"Dems Surging In Ohio"

So says the headline of the latest Quinnipiac University Poll of 1,430 Ohio voters taken between August 28 - September 3.

How is this surge measured? First of all, as has been diaried ably earlier today, the head-to-head match-ups among the top three candidates of each party now almost all favor the Democrats (only exception being McCain over Obama by 1 point.) Notably, all three top Democrats now beat the traditionally strongest Republican, Rudy Giuliani: Edwards by 9 points, Clinton by 7 points and Obama by 1 point. This contrasts with just a few months ago when Giuliani was leading all three -- in April, he led Clinton by 5 and Obama by 8 and in March, he led Edwards by 8.

This is an astounding turnaround, but instead of focusing on the electability issue, which is the focus of much of the discussion of these numbers, I'd like to look at what's actually driving these numbers, the factor that Harris Interactive (via Advertising Age) says "predicts how [people] will vote far better than polls in which they declare their voting intentions": favorability ratings.

What makes favorability ratings so important for Harris Interactive researchers is that they measure the emotional engagement a candidate has with the electorate, which, as Drew Westen also asserts in his excellent book The Political Brain, is a much better indicator of how someone will ultimately vote.

Ad Age takes us back 3 years:

As the 2004 race drew to a close, the marketing researchers (as opposed to the political pollsters) at Harris Interactive were actually coming to a different conclusion. While Harris Interactive's online poll showed Mr. Kerry ahead in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, engagement numbers in the separate Harris/ARF online poll indicated, correctly, that he'd only win Pennsylvania.

With that in mind, take a look at how the favorability ratings (fav/unfav) of the top presidential candidates of both parties have shifted over the past few months in order of largest net favorability gains (majorities didn't know Thompson and Romney well enough to register ratings.)

CandidateSept. 6July 12May 16Net Change

Note that this is the first time that Clinton's favorability has been over 50% and Giuliani's has been under 50%. Clearly, the more voters get to know these candidates, their previously majority-held preconceptions (in Rudy's case, positive, and in Clinton's case, negative) get reversed. It's also interesting that McCain is seeing an uptick, certainly reflecting the sentiments of the Luntz post-debate focus group last night where people appear to be giving McCain a second (or third or fourth) look. And then of course, there's the Edwards surge, which so far is not reflected in his Ohio Dem primary numbers (he's in 3rd at 11% -- actually slightly down from May -- although keep in mind that Gore is included) but a surge there is something to look for.

What we're seeing here, folks, are blue state-like numbers.

Tags: 2008 candidates, quinnipiac university poll (all tags)



Hillary has Joementum

I keep hoping hillary will be so overexposed  she'll crash

by TarHeel 2007-09-06 04:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary has Joementum

I hope that more of that trashing Elizabeth talks, because the more she opens her mouth, the reality becomes clear that she is the attack dog; and the Hair, Hedge, House Edwards is exposed, the better, we don't want tax and spend idiots who FORCE us to go to our doctors and people who think the war on terror is a "bumper sticker" to win.

by American1989 2007-09-06 04:54PM | 0 recs
you gotta stop

getting your info from drudge.

what was misunderstood is that Edwards meant Insurers will be mandated to provide preventative care...

if people don't want it they don't have to take it

by TarHeel 2007-09-06 05:05PM | 0 recs
Re: you gotta stop

yes you would hope that the democratic front runner gets worse and worse

by sepulvedaj3 2007-09-06 05:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary has Joementum

Let it be recorded that on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 08:54:59 PM EST, a Hillary supporter actually called an opponent a "tax and spend" idiot.  Maybe someone can slap it in their signature, because as you can see mine is taken.

by Junior Bug 2007-09-07 08:54AM | 0 recs
Re: "Dems Surging In Ohio"

There is still a LONG way to November 2008 and I know that the GOP will employ some tactics to ruin us, so we should be cautiously optimistic.

However, I am confident that either Edwards or Clinton will take OH, as for Obama, he is already losing and once that "inexperience" issue starts to stick, which it will, I heard that in the GOP debate last night, it will ruin him.


by American1989 2007-09-06 04:53PM | 0 recs
Experience Schmexperience
Why do people buy into stories that have no substance? What experience does Hilary or Edwards have that Obama lacks? The only reason she is the "frontrunner" is cos of her last name! period! Last dem ticket to win was Bill Clinton/Al Gore..she was never a cabinet secretary, she wanted to run for office, knew she'd be toast in Arkansas and ran into the arms of the NYC elite using her husband's influence to push other capable NY politicians aside. She has never sponsosored any meaningfull legislation..voted for a war so as to appear strong and then backs away from it when the going gets tough...no one on the left challenges her and now she's bamboozled them as calculating and manipulating as she's always been. Edwards was running for prez from the day he got into the senate and ran away from re-election cos he knew he'd lose to Dick Burr, now he's campaigning as though he is running for president of Bangladesh...Obama could have waited to learn the ropes but frankly NONE of them have any executive or managerial experience on the federal or state level.
Personally, I think this "inexperience" bullshit on Obama stinks of racism...what "progressives" don't have the balls to say is this...we'd rather not nominate Clinton but we are "safer" with her than Obama cos there are more white women voters than black voters (black people are OK voting for white candidates and won't put up as much a fuss as whites voting for a black candidate). Now she says she has "change" with "experience" what  this woman only cares about one person..Clinton, she'll do anything and say anything to anyone to win. No conviction, no bedrock principles..nothing..just a free riding opportunist..that is not a progressive and that is not a Democrat and she doesn't fool me!
by dantata 2007-09-06 05:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Experience Schmexperience

blah blah blah -- Obama bot talking points.

Clinton can run circles around Obama with her experience and what she has pushed to help single mothers, children, and people in poverty.

by sepulvedaj3 2007-09-06 05:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Experience Schmexperience


by sepulvedaj3 2007-09-06 05:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Experience Schmexperience

right you probably dont even know what Schip is. Why do i bother

by sepulvedaj3 2007-09-06 05:44PM | 0 recs
only respond

if you have something substantive to say...otherwise, shut the hell up!

by dantata 2007-09-06 06:28PM | 0 recs
Re: only respond

do you know what SCHIP is?

Its actually very substantive to the thousands of children and teens who now have health insurance due to it.

You asked what she's done, i said SCHIP its very simple. Its a one word response to your idiotic disingenous comment, read about SCHIP, then come back and post something substantive.

Obama supporters should be embarassed by your raving lunacy. Its sickening. Do some research before you come out so fucking boldly saying this bullshit. Until you make some sense, no one will take you seriously.

by sepulvedaj3 2007-09-07 07:34AM | 0 recs
Re: only respond

(again..asswipe)if you have something substantive to say.

You claim Clinton has "experience" and then scream S-Chip...like Gore in his debate with Bush saying "what about the Dingell bill? Any managerial experience? No..Has she successfully run a major government department? No....What makes you think I'm pro-Obama? Just cos I point out that neither of them have substantive experience...you shout as if that is false..yet Bill Clinton says Obama and HRC are not different on Iraq and you eat it up like a cheap crack whore getting a $.50 blowjob.
See you get guilt ridden and talk trash when thinking people speak the truth to your hypocrisy...unlike your brown-nosing hyperactive partisan self, I have the luxury of making an informed independent-minded decision come Nov 2008 and low lying filth like yourself zero influence on my decision. Pass on!

by dantata 2007-09-07 09:03AM | 0 recs
Re: only respond

You want to know what makes her experienced, and how she's helped Children befor Obama even had political diapers? I feel you should be somewhat enlightened to the candidates, since you are a sad sad poster, who has to resort to name calling in order to try seem so independent.  Since you cant argue any issues, and you obviously dont have the decency to do any research before spouting this nonsense about Hillary not being a democrat (yea i dont really get where you are coming from with that one) lets just go over somethings that have made HRC one of the biggest advocates for women and children throughout her carreer (which started before Obama was even out of Law School.)

these will solely focus on her work for women and children, and the list is much longer.

1. Childrens defense fund lawyer in Massachusettes

  1. Author "It takes a village" you should read some of it
  2. One of the first female professors of law at U. of Arkansas
  3. Chaired committees on education in AK
  4. Office of Violence against women in Justice department
  5. Beijing - nuff said
  6. Again, SCHIP

Get your head out of your ass - grow up and realize name calling isnt going to get you far in this world, or on this site. you will be called out on stupid comments.

by sepulvedaj3 2007-09-08 10:54AM | 0 recs
Re: only respond

if you dont think SCHIP is substantive, say so. But you should look it up and read about it before you make comments about SUBSTANCE, which all of your posts lack

by sepulvedaj3 2007-09-08 10:55AM | 0 recs
Re: "Dems Surging In Ohio"

I am convinced Ohio is going blue next year, alongside Florida.   I don't think even a change of the CW that the "surge" has been somewhat helpful in Iraq in people's minds would change the overall theme that the Iraq war was a GOP disaster of ginormous proportions.  

So far I am liking how Democrats are faring in the state of Ohio (except for perhaps Obama, who does not seem to do as well as Clinton and Edwards) and considering that McCain (who probably has no chance at the nomination at this point) fares the best against Democrats is just a bonus.   The more people find out about Giuliani, the less they like him.   And, boy, is there much more to know most people have no idea whatsoever about.  

by georgep 2007-09-06 06:03PM | 0 recs
Re: "Dems Surging In Ohio"

Note that this is the first time that Clinton's favorability has been over 50% and Giuliani's has been under 50%. Clearly, the more voters get to know these candidates, their previously majority-held preconceptions (in Rudy's case, positive, and in Clinton's case, negative) get reversed.

This doesn't surprise me at all, considering we're talking about Ohio.

Hillary was raised a Midwesterner, she connects well with Midwesterners, she's going to have no trouble building a rapport with people as they see more of her.

Giuliani, on the other hand, is like some sort of alien creature.  I never thought he'd be able to play in Peoria once they got to know him as more than the mythical hero of 9/11.  He fits Ohio like John Kerry fits a Texas barbeque.

I love the numbers I'm seeing.  It's so, so important that we elect a Democrat in 2008.

by Steve M 2007-09-06 06:44PM | 0 recs
Re: "Dems Surging In Ohio"

The party itself is surging in Ohio IMO - not just the candidates. We now have state officials who will run fair elections (not Blackwell), an improved state party, an amazing group of College Democrats (state chapter of the year for 2007), and Ted Strickland.

Ohio will go blue - have no doubts!

by belili 2007-09-06 07:31PM | 0 recs
Any thoughts on OH-5?

Can Dems win there?

by dataguy 2007-09-07 09:26AM | 0 recs
The Ohio
news has been very good, and suggests a continuation of the trend that began in 2004. The trial heats in Florida show to some degree a continuation of a trend that began in 2002 - a small, but significant trend to the GOP. The more recent numbers show us trailing here.
by fladem 2007-09-06 08:01PM | 0 recs
Net Gains

Todd, I don't understand how you calculate net change.  I might be dense but it seems that the numbers of the various candidates do not consistently subtract the same columns.  In some cases, they do not add up at all.

Clinton's numbers are in case in point:
Clinton    51/43    49/42    46/45    +7

51-49=2 and 51-46=5
How do you come up with a net change of seven, please?

by Hellmut 2007-09-07 06:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Net Gains

positive minus negative in 51/43 = 8
positive minus negative for the 46/45 = 1

8-1 = 7

by sepulvedaj3 2007-09-07 07:36AM | 0 recs
IF Dems can capture OH-5

then I will believe that there is a Dem resurgance in the Buckeye state.

I lived in OH for 15 years, from 1983-1998, and have some understanding of the politics there.  The marker for blue-red is the rural districts, and OH-5 (where Gillmor was the rep until Tuesday, when he dropped dead) is rural.  If we win there, we are gonna have a HUGE 2008.

I don't know who is thinking about this seat.  But this is what we need to watch, and we Democrats need to POUR money into this race.  If we win this, we have a very bright future.

by dataguy 2007-09-07 06:40AM | 0 recs
Re: "Dems Surging In Ohio"

OH is trending blue but it's still gerrymandered to the Republicans on both a state legislative and national congressional levels.

211347 more people voted for Democratic Congressional candidates than for Republicans. Yet, Republicans still won 4 more districts. The same is true for our state legislature.

OH-5 is possible but I really doubt it.

We have a legit shot at

2nd (Unless a new Republican wins the nomination)
15th (We WILL win this one)

However, I doubt we will win any of the other districts until we can gerrymander.

by belili 2007-09-07 12:08PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads