Voters prefer Edwards among Democratic candidates against all Republicans
A CNN/Opinion Research poll released today shows that registered voters would be more likely to vote for John Edwards over any of the Republican candidates. In specific matchups between each top Democratic candidate and each Republican candidate, Edwards emerged as voter's clear choice over both Obama and Clinton.
The question asked voters was:
"If (specific Dem candidate) were the Democratic Party's candidate and (specific Rep. candidate) were the Republican Party's candidate, who would you be more likely to vote for -- (specific Dem candidate), the Democrat, or (specific Rep. candidate), the Republican?
(IF UNSURE:) As of today, who do you lean more toward?"
Against Giuliani:
Edwards 53% .... Giuliani 44% .... Margin 9
Obama 52% .... Giuliani 45% .... Margin 7
Clinton 51% .... Giuliani 45% .... Margin 6
Against Romney:
Edwards 59%.... Romney 37%.... Margin 22
Obama 54% .... Romney 41% .... Margin 13
Clinton 54% .... Romney 43% .... Margin 11
Against McCain:
Edwards 52%.... McCain 44%.... Margin 8
Obama 48%.... McCain 48%.... Margin 0
Clinton 48% .... McCain 50%.... Margin -2
Against Huckabee:
Edwards 60%.... Huckabee 35%.... Margin 25
Obama 55% .... Huckabee 40%.... Margin 15
Clinton 54%.... Huckabee 44%.... Margin 10
It's also of note that the ONLY matchup where a Republican is preferred over a Dem candidate is John McCain over Hillary Clinton (though it's within the margin of error of +/- 3pts,) McCain also does best overall against Democratic challengers.
MORE
So why is Edwards not getting the blanket coverage that Clinton and Obama receive? Does the unwritten rule of the press that they only discuss the top two candidates of either party at any particular time serve the public?
Given the results of this poll, why is Edwards not polling better in New Hampshire and Iowa (where he's within striking distance)?
To what extent does his struggle to compete in campaign cash and publicity reflect the machine nature of Democratic politics? To what extent does it reflect the all-pervasive influence of campaign money? To what extent does it reflect the media's seeming inability to focus on anyone beyond the current top two candidates from either side, whomever they may be at the moment?
Why the disparity between press attention and campaign cash and the results of this poll?
posted by The Inside Dope @ 12/11/2007
7 comments
7 Comments:
This might be the single dumbest post I have seen. Of course Edwards comes out well in this poll. The fact is that the Democrat race is a two-way deal and the majority of the fight has been between Hillary and Obama.
Edwards has been able to go unscathed.
If he were the nominee,he would have to stand up to attacks - which he has not had much of to date. We all can remember how well John Kerry did when he had to deal with attacks.
Obama is the only candidate of either party tat can win the Independant vote in a large percentage - it is indeed the Oprah factor.
Anon 10:08
And please explain how simply reporting the results of a major poll is "dumb".
I guess all the major news channels that have reported it and the shows such as Hardball and others who have devoted time to discussing it are "dumb" as well?
The fact is that you're beyond dumb for even having said that with no more justification for it than the fact that you don't like the results.
A few things..
1. Anon 10:08 - You don't need to be a dick because the poll doesn't have your guy on top. You make the rest of us supporting Obama look bad when you do crap like that. It is complete BS that to say Edwards has "gone unscathed" in all of this - he has taken his lumps from the others.
2. It is reassuring that McCain is the only candidate in the poll that is a threat given that his party has already stuck a fork in him.
3. I don't trust the Huckabee numbers. If he wins the nomination and gets more name recognition I'd expect his numbers to be closer to those of Rudy and maybe even McCain.
If Edwards is smart, he will use these poll numbers in some new TV ads. His current ads are beyond lame, expecially the "Ahm gonna take everyone's healthcare away". Sheesh! The Dems are always hollaring about how Bush has grabbed more executive power than any previous POTUS, but even Bush would try to pull that one!
Also "electability" has its downside, as the Dems learned in '04. The Dems heart was with Dr. Dean, but they thought Kerry was more "electable" because he spent three months in 'Nam. That worked out really well for the Dems, didn't it?
And speaking of Dr. Dean, if you recall, the press and all the pundits, consultants, etc. just knew Dean was a slam-dunk, not only for Dem nominee, but for POTUS. That worked out well for them, didn't it?
So buck up Dope, your guy still may grab the brass ring.
Although I disagree that posting the poll is dumb, I do agree with anon's analysis as to why Edwards polls better.
Hillary and Obama are better known (despite Edwards' VP run) and so there are more people likely to shy away from them. Edwards hasn'f faced the same scrutiny yet, and so some people that haven't seen any negatives on him yet may still be willing to bet on him.
Highxlr8r
QCE,
First of all, I'm not sure where you get your information, but saying that Edwards said he was going to take people's healthcare away is a real whopper and you should be a bit embarassed for trying to put that out there.
When I read your comment, I couldn't believe he'd say anything like that, and tried to find out what was going on.
What I found out was that, at a campaign appearance, Edwards suggested that he would consider interoducing a measure to strip CONGRESS of it's health care benefits, the goal being to identify Republicans who would vote against it, therefore proving that they were more concerned with their own plush coverage than those with none at all.
To distort that into suggesting that he wants to take health care away from everyone is a bit ... skewed?
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you simply were greatly misinformed.
As to Edwards winning in the end? Not so sure about that.
I don't harbor any illusions that he'll be the nominee. Money is simply too pervasive and too powerful in the process, and Edwards trails on that account.
Neither does he rely as heavily on ethereal, abstract notions, such Obama's campaign. (change, hope, believe, excitement, etc, important to inspire followers, but which tend to evaporate into essentially meaningless platitudes after an election.)
I'd be pleased if Edwards squeaked out a win in Iowa, which is essentially his only shot, and if that occurs, anything can happen.
And though I prefer Edwards and feel that his policy proposals and goals would be the most critically needed for the country, it's not as though I'd be crushed if Clinton or Obama emerged as president.
I'd have deep concerns about either of them, but like millions, I think at this point, we'd prefer a corned beef sandwich in the oval office over the disaster we have now.
Seriously, it couldn't be worse, and would likely be an improvement, if only for the fact that the sandwich wouldn't actively engage in radical policies that do grave damage to the country.
Fred Thompson was on top when he entered the race.
Post a Comment
<< Home