National Polls Show Hillary/Obama Besting The Rs
McCain Does Best; X Does Worst
By Adam C Posted in 2008 — Comments (32) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
CNN:
First the overall picture.
Fav/unfav
Republican Party 41/48 (- 7) (36/53)
Democratic Party 55/34 (+21) (51/38)
Obama 55/28 (+27) (49/27)
McCain 54/29 (+25) (47/32)
Huckabee 38/30(+ 8)
Giuliani 46/39(+ 7) (54/32)
Clinton 53/47 (+ 6) (53/39)
Romney 31/39 (- 8) (28/28)
Head to head polling below the fold:
Obama-
Obama 49 (48)
McCain 48 (48)
Obama 56 (52)
Rudy 40 (45)
Obama 58 (55)
Huck 39 (40)
Obama 59 (54)
Romney 37 (41)
Clinton-
Clinton 50 (48)
McCain 48 (50)
Clinton 55 (51)
Rudy 42 (45)
Clinton 56 (54)
Huck 42 (44)
Clinton 58 (54)
Romney 40 (43)
The numbers are pretty self-explanatory. The Republicans are behind. Nominating Rudy, Romney or Huck starts the Rs behind 10-20 points. Nominating McCain starts the Rs off down a point or two.
The real story here (as with other recent national polls) is the Rudy plunge. Once upon a time, Rudy's "electability" was his strong point. Rudy's pitch was, "yeah, I'm pro-choice, but I'm with you on other things and I can totally crush Hillary." Seeing Rudy's approval drop from +22 to +7 and his head-to-head numbers against Hillary drop from a competitive -6 to -13 must be distressing to the Rudy camp. His best hope is that no one notices the shift and continues to believe he is the most electable despite his falling popularity.
The one other major point here is that the Republican brand is still in the tank. When people point to Congressional disapproval for hope, they have to remember that the number is so low because many Ds think the Congress should have withdrawn the troops by now. Congressional Rs still have lower ratings than Congressional Ds. And Hillary or Obama will be arguing that having a D President will make it possible to do what they wanted to do the last 2 years. If they get the same 54-45 result as in 2006, Ds will be at their strongest point since just after Watergate.
It isn't popular in the right-o-sphere to say it. But odds are we will have a D President, 55 D Senators, and a 30 seat margin in the House for the Ds. Rs are out of touch with independent voters right now and losing 60-65% of them. That's what happened in 2006 and it is very possible it will happen in 2008 unless something changes.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | The Tears Were Fake, But the Rumors Were True — Comments (22) »
National Polls Show Hillary/Obama Besting The Rs 32 Comments (0 topical, 32 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Most polling agencies don't poll Fred, Edwards, Paul, Hunter, etc because their chances of winning the nomination are so low.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
since it's total conjecture.
Things will likely change drastically when the eventual nominee is chosen. And the vast, vast majority of Republicans will support whoever the GOP nominee is, and the vast majority of Dems will back Hillobama. The question, as always, is a) how big is the mushy middle swing vote, and b) which of the GOP candidates will appeal most to that segment?
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
Democrats and independents like McCain more than Giuliani. That doesn't seem to make sense on the issues, but it's true.
And I was as surprised as anyone when they stopped polling Fred, but if his SC numbers stay around 4th, it makes sense.
No one of good character leaves behind a wasted life - John McCain
I have very little faith in national tracking numbers. Polls shift around all over the place. Look for someone whose values mirror your own and who is generally electable against a Democrat.
Weigh them against Hillary or Obama on a stage together. And then go from there.
Months ago, Huckabee was at 2%. Same thing for Romney about a year and a half ago.
"Don't ever be afraid to see what you see." ~Ronald Reagan
Thats funny cuase I saw surveyusa polls today from many key states where McCain was crushing Clinton and Obama.
Compared to other general election polls, this seems to be 5 points toward the Ds. The differences among the Rs are about the same, but most polls have McCain up 3 points or so. And the other Rs down 5-10 points.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Most of the other polls there are from before Christmas, and are 2-3 weeks old. A lot has happened in the days since, maybe more people have actually moved into the pro-Democratic camp. Especially since more people are probably paying attention to the race now, and a lot of people are not enthusiastic about the Republican choices.
It should be noted those CNN numbers are of registered voters only. Democrats always lead among registered voters.
That explains why this is about 5 points to the pro-D side of other recent polls. Still a cause for concern if Rs start behind 5-10 points, but not as big a concern (assuming of course the likely voter models are right and Obama doesn't double turnout like he did in IA).
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Better to nominate a true conservative even if it means losing. If you nominate someone who's core beliefs motivate him to consistently turn against the conservative agenda (i.e. John McCain) you are better off if a Democrats wins.
This is because at least if a Democrat is in the White House, everyone will understand that the negative consequences of the policies implemented can be traced to the Democrat party. The Republican party would retain some sliver of credibility because they would not be responsible for the misguided policies.
McCain teamed up with a Democrat Congress would result in more government regulation on Global Warming and CAFE standards, which would result in a significant recession. But it wouldn't be the Democrat Congress that would be held responsible for these bad polices. Since McCain calls himself a Republican (even though on significant votes like tax cuts to stimulate the economy he voted with the Democrat minority leader), the American people would think that the bad policies they are living under are Republican policies.
The result would be addition loses for the Republican party in 2010 and 2012 and the loss of the White House in 2012. At that point the US would be in a situation similar to where it was in 1932. Republican Herbert Hoover raised taxes and he was replaced by a Democrat FDR who increased the size and scope of government even more.
Even though unemployment never dropped below 12 percent under FDR (until the war guaranteed "full employment"), the Republicans had lost their credibility in terms of tax cuts to stimulate the economy. The American people associated the Republican party with economic decline.
The one good thing you can say about George W Bush is that he did emphasize tax cuts to stimulate the economy and the economy has been growing at 3 percent or faster for several years now. Given that McCain sided with stagnation oriented Democrats on the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts votes, given that McCain supports stagnation oriented regulations on Global Warming and CAFE standards, the Republican party would be better off, in the event of a McCain nomination, losing to a Democrat.
If bad policies are going to be implemented, whether under Obama, Clinton or McCain, better that they be implemented under someone who openly calls himself a Democrat.
I agree wholeheartedly. If Rs have NO chance of getting a president elected then we might as well run the most conservative candidate possible. Newt has been saying this all along: Republicans must run a campaign that truly contrasts with the democrats, especially on illegal immigration. Today, Silly Hillary was gobbling up tortilla chips in an illegal's living room, promising a "path to citizenship" and declaring "no woman is illegal." That nonsense might play in E. LA, but most Americans, both Ds and Rs, are unequivocally against any sort of amnesty. McCain seems to hold similar beliefs, so what's the difference?
The kind of change I want to see is an end to illegal immigration, the border fence built and totally secure, and then go after employers. This is the kind of change I'd like to see. For me, only Fred and Mitt offer any sort of substantial pledge to address this problem.
Let's offer a candidate that really offers voters a choice. As I see it, there isn't a whole lot of differce between BO, Hillary, and McCain.
First of all, I must disagree with the idea that Republicans have "no chance." They actually have a good chance - I would give the GOP a slight edge in the Presidential race, as both of the Democratic frontrunners are lightweights (the Dems really squandered their opportunities here).
Second, although I am not a McCaniac, I strongly disagree that he is somehow just like the Dems, or that have a Dem president would be better. The problem with having a Dem president is that, on national security especially, they just don't get it. Talking is favored over doing, and anyone, and at any time, can be talked to. On non-Iraq issues, we would see a return to the Clinton years, where "the world community respected us" because they thought we were weak pushovers who would humor them. This would harm our nation, considering the current problems we have with Iran, Syria, al-Qaeda, and North Korea. McCain is certainly bad on campaign finance, "torture," and other matters, but he gets national security.
Ironically, for all their bloviating on Iraq, the Dems would do nothing bad there. Iraq is already decided by the decider; we are winning there, and everyone knows it, and neither of the Dems will actually do anything to endanger it. The problem is, as mentioned above, that in foreign policy matters not involving Iraq, we would return to a time of valuing popularity over strength, which gets us exactly no where in the real world.
With all that said, I do think you guys should vote against McCain in the primary, if that is what you want to do. (I will probably vote for Fred or Rudy.) That is the purpose of the primary. And as I have said before, just because current polls say your guy is behind, is oftentimes meaningless; there is a lot more to electability than polling position. But John McCain, regardless of his deviations on some issues, is still a man I can easily support in the general over either Hillary or Obama. And I hope that you can too - this election really does matter.
These polls mean absolutely nothing right now.
Glad we got rid of Dad Bush in 1988--he didn't have a chance against Dukakis.
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
Barry Goldwater
And there was a few polls that showed Dole barely beating Clinton in 1996.
So, you can't go by polls before the nominating contest is over.
Once McCain's 20+ year senate record gets more scrutiny from the Democrat machine, they will make McCain look like a right-wing nut to moderate and liberal voters while conservatives will still know that in their hearts that McCain has betrayed them on keys issues so many times.
At least that's what I am hoping for, in the event of a McCain nomination.
Registered is the weakest category of voter.
I wouldn't count Rudy out just yet, not until we see what Florida has to say.
__________________________________________________________
I was brought up to believe that how I saw myself was more important than how others saw me. (Anwar al-Sadat, President of Egypt, 1970-1981)
Rasmussen, which has a pretty good reputation, has McCain beating both Clinton and Obama in the blue state of Pennsylvania as of January 8.
That a blue state would vote for a liberal. It doesn't explain why I would think that was a good thing though.
Can you please use something a little more reliable than CNN? RCP aggregates lots of polls and gives an average that shows McCain beating Clinton and tied with Obama. Not too far off from what you present here Adam, but citing only Clinton News Network polls kinda kills the credibility.
www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.
I posted this one because the internals were interesting and surprising. That question isn't always asked so it was new information to me and it seemed counter to conventional wisdom on which nominees made Rs enthusiastic and which made Rs dissatisfied.
Otherwise, I agree that cherrypicking a poll and using it is bad form.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Bloomberg is the wild card in the race.If he enters the race it will hurt the dem's more than the Republicans.
It's pure conjecture at this point, because the Dem and GOP nominees are not known, the economy is in flux, and Bloomberg hasn't committed.
However, at this, admittedly early point, both the conventional wisdom (never wrong, cough, gag, cough) and early polling apparently support the opposite contention. Bloomberg would hurt Republicans more than Democrats.
I would take wait and see attitude, but I suspect Rudy would have no chance in New York in a three-way race, since he would stack up so poorly against Bloomberg as a former mayor of NYC. In spite of 9/11, many New Yorkers remember how much they hated (and still hate) Giuliani, while Bloomberg remains quite popular.
more evidence that john mccain is the only choice we have to win. it's time we start to support him.
Well....thats it. no need to continue with the campaign since CNN's poll says the Rs are in the tank. The polls are always right, especially this early. Sarcasm off.
New Orleans......Proud to Swim Home!
reminds me of the movie "Weekend At Bernie's"
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
the environment the general election will be in is totally unknown. Things could take a turn for the worse or better in Iraq. The Bush consolidation of gains will take some of the Iraq issue out of perspective, who knows what else. The economy could have proven itself resilient yet again, or be in a depression.
AND the MSM will be attacking McCain as hard as they have other Republican candidates. Plus what if McCain or Huck take matching funds? Say McCain starts to dry up going into Feb 5 without delivering a KO of the rest of the field?
There are other important factors to winning a general election, such as ability to motivate the base, ability to fund raise, ability to debate head to head. (We've only seen these candidates on the crowded stage.) And who each candidate would have as a running mate. No reason Obama couldn't run with Hillary, wouldn't that fix all her problems? Would McCain pick Huck as a VEEP?
Too much to know - all of the big 5 are within the margins of each other in terms of GE electability - find the one who will best serve the country as CEO of the federal government, CIC of the military, leader of the GOP and its ideas, and representative of America to the world. Vote for that guy and be ready to support the GOP candidate.
need for a stimulus NOW to help prevent or weaken a recession. I advocated this months ago when Larry Summers came out for business tax cuts. Now Hillary beat us to the punch, albeit with a liberal proposal.
Fred is the only candidate on our side to propose anything NOW.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
If he got the nomination.
Also, there's somebody missing...