1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Polls show Edwards strongest candidate in general election

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by spinning27, Jul 2, 2007.

  1. spinning27

    spinning27 New Member

    This was an interesting diary on Daily Kos today, posted by ArkDem14

    In a recent national poll I've gotten from Rasmussen Reports, a polling organization that normally leans about three points more to the GOP than the norm, Edwards beats Fred Thompson 51-38, Edwards beats Thompson with a majority voteshare even at this early point. Hillary beats Thompson by three points, 47-44, and Obama beats him 43-41.

    I could say the same thing about the other GOP frontrunner, Rudy Guiliani. In recent poll against Guliani, Obama lost 51-39, and Clinton lost 46-45. In fact, Edwards was the only Democratic candidate who managed to beat Guiliani. From a poll taken during the same time peroid as the others, he beat Guiliani 47-43, a strong showing by any measure.

    Here are few more head-to-head match ups down on a state by state basis by Survey USA, or SUSA, which is one of my favorite pollsters, and among the most accurate. Thier polls hit the nail on the hammer, by astonishingly predicting almost the exact margins in the 2006 OH-Sen and MO-SEN races, as well as the MT-SEN, races.

    Well, their statistics show that all possible Democratic candidates lose New Mexico to Guiliani, or at least start off with small disadvantages, or in Obama's case, a rather burdensome one.

    Clinon 44%, Guiliani 49%
    Edwards 45%, Guiliani 45%
    Obama 38%, Guiliani 53%

    On a side note Obama does lose one of the most liberal states in the country, Massachusetts, to Guiliani outside the margin of error, 41-48.

    Clinton 45%, Guiliani 48%
    Obama 49%, Guiliani 44%
    Edwards 54%, Guiliani 40%

    Obama 38%, Guiliani 54%
    Clinton 46%, Guiliani 48%
    Edwards 47%, Guiliani 44%

    Obama is the only major Dem to lose MN, and he does lose by 6 points.

    Clinton 45%, Guiliani 48%
    Obama 42%, Guiliani 50%
    Edwards 48%, Guiliani 43%

    John Edwards does start off five points behind in New York. But, it is seriously difficult for me to imagine him losing it in the end. I mean even Dukasis carried it. And Kerry won it by 18 points, and Gore by an even larger margin. But, perhaps favroite son status will earn Guiliani a little electoral relief, with his popularity in overwhelmingly Democratic NYC might help deplete statewide vote strength enough for him to win. If so, New York will do little to settle the fact that Edwards beats him badly in enough states to easily overcome this loss and still come in second in the electoral college. Obama also loses the state, albeit by a larger margin, 42-51.

    Clinton 48%, Guiliani 45%
    Edwards 50%, Guiliani 42%
    Obama 40%, Guiliani 51%

    Wisconsin: This is a state that Kerry won by less than ten thousand votes, and which Gore carried by a little more. It's definitely a swing state, albeit the forgotten one, and it has a massive, ultra cosnervative base for Republicans.

    Edwards 49%, Guiliani 39%
    Obama 43%, Guiliani 45%
    Clinton 44%, Guiliani 45%

    So what do all these polls mean? Jack shit because we're a year and a half away from election day. I'd also like to see matchups by SUSA against McCain and Thompson. Now, at the risk of partially contradicting myself, one can discern a general trend or statistic from all of this data.

    Edwards does best in the old rust belt, taking the largest margins of Democrats in every state polled, (at least that they've released). His shocking lead in Kentucky, which gave Bush a 60-39 margin in 2004, is telling of a general lead. His performance Wisconsin, and impressive leads in MO and IO are indicators of a general popularity within that region. Clinton does best on the West Coast and New England, the good old electoral minority for Democrats. Obama, at the risk of sounding too anti-Obama, was just sub-par compared to all Democrats. Every poll I've looked at shows him underperforming the other candidates despite a tremendous amount of positive media, (and a some negative media as well).

    Other trends, Edwards does well in the South, his home turf, which is to be expected. As I stated in a diary I published alst week, Edwards outraised all other Candidates in the deep south, even Republicans, an impressive feat.

    I was challenged, last week, to find an electoral college for a Democratic victory that didn't include New York, (which I don't think we could lose, and if Thompson or McCain ends up snatching the nominated it will definitely be in our column).

    I find it really odd that Edwards strength in national polls has not really translated into money. Then again I'm not surprised. All the media ever talks about are Obama and Clinton, it almost never mentions Edwards, and almost never says anything positive about him, not even when he travels to New Orleans with hundreds of college students his campaign payed expeneses, and promptly works hours cleaning up a residential area in the sweltering and humid heat.

    On another, Obama's 250,000+ donors is truly amazing, and it's a fantastic testament to his many fans. I'm only skeptical though becuase a huge amount of positive media, and tons of money have not given Obama a good polling position against any of the frontrunning republican.

    I was extremely disapointed that Edwards is likely going to end being the only candidate to raise less this quarter than during th previous quarter. There's just no excuse. In this game, money is everything, and money is what the media and the pundits care about. 9 million is pathetic, and if Edwards doesn't get his act together he won't be going anywhere. If I were his advisor I would tell him the next three months of his life should be nonstop fundraising. That he shouldn't fundraise as part of a campaign, but campaign during his fundraising. If were him, I would devote 12 hours a day, seven days a week to raising money so that I could pull closer to Obama and Clinton. Well, I'd say that's pretty much a wrap-up for this piece.

    P.S. Please vote in the poll. I use it as an indicator of how many people have read this, and I just really like to know that for curiousity's sake.
  2. zeke12

    zeke12 Guest

    13 percent nationwide.
  3. slappy4428

    slappy4428 Active Member

    Hillary Clinton is unelectable, Barack Obama is right behind.
    the 20 percent swing vote that you have to convince (since 40 percent will vote democrat and 40 percent will vote republican) is not ready to elect a woman or a black man to the presidency.
  4. PopeDirkBenedict

    PopeDirkBenedict Active Member

    Is it any more likely that the 20% will vote for any of the Republicans in the field?
  5. slappy4428

    slappy4428 Active Member

    Dont need to convince 20 percent... 10.0000001 will do.
    And that 20 percent doesn't necessarily vote for people as much as they do against someone else.
  6. Mmac

    Mmac Guest

    There has never been a more opportune time for a quality independent or third party candidate to come forward. The nation is thirsting for another option right now like never before in my lifetime.
  7. heyabbott

    heyabbott Well-Known Member

    I think the country is willing to elect a woman, but Hillary Clinton is not that woman. Her personality and her professional relationships make her George W. Bush.

    As for Obama, it's too bad he didn't serve about 10-12 years as a dynamic Senator, it would be nice to see how the country would react to him had he been a National leader for more than a few years. Even JFK served 14 years in Congress.
  8. HandsomeHarley

    HandsomeHarley Well-Known Member

    I simply don't believe this country is ready to elect a woman or minority into the presidency, and I think a lot of polls are going to show that.

    Whether they're qualified or not isn't the issue. There's just too much racism still in the U.S. to expect even hardcore Dems to want to take the risk.

    Not saying it won't ever happen, just saying the GOP is going to have to literally fall on its collective ass to get it done.

    That said, I think an interesting candidate would be Condi Rice. If it were say, Rice vs. Hillary, that would make for a hell of an election. But the chances of a GOP minority getting in have to be worse than the Dems.

    Really, the best chance of it happening is if a sitting VP resigns and is replaced by a woman/minority. And that might not be as unlikely as you'd think.

    Let's say that Cheney were to croak from a heart attack and Bush named Rice as the new VP. Then Bush gets assissinated. Voila! We have a woman and a minority in the top job. Once the first one breaks the barriers, then your Hillaries and Obamas have a chance.

    Just supposin'
  9. DanOregon

    DanOregon Well-Known Member

    I think the GOP would prefer to run against Hillary or Obama. Which is why they've been pretty easy on them and and are attacking Edwards even though he's back in the polls.
  10. Ben_Hecht

    Ben_Hecht Active Member

    Rice is a smart lady.

    Problem is, she's been an enabler for the King of the Idiots, for far, far too long.
  11. slappy4428

    slappy4428 Active Member

  12. Football_Bat

    Football_Bat Well-Known Member

    Edwards may be the strongest candidate in a national election, but he'll have to win the nomination first.

    In the latest polls I could find, Edwards trails Hillary by 31-25 in Iowa and (highly surprisingly) by 37-22 in S.C. (according to USAT). In N.H., it's 34 for Hillary, 25 for Obama and 11 for Edwards (according to MSNBC).

    It's early and this could still be a horse race, but Edwards has some catching up to do.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page