Head-to-Head Poll Analysis of the Presidential Race
Is Hillary or Obama a stronger threat? Which R polls best? And Other Qs.
By Adam C Posted in 2008 — Comments (48) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I spent some time entering data on head-to-head matchups at the state level from SUSA. The compiled data can be seen in this spreadsheet.
If you look at the spreadsheet, this guide will help your interpretation. The first page is the data input, the second compares one Rep to another against the same Dem, the third looks at the shift in support for the Rep if Obama wins the Dem nomination instead of Hillary, and the fourth is an electoral vote analysis of the 15 states covered. Note there was insufficient data on Thompson to include him so I'm left with McCain, Rudy, Romney, and Huck.
Before the data analysis, I must say that these polls show a strong advantage for the Democrats. The Democrats are competitive in states that are considered "red" and have comfortable leads in "purple" states. The only exception to this pattern is when McCain is the Republican nominee. That being said, here are the results of this exercise.
I've come to 3 major conclusions:
1) Overall, the Rs do better against Obama, not Hillary in most states. This seems surprising since Hillary is supposedly so divisive. But Hillary leads or ties Romney in all the states I looked at including KS, AL, IA and VA and leads or ties Huckabee in all states except MO and AL. Both do better against Obama. Rudy and McCain do well against Obama with McCain leading Obama in MA, MN, and WA (all Kerry states).
2) McCain polls strongest against both Ds by a significant margin, followed by Rudy. Romney and Huck are both behind the top 2 and even with one another. McCain does much, much better in OH, KY, MN, WI, MA, OR, and VA than the other Republicans. He does better than Romney in all states against Hillary or Obama. He does better than Huck in every state against both Hillary and Obama, except Huck does 7 points better against Clinton in MO. McCain does better than Rudy in 12 of 15 states against Hillary and 13 of 15 states against Obama.
3) Obama does much better in IA than other states. Clinton is more competitive than Obama in almost all of the states. But in IA (where Obama has spent time), he does better against all 4 Rs than Clinton does. He shifts IA by 12 points (against McCain), 9 (Rudy), 8 (Romney), and 15 (Huck). It should be noted that the D leads the R in IA in every matchup except McCain leads Hillary by 4.
More EV analysis below:
Looking for a bottom line, here's as good as I can give you.
The data covers the following swing states, OH, MO, WI, MN, IA, NM, OR, and VA. The non-swing states covered are CA, NY, KY, AL, KS, MA and WA. There is some FL data but not for all candidates so it is not included here.
The swing states have 91 total electoral votes. Here is the head-to-head results of those 91 EVs:*
McCain 52
Clinton 39
McCain 66
Obama 18
Giuliani 11
Clinton 67
Giuliani 46
Obama 4
Romney 0
Clinton 91
Romney 8
Obama 83
Huck 11
Clinton 80
Huck 0
Obama 91
*Note 4 ties make some numbers add up to less than 91. Specifically, Obama-McCain in OR, Obama-Rudy in NY, Obama-Rudy in MN, and Clinton-Rudy in VA.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | The Debate Tonight — Comments (81) »
Head-to-Head Poll Analysis of the Presidential Race 48 Comments (0 topical, 48 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
is your announcement of your biases?
Just curious? You a disinterested third party or a Bot for a particular candidate?
Wish I could say the same about the Huckabots. If you are such a big fan of disclosure, maybe you need to put something in your sig about being an unabashed Huckabot.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I don't think the Huckabots think it's being biased if you support Huckabee, only if someone actually supports someone else.
Anyways... if only he wasn't calling someone out for writing something very decent on the surface and call it a promotion of McCain at the expense of everyone else.
I am of the mindset that if Huckabee goes up in the polls anymore, we're going to be reading from the Huckabots that Huckabee actually walks on water.
You've obviously read my past posts. I've made no secret that as of right now I'd vote for McCain first, Fred second, Rudy, Romney, Paul then Huck in the primary. But that has changed throughout the year and may change again. Of course if comments like this are how Huck fans win over others, then it's unlikely he will move up my list.
Second, thanks for the threadjack. This post was on general election matchups and the data we have on them. Your post is about the primary which is what 50% of diaries cover these days. Go use one of them to pimp your candidate.
I think most people find it useful to do something other than argue over primary votes and polls for a minute or two. And looking ahead to see where the competitive states are in a general election, which D runs strongest and which R runs strongest is helpful and important information.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
So chap, you don't think that running at about 20% and a farily close second in NH is a chance to win? I'd be interested to see how you decided who does and does not have "a chance" to win an early state.
And as Adam noted - this is about the data as it exists today and how it looks. It is not a statement that the situation cannot change or that it will not change. It is not saying that Huckabee and Romney have no chance to improve their standing in general matchups. It is not saying that McCain's lead over HRC and Obama in some of these places wouldn't slip. It does seem to indicate that a general election with McCain would be his to lose - especially against HRC, where both sides would have to do little in terms of "getting their names out." McCain starts in a strong position. Huck and Romney start in weaker positions - meaning only it would take more work to get them to McCain's current position than if we just picked McCain.
The primary import of these numbers is really in comparing McCain to Rudy. Both are widely known among national voters, neither suffers from any name recognition issue, and people can form at least reasonable opinions about each in comparison to the Democrats. The numbers show that as compared to Rudy (who seems to be implicitly campaigning on the "I'm the most electable and most likely to beat Hillary" theme), McCain is actually the more electable.
Sorry my friend, you're not going to convince anyone that Adam's analysis is biased. We've been seeing these numbers for months -- take a look at SurveyUSA and elsewhere. There are plenty of pundits out there saying McCain is the most electable, and they've all got their little formula for why. Adam is one of the first to crunch such a wide spread of numbers.
For more analysis (SPOILER ALERT, OFFICIAL CAMPAIGN MEMO ---->) go here (<----PDF alert, and all that jazz too).
Blogging at Blogs4McCain.com
A national head-to-head poll showing McCain doing well and such is just a matter of name recognition. McCain has been around for a while, has been a candidate before, and people remember him. Mitt and Fred would easily do as well as McCain in these matchups as the nominee, because at that point they'd be effectively as well known as McCain.
Period. End of story.
Giuliani would put up a strong fight as well. As for Huckabee, he certainly starts from a weaker position, but I'm not sure if he's been fleshed out enough yet. I mean, in less than one month in Ohio, he went from 37-54 against Clinton to 45-47, which is a statistical tie. I don't think he'd flip too many blue states, but I think in time you'll see him very competitive in the swing states.
In general, I would agree with you GOPaisano. Huckabee has not been fleshed out, either positively or negatively. He is still in the "honeymoon" phase of introducing himself to the national press and electorate, but the gloves are beginning to come off. Most of it is crap (How many Christian conservatives disapprove of statements discouraging the morality of gays?) that won't stick. However, I am skeptical that he will be able to win over the fiscal conservatives such as the "Club for Growth". While he is a much more skilled politician than most folks will acknowledge, I think he has a little bit lower ceiling than some other conservatives, and is likely to have a very difficult time in swing states where both wings of the conservative alliance are needed to win. In other words, I think he has the Christian conservative vote locked up, but will face serious challenges broadening his coalition.
MOlsen6
Proud supporter of McCain '00 and McCain '08
A question, do you think Obama doing better against R's is because he's seen as more of a "generic" Democrat (and unknown mostly) and Hillary is a known? Seems to me when you plug "generic" in for the lesser known candidates (Obama, Mitt & Huck) you get more of the Dem generic advantage showing up.
Still I'm pretty impressed on how McCain does overall. He should be running away with the nomination as a middle of the road conservative with a great personal story had he not "mavericked" the last 7 years.
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
nevermind, I just reread the op. Don't know why I read it backwards the first time.
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
I expected the numbers to show what you are talking about. I thought Obama would poll 5-10 better than Hillary as "generic D." But he polls worse in places that probably don't know him as well. On the flip side, he does much better in the one state where he has spent time and money.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Head to head match-ups at this point in the process are generally iffy at best, but most voters at this point know Clinton, Rudy, and McCain. This gives more credence to these swing state polls than normal.
Of all of the swing states, I am most aware of the situation in Ohio, where my parents live in Pryce's 15th Congressional District. The atmosphere towards Republicans is toxic, to say the least. For example, check out the Intrade.com quotes for Democrats ( http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/common/c_cd.jsp?conDetailID=416548&z=... ) and Republicans ( http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/common/c_cd.jsp?conDetailID=416549&z=... ). This problem has been festering in the State of Ohio since Robert Taft left the governorship in disgrace in the eyes of most Buckeyes, even Republicans. The reason McCain does so well there is that he is not seen as an "establishment" Republican, but is still pro-life and anti-pork. Rudy is hurt by being pro-choice, and a standard Republican like Romney is not likely to fair well either given the current environment. I reserve judgment on Fred, but I think that Huckabee has a ceiling of about 40% nationally. I don't consider him viable at this point nationally, despite some attractive press and debate performances. For any Republican, how do you win the Presidency without Ohio? Count the electoral votes ( http://www.uselectionatlas.org/ ). Rudy can't win California or New York, so how? I think McCain has the best chance to compete, and he has already been nationally vetted. He bothers almost all Republicans on something, but there is also enough that just about all Republicans can support. I think he is the best consensus candidate.
Chaplain argues above that McCain is dead in the water and sites polls in IA and NH as evidence. Yes, he is down in the polls at the moment, but his campaign is ideally tailored to NH, and four (4) weeks is a lifetime in Presidential primary politics. The game has just started in earnest...
MOlsen6
Proud supporter of McCain '00 and McCain '08
I agree with your assessment that general election polls are pretty worthless unless they involve Hillary vs Rudy or Hillary vs McCain. I don't think Obama, Romney, Thompson, or Huckabee have enough name recognition right now to make polls outside of Iowa, SC, and NH valid.
The other comment I would make is that the Dems chose Kerry in '04 based in large part on his "electability". How did that work out? Let's choose the best candidate who shares our ideas and the general election will work itself out.
John Kerry probably was the most electable of the democratic candidates. What’s that old saying? In the land of men with no brains…
I think the electability argument is a strong one to make, especially this time around. While immigration and campaign finance reform may be infuriating to the majority of the base, things like the war in Iraq, the economy, healthcare and education remain substantially more important on a practical level. (I do not subscribe to the Pat Buchanan school of thought that the world is coming to an end because the guys outside home depot speak Spanish, but then I am a McCain supporter.) What’s more, Democrats have big plans for all of those issues come 2009.
If, in an attempt to make a political statement, we put up a dead-in-the-water candidate, we run the risk of handing the country over to Democrats. If that happens, all those practically more important issues will go the wrong way, and suddenly we are unsafe, poor, unhealthy and uneducated.
The satisfaction of our candidate preaching the gospel on immigration will quickly dwindle in the face of president Clinton II.
-Ben
the dilema facing most of us this primary. Do we go with the pragmatic choice or do we go with the ideological choice....
as are many other Republicans I still havent decided, with only a month or so to go. I think we could still see big swings in the polls as people go one way or another (see above choices)
The question is ideologically who is the best choice, and pragmatically who is the best choice. I have my thoughts on the first (probably Fred) but not on the second as of yet, though part of me wants to say Rudy, but I have seen a lot of things lately that could only get worse come general election, so maybe the answer to the second is McCain. I dont know yet where Romney or to a lesser extent Huckabee fits in
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
-- John Adams
First, I recall in 2004 wondering where people got the idea that Kerry was electable. It seemed to have more to do with his brief military stint in Vietnam than anything else.
Second, polls showed no real difference among the Ds. It was a referendum on the incumbent President and all of the Ds where within a point or two.
Going into this data analysis, I expected something similar. I thought Rudy and McCain would probably be a couple points better off b/c they are more well known and considered more moderate.
That's why seeing such a big gap when McCain is the nominee surprised me and seemed pretty newsworthy.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
I think this was attributed to these facts:
1) he was boring and didn't scream like a lunatic who escaped from an insane asylum in front of an audience
2) he was a "war hero"
Kerry never seemed like a very good candidate to me. I don't think he could have survived a lot of scrutiny... they just latched onto him in desperation after Dean imploded.
So I don't think Kerry is a reason to throw out electability as criteria... though I do think it is still much too early to tell who is electable based on polling.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I think these are good points. Except the polling tells us something. It's not everything, but it's a lot more than "he was a veteran" as a predictor.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
The problem with voting based on electability is that perceptions of that are largely shaped by early media coverage. The media, being largely democrat-leaning, supports candidates who lean left.
However, we've seen what happens when we go more left than the democrats. Not only do we lose our direction as a country, we lose elections ('06).
I think we have to vote our principles and then work our butts off to explain those principles. On ideas, we can win. If our goal is to be fake democrats, we'll keep losing to the real thing.
Great post pichu! "Electability" is something created by the MSM & elites to use instead of "Right" or "Correct." I don't think we need to choose the candidate we're told on CBS is more electable; I believe we should choose the candidate who is right on the issues & can communicate. I think most of the republican candidates can communicate, so it boils down to issues. For me, the better candidate among them is Fred - for you, it may be another candidate.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
things are trending in the primary races leaves one to consider what will happen if none of the candidates gets the necessary delegates and this goes to convention. Is that the only way for McCain, who according to the table above polls best, can win the nomination, and could he actually do it at a convention. Or, does a convention actually help someone like Fred who would be higher on a number of voters list if his campaign had been run better?
Another question to ponder is the Survey USA poll itself. I may be wrong, but dont they usually lean D? I think I remember that from the 04 cycle and again in 06, so how much attention should we pay to their numbers?
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
-- John Adams
In the long run, despite these current head-to-head polls, McCain could be our weakest candidate in the general election.
Here's why. McCain has been in Congress since he was elected to the US House in 1982, sworn in January 1983. So, he has cast lots of votes on issues during these last 24 years.
Like the Clinton campaign against Bob Dole in 1996, these House and Senate votes will make for hard hitting campaign ads. Remember that Bob Dole was also a longtime member of Congress. Dole lost by a larger percentage plurality than any Republican candidate for president since Goldwater in 1964, by an 8.4 percent margin.
Also, illegal immigration is the one issue where a Republican candidate could conceivably put a Democrat nominee on the defensive. And given that many moderate Democrats and independents are opposed to illegal immigration, this could have an impact on the election result.
But McCain is probably the candidate among the "Top 5" who has positioned himself over the past three years in the most disadvantageous position regarding the immigration issue given his co-sponsorship with Ted Kennedy the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill.
I would advise Republicans, when considering whom to vote for in the primaries, to select a candidate who is not associated with supporting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy immigration bill. That would give us an advantage over the Democrats and it might be enough to win the election.
Spiral,
Nope, I don't agree on a series of points. McCain is our strongest general election candidate, but more importantly, is ready to be president from day one. I have a series of comments, but the first issue is that Bob Dole would have made one heck of a president. We would not be in nearly the situation we found ourselves in 2001 if he had been elected.
1. Bob Dole in 1996 is very different from McCain in 2007/8. Bob Dole was running against a popular incumbent president during a period of unprecedented economic performance. GDP growth was good. Unemployment was low, even though we have now become accustomed to such low unemployment. It wasn't taken for granted then. Worker productivity was surging as well. Under those conditions, it didn't matter how good the candidate, in this case Bob Dole was, he wasn't going to win. Dole's loss had much more to do with the economy than his voting record. Take a look at the alternative to Bob Dole in 1996: Patrick J. Buchanan. Is anybody going to argue that Buchanan would have been a better president? Nope. How about more electable? Nope. Remember, we are in the primary at this point.
2. George H.W. Bush was not exactly a Washington "newbie" when he ran for president in 1988. He had plenty of votes and congressional testimonies to his credit even before he became vice president.
3. The immigration issue is important because it highlights the contrast between the Republican nominee and the Democratic nominee. I strongly disagree. There are oodles of issues for contrast. Hillary or Obama will never try to enforce the border, unlike any of the Republican candidates. Small details on one proposal are not going to change the election. Congress writes the details of actual proposals, not the president. McCain is for strong enforcement of the border, and once that is accomplished, then the other issues will be dealt with. The differences between his policy and the other Republicans is very insignificant relative to either Obama or Clinton.
4. McCain has the ability to do better with the moderate center where this election will be decided, and yet holds quality conservative beliefs that are consistent with the broad conservative coalition, from the social conservatives to the fiscal conservatives. The American people don't like frauds, and are much more willing to vote for somebody they respect but disagree with on a few issues than for somebody who consistently changes their views to match the electorate. This is the whole reason why Obama has gained so much traction in the Democratic primary.
5. McCain is ready to be president from the very first day in office, if he is fortunate enough to be elected. The next president is going to deal with a pack of international issues, including Israel/Palestine, Lebanon, Georgia, Iraq, Iran, Colombia, Venezuela, Burma, possibly a civil war in Pakistan ... the list goes on and on. Every election, people focus on domestic US policy, just like George W. Bush, and exactly how much time does the president spend working on domestic issues? Almost none. The job is primarily foreign policy driven, because that is how the constitution delineates the powers of congress versus the president. Congress winds up dealing with the domestic issues, and the president makes use of the bully pulpit from time to time, and perhaps a veto here or there. Congress writes the details of any proposals, such as immigration, not the President.
MOlsen6
Proud supporter of McCain '00 and McCain '08
<
I simply have a hard time believing Hillary leads anybody in the state of Alabama.
Must still be too early to get a good read on the electorate.
But remember that AL voters are 30+% black. Also Hillary does better with lower and middle class voters, Obama does better with upper class liberals. And surprising to me, Hillary does better in the South than Kerry or Gore.
I don't think she would win AL, but she will do better than the Ds in 2000 and 2004.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
is because other than his being against abortion he is Hillary and he other than the "torture" makes people feel safe in the WOT.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
John McCain is not Hillary. It is difficult to confuse the two. Sorry Jaded, you need to go back and recalibrate your bearings ... we live on planet Earth.
MOlsen6
Proud supporter of McCain '00 and McCain '08
is a Hillary loss in Iowa.
Brad Marston
www.McCainVictory08.com
It doesn't matter what the Dems do. McCain will win the nomination and the general election. The Dems are about to become irrelevant.
Proudly Supporting Patriots At http://www.countryaboveself.com
This analysis ignores the fact that Republican turnout will be be much higher against HRC than against Obama. This is hard to quantify, but Republicans will be much more motivated to turn out and do anything to prevent the Clinton Restoration from happening.
And one I think is very hard to account for in polls. That being said, if there are 115 million votes or so then a 2.3 million increase in base voters only shifts things 2%. So I think you are right, but the magnitude may not be huge.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
One key thing is that, even if that turnout doesn't swing the national election, it will almost certainly move any number of tight congressional races. The democrats who won in R-leaning districts are starting to panic over the thought of an HRC nomination since it means they will lose.
I think the only way HRC is elected president is at the cost of returning the house to us (and I'm not certain she actually takes the presidency anyway).
Hillary might also bring out additional women voters who otherwise might not vote. Then again, Obama could excite some blacks and/or young people who wouldn't otherwise vote.
Adam
You should have thrown a bone to the HuckaBots and compared Huck in a 50 state race against Dennis Kucinich. That way they'd have a way to point at what a winner Huck is on a 50 state basis.
I guess otherwise nominating Huck for President would be like trying to break McGovern's record for greatest loss in a Presidential election, wonder if that's in the Guinness book of records?
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
First, these polls are from 11/11 so he was even less known.
Second, Huck does better than Romney in a lot of states (although the flip is true in many states also).
Third, I believe Huck can win a general but it is less likely than Rudy and McCain.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
McCain is the only one that can beat Hillary. Rudy has been using that as his platform, but this country uses an electoral college. It has been like this for a while, but people get distracted with all of the candidates. http://www.johnmccain.com/landing/a21.htm)
McCain is the one that we can rally behind. Romney is a flip flopper and couldn't beat Kennedy so what makes us think he can beat Hillary? Huck is a nice guy, but has a tax problem as well as a "Willie Horton" problem. Thompson looks old and that's saying a lot considering I'm with McCain. Ron Paul is a kook.
Let's get behind McCain and help him when the Primary. John McCain is our only chance in November.
IMWITHMCCAIN
isn't a flip-flopper. He was against the Bush tax cuts before he was for them. I think he is for extending them but you can never be sure.
He was a part of the Keating 5 and then sponsored, what I believe is, unconstitutional reform against political fund raising.
He was for amnesty, that really wasn't amnesty but, "earned amnesty" before he was against it. Again, you don't know where he really stands.
McCain is a loose cannon and you never know when he is going to go off or in what direction. You just know he is going off.
He would be a disastrous president. Exactly what are the odds he would be in the White House until he was EIGHTY YEARS OLD?
--------------------
Vista really sucks!
This is really your response to McCain being the most electable? A bunch of drivel about McCain being an old fart, Keating 5, shamnesty, and loose cannon. Wow. Someone gets their talking points early in the morning--have some Folgers and then revisit Adam's post.
Blogging at Blogs4McCain.com
that there have been so many times over the years where he broke party lines and voted with the Democrats. At times, that made me feel like he was a leader and independent thinker who was meeting the other party half way in the name of progress. Other times it has made me feel like he was giving up instead of standing firm on his and our beliefs.
I'm no expert, but I personally feel like the reason McCain is polling so high in the general election is that he has been so moderate on many issues. That allows him to pull the middle of the road voters that many of the other GOP candidates won't get.
With that said, I'll vote for McCain's dog before I'll vote for Hillary or Obama.
I'm one of those dissapointed Fred Thompson supporters that is probably going to have to hold my nose and vote for Guiliani in the general. At least I wouldn't have to hold my nose if I McCain was our guy.
As I said before, I don't think that polls, by themselves, are the end all/be all of electability. Many other factors come into play: ideology, physical attractiveness, charisma, etc.
With that said, I can see McCain as the most electable Republican right now. (And McCain is not my first choice.) He and Rudy are the only two who are well known, and McCain 1) has a great war record, 2) is known as a "maverick" (of course people don't know what that means), and 3) is more presidential looking and sounding (i.e., he is not from NY, he doesn't have a lisp, he isn't "ethnic").
But, whether he will stay that way, I don't know.
However, relying on "ideology, physical attractiveness, charisma, etc" is how the MSM decided that Kerry was the most electable. Polls never showed it. All the major Ds polled about the same since the election was really a referendum on the incumbent.
In this case, we have wide variation among the different Rs. I think that makes polls more useful in this discussion.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
This is just more proof that Senator John McCain and all his supporters are in it to win it. We are gaining momentum with each passing day and even though most people can't see us we are ever present and watching you. Do not underestimate Senator McCain and his Minutemen they are back and in full force. We are back and nationwide promoting Senator McCain's qualifications, his record and his experience, to all that will listen and believe me when I say that people are beginning to take notice and people are beginning to listen. In the end as with any job interview the person with the most qualifications and job experience gets the job.
I don't usually like the scare tactics of conspiracy and xenophobia, but ignoring the existence of independent moderate voters will lead to a Dem president in 2008. I'm a bit stunned that so many GOPers are willing to struthiously ignore the head-to-head polls which are generally the only polls which indicate the sentiments of swing voters.
I'm pretty confident that other independents will agree: we care more for substance than politically simplified facades. We like McCain because he is willing to find consensus rather than leave problems for later, and he can break DC divisions without sacrificing principles. The distinction on immigration is that he tried a step towards fixing the ongoing mess. His rivals would also like to increase legal immigration and visas to reduce the magnet, but they avoided political risk by inaction. I think some Iowans see past the caricatures, and know that reducing the non-emergency subsidies is necessary to help open foreign markets. If McCain's enlightened energy/environment stance is not enough for Iowa, I hope the voters of NH, SC, MI, FL account for the big picture and substance when they select a nominee.
McCain understands the complexities of problems which cannot be solved with a quick answer, mention of faith, and a smile. He can lead Dems as well as GOPers, which is what we all need in DC.
...doesn't discount all you say here, but bias should be known, many here know that and perhaps majority of readers (many new ones here) do.
http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/on_the_bus_with_mccain_th...
Huckabee to this point has little name recognition among general population being polled nationwide in states, hard to compare him with strong name recognition nationwide for McCain.
I don't know how important head-to-head is for the general election at this point when no one is yet running a head-to-head race, and Huckabee is only beginning to get name recognition outside of GOP primary voters in the nationwide public, as polls show his name recognition low.
McCain has no real chance for a win in any of the early states at this point, and McCain is 5th nationwide in the latest Rasmussen. According to RCP averages in averaging all recent polls McCain is 5th in IA, 4th in MI, 5th in SC, 5th in IA, and in Mason Dixon that just came out for his only early hope in NH, he has dropped to 3rd in NH where he's lagging far behind Romney. IF McCain ever starts getting traction and has any chance of being a frontrunner, he'll be attacked in ads reminding voters of 'shamnesty'. He's never going to get a chance to get to that general election this late in the game.