Newsweek has an interesting cover story this week on Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and their chances in the 2008 presidential election. It’s a lengthy, 4,000-word piece that pulls together nearly all of the major elements of where the race is and where it might go. No real surprises or earth-shattering news, but a generally solid piece, overall.
There is, however, a twist. Newsweek conducted a poll in conjunction with the article about diversity issues and national preferences, and found that 86% of respondents would vote for a qualified woman candidate for president if their party nominated one, and 93% say the same for a qualified African-American. It’s not 100%, but the numbers are better than they have been.
OK, but what about a horse-race poll? Newsweek has Clinton and Obama on the cover, the whole story is about 2008, the magazine puts a poll in the field, and neglected to see who was winning or who fared well against leading GOP candidates?
As it turns out, Newsweek didn’t forget; it just neglected to publish the numbers.
It’s kind of inexplicable, since the results were surprising.
* Asked to choose between Hillary Clinton and John McCain, Clinton enjoyed a seven-point lead in the Newsweek poll, 50% to 43%. (Among self-identified independents, with whom McCain is supposed to excel, the two were tied at 45% each.)
* Asked to choose between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, Clinton led 48% to 47%.
* Asked to choose between Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney, Clinton is ahead 58% to 32%.
* Asked to choose between Barack Obama and John McCain, McCain’s lead was only two points, 45% to 43%, despite the fact that a far larger percentage of respondents said they weren’t very familiar with Obama.
* Obama trailed Giuliani by a similar margin (47% to 44%), and led Romney, 55% to 25%.
Now, I appreciate the fact that these early polls are likely to fluctuate a lot in the coming year, but why on earth would Newsweek not report the data at all?