New National Poll: Hillary Loses to ALL GOP Candidates, Obama Leads Them ALL

This is very significant if true - and this is Zogby's Interactive Poll -- but if the general forecast is true then Obama is polling about 6 points ahead of the entire GOP field while Clinton's policy and baggage are pulling her down to a 4% loss to ALL GOPers. She is now about 10 points less electable than Barack, and it is now more likely that she would lose rather than win, polling only around 40%.

Clinton would be an electoral disaster for the Democratic Party is what these numbers are saying while Barack, and to a lesser extent Edwards, are winners.



Go to the link, to see how Clinton is slipping compared to past Zogbys and how Obama has won every single heat Zogby has run in the interactive.

Here is the link to the interactive if you want to participate: http://interactive.zogby.com/pollregistration/registration/index.cfm?refsite=news

I would add that this same phenomenon of Obama doing about 10% to 12% better than Clinton was seen in a general election poll of Iowa voters. Historically, Iowa and NH late-breaking voters and switchers see electability as the Number One issue just before election day, so polls like this could give Obama the Big Mo.

skews older and female.

Self-selecting, online polls are meaningless.

so it might be the new trend...

uguu

trying to find it again. Clinton again was not nearly as electable as Obama.

Yet we'll hear over and over and over again from the self-proclaimed "centrists" how actually taking a PROGRESSIVE stance is particidal. Yeah. Right. (Fucking corporatists!!) :grr:

they just like the $$$ and would rather it not stop flowing in from lobbyists. :)

What was the payoff...hey, we put you folks in to get us the hell out of Iraq. :wtf: are you doing!

Then the big three "run to the center" on script. They've all said the magic number - we can't
assure you that we won't have troops in Iraq in 2013, the end of our first term. And they suck wind.

Could that have anything to do with it? Yes and here's why I think so:

They're all negative their June percentages in every match up except for

Edwards v. McCain (+1%)
Edwards v. Giuliani (+1%)

But look at this, drop out and unknown Tommy Thompson (who?):

Clinton v. Thompson - negative 8%
Obama v. Thompson - negative 5%
Edwards v. Thompson - negative 3%

Well lets see, between June and now, they all equivocated on the Iraq war...can't say we'll not have
troops there in 2013. People heard that and said, wait, what about 2006. These folks can't hear.

And there you have it. Down in general since June in each match up and each of them down against
a drop out, Thompson.

New poll shows Clinton trails top 2008 Republicans
Reuters
Monday, November 26, 2007; 12:29 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton trails five top Republican presidential contenders in general election match-ups, a drop in support from this summer, according to a poll released on Monday.

Clinton's top Democratic rivals, Barack Obama and John Edwards, still lead Republicans in hypothetical match-ups ahead of the November 4, 2008, presidential election, the survey by Zogby Interactive showed.

Clinton, a New York senator who has been at the top of the Democratic pack in national polls in the 2008 race, trails Republican candidates Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, John McCain and Mike Huckabee by three to five percentage points in the direct matches.

In July, Clinton narrowly led McCain, an Arizona senator, and held a five-point lead over former New York Mayor Giuliani, a six-point lead over former Tennessee Sen. Thompson and a 10-point lead over former Massachusetts Gov. Romney.

She was not matched against the fast-rising Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor, in the July poll.

The results come as other national polls show the race for the Democratic nomination tightening five weeks before the first contest in Iowa, which kicks off the state-by-state nomination battles in each party.

Some Democrats have expressed concerns about the former first lady's electability in a race against Republicans. The survey showed Clinton not performing as well as Obama and Edwards among independents and younger voters, pollster John Zogby said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/26/AR2007112600949.html

I think their objectivity (or lack thereof) has finally been exposed.

not indicative of the Voting Public (historically) come Election Day. I do find it interesting, though, that this is the, what, billionth time the Obama supporters have Posted this as a sign that their candidate's doing well? When they can offer this Poll as well as three or four other National Polls -- and several State Polls? -- that support these findings, I'll start believing it.

'Till then, it's all just noise.

With a little over a month to go before Iowa, am I alone in smelling the desperation among the Obama supporters around here?

Just to be sure...

but don't expect an admission of it. Nah guh happm, at this junkshure.

I learned this fact the hard way in the run-up to the 2004 election. Accept Zogby's numbers as gospel at your own risk.

But it's nice to think the MSM might someday, somehow make an honest effort to report the facts.

NAAAAAH!

They had Gore winning by 1%.

Look at his presidential calls and on 2004, that was stolen and his numbers were probably closer than anyones with a real vote count.

“The poll’s Web site describes the process as ‘interactive’ — that is, it’s an Internet poll, based on a database of individuals who have signed up to participate,” writes Burka. “It is not a random sample; the polling organization solicits responses by e-mail. In addition, the poll takers make about 20 to 50 phone calls in the state where a race is taking place. The poll does not mention a screen for likely voters.”


“As I have written repeatedly, the poll that I think is the least credible is Zogby/Wall Street Journal/Battleground States,” adds Burka. “I can’t believe the Journal allows its name to be attached to this so-called poll.”

http://www.cjr.org/politics/how_reliable_is_the_zogbyjourn.php

He gets support and holds it better than the others. Edwards is barely sneaking by. It's not even statisctically significant in 3 of the races.

She hit her peak - the HRC allure is fading.

In this one voters opinion, either John or Barack will be our nominee.

She may have more time on The Hill then the others, but folks simply don't trust she is genuine in her answers. In this case, trust trumps experience.

...because all these polls are clogging up the latest page.

And for the people on the list who don't BELIEVE THESE POLLS ARE FAIR. When they found one that gave Obama the lead they messed their pants...tsk tsk tks tsk .. Nothing against Obama but I bet anybody he does not get the nomination. He is unelectible.

And going down against Thompson is like losing to a dead guy. He was barely visible and dropped out. It's like Democrat versus Don't want a Democrat.

This sucks for all three leaders, Clinton in particular.

Since Bush popularity is going low at the same time and none of these Republicans are that appealing on the issues or even charismatically, might we attribute the sucking sound of our candidates falling to A TOTAL LACK OF BOLDNESS AND RESPONSIVENESS ON THE ISSUES.

They've all equivocated on Iraq, Edwards the least but he's still doing that. The voters want the heck out and they've got the leading candidates for the opposition saying, "oh, well, maybe...2013.." You know what the voters think...screw that, we've had it.

This is fascinating stuff. I guess Penn has a different poling technique than Zogby.

The hugely surprising result is that the Zogby poll finds Sen. Hillary Clinton losing to all four top Republicans in head-to-head trial heats. What makes that surprising is that Clinton LEADS all four of those Republicans in the trend estimates based on all other polling by between 3.8 and 11.6 points. Zogby also has Clinton losing to Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee by 5 points. There are too few Clinton-Huckabee trial heat polls from other organizations for me to compute a trend estimate for that comparison.

==

We can probably rule out one easy explanation: That Clinton has suddenly collapsed and Zogby is just the first to find it. The reason is internal to the Zogby result. If Clinton really has suddenly become 10 points less attractive, we'd expect all four Republicans paired against her to do BETTER than their trend estimates when facing her. But what happens is Clinton goes down and they don't do any better. That is hard to reconcile with a real change in Clinton's support. (A tortured version would say Clinton must have collapsed among Dems who now say they are undecided while refusing to move towards any of the Republicans. But that isn't usually what happens in real data when one candidate declines sharply. Usually the other moves up at least a bit, drawing not only from unhappy partisans but especially from independents who now are disenchanted with the former front-runner. So while you could make the math work with this story, it doesn't seem very well supported by the data.)

==

Without access to the raw data it is impossible to test any speculation here. But here is one possibility: Internet polls, presumably including Zogby's, use weighting to adjust for non-representativeness in their volunteer respondents. (There is a huge debate about whether this, and more sophisticated approaches, can produce generalizable population estimates with good statistical properties, but we'll leave that for another day.) Clinton has more support among women and somewhat older people. Both those groups are likely to be underrepresented in any pool of internet respondents. As a result the responses of those with these characteristics who ARE present in the sample are likely to be weighted up quite a bit to reach population proportions in the weighted sample. If the relatively few older women who are in the sample are ALSO atypical in other ways that both make them volunteer for internet surveys AND be less disposed to support Clinton than are non-internet volunteering older women, then weighting these respondents up won't properly capture Clinton's support and will lead to a systematic underestimate of her support.

more -

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/