I'll start with two links. The first is from my blog...
General Election Polling Review
Note: Please ignore the date at the top of the post. That is the date of the last time I moved the information to a new post, not the last time I updated the polling. All polling is current.
At the GE Polling Review there are links to numerous analysts discusssing why Senator Edwards is the most electable Democrat. But there is one that I wanted to highlight for everybody. This is from a numbers theorist who...(gasp)actually looked at the totality of polling...
Analyst Reveals John Edwards, not Hillary Clinton, as Most Electable Democrat
In case you haven't seen them yet, here are the Rasmussen numbers for Novemebr so far.
Rasmussen - National: November 2007 (so far)
Favorable / Unfavorable
Hillary Clinton - 47/50 - 45/52 - 46/52
Barack Obama - 48/47 - 45/50 - 44/50
John Edwards - 46/47 - 46/45 - 47/46
Ideology
% of voters view candidates as - Conservative / Moderate / Liberal
Hillary Clinton - 9 / 31 / 51
Barack Obama - 6 / 33 / 44
John Edwards - 13 / 30 / 38
Note: Match-Ups Listed In Order Of Release. Some Match - Ups Are Updated More Frequently Than Others. John Edwards has not faced Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson yet, while Hillary Clinton has faced them both twice.
Vs. Mitt Romney
Edwards - 50%
Romney - 34%
Clinton - 47%
Romney - 42%
Obama - 46%
Romney - 40%
Edwards leads by 16%, Clinton leads by 5%, Obama leads by 6%
Vs. Fred Thompson
Clinton - 48%
Thompson - 42%
Obama - 47%
Thompson - 42%
Clinton - 46%
Thompson - 44%
Clinton leads by 6%, Obama leads by 5%, Clinton leads by 2%
Vs. Rudy Giuliani
Clinton - 48%
Giuliani - 42%
Obama - 43%
Giuliani - 41%
Clinton - 42%
Giuliani - 46%
Clinton leads by 6%, Obama leads by 2%, Clinton trails by 4%
Vs. John McCain
Edwards - 47%
McCain - 38%
Clinton - 45%
McCain - 47%
Obama - 46%
McCain - 43%
Edwards leads by 9%, Clinton trails by 2%, Obama leads by 3%
Links To Verify - In Order Of Release
Edwards vs. Romney, McCain
Clinton vs. Thompson, Giuliani
Clinton vs. Romney, McCain
Obama vs. Thompson, Giuliani
Obama vs. Romney, McCain
Clinton vs. Thompson, Giuliani (2)
Democratic Candidates - Stats
Hey, you! Yeah, you. Skipping through the diary so you can start spinning in the comments section. You should read this part.
There are supporters of Senator Clinton that really don’t like hearing about electability. Considering who they are supporting, I don’t blame them. But with all that is on the line in this election, they are just going to have to get over it. Not wanting to admit that your candidate is our worst chance to take back the White House is understandable, but their constant attempts to muddy the waters have become extremely annoying. The non-stop spin crossed the line to ridiculous a long time ago. So I am going to answer all of your spin ahead of time, instead of setting you straight in the comments section.
And that it is why it is time for...SPIN CONTROL
I'll address your claims about Senator Clinton's elecatbility. First the non polling-related arguments, and then the polling itself.
I know that some of you will claim that "she knows how to beat Republicans". Let’s be clear, regardless of the reasons for the negative feelings about her, President Clinton won two elections DESPITE Senator Clinton, not BECAUSE OF her. As far as New York in 2006 goes, come on. She was up against a weak challenger with no chance, competing for a safe seat in a solid blue state. That is not at all comparable to what she would face as the nominee in 2008.
And since the gloves are off, and I never really felt this should be ignored in the first place, nominating Senator Clinton has huge pitfalls that should be discussed.
I guess the best way to start this is to ask a very simple question regarding her ties to every kind of entrenched interest in DC...
Do we really want to make the "culture of corruption" a bi-partisan issue?
The right-wing would exaggerate stories about the Lincoln Bedroom, but the truth is that they didn't have to fabricate them.
I think that we can all agree that the Clinton’s personal life is none of anyone’s business. None of us care, and none of us should. Personally, I think that they deal with struggles that many couples face; only their dirty laundry is aired publicly. It's enough to make any progressive angry, and I can understand the instinct that some people have to protect the Clintons above all else. I think they need to be reminded that our party is based on advancing legislation that represents our core values, not advancing the political career of one of the Clintons.
With that said, the other shoe is going to drop. If she is the nominee, the right-wing will unleash whatever they are sitting on, which will really hurt Senator Clinton with the portion of the electorate that are going to decide the general election.
There was a recent article in the Washington Post about how the GOP would use former President Clinton’s private life and attempt to "bury her through Bill". The article was about an interview with a prominent private investigator who works for Larry Flynt. His job is to find dirt on social conservatives, apparently as a payback for the ridiculous Clinton impeachment. Even books that praise the Clintons' political ability, like The Way To Win, bring up this uncomfortable topic.
I might as well just say it. I think that it is reasonable for people, even those who are very sympathetic to the Clintons on this issue, to come to the conclusion that there are most likely more incidents where the past ones came from. And even if some how those involved remained quiet, do we really think that the right-wing would be afraid to sink so low as to fabricate a relationship?
Here’s why this matters. How could the former President defend himself? I don’t like this, but this is the political reality we face. What is he going to say? "I’ve admitted that I lied twice before when I denied relationships, but this time I’m telling the truth." That isn’t a very effective argument. Even those who would consider the allegations annoying would suffer from the "Not this crap again" effect.
Something of a private nature, or anything else scandalous, would make the election about the Clintons, and allow the Republican nominee to assume the role of the change agent. Is this fair? Of course not, but that doesn’t mean it should be ignored.
Nominating Senator Clinton’s would mobilize the right-wing like nothing we have ever seen before. Jerry Fartwell (calling him that is my personal tribute to Larry Flynt)should be ignored 99.9% of the time. But when he said that Senator Clinton would mobilize his base more than Lucifer we should listen. Not because it matters what people on Planet Wingnut think, but because mobilizing thier base while depressing ours is a prescription for electoral defeat.
And yes, she would demoralize our side. We’ve already seen her in "general election mode", and it isn’t pretty. People are tired of holding their nose while they vote. I would vote for Senator Clinton in a general election (unless somehow there was a more progressive option that had as good of a chance of winning as Clinton, which would never happen), but I would have to hold my nose to do it. Disagree with this sentiment or not, I am not the only one who feels this way.
When are we going to learn that people want to vote their values? They want their vote to be a statement about what they believe in. Voting for a third party to spite the Democratic establishment doesn’t make sense to me. But for a lot of people, it would feel good, and they could easily get caught up in the moment. A significant portion of the base is so tired of being taken for granted that they could very well see this as their chance to send a message.
Senator Clinton would have a very hard time holding the base together. Senator Edwards and Senator Obama would have no such problem.
Ralph Nader could turn out to be the least of our problems. In full blown general election mode, who knows what kind of stunts the Clinton campaign would pull. Someone a lot more politically gifted than Ralph Nader could challenge her from her left. A more viable progressive independent would be able to rally enough support to shave at least a couple points off of Senator Clinton’s total. I don’t agree with doing that, but we can’t ignore that others will. And considering all of these pitfalls, she is going to have little or no room for error, if she has a chance at all.
I've heard Mark Penn talk about how a considerable amount of Republican woman would be open to voting for Senator Clinton in a general election. That is a great thing. A woman president is LONG overdue. In fact, the possiblity to elect a woman president is the only upside I see to a Clinton nomination. But considering all that is on the line, especially for women, I don't think it makes any sense to support her because of her gender. And one part that Penn leaves out is that she typically loses just as much, if not more, support from Democratic men than she wins from Republican women.
This election is our chance to make very clear and important contrasts between our party, and the Republicans. Nominating Senator Clinton would only blur the distinctions. I can see the damn sign now.
Billionaires for Romney...or Clinton
If you think about all of these factors, and look at the totality of polling, you'll see that it really looks like Senator Clinton most likely cannot win a general election. At the least, she is our worst general election candidate.
There is no coherent rationale for supporting her. Sorry, but it’s true. None of the reasons I’ve heard make much sense at all. She’s had 11 months to make a case for her nomination. So far, all we’ve heard from her is...
I get credit for all of the good things about the Clinton administration, but the bad things are not my fault. NAFTA? Well, it didn’t live up to its promise. No big deal though. I’ll review it every 5 years. Rob Rubin will help me with that.
I am better than President Bush. And it is a great idea to make the worst president in history, a mindless warmonger, the litmus test to be the leader of our party. I can pass that test any day!
You owe me this nomination, and it will be mine. I am inevitable. You only oppose my nomination because I am winning.
I can get away with anything, but when you call me on my record it is mudslinging. I criticized Senator Obama for his health care plan, even though in January I talked about passing UHC by the end of my second term.
(Hold on, I have to interupt "Hillary" for a second. A Second term? Holy shit, that’s a good one.)
Then I pivoted to "building a consensus" for UHC. Then, 7 months after John Edwards released his plan, I releasd a plan that was...just like his. But if you pointed this out then you are little Mr. Mudslinger.
Look at my "record". Never mind that I defended a company that nearly fed someone a rat’s ass sandwich. Contrary to popular opinion I do give a rat’s ass...for you, to eat! Never mind that my pollster (who is also my chief policy advisor...poll driven policy? Never!) basically runs a firm that helps the scum of the earth spin themselves out of trouble. Never mind the union busting, Blackwater, the Argentine military junta, aqua dots, and dangerous Chinese toys. You people don’t understand. Mark Penn is the Merchant of Death and I am the Down-Ticket Death Virus. We work well together. Ignore my ties to every entrenched interest in DC that will do all they can to stop a progressive agenda. They give me money because they like me, that’s all. Just keep looking at that "record". Oh, and lobbyists represent regular Americans.
If you call me out for being a stand for nothing, down-ticket death virus then my supporters will claim that you are either secretly part of the VRWC, or you are an "ultra-liberal". There is no way that you could have any values-based criticism of me. There is no way that you can be concerned for our party’s identity and core values. It’s not like DLC- style triangulation has already put our party’s identity on life support, and nominating me would pull the plug. Do you want a Republican president? Do you? Huh, huh? Well, if you criticize me that is what you are going to get. Never mind that nominating me is the best thing you can to make sure that the next president is a Republican. If you criticize me, you are helping the Republicans. So says Steny Hoyer.
Thanks for dropping by "Hillary".
It all comes down to this...
Senator Clinton is a relentless defender of the status quo. That alone should disqualify her from being our nominee, especially in the ultimate change election.
Now to the polling...
I am not a polling expert. I do not claim to be. But, at least I am willing to look at everything, instead of just pretending that I am an expert. That is the difference between myself, and those whose spin I am dealing with.
It is easy to stick to your guns and defend the candidate you support. It is perfectly understandable that you would want to do that. But there is no excuse for constantly muddying the waters, even though you have either been proven wrong repeatedly, or you failed to look at information when it was presented to you.
If you want to make an honest decision then at least be willing to look at everything. It pretty much comes down to that.
Detailed responses to all of the most common spin can be found at first link.
And for the love of God, those of you who are going to freak out about this diary, get a dictionary, and look up the word "TOTALITY". I am trying to tell you to look at ALL OF THE POLLING, not just a couple of examples you like.
I am not the only one who is saying that Edwards does best in general election polling, by the way. Scott Rasmussen, former Clinton advisor Doug Schoen, ABC News, the numbers theorist mentioned above, and many others have said the exact same thing. If you actually click the link this time, you’ll see that.
Edwards usually trades the best favorable / unfavorable rating back and forth with Senator Obama. However, even when Edwards doesn’t have the best fav/unfav, he still outperforms the others in the actual match-ups.
He is also viewed as a lot less "liberal" than Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. I hate that our party allowed the Republicans to define "liberal". It infuriates me, but right now it is the political reality. We could eventually rehabilitate it, but first we need something to describe what we stand for. I think that "progressive populism" in the best option, and the candidate that embodies it is John Edwards.
The reason why I average the performances is simple. It’s just another way of looking at the numbers. Scott Rasmussen does this as well. If you want, you should just look at the match-ups individually. If you look at everything, you'll see that Edwards does best against every Republican. Regardless of who they nominate, he is our best chance.
I feel the need to make the basic differences between different types of polling clear. Those who try to muddy the waters often get them confused, or pivot from national general election polls to national primary polls, where they think they have a better argument. The problem is that they have nothing to do with each other.
Saying that you don’t think Edwards is electable in a general election because he is "dropping in the polls" does not make any sense. When you say that, you sound like the Commander Guy talking about "the internets".
Most of this is self-explanatory, but for those who try to blur the lines, this needs to be pointed out.
National Primary Polling
These are obviously supposed to measure national support for the primary. They can help with big donors who should know better, and fuel the perception that one candidate is winning. But other than that, they are not worth much. Saying that a candidate cannot win a general election because of how they perform in one of these polls is absolutely ridiculous.
Media outlets seem to use these polls because they promote the horserace aspect, not because they are accurate. In fact, after the You Tube debate there seemed to be a mini-revolt of pundits who pointed out on-air that national primary polling doesn’t really matter, and only consistent statewide polling right before the primary would be a trustworthy indicator of the outcome. David Schuster, Mike Murphy, Ben Ginsburg, and many others made this point, something I doubt MSNBC and CNN were thrilled about.
There are 3 HUGE problems with relying on these polls to predict the outcome of the primaries.
Problem #1 - They have loose screens.
It makes absolutely no sense to let ANY registered Democrat or Democratic leaning Independent take part in the polling. Only around 10% will take part in the actual primary. In some states, like New Hampshire, the turnout is considerably higher.
Polling like this results in a sample that inclues far too many casual Democrats, who will most likely not take part in the primary. They make their choice based on familiarity, which is different from name recognition. Someone might recognize all 3 names, but who are they most familiar with? More casual, "low-information" (that is a technical term by the way) Democrats will often say the name of the Democrat they are most familiar with, it is as simple as that. The problem is that many of them won’t actually show up to vote for that Democrat.
Problem #2 - The race is won state by state.
Many national polls in 2004 had John Kerry at around 9% right before Iowa. Around 10 days later he had jumped up 40%. Sure, a decent chunk of that was casual, non-primary voting Democrats jumping on the bandwagon. But that is part of the point. They can be swayed very easily, but they don't usually vote. Especially with a candidate like Senator Clinton, whose nomination is so reliant on the idea that she is "inevitable", an early loss can change everything.
Problem #3 - Movement usually happens towards the end of the race. This applies to statewide primary polling as well.
Statewide Primary Polling
These polls can suffer from the same problem of loose screens. ARG, and to an extent R2K are great examples of this. They were consistently off of everything else in both parties. While the more reliable pollsters had Edwards and Romney ahead in Iowa, they boosted Clinton and McCain, the more familiar candidates.
Most Iowa polling was dead wrong in 04’. In fact, Selzer and Co., widely considered to be the best Iowa pollster, was the only one who got the order of finish correct. In fact, many polls showed Dean in 1st, but he finished 3rd. Gephardt was usually 2nd, but he finished 4th. Kerry was usually 3rd, but he finished 1st. And Edwards was barely alive in some polls, listed as 4th, but he nearly won the caucus and finished 2nd.
Two points I would like to make, for all of you who point to Pollster's Iowa average (which includes ARG by the way). Edwards led for around 12 - 13 months in the more reliable polling (Selzer and others), with usually only ARG, R2K, or a first time pollster (Mason-Dixon) dissenting. It took millions of dollars on ad buys from both Obama and Clinton to catch him. He didn’t respond for a reason. His campaign knows that winning the caucus is not just about the Democrats who tell the pollster who they support based on the last ad they saw. The only Democrats whose choice matters are those who will actually show up and caucus on a cold winter night in January.
I don’t know who is going to win Iowa. None of us do. There are certain indicators we can look at, but none of us know for sure. Claiming that any of the top 3 are out of contention in Iowa is absolutely ridiculous.
National General Election Polling
These obviously measure how two candidates from different political parties do against each other among the entire electorate. There is a very simple reason why national general election polling makes sense and national primary polling does not. Way more people vote in a general election. If you call someone and ask them if they are a registered or likely voter, and they say yes, then there is a good chance they will participate in the general election. The same is not at true with national primary polling.
Different polls weigh different subgroups in different ways. They all try to come up with the best composite electorate, but results can vary. Again, this is a reason to look at the TOTALITY of polling available. Of course there will be movement in an actual election, which is reason #4,827 to look at all of the polling.
If you do this, it will become obvious to you that nominating John Edwards is our best chance to win in the general election.
Statewide General Election Polling
This is pretty self explanatory, but I wanted to point out the differences for those who will confuse them. Once again, it is important to look at all of them. For instance, Quinnipiac and Survey USA have released results quite different from each other in Ohio. But if you look at all of the polls there to get a general sense of who can win the state, you’ll see that not only is John Edwards viewed the most favorably, he also does best in EVERY match-up in EVERY poll.
The same rule applies in Florida. Though Senator Clinton was initially impressive there, usually tying and once outperforming Edwards, she has begun to decline there. The last Quinnipiac poll showed Edwards outperforming her there by a significant amount. A recent Rasmussen poll showed her losing to all Republicans there. She has frequently had a favorable / unfavorable rating in FL that is reason to believe that she would have a hard time in a general election.
Edwards is a virtual lock in IA and OH. That would put him at 279 electoral votes, 9 more than he needs to win the presidency. MO (another state Edwards clearly does best in) and NM (the one red state that I think any Democrat can win) look very good as well, which means 16 more electoral votes. Polling has showed that he’s our best chance to pick up VA, KY, and NC. I would assume that WV would show similar results. He could very well add another 41 electoral votes to his total in these states, which no other Democrat can be as competitive in.
FL and TX are two huge states that Edwards appears best equipped to win. He is now the most solid Democrat in FL, and the TX polling he was included in backs up every indication that he is our best chance there. Though closing in Oklahoma and Kansas will make these states a lot more competitive than SUSA’s polling suggests, these polls are more evidence that Edwards can put "death row for Democrats" (ND down to TX) in play. At the least, nominating him would force Republicans to spend resources there, and give us our best chance to pick up Senate seats in NE, OK, TX, NC, KY, and TN. I'm not a fan of Senator Landrieu, but without Edwards as the nominee, I don't see how Democrats keep that seat. By the way, in 2010 seats are going to be up for grabs in KS, OK, KY, MO, and NC. Don't we want to pick those up?
Okay, now that we have that squared away, on to the "But...but," section.
"But...but, I saw these Quinnipiac polls from New Jersey and Connecticut that show Giuliani beating Edwards."
I’ll spell this out one more time. It is called "natural closing". This happens when Democratic voters that were on the fence, end up coming home. The same thing happens on the Republican side.
A recent Rasmussen poll showed Senator Clinton only leading Giuliani by only 3% in Illinois. Would I claim that Giuliani might be able to turn that state blue? Of course not. In a real general election setting, even though Clinton would fare worst out of all of the Democrats, she would still most likely have enough Democrats and Independents align with her to carry the state.
Familiarity also plays a role in this. As we have seen on the Republican side, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson both started off performing terribly against ALL of the Democrats. I’m sure I’m not the only one who remembers the Newsweek poll in which Edwards absolutely crushed Romney by 37%. As Romney and Thompson became more familiar with Republican voters, the gap began to close. This happened first in their match-ups against Senator Clinton, who quickly went from double digit leads to much smaller leads. Senator Obama withstood this effect longer, and continues to beat Romney by a large amount on most occasions. Senator Edwards kept the large leads the longest. In fact, he still routinely embarrasses Romney.
Even if you want to continue to claim that Giuliani would take NJ and CT from Edwards, you might want to do a little math. The states that Edwards woul most likely win, and the states that he would put in play, more than make up for any electoral votes that he might lose in the Northeast.
"But...but, Chris Bowers posted this map, and it showed Hillary doing really well against Giuliani and Edwards not doing well at all, and he is no Hillary fan...so take that!"
Senator Clinton does do better against Giuliani compared to Edwards than she does against Romney and Thompson compared to Edwards, but Edwards still consistently outperforms her against Giuliani. This is where that dictionary would come in handy.
First of all, the only pollster to poll every state individually was Survey USA...in November 2006. So either many of those states have inferred results, or the numbers are a year old. Either way, it doesn’t mean much. Get used to hearing this; your few examples do not over-ride the many.
"But...but, Real Clear Politics’ averages show that..."
Nice try, no cigar. First off, Real Clear Politics includes many polls in their average that only include Clinton and/or Obama. Why is this unfair? Well, because of the difference in the subgroups in different polls, there is no real way to tell what a good performance really looks like unless we see how the other would fair in that model.
The last time I checked, Senator Clinton had 5 polls in her average that Edwards wasn't included in. That makes it completely impossible to compare the two.
If you follow to the link to the General Election Polling Review, you will see that I have done 4 averages of national general election polling that includes all 3 Democrats. On EVERY occasion, in EVERY match-up Edwards does best. Do you really think that Senator Clinton would consistently do worse than him when both of them are included, but somehow outperform him in all of the polls in which he is not included? For 11 months? Wow, that is real stretch.
Also, if you actually click the link you will see that, despite their averages, Real Clear Politics wrote about Edwards being the most electable.
"But...but, I saw this one poll yesterday that said that..."
For the love of God, man! Do you not own a dictionary?
"But...but, Edwards didn’t turn North Carolina blue in 2004"
This has to be the most ridiculous argument of them all. There is NO WAY that they could have carried NC with the way that the campaign was run. What do I mean by that?
They spent NO MONEY on ads in North Carolina.
There is some evidence that after Edwards refused to tell Kerry he wouldn’t run if there was a "second time", he was relegated to second tier cities.
IIRC, North Carolina was the only southern state that Bush didn’t expand his margin of victory from 2000 in. So having Edwards on the ticket did help. But how could he have turned it blue when his hands were tied? The windsurfing thing, which Edwards warned against, and of course the Swifties and their BS, made the election largely about John Kerry. Using NC in 04’ as an argument requires you to forget the entire 04’ campaign.
In closing, I want to point out why Edwards’ performance in general election polling is so impressive.
Senators Clinton and Obama have a "big city advantage". They get tremendous support in big cities that are in states that ANY Democrat will carry in the general election. This gives them an inherent advantage in national general election polls. So for Edwards to outperform them consistently by a considerable amount, he has to make up for their advantage and then surpass it. Where does he get the support to do that? Red States.
Electability is not everything. As I have often stated, the reason why Edwards’ electability matters so much, is that, for the first time in a long time, the candidate most committed to fighting for a progressive agenda, is also the most electable.
If we want to take full advantage of the opportunity that presents itself in 2008, then we should nominate John Edwards. We can reclaim our party and our country.
A lot of people talk about wanting to help Democrats down-ticket. But let’s be honest about this. Outside of Arkansas, Senator Clinton will be a down-ticket death virus. Sure, some people dislike her for reasons that have more to do with their xenophobia than anything else. But many people think that there is a very corrupt element to her machine/campaign. Just because Republicans and Independents smell it too doesn’t mean that we should ignore the stench.
If Senator Clinton actually stood for something, I would be open to an argument to throw caution to the wind. But that is a huge risk for a small return, a risk that is definitely not worth taking.
We can win big for big change.
Or possibly win by the skin of our teeth for tiny change.
Hmmm...decisions, decisions, decisions.
Why take a HUGE risk of electing another Republican president just to possibly empower Senator Clinton, Mark Penn, Rob Rubin, Rahm Emmanuel, Howard Wolfson, and the DLC?
As for Senator Obama, I can’t help think that a lot of the people who wouldn’t vote for him would do it for the worst of all reasons. Whenever I think about this my first reaction is...fuck them. I do think that Obama could win a general election, and if he is the nominee I'll do whatever I can to make sure he wins, though he would probably win Washington State in a landslide. If he were to win the presidency I will be so happy I’ll run down the street nekkid or something like that, with "Got Hope?" painted on my arse. So my problem with him is not about electability. It’s more about the direction he has chosen to take his campaign. It’s more about the differences between him and Edwards on Iraq/Iran, UHC, environmental action, trade, and how to push a progressive agenda in DC.
Some of you think that discussion like this is too "divisive". But considering how defining this election will be, I think it is an insult to the seriousness of the outcome of this election not to discuss these things. I would much rather ruffle a few feathers than sit by as the party makes a huge mistake.
Considering how critical this nomination will be to our party’s identity and it’s future, I think that we must ask the question...
Who will enable us to elect MORE and BETTER Democrats?
Who will help us strengthen our majorities so that we can actually...you know, pass legislation?
Do we want future Democrats to be from the Pryor/Ford/Carper wing of the party? Do we want them to be Obaman? Or do we want them to be bold progressive / populist Democrats with a message that will make us competitive all over the country?
