Gallup: Neither Clinton nor Obama Trails Any GOPer

The folks at Zogby International surveyed a non-randomized group of internet users this month and divined that Hillary Clinton can't beat potential Republican nominees. Gallup, using more traditional polling methods, comes up with numbers that look a lot more like virtually all other polling.


The results for Clinton and Obama are slightly different -- though those differences do not fall outside of the poll's margin of error.

What do these numbers mean? Not a whole heck of a lot this far out from election day. But inasmuch as the media continue to obsess about electability -- and it's not all their fault given the consistency with which some candidates have talked about electability -- these numbers help defuse the sentiment, at least on the Democratic side, that there are inherent differences within the top tier when it comes to being able to defeat potential Republican nominees.

Tags: Barack Obama, General 2008, Hillary Clinton (all tags)



Re: Gallup:

Hillary enjoys wider margins.  I think that is significant.

by truthteller2007 2007-11-26 01:31PM | 0 recs
I'd rather start from a 5 point lead vs a tie

Obama starting tied is trouble.  Rudy hired has already hired the guy who created the Harold Ford 'Call Me' ad.  So you know the playbook that the GOP will run.

by dpANDREWS 2007-11-26 01:35PM | 0 recs
Re: I'd rather start from a 5 point lead vs a tie

Obama will have a difficult time winning the general election, especially as he has upset the Democratic base.

by truthteller2007 2007-11-26 01:36PM | 0 recs
Re: I'd rather start from a 5 point lead vs a tie

I would disagree.  Hillary has been "The one to beat" for the White House.  If he beats her, he's beaten them all.  On all fronts Clinton has held the "Frontrunner" position for over 9 months.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-11-26 01:44PM | 0 recs
Re: I'd rather start from a 5 point lead vs a tie

That is not true.  Indeed, many Democrats will not vote for Obama if he is the nominee.  We as a Party need to consider the ramifications of the alienation of a large segment of the Democratic Party.

by truthteller2007 2007-11-26 01:51PM | 0 recs
Re: I'd rather start from a 5 point lead vs a tie

Especially the racist Reagan Dems. PA and MI will be lost!!

by Boilermaker 2007-11-26 03:20PM | 0 recs
Re: I'd rather start from a 5 point lead vs a tie

oooh, fear mongering; maybe the non-racist GOP'ers will supplement racist thinking dem's like yourself. Just like what's happening in Iowa at the moment.

we don't need pessimistic thinking people like you on the planet.

by rapcetera 2007-11-26 03:35PM | 0 recs
Re: I'd rather start from a 5 point lead vs a tie

nit-picking are we? do you even have the capacity to be objective? I'll be looking out for you on the evening of January 3rd. Maybe some objective sense will be knocked into you then.

by rapcetera 2007-11-26 03:32PM | 0 recs

Bold talk.  What are YOU going to do if Obama does not win on Jan. 3?   Will you consider yourself "having some objective sense knocked into you"?

by georgep 2007-11-26 04:21PM | 0 recs

they havent even touched Obama as yet -

the idea that he would not be damaged by November over rezko's trial, his inexperience, his background, his family etc..

is ridiculous...

with Hillary we know that theyve done their damndest to hurt her, and shes still strong,

what can we expect if they actually looked into Obama?

by holden caulfield 2007-11-26 01:43PM | 0 recs

Let's be honest, they haven't gone after Hillary lately and most people indicating that they will vote for her aren't thinking of old innuendos.

The GOP is holding fire on Hillary until the GE, IF she gets there, that is the smartest thing they could do.

by ArkansasLib 2007-11-26 01:47PM | 0 recs

Are you Helen Keller?  From where I am standing they invoke HRC and those WH years at every turn.  You are attempting to deny reality.

by jgarcia 2007-11-26 01:55PM | 0 recs
tthats plain loco

they have gone over every detail of the clitons lives and haven barely mentioned obamas deep and obvious flaws as a candidate.

think they wont when the gop fax machine starts spitting out negative pieces o ol Barry?

get real!

by holden caulfield 2007-11-26 02:19PM | 0 recs
Re: tthats plain loco

they invoke her NAME at every stop because it arouses the ire of their base, they havent invoked any SPECIFIC grievances with Hillary for a while.

by ArkansasLib 2007-11-26 04:29PM | 0 recs
Re: I'd rather start from a 5 point lead vs a tie

This is an OLD poll....Zogby is the newest one, QUOTING OLD POLL NUMBERS does not negate the results of the zogby poll

by allmiview 2007-11-26 02:00PM | 0 recs
Re: I'd rather start from a 5 point lead vs a tie

The Zogby poll is an online poll, which means it is not scientific.   I thought everybody knew that, but apparently not.  

by georgep 2007-11-26 04:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Gallup:

Perhaps I should have been more clear. These numbers may have a significance in that they, on their face, show slightly different results. But these numbers are not statistically significant -- due to the margin of error for the poll, these numbers are not sufficiently different to indicate a real difference between the standing of the two Democratic candidates at this juncture.

by Jonathan Singer 2007-11-26 01:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Gallup:

Differences are still nonetheless registered.  

by truthteller2007 2007-11-26 01:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Gallup:

thank you for the superfluous clarification.  you also fail to mention how Obama may in fact be trailing Guiliani if in fact the poll's margin of error is as large as you claim.

by truthteller2007 2007-11-26 01:59PM | 0 recs
Margin of Error

The differences in the Clinton and Obama numbers in the top two matchups (Giuliani, McCain) DO, just barely, fall outside the margin of error for this poll, which is +/- 1.0 point.

by along 2007-11-26 02:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Margin of Error

DAMMIT, sorry I'm mixing up polls! Nevermind.

by along 2007-11-26 02:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Gallup: Neither Clinton nor Obama Trails

I think electability had been nullified as an issue. All three of the Democratic frontrunners are very electable, and I would cast every one as the favorite against any of the Republicans. Maybe I'm too much of an optomist, but I believe the combination of a strong candidate on our side in a political environment toxic to the GOP is something we can look forward to.

I'm a Clinton supporter and hope we can have a spirited primary debate, and enough of the garbage of this person or that one can't win. That talk isn't good for the Democratic party.

by Christopher Lib 2007-11-26 01:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Gallup: Neither Clinton nor Obama Trails

They are all electable, but based on this early polling, Clinton has proved more electable. Even if Obama is only 10% more likely to lose than Clinton in a general election, that's still a huge reason to vote for her. Can you imagine life under Giuliani or Huckabee for eight more years?

by Pender 2007-11-26 04:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Gallup: Neither Clinton nor Obama Trails Any G

I understand that Zogby's interactive online polling is controversial, and people are appropriately skeptical. But it should be noted that this poll did use a randomized sample, just not of millions of (landline) phone numbers. Zogby's database includes hundreds of thousands of participants, and the methods used to choose who is sent an email asking them to participate are very similar to the methods used to call people at home.

Here is a bit of explanation from the Zogby methodology page: D=1064
"Respondents of Zogby Interactive polls do not choose to take part in a poll, rather they are selected at random from a database of hundreds of thousands of individuals, much like the database of millions across the country who have telephones. Zogby Interactive respondents self-select which poll to participate in about as much as a person with a telephone could choose to call up Zogby and ask to be part of a poll - in other words, it doesn't work that way."

This is actual polling, not the kind of Internet surveys we are getting more and more used to here, at Daily Kos, and many other sites. I love those surveys, but they are not polls.

Moreover, this poll included 9,150 likely voters--8 to 9 times the number of most traditional polls. It has serious statistical significance.

What it doesn't have is trend lines. The earlier Zogby National polls were traditional telephone surveys. I hope they do this poll at least twice more before Iowa.

by along 2007-11-26 01:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Gallup: Neither Clinton nor Obama Trails Any G

Exactly.  Who cares if it has statistical significance if it's got a built-in sampling bias of some sort?  In that case, it's horseshit +/-3%.

Also, if one clicks through, you see that Zogby shows Hillary dropping off substantially now, compared to how she was doing in May and July.  Compared to how she was polling against them then, her support has dropped by an average of 6.5%.  That's a lot, and nobody else is showing that.

As usual, Zogby = horseshit.

by RT 2007-11-26 04:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Gallup: Neither Clinton

it means nothing but you bring it up anyway- cute. The article on Yahoo about this points out the real concern- the underlying fears that some in the party have about her run.

by bruh21 2007-11-26 01:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Gallup: Neither Clinton
Any Dem should win. Oppose Hillary on issues. Damn, as an Edwards supporter you have real contrasts to highlight on ISSUES. Do it.
by Big Tent Democrat 2007-11-26 02:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Gallup: Neither Clinton

Having been around here since this primary began I find the contrast on issues argument amusing considering you are right, I have been asking for that for a while, but I don't see that as being what this is about. It's about a new consultantcy class.

by bruh21 2007-11-26 02:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Gallup: Neither Clinton

again truth stop missing using the rating system. just because you were caught in another diary making shit up does not give you leave to come into a separate diary to act out.

by bruh21 2007-11-26 02:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Gallup: Neither Clinton

no, i rated you comment unfavorably, as i find it counterproductive.  and now you are attempting to distort my statements in an unrelated thread.  i think it is time for you to disengage and relax.  

by truthteller2007 2007-11-26 02:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Gallup: Neither Clinton

Did you realize that BTD chided YOU for making a shallow argument instead of discussing issues?  It is uncanny how you appear to be oblivious to posts directed at you.  

BTW -   CUTE?    What type of attribute is that aimed at J. Singer when this diary addresses today's good news for all Democrats (be they Clinton or Obama supporters or just Democrats) that we beat all Republicans at this point, and, more importantly, we beat Romney, who is probably one of the top 2 prospects for the GOP nomination, by quite a healthy margin.

by georgep 2007-11-26 04:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Gallup: Neither Clinton

Shorter George- Look over there!

by bruh21 2007-11-26 05:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Gallup: Neither Clinton nor Obama Trails Any G

Your conclusion about "electability" not mattering in the top tier on the Democratic side relies on the polls leaving Edwards out of them.

by jsamuel 2007-11-26 02:02PM | 0 recs
It means NOTHING
All of the Dems can and SHOULD win in 2008.
by Big Tent Democrat 2007-11-26 02:33PM | 0 recs
Re: It means NOTHING

Taken literally your statement means there is no difference electorally in the voters minds between one Democrat and another except on issues?

by bruh21 2007-11-26 02:39PM | 0 recs
Re: It means NOTHING

The time by the way to have made this about "issues" was when Clinton first started, not when she is finally feeling some heat because others are willing to use her own tactics against her.

by bruh21 2007-11-26 02:41PM | 0 recs
Re: It means NOTHING

truth stop missing the rating system.

by bruh21 2007-11-26 02:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Gallup: Neither Clinton nor Obama Trails Any G

Anecdotally, I have a big family that is mostly Republican but generally open-minded and willing to consider Democrats.  No Bush fans in the lot anymore.  Most of them, especially the men, including my liberal dad, say they would not vote for Hillary.  I know intellectually that Hillary should be able to win next November, but my personal experience shows me that it is far from a sure thing.

This makes it a no-brainer for me to support Edwards.  He is the most progressive candidate and the one who is the surest bet to win.

by lorax 2007-11-26 02:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Gallup: Neither Clinton nor Obama Trails Any G

Why do you think this sort of anecdotal evidence is even worth mentioning when we have polling data that utterly debunks it?

by Pender 2007-11-26 04:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Gallup: Neither Clinton nor Obama Trails Any G

If you've been paying attention and not just seeking out the polls that confirm what you already want to believe, you'll find that the polls are all over the place on this question and that you can find a set of polls that "utterly debunks" any contention you want to "utterly debunk," whether it's that Hillary, Obama, or Edwards would be the strongest nominee.  So I apologize if you find my anecdotal evidence not worth mentioning (but worth replying to) but the polling data do not "utterly debunk" shit, as it were, and my anecdotal evidence tells us just as much about the state of the race.

And one other thing, while we're talking about polls: the one question on which the polls are utterly consistent is that of which Democratic candidate has the highest unfavorability rating.  Senator Clinton.  And my anecdotal data seems worth mentioning in that regard seeing as it backs up that irrefutable fact.

by lorax 2007-11-26 06:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Gallup: Neither Clinton nor Obama Trails Any G
Wow, that's tellin um.
People are beginining to see this and we said months ago that when name recognition melted under the lights of scrutiny the race would tighten, the race would change. It is happening on cue and Zogby's poll and others out there, should be taken with real voter evidence and common sense and almost anyone except those who perfer not to see it that HRC is the most vunerable in the GE. Can she win it? Maybe, but her high negs are not just from republican voters and if she gets the nom, even those who will vote for her on our side may not be working or supporting enthusiastically. Then the big questions is can she govern. Gridlock and more gridlock. Stuck in a 90s timewarp for 8 more years. It will be a long hard slog...
by jazzyjay 2007-11-26 11:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Gallup: Neither Clinton nor Obama Trails Any G

Not at all true about unfavorability rating.  All 3 Democratic candidates are quite close on that.

Take the latest evidence from Rasmussen polls as an example: nt/politics/favorables/election_2008_dem ocratic_candidates_running_in_2008_presi dential_election

Very little difference between the candidates on the "would vote against" numbers, and Clinton has an advantage over Edwards and Obama of 10% or more in the "would definitely vote FOR" department.

by georgep 2007-11-27 04:03AM | 0 recs
Straight up with Chaser....

Lets call it like we see it.  As much as it pains me to say this Obama could not win the general election in our country unless the country implodes because of the economy or a major downturn in Iraq.  I could see Edwards winning a GE vs any of the jokes they call republican candidates.  Obama cant win in my opinion because of the underlined racism that still persist in parts of our country.  Its disgraceful but true.  Please you guys call a spade a spade....

by nzubechukwu 2007-11-26 03:19PM | 0 recs

my brother - i dont think you meant to end your comment that way!

by holden caulfield 2007-11-26 03:24PM | 0 recs
OMG! Jonathan ! Tsk Tsk

Hillary is slipping while Obama and Edwards are gaining. It's right there in your link. Come on now.

by BlueDiamond 2007-11-26 03:21PM | 0 recs
Re: OMG! Jonathan ! Tsk Tsk

Am, Clinton gained in every matchup. Obama on the other hand...

by RJEvans 2007-11-26 04:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Gallup: Neither Clinton nor Obama Trails Any G


Clinton 38%
McCain 42%

Clinton 40%
Giuliani 43%

Clinton 40%
Romney 43%

Clinton 39%
Huckabee 44%

Clinton 40%
Thompson 44%

Obama 45%
McCain 38%

Obama 46%
Giuliani 41%

Obama 46%
Romney 40%

Obama 46%
Huckabee 40%

Obama 47%
Thompson 40%

by dmc2 2007-11-26 03:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Gallup: Mitt

Mitt must be wondering how much money he has to spend to be liked.

by Bush Bites 2007-11-26 03:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Gallup: Neither Clinton nor Obama Trails Any G

I don't understand.  What large segment of the Democratic party has Obama alienated?

by Socks The Cat 2007-11-26 03:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Gallup: Neither Clinton nor Obama Trails Any G

The gays. Remember McClurkin? At this point I want Obama to go away.

by Pender 2007-11-26 04:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Gallup: Neither Clinton nor Obama Trails Any G

There is no evidence that the gays left Obama over McClurkin this is a myth that Hillary shills are pushing. 20 people marched outside the concert in protest while 2,000 stood inside and cheered. So can this stuff. Most gays are more interested in getting civil right and equal protection under the law which Obama supports also than telling the church what to think.

by jazzyjay 2007-11-26 11:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Gallup: Neither Clinton nor Obama Trails Any G

I went to an Obama rally in San Francisco on November 14. At $30 a person, the line to get in wrapped all the way around three city blocks and then four or five more blocks down another street -- four or five abreast. Of course, they could've all been straight, but in the heart of San Francisco (Civic Center), it's highly doubtful. In the real world, I don't think one ex-gay gospel singer at a concert in South Carolina is going to negate Obama's exemplary record of support for GLBT rights.

by dmc2 2007-11-26 11:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Gallup: Neither Clinton nor Obama Trails Any G

First of all, no first-tier candidate has an "exemplary record of support for GLBT rights" since no first-tier candidate supports marriage. Second of all, yes, blatantly pandering to the anti-gay vote by refusing to dismiss a notable anti-gay activist from Obama's rally all by itself makes Obama's record not so exemplary. Third of all, drawing big crowds in San Francisco does not mean that gay people generally love him. You have no way to know how big his crowd would have been without the McClurkin screw up, or how many people Hillary could draw.

by Pender 2007-11-27 07:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Gallup: Neither Clinton nor Obama Trails Any G

Well, I am gay and I left Obama over McClurkin, so at least one gay guy is upset.

Most gays are more interested in getting civil right and equal protection under the law which Obama supports also than telling the church what to think.

The point is that we are less likely to get civil rights and equal protection under a president who is beholden to the anti-gay vote, as Obama proved that he is.

Also, is "telling a church what to think" really that unreasonable when we are telling them to think gay people deserve rights?

Please don't throw around words like "Hillary shill" when you're so clearly an Obama shill.

by Pender 2007-11-27 07:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Gallup: Neither Clinton nor Obama

Sorry i don't buy that Clinton is losing to Romney or Huckabee right now.  She would have more than enough electoral votes to win if the election were held today.  And Huckabee has a bigger margin over her than Giuliani to boot.

I'm going with Gallup, a poll she was losing earlier this year and now leads.

by Justify My Vote 2007-11-26 03:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Gallup: Neither Clinton nor Obama

Why pay attention to either? Just form your own unfounded opinion.

by dmc2 2007-11-26 03:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Gallup: Neither Clinton nor Obama Trails Any G

did anybody notice how in the Zogby poll, Huckabee performs best against CLinton (better than Rudy and McCain) ! -- that should be one clue as to how credible that poll is.

by silver spring 2007-11-26 03:59PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads