Who is the most electable of the top three democratic candidates?

[illinoisprogressive]

sorry to those who support someone not on the list. there was no information so I could not post it. my apologies.

http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/




John Edwards said in a Good Morning America interview this morning:

“These same polls that you’re talking about, if you look at the general election matchups show very clearly that I’m the strongest Democrat to beat the Republicans in the general election.”

Let’s look at the polls to see if he’s right.

All the Democrats beat the Republicans in Real Clear Politics’ general election poll averages. However, one candidate is a better bet and with one exception wins by the highest margins. That candidate is Barack Obama.

Here are the average win-margins for each Democratic nominee by each Republican opponent as of today.

Average Win-Margin Against Rudy Giuliani

Barack Obama: +4%

John Edwards: +2%

Hillary Clinton: +1%

Average Win-Margin Against Fred Thompson

Barack Obama: +13.5%

John Edwards: +12.3%

Hillary Clinton: +6.5%

Average Win-Margin Against John McCain

John Edwards: +8.0%

Barack Obama: +6.6%

Hillary Clinton: +3.7%

Average Win-Margin Against Mitt Romney

Barack Obama: +13.5%

John Edwards: +12.4%

Hillary Clinton: +9.7%

[IamyourTVandIownyou]

1. +/- 4%

.

[countmyvote4real]

2. Not Hillary Clinton?

Just looking at the data that was posted.

[maximusveritas]

21. Yeah, I think Obama and Edwards are pretty similar at this point

The question is what will happen when they are attacked to the degree that Hillary has been. Will their advantage disappear? I think it will for the most part, though I think Obama is still the most electable of the three in the long run.

[countmyvote4real]

27. Because?

Gut feeling? Voting record? Persona? Or just a blanket opinion?

[Apollo11]

3. Probably Al Gore

If/When he announces - Al Gore will immediately go into the top tier of candidates.

THE LAST TEMPTATION OF AL GORE
By Eric Pooley
TIME Magazine -- May 17, 2007
Let's say you were dreaming up the perfect stealth candidate for 2008, a Democrat who could step into the presidential race when the party confronts its inevitable doubts about the front runners. You would want a candidate with the grass-roots appeal of Barack Obama -- someone with a message that transcends politics, someone who spoke out loud and clear and early against the war in Iraq. But you would also want a candidate with the operational toughness of Hillary Clinton -- someone with experience and credibility on the world stage.
In other words, you would want someone like Al Gore -- the improbably charismatic, Academy Award-winning, Nobel Prize-nominated environmental prophet with an army of followers and huge reserves of political and cultural capital at his command.
...
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1622597,00.html

Let's all find ways to show our support for Al Gore! :patriot:

Sign the Live Earth Pledge: www.liveearthpledge.org

Then ask all your friends and family to sign it too! :-)

Visit Al's site www.algore.com and read his blog http://blog.algore.com

Sign the petitions at www.algore.org and www.draftgore.com

:kick:

[pinto]

4. Don't know. But I think there are a few notable factors for '08:

Labor looks to play a bigger role in a national election than in recent years, due to the middle class crunch.

The (R)'s seem to have lost much of their ability to leverage polarizing, narrow wedge issues into votes.

The War, the war, the war.

just off the top of my head

[aquart]

5. Not relevant to a PRIMARY.

A primary is to assess the will of the party members. The Democrats, in this case. It is NOT about what the Republicans or Independents want. If we vote THEIR will instead of our own, we betray ourselves, our country, and our constitution.

This election is about MY choice. If enough of us choose my candidate, my candidate is THE candidate. If not, not. There is nothing else that matters. And trying to give the Republicans a voice in OUR primary is disgusting and subversive.

[luckyleftyme2]

6. somebody on the other side is worried

since it was obvious that hilliary would be the front runner the republican press had tried to surpress her popularity. much like they back shot dean when he ran.
the truth is that anyone of these candidates will landslide the playboy from new york or
the other candidates they have entered so far.
run a poll by the democratic party and you will find a much different answer.


shaking in the wood works is the leaders of the republican party! we're gonna take all three branches with ease in 08 and take back all the business tax breaks.

[Ethelk2044]

19. Indys can vote in some states as well in the primary. I think NH they can vote.

[countmyvote4real]

23. Psst. Tell me your candidate or why you can't. n/t

[LWolf]

7. I have a better idea.

Let's leave the polls behind.

The polls are used to manipulate media coverage, narrow the pool for donors, and convince the general public months before it's time to vote that they have to narrow their choices.

The polls are a political tool used to make the election process less Democratic.

Let's quit enabling the use of that tool.

[Dawgs]

8. Obama has been leading in these polls for weeks.

The 'Edwards is the strongest of all the candidates' is a talking point you see often by his supporters. I'm not surprised he would say the same thing.

[rinsd]

12. There was a time when that was true....all of 1 1/2 months ago.

I'm surprised to see Edwards pick up this theme now when the evidence does not support it.

[penguin7]

9. Hillary and Edwards are not electable

And I am not sure about Obama either.

How can they convey an effective message on Iraq with their IWR votes? Kerry was a stronger candidate than either of them, and he had the same problem. From the little I watched of the GOP, this will be the issue of this election.

If Kucinich does not get nominated, I see a very tough election coming up.

And those polls do not mean a darn thing.

[FrenchieCat]

10. When Bush declares "War on Iran", and the media gets to work spinning.....

we will be truly fucked in reference to the top three for the most part. Hillary would best survive the GE in this case........the other two would be too screwed.

It's not that the Pugs are better at anything, and they are actually much, much worse.....it's the perception that Pugs "will keeps us safer" that the media will sell to most of the general population, with enough buying into it to make a difference....and since it's never about reality anymore......but about the media's manufactured "conventional wisdom"....it will take a miracle for one of those Dems to win then.

PS. An "almost" but "Foiled" terrorist attack would do just as well for the opponents. They are fearmongers, and they will do what is required to win. All done in the name of power.

[PurityOfEssence]

11. How would she be best to survive?

I've heard this mentioned, but it's always mentioned with a "because I say so" tone and with no substantiation.

Why would she have a better chance? Because she has been cagier on the war issue? Because she's better at fighting against entrenched Republicans in elections? (That's nuts: she beat two stiffs in a a rather blue state; Edwards beat the hand-picked, well-known and well-funded successor in a very red state.)

What is it about her that would make her more survivable against them in this instance?

[Catchawave]

13. I went to the link from the Obama website you provided......

The dates don't match the results between Obama's and Edwards' "spread". Needs updating for Obama as Edwards are through 8/30

Also, the averages were from different polls.

For instance, Fox News isn't averaged for all the candidates.

Confusing.

[rinsd]

15. Head to head polls are not necessarily taken at the same time.

For instance, this week Rasmussen has done Edwards vs McCain, last week they did Hillary vs Rudy & Thompson and the week before it was Obama vs Rudy & Thompson.

[Catchawave]

16. Here's one from Sept 3

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/3/163556/7621

Nice analysis for Edwards supporters :D

[rinsd]

17. I like Rasmussen but its just one poll.

Looking at several polls helps eliminate outliers and gives a much better idea of trends.

Edwards still beats the GOP just not like he was in June.

[cobalt1999]

14. Highly irrelevant until they actually start campaigning against each other.

Right now in the primaries, the fights are all internal. Neither side has begun to campaign Dem vs. Rep. Until then those numbers will swing wildly and are, basically, meaningless.

[Kuni]

18. Not Hillary and not Edwards

Not Hillary. If she wins the nomination kiss the 2008 election away.

And not John Edwards. His inability to immediately point out, and publicly call out the Press on it’s coverage on his $400 haircut while ignoring that Romney spent over $2,000 on makeup shows that he doesn’t have what it takes to win.

[AtomicKitten]

20. Obama has pretty consistency topped the list --

as predicted most proficient ass-kicker.

[calteacherguy]

22. Rove fears Obama the most.

That's why the "pranksters" wrote "I love Obama" on his car.

Funny.

[dugggy]

24. Obama has zero chance, Hillary has better chance, Edwards the best

A black guy with Hussein for middle name?
No way Amerika is ready for that. Not in 2008.
Take it to the bank!

Hillary has better chance but there are a lot of
"anti-Hillary" votes out there.

Edwards? White guy from south, good smile, good
looking, self made millionaire, he is certainly
the most electable.

Please don't make the same mistake as in 2004,
nominating Kerry based on his "military" experience.

[Netbeavis]

28. Rove's real nightmare

I have posted before that Rove's real nightmare is Edwards. How can he rally the freepers against a monogamous, white, Christian, southern male when all of their candidate, minus "Mr Vitalis" have had public adultery, affairs, morality issues and divorces? He can't. Freepers stay home if Edwards runs.

Rove's wetdream is Hillary, in more ways than one. Just substitute Rove for Shatner & Hillary for Bergen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG_XguzP6Ao

Rove & FOX/Rush can rabble rouse the minions to the polls with fear. He's had eight years plus to fantasize over what to do against Hillary. (giggity giggity)


Obama's message is already getting old and Rove will just Harold Ford, Obama.



Edwards is the best counter to the "None of the Above" crowd of the GOP.

Edwards/Clinton ticket would be money.

[Adelante]

29. That's such baloney

You apply one type of criteria to Obama and Clinton (negative) and the opposite to Edwards (positive). Evaluate Edwards with his negatives and he has no better chance than either of the others. If you're going to compare candidates, do it honestly.

The gratuitous snipe at Kerry is becoming a frequent flyer lately, I've noticed. :eyes:

[saltpoint]

25. I think most of ours whips all of theirs.

At this point I don't even SEE a Republican frontrunner. Who is it -- Fred Thompson? Giuliani? Huckabee?

God, they're all losers.

I guess Giuliani leads in many national polls, although Multiple-Choice Mitt Romney is ahead in Iowa and New Hampshire, two pretty good places to be ahead in if you're running for president.

But let's work with Giuliani. I don't see him beating most of our people in Iowa, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Ohio, or West Virginia. If the Democratic ticket carries even 3 of those states and holds the others that Kerry/Edwards won in 04, the electoral college decision is all blue.

Giuliani is stronger in New Jersey than I wish he was, but the proximity to NYC is a key variable there. It can be mathematically countered, though, by Richardson on our ticket (we win back NM), a Shaheen Senate run (preserving NH high Democratic turn-out), and so forth; we can counter with strategic flashpoints of our own and still hold the electoral college edge. Plus, we still can win NJ outright. To hell with Giuliani.

Romney isn't going to win any national election. He's a Republican from Massachusetts, a transplant at that. No one remembers his father. Those who do don't remember him that fondly. Mitt's actually Willard and actually a Mormon, and not that many Southern Baptists are hogwild about Mormons. That might depress GOP vote totals in North Carolina and Arkansas, and with Edwards and/or Clark on our ticket, we just might take both those states.

Fred Thompson? He's a sack of concrete.

We have a lot of real good cards in our hand in 2008. The Pukes, not so many.

[ProudDad]

26. Kucinich

He's got 65% support of the USAmerican population on the issues...