Giuliani and Thompson gain ground on Edwards (Rasmussen)

"Republican Presidential frontrunners Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson have gained ground on Democratic hopeful John Edwards over the past several weeks. Edwards, formerly a Senator from North Carolina and the Democrats 2004 Vice Presidential nominee, remains in third place among those seeking the Democratic Presidential namination. However, Edwards has consistently outperformed all other Democrats in general election match-ups.

The latest Rasmussen Reports Election 2008 poll shows Edwards and Giuliani tied at 45%. Earlier in June, Edwards held a four-point advantage over the former Mayor of New York City. In fact, Edwards had held a modest advantage over Giuliani for three straight months in Rasmussen Reports polls. "

<snip>

"In other general election match-ups, Thompson trails New York Senator Hillary Clinton by five points and Illinois Senator Barack Obama by two. Giuliani is in a toss-up with each of the top three Democrats, Clinton, Obama, and Edwards.

Edwards is now viewed favorably by 52% of voters and unfavorably by 44%. Those numbers are down a bit compared to recent months. From March through May, Edwards was viewed favorably by 55% to 57% of voters. In June, his favorables have ranged from 52% to 54%. The current measure of 44% unfavorable is the highest yet recorded for Edwards. Among those with strongly held opinions, 14% have a Very Favorable opinion of Edwards while 22% have a Very Unfavorable view. "

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/giuliani_and_thompson_gain_ground_on_edwards

I don't think his lackluster 2nd Q fundraising will help especially in light of what Obama and Clitnon have done.

Gore needs to make up his mind. Is he running or not? If he does not announce very soon, he will be ceding the field to Hillary. Obama is great but he will not get the nomination. Edwards and Gore appeal to the same group. (As did Wesley Clark.) We are sitting on the sidelines until Gore decides what he is going to do. If he has any desire at all to run, he needs to run soon because we are getting ready to back Edwards. Edwards should not despair. He is likely to end up the front runner no matter what happens now.

I was really impressed by Elizabeth Edwards' call the Ayn Rand Coulter. It indicated to me that the Edwards have analyzed the mistakes of the 2004 campaign and are prepared to avoid them. They apparently learned that you meet the personal attacks head on. You talk directly and politely to the person attacking you. You listen to that person and respond on a sincere, human level. That is what brings discourse back to civility -- in all situations -- except when you are dealing with a truly mentally disturbed person. The Edwards are mature people. They could bring the country together. The same is true of Gore. No other candidate on either side has the inner maturity and spiritual strength to bring the America together. It's Edwards or Gore. Clark is the third, but he does not seem to be serious about running at all. These are the people of true wisdom and authenticity.

I do not want to say anything derogatory about any candidate. I will probably work for any Democrat. I'm just hoping Gore will give Democrats a clear picture about whether he would run very soon. His silence is affecting the campaign almost as much as his entering the campaign would. Edwards will pick up a lot of support if Gore does not run.

I certainly think he will grab his share but I think that will be offset by Gore people gravitating to Clinton and Obama.

Needless to say the days following a Gore announcement either way should be quite interesting.

That is the sound of DU Rasmussen fans jumping ship....

eom

The MSM must be doing a pisspoor job of revealing he skipped the Iraq Study group meetings to make big bucks with canned speeches. Even the RWs should be pissed by that.

Small consolation but a consolation nonetheless.

so you're saying Edwards will win by less than before, however he still does better than Hillary in any of the General Election matchups.

If you think that Hillary does best against the GOP in the general election, you're delusional.

"so you're saying Edwards will win by less than before,"

Right now, he is tied with Rudy in Rasmussen. And his lead has shrunk over Thompson. The GE matchups decline matches his decline in other polls.

"however he still does better than Hillary in any of the General Election matchups."

Which I sure will help him when he slips to 4th place behind Richardson.

BTW, Hillary is beating Rudy in 6 of the last 8 polls with a 1pt deficit in Rasmussen and a tie with Cook. She also beats every other GOPer in head to head matchups.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_giuliani_vs_clinton-227.html

"If you think that Hillary does best against the GOP in the general election, you're delusional."

We've battled over this issue how many times and you accuse me of saying things I haven't?

C'mon now.

than Hillary.

Even if he does poll 3rd or 4th in the Dem primary - he still polls better against the GOP than the rest of the Dems.

If I had to choose between winning the Primary and winning the National Election, I would choose winning the national election.

What is your argument - that Edwards can't win the general election, or that Hillary will do better in the general election? Doesn't it just make Edwards look better every time someone mentions that he does the best in the general election.

It doesn't surprise me that Edwards might not win the Primary, after all the Democratic Party has never worried about winning the general election, but cares more about ideas.

If you want to consistently compare Edwards to Hillary in the general election, Edwards will continue to look better and better.

If you want to talk about other 'positives' about Hillary - I would love to hear about that.

I don't doubt that Hillary is capable, but on a national level, she is a northern senator from new york state; and that won't play in the majority of the country. She could have moved to other states, but she chose NY and thats the way it is.

One very salient point of the report is "Edwards has consistently outperformed all other Democrats in general election match-ups."

Here is another valuable data point is the fact that Edwards's lead over Thompson is twice as big as Hillary's and four times as big as Obama's: "Edwards still leads Thompson, 50% to 41%. ... In other general election match-ups, Thompson trails New York Senator Hillary Clinton by five points and Illinois Senator Barack Obama by two."

Why is that, do you think?

But here is the most critical point of the whole report:

Twenty-eight percent (28%) say they will definitely vote for Edwards if he is on the ballot in 2008. Thirty-two percent (32%) will definitely vote against him. That net deficit of four points (28% for minus 32% against) is the best for any candidate seeking the White House at this time. Thompson and Giuliani rank second and third by that measure.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/giuliani_and_thompson_gain_ground_on_edwards