TIME poll: Clinton's weakness as a general election candidate, GOP dissatisfaction with choices

[DeepModem Mom]

Poll: A Weak Field Still Wide Open
By ANA MARIE COX/WASHINGTON
Thursday, Apr. 12, 2007

Is the Democrats' glass two-thirds full or half empty?

A new TIME poll, conducted by SRBI Inc., finds that while a vast majority of voters (65%) think the Democrats will probably win the 2008 presidential election, hypothetical matchups of actual candidates paint a very different picture. Specifically: the Democratic frontrunner, Hillary Clinton, has a comfortable lead over Barack Obama for the party's nomination, but loses to the GOP leader, Rudy Giuliani, by 5 points and to John McCain (in second place for the Republican nomination) by 2 (within the margin of error).

But these match-ups may say more about Clinton's weakness as a general election candidate than they do about the Democratic field. This week, John Edwards and Obama both have improved their showings in the primary field and, even more significantly, Obama now ties with Giuliani in a trial heat (45%-45%) and bests McCain by a margin of 47% to 42%. What's more, both Edwards and Obama have made inroads into Clinton's geographic strongholds. In the Northeast, Edwards has narrowed her lead to just 11 points (down from 22 in March) and Edwards now leads in the Midwest. Clinton also faces a very tight race with Obama in the West, with just a 2% lead.

The Republicans' vulnerability in a general election is underscored by the party's dissatisfaction with the candidate field. Only 61% say they are happy with the selection — as compared with 71% of Democrats — and 28% aren't. These levels of satisfaction translate to showings for particular candidates as well: Only one Republican — Giuliani — breaks 45% in the proportion of voters who say they will "definitely" or "probably" support his candidacy."America's Mayor" ties with Obama at 48% for likely support, followed by Clinton at 46%, and Edwards and undeclared candidate Al Gore tied at 45.

While some Republicans have pinned their hopes on the fresh face of Mitt Romney, he's too fresh for most voters to have an opinion about him — though they have at least heard of him....

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1609509,00.html?xid=site-cnn-partner

[Nite Owl]

1. I have Bloomberg news on

and their poll agrees with Time. More people want a dem in the WH and Obama is behind Clinton but is the one who wins agains any GOP candidate. McCain is not doing well, age is a factor.

It's a short video:

http://bloomberg.com/

[DeepModem Mom]

3. Thanks, Nite Owl! nt

[draft_mario_cuomo]

5. Edwards does even better than Obama against GOP candidates

Bloomberg apparently did not include a general election trial heat with Edwards in that poll. Both Obama and Edwards are strong general election candidates, though, unlike HRC.

[Nite Owl]

11. I'm still undecided

between both of them. They would make a winning ticket together but I don't know which one I would want at the top of the ticket! I do like Richardson too, but for that wiping the vote in '04.

[TwilightGardener]

2. Yep, the headline says it all--we ignore it at our peril. Thank God

the primary is not this month, or we'd be doooooomed!

[draft_mario_cuomo]

6. Will we sacrifice the WH to the GOP for 4 more years on the altar of the Clinton's ambition?

[TwilightGardener]

8. Hope that something brings her down, as much as I respect her--

the future of this country is at stake, IMO.

[skipos]

4. These Ras polls back up the claim that Hillary has gen. elec weakness

despite her primary strength, $$$ and name recogition.

Clinton (46%) Brownback (41%) CLINTON WINS BY 5%
Obama (49%) Brownback (34%) OBAMA WINS BY 15%

Clinton (50%) Gingrich (43%) CLINTON WINS BY 7%
Obama (48%) Gingrich (38%) OBAMA WINS BY 10%

Clinton (47%) Giuliani (48%) CLINTON LOSES BY 1%
Edwards (49%) Giuliani (43%) EDWARDS WINS BY 6%
Obama (43%) Giuliani (44%) OBAMA LOSES BY 1%

Clinton (48%) Hagel (40%) CLINTON WINS BY 8%
Obama (50%) Hagel (34%) OBAMA WINS BY 16%

Clinton (47%) McCain (46%) CLINTON WINS BY 1%
Edwards (47%) McCain (38%) EDWARDS WINS BY 9%
Obama (44%) McCain (44% ) TIED

Clinton (50%) Romney (41%) CLINTON WINS BY 9%
Edwards (55%) Romney (29%) EDWARDS WINS BY 26%
Obama (51%) Romney (36%) OBAMA WINS BY 15%

Clinton (43%) Thompson (44%) CLINTON LOSES BY 1%
Edwards (50%) Thompson (36%) EDWARDS WINS BY 14%
Obama (49%) Thompson (37%) OBAMA WINS BY 12%

[BeyondGeography]

7. "Clinton's weakness"...there's 14 years worth of evidence on that

<Sen. Clinton is often described as an intensly polarizing figure, and there is some evidence for this in the levels of her "unfavorable" ratings. These rose sharply in 1993-94 as she took on non-traditional policy roles while first lady. But having reached 40% unfavorable by 1995, they have rarely dropped below that. Only during the Lewinsky scandal did unfavorable drop to around 30%. Since then it has remained in the ball park of 40%, but at times rising to around 45%. While not a measure of the intensity of these feelings, the data certainly show that Sen. Clinton has been viewed unfavorably by a consistent 40% of the population for the last six years. This of course is one of the difficulties she faces in a race for national office.>

http://politicalarithmetik.blogspot.com/2006/08/hillarys-image-1993-2006.html

[Faryn Balyncd]

9. It's obvious whay Hillary is the Rupert Murdock/Faux News choice for the Democratic nomination....

[Kolesar]

10. So, 10% of the electorate will go the polls and "not vote" for anybody?

And a republican will win with the 45% of the votes that people bothered to cast for the republican candidate?? :sarcasm: These horse race polls are embarassingly devoid of content.

[Clark2008]

12. They're also national polls, not state-by-state choices, which

is how we choose a president.

None of our front runners is poised to break the purple barrier yet. So far, I don't see any changes in the Kerry blues and Bush reds, even with the coruptions of Republicans in Ohio.

[Kolesar]

13. Good point on the state-by-state

bush* was way-overrepresented in the South and in Texas and closer to parity in the contested states.

I think this polling is silly because people have had scant exposure to candidates. I mean, Barak is "new" and has only been "campaigning" since his book tour started. Edwards' and Clinton's announcements were not that long ago and there has not been much coverage of the election.

[elizm]

14. Hillary has been running for YEARS! n/t

[draft_mario_cuomo]

16. Edwards and Obama can swing some states

Others like Richardson, Clark, and Gore have that potential to do so as well.

The GOP is very weak in Ohio right now. The only way we could lose Ohio is if we nominate a weak general election candidate. If we have a strong candidate we can dominate overall in the swing states, even against Giulani.

[Faryn Balyncd]

15. The Hillary Clinton triple play: wrong on IRAQ - wrong on IRAN - & a loser in the GENERAL ELECTION