Rasmussen: Hillary up by 10 over Obama...

[SaveElmer]

Latest Rasmussen results...

Hillary 35
Obama 25
Edwards 18

New York Senator Hillary Clinton has a double-digit solid lead over all challengers in her quest for the Democratic Presidential nomination. That’s the second time in three weeks she has enjoyed a solid lead. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows Clinton at 35%, Senator Barack Obama at 25%, and former Senator John Edwards at 18%. That’s the highest level of support we’ve ever measured for Edwards. New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson is solidly atop the second tier of candidates with 5% support.

Obama continues to hold a slight lead among male voters while Clinton has a huge advantage among women.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/2008_democratic_presidential_primary

[wyldwolf]

1. and Rasmussen is the "most reliable."

[skipos]

10. And Rasmussen indicates she is the weakest general election candidate

of our top tier, and the candidate with the worst favorable/ unfavorable ratings too.

How come you never responded to my post in this thread?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3269586#3269632

[rinsd]

15. "Weakest" = beating the whole GOP field.

[skipos]

16. "Weakest"= Weaker than Edwards and Obama against any Republican.

For all of the money, name recognition, connections and relationships to popular ex-Presidents, she should be the strongest general election candidate we have. She should be thumping the Repubs by larger margins that anyone else in the polls. But she isn't.

[rinsd]

19. Ahhh I see. The bar is just set ridiculously high.

[skipos]

21. Having our strongest general election candidate win the primary

may be "setting the bar ridiculously high" for you, but it isn't for me.

[rinsd]

23. When your determination of said strongest candidate is locked in stone in Feb

When said candidate's supposed head to head prowess has been DECLINING and when said candidate cannot garner 20% of his own party's vote.

That's not setting the bar high. That's just plain stupid.

[skipos]

25. Can you admit that the polls indicate that Hillary is a weaker general election candidate

than Edwards and Obama? I can admit that that might change.

[rinsd]

28. Its relative. Hillary is the weaker candidate by a few pts yet ALL win

That is the point. When you call her the weakest candidate without the caveat that she is BEATING everyone in the GOP you create the impression that she is losing.

Obama has the slightest of leads(sometimes we're talking a point or two on way or the other) on Hillary in the GE matchups section (looking outside of Ras). Edwards does slightly better than Obama.

Calling Hillary the weakest candidate as some type of warning would make sense of she were losing. But only the Q poll has really shown that and they seem to be an outlier (not just Hillary look at Obama's numbers) when compared against the dozens of other polls out there.

[skipos]

32. I don't think 2008 is going to be a cakewalk

that's why I think it is well worth paying attention to how people may perform in the general election. All the candidates have weaknesses, but so many things indicate that Hillary will have a tougher time in the general election. Just because Bush sucks ass, it doesn't mean we can nominate whoever we want and we will win. I am tired of Dems snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

[rinsd]

35. I don't think its going to be a cakewalk either.

But the numbers we have now are alot more encouraging than the numbers in 2004.

[skipos]

17. Jesus, even Richardson beat Romney by a larger margin than Hillary

in the most recent Ras poll. Most polling companies don't even bother putting Richardson in the general election polls.

Romney (44%) Clinton (47%) CLINTON WINS BY 3%
Romney (34%) Richardson (42%) RICHARDSON WINS BY 8%
Romney (37%) Obama (52%) OBAMA WINS BY 15%
Romney (29%) Edwards (55%) EDWARDS WINS BY 26%

[rinsd]

18. Most recent being an odd term here since the newest poll besides Clinton is 1 1/2 months old

And that Edwards number you are quoting is from the 1st week of Feb.

[skipos]

20. "Most recent," means the "most recent"

My most recent birthday was 10 months ago.

Just go browse these polls, some are more recent than others, but they are all the most recent rasmussen has done.
Hillary underperforms Edwards and Obama in just about every one.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_republican_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election

If you don't like rasmussen, go to Zogby or Quin. or anywhere else. 90% of the time our candidate with the most money, biggest machine, most name recognition and political ties, our candidate who is married to a popular ex-president, UNDERPERFORMS Edwards and Obama in the general election polls.

I have never seen a poll where she has lower unfavorables than Edwards or Obama either. I have never seen a poll where she has the least amount of people committed to voting against her. If you know of one, I'd love to see it.

[rinsd]

22. A Feb poll of Romney vs Edwards is useless.

Actually any polls outside of a month or so dealing with Romney are fairly useless because they donot reflect his fundraising and debate performances which have seen his numbers rise.

And according to the most recent polls (recent being an operative terms here), Hillary is even with Obama (she is tied with Rudy, he is a pt behind and they both lead McCain by 4).

So let's look at the supposed strongest GE candidate via head to heads.

Well he's been losing ground there or barely holding staedy (lost 8 pts to Rudy and 2 pts to McCain from March). And his unfavorables are rising, now at 42% though his favorable topped out at 55%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008_edwards_d_47_giuliani_r_45

So at least with Ras, Hillary and Obama's head to head numbers are improving against Rudy and McCain while Edwards are not.

[skipos]

24. What about these polls?

Is it really that hard to admit that despite her $$$, her machine and her husband, Hillary is a weaker general election candidate than Edwards or Obama?

Quinnipiac April 25-May 1
Giuliani 49 Clinton 40 - CLINTON LOSES BY 9%
Giuliani 48 Gore 41 - GORE LOSES BY 7%
Giuliani 44 Obama 41 - OBAMA LOSES BY 3%

McCain 46 Clinton 41 - CLINTON LOSES BY 5%
McCain 47 Gore 41 - GORE LOSES BY 6%
McCain 42 Obama 42 - OBAMA TIES MCCAIN

F Thompson 39 Clinton 46 - CLINTON WINS BY 7%
F Thompson 37 Gore 47 - GORE WINS BY 10%
F Thompson 34 Obama 47 - OBAMA WINS BY 13%

Diageo/Hotline Poll April 26-30
McCain 45 Clinton 45 - CLINTON TIES MCCAIN
McCain 37 Obama 48 - OBAMA WINS BY 11%
McCain 37 Edwards 48 - EDWARDS WINS BY 11%

Giuliani 47 Clinton 43 - CLINTON LOSES BY 4%
Giuliani 39 Obama 48 - OBAMA WINS BY 9%
Giuliani 41 Edwards 47 - EDWARDS WINS BY 6%

Romney 35 Clinton 50 - CLINTON WINS BY 15%
Romney 25 Obama 54 - OBAMA WINS BY 29%
Romney 26 Edwards 52 - EDWARDS WINS BY 26%

Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. May 2-3, 2007. N=831 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 4.

Rudy 46 Hillary 49 - HILLARY WINS BY 3%
Rudy 43 Obama 50 - OBAMA WINS BY 7%
Rudy 44 Edwards 50 - EDWARDS WINS BY 6%

McCain 44 Hillary 50 - HILLARY WINS BY 6%
McCain 39 Obama 52 - OBAMA WINS BY 13%
McCain 42 Edwards 52 - EDWARDS WINS BY 10%

Romney 35 Hillary 57 - HILLARY WINS BY 22%
Romney 29 Obama 58 - OBAMA WINS BY 29%
Romney 27 Edwards 64 - EDWARDS WINS BY 37%

[rinsd]

26. The beer company poll makes a re-appearance! LOL!

Also you'll notice the Q poll is the outlier when pitted against every single other poll including Newsweeks.

[SaveElmer]

27. Right...so in two of those Hillary stomps Romney...

Yet you continue to quote a poll from almost 2 months ago...because it has a result you like better!

[skipos]

31. Can you admit that the polls indicate that Hillary is a weaker general election candidate

than Edwards and Obama?

I don't cherry pick polls, I look at the general trends of all of them. It is easy to see that Hillary underperforms Edwards and Obama in a large, large majority of them.

If the day comes where her money, friends and husband can finally help her outperform Edwards and Obama in the general election polls, I will scratch "g.e. weakness" off of my list of reasons Hillary should not be our nominee.

What will it take for you to admit that polls indicate she is a weaker general election candidate that Edwards and Obama?

[SaveElmer]

36. I never said otherwise...

But that she is weaker in general election polls than Edwards or Obama is of less concern to me than how she does against Republicans...she is ahead of them more often than not, and if behind is within the MoE...good enough for me 19 months before the election...and she has outperformed Obama in a couple recent polls (Marist and SUSA)...

I am not supporting her simply as a measure of her current support in polls...that would be lunacy...I think she would be a better President...by far...than any of the current candidates...with only Richardson IMO, in her league...

And I beg to differ...when it comes to polls you do cherry pick...you quote Rasmussen polls almost exclusively, and have ignored polls far more recent than the Rasmussen Clinton-Romney head to head poll...of which there have been enough to judge the Rasmussen an outlier on that race

edit: Incomprehensible subject line! I hate typing!

[Clarkansas]

2. Good thing the people of Iowa seem to have more sense

than the rest of us. She was in 3rd there in a recent poll.

[SaveElmer]

3. And first in a poll taken a day before...nt

[DemDem07]

7. The KCCI poll was of likely voters.

The DM register poll was of likely caucus voters.

[rinsd]

14. Zogby shows a much closer race and also does likely caucus goers

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1301

And that when Hillary considered skipping IA early because of Vilsack hence has only had a real precense there on the last 2 months.

Contract that with a guy who has been virtually camped out in IA for 2 years you would think his numbers would be higher.

[DemDem07]

29. Hillary has been center stage for 15 years

Her weak umbers at this point are very damning to her campaign.

[rinsd]

34. Weak numbers damning to her campaign?

Leading the Dem primary nationally? Leading all GOPers in head to head matchups?

Being at the top in fundraising? Leading nearly every primary state poll (she is 2nd in 4 of them)?

Any candidate in their right mind would absolutely kill for her numbers.

[DemDem07]

38. No candidate in their right mind would want her negatives.

Thankfully lots of our candidates beat GOPers in head to heads.

[SaveElmer]

42. Bill had them in 1992...Al had them in 2000...

And Al has them now...

There is no evidence that a high negative number is immutable...in fact there is plenty of evidence that the opposite is true

[Captain Hilts]

4. Rassmussen isn't bad, but these early polls just don't matter. nt

[patrice]

5. Please do feel assaulted; this is a legit question:

Is it at all possible to factor for folks who are supporting her because they are counting on a backlash to hand it to the Repuglycans.

[wyldwolf]

9. Please do feel assaulted??

[patrice]

12. Sorry, doing too many things at once - Or - a Freudian slip . . . ?

Afterall, it IS an assault of a type.

My intent was to indicate the the "assault" is not my primary purpose. I'd really like to know if it is possible to factor that sort of thing.

Watching what has been happening with Ron Paul, a person would have to be naive to think there isn't more of that "crossing party lines" going on, especially with folks like Michael Bloomberg sitting in the wings.

[patrice]

13. P.S. Which backlash could likely be MORE Republican SENATORS

rather than a Republican pResident.

[DemDem07]

6. Center stage worldwide for 15 years has been Hillary

And she is polling this low?

That's great news for the other Dem candidates.

[skipos]

8. She has megamoney, a megamachine, and a popular presidential husband

yet she still underperforms Edwards and Obama in the general election polls. I wouldn't scoff at her primary numbers though, it is worth being concerned about. Dems have a history of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

[zulchzulu]

11. "margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 4 percentage points" = Used toilet paper

Polls 8 months out of Iowa are pretty meaningless at this point...I say this no matter who is leading.

A poll with an MoE of 3% or less is where polls start to make sense.

[MethuenProgressive]

30. Rasmussen: "... it's all about Clinton."

While the current numbers show a different top-line result and give the appearance of volatility, the race has assumed a fairly stable dynamic—it’s all about Clinton. The data suggests that the race may ultimately come down to Clinton versus a challenger still to be determined.

Ras is only polling their "big three," which is one reason Edwards polls so high. He's getting all the votes for those not backing Obama and Clinton. If Ras polled with all the candidates, including Clark and Gore, and only polled Democrats instead of including Independants, the results might be of some value. But Ras doesn't. So they aren't. JMO, YMMV.

[rinsd]

33. That is incorrect. Ras polls for all the candidates though not Gore & Clark

Ras does poll for Fred Thompson. I assume because he unlike Gore or Clark has indiciated a willingness to run.

But Ras does not include the other candidates on the chart because they aren't polling above the 5%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/2008_democratic_presidential_primary

"New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson is solidly atop the second tier of candidates with 5% support."

[sampsonblk]

37. The more she campaigns, the bigger her lead

Only a huge gaffe by Mrs. Clinton will allow these second- and third-tier candidates to be a factor in the campaign. Just my opinion.

[smalll]

39. Another piece of evidence that Obama is...

... fading!

[bigdarryl]

40. these weekly Rasmussen polls are getting RIDICULOUS

[earthlover]

41. Hillary vs someone....

I don't think national polls are as important as state polls at this point. Remember 04, when Kerry came out of nowhere after Iowa to become the inevitable nominee?

If Edwards or Obama wins Iowa, a huge amount of momentum will be added to their New Hamphire campaign.

I tend to see it as Hillary vs someone....it may come down to Edwards vs Obama in Iowa to see who will be that someone.

[rinsd]

43. Wikipedia has compiled nearly every poll there is

Here are the ones for the Dem primary by state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29_presidential_primaries%2C_2008

[durrrty libby]

44. That is interesting and indeed Hillary is the leader

She will be a great president

[calteacherguy]

45. There is no national primary, and in any case 65% don't want her. nt

[SaveElmer]

46. Incorrect...

She is the top second choice as well as the top first. In head to head matchups with Obama and Edwards, her lead increases...

[calteacherguy]

47. Correct. 65% don't want her.

[SaveElmer]

48. No...

For 65% she is not the first choice...for the vast majority of Democrats she is a satisfactory choice, more satisfactory than the challengers...very few, in the single digits rule out supporting her in the primary.

In any case then, by your logic, 75% don't want Obama and 85% don't want Edwards!!!

[calteacherguy]

49. 65% don't want her. nt

[SaveElmer]

50. 75% Don't want Obama...85% don't want Edwards...

99% don't want Kucinich

[calteacherguy]

51. Correct, and 65% don't want Hillary. nt