win. We Dems are so ideal and so stupid. HRC is taking all their bullets away from them and they are pissed at Her and Bill for doing it and the short sighted far lefters can't see the forests for the trees. You will all someday thank HRC for what she is doing for you.
Coonsey wrote on December 18, 2007 12:27 PM:Proof is in the pudding. Obama should and will beat any Republican the GOP puts forward.
That's why the GOP have been pushing and predicting that Hillary would run for president and win the primary. They HOPED she would. They know they have NOTHING on Obama - Hillary on the other hand is an open book.
Coonsey's View
www.freewebs.com/coonsey/
I'm an Obama supporter and I can't stand Our Lady of Perpetual Triangulation, but only one of these poll results strikes me as interesting: the difference when it comes to Romney. Clinton beats Mittens by six points; Obama crushes him by 18.
Why is this? I'd posit that it's because Clinton is the Romney of the Democrats: she follows, rather than leads, and her tendencies are condescension to the hoi polloi and unquestioning deference to the moneyed elite.
This isn't to say she wouldn't be a better president than Romney; of course she would be, if only by virtue of staffing the government with Democrats (perhaps even a few genuine progressives rather than the Penn/Rubin corporatists with whom she truly feels most comfortable) rather than Republicans. But she doesn't present a very clear contrast with the despicable Romney; neither of them seems sincere. Obama does, on both counts.
Michael wrote on December 18, 2007 12:29 PM:I agree with those who said that the Iowa poll is more significant, as is the point about Obama drawing more support from Indies and Repubs in the cross-tabs.
This is precisely what I (under the handle "mopper") and others and the campaign itself have been saying for months...Obama has a chance to be the Dem's Reagan.
dajafi wrote on December 18, 2007 12:30 PM:HRC is taking all their bullets away from them and they are pissed at Her and Bill for doing it and the short sighted far lefters can't see the forests for the trees. You will all someday thank HRC for what she is doing for you.
OH NO! THE REPUBLICANS ARE COMING! EVERYBODY PEE YOUR PANTS!!!1
Between the capitalization of "Her" and the last sentence, I have to assume this was written from the headquarters of Restoration, Inc.
DRinOH wrote on December 18, 2007 12:31 PM:In response to the question "which of the following leading presidential candidates would you most want to prevent from becoming president?"
Hillary: 40%
Guiliani: 17%
Obama: 11%
Romney: 7%
Huck: 5%
Edwards: 2%
McCain: 5%
It's a shame to me that she's running on the "I'm the most electable" platform and neither Edwards or Obama has called her out on it. They should be citing this poll with the one at the top of this page in their stump speeches.
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 18, 2007 12:39 PM:TPM is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Obama for President. Report all the polls, TPM, not just the ones that cast your chosen candidate, Obama, in a favorable light.
Dear Nickall,
What are you going on about? Just a few posts below this one is a story about Sen Clinton's lead increasing:
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/poll_hillary_rudy_expand_national_leads_slightly.php
Just a few more below that is a story about Sen Clinton picking up an important endorsement in Iowa:
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/new_hillary_in_ad_in_iowa_touts_des_moines_register_endorsement.php
It is, in other words, hardly as if Sen Clinton's good-news pieces are being ignored. Just a moment's exertion of your scroll bar gives the lie to the substance of your bellyache.
Edwards easily beats both Clinton and Obama. Easily. In every poll I've ever seen he's been head and shoulders the most electable. My god, he beats Huckabee, at this point the likely Repub nominee, by 25 friggin points.
If the most important thing for you is winning this election, your choice shouldn't even be close.
It's Edwards.
Kefa wrote on December 18, 2007 12:40 PM:dajafi.....this ignorance is why we haven't been in the White House since the Clintons.
This blindness is why we have had a problem
even before the Clinton's too. This is to answer the answer it all Bill's fault after Bill. We have no idea how to beat the Repub. They do. Twice. Under very trying conditions. The Repubs are scared of them.
I've been screaming from the rooftops all year that Hillary is the GOP's only chance of holding on to the presidency. She'd also wreak havoc in down-ticket races for the Democratic candidate.
This, coupled with her campaign's desperate, shameless, Rovian sliming of Obama over the last 2 weeks have put me in the camp of those who would never vote for Hillary. How many others like me are out there?
I'm saying, she's a death wish for the Democrats.
bridoc wrote on December 18, 2007 12:44 PM:Just another reminder that HRC supporters and their "electability" arguments are baseless. She could just admit that either of her opponents could get elected as the Dem nominee. Yet of course she will continue to be disingenuous and take the voters for fools, so don't expect any end to the "electability" falsehood attack campaign.
DTM wrote on December 18, 2007 12:45 PM:Kefa,
I think you might want to check out the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
DTM wrote on December 18, 2007 12:47 PM:John Y.,
About 40% of the electorate (including 17% of Democrats) according to that Washington Times poll.
paDem wrote on December 18, 2007 12:48 PM:This 'electability' issue must be what has been frightening the Hillary camp so much that they've trotted out Bill to slam Obama, after Shaheen slimed him. I'm not sure yet whether Kerry was trying to do anything backhanded, but in the context of the rest of the Clinton onslaught, it's hard to give him the benefit of the doubt. Let's just say that for a seasoned politician, his timing was sure piss poor.
I know a couple of things, though. We Obama supporters are not objecting to mentioning his family background, and his racial heritage is also not a secret. We do know that there are many out there in the Great Unwashed, though, who aren't really all that swift, and that this kind of underhanded campaign tactic is exactly calibrated to appeal to those in the herd who are susceptible to racist or intollerant messages. They aren't all in the Republican Party, after all. We've got 'em, too.
The counter message has got to be a big laugh and a booming "SO FRICKIN' WHAT?". The second Obama mounts the inaugural platform to take the oath, and that face is beamed to the world, we have gained a huge advantage.
Oh, sure, fanatics and despots aren't going to suddenly turn into hippies, and we'll still have massive problems facing us of global warming, war, rumors of war, starvation and injustice; local and global conflicts and economic competitions, and domestic issues that are resistent to solution. His election won't magically turn us all into girl and boy-scouts, and the world will still be a dangerous and, often, ugly place.
My vote goes to Obama, though, because his life, his family, his history, his race have already taught him all of this in a very personal, subtle and nuanced way. I have been trying very hard (more or less successfully... I have my days... ) to not make this decision a negative thing toward Hillary, despite living through the Clinton wars before--but I do believe that with all of her gifts, his are still more appropriate to the times we are in.
doesn't make any sense - why would Obama's numbers be so much better than Clinton's against Romney since Romney and Clinton would theoretically appeal to moderates? Obama gets nod and suddenly all these moderates turn left? There's no rational explanation for that other than that these polls are essentially meaningless - ostensibly the fungible voters are the independents so why, if Obama isn't the candidate, would they turn to Romney instead of Hillary? Where's the logic to that? The difference is because of men who no way in hell will vote for a woman? Possibly I guess - but then are you suggesting women should forget about running for president? These polls are idiotic.
Jim J wrote on December 18, 2007 12:50 PM:Interesting how all of a sudden poll numbers and "electability" really do matter.
Keith wrote on December 18, 2007 12:50 PM:Kefa:
Bill Clinton never won with a majority of the popular vote (Perot siphoned off a chunk of the independent and Republican votes).
Hillary Clinton has never been in a contested election in her short legislative career (please name the two juggernauts she defeated in NY). This is her first and when the going got tough, she went to the gutter.
During his presidency, we lost both houses of Congress and the presidency (which in turn led to Bush putting two conservatives on the Supreme Court). This was at a time when MaCluffie was heading up the DNC.
While economically things were better under Clinton, I think it is fair to say that they don't have the market cornered on beating Republicans.
Keith wrote on December 18, 2007 12:54 PM:Sorry, I should clarify, Clinton's prodigious ability to defeat the Republicans didn't help Gore one wit in the 2000 election.
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 18, 2007 12:57 PM:We have no idea how to beat the Repub. They do. Twice. Under very trying conditions.
If I might be forgiven for echoing Keith above, I would hardly call the circumstances of Bill Clinton's two victories "very trying." Quite the opposite; Bill Clinton was handed a gift in Ross Perot's third-party candidacy. Both times more voters in this country voted for not-Clinton than voted for Clinton, but because those not-Clinton votes were split between two candidates, Clinton was able to claim the electoral collegiates in many of these three-way splits. It seems unlikely that such a scenario will emerge again this time, so pointing to the precedent of Bill Clinton hardly serves to bolster the case that Kefa is trying to make here.
Kefa wrote on December 18, 2007 12:58 PM:Whats fair to say is no other active running machine we have has beaten the Repubs. JE couldn't even get re-elected in his own state, BHO had to get in by running almost unopposed 1 term. We need a tested person. People wake up. I'm trying to be the town cryer here. Wake up people. The Repubs are coming.
Anonymous wrote on December 18, 2007 1:07 PM:It IS strange that they did not include John Edwards. Edwards usually is the most electable in these general election match-ups.
Kefa wrote on December 18, 2007 1:08 PM:Keith.....Gore made the same mistake....He ran away from the light....run into the light. If he had embraced Bill he would have won. He made the same mistake some here want to repeat.
bridoc wrote on December 18, 2007 1:10 PM:Hey, look at the polls from Iowa, which show what people who are overly acquainted with the candidates think of them, this is probably more demonstrative of the trend the general election nationwide polls are likely to go:
• IA-Pres
Dec 18 SurveyUSA
Clinton (D) 47%, Giuliani (R) 42%
• IA-Pres
Dec 18 SurveyUSA
Clinton (D) 48%, Romney (R) 45%
• IA-Pres
Dec 18 SurveyUSA
Clinton (D) 46%, Huckabee (R) 45%
• IA-Pres
Dec 18 SurveyUSA
McCain (R) 46%, Clinton (D) 45%
• IA-Pres
Dec 18 SurveyUSA
Obama (D) 55%, Giuliani (R) 36%
• Dec 18 SurveyUSA
Obama (D) 51%, Romney (R) 39%
• IA-Pres
Dec 18 SurveyUSA
Obama (D) 52%, Huckabee (R) 39%
• IA-Pres
Dec 18 SurveyUSA
Obama (D) 51%, McCain (R) 39%
Hillary barely beats most Republican candidates and loses to McCain. Obama on the other hand, according to people who know him well (as will everyone in America by the end of the general election), destroys the other Republicans, no contest. This should be the message to people who think Obama’s being unknown to the majority is a bad sign: It means that they will like him more the better they know him, NOT that there are unknowns there that will hurt him as people become more familiar with him, as the pessimists and HRC like to say. I think if Hillary supporters nationwide knew Obama more many of them would switch sides...she is just benefiting from the "default" status for people who don't really follow the candidates.
And yes I realize this is all a year out, but no one can honestly disagree with the obvious message that can be extrapolated from this data.
Liam wrote on December 18, 2007 1:10 PM:There are no Muslims running for President, so all you bigots can stop playing that vicious hate mongering.
DTM wrote on December 18, 2007 1:12 PM:gus,
The basic explanation is that voters do not form their preferences on the basis of ideology alone, but rather also take into account various attributes. Indeed, studies have indicated that attributes usually determine the outcome of contested elections--although to be fair that is true in part because typically the ideological range has already been narrowed down such that each contestant has significant ideological support.
Anyway, as a result, different candidates can have broader or more narrow appeal, meaning if you map their support over something like an ideological spectrum, some candidates will get significant support from only a relatively narrow slice of that spectrum, and others will get significant support from a broader range. That is really just a mathematical consequence of this being a multi-dimensional situation: when you collapse such a multi-dimensional situation down to a single spectrum-like dimension (e.g., ideology), the effect is that the candidates who scored higher on the now-hidden dimensions end up with broader appeal on the remaining spectrum-like dimension.
In light of all this, the key to winning elections is not really to just pick the candidate with the most centrist ideology within your acceptable range of ideologies. You also have to consider the breadth of each candidate's appeal. Indeed, you can pick candidates who are less centrist but with broader appeal and come out well ahead. Again, all that is just another way of saying that in addition to ideology, you also have to look at the other sorts of attributes which voters find important.
DTM wrote on December 18, 2007 1:13 PM:Kefa,
Again, I think you need to consult the 22nd Amendment.
Keith wrote on December 18, 2007 1:20 PM:Kefa:
Hillary hasn't been tested. This is her first test.
unite wrote on December 18, 2007 1:20 PM:i hope you guys who like to bash ur own party wake up and support whomever is our nominee.
put ur petty differences BEHIND. we cannot afford 8 years of republican rule. and i do mean we cannot AFFORD it. literally
dajafi wrote on December 18, 2007 1:27 PM:The Repubs are coming.
It's true. The party that spent us into endless debt, chose a disastrous war, mismanaged the government so utterly that we couldn't even save a great city, and became synonymous with self-dealing corruption is coming. They're coming apart at the seams.
And the only thing that will keep them together is their hatred for your candidate.
Were that hatred similar to--and limited to--that of the Republicans for, say, FDR, you'd still have a point. He was a true progressive, who earned and (famously) welcomed their hatred. But Our Lady of Perpetual Triangulation is, in fact, a moderate Republican--conservative by temperament, instinctively deferential to money and power--who's somehow perceived as the liberal champion so many of us wish that she was.
There's nothing to be gained here, and your argument that she "knows how to beat them" has been proven spurious. Bill won in '92 largely because of Perot, and partly because of *his* political gifts--which aren't transferable. He won in '96 largely because of those gifts, and partly because of Perot.
That's it. You can take your irrational fear of the Republicans, and your even more irrational deference to the disgusting Clintons, and go make out in the corner with a Beltway Insider of your choice.
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 18, 2007 1:31 PM:i hope you guys who like to bash ur own party wake up and support whomever is our nominee.
Sure, sure an admirable sentiment, that. We must all unite behind the nominee, once said nominee is actually nominated. In the meantime, however, it is not especially untoward to point out the strengths and weaknesses of those we each like and dislike. The idea that we must not criticize any candidate lest s/he turn out to be the nominee strikes me as rather useless (not to mention slightly paranoid).
Radio Head wrote on December 18, 2007 1:44 PM:"But...but...but...(HRC troll searches for appropriate Obama diss)... what about his name?"
bvd wrote on December 18, 2007 1:50 PM:Kefa - If Obama ran "almost unopposed" he still won his Senate seat with 70% of the vote. Pretty extraordinary for a non-incumbant. And I don't think even you would try to claim he'd have any trouble getting re-elected now.
BTW: Hillary also ran "almost unopposed" (twice, as anyone who remembers Rick Lazio can attest). I wouldn't make it sound like her campaign history is all that vast.
I'll vote for her even though I don't like her (jeez, it's not like I haven't done THAT before). But I still think she's the weakest of all 3 top candidates.
bvd wrote on December 18, 2007 1:52 PM:Oops - I mean I'll vote for HRC if she gets the nomination. I'll be voting for Obama in the primary.
kjoe wrote on December 18, 2007 2:12 PM:DTM wrote on December 18, 2007 11:52 AM:
McCain and Edwards really should be included in all these polls. I'd actually prefer everyone, but I understand that would be too many combinations (with Obama, Clinton, and Edwards, and Giuliani, Romney, McCain, and Huckabee, that is already 12).
We can find out how many passes Eli manning failed to complete last Sunday, we can find the detailed play by play of the Cardinals versus the Pirates on the fourth of July in whatever year they played----there is room for the stats.
There is a small town in idaho where people will spend more at Walmart this week than would be needed to conduct the polling.
We are trying to choose the person who will be in charge of the most powerful nuclear arsenal in the world.
The only reason to not to poll all 12 is that it is meaningless---which would also be true of the polls that they do choose to conduct.
anonymous wrote on December 18, 2007 2:25 PM:Ask Harold Ford how likely it will be for a black man to be elected to the Presidency.
kjoe wrote on December 18, 2007 2:31 PM:anonymous wrote on December 18, 2007 2:25 PM:
Ask Harold Ford how likely it will be for a black man to be elected to the Presidency.
Ask Henry Ford how likely he would let yellow skinned people build any of his cars. Makes about as much sense.
kjoe,
Just to clarify, I was talking about trying to do all eight Democrats and all eight Republicans. That is 64 combinations, which is really impractical. The basic problem is that no one is going to sit through that kind of polling ordeal, so the data is going to be unreliable.
I agree, though, that they should at least do the 12 in question.
NC-11-CD wrote on December 18, 2007 2:39 PM:"Ask Harold Ford how likely it will be for a black man to be elected to the Presidency."
Thank goodness there's more to this country than Tennessee.
But I'm glad I'm not the only one wondering why the Edwards matchups were missing from this poll.
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 18, 2007 2:40 PM:Ask Harold Ford how likely it will be for a black man to be elected to the Presidency.DTM wrote on December 18, 2007 2:45 PM:O.k., but why would Harold Ford be expected to know? Harold Ford has never run for president of the U.S. Harold Ford ran a statewide election in TN. As such, I am sure that Mr Ford is in a good position to tell us that Obama does not stand much chance in TN, but then I am sure that we all knew that already. Come to that, I dare say that we all know that Hillary Clinton will not win in TN either. No democratic candidate (not even the white southerner, Edwards) is building a strategy around the idea of winning a lot of southern states (or even more than one). As such, the Harold Ford precedent seems rather less than aposite to the present conversation.
anonymous at 2:25 PM,
There is actually very little evidence that race was a significant factor in Ford's close loss. For example, Ford basically did just as well as Webb did in Virginia, but Tennessee is just a bit more ideologically conservative than Virginia, and that is what made the difference.
And, of course, Ford had some other problems, most notably that 2006 was in part an outsider/anti-corruption election, and Ford is part of a well-established political family with some corruption issues. In fact, his uncle John Ford, a state Senator, was indicted in an FBI corruption sting the day after Harold Ford's announcement.
RWN wrote on December 18, 2007 2:57 PM:Hillary supporters keep utilizing scorched earch efforts...mark these words, the Great Fall of the House of Clinton will be historic, it is like they are in a sand trap, the more they flail the deeper they go....
I predict that Hillary is inconsequential before Feb 5th.
amber wrote on December 18, 2007 3:01 PM:To Adhana Khan: you're dictating a press release. Hillary-the woman who will never be president-is on her death spiral and a tidal wave of Obama and Edwards is crashing down on her. Dick Morris's article and well as two dueling Washington Post columns today all recognize the terrible downslide that is Hillary's campaign and her inevitable crash and burn.
For goodness sakes, even David Brooks writes today in his NYT column how Obama's much better for the country than Clinton. I guess Democrats will finally get the best of Karl Rove who hoped for a Hillary victory.
I can't believe there's a news website willing to speak up and point out the truth about Hillary's UNelectability.
WAY TO GO, TPM!!!
Colodem, "Huckabee the likely repub nominee"? He will be beat into submission in "Live free or die" New Hampshire and I don't think he has the money or organization for Super Tuesday. I have to admit none of them seem like the likely nominee. After 8 years of God's personal messenger GW, I doubt the country wants another preacher-in-chief convinced he was chosen to get Armageddon off on the right foot. Dems want to run against Huckabee but I doubt they get their wish.
NCSteve wrote on December 18, 2007 3:25 PM:"The Problem with Hillary" in this week's "This Modern World."
http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2007/12/17/tomo/
And a couple of things about Harold Ford worth noting. First, he lost by a hair in the state that gave us Bill Frist and Fred Thompson, a state that wouldn't even vote for Al Gore in 2000 despite it being his home state. Second, Ford turned out to have done better among whites than the polling data indicated he was going to. Did racism affect the outcome? Sure it did, but it was far from the only, or even most serious, problem he had. The fact is that the guy had serious baggage. Specifically, he was a member of a political family that had serious, longstanding and ongoing corruption issues.
JubleJohnson wrote on December 18, 2007 3:29 PM:Edwards is now relevant again ?The guy who voted for the war even though he knew it was wrong but he wanted to be Prez so e followed his advisers.Notice how he has never done anyhting wrong:He wanted to fight the Ohio election results in 2004 but it was Kerry who didn't want to fight.He always cared about poor folks but only started doing something for Poor folks until after he decidd to run for Prez.
Please this guy is as phony as phony can get.
Just remember the Harold Ford ordeal....what the Repubs did was simply had a white girl say " call me " and the man lost a state. Thats the hate they tapped into. That was a test case and they haven't forgot. Rove and his boys haven't forgot. They will use the hate for Islam, the fear, the unknown, they will use it. They also know HRC has negs but they can only rehash only so much and they will look stupid for rehashing 90's stuff but the Islam stuff, the drug stuff, the new stuff will carry weight with the racist people.
Wakeup people. HRC is trying to disarm them.
Andy Schweig wrote on December 18, 2007 3:41 PM:next they'll tell us the sky is blue.
thank you for reporting on what was already obvious.
Michael A wrote on December 18, 2007 3:49 PM:Kefa, it really disgusts me to see alleged dems that are clinton II supporters constantly play the race card. Go join the republican party where your true love belongs as well. I'm sure you can play with other racists at redstate.com. We are in the 21st century, not the 1800's. I am sick of the race card and false sterotypes that you people are promoting. It is disgusting and is turning off the country. Look at your "uniter's" poll numbers. Let's move into the 21st century. Anybody but clinton II in 08.
dajafi wrote on December 18, 2007 4:03 PM:Harold Ford lost for a lot of reasons. The one I keep coming back to is Harry Truman's aphorism that, given the choice between a Republican and a Republican, the people generally will vote for the Republican. I followed that race pretty closely, and I never did figure out why, aside from family ties, Ford was a Democrat. (In that sense, he is indeed similar to a candidate in the presidential race... just not Barack Obama.)
And purely at the level of tactics, Ford didn't have a good response to the race-baiting ad; if he had, he likely would have won that seat despite his myriad other weaknesses.
LongTom wrote on December 18, 2007 4:32 PM:Yeah, Jeremy had it right. Obama's upside is enormous, as indicated by along's Iowa polls showing Obama with far greater leads against the Repubs than Hillary. The more he campaigns, the more support he gets. Hillary has to sweat bullets for every vote. She might win in Novemebr, but it'll be by one vote. Obama could get 60%.
Hillary is just a parrot on Bill's shoulder, claiming she's six feet tall. She got the Senate seat because she was married to him and now she's the frontrunner because she was married to him. What's she done ON HER OWN?
This racist meme the Hillary-ites put out that Obama is a loser because he's black is ridiculous. Their idea is that there is some enormous pool of voters who would NOT vote for Obama (if he's the nominee) because of his race, but WOULD vote for Hillary, if she's the nominee.
The best estimate for the number of such voters, IMHO, is ZERO.
Obama is a political Tiger Woods. Maybe he will lose a few hundred votes, nationwide, from idiots that would vote for Hillary but not him, but he'll get millions more from people who would vote for him but would NEVER vote for her, no matter what.
sadhanakhan wrote on December 18, 2007 4:40 PM:I know many feel that Obama is the most electible due to his ability to attract independents, but the problem with Obama will be that once he wins the general election, in addition to how he defines himself, he will be defined by the GOP
-as advocating for a tax increase on the middle class (raising limit from 95 k to 115k) to fund social security
i'm not sure whether 95k to 115 k is middle class, but I think it is.. upper middle class, I guess.
-advocating for drivers licenses for illegal aliens - liberal on gun control and abortion and gay rights (that hits everyone) - inexperience (read about David Brooks interpretation of his time in the senate in todays NYT)
-finally it is not racist to attack someone on their inexperience or those positions.. i think its racist to suggest that.
In IOWA, he has been able to define himself and has received favorable press. He is also been successful along with Edwards and Republicans to define Clinton, and that he is why he is viewed much more favorably in Iowa. Obama will not experience that dynamic in the general election. When the dynamics change, I think the jury is still out in regards to conservative / independent support.
Anyways... some head to head match ups.
FIRST MINNESOTA
McCain 50 McCain 43
Obama 41 Clinton 51
Huckabee 42 Huckabee 41
Obama 47 Clinton 53
Romney 42 Romney 36
Obama 48 Clinton 58
Giuliani 48 Giuliani 40
Obama 44 Clinton 53
Now OHIO
McCain 47 McCain 45
Obama 38 Clinton 45
Huckabee 42 Huckabee 39
Obama 43 Clinton 51
Romney 42 Romney 40
Obama 43 Clinton 51
Giuliani 46 Giuliani 40
Obama 40 Clinton 49
Now MISSOURI
McCain 44 McCain 46
Obama 47 Clinton 50
Huckabee 47 Huckabee 47
Obama 45 Clinton 49
Romney 39 Romney 41
Obama 49 Clinton 51
Giuliani 42 Giuliani 43
Obama 47 Clinton 49
And just because there are no campaigns in these states, its not like people aren't paying attention.
If you had to ask me, I would think Republican insiders would most want to face OBAMA in the election, followed by Clinton, followed by Edwards. (Im a Clinton supporter, but I admit that Edwards is probably most feared by the GOP)
On our side, we most want Romney, then Giuliani, Huckabee, and finally McCain. I was confused about as to who we would want more in regards to Huckabee and GIuliani, because Giuliani plays well in the Northeast, while Huckabee sucks there, but Huckabee is much stronger in states like Ohio and Missouri, which are also important states
Related point, from new Time article out today:
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1695803,00.html?imw=Y
"Obama's Foreign-Policy Problem"
Never mind the quibble that the article reports pretty well that he doesn't have a "problem", that in fact his background and temperment are pretty darned exactly what we need.
But the charge is that he's not a big boy when it comes to foreign policy. That's a big, big thing looming over whomever is elected.
As a "third culture" person myself (I lived in Pakistan in the 9th and 10th grades), I know how invaluable was my experience of another culture, and a Muslim one at that. I still have Pakistani's as friends. Having a president who had actually LIVED overseas, and speaks an Indonesian dialect, and has relatives still to whom he can look for information and cultural translations, will be invaluable. If I were interviewing job applicants (and isn't that what we're doing?) it would be hard to choose between Obama, Hillary, Edwards, and Biden on foreign policy. But Obama will get my vote because of his relative youth and flexibility, his foreign experience, and for the effect his background and race will have on foreign publics and leaders.
Hillary just can't match that.
votenic wrote on December 18, 2007 5:03 PM:2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
New YouTube Video!
The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Weekly Tuesday Evening At Midnight.
Edwards was winning all SurveyUSA state matchups. So - SurveyUSA stopped including him in polling.
This is the another way the corporatists dupe us and choose our nominees.
Obama is the media's shiny new object and won't win the nomination, but will do everything possible to eliminate Edwards - and Hillary will win.
If Hillary wins in Nov. she'll reward Obama with justice on the USSC.
Jeremy:
You seem to think you're real clever calling Clinton supporters (all of whom have said time and again that they'd support anyone who won the Democratic nomination) - "Hillary's Haters."
Okay - here are a just a few excerpts of comments from the non-Hillary's Haters on this board. Now see if you can find similar sentiments against Obama, etc. expressed by your fictitious "Hillary's Haters."
From this comment thread alone:
"Most Americans don't like, trust, or respect Hillary."
"Obama starts off well liked and people like him more the more they see. With Hillary, it's just the opposite."
"I can't stand Our Lady of Perpetual Triangulation"
"the disgusting Clintons"
"Hillary is just a parrot on Bill's shoulder"
"Maybe he will lose a few hundred votes, nationwide, from idiots that would vote for Hillary but not him, but he'll get millions more from people who would vote for him but would NEVER vote for her, no matter what."
Yeah, no Hillary-Hate to see around here. Move along.
colonpowwow,
The first, second, and last of those quotes are not actually expressions of personal hatred for Clinton. Rather, they are observations/predictions about how other people react to Clinton.
That said, I think it is somewhat obvious that all the candidates have supporters on the internet who say nasty things about other candidates. Although I personally think it is also somewhat obvious that sort of behavior is not likely to help their preferred candidates.
David Dial wrote on December 18, 2007 9:25 PM:You know what...this stuff about Obama being a Muslim really says a lot more about the people who propogate the rumor than it says about him or Muslims in general. The fact is that I haven't been this excited by a candidate for President since Bobby Kennedy and it is for the very same reason. Both are (were)intelligent, articulate and willing not only to dream but to try to make their dreams reality and neither was willing to crawl in the gutter to do it. I realize Bobby was Catholic and Barack is C of C but if they were both Muslims they'd still be men a vision and worthy of my vote.
framecop wrote on December 18, 2007 10:40 PM:So, when is TPM going to show the poll numbers that show Edwards beating Giuliani, Huckabee, and Romney in NC, with Clinton and Obama both losing to all three?
Public Policy Polling
CLINTON 2008 wrote on December 18, 2007 11:06 PM:ANOTHER DREAM! Media coverage for Obama has been overwhelmingly positive much manufactured by reporters, but fails to inspire, suggested divisiveness in Washington stems from struggle of 1960s. that’s naïve. national crisis when Americans come together, politics has always been a divisive affair. Obama Has Not Won a Tough Contest, his ability to win in a difficult contest is reason for concern. Republicans will eat him alive ask John Kerry, Al Gore, or Michael Dukakis. Obama can't hope for change; you must fight for it. His first opponent, Jim Ryan, pulled out of the contest following the release of details from divorce. Obama has only faced ONE difficult battle for Congress against Rep. Bobby Rush. receiving only 30% and lost. Obama's inexperience hurt him.
His speech opposing Iraq war "I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. War protesters have not been able to count on him, during his ballyhooed speech at the 04 Dem convention; he failed to decry the war, followed form and strongly supported John Kerry. When asked how he would have voted on Iraq resolution, don’t know said Obama. Since arriving in the Senate, Obama and Clinton have had identical votes on Iraq. His health plan, lacks a universal mandate, echoing his conservative peers, insists Social Security is crisis that needs immediate attention, not true, Social Security Trust Fund would run out 2046.
Obama Takes Black Voters for Granted, when a controversy erupted over the Jena Six. Obama chose not to take up the mantle of past civil rights leaders by not joining the Jena Six protest, Jesse Jackson (Obama supporter) said he's acting like he's white. Was a unique moment for Obama to show support for the black community, but didnt. Now he must explain to Democratic voters why he doesn't want to continue the fights of the 1960s -- included battles over civil rights, the antiwar movement, expansion of Social Security and expanding health care (Medicare). This is not the time for obama
Obama has great energy. He has already excited the imagination of the nation and the world. He is educated self made and has good political common sense. While others have gone frantic and negative he has stayed positive and above the fray. Heck, how does a national novice go toe to toe with the most entrenched political machine in money and message? The man is an organizational genius and has attracted a top notch team.
Edwards is easy pickings and yesterdays news for Republicans, who have already beat him, Gore and Kerry. Chenny? beat him in the debate and he lost his state.
They will have absolutely no mercy on him. None. And he will not excite the base in the north or win the the their base in the south.
Obama is such a great American story it really is not in the Republican party interest
to wage a super dirty fight. Obama is not a partisan fanatic so they know he will get things done and be excited as patriots at what he brings to the table as a new American brand.
They will have to show how they can do things better and beat him on the issues.
Those who say he will be smeared and pilloried by the Republican are projecting their own searing experience.
Hi, colonpowwow, long time, no see. As you can imagine, I totally disagree with your conclusion concerning alleged hatred of clinton II. For once, I also disagree with DTM. All of your examples of alleged hatred are people voicing opinions of their perceptions of clinton II and the clinton II campaign. That's not hatred. The opinions may be in poor taste or you may disagree with them, but calling them evidence of hatred is as always by clinton II supporters over the top and of course does not reflect well on your candidate. Also, if these opinions evidence hatred in your opinion, then alot of opinions by clinton II supporters of other candidates would also evidence hatred. What do all dems hate all the candidates? That's a sad statement of the status of political discourse.
Now some examples of hatred would be along the lines of trying to get people not to vote for a candidate due to racism. That's not a policy or experience issue, that's a race issue, which is unacceptable and evidences hatred. Or by sowing racial stereotypes to try to get people not to vote for someone. Again that's not policy or experience, but racism and evidence of hatred. If anything the hate mongers have been clinton II people and not vice versa.
Bottom line, I am sick of the "hillary hater" garbage that is used to demean and degrade people's opinion of your candidate. If you don't like the opinion, respond to it by addressing it or ignore it, don't characterize it by something it is not, hatred.
Liberal Larry wrote on December 19, 2007 7:30 PM:ALL IVY LEAGUE ELITISTS, ALL THE TIME
It's the media, stupid!
As a democrat, I want neither Hillary nor Obama---they for some reason are media darlings. Edwards 08!!!
Rush Limbaugh wrote on December 20, 2007 2:03 PM:Ok you dunmmies, I confess to being caught "red-handed" enjoying myself while staring at a pictuure of Hillary. I blame the illegal drugs I'm on.
Obama is a halfrican and will never get elected, heck he just got to sit at the front of the bus! Listen to me daily on your favorite EIB network station!
What a crock of bull!! Poor reporting if I have ever seen any before. A very convinient way if interpreting poll numbers. Only an idiot, or somebody with an agenda can interpret this poll as a sing of electability. The following must be noted:
1. A poll is nothing but an statistical snapshot at a particular event. The numbers will change as the circumstances do.
2. Obama's numbers will definitively change is he is the nomenee, and the ficlke press change focus and put him under the fine scrutiny that any presidential canditate usually has.
3. Once the GOP slime machine gets to work on Mr. Obama, his negative will undoubtly increase. By election day in Nov 08 those nebgatives wil not be too far from Mrs. Clintons numbers now.
4. Electoral college, electoral college. I challenge anybody to show me Barack Obama's path to 270 electoral votes!! One on one match ups means nothing. Just ask Al Gore! When an analysis is done of the electoral college, Mr. Obamas weakness is apparent, and I believe, unsumonable.
