« The mismeasure of China | Main | Soprentourage Blogging »

April 23, 2007

Scoreboard

By Neil the Ethical Werewolf

I'm not at the Nicholas Beaudrot level of colorfully represented political data yet, but here's my table showing Rasmussen's current head-to head polling data between top Republicans and Democrats.  Republican leads are in red; Democratic leads are in blue. Dates of polling are in parentheses.

John Edwards Hillary Clinton Barack Obama
Rudy Giuliani 49-43 (Apr 4-5) 47-48 (Apr 2-3) 43-44 (Mar 28-29)
Fred Thompson 50-36 (Apr 4-5) 43-44 (Mar 21-22) 49-37 (Mar 21-22)
John McCain 47-38 (Mar 26-27) 47-46 (Mar 26-27) 48-42 (Apr 9-10)
Mitt Romney 55-29 (Mar 26-27) 50-41 (Mar 7-8) 52-37 (Apr 9-10)
Average 50.25-36.5 46.75-44.75 48-40

Says Rasmussen: "Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards (D) now leads all Republican hopefuls in Election 2008 polls."

April 23, 2007 | Permalink

Comments

If these polls mean anything, the very closeness of the Rep vs Dem. races scares the unholy hell out of me, and makes me wonder what if anything the public has really learned out of six years of Republican control over the gears and levers of power.

My mind is more than short-circuited, it is destroyed.

Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Apr 23, 2007 3:07:05 AM

Neil, these polls are meaningless. We've seen huge week-to-week fluctuations in the primary numbers, alone, and you're posting the general election results.

Fred Thompson beats Hillary Clinton? Did the poll ask if people even knew who Fred Thompson was?

Posted by: Mikef | Apr 23, 2007 3:29:05 AM

Even more encouraging is the way that all three fundraising committees (DNC/DSCC/DCCC) outraised their GOP counterparts by a lot. MyDD breaks it down.

Given the way that Republicans usually fall behind in the polling early, only to charge ahead by blowing the Democrat out of the way with paid media, this is very good news.

Posted by: FMguru | Apr 23, 2007 4:02:56 AM

These polls are very meaningless; though, unlike Jim, I'd say there's little here that worries me. Considering that many people polled are going in very "cold" with little knowledge of candidates and positions (many people, after all, just want "not Bush"), Republicans clearly have an uphill slog - one I think is pretty much hopeless even this far out. That Romney isn't even close (and is the one with all the money), that Giuliani - Mr. Unassailable 9/11 - is in dead heats... these things bode horribly for the GOP.

Posted by: weboy | Apr 23, 2007 7:27:53 AM

FMGuru- That's completely ahistorical. But if you guys want try to rely on a monetrary advantage this year, good luck with that.

Neil- These numbers are particularly tough for Clinton, there is a not insignificant number of otherwise persuadable voters that just won't consider her.

Posted by: AJ | Apr 23, 2007 7:35:00 AM

I really don't understand why these kinds of polls get published, as they mean absolutely nothing. Now, if you polled 1) likely voters in 2) swing states, then I'd pay attention. Remember, it's all about the Electoral College, people (unfortunate as that is).

Posted by: beckya57 | Apr 23, 2007 8:07:50 AM

Well, if the purpose of this microcoverage is to make me vote for that Natural Law Party guy again, then mission accomplished.

Posted by: norbizness | Apr 23, 2007 9:44:42 AM

How can you care about which Democratic candidates are most likely to win the Presidency when we have haircuts to discuss.

Your priorities are seriously misplaced.

Posted by: Petey | Apr 23, 2007 10:37:02 AM

apparently the polls are meaningless, but the cost of hair cuts are more of a predictor.

Posted by: akaison | Apr 23, 2007 10:47:22 AM

These polls are as meaningful as the score after the first quarter of a basketball game. Sure, they don't tell you who's going to win, but they tell you who's got the early lead.

Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Apr 23, 2007 10:59:25 AM

Exactly- and if the haircutters were right- then you wouldn't expect these numbers right now.

Posted by: akaison | Apr 23, 2007 11:12:07 AM

I actually agree with the Werewolf, Edwards' strength in the general election is quite telling, especially versus Clinton and to a lesser extent Obama.

The main factors here are that Edwards is 1) white, 2) from the south, and 3) populist, while his Democratic opponents are really not those things. These combine to indicate Edwards is probably the most electable candidate of the top three primary candidates.

Posted by: Korha | Apr 23, 2007 11:16:52 AM

you forgot male

Posted by: akaison | Apr 23, 2007 11:54:57 AM

Obama is a man, but I suppose you're right.

Posted by: Korha | Apr 23, 2007 12:01:15 PM

It isn't paid media that makes big, late gains for the republican candidates, it's the MSM. Go read your Daily Howler!!

BTW, I think this polling data is interesting, but it seems to me that it really ought to be broken out for the states that are really in play, no?

Posted by: Chuck | Apr 23, 2007 1:38:09 PM

Exactly- and if the haircutters were right- then you wouldn't expect these numbers right now.

Check the dates on the polls.

Posted by: Sanpete | Apr 23, 2007 2:36:24 PM

These polls are as meaningful as the score after the first quarter of a basketball game. Sure, they don't tell you who's going to win, but they tell you who's got the early lead.

No, these polls are as meaningful as predicting the winner of the superbowl 6 months before the game.

Few voters have strong opinions on these candidates yet and we haven't seen any of them perform head to head even in their own leagues. Check back again next February and these numbers will start having some meaning.

Posted by: Mikef | Apr 23, 2007 2:44:48 PM

Mike, lots of people have strong opinions on these candidates. In fact, as far as public perceptions of Hillary are concerned, I think we're already in the second half.

Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Apr 23, 2007 2:52:42 PM

In fact, as far as public perceptions of Hillary are concerned, I think we're already in the second half.

Neil, that's 1 out of 7.

I also think you should look at what people were saying about Hillary when she first decided to run for Senator in a state she hadn't lived in. She managed to charm quite a few people who originally didn't like her, even in conservative parts of the state.

Posted by: Mikef | Apr 23, 2007 4:33:34 PM

So, the haircut thang is all about how worried the rethuglickans are.

Posted by: SBGypsy | Apr 23, 2007 6:19:41 PM

Neil - I think your assessment of Mrs. Clinton, and her negatives, is somewhat off; we shall see, in the long run. But if anything, I think her numbers here are the most realistic for what an actual Democrat would face - a cakewalk vis-a-vis Romney, a tougher time against McCain or Giuliani. Both of those are guys I think Clinton can take on and beat, if it comes to that. I worry more about her against a Fred Thompson, where celebrity becomes more zero sum. I wouldn't expect the haircuts thing to make a numerical difference in this polling. I think the question there is more long term about how Edwards performs going forward.

Posted by: weboy | Apr 23, 2007 6:49:41 PM

for some really good analysis of how these numbers actually over inflate Sen Clinton's number- you should go over to Mydd.com

Posted by: akaison | Apr 23, 2007 8:18:16 PM

There are satiate a business hosting alarm
waterfront pension is capable of doing that for you.
If you are late on pledges, you village riping slapped with penalties.





Posted by: theHtbrastenD | Jun 1, 2007 2:47:15 PM

Buy Viagra
Viagra pill
Viagra Online
Viagra Soft Tabs
Cheap Viagra
BUY CIALIS
Paxil Online
Buy Viagra
Viagra pill
Viagra Online
Viagra Soft Tabs
Cheap Viagra
BUY CIALIS
Paxil Online

Posted by: ifojenvnhryuiyfbe | Jun 28, 2007 12:00:00 AM

I haven't gotten much done , but it's not important. Not much on my mind lately. Today was a total loss, but so it goes.

Posted by: the best cigar humidor | Aug 8, 2007 6:09:52 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.