« How Low They've Sunk | Main | If you aren't reading Michael Klare, you should be »
September 24, 2006
Iowa Poll: More Reasons To Pick Edwards
There's some interesting new 2008 presidential polling today. All the data comes from a sample of Iowa voters, so take it with a grain of whatever seasoning you like on corn.
The pollsters took 4 Democratic candidates (Hillary, Edwards, Vilsack, and Kerry) and 4 Republican candidates (Giuliani, McCain, Frist, and Romney), and asked voters who they would choose in each of the 16 possible head-to-head matchups. Unsurprisingly, Giuliani came out as the most electable Republican candidate, beating Edwards by 8 and beating all the other Democrats by 13 or more. McCain was next -- he leads Edwards by a mere 1% margin, and no other Democrat is anywhere close. Kerry falls to McCain by 14, Vilsack by 15, and Hillary by 17. Overall, Edwards is easily the best Democratic candidate against all Republicans, beating Romney and Frist by double-digit margins. The other Democrats have single-digit leads at best. Hillary loses to everybody.
They also asked people which candidates they had favorable impressions of. This is one of the rare polls where any Democrat has a higher net favorability rating than Edwards, but here it's just a matter of home-field advantage -- Iowa Governor Vilsack's favorable-unfavorables run at 63-35, while Edwards runs at 54-30. Edwards does top all Democrats in the "Very Favorable" category, with 22% of all voters professing intense Johnny love. Favorability numbers were collected for lesser-known candidates too -- Feingold stands at 19-14, Bayh at 17-11, and Warner at 15-7.
On the Republican side, Giuliani is destroying everybody at 71-18. McCain sits pretty at 59-24. But not that pretty -- his 59% are divided between 14% with "Very Favorable" impressions and a whopping 45% with "Mostly Favorable" impressions.
If you want to see the raw results yourself, they're tucked away at the bottom left of the page under a lot of other stuff.
September 24, 2006 | Permalink
Comments
I see this as presenting some interesting challenges for the Republicans. I believe that Giuliani has no chance at all to get the nomination, none at all. The Christian Right will or already does loathe him for his heterodoxy on abortion, gay rights, divorce, and for going on SNL in drag. It won't help that he's a papist and in league with the antichrist.
But Giuliani's popularity with the rest of the Republican primary voters should get some really excellent sub-rosa campaigning going. The South Carolina campaign should be a riot if there hasn't been a clear winner yet.
Posted by: NBarnes | Sep 24, 2006 4:44:49 PM
Direct link to the numbers....
Posted by: Petey | Sep 24, 2006 4:53:05 PM
Of course, since Guliani is not a Senator and does not have to vote on the Torture Bill, the question arises whether McCain's support for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" tacit support for torture is a positive or a negative in the Republican primary.
Posted by: BruceMcF | Sep 24, 2006 5:12:42 PM
please...PLEASE pick Edwards.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Sep 24, 2006 5:47:18 PM
Fred, just out of curiousity, which Democrat concerns you the most (in terms of his or her chances of winning, not how they'd govern)?
Posted by: djw | Sep 24, 2006 6:00:03 PM
I endorse the Edwards/Clinton ticket. Al Gore for Secretary of Energy, Rangel for Drug Czar (he got the escalation in crack penalties over 'whitie' coke), William Jefferson Clinton for Secretary for Labor, Gore Vidal for Sec. Defense (perhaps he and Al can have the same story about meeting each other for once), Noam Chomsky for Sec. Education and Bernadine VanDorne for Sec. Homeland Security.
Posted by: Guy Montag | Sep 24, 2006 6:01:07 PM
Shorter Montag: There's not a Democrat other than Zell Miller, or maybe Joe Lieberman that I won't happily smear.
Posted by: paperwight | Sep 24, 2006 6:07:22 PM
"please...PLEASE pick Edwards."
Fred, please...PLEASE attack Edwards.
Posted by: Petey | Sep 24, 2006 6:19:26 PM
Sometimes I enjoy our trolls.
A big part of Fred's MO is making whatever comments will be the most annoying to the political views of posters on this blog. On the spot, he couldn't really come up with anything substantive that was sufficiently annoying. So he decided to fake the reverse psychology. (Sounds like some kind of trick play in football.)
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Sep 24, 2006 6:25:07 PM
Hillary, Edwards, Vilsack, and Kerry
Why these four? Neither Vilsack nor Kerry strike me as prime frontrunner/backup-candidate material. I'd pick Clark, Feingold, or Warner as potential "Anybody But X" alternatives before Vilsack (who?) or Kerry (still cursed by '04). And if Gore runs, all of these people are toast.
Posted by: Christmas | Sep 24, 2006 6:27:13 PM
Well, Hillary's the automatic front-runner, and the poll is going on in Iowa. I don't know about Kerry, but he at least has enough name recognition to make the poll interesting. Feingold and Warner have really low name recognition in Iowa, if those favorability numbers are right. They didn't ask about Clark.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Sep 24, 2006 6:29:31 PM
Guiliani's stronger than you think.
Two little words -- Amadou Diallo -- and a lot of Republicans will overlook Guiliani's heterodoxy on social issues.
He's not famous in the heartland for 9/11, he's famous in the heartland for making New York safe for White People again, and his willingness to shred the Constitution to do it.
He has a proven record of keeping Those People in their place. This, and not religion, or 'security', or even taxes, is the core mission of any Republican candidate.
47 shots, baby.
Posted by: Davis X. Machina | Sep 24, 2006 6:43:23 PM
Bernie Kerik and he wouldn't win his home state make Giuliani a bit less formidable.
The Democrats in the Senate could assure a DOA McCain candidacy if they would just quit letting him use them to provide cover while he kisses up to the far right.
Posted by: Stephen | Sep 24, 2006 6:56:59 PM
Davis, I think you'll find that a great many Democrats and liberals supported Giuliani's anti-crime policies. You may hate him and those who would support him, but you probably didn't live or work in the high crime areas of NY before he came on the scene. Diallo will only be an issue for the most desperate opponents, not supporters of Giuliani.
Having said that, putting aside your smears on him and the voters, you have a good point that his record in NY may go some way to making up for his moderate views on social issues with conservatives, but I doubt it will be enough to win the nomination. He'll be portrayed as the liberal in the Republican field.
Posted by: Sanpete | Sep 24, 2006 7:12:32 PM
Giuliani really is fascinating. I have no idea how someone who doesn't make common cause with the forced pregnancy movement could possibly win the nomination. Diallo doesn't matter - it's Alito/Roberts on the Court or nothing with a huge percentage of primary voters. But polls like this make me wonder just how pragmatic Republicans can be. (On the other hand, I don't see Giuliani as a particularly good politician once he's on the trail, and he could easily self-destruct anyway.)
Posted by: DivGuy | Sep 24, 2006 7:23:28 PM
Well, Hillary's the automatic front-runner, and the poll is going on in Iowa. I don't know about Kerry, but he at least has enough name recognition to make the poll interesting. Feingold and Warner have really low name recognition in Iowa, if those favorability numbers are right. They didn't ask about Clark.
I understand why they asked about Hillary, Edwards, Kerry, and Vilsack. My point was that Kerry and Vilsack, despite whatever name recognition they've got right now, are not going to hold up as major vote-getters a year and a half from now. This campaign isn't even fetal, and drawing conclusions from poll numbers at a point when name recognition will dominate all else is silly. As I've noted before, Joe Lieberman was polling pretty well back in 2002.
As for Giuliani: does anyone seriously think he stands a chance of getting the GOP nomination once Christian conservatives start circulating that photo of him wearing a dress?
Posted by: Christmas | Sep 24, 2006 7:28:06 PM
"I don't see Giuliani as a particularly good politician once he's on the trail, and he could easily self-destruct anyway."
Yup. I don't think he's disciplined enough to survive a national campaign. At the end of the day, I don't think he'll actually run.
"Giuliani really is fascinating. I have no idea how someone who doesn't make common cause with the forced pregnancy movement could possibly win the nomination."
I think most folks on our side don't have any clue how much 'fighting the Turk' has become the organizing principle of the right over the past 5 years.
If you watch C-SPAN, you'll notice that the young conservative congressmen don't regularly end their speeches by saying "We must repeal Roe v Wade". Instead they regularly end their speeches by saying "We will never forget 9/11".
Giuliani, by historical accident, is in a position of possibly being able to claim the mantle as Chief Crusader, which could make him acceptable to folks on the right despite his other heresies.
Add in the possibility that he could possibly assume the role of The Only One Who Can Stop McCain, and while I wouldn't call his nomination likely, it's not as impossible as some seem to assume.
If he does get the nomination, it will be because of the far right, not despite the far right.
Posted by: Petey | Sep 24, 2006 7:50:36 PM
If he does get the nomination, it will be because of the far right, not despite the far right.
Yeah, because the Republican Fundie base will really turn out for a guy known to wear drag, associate on an intimate (by which I don't mean sexual) basis with homosexuals, and who installed his mistress in the official residence before he was divorced from his wife.
Speaking of "fighting the Turk", how does Edwards' social justice agenda play there? Just curious.
Posted by: paperwight | Sep 24, 2006 7:54:38 PM
The name recognition point is important, which is why I like to sort these kind of polls based on net favorability ... ranking based on "highly favorable" is heavily dominated by name recognition.
The main poll, of course, is not a Presidential race, but a "feelings toward national politicians" ... but of course the Des Moines Register is smart enough to provide the silly head to head match up to improve the commercial value of publishing the results of the poll.
On the Republican side, the net favorability ranking (number in parentheses is percent stating a view, * means featured in match-ups):
Guliani* +53% (89%)
McCain* +35% (83%)
Condi +31% (95%)
Pataki +18% (52%)
Huckabee +5% (23%)
Romney* -1% (31%)
Brownback -3% (19%)
Bush -6% (98%)
Frist* -10% (58%)
On the Democratic side:
Vilsack* +27% (97%)
Edwards* +24% (84%)
Lieberman +10% (78%)
Warner +8% (22%)
Bayh +6% (28%)
Kerry* +5% (89%)
Feingold +5% (33%)
Biden +4% (52%)
Clinton* -6% (92%)
Posted by: BruceMcF | Sep 24, 2006 7:56:16 PM
When it comes to Guliani, papism and feather boas don't hold a candle to the massive, pterydactly-sized albatross around his neck: HE'S PRO-CHOICE!!!!!!!! I would bet dollars to pesos that most of the Republican voters who hear Guliani's name think one thing: 9-11!! They don't know his position on anything. As soon as Guliani's position on abortion becomes common knowledge among primary voters, he is finished. Abortion is a non-negotiable issue for presidential candidates of both parties. It's a waste of time even talking about it.
And I'm starting to think Gore is going to get the nomination for the simple fact that it will be incredibly easy for him to do so. If, come November of 2007, the situation stands thusly: Hillary has bought herself twenty to twenty five percent support, with the ten or eleven other candidates with a few points each and the vast majority of primary voters agreeing that they hate Hillary but unable to decide on an alternative, Gore will be able to secure the nomination without raising or spending a dime on a campaign. He just has to go on Larry King and announce his candidacy. The next day, a huge chunk of voters, from lefties who hate Clinton's centrism and are probably supporting Feingold to centrists who like Hillary's positions but don't think she's electable and are probably supporting Warner, all stampede to the Gore banner and he can spend the entire schedule on vacation while he rolls to victory.
Posted by: Matthew Christman | Sep 24, 2006 7:56:58 PM
I agree that Edwards could be a formidable candidate, but I think polls at this point are really just contests of name recognition.
Posted by: Unstable Isotope | Sep 24, 2006 7:59:09 PM
"Two little words -- Amadou Diallo -- and a lot of Republicans will overlook Guiliani's heterodoxy on social issues."
This above is paranoid nonsense. Petey calls it correctly above on Giuliani.
Posted by: RobMoore | Sep 24, 2006 8:54:39 PM
Word to what Stephen said about Bernie Kerik. Giuliani may just be able to wave the bloody 9/11 shirt and get past the fundies, but remember that he came up in the same machine as Bernie Kerik, who was just as sainted after 9/11, and that guy turned out to have more dirt on him than even Fox News could overlook. The graft, backscratching, and philandering that's tolerated as the price of doing business in big city politics will sink you on the national stage. Once Rudy's primary opponents and the start digging into the NYC days he's toast.
Posted by: Justin K. | Sep 24, 2006 8:56:42 PM
Also, it must be repeated over and over again for those who don't know.....polling this far out is totally meaningless. Yes, Lieberman was "looking strong" in polls at this time in 2002.
What matters is how good these people are out on the trail and on the stump. That's why a stiff will go nowhere, and a candidate with talent will rise from nowhere. Nobody knew who Edwards was in 2000, yet look at his stature now. Nobody knew who Bill Clinton was other than wonks in 1990. Nobody knows who Mark Warner is now.
Posted by: RobMoore | Sep 24, 2006 9:00:55 PM
Also, it must be repeated over and over again for those who don't know.....polling this far out is totally meaningless. Yes, Lieberman was "looking strong" in polls at this time in 2002.
I think the Edwards numbers are different, though. The people of Iowa already know Edwards, and they love him.
Other numbers are unfixed and could easily go in any direction - who knows, maybe Warner will get popular, and we all know that most of the electorate will avoid Feingold. Even McCain and Hillary are somewhat untested and their numbers should be taken skeptically.
But Edwards' numbers reflect a real thing - that to know John Edwards is to love John Edwards. He's running strong after having run in Iowa, and he's running strong after being slimed by the GOP in a national election.
I agree we should be very careful about comparing numbers between candidates in very different circumstances. But John Edwards' numbers are pretty freakin' great, and they are solid evidence of his strength as a candidate.
Posted by: DivGuy | Sep 24, 2006 9:07:29 PM
"polling this far out is totally meaningless ... What matters is how good these people are out on the trail and on the stump. That's why a stiff will go nowhere, and a candidate with talent will rise from nowhere. Nobody knew who Edwards was in 2000, yet look at his stature now. Nobody knew who Bill Clinton was other than wonks in 1990. Nobody knows who Mark Warner is now."
As DivGuy notes, Edwards has recently been closely observed by Iowans. So there is some meaningful information in his numbers.
But you are entirely correct that the numbers are meaningless for candidates without previous Iowa exposure. Asking Iowans about their perceptions of Mark Warner or Bill Richardson will not provide any meaningful information other than the level of name recognition.
Posted by: Petey | Sep 24, 2006 9:30:31 PM
sorry to be redundant....
must put the energy out in the universe...
"Al Gore, please save this sinking ship.
the country/world desperately needs you."
Posted by: jacqueline | Sep 24, 2006 9:59:40 PM
DivGuy,
Also, it must be repeated over and over again for those who don't know.....polling this far out is totally meaningless. Yes, Lieberman was "looking strong" in polls at this time in 2002.
You have the only serious and correct comment in this thread.
I still want Ewards/Clinton to name Gore Secretary of Energy, or lack there of.
Posted by: Guy Montag | Sep 24, 2006 10:15:17 PM
Petey makes a good point on Giuliani (in re his 9/11 connection), but it still doesn't have me convinced. If McCain's deviances are enough to cost him the nomination, there's no way Giuliani's heresies will fly - at least at the top of the ticket. I might be able to see Giuliani getting picked as a running mate, simply to make someone like Romney look more palatable in the general... but I don't think the GOP's changed enough that its interest groups are willing to put aside their tribal demands (gay marriage bans, anti-abortion judges) to swallow a Rudy presidency.
Posted by: Christmas | Sep 24, 2006 11:02:32 PM
Two words: Al Gore.
And only two words.
Posted by: space | Sep 24, 2006 11:09:46 PM
Dobson and Falwell have specifically ruled out Giuliani and Pataki. See the coverage of their "Values Voter Summit".
Posted by: J Bean | Sep 24, 2006 11:13:50 PM
I have my own take on this poll. I am glad to see that Neil and I agree.
Posted by: coturnix | Sep 24, 2006 11:58:54 PM
"If McCain's deviances are enough to cost him the nomination, there's no way Giuliani's heresies will fly"
There are already a bunch of far right types on record as saying nice things about Giuliani, with a thinly veiled anti-McCain subtext.
Giuliani does indeed have some serious heresies, but McCain is truly satan in certain far right circles. If those folks see Giuliani as the only way to stop McCain at the end of the day, we'll witness strange bedfellows.
Posted by: Petey | Sep 25, 2006 12:13:23 AM
It's the old partisanship vs. ideology thing -- McCain is more ideologically conservative, while Giuliani is more partisan.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Sep 25, 2006 12:20:17 AM
Posted by: Matthew Christman | Sep 24, 2006 4:56:58 PM And I'm starting to think Gore is going to get the nomination for the simple fact that it will be incredibly easy for him to do so. If, come November of 2007, the situation stands thusly: Hillary has bought herself twenty to twenty five percent support, with the ten or eleven other candidates with a few points each ...
That would be the scenario for a Gore nomination ... but on the other hand, that scenario might be the likeliest to occur. Edwards is at present the clear number two in the "invisible" primary. If the predictable "anybody by Hillary" crowd that will emerge[*] then says, "well, Edwards is the obvious next choice, is he good enough?" ... many of them will say, "Yeah, he's good enough". It's perfectly possible that by November there will be two candidates in the big double digits and a crowd behind waiting to do a Steven Bradbury[**].
And more than that ... it is quite possible that Al Gore likes being an issue campaign more than being a candidate. In that case, he is playing "will he or won't he" in part to maintain his pulling power to campaign for his issue, and in part to dangle the possibility of his support out there for someone willing to embrace his issue. In that case, look to his NYU Speech[***] to see what the political cost of that support would be. You will see, if this is the game he is playing, he sure as heck aint putting a low asking price out on his support!
Notes
[* this is not a slam on Hillary ... I have seen 'anybody but the front runner' crowds emerge since I started watching primary campaigns in 1976, before I was old enough to vote.]
[** Steven Bradbury was the Ozzie speed skater who was lucky to get into an Olympic speed skating final, and then won the gold by skating in the back and being out of the way when the other skaters got tangled up.]
[*** Disclaimer: I've diaried the NYU speech, but this comment only requires reading the speech itself.]
Posted by: BruceMcF | Sep 25, 2006 2:36:27 AM
Neil, I think you're a poll junkie, you need to limit your exposure for your health's sake.
As a rule of thumb, I'd advise you to ignore any poll that shows Giuliani "destroying everybody". There's a reason he decided not to challenge Hillary in 2000 (when Republicans were begging him to run). Nationally, he'll flame out early, if he runs at all. McCain also has no chance. He's a media hero, but the Republicans hate him. We saw how quickly their claws came out last week, when he was undercutting Bush on torture. Check his numbers again on November 8th. Frist shouldn't even be on the list.
Of the 4 listed, Romney's your only real competition and he's a serious threat. An intelligent, thoughtful, moderate-seeming Republican who can appeal to those desperate for a 'bipartisan' candidate, but is fundamentally a religious social conservative.
As for the Democrats, I'm not a Hillary fan, but if you think her numbers are going to stay that low, you're in for a big shock. She ran quite well in conservative parts of New York state in 2000 and has the money, celebrity and the political strength to control the debate. Quite a few women would be happy to finally have a woman candidate to vote for next round as well.
Posted by: Mike | Sep 25, 2006 2:44:53 AM
What about Huckabee? I keep seeing bits of "I Heart Huckabees" on HBO.
I see that when the Republicans are sorted by name recognition (loosely measured as 100%- "not sure"), the four Republicans in the head to head are the top four in name recognition when you screen out Bush, Condi, and Pataki. And the results are certainly something to encourage a Republican without that strong name recognition in Iowa to get out there in 2007 and build his profile.
Posted by: BruceMcF | Sep 25, 2006 3:03:23 AM
"to know John Edwards is to love John Edwards."
I guess that is why he was able to carry NC for Kerry. Oops.
Posted by: BlaBlaBla | Sep 25, 2006 8:48:39 AM
My opinion on these things is two-fold: such polls are entirely without merit AND they are very good predictors.
Namely, at this point in the stage the game is all about name recognition. Most people have favorable impressions of any politician in their party, so it's mostly about who they know and has been in the news a lot. Giuliani, McCain, Clinton, and Edwards all share huge advantages there. It's hardly about what policies they really like best.
However, a massive name recognition advantage, no matter how unfair, is what is really important in primaries. Bush took the early lead in 2000 republican race (1999 really) simply because of his father's name, and that allowed the party wisemen to coalesce around him, giving him a massive monetary advantage too. I see the same thing about Edwards and Hillary really.
I agree Giuliani doesn't stand a chance, and would advise more attention to Huckabee and Romney. I wouldn't count Allen out just yet. And my thoughts on McCain require a longer format.
Posted by: Tony v | Sep 25, 2006 9:34:58 AM
And sadly, I think BlaBlaBla has a slight point. There's something more to identity politics than simply being a token member. I'm not entirely sure what it is, but that Building Red America book seems pretty on the ball.
Posted by: Tony v | Sep 25, 2006 9:38:39 AM
Wow Clinton loses to everybody!! But why the hell is she the front runner? Who are these people making her such a big deal?
Posted by: Ethan Sommer | Sep 25, 2006 10:51:06 AM
and....
for Ambassador to the United Nations...
Matt Harding, the dancing fellow...
and their convocations at each meeting should be..
a dance of joy to
Sweet Lullaby by Deep Forest.
.............there is still a shining path.
Posted by: jacqueline | Sep 25, 2006 10:57:27 AM
"I guess that is why he was able to carry NC for Kerry. Oops.
Kerry's campaign managers wrote off NC, so they made Edwards go North and to the Midwest to campaign. Strategic and tactical mistake as they underestimated Edwards' campaigning skills, or they underestimated Kerry's, take your pick.
Edwards is pretty popular in NC and SC, as well as Iowa. Edwards also has an asset that the others don't have: Elizabeth Edwards.
Posted by: Benny | Sep 25, 2006 11:13:38 AM
Posted by: Tony v | Sep 25, 2006 6:38:39 AM And sadly, I think BlaBlaBla has a slight point. There's something more to identity politics than simply being a token member. I'm not entirely sure what it is, but that Building Red America book seems pretty on the ball.
But there is also more to identity politics than having the identity ... say, hypothetically, that a long-winded New England liberal (LWNEL) nominee has chosen a charismatic Southern (CS) politician to balance the ticket. Its just a hypothetical move if you buy into the "solid Red south" and simply abandon the whole region, as the Republicans used to do when I was little.
Sure, exit polls may say that the CS politician would have carried his home state if he was at the top of the ticket, but the LWNEL nominee does not get the benefit of that if the CS politician is not out there selling the top of the ticket and unspinning the radical right spin.
Posted by: BruceMcF | Sep 25, 2006 12:45:12 PM
Huckabee has raised taxes and the club for growth hates him.
And two more words re: Al Gore as a Presidential candidate: Never Again.
Please. Oh, sorry, that's 3 words. The guy is brilliant, a hero to those who care about the environment. But he is atrocious at electoral politics.
Posted by: RobMoore | Sep 25, 2006 1:30:30 PM
A couple of points:
The June and September Iowa Polls do reflect more than name recognition for some of the candidates -- in particular, Clinton, Edwards, Kerry and Vilsack are by now well-known quantities by Iowa voters and especially by Iowa Democrats likely to show up in January 2008.
Of those four, Edwards clearly is in the most advantageous position, given 1) his overall level of Democratic support (30% vs. 26% for Hillary, 12% for Vilsack, 10% for Kerry), 2) his favorability numbers (he's far ahead of Vilsack among Democrats, and tied with him among all likely Iowa voters who have formed an opinion) and 3) his superior performance against top Republican candidates (he's essentially tied with McCain, and more polls of that head-to-head matchup in Iowa will raise eyebrows as the caucuses get closer).
Lesser-known candidates can still claim that once Iowans get to know them, they'll love them, but there's a significant hurdle built into that equation. In a crowded field, just getting a sufficient level of name recognition will be much easier said than done.
Posted by: MeanBoneII | Sep 25, 2006 3:35:15 PM
Edwards' favorables are so high mainly because he's someone religious conservatives can respect. He's never had a bimbo eruption, he's a good family man, and he's endured personal tragedy with class. He also had a good upbringing and is a self-made success.
While conservatives will certainly disagree with him and do all they can to beat him, I think that he will in the end be a much more uniting President, should he win, than the last two officeholders. There's just not anything there to viscerally hate. When I read right-wing sites commenting on him, all they really have to say is that "He's a trial lawyer." Unlike Kerry or the Clintons, who get rather strong negative reactions on the right.
Posted by: Adam Herman | Sep 27, 2006 3:45:52 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
