Polls seem somehow to be remarkably accurate measurements of somethings, but it is often unclear of exactly what is being measured. A poll of 1000 residents of the United States asking who they think they will vote for in November, 2008 (more then a year away) obviously (to me at least) does not really reflect how the 2008 election will turn out.
Even a poll of 500 residents of Iowa taken in September 2007 doesn't really reflect how many of them will actually turn out to participate in the caucuses four months later, nor can it reflect what issues will be on their minds in four months when they will eventually decide for real, or who they will vote for if they do participate
With polls about an election a year away, obviously there are so many variables that will change and effect peoples perspective on the issues and the candidates. Polling potential caucus and or primary participants (in which generally less then 10 percent of those eligible will actually participate) is very speculative since you have to make guesses about which 10 percent of those eligible will actually participate. None the less polls do measure something and the real science is trying to understand what is really being measured and what real information can be learned from the available polls.
One reality seems to be that significantly more Americans currently have an unfavorable opinion about Hillary Clinton then they do about John Edwards. To deny that reality is simply delusion or dishonest. I have seen no arguments to suggest that the
Rasmussen Polling on this point is not accurate. It doesn't really matter whether those opinions are fair or unfair, earned or unearned. Hillary Clinton consistently has dramatically high unfavorables no matter how it is measured. In fact, since the latest Rasmussen polling report contains the additional nugget that Hillary actually has higher favorables and lower unfavorables then Edwards among Democrats I think the gap between Edwards and Clinton among Republicans must be even higher then the 11 point gap that I described here
It might be possible to argue that Edwards' unfavorables among Republicans are bound to get higher once they realize just how radical his positions really are, but on the other hand he has already been subjected to a rather brusing series of personal attacks based on the price of his haircuts (does anyone think that Hillary really spends less on her hairdresser) and on his investments in hedge funds (again we have heard very little about the Clinton's investments in Indian companies that have benefited from outsourced American industry). It is also just as likely that during a campaign Edwards favorabilities among Democrats will go up dramatically if he becomes the nominee.
All of that is speculative about what their favorable/unfavorables will look like if either of them is the nominee a year from now but what I am wondering about right now is the reason why and more imporantly the significance of whast is real. The reality is that right now Hillary Clinton has signficantly higher unfavorables among non Democrats then John Edwards does. Hillary tries to claim as a badge of honor that it is just the scars of all of the unfair attacks she has suffered during her last 15 years on the National Stage. That may be partially true but still scars are scars and those scars are not going away. I have heard many Hillary supporters (primarily young women) argue that her unfavorability is the result of sexist double standards that she is seen as cold and calculating while a man in the same situation would merely be ambitious and driven. But that double standard is not going to change in the next year either. But there is another factor that simply can not be dismissed.
John Edwards has a certain very specific southern charm that led him to be one of the most successful trial lawyers in the country before he went into politics. Juries apparently loved Edwards and tended to give him and his clients whatever he asked for. Hillary was a "corporate" lawyer in Arkansas before her husband was elected President and never had the gift for convincing juries or regular people to like her. That's just reality.
Edwards got elected Senator in 1998 as a Democrat in North Carolina(by a margin of 52-47) in a state where Bill Clinton had received less then 44 percent of the vote in 1996 and less then 43 percent in 1992 defeating an incumbent who thought he could turn the Republican Base against Edwards by using the dreaded "trial lawyer" label. The reality was that average voters in North Carolina liked Edwards and eventually trusted him the same way juries liked and trusted him. Edwards brings those same skills into town meetings in Iowa and New Hampshire and will eventually if nominated bring them to the National Debates.
Hillary Clinton was elected Senator as a Democrat in New York by a margin of 55-43 percent over a previously unknown state senator running at the same time that Al Gore was defeating George Bush in New York by a margin of 60-35. Hillary was re-elected in 2006 by a larger margin (67-31) in an election in which she ran against a totally unknown Yonkers mayor and was able to outspend her opponent by a margin of approximately 36 million to 5 million. It should be noted that in the same election cycle New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzer was elected Governor by an even larger margin then Clintons (69-29).
This has nothing to do with the fact that I think John Edwards will be a much (much) better President then Hillary Clinton, or that I so much prefer Edwards' position on every issue to Hillary's positions. It goes to the fact that John Edwards is a better politician then Hillary Clinton, that he is simply a much more likeable person (for what ever reason people are likeable or not) and he has a much better knack at appealing to regular Americans and making them think he is similar to them.
We don't know who the Republican nominee will be in 2008. We don't know for sure what the public's attiudes will be about the Iraq war and the state of the Economy and the Housing Market but no matter what, Edwards will get more votes (popular and electoral) as the nominee then Hillary Clinton would and it is time to stop pretending otherwise. Most importantly, he will be much stronger then Hillary as the nominee in most of the states that the Democrats lost in 2000 and 2004 and assuming that any Democrat will win the same states that Kerry won, being able to win some of the ones Kerry lost is the margin of victory.
Democrats in Iowa are going to be the first to consider the significance of this fact and it is inconceivable that any Democrats who currently support Edwards will switch to Clinton because they want the less electable candidate. The only question will be how many Democrats currently identified as supporting Hillary will switch to Edwards in the last weeks over this issue. Edwards will win Iowa by a larger margin then the polls suggest because of this factor.
That will then exacerbate the same factor in New Hampshire where even more Hillary supporters will jump away from her over her perceived (or identified) unelectability. If Edwards beats Hillary in both Iowa and New Hampshire (as I expect) the snowball will become an avalanche on February 5, 2008.