Hotline/Diageo: National Dem Race Close, McCain Leads GOP
The new Hotline/Diageo poll shows the Democratic race to be a close one nationwide, while John McCain has opened up a strong national lead — though the numbers were collected before the Michigan primary, and nobody knows how future primaries will ultimately affect the numbers:
Democrats:
Clinton 38%
Obama 35%
Edwards 15%Republicans:
McCain 32%
Huckabee 17%
Romney 15%
Giuliani 12%
Thompson 7%
The general election match-ups also show that while any of the Democrats could beat most of the Republicans, Barack Obama is more electable than either Hillary Clinton or John Edwards — and it's not even close. John McCain is the most electable Republican, trouncing Edwards and narrowly edging Clinton, but loses to Obama in a statistical dead heat. Those numbers are available after the jump.
Generic Democrat 48%, Generic Republican 33%
Obama (D) 43%, McCain (R) 42%
McCain (R) 48%, Clinton (D) 45%
Obama (D) 54%, Huckabee (R) 31%
Clinton (D) 49%, Huckabee (R) 40%
Obama (D) 57%, Romney (R) 27%
Clinton (D) 50%, Romney (R) 39%
Obama (D) 56%, Giuliani (R) 34%
Clinton (D) 51%, Giuliani (R) 41%
Edwards (D) 51%, Giuliani (R) 31%
McCain (R) 48%, Edwards (D) 40%
Edwards (D) 48%, Huckabee (R) 33%
Edwards (D) 50%, Romney (R) 34%
Advertisement
Pretty good stuff for Obama, since these mythical matchup polls aren't much more than a "do you recognize these names" questionnaire.
January 16, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton has been under the microscope for 20 years. Obama has benefited from a lovefest for about a year.
When the general election comes, it's all going to come out and he'll be hovering around 29% support overall.
Obama is the least electable Democrat.
January 16, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know what it is that happens in your head that you call logic, Oracle, but if you think the guy that consistently brings in the most independents is the least electable, logic is the last thing I'd call it.
January 16, 2008 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oracle,
Please stop your spin, if you don't like those polls say it but it looks like Obama, Edwards are more electable than Hillary.
January 16, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, Obama is always a (D), and is not an (R) when facing Huckabee.
January 16, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a fluke manufactured poll.
All other polls show Edwards defeating McCain, so when Edwards starts making an issue out of the fact that he is the only Democrat who constantly beats McCain, a poll comes out that shows Edwards BLOWING OUT ALL OTHER REPUBLICANS, yet he loses to McCain.
Yeah, right.
January 16, 2008 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once the Republicans have a chance to dig their teeth into Obama's skin in a general election, I suspect his negatives will (fairly or not) shoot up quite a bit higher. These polls don't really indicate that Obama has a better shot than Hillary of winning in November; all of these basically show a tight race in a deeply divided country with all of the likely candidates' poll numbers within in the margin of error.
January 16, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kleefield:
Typo-alert: Obama is a (D), not a (R). See matchup with Huckabee.
January 16, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
When the general election comes, it's all going to come out and [Obama]'ll be hovering around 29% support overall.
That is a startlingly specific prediction.
January 16, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
These arguments about Hillary being equally electable due to her being "tested" are flawed.
Just because she's gone through these attacks in the past doesn't mean they won't have less of an effect this time around as well. She's nowhere close to reaching the bottom. It's been a long time since she's gone through the true Republican smear machine. She's been able to recover from it for the most part, but once it starts up again, it will get worse for her.
January 16, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tom: also, it assumes that there is nothing new, but I think Bill's association with certain businessmen after he left office will become a big issue if Hillary runs. I'm not alleging anything, just saying that he hung around with some guys whose behavior has been less than exemplary and the Reps will smear him by association. There's plenty of new meat for the gristmill (I think that's the right expression).
January 16, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama will fall to 30% once the pugs start making ads about him being a fomer coke user and a secret muzlim.
January 16, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
It sure is a concern-trolling fest in here!
January 16, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Has anybody a count total for democrats?
Below are the combined vote totals for Iowa, New Hampshire and Michigan:
Romney - 443,139 Total Votes
McCain - 361,546 Total Votes
Huckabee - 207,308 Total Votes
Paul - 84,554 Total Votes
Giuliani - 50,925 Total Votes
Thompson - 49,198 Total Votes
Hunter - 4,567 Total Votes
January 16, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a fluke manufactured poll.
All other polls show Edwards defeating McCain...
Which polls are those? The last head-to-head matchups that included Edwards were taken weeks before Iowa.
Anyone who thinks that the race does not change over time is kidding themselves.
I love how folks only endorse the polls that show their candidate winning, and savage those that contradict the old stuff as "fake" and "manufactured", with no justification whatsoever for those opinions.
What does a "manufactured" poll even mean?
January 16, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Iowa Democratic caucus never release actual vote totals, only percentage by caucus after viability shifting and Michigan is meaningless for the Democratic side because of the ballot having only one of the leading candidates on it because their primary was moved up in the schedule against the party rules.
January 16, 2008 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
You forgot that part about were Obama to be the nominee, it would cause 29% of the earth's mass to rocket into space and kill billions, which is the most substantive part of your assertion.
January 16, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Looking at those matchups just shows us how shrewd Kos's "Democrats for Mitt" campaign was... ;-)
January 16, 2008 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once again, Obama is more electable, Hillary will lose us the election.
January 16, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jonathan Alter said it in Newsweek 12/31 Obama's the only candidate with a shot at a landslide and a landslide is what the Democrats need to get things done - not another round of The Clintons
January 16, 2008 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am sorry, but I don't believe this poll. It looks to me that the repugs are voting to get Obama to be the nominee. When the GE really happens, all those repugs that are for Obama now will disappear.
January 16, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
First of all, you're an idiot. I hate polls, period.
Why? Because a pollster can get any result from a survey that he wants, errrrr, report any result, and mindless idiots like yourself will just believe it because you see a NUMBER as if a NUMBER legitimizes anything.
As for the last head to head matchups, Rasmussen takes them all of the time. Edwards does the best. When he's included in Gallup and Newsweek, he does the best against Republicans, BUT WHO CARES?
We don't elect candidates by the popular vote in this country.
If you had a brain, you'd understand that all of these NATIONAL MATCHUPS signify what MIGHT happen if elections were decided by the POPULAR (NATIONAL) vote.
They are not. They are decided by the electoral college, on a state-by-state level. When you break it down that way, Edwards expands the electoral map. Clinton and Obama do not.
They didn't include Obama's numbers in that paragraph, but he lost by 20 to 30 points.http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2008/01/ppp-ohio-and-florida-polls-edwards.html
I'm sure TPM won't post those PUBLIC POLICY POLLING numbers, like they posted the SC PPP numbers that showed Edwards in third.
The point. You win PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS, by winning states. Any type of national poll is a waste of time. The Democrats represented more Americans than the Republicans when they were in the MINORITY in the U.S. Senate. The popular vote doesn't matter. It's the states.
Edwards expands that electoral map.
Clinton and Obama wouldn't even win every state Kerry and Gore won.
January 16, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do polls lie? In addition to making some people change their votes to predicted winners, [Those who voted for Bush must be proud], now it's being used to keep candidates out of debates. Poll lie because it works.
January 16, 2008 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
New polls just in:
Ohio
Clinton 30%
Edwards 20%
Kucinich 34%
Obama 25%
Stalin 44%
Mao 75%
Murdoch 97%
January 16, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Michigan results are truly stunning for Hillary Clinton. As in, her campaign has got to be deeply worried after seeing that data. But in this race, it takes the MSM about 72+ hours to get their head around this stuff. That seems to be the cycle. So I expect by Friday you will start hearing and seeing pieces on the Michigan Uncomitted Vote, and the exit polling.
It's such a unique result it's got all the political junkie's hearts atwitter.
Interesting stuff.
January 16, 2008 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem for DEMS and HRC supporters is obviously not that HRC would easily win over Romney, Giuilani, Huckabee, or Thompson. The problem for DEMS if HRC is the nominee is of course McCain.
And interestingly, it's Obama--not HRC--that has the best shot against McCain.
Again, follow the data folks. And not just this "national" polling above. Follow the the data in IA, NH, and Michigan.
January 16, 2008 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gregor (underland chronicles by any chance?) can you elaborate on the Michigan Uncommitted votes? The local reporting here in OH has been craptacular - with only reports that "Romney & Clinton win in Michigan".
January 16, 2008 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
TYPO ALERT: Obama is always a (R) registered as a (D) no matter who Obama faces . . . Just like the great and grand GOP godess Clinton . . .
January 16, 2008 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I found the Obama-McCain setting interesting. There are several points' worth of undecideds more than there are with Clinton in that matchup.
January 16, 2008 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
haha, come wave at the parade of the delusional Hillary supporters...gotta spin no matter what...just make up facts, make up the future, the present, the past...its the land of make believe!
will it ever get old..
January 16, 2008 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
These numbers are part-and-parcel with the SurveyUSA numbers in Iowa, where every candidate has campaigned heavily, and where Obama absolutely crushes the field (beats Rudy by, no joke, 40 points; smallest margin is over McCain at 17 points)
January 16, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd bet anything it's independents who don't know where to break in that matchup. They break for McCain in the other two.
January 16, 2008 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm an Obama supporter, and this poll is heartening, to say the least, but it also has to be taken into context. Probably a bit high of a proportion of committed Obama supporters; taking all the polls as a whole would be better than taking this one at face value.
It seems to me that, AS OF NOW (key disclaimer), Edwards does the best nationally by a good margin, with Obama moderately behind and Clinton a wee bit further behind than Obama. This, I'd say, is due to exogenous factors favoring any well-known Democrat (i.e. Edwards) with Clinton being significantly hurt by the negative feelings many have for her. Obama isn't as well known, but in places he is (e.g. Iowa) he blows all the competition away. He won't be able to recreate this fully on the national level, but if he wins the nomination he'll at least be able to match Edwards' current standing (Edwards, I think, will lose points in the GE, though still winning by a significant margin)
January 17, 2008 4:26 AM | Reply | Permalink