QU poll: Obama the only one with a decent shot against Rudy-- as well as the most progressive!

Well, while we're in the business of citing (often dubious) polls in support of one candidate or another for the primary, I figured this one would be of interest:

http://www.connpost.com/localnews/ci_5810295

Hillary, as always, performs the weakest of the "Big Three" candidates against the GOP opposition, but especially against Giuliani. While poll results have waxed and waned here and there, one of the most consistent results, poll after poll after poll, is that Hillary performs the poorest-- and loses by a big margin-- against the top Republican prospects, especially Giuliani.

Whereas Barack Obama consistently does the best, with Edwards in second. And this is before Obama has even done much of anything with the war chest that he is busily accumulating.

There's this unfortunate (and very inaccurate) falsehood circulating around that Obama is most popular with the "Netizens" and the Left Wing of the Democratic Party, but is a less mainstream candidate than Hillary. As we can see, the opposite is consistently true-- not only is Barack Obama closest to the progressive base of the Democratic Party, he's also by far our strongest candidate in the general election. He should be respected as such.

And did you notice they didn't even include Edwards in the head to head matchups?

"The top Democrats, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and Vice President Al Gore, a non-candidate, all get the same 40 or 41 percent against 'America's mayor,' Rudolph Giuliani," said Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

You might also notice the date on the poll - April 25-May 1 - so part of the poll was done BEFORE the Dem debate.

I have a problem with Obama's long string of pro-Iraq War votes.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3189244&mesg_id=3189244

Note that the thread also shows that Obama's and Hillary's votes mirror one another on Iraq.

Of the 69 Iraq bills that Obama voted on in the Senate, he only voted differently from Hillary once:
"The confirmation of General George Casey to be Chief of Staff for the Army, held just this past February. Hillary voted against confirmation, while Obama voted to confirm."

I also strongly disagree that Obama is "the most progressive". Imho, Obama is *not* progressive. He obfuscates his positions on all important issues and is running a campaign exactly like Hillary in this respect. The biggest most important issue he has talked about during this primary has been rap lyrics. Not progressive.

And I also strongly disagree that "Obama the only one with a decent shot against Rudy". Obama has yet to be attacked. And once he is attacked his poll numbers will drop off a cliff because middle America isn't going to give him a second chance.

Against Ghouliani they both win by a almost exactly equivalent margin.
Obama: 50%
Giuliani: 43%

Edwards: 50%
Giuliani: 44%
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewItem&itemID=15674
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3257074&mesg_id=3257107

And the other two:
Obama: 52%
McCain: 39%

Edwards: 52%
McCain: 42%

Obama: 58%
Romney: 29%

Edwards: 64%
Romney: 27%

Note that Hillary performs much more poorly than either Edwards or Obama.

Sometimes Obama performs better than Edwards and Hillary, sometimes Edwards performs better than Obama and Hillary.

I have yet to see a poll with Hillary performing better than both Edwards and Obama.

many dems refuse to support her if she is the nominee. So, why pick the weakest and the worst of the pack.

Obama tied with Guillani. May 7 Poll

Obama's strength in White Community is with the more educated.
To win he has to cut into the Blue Collars in South and
in the Ethnic North(Polish-Ameriocans, German Americans,
etc)

Like I said, these polls wax and wane somewhat, and the best that Hillary has ever performed has been more or less what this Gallup poll has shown-- within margin of error.

Obama by contrast (and Edwards to an extent), consistently performs much better than Hillary in national polling, just about always within striking distance of Giuliani and Romney and beating them at least half the time. Hillary is almost always beaten, in contrast.

It's early, of course, but what I find most worrisome is that Hillary has the biggest name recognition of any candidate in either party-- and that name recognition translates into extremely high negatives, much higher than anybody else in there. 52% by last count.

And a big portion of that negativity stems from Democrats. I can't even maintain count anymore of the Democrats-- not Net types, but on-the-ground, working people-- who won't vote for her in 2008, under any conditions. She's too close to the Iraq war for them, too close to the bankruptcy bill and corporate anti-worker interests, too distant from basic Democratic progressive principles. This is a lethal combination for us in 2008.

Hillary really has the worst of both worlds here: She's the weakest of our major candidates in the national election, and while she does poll the best of any single Democratic candidate for the primaries at this point, the "anti-Hillary" sentiment is extremely high among our own party, albeit at this point, split among several other candidates. This bodes very poorly for her and for us in general for the 2008 election itself.

probably end up voting for whoever wins the pimary, I have
no preference.

The poll presented yesterday on each and every news show
indicated Hilary 10 points ahead of Obama and beating
all Republicans.

It was pointed out on TV that Obama's strength is in the
more highly educated. This are the reports that most
Americans received.

Hillary is winning nearly every state primary poll(Obama takes IL and Edwards has the lead in IA) for Democrats in addition to national polling.

To assume the anti-Hillary vote is split is an insult to actual supporters of Obama and Edwards whose support is based on their candidate not their dislike of Hillary.

"I can't even maintain count anymore of the Democrats-- not Net types, but on-the-ground, working people-- who won't vote for her in 2008, under any conditions"

Ahh yes the old I don't know anyone who would vote for her under any circumstances canard. I heard this repeated ad naseum before her primary when she got 80% of the vote. I hear it now as if polling doesn't exist.

"too close to the bankruptcy bill"

Really? Which one? Because there were two. One she voted for that didn;t pass and one she spoke out against(though wasn;t able to vote because Bill was having surgery)

In fact, Obama's the only one within the MoE (and even he, at this point, doesn't quite top Rudy). Hillary is demolished by a significant margin that's well beyond the MoE.

One can argue statistical fine points until the cows come home, but what matters is the overall trend and the very consistent result that emerges-- in poll after poll, Hillary has both the largest negatives of any of our top Dem candidates and also the poorest performance against the top Republicans.

Obama by contrast, despite his relative lack of name recognition, has the best performance with considerable crossover support from Independents and even many Republicans, with much lower negatives. And he's not just a better national candidate in general, he has a much stronger progressive foundation and excites the Democratic base rather than divides it. This is something that we need at the very least to have a shot in the 2008 elections.

Because only Quinnipac (which should be treated as an outlier given that 5 other poll show otherwise) has her outside the MOE for losing (they have all Dems losing to Rudy).

"Hillary has both the largest negatives of any of our top Dem candidates"

Yes while an obstacle, high disaaprove/negative ratings are hardly fatal to a campaign.

"and also the poorest performance against the top Republicans."

But she still wins and is the choice of Democrats at this point. If she was losing badly to the top Republicans and it was a month before the primaries start you would have a stronger point.

But people are getting a good look at Rudy and his polling trend is going down.

Giuliani 49, Hillary 40. Giuliani 44, Obama 41. A result more or less reflected in a large series of other polls. And this poll was conducted when Giuliani himself had quite a cloud hanging over him recently on quite a few fronts. A bad omen for our own frontrunner in more ways than one.

That sort of comes first.

Rudy has consistently been the top vote-getter among Republicans for the past two months-- Rudy has long since passed McCain and he's consistently at the top. Only Romney has a chance against him, and he's been stumbling. (Fred Thompson, for all the hype, hasn't even surpassed McCain.)

Saying that "Rudy has no shot with Repugs" is more than a bit ridiculous when he's consistently at the top of their list. And lest you think that his New York, less-conservative background hurts his prospects, keep in mind that much of his strongest support is coming in socially conservative strongholds.

Say what you want about the Repugs, quite a few of them are the personifications of evil, but they're not stupid, and they can be surprisingly and (for our side) upsettingly pragmatic where the rubber meets the road. And they're already rallying behind Rudy because of his national security and executive cred and his overall appeal. We underestimate them at our peril.

This is why we need to be seeking out a Democratic candidate who splits or, at least, neutralizes them.

Hillary Clinton powerfully unifies the GOP for their candidate against us, a formula for disaster.

OTOH, Edwards draws some of their support, and Obama-- despite his more progressive credentials-- is seen as a sort of "fair-minded player" among Republicans, so much so that he attracts at least consideration, and often outright support from disaffected Republicans. This is why Edwards and especially Obama do so well in national polling.

A Hillary candidacy is basically giving us exactly what we dread most-- someone who has the dollars and the connections to probably do well in the primaries, but someone who unifies the GOP and has such extremely high and rising negatives, even amongst fellow Democrats who will not vote for her, that she just about guarantees electoral defeat for us in the 2008 general election itself.

Romney Soars in Michigan
May 9, 2007 | American Research Group

Now: Mitt Romney 24%; John McCain 22%; Rudy Giuliani 19%; Fred Thompson 8%; Newt Gingrich 7%... February: McCain 35%; Giuliani 30%; Gingrich 9%; Romney 8%

McCain Soars, Rudy Drops in CA
May 9, 2007 | American Research Group

Now: Rudy Giuliani 27%; John McCain 24%; Fred Thompson 12%; Mitt Romney 11%; Newt Gingrich 5%... January: Giuliani 33%; Gingrich 19%; McCain 18%; Hagel 5%...



Romney Soars in Michigan
May 9, 2007 | American Research Group
Now: Mitt Romney 24%; John McCain 22%; Rudy Giuliani 19%; Fred Thompson 8%; Newt Gingrich 7%... February: McCain 35%; Giuliani 30%; Gingrich 9%; Romney 8%...
FULL STORY

McCain Soars, Rudy Drops in CA
May 9, 2007 | American Research Group
Now: Rudy Giuliani 27%; John McCain 24%; Fred Thompson 12%; Mitt Romney 11%; Newt Gingrich 5%... January: Giuliani 33%; Gingrich 19%; McCain 18%; Hagel 5%...
FULL STORY


Romney Surges in New Hampshire
May 8, 2007 | Boston Herald

In the wake of a solid showing in the first Republican presidential debate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has surged to the top of the pack of GOP contenders in the 2008 New Hampshire primary, according to a new poll.... The Survey USA/WBZ TV poll shows Romney with 32 percent of the vote, followed by former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani with 23, and Arizona Sen. John McCain at 22. Actor Fred Thompson, who hasn't formally announced his candidacy, garnered 11 percent of the vote, the poll shows.

Romney Up 9 in New Hampshire
May 7, 2007 | WBZ TV

According to a SurveyUSA poll of 551 likely Republican Primary voters, Mitt Romney gathered 32%, followed by Rudy Guiliani at 23% and John McCain with 22%. Fred Thompson finished fourth with 11%.

This is why Rudy himself has picked up the frontrunner mantle for the GOP-- he has consistently been the most popular in the field for many weeks now.

Besides, it's not just Rudy who poses trouble for us-- Romney in particular picks up increasing support as his own name recognition grows, and he'd be just as tough or even tougher than Rudy if nominated (Blue State governor, broad Swing appeal, good speaker).

The point being, that if we're expecting the GOP to nominate an arch-conservative who doesn't have national potential, we're going to be disappointed. Whether they choose Giuliani or Romney, they're going to be selecting someone who's consistently been shown to have broad appeal to a wide selection of voters and be very tough in a national election. And don't pretend that Bush's woes will have much effect in 2008-- especially if someone with some distance from Bush is nominated, Bush's own unpopularity will have little impact on that candidate's perception. Just look at how much support the weak Gerald Ford garnered in 1976, as someone else has pointed out, despite the resignation of both Nixon and Agnew for scandal and the severe economic reversals of the period!

Individual polls themselves will swing around a bit, but what matters, again, is the overall trend, which consistently shows that Hillary is by far our weakest candidate on a national scale against Giuliani, Romney, McCain, whomwever-- whereas Obama is consistently our strongest and most competitive. Hillary has the dangerous distinction of thus far being the Dem frontrunner while being the most unpopular, with the most negatives, nationwide. That's the take-home message here, and it's one we should be heeding well.

How'd that pan out?

Truth is, the base of the party, the people who will actually vote for a candidate, are not going to vote for an adulterer that is pro-choice and pro-gay rights. I stand by my assertion that he will not be the nominee.

Rudy's primary strength is seen as his ability to win the general election.

The problem is that more and more polls show him losing those head to head matchups with the top Democrats. Also GOP voters are now considering whether to vote for this pro-choice adulterer with a vowel for a last name is really worth it.

The Quinnipac poll shows him losing 13pts since Feb. While I still see the Q poll as an outlier. His huge drop is also shown in Gallup, Rasmussen etc. Rasmussen shows drops in his head to head matchups and his favorability in addition to losing a chunk of his primary lead.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008_obama_neck_and_neck_with_giuliani_leads_mccain_by_4

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/2008_republican_presidential_primary

None of us knows precisely whom the GOP will nominate in 2008. I myself am iffy on whether Giuliani would get the GOP nod-- Romney also has a strong shot. But no matter how much we nitpick the details on any individual poll, the trend has been evident and consistent: Hillary does the worst against the GOP field, no matter which particular candidate is cited, and this is despite the current national preference for Democrats (which may not last into November of 2008). She also has the highest negatives and rising, already having topped 50%. It's a very bad thing when the supposed frontrunner for the nomination is the worst performer against the opposition-- you want to nominate your strongest candidate against the opposition and one who stands with the party's core values.

Obama has the best performance in general against the GOP field, and among the strongest progressive credentials. He meets both criteria in spades.

"you want to nominate your strongest candidate against the opposition and one who stands with the party's core values."

She is currently the choice of Democrats and is beating the GOP except for one guy where she runs neck and neck. In other words the same place as Obama is with the exception of leading most nominee polling as Hillary currently is.