New Zogby Poll: Only Obama Beats All 5 Top GOP Candidates
Filed by: Rebecca Juro
December 22, 2007 3:36 PM
According to the latest Zogby poll, Barack Obama is the only Democratic Presidential candidate who would beat all five of the top Republican candidates in the general election. Zogby’s poll of 1,000 likely voters nationwide shows Hillary Clinton losing to John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and Mike Huckabee, and John Edwards failing against both Giuliani and McCain. Conducted December 12th-14th, the poll has a margin of error of +/-3.2%.
What’s most interesting to me here is not only that Obama is the only Democrat shown to win in all five of the most likely potential general election contests, but that Edwards would win against Huckabee while Hillary would lose that matchup. This seems to indicate that while Clinton may have more sheer star power than Edwards on the national stage, his message and public image may be resonating more with American voters than Clinton’s, significantly more than many, including myself, had previously believed.
Also quite interesting is that it now seems possible, perhaps even likely, that more Americans are willing to vote for Obama, an African-American, than Clinton, a woman. This flies in the face of what many have believed up until now, that Obama’s race would cost him more potential votes than Clinton’s gender would cost her. On the other hand, it does make a kind of twisted sense when you think about it. Many in the religious right still subscribe to the notion that a woman’s place is in a subservient role to her husband, yet discrimination against Black Americans no longer holds the kind of perceived religious validity it once did in this country. Factor in the strong current anti-Bush/GOP sentiment among Americans in general and the common perception of Clinton as the candidate of the corporate establishment big-money liberals, and the results of this poll really don’t seem all that surprising.
Of course, the usual caveats about placing too much faith in polling numbers do apply as always, but I think this poll, combined with Obama’s recent Oprah-fueled surge in Iowa, may well indicate that it’s he, and not Hillary Clinton, who may now be the true Democratic frontrunner in this race. With electability as much of an issue for voters as it is, and with Clinton’s high negatives seeming to indicate that she’d be just too divisive a candidate to win the White House against a strong GOP candidate, it just might be enough to earn Obama the nomination.
Considering how the Clinton campaign seems to have recently gone on a Hillary charm offensive, it seems they’re well aware that not only have a significant percentage of voters not really warmed up to Clinton on a personal level, but that her being perceived as cold and aloof, especially when combined with those who actively dislike her personally, such as Clinton-hating GOP voters disenchanted with the their own Party’s candidates and looking for real change, could well cost her the nomination. With less than two weeks to go now before the first primary, it could conceivably make all the difference.
What do you think? Who’s really the Democratic frontrunner now?
Share
Like what you read? Subscribe to The Bilerico Project by Email.
Want others to read it too? Use the buttons and links here to share this entry with others. (Move your cursor over a button or link to learn more about it.)
9 Comments
« How the War On Christmas started. | Home | Marcellas Reynolds Talks About His New Show »
I don't believe polls generally, and I certainly don't believe that no Democrat other than Obama can beat GOP losers like McCain or Huckabee, let alone Rudi. I've never been polled in my 40+ years, and I bet more people can say the same rather than they've been polled. Actually, I think polls are or have become inimical to a fair election, provided we ever had them.
I think some white voters (not all of them men) would rather vote for a man, any man, rather than a woman, but I also think that Hilary is handicapped less by her gender than she is by the fact that she's who she is: HILLARY CLINTON! Because of both her and her husband's past, some people (not all of them right-wingers) simply will not vote for her.
I would prefer Kucinich, but at this I'm not expecting to see him become the nominee. I would prefer Edwards (with reservations) to Obama because I think Obama is a cypher. He doesn't seem to really believe anything with much conviction, seems as prone as Hillary to evasion and seems even more conservative than her on social issues. After the McClurkin fiasco, I just don't trust him. Looks like 2008 is going to be another failed revolution.
Oh, by the way, all you LGBT folk in Massachusetts who aren't HRC shills, make sure you reward Barney for his duplicity and vote him out. Thank you.
Gracie | December 22, 2007 10:49 PM
Reply to this comment
Wasn't there a poll last week showing Edwards was the only Dem who could beat them all? And it was Clinton before that. I don't take too much from these polls that sway in the wind. I think any of the dems will beat any of the shameless republicans.
Kyle Flood | December 23, 2007 11:47 AM
Reply to this comment
KC, the point is not that it's a foregone conclusion, but that Obama is making this kind of showing in the polls with less than two weeks to go before the Iowa primary. Also, I'm not aware of any poll showing Edwards actually in the lead at any point, though there have been polls (such as this one) indicating that he's doing better than he was.
In addition, just winning Iowa, even coupled with winning New Hampshire as well, is no guarantee of success either. Bill Clinton lost both Iowa and NH in '92 and still went on to win, Bush lost Iowa to McCain in 2000 and still won.
The point is that Hillary is not the shoo-in many, including myself, once thought she was. What this poll does tell us is that it's still very much a horse race, and Obama still has an excellent chance of becoming the nominee.
Rebecca Juro | December 23, 2007 1:44 PM
Reply to this comment
There is a talk show host i listen to who commissioned his own Zogby poll. He went through all the options including the demographic that they could draw from. depending on the demographic profile used you could make Hillery or Alex Blaze look like a front runner in the 08 election.
Polls should not be trusted because of how those who commission the poll can cherry pick the respondents in advance.
The poll cost $4500 which i thought was quite reasonable.
Face it these guys who conduct these polls are whores they will skew the results to favor a certain candidate. They will cherry pick the respondents and they will filter out any undiserable statistical blemishes.
William Cooper
Take care
Sue
Sue Robins | December 23, 2007 6:31 PM
Reply to this comment
Polling, schmolling!
I think that poll where Edwards beat every
one was a Zogby interactive, and at least this is Zogby telephone.
Meh.
It's interesting to me that people (not anyone here) who can't be bothered to even learn elementary differences in policy between the candidate, who jump from one sexy scandal to the next with the help of MSM enablers like CNN, etc., somehow care about this or that latest poll.
Too much meta means too little democracy.
Alex Blaze | December 24, 2007 12:12 PM
Reply to this comment
Man, I don't even really pay attention to the polls anymore. Just earlier the week it was Edwards riding high. The week before was Hillary. The week before was a fuzzy purple alien that captured the public's eye for a nanosecond. Bah.
Bil Browning | December 24, 2007 3:10 PM
Reply to this comment
Remember folks the first real polls start next week!Thats right real people will finaly get to vote and then we can worry about who will beat who come June when all the primary votes have been cast.
Cathy | December 26, 2007 9:55 PM
Reply to this comment
you mean the real people voting on the rigged voting machines?
Take care
Sue
Sue Robins | December 26, 2007 10:35 PM
Reply to this comment
Sue get real no there not rigged as much as youd love to believe that but then I bet your not even going to go out and vote for Ron Paul who you have given you vocial support to are you?
Cathy | December 27, 2007 1:58 AM
Reply to this comment