Poll: Obama Stronger Nominee Than Hillary

[RedEarth]

The new Battleground poll — a joint project of George Washington University, Democratic polling firm Lake Research, and GOP polling firm the Tarrance Group — would indicate that Barack Obama is a much stronger general election candidate than Hillary Clinton. While a generic Democrat has an 11-point lead over a generic Republican, Hillary loses to Rudy Giuliani and only leads Fred Thompson by two points. Obama, meanwhile, beats Rudy by a nine-point margin, and Fred Thompson by an even wider edge:

Democrat 49%, Republican 38%
Giuliani (R) 50%, Clinton (D) 44%
Clinton (D) 47%, F. Thompson (R) 45%
Obama (D) 52%, Giuliani (R) 43%
Obama (D) 56%, F. Thompson (R) 36%

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/jul/26/poll_obama_stronger_nominee_than_hillary

[jenmito]

1. GOOD! It makes sense, because Clinton is positioning herself to the right

of Obama lately and therefore closer to the moderate (or liberal) Repubs. And in the General election, nobody would unite and energize the Repubs. like Clinton! We better realize that before making her our nominee!

[AtomicKitten]

2. polling consistently shows Obama the stronger candidate against the GOP

It's unfortunate that his projected gravitas in the general may be stymied by not being able to best S.S. Hillary in the primary.

[rinsd]

4. Obama does better than Hillary on the GOP except for Rudy.

This particular poll appears to be an outlier.

For Clinton vs. Rudy

FOX News 07/17 - 07/18 900 RV 41 46 13 Clinton +5.0
Battleground 07/15 - 07/18 1000 LV 50 44 6 Giuliani +6.0
Gallup 07/12 - 07/15 908 RV 49 46 5 Giuliani +3.0
Zogby 07/12 - 07/14 1012 LV 41 46 -- Clinton +5.0
Rasmussen 07/09 - 07/10 800 LV 43 44 13 Clinton +1.0
CNN 06/22 - 06/24 907 RV 48 49 1 Clinton +1.0

For Obama vs. Rudy

FOX News 07/17 - 07/18 900 RV 41 45 14 Obama +4.0
Battleground 07/15 - 07/18 1000 LV 43 52 6 Obama +9.0
Gallup 07/12 - 07/15 908 RV 49 45 6 Giuliani +4.0
Zogby 07/12 - 07/14 1012 LV 42 46 -- Obama +4.0
CNN 06/22 - 06/24 907 RV 48 46 2 Giuliani +2.0
Rasmussen 06/22 - 06/24 1200 LV 44 41 15 Giuliani +3.0

[jenmito]

5. I believe that he will win the nomination...

despite the MSM trying to wtuff Clinton down our throats. Even after the latest debate, when most focus groups favored Obama, the THs declared Hillary the winner. At least they pointed out that maybe the people DO support Obama more than they on tv do.

[durrrty libby]

8. I stronly disagree. In the end, the country sees him as a lightweight

He will not get the nom

[jenmito]

14. I strongly disagree...

In the end, the Dems. will realize she is the best hope to energize the Repubs. Hell-they'll even support a cross-dressing, pro-choice, pro-gay rights Repub. if it means keeping her out of the WH. There are no Repubs. for Hillary even though she tries to look like Bush light as Obama called her. She can't unite this country like Obama could.

[jefferson_dem]

21. You might see him as a lightweight...

but the public easily prefers him in a contest versus the top repukes, while the same cannot be said of Hillary at the moment.

"Lightweight" vs. "Lightening Rod"?

[jenmito]

24. "Lightweight" vs. "Lightening Rodham" is more like it...but same meaning.

:hi: :D

[FiveGoodMen]

3. And yet a WP story says that Hillary is wildly ahead of Obama.

What gives?

[Kagemusha]

6. We're early in the cycle, that's what gives.

Obama's candidacy was always the growth stock, the one with potential to rise further. In any event, the polls are not going to be all that reliable this far out anyway. And things can change over time even if polls are correct at a given moment in time.

[FiveGoodMen]

10. Why are two polls -- taken at roughly the same time -- so far apart?

I haven't analyzed this closely, so maybe there's a loophole, but if one poll says that Obama's more likely to win and another says, essentially, "everybody else get out of the race Hillary's TOTALLY unbeatable," something looks fishy.

The fact that a lot can change between now and the primaries is a separate issue.

[rinsd]

12. Its better to compare the same polling firms vs. polls themselves while looking for trends

[rinsd]

7. She is. She leads most polls by at least double digits.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html

Rasmussen 07/20 - 07/23 750 LV 38 25 14 -- Clinton +13.0
Hotline/FD 07/19 - 07/22 RV 39 30 11 -- Clinton +9.0
ABC News/Wash Post 07/18 - 07/21 Adults 39 28 9 14 Clinton +11.0
FOX News 07/17 - 07/18 RV 39 23 9 9 Clinton +16.0
CBS News/NY Times* 07/09 - 07/17 LV 43 24 16 -- Clinton +19.0
Gallup 07/12 - 07/15 483 A 34 25 9 16 Clinton +9.0
Zogby 07/12 - 07/14 396 LV 37 25 11 -- Clinton +12.0
American Res. Group 07/09 - 07/12 600 LV 38 25 16 -- Clinton +13.0
AP-Ipsos 07/09 - 07/11 Adults 36 20 11 15 Clinton +16.0
USA Today/Gallup 07/06 - 07/08 516 RV 37 21 13 16 Clinton +16.0

[Kagemusha]

15. Oh. One's Hillary or Obama vs. Republicans, the others here are Hillary vs. Obama

We're talking about comparing apples and oranges so no wonder the results look different.

[rinsd]

20. That previous post was national heats with the top 3 included. Here are the Obama/Clinton vs Rudy

Obama does better than Hillary against the rest of the GOP field on Avg

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html

For Clinton vs. Rudy

FOX News 07/17 - 07/18 900 RV 41 46 13 Clinton +5.0
Battleground 07/15 - 07/18 1000 LV 50 44 6 Giuliani +6.0
Gallup 07/12 - 07/15 908 RV 49 46 5 Giuliani +3.0
Zogby 07/12 - 07/14 1012 LV 41 46 -- Clinton +5.0
Rasmussen 07/09 - 07/10 800 LV 43 44 13 Clinton +1.0
CNN 06/22 - 06/24 907 RV 48 49 1 Clinton +1.0

For Obama vs. Rudy

FOX News 07/17 - 07/18 900 RV 41 45 14 Obama +4.0
Battleground 07/15 - 07/18 1000 LV 43 52 6 Obama +9.0
Gallup 07/12 - 07/15 908 RV 49 45 6 Giuliani +4.0
Zogby 07/12 - 07/14 1012 LV 42 46 -- Obama +4.0
CNN 06/22 - 06/24 907 RV 48 46 2 Giuliani +2.0
Rasmussen 06/22 - 06/24 1200 LV 44 41 15 Giuliani +3.0

For Hillary vs. Thompson

Rasmussen 07/20 - 07/23 750 LV 38 25 14 -- Clinton +13.0
Hotline/FD 07/19 - 07/22 RV 39 30 11 -- Clinton +9.0
ABC News/Wash Post 07/18 - 07/21 Adults 39 28 9 14 Clinton +11.0
FOX News 07/17 - 07/18 RV 39 23 9 9 Clinton +16.0
Gallup 07/12 - 07/15 483 A 34 25 9 16 Clinton +9.0
Zogby 07/12 - 07/14 396 LV 37 25 11 -- Clinton +12.0

For Obama vs. Thompson

FOX News 07/17 - 07/18 900 RV 32 48 20 Obama +16.0
Battleground 07/15 - 07/18 1000 LV 33 56 9 Obama +23.0
Gallup 07/12 - 07/15 908 RV 40 51 9 Obama +11.0
Zogby 07/12 - 07/14 1012 LV 40 48 -- Obama +8.0

For Hillary vs. Romney

FOX News 07/17 - 07/18 900 RV 35 50 15 Clinton +15.0
Zogby 07/12 - 07/14 1012 LV 38 48 -- Clinton +10.0
Rasmussen 06/27 - 06/28 800 LV 42 46 3 Clinton +4.0
Cook/RT Strategies 06/21 - 06/23 844 RV 38 48 12 Clinton +10.0

For Obama vs Romney

Rasmussen 07/16 - 07/17 1029 LV 38% 47% Obama +9%
Zogby 07/12 - 07/14 1012 LV 35% 49% Obama +14%
Cook/RT Strategies 06/21 - 06/23 844 RV 34% 47% Obama +13%
Newsweek 06/20 - 06/21 831 RV 37% 53% Obama +16%

For Hillary vs. McCain

FOX News 07/17 - 07/18 900 RV 42 45 12 Clinton +3.0
Zogby 07/12 - 07/14 1012 LV 43 45 -- Clinton +2.0
Rasmussen 07/09 - 07/10 800 LV 38 47 15 Clinton +9.0
CNN 06/22 - 06/24 907 RV 47 49 1 Clinton +2.0

For Obama vs. McCain

FOX News 07/17 - 07/18 900 RV 37% 47% Obama +10%
Rasmussen 07/16 - 07/17 1029 LV 38% 47% Obama +9%
Zogby 07/12 - 07/14 1012 LV 42% 45% Obama +3%
CNN 06/22 - 06/24 907 RV 44% 48% Obama +4%

[snowbear]

43. rinsd.. serious question: How much stake do you put into polls right now?

I've noticed that about 3 people here really LOVE polls.

Why is it though that actual votes (not polling agencies) but samples taken from events such as "Take Back America" and others, have such vastly different results from those polls that we keep seeing on here?

Given that.. and given that more people say that they're undecided right now, how accurate do you think those polls are?

~~~~~

(I have to head out, but I'll check back later to see if you, or anyone else that is poll crazy, has an explanation)

[rinsd]

44. In terms of what?

Their ability to predict things 6 months out? I would put that number close to zero.

You can spot trends and possibilities but even in the last 6 months things have changed. Edwards out of the gate dominated the GOP which was beating both Hillary and Obama in head to head matchups. Now Edwards has fallen a bit back to earth (still beats the GOP) while Obama and Hillary now beat most of the GOP (their results are a bit mixed when it comes to Rudy).

"
Why is it though that actual votes (not polling agencies) but samples taken from events such as "Take Back America" and others, have such vastly different results from those polls that we keep seeing on here"

Well because Democrats are a far bigger tent then Take Back America and most progressive events. The polls are using voter registration lists to find their samples.

"Given that.. and given that more people say that they're undecided right now, how accurate do you think those polls are?"

I think they're accurate for this time and space. The thing to always remember is that can change and change quickly. All bets are off once voting starts. Any of the top 3 could run away with it by winning IA and building on that momentum though I think NH is going to be a big factor this year.

Speaking for myself as a poll junkie, I like following the week to week progression of polls. And yes I have a predisposition to fall back on such data for a variety of arguments.

That includes things like Hillary can't win. Hillary is hated by Democrat. And a variety of other statements that rely upon one person's impressions and feelings being ascribed to the population or sub group at large.

[jenmito]

9. I bet any poll that shows Hillary CLINTON aheads is due to

name recognition. Believe it or not, many people STILL don't even know who Obama IS, let alone his positions. I think that explains her lead against Black people. They know and love the name Clinton.

[rinsd]

11. Name recognition is a factor certainly.

And while that may explain her lead in earlier polls, both Obama and Edwards have improved their name recognition and their poll positions has remained virtually unchanged.

[jenmito]

18. It's summer and many people do NOT yet know or care who Obama is...

but they will. And I think they'll like what they see.

[rinsd]

22. He has at the very least 75% name recognition.

This is from May

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27673

Slightly below McCain and Edwards in the name identification list is Obama. The Illinois senator burst onto the national scene with a widely praised speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004, a year in which he won election to the U.S. Senate. Gallup's first test of Obama's name recognition -- in December of last year -- showed him with a 53% familiarity rating. By this February, Obama's name ID had shot up to 72%, but has not been much higher since, despite the intense news coverage given to him as he has engaged in active campaigning. His current name identification, 75%, is roughly the same as in February.

[jenmito]

25. Much lower than Hillary's...

Obama can unite our country and Clinton will polarize it more than it is now.

Not to mention that Obama never said he'd meet with those world leaders without doing any preparation first as the Clinton camp is implying. He said he's willing to meet with those leaders in his first year unlike Hillary.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

33. What concessions will Obama make to Republicans to achieve "unity"? nt

[jenmito]

47. NONE. It's just that Hillary is SEEN as divisive while Obama is not. n/t

[draft_mario_cuomo]

26. I would like to see a comparision of volume of press coverage and how positive that coverage was

I would be willing to wager Obama comes close to HRC in press coverage in 2007--and well ahead of the rest of the pack. What is more interesting, though, is how universally positive the press coverage of him has been since the media began hyping him three years ago. This is a guy who made it onto the cover of Newsweek before he did anything in Washington in Jan. of 2005! People fail to recognize that one reason he is so high in the polls is the media has carefully built him up for three years. If he wins the nomination he inevitably will finally face consistent critical coverage, like any prez candidate, and his favorables and electability will plummet. This is why I do not necessarily believe he is more electable than HRC. HRC has already been defined, as has Edwards for the most part.

[rinsd]

27. I would find that interesting as well.

I wonder if media matters or CJR will do something.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

34. I hope they do. I assume they might after the primaries. I hope they do it sooner

People talk about the MSM shoving HRC down our throats but she receives her share of negative press, unlike Obama.

[rinsd]

38. I would like to see it because the media is such an influence.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

39. I agree, and when the media starts building up an unknown rookie and continues for 3 years...

...we need to be wary and ask why...

[jenmito]

28. The media constantly claims Hillary is the inevitable candidate...

They always seem to play up Hillary's experience and how it shows in every debate, how she was the clear winner, even though the real people feel Obama was the winner, etc. Obama was on the cover of magazines as was Hillary. He wrote books. He made speeches. He was against the war. And Hillary has been covered as well.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

35. Sure, they both get a lot of coverage. Who gets a higher % of negative press, though?

I don't buy the notion that the same CMSM that built Obama up for three years suddenly has turned on him and is biased in favor of HRC. They did not build him up for nothing.

[jenmito]

46. I think Hillary gets more positive press...

She's always declared the winner, even when audiences say otherwise, Obama is now always compared negatively to her, saying she's the experienced one and he made a mistake even when the people feel otherwise. I think the media did just that-they built him up to tear him down now when it's him vs. Hillary.

[Hippo_Tron]

31. Yup, I remember the last election where I wasn't politically active was 2000

I certainly knew who Al Gore was, but I had absolutely no idea who Bill Bradley was at this time in 1999. I think by about January of 2000 I found out who he was.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

16. That is one reason his electability is not as great as Team Obama likes to make it out to be

==Believe it or not, many people STILL don't even know who Obama IS, let alone his positions.==

Exactly, and when some of these people learn about his positions, instead of viewing him as a blank screen onto which they can project their own views, his unfavorables will rise and his electability will decline.

As far as name ID goes, Obama has 75% name ID, close to Edwards' 81% name ID according to a poll a month or two ago. They presumably gained a few points since then. However, name ID is just that. It does not measure what people know about that candidate. It just shows they know of the candidate. Obama is a candidate who reached the mid-20's in the polls before anyone had any idea what he intended to do as president. I doubt many people know much about where he stands (just look at the positive comments about him. They usually revolve around personality attributes and vague hopes, not things in his platform)--and this helps, not hurts Obama at this stage.

[jenmito]

19. I disagree...

75% name recognition means 25% who don't yet know him. When they discover he was against the war from the start I think that will help him greatly. And once it sinks in that the Repubs. WANT her to be the nominee, things will change in Obama's favor.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

36. He should gain some as more people get to know him but he will also lose some votes

I think, due to the reasons for his appeal (which have little to do with his actual positions on issues), he will lose more votes than he will gain. Also, he will never have HRC's level of name ID unless he wins the nomination. Edwards ran last time, finished 2nd, ran as the VP and he has "only" 81% name ID, on par with Obama's.

The IWR doesn't have the potency many Obama supporters are hoping it will have. It was a much bigger issue in 2004. How far did that get Howard Dean?

[Captain Hilts]

17. I was surprised to see 23% 'undecided' about her in a recent poll. nt

[SaveElmer]

13. Interesting poll...

But probably an outlier...

This was released almost 2 weeks after it was conducted, and other polls taken since are wildly at odds with this one...

We'll see if this is confirmed anywhere else...

I have my doubts...

[PATRICK]

23. Fixed, long held negatives

Obama, nor anyone else except Gore(who is not running) simply don't have that. A poll like this can only raise the question and pose the challenge. Generic Dems question shows merely a visceral anger that favors a hypothetical Democrat. Then the dirt flying erodes any real person. All of this could change drastically but what persists is the tendency of the GOP past leaners to come home, tightening races, accepting more lies about Dems(themselves grounded on fixed negatives!).

It would be quite a challenge or political miracle for Hillary to really address that now. The fragility of a regrouping of her husband's electoral solidity is alarming. If it happened a sigh of relief, reluctant acceptance, rebirth of hope would make all these fears vanish- and create an illusion that the fragility never existed(guaranteeing a lingering weakness for the RW to exploit). But she needs to win the nomination in our party and that is a separate task for which the Clinton approach to winning over other voters might be a handicap, ironically. That itself might signify that the centrist approach of the Clintons may be past its day, Dems disillusioned, GOP inured, the populace desperate for a bigger change of some sort. In any event our voters would be wiser to ask how this is going to be really addressed but surrendering to the gloss may indeed decide this only moment of democratic(small d) choice the people of America are really going to get.

Yet this poll does nothing to prove or disprove anything. People who panic at Hillary generally have a grim view of any Dem winning. That could vanish if the current administration's criminal stranglehold on election process is broken. All other power that the Bushies have to steal the elections involve high risk and a record of dangerous failure. Simply blocking the Dems from challenging any fraud is the easy key to success. For that level of crime none other than highly criminal reliable stooges can be used. Avoiding risk and bucking up their tools was mostly what the Libby pardon was about. They are on the edge of risk or rout and have not budged an inch. We will indeed have a tougher election if this is not tipped, regardless whether a wave of voters whose personal integral vote is devalued to about .85 actual count value blanket over the whole fraud.

My point is none of these issues, as well known as they are, have been met or have adequate plans to deal with them. Currently. And this is big trouble for all of America, not just the most likely to be victimized candidates. I wish we could separate the unfair victimization of the Clintons from policy disagreements in informing our decision. That would be easier to do if we could clean up the DOJ in time. Pointing out how the victim may have enabled or is enabling the fraud and the corporate dangers would be safer in retrospect(of breaking the legal spine of the fraud mechanism) not having fear that any criticism of any Dem, in itself, would risk loss in 2008.

[mitchtv]

29. Good, then he should win

[Hawaii Hiker]

30. The general election is what it's all about

and why I still think John Edwards is the safest & best candiate for the GENERAL ELECTION...

[Soulshine]

49. Is it cause he's a WASP?

[Lord Helmet]

32. on CNN - Hillary 39%, Obama 30%, Edwards 11%

[Colobo]

Good numbers!

[Colobo]

40. Good numbers!

[Alamom]

37. Poll taken July15-17. Possibly the reason for differences in more current results. nm

[Forkboy]

41. This can't be correct.Hillary isn't ahead.

I have my doubts.

[snowbear]

42. I agree that it's still too early for polls.. but TWENTY points ahead of Thompson is amazing.

And the Obama camp.. if they happen to be following polls already (I'm not really sure if anyone outside the MSM is?) ...would enjoy looking at those stats I'm sure.

One--- well, actually two big reasons that I think it's too early for polls is....

As one of the campaigns reminded Chris Jansen on MSNBC yesterday, Senator Kerry was at 4% around this time in his campaign.

But the even bigger reason is.. a majority of people are indicating to pollsters that they have NO IDEA who they will vote for yet.

~~~~~ ROCKS!

[Ethelk2044]

45. That is because it is not done by Hillary's buddies

[illinoisprogressive]

48. It is what we've been saying. Obama runs better in the general.

[TeamJordan23]

50. Wow. Great results. nm

[Soulshine]

51. I find the responses to this post funny.

Clinton has been building this campaign since at least 1996 if not earlier. She's been working all the interest groups. She used her political clout to get a seat on Senate Armed Services Committee just so she'd be better positioned for this race. She also sucked up all the best strategists and campaign staff two months before anyone else was preparing to run. Is it really surprising that she's winning in the early stages? She thought she had this primary in the bag and started running her general election, which I think is gonna bite her in the ass.

I think it's crap to say Obama doesn't get any bad press. He gets blasted for growing up over seas, having a Muslim middle name, attending a secular madrassa (oh no! not a candidate with a grasp of the cultural distinctions of Muslim culture. He must be a terrorist!). Also, if he never got bad press, what about how the media attacked him on the primary school sex education issue, not to mention the media is all to willing to jump on the "inexperienced" bandwagon. Has the conglomeration of our media limited the opinions out there sure. But this idea that they're picking our candidate for us I think is crap. And if they are then it's not Obama. Where is Hillary's bad press? She's the winner of every debate according to the media. She's the uncontested front runner to them. Even today, I heard Chris Matthews ask, "Why is she giving a title fight to someone she's so far ahead?"

Which is a good question. She should have shut her mouth after she called him naive, she'd made her point. Why continue to treat a candidate who is 16pts behind you as an equal? Is it that she's scared that people might start thinking 6 years traveling around the world on US tax dollars isn't really forgien policy background. That the single most important think she's done politically is give our President a blank check for waging wars in the Middle East? That the second most Important thing is failing to bring about ANY change in healthcare? But now she's exposed her weakest link, which is she's the most hawkish candidate of the Dem primary (which, funny enough is what tanked Lieberman's run). He should ask her if she thinks it's naive to give unilateral war powers to a President, who has already stolen an election, without a way to reign in that President without putting our troops on the line. Why after all her distinguished years on the Armed Services Committee did it just RECENTLY come to her to ask if the Pentagon had an Exit Strategy? Shouldn't she, as a responsible Senator, asked for the entrance, contingency, and exit strategies of a war BEFORE she approve it. The truth is she's not any MORE qualified than Obama. While she was failing in Healthcare he was succeeding in Chicago. When she was making the wrong choice in the war, He was WINNING a Senate seat buy telling Illinois that this was a DISASTROUS idea.

There are nice things you can say about Hillary, she's done alot of good in her political career. But like Kucinich said in a debate earlier this year, it's about Judgment. With all due respect to her change of heart, She made the wrong choice and over 3,600 or our troops are dead. What happens if she makes the wrong choice as President? Obama, Richardson, Kucinich, or Gravel are the only ones who can claim that foresight. Personally, out of all of them I like Obama's judgments the best, Richardson's my close second.

You can like whoever you want, but don't regurgitate crap to combat regurgitated crap!

[Ethelk2044]

52. Good news