Newsweek is out with its latest ’08 poll, in which the liberal mag again expects us to believe that a GOP contender can match his Democratic opponent in support from his own party AND beat said Democrat among independents substantially, only to lose to the Democrat by a significant margin. As I pointed out last week, in the last two elections, including in the one held just under three months ago, Democrats have never enjoyed more than a 2-point advantage over Republicans in actual turnout. Eleanor Clift may not like it, but this is not 1970, and Democrats do not outnumber Republicans by ten points. As such, take these numbers with several grains of salt, and remember that the crosstabs are your friends, and that Bush beat Kerry by 3 points in 2004 by beating his base turnout while losing independents by 1 point.
Here are Newsweek’s head-to-head matchup numbers. Check the link for crosstabs.
Hillary 50
McCain 44Obama 48
McCain 42Edwards 48
McCain 44Hillary 49
Rudy 46Obama 47
Rudy 44Edwards 46
Rudy 47Hillary 56
Romney 37Obama 56
Romney 30Edwards 60
Romney 26
A few points.
First, note how Edwards bleeds Democratic support in a matchup against Rudy. This is further support for my theory that a lot of people who now consider themselves “Democrats” are DLC types in the north and the west who are pro-market, pro-trade, and definitely pro-fiscal sanity, none of which is embodied in an old-fashioned populist Democrat like Edwards. Faced with Edwards on one hand and a socially libertarian, pro-economic freedom Republican like Rudy on the other, lots of Democrats cross over to vote for the GOP ticket. In other words, a Rudy/Edwards matchup would create lots of “Rudy Democrats.”
Second, note how despite conservatives’ perpetual grumbling, both Rudy and McCain manage to hold onto a minimum of 86 percent of Republicans in every single matchup. This proves that conservative grumbling is just hot air. Republicans will vote for Rudy or McCain over any of the Democratic Big 3.
Finally, note how Romney bleeds Republican support against every Democrat, losing between 15 and 20 percent of Republicans to the Democrat. This is important, as if these voters were simply checking the “undecided” box, it would illustrate that they simply haven’t heard of Mitt. But instead, these Republicans are actually voting Democrat if Romney heads the ticket! Could it be that there is a latent anti-Mormon vote among conservatives at the grassroots that everyone is too polite to talk about until the curtain to the ballot box is closed?
Newsweek also polled various combinations of primary matchups, the results of which I’ve compiled here:
Rudy 48
McCain 44Rudy 72
Romney 17McCain 69
Romney 19Hillary 62
Edwards 29Hillary 55
Obama 35Obama 46
Edwards 39
This is Obama’s path to the nomination: a two-man race with Edwards. If Edwards wins Iowa, where he currently leads, and then goes on to win union-heavy Nevada, Hillary will be down but not out, and Obama will have a chance to finish her off in New Hampshire. An Obama win in the Granite State followed by an Edwards comeback in South Carolina will pretty much take Hillary out of the race. And then on February 5th, which is shaping up to be National Primary Day, Obama could potentially beat Edwards in a series of matchups to garner the nomination. A longshot, but it could happen.
Final thought. I know Romney’s name recognition sucks, but shouldn’t he be doing just a teensy, weensy bit better against Rudy or McCain after all the time and money and energy Team Mitt has put forth?
January 27th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Newsweek honestly needs to stop polling. The only Republican matchup we win is Rudy vs. Edwards? Absolutely absurd. I refuse to believe there’s any chance whatsoever of Hillary beating Rudy.
January 27th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
Dave,
Once again I am amazed at how seriously you take these polls!!! Basically, almost TWO FULL
YEARS out a general election, these polls amount to a gigantic popularity contest! When
Newsweek asks the persons being polled, what they are really asking is, “Who have you heard
of before, and which one do you think looks better, speaks better, acts better?” NOBODY, i.e.
the general public, has ANY clue as to their policy positions or personal convictions.
Furthermore, if you are going to put so much faith into one set of polling data, I certainly
thought you would recognize how skewed this one is. The only victory: Rudy over Edwards?!!
Come on my friend, I thought you were more well thought out than that.
January 27th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
“Furthermore, if you are going to put so much faith into one set of polling data, I certainly thought you would recognize how skewed this one is.”
Um, that’s sorta, kinda why I included the entire first paragraph of the post. Perhaps you should read it again?
January 27th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Dave,
You really ought to take a step back from these polls
. At this point, the primary polls might as well be asking, “Name some Republican.” The general public does not, as Geoff says, no much about these guys. Lastly,
“I know Romney’s name recognition sucks, but shouldn’t he be doing just a teensy, weensy bit better against Rudy or McCain after all the time and money and energy Team Mitt has put forth?”
My answer? Not neccessarily as the vast majority of Team Mitt’s effort has been directed at the Beltway donors, Congressmen, and political pundits.
Good post though in terms of exposing Newsweek’s inexcusable bias.
January 27th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Mitt’s poll numbers are bad because people are tired of phonies. After Bush 43, voters are going to be much more discerning when it comes to so-called conservatives.
January 27th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
Last week, Edwards was the strongest Democrat and was the only Dem leading Giuliani. This time, Edwards leads Romney by more than Hillary and Obama do (I’m sure Romney’s pro-trade too, right?). These are all just margin-of-error swings. The top three Democrats are leading the top three Republicans. Romney is clearly the weakest.
January 27th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Dave,
Where are the crosstabs? I followed the link, but just got the frontline results.
January 27th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
Anyway, with a MOE of +- 4pts FOR EACH CANDIDATE, none of the GOP-Dem results are distinguishable from a tie, except for the Dems beating up on Mitt.
January 27th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
Yes they beat up on him, but only because only about 1 in 5 people know who he is, which I admit is a serious obstacle for his campaign.
January 27th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
I just clicked the link and the results by party ID for each matchup are still up.
January 28th, 2007 at 12:15 am
Sorry Dave, I though you meant straightforward breakdowns of the pool.
January 29th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
You say, “both Rudy and McCain manage to hold onto a minimum of 86 percent of Republicans … This proves that conservative grumbling is just hot air.”
What you don’t realize is that Rudy and McCain are “Hillary Lite” and Republicans will actually stay home.
What’s more, these results are ludicrous, but then again, so are your rankings.
p.s. Pataki, along with other liberals, need to sink down even further on your list. Is this site called “Moderates R Us”?
January 29th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Guys, get used to these polls.
I’ve been telling you for weeks now that the Democrat candidates are going to clobber the Republican candidates in the head to head matchups for the next six months. Why? Because the Democrats clobbered the Republicans in the midterms and, as a result, more voters identify with the Democratic party than they did a few months ago.
Remember the 1996 election cycle. Dole was beating Clinton by double digits in some polls and led consistently almost until the end of 1995 — in other words, not long enough for it to do him any good, but long enough to assauge the fears of Republican voters that he wasn’t electable.