Hypothetical election match-ups
As you may know, I do not put much stock in polls of possible 2008 general election presidential match-ups. But nevertheless, I’m recommending this post by Chris Bowers about a recent of Survey USA polls of 2008 battleground states. Survey USA has the best track record of any polling outfit and the polls are of ten key states: New Mexico, Ohio, Missouri, Washington, Oregon, Virginia, Iowa, Minnesota, Kentucky, and Wisconsin. It features four potential match-ups: Obama-Huckabee, Obama-Romney, Hillary-Huckabee, and Hillary-Romney. Let me give a brief summary of what’s interesting:
- * Democrats win every match-up in every state, except for Huckabee outpolling Obama in Ohio. (I have no idea why this is and in fact am pretty sure the Dems will win Ohio but lose at least one of the other states.)
- * Hillary performs slightly better than Obama over all, but it’s pretty close.
It’s all hypothetical nonsense, of course, but it should give pause to those who think Hillary is unelectable.
You’re assuming a two-person race.
Throw Bloomberg into the mix and ask yourself what happens?
He’ll run as an uber-competent, socially liberal Republican. He’ll be “liberal” on social values but respectful to religion; he’ll be running as a fiscal conservative; he’ll be claim to be beholden neither to the Republican constituencies (Liberty University, Corporate behemoths) nor the Democratic ones (Unions, minorities). He’ll talk about finding ways to fix Washington by being an outsider, he’ll talk about cleaning up the mess.
He’ll appeal to everyone, in short. He starts out with that roughly 30% non-affiliated voters and peals off people from both parties. Unlike Perot, I think he’d be in it to win, not just to make a point.
He’ll display a good sense of humor and he’ll be able to bury the entire continent in advertising (why stop at the US borders? a voter might be watching TV somewhere else…) thanks to his personal fortune.
He will decimate Giuliani– he’ll have the credibility to call him a fraud to his face. Less so, but still true, for Romney. Thompson (is he still even in the race?) will look like a washed up, tired has-been next to Bloomberg. He’ll dismiss Huckabee’s governor experience as less relevant than his mayoral and then also talk about his experience building a company.
On our side, he’ll look like an acceptable but much less polarizing figure than Clinton (plus, he’ll find ways of dredging up the bad-feelings of the 90s); he’ll claim more and more relevant experience than Obama; he’ll pillory Edwards for his trial lawyer past; and he’ll work to tar Richardson with his association with the Clinton’s (and the rumors of womanizing, and the speeding of his driver, and …).
I suspect that of the candidates on both sides, Huckabee, Edwards, and Dodd stand the best chance against him. They’re different enough that they present an alternative (Giuliani and Clinton are probably the candidates most similar to him and so the ones who are least likely to be able to differentiate themselves). But, I suspect that if it were, say, Huckabee vs. Edwards vs. Bloomberg that Huckabee stands a betetr chance of beating Bloomberg than Edwards– Huckabee would retain more Rs than Edwards’ Ds.
So– don’t start the “Hail to the Chief” song for the D nominee, just yet.
I don’t agree that Bloomberg would get a significant number of Democratic votes. He’s going to get the disaffected and swing voters, and the disaffected voters this time out are Republicans, not Democrats.
I have a real problem with the phrase “It’s all hypothetical nonsenseâ€ÂÂ. It is not nonsense (even though some other non-scientific polls discussed here at RT are nonsense). These are scientific polls that give an accurate description of voter sentiment today. They do not attempt to predict what would happen in November 2008, because as we know, things change over time.
You are correct that anyone who thinks Hillary is unelectable should be forced to explain why so many people (a majority/plurality) would vote for her today if she is so unelectable..
I’m *not* somebody who says that Clinton is unelectable. I do wonder if she is the most electable candidate.
I don’t know that it is relevant that a plurality of people support her in the primary; I do think, though that polls like this one Gallup/USA Today are relevant:
To be fair, her game plan isn’t winning votes from Republicans– it is all about driving Ds to the polls and neutralizing independents and hoping the Republicans stay home. And that is a game plan that has worked to some degree for Bush, so there is precedent for its success.
But it strikes me as a risky plan and I’d rather see her strategists voicing a plan that won a significant majority– an ‘84 election instead of an ‘04 election– and provided a mandate.
I think Obama can be that candidate. I think Dodd might be, too. I’m less sure of Edwards or Biden or Gore. I also think that Bloomberg could be that person. And that’s why I think we shoul d be very wary of him.
I think he will pick up substantial D votes. But I don’t think he will have a Democratic agenda and I’d rather see a Democrat in the White House.
I think is is hypothetical nonsense, because people don’t know who they vote for before the campaign has taken place. Huckabee only has about 50% name recognition nationwide so how can you accurately assess how people will vote once they know who he is? Don’t forget — Gore consistently trailed W in polls in 1999 and early 2000, frequently by 15 points of more. And that Kerry led Bush by 5-10 points in most polls in early 2000, prior the Swiftboating and so on.
So I stand by comment. The polls are scientific but they are not accurate predictors of how people will vote. It’s like asking people the score of a game before the game is played.
Exile sez:
Okay, so we agree on the substance here, I said pretty much the same thing, that the polls cannot predict who will vote for in Nov 2008.
But I can’t agree that polls are “hypothetical nonsense”. They are indeed a snapshot of what voters think today. You may not care what voters think today (11 months or so before a national election), but that’s a different issue than are the polls accurate snapshots of what is going on today.
The polls themselves are not nonsense. The discussions people have about them are. That’s what I’m saying.
I love Survey USA and I certainly don’t mean that to slight them. I think that Bowers’ discussion of what the polls mean is speculative at best. (Though I love his work in general.)
Remember: campaigns matter. An “unelectable” candidate is one who can’t run a good campaign. Obama, Edwards, and Hillary can run all good campaigns. Not a one of them is unelectable.