Edwards Strongest Democrat in General Election Match-ups

[usregimechange]

Thursday, October 04, 2007

The most recent Rasmussen Reports data show that all of the most likely Democratic nominees lead their strongest prospective opponents. At this point John Edwards appears to be strongest in individual match-ups leading Giuliani by 9%, Thompson by 10%, and Romney by 11%.

Hillary Clinton holds almost as big a lead, but falls just short of Edwards' margin. She leads Giuliani by 5%, Thompson by 8%, and Romney by 9%.

Barack Obama holds a more narrow 5% lead over Giuliani, a 6% lead over Thompson, and a 3% lead over Romney.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/behind_the_horse_race_numbers_edwards_strongest_democrat_in_general_election_match_ups

[Hieronymus]

1. Excellent, thanks for posting this poll.

[saltpoint]

2. Go, Johnny, Go.

[rusty quoin]

3. That's why I was for Edwards. But things are not going well for him.

Maybe he'll win Iowa.

[usregimechange]

4. Dean was leading like Hillary is now when he came in 3rd in Iowa

[rusty quoin]

7. I know that. I don't think Edwards has a chance.

My past has been Dukakis, Mondale, and Tsongas. I have matured.

[AdHocSolver]

15. You folks want money not to decide the winner, yet you're ready to concede to the candidate...

with the most money. No wonder we can't get campaign finance reform. May I point out that in 2004, John Kerry had a ton of money, he was labeled the "most electable" candidate, he looked the "most presidential", and he still lost the election.

Now people are going to point out that the Republicans "stole" Ohio, which is true. However, if Kerry had campaigned better and won a couple of "red" states, the theft of Ohio would not have mattered. As a practical matter, a better candidate could have won despite Ohio. The pile of money Kerry had didn't help him win.

Similarly, Clinton could be financed by the U.S. mint and still lose for the same reasons that Kerry lost, namely, not being able to get enough votes to overcome Republican dirty tricks. Moreover, with the animosity Clinton generates among independents and moderate Republicans, some of whose votes will be needed by any Democratic candidate to win, her candidacy would bring out enough anti-Hillary voters to elect any of the losers being fielded by the Republicans. Even worse, A Clinton candidacy activating the right-wingers could cause Democrats to lose Congressional races.

In our state, the Democratic party leadership "anointed" certain candidates to win the primaries and represent the party. Their rationale to the party "faithful": these people can raise the most money and are the most electable. The party faithful followed the wishes of the "expert" party leaders. Many of the candidates anointed by the party leaders LOST. So much for the common wisdom.

The purpose of our efforts is to elect a President, and therefore we must select a nominee who can appeal to a majority of voters, not just the party faithful.

John Edwards has that appeal. Even without having the most money, astute campaigning can enable him to win over any of the current crop of Republican candidates. And, so far, the Republican candidates aren't doing fantastically well moneywise, either.

A Hillary candidacy would energize the right wing like nothing else. The Republicans know it and are praying for it. Why can't Democrats understand the politics at work here?

[Mythsaje]

17. I'm an Edwards supporter

but I don't agree with the assessment that Hillary will bring out the Repugs in droves. They're pretty battered right now and really don't have much enthusiasm for their own candidates. And with the possibility of Dobson running a TheoNazi candidate as an independent, well, that'll fracture the Repugs even more.

I really think the Repugs are down to their brain-damaged base...and only the dumbest among the independents would vote for a Repug over even Hillary. There isn't one candidate among them that doesn't come across as either crazy or WAY out of his depth.

That said, I am most definitely no fan of Hillary Clinton. I think there are far better reasons to oppose her candidacy than this particular scenario.

[loudsue]

20. Kerry didn't lose. And he was a great candidate, and he's a great man.

The electronic voting machines, and the fact that the fascists controlled the voting in every state (thirteen states had really bad problems with the election, not just Ohio), had a lot to do with how the republicans stole the election.

[illinoisprogressive]

5. though I don't rasmussen at all, I like it that Edwards is being noticed and taken serious.

[obnoxiousdrunk]

6. That superficial lead Hillary has

will lead to Johns superficial win in the GE.

[Carrieyazel]

8. Edwards would do significantly better than Hillary, and I will support

him if he's the nominee. But I still believe that Richardson is the best national candidate. He gives you his home state, and is a great bet to win out West in states like Colorado and Nevada. We need to win out West.

[usregimechange]

9. The thing about him is he doesn't seem to be comfortable on stage

not that good of a public speaker in the debates, my opinion, but he would make an excellent president

[knight_of_the_star]

10. He feels like he's better in one-on-one situations

Like bargaining

[saracat]

12. He has done very well in the last Debates.Most pundits and the public say he won! And his latest

speeches have been fabulous. He blew all the others away at the Steak Fry and at the Union Forum.

[travelingtypist]

I hope this means good things for him.

I think an Edwards/Richardson ticket would just be outstanding
and dare I say competent.

Hillary's the elephant in the middle of the room, though. She
has the Clinton machine. Nobody should underestimate that.

[BrightKnight]

13. She is also a very competent politician.

She has obviously learned a few things from her husband. She is very smart and doesn't make stupid mistakes. She has a very well run campaign but I would not attribute her success entirely to the "Clinton Machine" (whatever that is).

I like Edwards too but I doubt that he stands a chance against Senator Clinton. I respect that he has been able to remain viable in the race form a very awkward position.

[travelingtypist]

16. Competent? I guess.

Mistake free? I guess. True, she wouldn't have gotten this
far on the machine alone. But she wouldn't be where she is
without it either.

"Whatever that is?" Are ya kiddin' me, man?

I'll back her if she's the nominee, but I have no passion for
her. The more I see of Elizabeth Edwards and read of John,
the more I like them both. And I love Richardson's resume.

[defendandprotect]

11. I'm with Edwards -- he was on Olbermann the other night -- right on re Blackwater -- !!!

I love it that he's spontaneous . . .
he's wrong on gay marriage --

[saracat]

14. Yeah and it looks like many of the illinformed and corporate Dems want to

nominate the one who will inspire the other side to vote against her. Go figure. I am just disgusted. Edwards is our best bet and we are making it hard for him to get traction.

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

18. Gore/Edwards

Would be a formidable ticket.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

19. I don't think John Edwards has much chance of winning the primary, but I hope he does.

I think he has both the best chance of winning the election and the best policies if he does.

That said, I'd be perfectly satisfied with either Clinton or Obama.

[Dawgs]

21. I'm sorry, but historically polls like this don't matter until after the primaries.

[mzmolly]

22. Not to mention he's been vetted already by running for VP

last round. :hi: