Missouri Poll --EDWARDS MOST ELECTABLE of top 3 Democrats LINK

[Blackhatjack]

Democrats have an excellent slate of candidates, BUT EDWARDS IS MOST ELECTABLE. Head to head polls with Repub candidates consistently show Edwards' margin of victory is greater than HRC or Obama.

IF the goal is to win the General Election in 2008 and put a Democrat in the Oval Office, Edwards would be the Democratic Party's best choice.


http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/09/poll_edwards_best_dem_for_missouri_state_looks_good_overall.php

"Poll: Edwards Best Dem For Missouri — State Looks Good Overall"

By Eric Kleefeld - September 22, 2007, 11:50PM

"A new SurveyUSA poll in Missouri finds John Edwards to be the most electable of the top three Democrats in the key swing state of Missouri. In addition, the top three Democrats all generally fare well against three Republicans, with only one GOP win in the nine match-ups:

Giuliani (R) 48%, Clinton (D) 45%
Clinton (D) 48%, Thompson (R) 45%
Clinton (D) 51%, Romney (R) 40%
Obama (D) 46%, Giuliani (R) 44%
Obama (D) 48%, Thompson (R) 45%
Obama (D) 51%, Romney (R) 40%
Edwards (D) 47%, Giuliani (R) 42%
Edwards (D) 50%, Thompson (R) 40%
Edwards (D) 56%, Romney (R) 32%"

[countmyvote4real]

1. It made sense to me before the poll.

Edwards is the best chance at progressive reform of the * mess left behind. HRC would just take it from there to a new level of "because I said so."

Obama is too green and black and white or not enough of either to be able to negotiate the inside the beltway crowd. Still, he would be a great Evangelist. He'd be an even greater Senator if that's what he wanted to be.

[bananarepublican]

2. As I said on a previous post, Hillary is being set up for a Rudy victory! Edwards is da man!!! n/t

[Blackhatjack]

3. Two things may hurt HRC as the Democratic Nominee...

One, the massive amount of corporate backing of her campaign.

Two, her extremely high unfavorability numbers.

This is going to be an election held during tremendous economic upheaval, and there is going to be significant backlash against corporations given their all time profits and flat wages.

I cannot strategize how HRC will reach the independent/undecided and unaffiliated voters without raising the issues Edwards is raising --and most likely she will not.

I have more concerns over HRC than the other Democratic candidates running, but if she is the Democratic Party nominee she gets my vote.

[silverojo]

4. Why Edwards isn't the front-runner is a mystery to me

Do these Dems being polled actually WANT us to nominate a candidate with so many negatives, that she'll lose the White House for us?

[Clark2008]

25. Because some of us don't trust him.

He's changed his entire platform to run diametrically opposed to his Senate voting record.

[Blackhatjack]

26. I'm SHOCKED... SHOCKED I tell ya...

... that there is a member of DU who do not trust Edwards.

[1932]

27. Diametrically opposed to his senate voting record would mean that he's a free trader who hates labor

since he had the lowest CATO Free Trade rating and had a 100% AFL CIO based on his votes in the Senate.

[GreenTea]

5. Edwards without a doubt will win the nomination & deservedly so-after fighting the repugs, media &

the DLC....Itll take time but hell get there....Edwards has a great platform.

[fenriswolf]

6. told myself....

this year aaron me boy, I'm not listening to any numbers, this year you know deep down in your heart who should be president. This year aaron, ya know that you cannot trust the numbers, the numbers lie and manipulate, but if you listen to your heart, you'll know what this country needs. This country needs universal health care. This country needs healing on all different levels. This year you want someone who will help facilitate that healing, who will stop trying to make americans so paranoid they'll go to war again. This year you want someone who will lead us into a world where america doesn't support facism and globalism, an america about the people and run by the people, this year you want someone who isn't caught up in the skull and bones, CFR, Free Mason hocus pocus, you want a real person who wont work for global conglomorats, this year you want DENNIS KUCINICH.

[Nutmegger]

7. R&K for Edwards...

:thumbsup::applause::kick::thumbsup::applause::kick::thumbsup::applause::kick:
:thumbsup::applause::kick::thumbsup::applause::kick::thumbsup::applause::kick:

[deacon]

8. k + r

[MethuenProgressive]

9. "the top three Dems all fare well against three Republicans"

"the top three Democrats all generally fare well against three Republicans"
Calling Edweards "most electable" when the numbers are all in the margin of error proves the poll's bias.

[Bluebear]

10. The margin of error was 4.3%, so indeed Edwards does poll better.

Not by leaps and bounds, but it does appear that for this particular state he indeed does have the superior numbers.

[MethuenProgressive]

16. Add 4.3 to Clinton/Obama, subtract 4.3 from Edwards, and...

..you'll see what I typed was factual.

[1932]

19. Factual? What are you trying to argue? That it's likely that Obama/Clinton have 4.3% more and

Edwards has 4.3% less support?

There is a one in 20 chance that the results are beyond 4.3%. It's not very likely.

[Blackhatjack]

21. Adding 4.3 to HRC and Subtracting 4.3 from Edwards creates an 8.6 spread, not a 4.3% MOE....

just how do you (mis)understand polling numbers?

BTW MOE(margin of error) refers almost exclusively to the make up of the set of polled individuals. It has nothing to do with adding or substracting percentages to one candidate or another.

[Blackhatjack]

13. You do not understand polling, MOE and 'bias' ....

The polling is not 'biased' unless there is something wrong with the methodology used --which there is nothing present here to indicate that the polling was done incorrectly.

The MOE takes into account the make up of the group polled. The 'spread' is too large to be within the MOE. Edwards beats all 3 Repubs by a total of 39%, and Clinton beats only 2 of 3 Repubs by a total of 14%.

"Most electable" is a conclusion that the writer drew in referencing the polling data, but it is supported by the results.

You do not have to agree with the writer's conclusion regarding 'most electable' but to allege that the conclusion 'proves the poll's bias' just shows you do not understanding polling.

[MethuenProgressive]

17. You do not understand that the poll's *conclusion* is biased.

The math is rather simple, if you understand Statistics. And please, tell me more about how I don't understand numbers because I point out the erroneous conclusions drawn from them. :eyes:

[1932]

18. 4.3% margin of error means that 95% of the time the results will be within 4.3% of those numbers.

It does NOT mean that's it's likely that Edwards has 4.3% less and the Republican or the other Democrats have 4.3% more support.

[1932]

28. I thought I might get a response to my posts here.

I guess I was wrong.

[robcon]

11. This is only Missouri.

Apologies to Missourians, but who cares? There are 49 other states.

Overall Clinton is WAY ahead of other Democrats, and WAY ahead of all Repugs in the GE.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. I Wouldn't Mind Edwards, Obama, Or Clinton

And I think nationally Edwards polls the best of the "big three" against the GOOPERS but the difference between them is rather small... On paper he seems like the safest choice but the GOOPERS will exploit every vulnerability he has and no candidate is without vulnerabilities...

[Blackhatjack]

14. You may be confused by polling among Dems and polling in general...

Hillary's large numbers are in polls among Democratic candidates only.

Edwards consistently beats Repub candidates by higher numbers than HRC, has higher favorability numbers than HRC, and polls higher with independents/undecided and unaffiliated voters than HRC.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. HRC Is Doing OK Against The GOOPERS Too

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm


I have no doubt our "big three" can win in 11/08 though I do think Edwards is the surest bet at this time...

[JohnnyLib2]

20. I floundered in statistics classes, BUT --

sure wouldn't bet the farm based on this poll.

[La Coliniere]

22. I'm hoping he pulls a Kerry in Iowa.

That would be the best outcome in that primary IMHO.

[catmandu57]

23. I live in Missouri, I think I've lived here long enough to know

a few things about the people here. For instance I know that outside of KC and St. Louis that neither hillary or obama stand a chance of winning this state. The main vangard of the voters here while sick of repuplics will not elect either a woman or a black man, not now. Sometime down the road maybe, but not now.
Looking around people will support Edwards and vote for him, as will I, I like his populist message and to tell you the truth I'm sick to death of division and hate. Bubba has hated hillary for a long time now she's red meat and there's a lot of knuckle dragging bubbas living here, believe me I'm in contact with several of them by marriage and blood, the best we can hope for is that they're disgusted enough just to stay home come election day.
Bubba is not far removed from sheets and hoods either, they will never elect obama here.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

24. Unfortunately, the match-up the GOP win is the most likely one. NT

[Kurovski]

29. Kick. (nt)