Survey USA: F. Thompson vs. 3 Dems in 16 states

Sixteen states surveyed.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_surve yusa_fred_thompson_v.php

Poll result:

Clinton, Edwards, and Obama beat Thompson in the following states:

Washington, Oregon, California, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Wisconsin, New York, Missouri, Iowa, New Mexico.

Clinton and Edwards beat Thompson in the following states, while Obama loses or ties (in Ohio) Thompson:

Kentucky, Texas, Ohio

In one state, Edwards and Obama beat Thompson while Clinton loses to him:

Kansas

In only one state all 3 Democratic contenders lose to Thompson:

Alabama

At this point in time all 3 Democratic contenders do very well against Thompson across the board.   Since Edwards has one state in which he wins vs. Clinton losing (Kansas) while Obama loses by himself in 3 states, the ranking in this particular contest should probably be 1. Edwards  2. Clinton 3. Obama

Of course, it is early in the contest, and Thompson has not announced yet.  But perhaps if Thompson sees how badly he fares against all 3 Democratic candidates across the board he may not even bother going through with this thing.  

Tags: Barack Obama, F. Thompson, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards (all tags)

Comments

23 Comments

Re: Survey USA: F.
From the SUSA polls, it looks like Edwards is the strongest in the electoral college, but it's pretty premature, and last year SUSA polls rubbed me the wrong way.  Seemed like they had a lot of outliers, but I don't know how well my memory is working.
And I expect Thompson and Obama to improve as time goes by, since I expect their parties to solidify more behind them than we're seeing in polls.
BTW, is it just me, or should we get Alabama before Kansas?  Doesn't make sense to me.
by jallen 2007-05-09 04:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Survey USA: F.

I agree on Thompson.  He has not announced yet, and gets pretty healthy support already.  But, the way 2008 is shaping up, none of our top 3 horses should be worried about him.  

Obama is hitting a bit of a rough spot lately in all polls, state or national.  I don't know if that is an indication of a larger problem that will be hard to correct or a temporary blip.   It kind of feels like a larger problem happening here, some sort of tiring of the electorate, perhaps the hype was a bit too high at the beginning.   But who knows?  

by georgep 2007-05-09 04:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Survey USA: F.

Wow, I only just looked at the actual numbers... and Edwards had the biggest winning margins everywhere but New York, and he still won by 30 pts, and he had the smallest losing margin in Alabama, only 2 pts.  With these and the Giuliani polls last Wednesday, Edwards is looking good.

by jallen 2007-05-09 05:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Survey USA: F. Thompson vs. 3 Dems in 16 state

There is a lot of GOP weakness. Thompson would be a more marketable candidate than the top 3 but would lose states like Kentucky and Texas that normally are not in play.

Clinton at 44% in Alabama is really remarkable. That would indicate that even some of the states in the South could be put into play if Democrats do not follow the Gore Kerry playbook and write them off early on. If a Democratic nominee polls in the mid 40s in Alabama after the conventions the GOP will be in a panic.  

by robliberal 2007-05-09 04:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Survey USA: F.

Are you still convinced that this will inevitably be a 51-49 election?

by jallen 2007-05-09 04:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Survey USA: F.

I still think that is the most likely scenario. The GOP will try to move enough to the middle with Guiliani, McCain, Romney, or Thompson as the nominee to attract the crossover votes they need.

by robliberal 2007-05-09 06:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Survey USA: F. Thompson vs. 3 Dems in 16 state

The big one I am looking at is Florida coming back to us.  Bill Clinton won my state in 1996 and it is in play again.  It is no accident that Hillary Clinton's biggest state of all (aside from NY) is Florida where she just polled 45% to Obama's 17% and Edwards 15%.   She is very popular in this state, as is Bill Clinton.  We can win this thing in this pivotal state.  

Here is an interesting article on how close we are in having Florida in contention for us again:

A solid red state in 2004, Florida's in play once again.

Back Swing

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=G8rxe3ks C2z6ck4R5iVIPQ%3D%3D

by georgep 2007-05-09 08:26PM | 0 recs
Texas?

I'd be suprised if any Democrat presidential candidate won Texas in 2008.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-05-09 04:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Texas?

Surprised? I'll donate to every charity on the planet. We can't carry Texas unless we win the national popular vote by maybe 10-12 points minimum.

by Gary Kilbride 2007-05-09 06:54PM | 0 recs
The ability to learn one's lines must

be important to Republicans because Thompson is not running yet and no one knows that much about him.  A pretty good stooge.

by realtime 2007-05-09 06:22PM | 0 recs
Re: The public doesn't know much about Thompson
Just as Guiliani's support has about peaked, as the public learns more about him, Thompson's (Fred) won't get too far off the ground when his bio gets more play.
Example: he was a lobbyist for about 15 years.
He may poll well in Alabama because he was raised there.  He wed his pregnant high school girlfriend when he was seventeen.  They divorced 25 yrs later, and at 64 he now has what some may call a "trophy wife" and two children under six yrs.  Sadly, he lost a daughter to an accidental drug (medicinal) overdose, which was largely resposible for his not seeking re-election to the Senate in 2002.
I also question whether he really has the "hunger" necessary for a run for the presidency.  Ego is one thing, but it takes a lot more drive to go through primaries and a presidential race.  (I think Obama is finding some of that out about now - "tiredness" and gaffes.)  
by susie 2007-05-09 09:18PM | 0 recs
Re: The public doesn't know much about Thompson

Make sure everyone see this from Political Animal:

By the time Fred Thompson decides whether or not to join the presidential fray, you will have heard the story of his red pickup truck at least a dozen times. The truck in question is a 1990 Chevy, which the famed statesman-thespian rented during his maiden Senate campaign in 1994. The idea was that Thompson would dress up in blue jeans and shabby boots and drive himself to campaign events around the state...

Seated in the audience is a childhood friend of mine....My friend stands talking with her colleagues as the senator is driven away by a blond, all-American staffer. A few minutes later, my friend gets into her car to head home. As she pulls up to the stop sign at the parking lot exit, rolling up to the intersection is Senator Thompson, now behind the wheel of a sweet silver luxury sedan. He gives my friend a slight nod as he drives past. Turning onto the main road, my friend passes the school's small, side parking area. Lo and behold: There sits the abandoned red pickup, along with the all-American staffer.

Along with Kevin Drum's observation:

Basically, he just drove the thing the final few hundred feet before each campaign event, and then ditched it for something nicer as soon as he was out of sight of the yokels. Quite a man of the people, no?

by molly bloom 2007-05-10 04:01AM | 0 recs
Edwards also appers to be the strongest

nationally vs Guiliani and McCain as well:

check out the Marist poll:
http://www.maristpoll.marist.edu/usapoll s/CP070508.pdf

and RealClearPolitics has the averages of all the matchups where Edwards leads:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/national.html

so its clearly not just one poll

by okamichan13 2007-05-09 07:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards also appers to be the strongest

No, it is not the only poll.  Problem is that he is lagging behind badly when it comes to getting DEMOCRATS behind him to be their nominee.  Clinton is also doing well against the GOP candidates, be they Giuliani, McCain, Romney or Thompson.  Obama is also doing well, although lately not as good as both Edwards and Clinton.  But, overall, things are looking good for 2008 for any of our candidates.  Of course it much depends on what is going on with Iraq, but it seems safe to assume that things won't be a whole lot better in Iraq this time next year.

by georgep 2007-05-09 08:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards also appers to be the strongest

I can see a certain not insignifigant number of democrats swinging towards a different candidate in the primary if poll after well publized poll shows their candidate does very poorly in general election match ups and that another candidate does especially well.

This is a particularly big issue for Hillary as a large part of her campaign is based upon her inevitiabilty to win the nomination and the general. With her nomination chances already not as strong as they ought be (if her contention were true) in the early states and Obama out fundraising her and Edwards only being $4 million behind her (once you take out what she transfered in from her senate campaign and what she can't touch in the general) she's already taking damage on the issue.

Throw in polls that are already showing her weaker than other top tier democratic candidates in the general (Edwards primarily, but also compared to Obama in some polls) and she's looking a lot weaker to people who "just want to win gawd damn it!"

by Quinton 2007-05-10 01:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards also appers to be the strongest

Your contention is wrong here, though.  She does not "do poorly" in general election matchups.  She may not do as well as Edwards, but she is not far off his numbers, does very well against all GOP comers at this point.  She does better than Obama at this point against GOP competition overall if you look at the two massive Survey USA efforts, Rasmussen, other recent polls.   Point is, there IS no candidate that does poorly in general election matchups, really none of our 3.  Clinton does very well, in fact.  

Furthermore, the talking point that "a large part of her campaign is based on her inevitability to win the nomination and the general" is a lot of hooey.  It is posters on blogs who came up with that meme to bash her with, not based on actual reality.  Therefore, discussing it as if it were somehow real makes no sense.   The candidate never made such claims, the campaign never made such claims, so the contention is a blog invention that has found play amongst those who accepted it without questioning the source.    

by georgep 2007-05-10 04:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards also appers to be the strongest

If you look at the RCP averages though, she is actually behind Obama in the head to heads for all 3 candidates I think (and still losing to Giuliani).

The trend between her and Obama on head to heads does seem to be in her favor now so good chance her averages will go up.

by okamichan13 2007-05-10 07:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards also appers to be the strongest

When one candidate is, according to polls:

a) losing certain states and
b) other candidates are winning those states and c) the states the first candidate is winning and d) is also winning those states with a wider margin

it's fair to say that the first candidate is doing worse than the other candidates and people are going to consider them weaker than their competitiors and a certain amount of support is going to shift to the candidate that is perceived to be stronger.

by Quinton 2007-05-10 04:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards also appers to be the strongest

Yet, that is not what has been happening.  Edwards has not been drawing voters away from Clinton or Obama because some surveys show him polling slightly better against Giuliani in head-to-head matchups.  In fact, his support is down across the board from an already anemic level.

The last 5 national polls have Edwards support at 12, 15,16, 12 and 12 points.  He is now off by almost a full 3% off his pace from a month ago, is now at 13.7% in the aggregate.   Those numbers are not just incredibly bad for a major candidate whose name ID is now sky high, but they are also moving in the wrong direction.   The same can be observed in state polls.  In comparison to Clinton Edwards is not doing well in most states.  Iowa is an exception, but other early states Nevada, Florida, South Carolina and New Hampshire tell the tale.  

I don't see where the slight advantage Edwards has in direct matchups with Republicans helps him with DEMOCRATS for the primary?  He has obviously fallen out of favor with Democrats some more to be losing 3% support (and the Democrats' support at 16.4% previously was already very low and in sore need of improvement.)   All it tells us is a little about "the other side."   We already know who Democrats and Democratic-leaning Independents prefer (strongly Clinton and Obama) and this gives us a clue who Republicans want to see us running.  Apparently, Edwards has somewhat better appeal amongst the Republicans in a sample, which then leads him to show somewhat better margins against some of the GOP candidates.  

The big problem for Edwards is that both Clinton and Obama are holding their own against the top-tier GOP candidates, which takes a big argument for Edwards away.  "But polls are showing Edwards doing better than Clinton/Obama" does not work that well when the differences are small.  If Edwards can grow that advantage, he may have somewhat of an argument to make.  Given that Clinton has been doing much better in the "matchup" polls with Giuliani, McCain, and here Thompson, that may be a very hard sale to make.  I can see the argument have more effect with the portion of the Obama support that is with him not because of anything positive they see in him as a candidate, but primarily because they oppose Clinton.  If Edwards can sell them on the notion that he would be the better anti-Hillary because he scores higher against Giuliani and Thompson than Obama, he may be able to syphon off some support from Obama.   Still looks like a longshot, as the Democratic primaries come before the GE and that has to be the primary goal.  Many Democrats may well have an opposing reaction when they are told that Republicans in a sample support one Democratic candidate stronger than the other.  It may be possible to make a little headway with that fact, but it is questionable how valuable that small advantage in GE matchups is when it comes to convincing Democrats for the primaries.  

So far it looks like Edwards is going in the wrong direction, losing some of his already anemic support, amongst DEMOCRATS.  He needs to regain and grow his support in that group first and foremost before making GE considerations an issue.  

by georgep 2007-05-11 12:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards also appers to be the strongest

Edwards has been at 15%, 16%, 17% in almost all national polls that don't include Gore, not the much lower 12% or so that you cite. He's not been losing support or going in the wrong direction either. That's nonsense.

I'd not call his level of support "anemic" by any means. He's certainly got to pick up ground, but it places him solidly in the second tier with almost three times as much support as his nearest competitor. If you're going to call that anemic then what do you call everyone else in the field except for Obama and Hillary? And even Obama is only 10 or so points up on Edwards, which is strong, but that's not double Edwards' "anemic" support.

Not sure what you are pooh poohing how Edwards is polling in NH either. He's running second with quite a bit of recent mo. He went from third, to tied with Obama, to pulling past Obama into second by a few points. If that's a bad place to be then Obama must be bombing (I don't think so) and everyone else in the field barely exists.

by Quinton 2007-05-11 12:23PM | 0 recs
Edwards has double-digit lead in 8 of 9 red states

Wow, would you like fries with that, Fred Thompson? Edwards scores double-digit leads in 8 of 9 red states (from 2004) over Thompson. Hot damn.

Edwards beats Thompson in 15 of these 16 states.

Clinton beats Thompson in 13 of 16 states.

Obama beats Thompson in 11 of 16 states, plus ties him in one (OH).

Electoral vote results:

Edwards: 240
Thompson: 9

Clinton: 221
Thompson: 28

Obama: 175 (including 10 from tie in OH)
Thompson: 74 (including 10 from tie in OH)

by MeanBoneII 2007-05-09 11:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards has

Clinton at 221 electoral votes in this limited state survey?  So much for the "unelectability" argument, huh?  :-)

Obama has to be disappointed with the last 10 days of poll results.  He is not only off in national polls (an overall loss of 10 points) and state polls, but his general election head-to-head matchups have been lagging when compared to Edwards and Clinton.  

by georgep 2007-05-10 04:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards has

Not enough people are thinking about Thompson apparently.  Seriously, are you planning on any Democratic Presidential Candidate winning Texas in 2008?  I don't think this gives a fair representation of what will go down.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-05-10 08:05AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads