A word about ’08 polls — and electability

January 22, 2007

When it comes to the 2008 presidential race, polling is so premature, it’s almost better to ignore it. Indeed, as my friend Anonymous Liberal explained in a great guest post here in November, at this point in the 2004 presidential race, the leading Democratic contenders were Joe Lieberman and Dick Gephardt. As I recall, they didn’t do particularly well. One isn’t even a Democrat anymore.

With this in mind, early ’08 polling should be taken with a tractor-trailer-sized helping of salt, especially when it comes to the intra-party races for the Dems and GOP nomination. National polls are almost entirely meaningless — voters in Iowa and New Hampshire will have far more influence than the nation at large — and state polls are going to fluctuate, a lot, over the next year.

And yet, to seemingly contradict everything I just wrote, I wanted to note some interesting national results from two new polls, with hypothetical match-ups between leading Dems vs. leading Republicans.

First, Newsweek’s new poll, which shows a generic Dem enjoying a 21-point lead over a generic Republican — Americans clearly want a change — but competitive races when names are added to the mix.

* John Edwards leads John McCain (48% to 43%) and leads Rudy Giuliani (48% to 43%);

* Barack Obama leads McCain (46% to 44%) and trails Giuliani (47% to 45%);

* Hillary Clinton leads McCain (48% to 47%) and trails Giuliani (48% to 47%).

A new Washington Post/ABC News poll excluded Edwards from the mix, but nevertheless offers similar results.

* Clinton leads McCain (50% to 45%) and leads Giuliani (49% to 47%);

* Obama leads McCain (47% to 45) and trails Giuliani (49% to 45%).

My skepticism about early polls notwithstanding, there’s a reason I think this matters. It’s about “electability.”

Most primary voters, understandably, want to consider whether a candidate can win before backing him or her. It makes sense — if you want your party to win the White House, there’s no real point in backing a candidate who’s likely to lose.

I’ve lost count of how many times, just in the last week or so, in which I’ve heard that Clinton (and/or Obama and/or Edwards) “can’t win.” In many circles, John McCain is some kind of folk hero who can’t possibly lose in a match-up against one of the Dems’ top-tier candidates.

Now would be a good time for Dems to stop thinking this way, and the polls help prove the point. We may be at an early stage, but Americans are already largely familiar with the top three Dems and the top two Republicans — and the Dems are shaping up quite well. Indeed, McCain, already considered the likely front-runner in the general election by the media establishment, trails all of the top Dems in both polls.

My point isn’t that these early national polls have reliable predictive value; my point is that the Dems’ top-tier is plenty competitive and can absolutely win a national race.

I can’t decide if I am troubled by the huge drop off between the generic ballot and the named candidate poll.

On the one hand, the message seems to be “we really dont like anyone with an R after their name. . . but then again, we don’t really like the specific candidates teh Dems are offering.”

On the other hand, the spread may be an indication that the playing field leans so significantly D that despite the name ID and favorability of McCain and Giuliani, the D lead still has ample room to grow and a great climate to do so.

I need another cup o coffee before I can sort all of that out.

  • I don’t think there’ll be any surprises next year. It’ll be Clinton vs McCain and all the hidden anti-woman feelings will come out in the voting booth and McCain will win by a slight margin. IMHO

  • If the generic Democrat is 21 points ahead of the generic Republican, and Clinton/Obama are no better than neck and neck with Giuliani/McCain, I’d say those two have very serious electability problems. Look, Obama is black and Clinton is an obviously ambitious woman. It would be nice to think that those things don’t matter, and maybe in 30 years they won’t. But right now they do, and there’s no use pretending they don’t. I predict right now that neither will win the 2008 election.

  • One isn’t even a Democrat anymore.

    This gets said about Joe Lieberman a lot, but I’m not sure it’s technically true. Yes, he had a different party listed when he ran for re-election. But he still considers himself to be a member of the Democratic Party. The fact that he refused to abide by the results of the party primary ought to disqualify him, as surely as his habit of criticizing Dems while praising the GOP. But as long as party ID is a matter of individual say-so, whatever he says is so.

  • PeterG- I would disagree, especially about Obama (Clinton has her own baggage independent of her gender which I feel would most likely make her a losing candidate). If anything, look for the racist contingent to keep their mouths firmly clamped shut under an Obama campaign- the media would LOVE a good bit of racist material to run with, and no politicians out there who have a future in politics would dare to cross lines.

    Quite frankly, speaking from the younger generation, that sort of thing really doesn’t matter so much to us. For us, the Civil Rights movement was something we learned about in school, along with the rest of history. And for the older generation, whatever bigots care, they will be an extremely quiet group (and, if not, well all the better!).

  • which shows a generic Dem enjoying a 21-point lead over a generic Republican — Americans clearly want a change — but competitive races when names are added to the mix.

    Which is consistent with the whole dynamic of American politics now- it means that the Republicans are going to have to swing liberal.

    The differential probably also means that the media coverage smearing specific Dems has an effect. Something to keep in mind, although the people are with us on the issues.

    Some TV coverage I heard of the Newsweek poll noted that Edwards leads both McCain and Giuliani. This just means that people prefer a younger guy, in my opinion. It goes to show your point about how little the polls show- they’re better as indicators of the validity of the aphorisms about candidates generally than they are about anything specific.

  • My point isn’t that these early national polls have reliable predictive value; my point is that the Dems’ top-tier is plenty competitive and can absolutely win a national race.

    I think your general point is correct. We have good candidates and the people are with us on the issues; we need to be there for our candidates the best we can because it’s worthwhile.

  • Actually, it might not be such a bad idea to start the discussions about who’s-who at this point. First, it was the disaster of 2004 that started the ball rolling early on 2006; this, then, led to the rebuilding of the Big-D Machine and the 50-State strategy that began to garner Democratic votes in areas that, until that moment, existed only on an imaginary piece of parchment. As things began to come together, Dems were able to demonstrate that, rather than choosing between “the high gropund” and “trench warfare,” they were able to successfully wage both types of war against the Republikanner Beast—simultaneously.

    Also—by starting the discussions now, we allow more time for the “weeding-out” process to receive exposure to this two-tiered strategy. Will it damage the Dem chances in ’08? Hardly. But it will, if given the opportunity, permit a longer “smoothing out” of the wrinkles that come from one’s favorite candidate to reject support of another contender, when that time comes.

    Dems can play the two-tier gambit—taking the high road while getting down into those mud-filled trenches. It’s like the classic “pincer movement” tactic on the military battlefield ReThugs can’t—all they can do is throw mud—and wait for the pincer to close.

    But then again, that’s just my few coppers’ worth….

  • The divergence between the generic and named Dem polls really helps with strategy at this stage of the race. Giulani and McCain both have an advantage of being perceived as mavericks, and not being closely identified with the Republican party.

    The Move-On ads in New Hampshire and Iowa which show McCain’s support of the hideously unpopular Bush and his disastrous War in Error are exactly the type of early moves that need to be done now to make sure that any Republican is thoroughly identified with Bush and his corrupt regime. Every potential Republican candidate must become the generic Republican.

    As to the Democratic field, I’m elated that we have such a strong group of candidates at this point in the race, while fervently hoping that both Gore and Clark will join the field to expand the debate.

  • Count me among the “Circles” who treated McCain as an insurmountable folk hero. But that luster is being worn away on an almost daily basis now. And he will be chained to what happens in Iraq going forward no matter how much he wriggles. That is likely to be his undoing. If by some miracle, the “surge” actually works and things are rosy in Iraq in the next two years, I suppose he will deserve credit and will lkely cruise to victory.

    I don’t think he will be looking good come 2008. And I think Guliani has significant obstacles to overcome within his own party (some he shares with McCain) just to get the nomination. I don’t think a couple days of leadership after 9/11 will carry much weight seven years removed. I might be wrong, but as someone who lived in NYC through his tenure as mayor, he is NOT that good a politiician.

    The Republican nominee is likely to be somebody we are not talking about. and I think the Dem nominee will match up fine.

  • I’m getting a strong impression that all the air is steadily coming out of the McCain balloon. On TeeVee he looks, well, pathetic would be too strong a word. Zombie eyes, puffy jowls, immobile upper lip, a bored expression. Maybe he stretched too far bending over for Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, et al. Maybe age is catching up with him … too many rubber chicken dinners, too many compromises, too many lies. Whatever is behind it, McCain’s sun seems to be setting rather than rising.

  • I have to agree with Dale (#2) & PeterG (#3)

    I just don’t believe that the USA is going to elect anyone other than a white Christian male to the presidency in ’08. I don’t think that the country is overwhelmingly racist or sexist but I do think that there is a hard core minority (say 3% to 8%) for whom racism/sexism is the defining factor and that small minority is enough to swing the vote in OH, FL, IN and several other ‘must win’ states.

    That we have serious female and non-white candidates now is a good thing and it is needed in order to get past the racist/sexist conversation. I was a very small child in the 50’s but I do remember a lot of trepidation about electing a Catholic. My sense is that JFK could not have been elected in ’52 or ’56 because of his religion but that the four years of conversation on the subject before 1960 went a long way toward removing the barrier.

    I don’t think that Obama is electable in ’08 but I think he probably will be in ’16.

  • Zeitgeist hits on a great point: People say they like the Democratic platform (which is decidedly populist, which we need in the country), but when names are listed, the support drops.

    I wish I had a good explanation, but I don’t. The Dem candidates are, IMHO, the cream of the crop within the party (well, except for maybe Kucinich — who would have a better shot if it weren’t for television — and Feingold, who isn’t running).

    If none of them can actually win, then then what hope is there? Honestly … what more can they do at this point?

  • THe polls at this point really aren’t worth anything. Most people won’t concentrate until there is a primary in their state (if it is still “in play” then) and then the conventions – Labor Day time next year. Right now polls only show name recognition and the ability of the media to create “Buzz”. Otherwise more Americans know little to nothing about the candidates to make any sort of informed choice that would be meaningful for a poll to be meaningful. The fact that the media is creating a horse race between Obama and Hillary means that much less name recognition for everyone else – and will stay that way until some “unknown” (who has been running for over a year) exceeds expectations in one of the early 4 which will suddenly shake up the media status quo. But at this point, all polls are going to do is validate the media in some sort of circular symbiosis.

  • Thanks Ethel ~ you’re right of course.

    Does the media report on the candidates or does it create them?

  • Dale (#2) – I’m going to disagree with you. For one thing, there have been enough Democratic women elected to major office in “red” and “purple” states that I think the quality of the candidate can trump the male piggy-wigginess (although it is certainly out there). For another, we’ve got a year for McCain to keep tripping over his tongue, to the point where even halfwitted illiterates like Richard Cohen and Joe Klein will see it. McCain is already losing the independent vote with his Iraq stand, and I’m sorry to say but the only thing that’s going to come of the Bush/McCain escalation is more American casualties and more “bad days” like Saturday, so the public is going to get even more pissed-off with the Republicans.

    There’s going to be nothing but bad news from Iraq, and I wouldn’t bet against bad news economically on the domestic front as the housing bubble deflates and the middle class loses its one and only “perk.”

    I predict that whoever we nominate – thank God this time we have a who field of people I’d be happy to vote for in November ’08 – will beat whoever the Republicans nominate, and we’re going to end up with 61+ in the Senate and 2/3+ in the House, making the Republicans irrelevant for at least two years in which we can make as much progress as was made in 1964-66, the last time the thugs imploded.

    Rove thought he was going to change politics for a generation. I think 2008 is going to be for us what 1932 was.

    Call me a crazy optimist, but just look around. Every crisis facing us is an opportunity, and I think the Democrats will rise to that (as long we we folks keep pushing them so they have to remember “there go my followers and I must run after them, for I am their leader”)

  • I hope you are right, Tom #16. I could definitely see McCain self-destructing in the next year or so.

    As we congratulate ourselves on having a black man as a serious Presidential hopeful, I’d just like to say Obama is to black as Ellison is to Muslm. We haven’t come as far as we pretend.

  • Castor Troy:

    The problem is that the younger generation does not vote. Yes, it won’t matter in 30 years whether or not the candidate is a women or black, but I must say that it will matter this time. Don’t believe me? Look at the recent Harold Ford race. The good news is that the reason Edwards rates so much better than any other Dem running against a Republican is his message. Those who hear him speak are delighted, as unlike McCain, he is talking like a real straight-shooter. He is a populist that speaks to the people and so far hasn’t triangulated or sounded like the normal poll tested Democrat.

  • Doubting Thomas- Please, let’s look at the Ford race. And note that, yet again, it was a comfortably Southern state (I still contend we would have been better off ‘losing’ the Civil War and just letting them go), where closet racism is still sadly acceptable. But, on the national stage, I don’t think those *wink* *wink* racist statements play so well- and, with Obama in the race, you can bet that the media will be well on the lookout for them (if for no more altruistic reason than the sensationalistic headlines).

    I think what Obama brings very strongly to the table is not that he is mixed-race, but that he is beyond that. He’s on the leading edge of the younger generation to which racism doesn’t quite have the same meaning it does for people who grew up pre-Civil Rights era. And it shows. Unlike other perennial candidates like Sharpton, to whom their race is their ‘draw’ in the election, Obama is running, let’s say, almost in spite of his race.

    And That’s part of why I think he has an honest chance. He is standing up on issues and character, on an equal footing with the other candidates. His baggage is already out in the open, in the form of two autobiographies, and nothing has seemed to hurt him too much so far.

    Oh, and the other (maybe more important) reason that I think he has a chance? Those Osama/Obama/ Hussein ‘accidental’ references. Somebody is scared of him…

  • Why on earth is no one mentioning Al Gore? Do people actually believe what he’s been saying about not running for president? Give me a break. Trust me, the Clinton’s are very aware of who their most formidable competitor will be and let me tell you definitively it is not Obama, Edwards, etc. It is Al Gore. Expect him to announce in May when he releases his new book. The blogosphere and grass roots of the Democratic party will then explode in support and the real Gore/Clinton match will begin.
    http://www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com

  • Can we just get a generic Demcrat to run in this contest, like, say, one of us? Polls say one of us generic types would be better than all the rest.

    Once primary season gets going I think a unique synergy will start to take shape. The Repubs with their same-old, same-old vanilla, whitebread, corporate candidates versus the diversity of the Democratic field I think will alter the electorate’s perspective. The Dem field looks more like America with Southern, Northern, Western, female, Hispanic and mixed race candidates all filling the roster. While the Repubs will be fighting over who is the whitest candidate, the nation will look to the Democratic field and see it look more like them.

    At this point we’re looking at the fireworks while they’re still in the box and what we seeing may not be too impressiv yet. Let’s wait till the match gets lit before we say any are duds.

    • Comments are closed.