Newsweek Poll: Obama whoops Republican candidates

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewItem&itemID=15674
Obama: 50%
Giuliani: 43%

Obama: 52%
McCain: 39%

Obama: 58%
Romney: 29%

Now, the other Democratic candidates:

Clinton: 49%
Giuliani: 46%

Clinton: 50%
McCain: 44%

Clinton: 57%
Romney: 35%
----------------------------------
Edwards: 50%
Giuliani: 44%

Edwards: 52%
McCain: 42%

Edwards: 64%
Romney: 27%

----------------------------------
Great numbers by the three of them, the best numbers are for Obama and Edwards.

According to Ann Coulter.

And they will go down with him which is what they deserve. Their rubber stamping was obscene.

I'm leaving out Hillary, she is known by everyone and she is the very definition of partisan to many Americans. But what I'm interested in is the polls for Obama and Edwards.

Against Ghouliani they both win by a almost exactly equivalent margin. I'm not interested in this. I'm interested in the other two polls.
Obama: 50%
Giuliani: 43%

Edwards: 50%
Giuliani: 44%

This is interesting to me. Who are the 3% of Americans who are sure they will vote for McCain when it's Edwards and unsure of their vote when it's Obama?

Obama: 52%
McCain: 39%

Edwards: 52%
McCain: 42%

And how do those 3% vote in this match up? Do they tend to vote Democratic against Romney the North-Eastern Republican? Or are they part of the 2% that votes for Romney, for sure, when Obama is the candidate and not Edwards? Or do they already pretty sure they support Obama against Romney but want to hear more from McCain?

Obama: 58%
Romney: 29%

Edwards: 64%
Romney: 27%

I guess I'd get my answer if I spent the money and bought the access to the full poll (if this is a poll where anybody can do that).

Just sayin'...

...but edwards?!?! that guy looks and acts like he's 15 years old! i feel more qualified to be president than him and i'm only 20! i can't believe his poll numbers are legit.

considering the millions who voted for him for veep in the last election.

he was just the fair haired boy along for the ride.

so he's familiar ...

You're even worse than our long time resident Edwards bashers! Congratulations!

Julie

PS You forgot to call him a "faggot".

but i don't use such foul language.

And Edwards got @ a 3% boost in NC in 2004. Cheney got about a 20% in WY. The only time that a VP didn't get a boost in recent years is Jack Kemp.

People vote for VPs.

Let the skinny dog run.

I'm not surprised.

is not the one who is winning in the polls among the Dems.

HRC is leading in the polls among the Dems, last I saw. But Obama leads in the polls in head to head with Repubs. So WHO is making that difference? WHO is voting for Obama in the general that is not included in the Dem polls?

Independents?

Oh, dear. Still, HRC is winning in head to head with Repub polls, too. It's just not as strong. I don't think there's any serious concern with Guiliani, though, since he probably won't get past the Republican nomination. He's the toughest competitor. So far.

It's pretty normal for a top challenger to do a lot better in state polls in the early races than in general national polls. A lot of eventual winners have come that route. While not meaningless, it's still something to be aware of. Everyone knows who Hillary is. Obama is less known. Similarly, an awful lot of people know who Rudy Giuliani is, and a lot less people know enough about him to really run from the guy at this stage.

The polls consistently show that, and it should be a concern for everyone.

Many DUers think that 08 is going to be a cakewalk for us, but I don't. If we nominate a weaker general election candidate (Hillary) and they nominate a strong candidate (Dame Rudy or Thompson, imo) I think we will have a rough go of it.

Republican candidates are tied to Bush..by the time the general comes around, it's curtain time for any living breathing repuke!

Hillary doesn't do as well as Edwards and/or Obama in almost all general election polls
or
that we may have a tough time in 08?
Cuz only the second one is opinion.

What DUers are overestimating is the amount that the current administration will drag down the GOP nominee in 08. Prior to the election of 1976, both the pres (Nixon) and vice pres (Agnew) resigned in serious scandal. Absolutely unheard of. Yet Carter beat Ford by a 2% margin. And 4 years later, most of the public had forgiven the GOP and gave landslide victories to them for 3 elections in a row.

Yes, most Americans think Bush Inc is really bad, but that won't stop many of them for voting (R).

That is...if we want to win the White House. Yes, the most electable candidate is NOT the one who is leading in the polls among Democrats. So it sounds like the time for some introspection....ask what the pulse of the country is....and vote to WIN in the general and not just in the primary. Seems like a simple concept to me.

5/3 poll: Dems win w/Nat'l % of vote: (O/H/E) 50/49/50 v Rudi, 58/57/64 v Mitt, 52/50/52 v McCain

So all Dems win vs any GOP now in the race - interesting - :-)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18505030/site/newsweek/page/2

The Elephant in the Room
George W. Bush has the lowest presidential approval rating in a generation, and the leading Dems beat every major ’08 Republican. Coincidence?
By Marcus Mabry Newsweek May 5, 2007

May 5, 2007 - It’s hard to say which is worse news for Republicans: that George W. Bush now has the worst approval rating of an American president in a generation, or that he seems to be dragging every ’08 Republican presidential candidate down with him. But According to the new NEWSWEEK Poll, the public’s approval of Bush has sunk to 28 percent, an all-time low for this president in our poll, and a point lower than Gallup recorded for his father at Bush Sr.’s nadir. The last president to be this unpopular was Jimmy Carter who also scored a 28 percent approval in 1979. This remarkably low rating seems to be casting a dark shadow over the GOP’s chances for victory in ’08. The NEWSWEEK Poll finds each of the leading Democratic contenders beating the Republican frontrunners in head-to-head matchups.<snip>
Story continues below ↓advertisement

Former New York City major Rudolph Giuliani receives the highest marks for having shown political courage in the past among the current major candidates from either party (48 percent of registered voters say he has), followed by Hillary Clinton at 43 percent, John McCain at 42, John Edwards at 33 and Barack Obama at 30. Mitt Romney comes in last among the six leading candidates at 11 percent. Clinton receives the highest marks for showing political courage in the current campaign, though, with 34 percent of voters saying she has, followed by 33 percent for Obama, 30 percent for Edwards, 28 for McCain, 25 for Giuliani and 11 for Romney.

Where Clinton remains the undisputed champ is among Democrats. When matched against her main rivals for the Democratic nomination, Clinton is the choice of 51 percent of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters over Obama’s 39 percent; and she defeats Edwards 57 percent to 38 percent. Obama has not substantially narrowed Clinton’s lead since the early March NEWSWEEK poll, where he trailed Clinton by 14 points. Edwards has narrowed Clinton’s lead over him though. Back in March Edwards trailed Clinton by 31 points; now her lead is down to 19 points.<snip>

The actual poll BASED ON REGISTERED VOTERS: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18491981/site/newsweek /

1. Do you lean more toward Clinton, the Democrat; or Giuliani, the Republican?

Total Clinton.... Total Giuliani.... Undec./Other
49%....................46%...............5%

Republicans
9%.....................89%...............2%

Democrats
85%....................12%................3%

Independents
40%.....................53%...............7%

2. Do you lean more toward Obama, the Democrat; or Giuliani, the Republican?

Total Obama........Total Giuliani..........Undec./Other
50%...................43%...................7%

Republicans
13%..................83%....................4%

Democrats
81%...................12%..................7%

Independents
43%...................48%..................9%


<snip>SURVEY METHODOLOGY Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,001 adults, 18 and older, conducted May 2-3, 2007. Results are weighted so that the sample demographics match Census Current Population Survey parameters for gender, age, education, race, region, and population density. The overall margin of sampling error is plus or minus 4 percentage points for results based on 1,001 adults and 831 registered voters. Results based on smaller subgroups are subject to larger margins of sampling error. The margin of error is plus/minus 7 percentage points for results based on 422 registered Democrats and Dem. leaners and plus/minus 8 percentage points for results based on 324 registered Republicans and Rep. leaners. In addition to sampling error, the practical difficulties of conducting surveys can also introduce error or bias to poll results.

youth, minorities, etc., his advantage will be even greater. That's the big wildcard in all of this.

I believe Obama should be on the ticket, no matter what. I think he would benefit the ticket even as a VP more than anyone else.

GOBAMA

only vote on Election day and don't pay attention to politics any other time, will not vote for Obama, and you know what. Even though you probably don't want to accept the truth.

How many Democrats actually participate in both the primaries and the general election compared to the general election alone?

Do you think Obama would be equally appealing to General Election voters as primary voters? Don't let the primary electorate fool you. Kerry won every primary last time except for a few, and then never had a chance in states like TN and SD and ND during the general election.

The big wild card will always be the "Independents." If the Democrats win most of the independents, they would never lose a "fair" election. Those groups may be very energized to turn out to vote for Obama, but the racists will be just as motivated to turn out, so it'll be a wash.

It's all about the indies and I am not convinced that they would turn out for Obama in a general.

We must coddle and appease the racist constituency. :sarcasm:

That is really not the best talking point. Edwards advocates would do well to abandon it.

you want to experiment 2008 away, like the corporate media and Republican Party are counting on you to do.

They knowwww, that you will over analyze and say, "we cannot fold to the racists," and refuse to do the sure thing in 2008 with the guy who polls better than both Clinton and Obama consistently against Republicans, including that Newsweek poll.

They are counting on you to chalk up any support for Edwards as veiled racism or sexism.

And no, I'm not being sarcastic, and you don't need to be either.

After Bush, Democrats would be wise to put of the "experimenting" until 2016. Yes, nominating either Clinton or Obama or Richardson would be an "experiment," because it's never happened before.

Whether you want to call that "insensitive" or whatever is completely irrelevant. It is a fact, an honest fact, and you know it, regardless of whether you want to be honest and admit it.

The media smear Edwards 24/7 and pump up Clinton and Obama 24/7. Gee, I wonder why? Might it be that they have internal polling that shows that in a General Election, both Clinton and Obama would get destroyed in Mondale-like fashion, and they want to bait you into giving them what they want.

The head of CBS-Viacom, a Democrat, said he will be voting Republican in 2008 because it's better for business. Think he's alone? The media are doing all they can to tear down Edwards now, because he's the only one the Republicans "rightly" have to worry about.

In the words of D.L. Hughley, "there is no way this country is going to elect a black man named Barak Hussein Obama. It's just not going to happen."

You can believe otherwise, as I'm sure you will.

"Coddle and appease the racist constituency"? LOL. Oh, the racists aren't going to vote for any Democrat. It's the Independents and the more conservative Democrats that you have to worry about. People who aren't "overtly" racist or sexist, but who may not take that step with you in 2008.

Coddle and appease. That line is tired. No one is coddling to anyone if they say what everyone already knows, but doesn't want to admit. 2008 is the best chance the Democrats have had to win in a long time. Nominating either Clinton or Obama, the other side believes, at least partially neutralizes that advantage. Nominating Bill Richardson all but obliterates it, because of countrywide feelings about "illegal immigration."

Am I speaking things that other people know are true, but just don't want to accept as the pitiful state of affairs in this country? Do I wish it was different? Yes, I do, but it's not, and I'm not about to just "be nice" and go down in flames in 2008, just because other people didn't want to face the facts and were determined to be manipulated by psychological games from the other side.

According to some of the stuff that I have read here, support for Edwards has started gravitating towards being racist or sexist. When people have the audacity to say things like "Oh yeah, just let me jump on board with the white man from the south," as if no other reason would justify supporting John Edwards.

So, I feel the need to set the record straight. Nominating Clinton or Obama would be an experiment. The question is, whether 2008 is a good time to experiment. If other people decide that it is, then the decide it, but I'd love it if they rationally decided it instead of just feeling like they are "obligated" to do so. I fear that many are just jumping on board with Clinton and Obama because they are always in the media, kind of like "groupies." That's what infotainment gets you.

Interesting, sad analysis. I suspect the sarcasm was lost.
My intention was that a preemptive vote to curtail the potential influence of particular voters is a cynical political game that some of us are ready to rise above.

Some of us are very tired of it. Shifting responsibility to the media is kind of lazy and reflects very low estimation of the intelligence and basic competence of the average American.

While the media operates in ways that are seriously disturbing, I think that an honest representation of that influence would avoid asumptions that people are being manipulated to the degree that is presented here sometimes.

Not trying to downplay the Obama numbers, but to me the numbers are nearly identical. Still, the real good news is that all our Dems beat all of them!:toast: :toast: :bounce: :bounce: :party: :party:

John Edwards 17.67% average advantage
Barak Obama 16.33% average advantage
Hillary Clinton 10.33% average advantage

As more and more people grow to know who and what Barack is all about. His numbers will continue to improve.

for him growing overall.

Zogby's polls. It's funny how Zogby's polls always show Edwards lower than he is in most other polls. I remember 2004 when Zogby had Edwards by around 10 in SC, then it kept getting closer and closer and the final poll had Kerry within 4 of Edwards before the primary. Consequently, Edwards canceled his planned visits to Oklahoma with only a couple of days left before the primary, and stayed in SC. Edwards won the SC primary by more than 10 points, and lost Oklahoma to Clark by only 1,000 votes. Had Zogby's polls not painted a false picture about how things were going in SC, Edwards would have gone to Oklahoma and received the endorsement of Oklahoma hero Barry Switzer in person, and easily won that state.

Based on that experience, I don't trust any Zogby poll to accurately give me a read on Edwards. I'll wait for the next Iowa poll to see what's actually going on.

In all of the other state polls that were released recently, Obama was fading some, but he's very strong in the Zogby polls. I don't know if that's a flip in trends from a week or two ago, or something about Zogby's sample or methodology.

We'll see. I attributed Obama's recent drops in other polls to veiled racism, since one of those polls showed that 37% of people didn't even know Obama was black, so the more of them who found out that he was, the more his support dropped. Probably for the same reasoning of D.L. Hughley who says with strong conviction that "there is no way this country is going to elect a black man named Barak Hussein Obama. It's not going to happen."

It's funny to see the look in the eyes of the reporters, who are always White, when Hughley says that, as if he just committed a faux pas. Or maybe their thinking, "he's on to us." Only time will tell.

As well as others. As he moves around to different states his numbers are increasing. He has been constantly in Iowa and NH. Look at his numbers in those states. They have moved up. He is almost neck and neck in NH and he has come up in Iowa. Therefore like I said as people begin to listen to him his numbers are rising.

Example
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1302

All of the other polls over the last month or so showed him in 3rd in both Iowa and New Hampshire.

I like these numbers a lot.

Statistically, Edwards is 1.34% better.

John Edwards beats the three Republicans by an average of 17.67%.
Obama by 16.33%
Hillary Clinton by 10.33%

So, I'm guessing that you are saying that Edwards must connect as well, right?

You won't get a fight from me. Still, this thread was about Obama.

Those are the facts from this poll. I cannot allow people to say otherwise without correcting the record.

He cheers for them? They cheer for him?