Poll: Eventual GOP Nom Faces Tough General Election (Clinton, Obama Would Get Over Half the Vote)

[Hissyspit]

Source: CNN

Poll: Eventual GOP nominee faces tough general election
Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would get over half the vote, poll finds

By Rebecca Sinderbrand
CNN Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Republican presidential field appears to face a tough general election fight in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released Saturday.

According to the survey, both of the Democratic front-runners, Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, hold mostly double-digit -- and statistically identical -- advantages over Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee, drawing greater than 50 percent support in each hypothetical matchup.

The Republican candidate who gives Clinton and Obama the closest race in the new poll is Arizona Sen. John McCain, who is essentially tied with both: He draws the support of 48 percent of those surveyed to Clinton's 50 percent and Obama's 49 percent.

Clinton leads the front-running candidates of both parties -- Obama, McCain, Giuliani, Huckabee and Romney -- in the percentage of voters who say they would definitely vote for her if she won her party's nomination, with 37 percent. But she trails the pack in the percentage of voters who do not support her, but say they might consider voting for her under those circumstances, with 19 percent. Obama is second to Clinton in potential voters who say they would definitely vote for him in the general election, with 30 percent. McCain, who is third in that category with 22 percent, is first among voters who say they'd consider voting for him if he were the Republican nominee, with 35 percent.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/12/poll.matchups/index.html

[Tarheel_Dem]

1. This seems blatantly unfair......

They don't even bother to poll Edwards anymore? I know it's a longshot, but for a while he did best against all the Repub candidates. Screw the MSM.

[harmonicon]

8. yeah, and?

I read so many posts about how Edwards was the only one who could beat the Republican, so we HAD to vote for him. I've always thought polls were bullshit. Now when polls aren't polling what you want, or are showing something you don't want (that other candidates can win the GE as well), you cry foul. What BS. It's all a media game, and Edwards has been a big part of it. Will Edwards, Clinton or Obama take part in the next debate if Kucinich isn't there (as he was supposed to be)? If so, they don't deserve any of our votes.

[iamjoy]

9. Well, It Is Unfair

After all, Edwards is doing better on the Democratic side than Giuliani is on the Republican side, but they haven't stopped including Mr. 9-11 in hypothetical match ups.

As for Edwards being the only one, at one time that's what the polls showed. At another time, it showed something different.

I don't see why it's okay to have five candidates on the Republican side but the media has to have a two person race for the Democratic nomination.

As for Kucinich not being included, comparing the exclusion of Edwards to the exclusion of Kucinich is apples and oranges. At this point, Edwards has some delegates. He's placed second and third. Of course, it may be a little premature to exclude anyone since ONLY TWO STATES HAVE VOTED!!!!

[harmonicon]

12. Of course it's unfair. Did you ever think it was fair?

This just goes to prove that what polls are conducted, and how they are conducted shapes the race. I remember someone posting something on here a few months ago about getting a telephone call about who they were going to support - Kucinich wasn't even an option. These have always been push-polls, one way or another, even when Edwards was included.

Comparing the exclusion of Edwards and Kucinich is not apples and oranges, it's theater and democracy. I know they're different. My point about the Kucinich debate was that he'd met the network's criteria. They simply didn't want him in the debate, so they changed the criteria simply to exclude him.... I guess they thought their attempts to subtly quash his voice would have worked. Same goes for not polling for Edwards. How much do you want to split hairs? So what if Edwards has come in second in one place and has delegates - you're making your own criteria for why he should be included. Two other candidates have each won one state and have more delegates. Once this starts to happen (it started a long time ago), we're going down hill as a democracy. Many people turn a blind eye to it because they think it doesn't affect them - they'll still get the outcome they want.

The media/pollsters control the election, they do not cover it. By now, that shouldn't be news to anyone.

[Tarheel_Dem]

14. I agree with your broader point, but let's face it Dennis didn't

even register in Iowa, Edwards came in second. That should have been the headline coming out of Iowa, but instead it was all about the horserace between Obama & Hillary.

[harmonicon]

16. yeah, but why doesn't dennis get loads of votes?

Is it maybe because of a media and pollster blackout of this campaign? It's not as if all of the people running were getting equal time in the debates before Iowa, the same amount of new coverage, and had the same amount of funding. Before there even was a race, the networks had decided these 3 were the "front-runners". Now they've decided that there are two front runners. This is why we need publicly financed elections, and have to bring back the fairness doctrine. Both would work wonders for getting the candidates the people want (not who the media tell them they have to choose from) elected, whoever that may be.

I'd like for all of the candidates to be included in the polls, but what I'd like even more would be to not have these polls conducted at all.

[Tarheel_Dem]

17. I agree with you that polls play a huge part in swaying public

opinion, and I agree that certain candidates have been blacked out of equitable news coverage. But, I'm still on the fence about the so-called "Fairness Doctrine". I've heard Thom Hartmann talk about this several times on his show, and I'll be damned if I want to hear a bunch of right wing clap-trap on my favorite progressive radio shows. Afterall, I think that's what "equal time" is all about, though I could be wrong.

[harmonicon]

18. I'm not really old enough to remember what the media was like...

...before the fairness doctrine was repealed. From what others have told me, it kept the news balanced. As for opinion programs.... well, I don't really listen to them, so I can't comment. Any older DUers here who have a comment on the fairness doctrine? Would we be better or worse without it?

[balantz]

10. The problem is that he was included in the polls, and polling better than the other two,

and now they are leaving him out.

[Tarheel_Dem]

11. I never told you to vote for Edwards....

and I would love to see Dennis be included in the next debate. His presence, oftentimes, brings about discussion of things that might not otherwise be discussed. The more the merrier.

[Orsino]

29. It was always obvious that any Dem nominee would win...

...considering the slugs who were shameless enough to declare themselves for the GOP. Dirty tricks will of course abound, but I don't think enough Americans are going to fall for their same old song this year to provide sufficient cover for Diebold theft.

It's gonna be Clinton or Obama, and the superdelegates seem already to have made up their minds.

[Jackpine Radical]

23. JEDNE.

That is all.

[Mythsaje]

2. JEDNE n/t

[Jackpine Radical]

24. Crap. I didn't see your JEDNE

and went and JEDNE'd myself.

[catnhatnh]

3. Tho currently constrained from posting as I'd like to....

2 (MSM) dems against 4 pubs-and especially when the #3 dem also beats them???

[catnhatnh]

4. After consultation with our moderators...

JEDNE. Because the media says so.

[balantz]

5. The corporate elite M$M's two-horse race for the (surprise!) already chosen

nominee (depending upon which flow they have to go with) has decided for us once again. Never mind that there is another candidate that has virtually disappeared from public view, who not only came in second, yes SECOND, not third, in Iowa, and before being "disappeared" polled highest against the repubs than the two prefered candidates of the corporate elite machine. The elite insure their survival as our rulers once again.

[Stevepol]

6. So what? Kerry got over half the vote too.

Problem is not winning the election. The Dems have won the last two elections. The problem is to get the Dems to stand up to the cheating and dirty tricks and electronic vote counting scams that are certain to occur in 08 as they did in 2000 and 04, except this time even more voting machine bias and tilt I imagine because they'll know they have to tilt it further than before to make up for the obvious unpopularity of Repubs now.

[balantz]

7. Recounts, recounts and recounts. And whatever else needs to be done.

But the majority of Americans appear to be able to shrug off whatever corruption they hear about, if it even reaches their ears. South Carolina for instance is soon to be voting on a paperless system, from what I understand. I wonder if there was much protest to that?

[QUALAR]

13. Obama

Not if Obama's people continue to play the race card against the Clintons. It's ludicrous to try to paint Bill or Hillary as being racist. Jesse Jackson Jr is trying to drive a wedge between Hillary and black voters in South Carolina, especially black women. It will backfire one way or another - Black women could rebel by sticking with Hillary, or if they vote for Obama, many whites in succeeding states will be turned off by Obama's racial play. Either way it is shameful. The corporate media will really push the racial issue in an attempt to weaken the Democratic Party and so far Obama is a willing participant.

[Tarheel_Dem]

15. So now Obama is responsible for what the media reports?....

and the angle from which they report it? Let's not forget The M$M has its own agenda, and at this point it seems to be making sure that Hillary or McCain is the next president.

[Lasher]

19. Other recent polls tell a little different story

RCP average shows McCain beating Hillary by 4.0%. Obama would beat McCain by 0.3%. Edwards would beat him by 3.7%.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

McCain is the one who would give us the most trouble. He just jumped ahead by 4.0%. :(

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-192.html

[Tarheel_Dem]

20. So Edwards is still beating McCain?

Where are the headlines? I hate the M$M.

[Lasher]

21. The Edwards vs. McCain poll results I cited were from mid-December

I don't know of any more recent polls of such a matchup. Hit the link I provided and you'll see.

[DeepModem Mom]

22. K&R

[DaLittle Kitty]

25. Bologna and BS Totally... This is just to reinforce "beliefs" of Neophytes in the two Corporatist

Candidates, read DLC'ers! :puke:

[mdmc]

26. I think that the GOP knows it can't win in 2008

Mitt thinks he can win, Mac know that the dem will beat him, but he still wants to be the GOP nominee.
McCain has some Bush hate on his side. Perhaps he could win...

[Jack Rabbit]

27. Is anybody surprised?

Mark my words, the next president will be anointed in Denver.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

28. So what, Al Gore "won" by over half a millions votes.