Edwards would beat Giuliani by 14 points in Iowa (HRC would lose by 3)

Edwards, Obama Lead Giuliani in Iowa
May 9, 2007

==(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Democrat John Edwards could carry Iowa in the 2008 United States presidential election, according to a poll by SurveyUSA released by KAAL-TV. 54 per cent of respondents in the Hawkeye State would vote for the former North Carolina senator, while 40 per cent would support former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani.

In other contests, Giuliani trails Illinois senator Barack Obama by five points, and leads New York senator Hillary Rodham Clinton by three points.

In 2004, Republican George W. Bush carried Iowa’s seven electoral votes, with 50 per cent of all cast ballots. No GOP nominee had carried the Hawkeye State since Ronald Reagan in 1984.

Bush is ineligible for a third term in office. The next United States presidential election is scheduled for November 2008.

Polling Data

Possible match-ups - 2008 U.S. presidential election

If there were an election for president of the United States today, and the only two names on the ballot were (the following) who would you vote for?

Rudy Giuliani (R) 48% - 45% Hillary Rodham Clinton (D)
Rudy Giuliani (R) 40% - 54% John Edwards (D)
Rudy Giuliani (R) 44% - 49% Barack Obama (D)==

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/15671

If we...

Even if Edwards just makes a few Southern states competitive, we win because Republicans are forced to spend resources there and it increases our chances for winning every race down ticket.

This Dem can handle Edwards being our nominee.

Edwards is in 3rd place for national primary polling and only wins a single state (IA) in state by state primary voting.

I would be fine with him as the nominee but he is not my first choice.

Surprised to see you quote a non-Rasmussen poll...

You inevitable seem to start your reply post with "But Rasmussen..." and then go on to tell us how Rasmussen is the most accurate poll...makes it sound like you distrusted other polling organizations...

If that is not the case I am glad to hear it

It doesn't mean that all the other polling organizations aren't trustworthy.

Edwards beats Rudy by 6%, McCain by 9%, Romney by 26%.
Hillary ties Rudy, beats McCain by 4%, Romney by 9%.

Regardless, it think it is best to look at the general trend of all polls, there are always going to be outliers. The general trend is that Hillary is the strongest of the 3 in the primary, weakest of the 3 in the general election.

But you would also acknowledge that Hillary has been showing increasing strength since the debate, both in the Democratic race and against Republican canddiates?

Though I would add that there was a time when McCain and Dame Rudy beat everyone in all the polls. That seems to have changed.

Most of them are at least a month old.

I started a thread with the most recent polls here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3257966

Unless, Richardson can pull a rabbit from his hat in Iowa or Nevada, I think Edwards will be my candidate.

of Iowa.

No, I haven't thought it through. I am probably wrong AGAIN.

It's just that, I read this post and said to myself, if it's true, why have an election? Just poll Edwards into the white house.

It seems to me that polls are another means of manipulating the voters.

I'd like a completely level playing field, and voters who are making up their own minds by communicating with each other. Not relying on what Fox or CNN or any other POLL says.

It's a bastardized form of information.

Do we know if any given poll is or isn't what they say it is??

And often the polling results are presented by the media as though they need no analysis, when analysis is key to understanding a polling situation.

For instance, a candidate like Sen Clinton - the Gallup pollsters will ask the public if they would vote for her over one of three or four other candidates in the primaries.

Then the announce that Hillary is the strongest candidate...
But that statement only has validity if you DON't Examine that the other three candidates (Edwards, Obama, and Gore) were not splitting the vote - if any of those guys were to team up with any of the other three, Hilalry would fall to second place IMMEDIATELY.