SUSA polls Missouri general: Edwards way ahead!

Survey USA keeps coming out with general election polls pitching major Democrats versus major Republicans, and John Edwards keeps running way ahead of his Democratic rivals. First came news from Alabama and Kentucky. Then came Ohio.

Now, SUSA has released a poll from Missouri!

Full analysis here..

A link to the poll!

  • Clinton wins two out three. She loses the marquee matchup against Giuliani, 48% to 45%. That is the only matchup of the nine the Democrat loses. Obama wins against Giuliani 46% to 44%.

  • Clinton and Obama have exactly the same numbers against Thompson and Romney. They both win 48-45 against the former and 51-40 against the latter.

  • Edwards crushes the entire Republican field. He wins by 5 against Giuliani (47-42), by 10 against Thompson (50-40) and by 24 against Romney (56-32).
Let's summarize: Edwards is now in a position to pick-up Alabama, Kentucky, Ohio and Missouri (a poll of Kansas last week also showed him in striking distance). I have repeatedly argued against the possibility of voicing an electability argument, but SUSA is starting to function as an effective surrogate for the Edwards campaign.

Note 1: It is important to notice that only SUSA has shown such a huge and consistent disparity between Edwards and the two other Democrats. Let's see if other polling firms confirm, or if something in SUSA's methodology is leading to such results.

Note 2: Contrary to the Ohio, Alabama, Kentucky numbers in which Obama ran 10 points behind Clinton, he is equal with here here (and even ahead of her against Giuliani).

More analysis on

Tags: clinton, Edwards, Giuliani, Missouri, obama, poll, Romney, SUSA, Thompson (all tags)



Re: SUSA polls Missouri general: Edwards way ahead

These polls keep showing the same thing when it comes to Edwards and electability.

Will Democrats start taking notice?

I seriously believe Edwards has the easiest path to the White House, from all the numbers I'm seeing, as well as some of the right-wing talk.

They secretly want Hillary and run a 1994 campaign all over again.

by takingbackamerica 2007-09-22 09:02PM | 0 recs
SUSA polls Missouri general

The problem is that Edwards loses places like PA, NJ, and NY to Giuliani.

Also, be careful with those SUSA robo calls that try to rattle off a dozen matchups. You have 10% of the called people hanging up before getting to the third tier matchups, so only 499 are answering the Edwards matchup versus 545 for the Clinton/Giuliani matchups, plus much higher "undecideds" among those who do answer.

Think about who would stay on the line until they finally get to the Edwards matchups.

by hwc 2007-09-22 09:53PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA polls Missouri general

It's funny that you never bring up that stuff whenever SUSA's numbers favors Hillary...Edwards and Obama beats all 3 GOP members while Hillary gets beaten by Giuliani and somehow , SUSA is a bad polling firm.


by JaeHood 2007-09-22 09:55PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA polls Missouri general

He never said SUSA was a "bad polling firm." He gave you a reasoned warning, and you chose to ignore it. I can't expect more from you.

by RJEvans 2007-09-22 10:21PM | 0 recs
You are on crack.

I think it is just that simple.

This is another desperate attempt to spin from you idiots.  If your theory was true, then why does Edwards do FAR better than the Shrill One in National Primary polls?

If your theory is true (I doubt it is) then Edwards must be doing so well in states Hillary has NO chance in (since you claim she has the edge in those 3 states) that he can win enough Electoral votes to make up for those states and then some.

Why don't you Clintonista hacks STFU and go here...

Read em and weep

by Michael 4 Edwards 2007-09-23 01:05AM | 0 recs
Re: You are on crack.
"The Shrill One" is beating the crap out of your hypocrite candidate in the national democratic polls. You have to be a real "loser" when you do best in the match-ups and the party STILL doesn't want you as their nominee. Democrats have heard what John Edwards has to offer and most have said "No, thanks!" I can't wait until Hillary mops the floor with him on "Super Tuesday." We'll see who's "weeping" come February.
by reasonwarrior 2007-09-23 03:48AM | 0 recs
Re: You are on crack.

Dude, if I may make a suggestion maybe you oughta tone down the combativeness.  Imagine Elizabeth reading everything you write (and she just might!).  

by Junior Bug 2007-09-23 06:21AM | 0 recs
I understand...

where you are coming from, and I am a fan of your comments. I actually used to have your view...but experience has tought me otherwise. I think you are a little off on this, but I am willing to consider the possibility that I am off.  You are right about the "crack" comment, and you are right that Elizabeth Edwards has said on numerous times that even if she really wants to send an angry reply to someone she "does not press send".

But she is the candidates wife.  I am a lowly activist.  

The whole idea that people will not support a candidate because something a supporter on a blog says is ridiculous.  And the whole "Edwards supporters are mean" BS was largely manufactured out of whole cloth by people who had / have no coherent rationale for supporting the people that they are supporting (many Obama supporters have great reasons for supporting him...they are the exception...his speech against the war was amazing, I just wish they would look at post 2005 - voting no on Kerry - Feingold Edwards told Stephanopoulos he supported it, Endorsing Lieberman in the primary and saying that despite his foreign policy views he hoped CT Dems would have the "good sense" to re-elect Holy Joe, Stopping short of calling for funds for the escalation to be cut offs even though Edwards was all over that, voting for the Gregg amendment, having to be prodded into supporting Levin-Reid while Edwards supported it as a first step, His silence regaridng the first Capitulation Bill until the end...but I still understand some of the logic behind supporting Obama).  Issues like the future of the progressive movement, down-ticket candidates (has any other major candidate repeatedly talked about boosting down-ticket candidates so he can "really move" a "progressive agenda"? I doubt it), the future of organized labor, and reclaiming the heritage and identity of our party don't even cross their minds.

Neither does the fact that we can finally smash the "progressive = unelectable" myth that has become a self-fulfilling prophecy.  Neither does the substantive campaign that he is running or the "John Edwards First And Often Only" List. edwards-first-and-often-only-list.html

There have been some extremely low blows thrown at Edwards on the major blogs lately.  Mostly by know-nothing hacks who act like they are Super Pundit.  Sorry...but allowing this BS to take hold is more damaging that an unfiltered initial reaction from one supporter.

Too much is on the line.  Sometimes pushback is necessary.  The whole "only Hillary can win PA, NY, NJ" thing is so ridiculous I don't even know where to start.  They point to one poll and ignore what the same firm says about Edwards blowing away the GOP in CA).

They also don't answer the obvious problem with their theory.  Because Edwards does so much better than Hillary and Obama in GE polling... al-election-polling-review_20.html

If he was really struggling in states like CA, NY, NJ, and PA, then why is he doing so much better than HRC nationally.  If their theory had anything to it, then even if he was struggling in those states he must be doing so extremely well in states like MO, KY, TN, NC, GA, FL, TX and other states that it would make up for and surpass the electoral votes lost if he really couldn't win the "Clinton states".  When Edwards consistently does 8 or 9 percentage points better than her in natioanl GE polls (often times better) then how do they explain that?  Is he somehow getting 100% of the vote in SD, WY, ID, and KS or something?  And how did he achieve these pockets of small, VERY red states that have little electoral votes where nearly everyone supports him?

It makes no sense.

There needs to be someone who says, "You don't get to get away without a parting shot."  

If you would like to discuss this further, then I would be glad to discuss this with you.  If you really believe that I am way off I will honestly listen to you, and consider whether I have the wrong approach to this.

I don't honestly think that I am going to convert a Clintonista.  But with all of the low blows, sometimes it is important to remind people that if they want to keep it up (claiming that Edwards is abandoning his family...keeping up the "shitty populist" theme that has been thoroughly discredited on every level) then I don't think firing back is out of line.  Some of it was not neccessary, but in the big picture the more important point is that there is not a cult of personality, "she's OUR girl" BS parade that spews venom at everyone else without some kind of response.  

Sure, spinning poll numbers is not that low of a blow.  But the whole strategy of adding a half-truth to a lie to a misconception to their preception and reciting it as fact is getting old really fast.

my e-mail is

I will consider your comment in the future

by Michael 4 Edwards 2007-09-23 04:54PM | 0 recs
Re: I understand...

Thanks for the reply! I meant my criticism to be constructive, but I wasn't sure if I communicated that (I'm not well practiced in saying anything constructive ;).  By all means I support fighting (it's one of the primary reasons I support Edwards, in fact), and my comment was hypocritical at best, as I shamefully admit that I very rarely adopt the respectful tone of the Edwards campaign myself.  

Peace, bro! Let's get this guy elected!

by Junior Bug 2007-09-23 06:47PM | 0 recs
Proving My Point

I obviously meant national general election polls (typo). If you would have clicked the link you would have seen that. But like a good little Clintonista you avoid all of the glaring evidence that your candidate just can't win.

Not to mention the other shoe the right would drop on her.  We all know of which I speak.  

National Primary polls are USELESS!

Only 10% turns out for primaries.

But national polls include ANY registered Dem or Dem leaner, even though the vast majority are low-info, casual Dems (you prove my point about this) who LOVE Hillary because they think they are supposed to support her.

It's not about name recognition as it is about familiarity. They are two different things. Casual Democrats recognize all 3 names, but who do they know the best? Hillary.

Thank you...for proving my point.


by Michael 4 Edwards 2007-09-23 04:21PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA polls Missouri general

Can you show me the poll where Giuliani beats Edwards in NY?  I'm awfully curious.

The chance of any Republican winning NY in the general election is close to 0%, in my view.

by Steve M 2007-09-23 08:04AM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA polls Missouri general

The latest one was back in May:

Clinton 53 - Giuliani 42: rtPopup.aspx?g=cf239de3-5571-4ed5-8a06-5 b0e8849a5c3&q=39292

Giuliani 51 - Obama 42: rtPopup.aspx?g=dcf6251d-7b65-47bd-8dca-a ed681901e31&q=39294

Giuliani 49 - Edwards 44: rtPopup.aspx?g=5cdd79a2-fe8f-42a0-9594-7 f64f590a19c&q=39293

I haven't seen any since, but SUSA may (?) come out with one soon, as they are doing other states which they also polled in May ...

by silver spring 2007-09-23 09:20AM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA polls Missouri general

Considering Survey USA seems to think Giuliani would win 44 states against Edwards, including Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Illinois, I'm respectfully going to wait for some better results.

by Steve M 2007-09-23 10:09PM | 0 recs
545 vs. 499

The difference in that is insignificant enough in terms of margin of error.  I wouldn't go hanging my hat on those who hang up before it's all done.  To get a true gauge, it would be nice if SurveyUSA only used those 499 that completed the survey for all 9 match-ups, to get a real sense of how support levels vary.  But I honestly don't think that's going to affect the numbers much at all.  Not enough people hung up to really affect the margin of error.

As for who would stay on the line to the end, SurveyUSA's raw counts shed some light.  In the Rudy vs. Hillary question at the beginning, only 95 men say they would vote for Hillary.  By the time it gets to question #7, Rudy vs. Edwards, 106 men say they would vote for Edwards.  You would normally expect with hang-ups for the numbers to go down, as it does in the female column.  But for the male numbers to go UP, that means there are people who would not vote for Hillary that would vote for Edwards.

Also notice that against Fred Thompson, Hillary gets 113 male votes, while Edwards gets 119 male votes, despite having had 37 people hang up by the time it got to the Edwards question.

If the numbers drop as you go along, that's to be expected, as some people hang up.  It's when the numbers go UP that makes you take notice, because that means they changed their decision from earlier.  Also note that against Rudy, the numbers of undecided males also went up when it got to Edwards, so you can't just say Edwards' additional votes simply came from truly undecided voters.

In fact, when it comes to party ID, SurveyUSA kept the same 482 people that stated their party ID and answered all the questions.  This paints a more interesting picture.  Rudy picked up four Democrats when matched up against Edwards than Hillary, but Edwards picked up 16 Republican voters from Rudy and also got a couple more Independent voters.  Obama actually gets the most Republican support when matched against Rudy, and the least amount of Democratic support.

by BruinKid 2007-09-23 05:52PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA polls Missouri

Obama and Edwards beats all 3 GOP candidates while Hillary loses against Giuliani...

Looking at the internals , Hillary seems to do poorly among Missouri's male voters but making up for it by getting 50+% of the women votes.

Obama strength seems to reside among the younger voters...Among voters of the age of 18-34 , he constantly crushes everybody by getting up to 60% of this group's vote while Hillary gets beaten by Giuliani among this group.

conclusion: Hillary strength is among women while Obama is strong among young voters...Both of them will try to play to their strength and try hard to turn out their group to protect themselves from weak areas.

by JaeHood 2007-09-22 09:54PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA polls Missouri

conclusion: Hillary strength is among women while Obama is strong among young voters

Yes, but the question is: How will young women vote?  With Hillary or Obama?

by Will Graham 2007-09-23 05:23AM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA polls Missouri

I'm glad you brough up this point.

One thing i havent seen people talked about is the amount of young college women who supports Obama...Ive gone to at least 2 Obama kickoff rallies.... one in NYC and one in S.C and i must say that there are as many young women in the crowd as young males....It's something that i've personally observed with my 2 eyes but never seen a poll that agreed with my observation.

I've also looked at many pictures of Obama rallies and remarked the same thing...More young women then young males and ive seen a lot of those pictures.

My guess is that young women of 18-25 , are not really too used to the Clintons because they probably are too young to remember Bill presidentialyears.

I'm 25 and i can barely remember Hillary Clinton but remembers Bill Clinton pretty well because of the Monica Lewinsky saga and the huge media up-roar...I was about 15-16 but wasn't political at all and although i knew who Hillary was , i just didnt care about her.

It could be that those young women just doesnt have the same love for Hillary as Older women that probably were more political and voted for Bill and Hillary Clinton.

by JaeHood 2007-09-23 06:39AM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA polls Missouri

I'd be nice for a poll to breakdowqn the women vote...My guess is Hillary crushes Obama among older women but the race is more competitive among young women..Hillary probably still leads in that group , but by single digit.

by JaeHood 2007-09-23 06:44AM | 0 recs
Come On Dems

See the light that Edwards is the best choice for a landslide win in '08.  Otherwise, there will be another nail biter with Clinton hoping for one more electoral vote than the Repubs.

I want more than a squeker election night.  Even if Clinton wins, she will likely have to deal with evenly split houses.

Edwards will run a general election campaign in all states and will help elect a great majority in the house and senate.

The repubs want Hillary to be the nominee.  That frees them up in many states and is the best get out vote machine for them in a lot of states.

by funphil 2007-09-22 10:06PM | 0 recs
Something to note about Obama's numbers...

The reason Obama does better in Missouri is because he's actually visited the state and has a good pressence there.  In the case of Ohio and Kentucky, Obama hasn't spent much (if any) time there, and probably won't until after the primaries (assuming he is the nominee) because Ohio and Kentucky don't have primaries until after Feb 5.  There is no need to campaign there yet.

On a state-by-state level, I would expect Obama to run behind Clinton and Edwards in certain match ups because he came out of nowhere just 2-3 years ago.  Views about him aren't as strongly held since he hasn't been around as long and hasn't spent as much time in some of those states.  By contrast, Hillary has been on the national stage for 15 years while Edwards has been campainging for president since 2003 and was previously on the ballot in every state.  The fact that SUSA appears to push leaners (the general election is over a year away but they have a fairly small amount of undecideds) may also hurt Obama.

Obama's numbers were also stronger in the Iowa poll SUSA released a while back, and in Colorado (another state where Obama has visited and good organization in), a different pollster had him roughly tied with Giuliani and well ahead of Romney -- much better than Clinton, who trailed Giuliani and was only slightly ahead of Romney.

by Namtrix 2007-09-22 10:17PM | 0 recs
These polls are funny
They do not reflect reality.  By the time the election comes around the GOP will have done their thing tearing down the democrat and just like every other election it is very unlikely that the democrat is going to win MO.  If we do win MO it will be because the campaign was very well run and that is most likely to be Clinton's.
What is more, Edward's is not going to be the nominee and arguing that he should be because in red states white guys won't vote for a woman or a black man is not a very good argument to make. Women and minorities have been the backbone of this party for years.  
White guys might still run the party, but the days are gone when the rest of us accept that they automatically get the nomination because we need a "southern white guy to the red states".  We don't get those red states. But we will get Arkansas with Clinton.
What is funny is that you all keep posting these polls when they are the only ones that hold any good news Edwards at all.  He's not going to get close to the nomination, so what is the point? Democrats simply not going to chose their nominee based on who is most attractive to people who are the least likely to vote for our candidate, nor should we.
by TeresaINPennsylvania 2007-09-23 01:55AM | 0 recs
Re: These polls are funny

With respect, it is the national polls that do not refelect reality.  Where was John Kerry in national polls at this time four years ago?  Consistently lower than John Edwards is now.

Go ahead, though, tell us John Edwards has no chance.  Those of us who see correctly that with Edwards at the helm we have a shot at a filibuster-proof Senate majority will work that much harder to prove you wrong.

2008 is not just about the presidential election, and most of the key Senate races will be in the redder states.    

by CLLGADEM 2007-09-23 05:21AM | 0 recs
Re: These polls are funny

Stop trying to turn Edwards' electability into racism and sexism. It's pathetic and it's dishonest.

And stop trying to spout your "Hillary's going to be the nominee no matter what and speaking about it otherwise is useless" meme. Again, it's pathetic and it's dishonest... John Kerry for example was polling in low digits before Iowa, what kind of bounce would Edwards get if he was polling in the low 20s before Iowa?

by KainIIIC 2007-09-23 08:06AM | 0 recs
Re: These polls are funny

You think a Democrat will "possibly win" Alabama?

That pretty much says it all about the political insight expressed here.

A Democrat has zero chance of winning Alabama. Jesus Christ could return and run as a Democrat in Alabama and he would lose.

by hwc 2007-09-23 06:54AM | 0 recs
Re: These polls are funny

It depends on who the nominees are.

If the GOP nominates Romney and the Democrats nominate Edwards, Alabama will be very very competitive.

by adamterando 2007-09-23 08:02AM | 0 recs
Re: These polls are funny

A LOT of states will be competitive if they nominate Romney, which is why I hope he gets the nomination. As these state-to-state polls show, Edwards is really the only one who seize on his weakness and actually win in states where Democrats have little hope in winning in like Alabama and Kansas. Still, it'd be very tough to win in Alabama regardless, though if Edwards picks Sebelius as his running mate, Kansas could be in play.

by KainIIIC 2007-09-23 08:08AM | 0 recs
Re: These polls are funny

At least, with an Edwards vs. Romney matchup, it is a possibility. rssrai did not say it was a good possibility, but it would exist, and I agree.  Putting the state in play would be huge, and for all her political genius, your candidate cannot do that, even against Romney.

by CLLGADEM 2007-09-24 01:27AM | 0 recs
HRC vs. Rudy..... the only way we lose next year.  She's losing among independents in these swing states.

The question is:  Can Edwards get out this rut he's been in since the $400 haircut?

by mikelow1885 2007-09-23 08:53AM | 0 recs
Re: HRC vs. Rudy.....

I think that's in the background of all our minds, but I do believe it's behind us.

by Vox Populi 2007-09-23 09:47AM | 0 recs
Re: HRC vs. Rudy..... the only way we lose next year.

Especially since Rudy Giuliani doesn't have any family values problems, or "controversial" business associate problems, or hasn't ever flip-flopped on any major wedge issues important to the republican base.

Is it too much to ask people to do some basic research around here before posting breathless "what ifs"? I hear Google is really easy to use.

Act like political activists for a change, not like a bunch of junior high school Heathers.

Oh, and by the way, a real Democratic Party activist avoids recycling or repeating republican sound bites, talking points, or memes about any Democratic Party candidate for president.

Frackin' amateurs.

by Michael Bersin 2007-09-23 05:21PM | 0 recs
Iowa polls have just been released...

Should this diary be updated? rtEmail.aspx?g=275a3c34-9cad-41b4-a76e-7 8799cfa229d

Democrats win every match-up, Edwards still blows the GOP out of the water.

The Iowa numbers also reinforce my belief Obama only does "worse" in the states he's never been to or hasn't been to often (so expect those numbers in Ohio to turn around if he's the nominee).

by Namtrix 2007-09-23 10:59AM | 0 recs
You're 100% right

You're 100% right...Maybe you should diary this.

Also , ive been talking to a friend of mine that attends the University of Iowa and she told me that she's noticed a lot of ex-republicans signing up 'supporters-card" pledging to caucus for Obma.

My guess is that Obama does better then Hillary on a general match up in Iowa because he's expected to get support from those republicans?...Is that a stretch?

by JaeHood 2007-09-23 12:31PM | 0 recs

Clinton and Edwards are by far the most electable.  We will lose if Obama is the nominee.

by truthteller2007 2007-09-23 12:45PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA polls Missouri general: Edwards way ahead

In 2004 the Edwards line was that only Edwards could win in the South, Midwest, etc. and that Kerry, Dean, etc. would lose in those states. When it came down to actually voting Edwards himself lost to Kerry in every state in the South except for one (and lost to Clark in Oklahoma). Even after that Kerry put him on the ticket and Kerry lost all of those states as well.

by robliberal 2007-09-23 04:37PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads