New Poll: Edwards our only candidate who beats McCain, Edwards wins over others by double Hillary's

[Stop Cornyn]

margin.

Our Candidate vs. McCain

Edwards WINS by 8%
Hillary LOSES by 2%
Obama TIES

Our Candidate vs. Romney

Edwards WINS by 22%
Hillary WINS by 11%
Obama WINS by 13%

Our Candidate vs. Huckabee

Edwards WINS by 25%
Hillary WINS by 10%
Obama WINS by 15%

Our Candidate vs. Giuliani

Edwards WINS by 9%
Hillary WINS by 6%
Obama WINS by 7%

Source: CNN poll released December 11, 2007.

[PresidentObama]

1. Edwards is the most electable.

This is just the latest example of it!!

[durrrty libby]

2. McCain can't even get 10% of republicans behind him. Some

people believe the silliest things

[PresidentObama]

8. Reality sucks, doesn't it?

Ask Hillary.

Once inevitable.

Now trailing in Iowa and South Carolina. With her double digit lead in New Hampshire down to six points above Obama.

Some people believe the silliest things.

Yeah, I think a lot of people tried telling Hillary supporters that back in July and August when she was still *inevitable* and now she's only got the national polls to cheer about. The meaningless national polls.

[Tejanocrat]

20. In Iowa, Huckabee is rising and everyone else EXCEPT McCAIN and PAUL is falling.

McCain could easily finish 3rd in Iowa.

No matter where McCain finishes in Iowa, he's in second (and rising) in New Hampshire. McCain ought to easily come in second in New Hampshire and could possibly pull off an upset.

By the time South Carolina rolls around, either Giuliani or Thompson or both will look like "the potential candidate(s) who never materialized" and their supporters will be fleeing to other candidates. McCain ought to get a good chunk of that support so who's to say how things play out.

McCain is clearly their strongest general election candidate.

[harmonicon]

42. "The meaningless national polls."

oh, shit.... I shouldn't laugh, because this election is serious, but how is one poll better than another? If you think a poll of a few hundred or thousand people months before primaries and a year before an election means ANYTHING you're completely delusional. The only polls that mean shit are exit polls, and the only percentages that mean anything come from actual votes, not polls. There ought to be a "counting our chicks before they've hatched" forum on DU for this crap.

[Tejanocrat]

59. National PRIMARY polls are meaningless because there isn't a national primary. National HEAD-TO-HEAD

REPUBLICAN-VS-DEMOCRAT polls reflect the fact that the general election is national.

[harmonicon]

60. I know they're pointless!! so are the state polls!! all primary polls are crap.

[faithfulcitizen]

61. Perhaps of those 3...what about Biden, Richardson, or Dodd?

ya know, the ones with all the experience. :shrug:

[Double T]

3. HRC and Obama should bow out and let Edwards defeat the rethugs.

The rethugs will NEVER let HRC win the Presidency and the rethugs will NEVER elect an African American, YET! Time to put a WINNER in the race.

[dmosh42]

4. I completely believe this poll! n/t

[Tejanocrat]

5. Holy shit: Edwards 60%, Huckabee 35%; Edwards 59%, Romney 37%! WOW!

[PresidentObama]

6. I know, right? We've found ourselves a winner. And he's got a good message and great vision too.

And when he wins Iowa, hopefully he'll win the nomination ;)

President Edwards here we come!!

[Stop Cornyn]

7. It warms my heart to see a populist beating two theocrats that convincingly.

[weeve]

9. Wouldn't it be sad ...

... if the Dems nominate anyone other than Edwards , and roll the dice on this next election?

Three "liberal" Supreme Court Justices have indicated that they may well bow out in this next term. Are we willing to risk a Republican winning, and 8-1 Supreme Court decisions for decades to come ? I'm not.

The Corporate Media wants it to be a two person race ... Hillary - Obama. They're the ones most likely to lose in the General, and should they win ... the most likely to be corporate friendly.

I want a Progressive in the White House ( w/ Congressional coattails ). I want JOHN EDWARDS !!

[EVDebs]

10. The policies Edwards would put into motion are something the M$M doesn't want , why we need him

soooooo bad is because they're ignoring him. Aristocrats need their showdogs. Edwards would bite them !

[JohnLocke]

12. Great post

[WileEcoyote]

45. He wins the general election easy

but even if he doesn't win the nomination the general force on GOP approval is making it TANK damn quick. Send a check to Huckabee (just kidding)! Enjoy watching the GOP destroy itself.

So at this rate any Democrat beats the GOP field. Even Hillary. My concern for Edwards is that he'll get himself killed like Kennedy's I and II.

The shadow governing body can not allow such a person to take control.

[DrFunkenstein]

11. McCain Couldn't Beat Mayor McCheese

Let alone one of the Democrats.

[Catchawave]

14. He's the candidate most Dem strategists fear as McCain

Is Mr Moderate Nice Guy Conservative with great crossover appeal compared to the other whackos in the GOP field.

[ronnykmarshall]

49. Mayor McCheese!!

:rofl:

[okamichan13]

13. Looks rather obvious doesn't it?

smoking every single one of them

[Catchawave]

16. Yes he does !

I wonder why the MSM doesn't see this as a talking point? People are surely burning out the All Hillary v. Obama news channels. There are other candidates !

[BlueStater]

15. I like Edwards but I have trouble believing that

McCain is running a pretty poor campaign advocating America stay in Iraq, something a clear majority of the country is opposed to. I don't anyone should have any real trouble with him.

[Stop Cornyn]

17. McCain still has some loyalty from independents who remember his campaign in 2000 and who haven't

followed the news too closely since then.

[asdjrocky]

18. Good news people-

Now let's go to work.

[asdjrocky]

19. k

[frogmarch]

21. Aha! And there we have it. Go, Edwards ! n/t

[waiting for hope]

22. I love this - even Tweety

earlier was commenting oh how Edwards has the highest percentage over the other two....humm, wasn't there some naysayers who didn't believe that Edwards was the most electable? Oh yeah, I remember.... ;)

K&R and Thanks!

[asdjrocky]

23. k

[pamela]

24. K, R & B

Those are some beautiful numbers.

[fujiyama]

25. This is actually nothing new

and the numbers are consistent.

Edwards has always been doing better in match ups against republicans. I love how he's kicking Romney's ass by such a huge margin.

[Stop Cornyn]

30. It isn't new that Edwards is the strongest general election candidate, but the increasing size of

Edwards' margins over the Repubs is new.

[fujiyama]

35. Maybe to some extent

but his leads over Romney especially have always been around this margin.

Regardless I agree. He'd likely be the strongest and safest of the front runners in the general election.

[Stop Cornyn]

58. Edwards has always been creaming Romney, but I haven't seen anyone beating Huckabee by 25%.

[progressoid]

26. I got a robo call from McCain that bragged that he was the only Repube to "possibly beat Clinton"

That was a few weeks ago. I doubt he's bragging about losing to Edwards.

[1932]

29. Why are you getting robo calls from Republicans?

[progressoid]

32. I have the same name as two local Repubs. I get calls from both sides.

Actually there are a lot of IA DUers that get them from both sides. I got two robo calls from the Ron Paul camp recently (his campaign is targeting Democrats) and one from Romney this evening (but definately aimed at Repubes).

Last Thursday I had 4 poll calls in one day. Sometimes I hate to answer the phone.

[saltpoint]

27. Hearty cheers for the Carolinian.

[ClarkUSA]

28. This is good for Edwards but realize that Obama was in this position two weeks ago...

and Hillary two weeks before that. Who knows what the head-to-head match ups will look like two weeks from now? :shrug:

[Stop Cornyn]

57. So that suggests in two weeks time, Edwards will be where where Obama is now? OK

[ClarkUSA]

62. No, it doesn't mean that but if that makes you happy, go for it.

I stick to the RCP averages for Iowa, which were dead-on in 2004 three days out.

[fightindonkey]

31. Edwards Is Not Electable, Get Over It

Puhleeze. Pretty boy will be eaten alive. He's Kerry all over again.

[tinrobot]

33. How is that?

Does he talk in Kerry's somnambulist monotone and look like Herman Munster?

[cali]

34. That's now. Edwards has been largely ignored by the press and

almost completely ignored by the RNC. Just wait. If he does well in Iowa, you can expect him to get the treatment that Clinton and Obama have- for months now. And he'll swiftly go down in polls against repukes as his negatives are driven up. And there are lots, and lots of areas to attack Edwards in.

They're all electable. Making the argument that Edwards is the most electable at this point, doesn't make any sense. And electability shouldn't be a big issue this year with the facts about the disintegrating repuke party and their lousy candidates.

[KnaveRupe]

38. So if electability isn't an issue this year,

what better time to nominate someone with REAL progressive values? Oh, wait. Everyone says Kucinich isn't "electable", so we have to nominate Hillary.

[cali]

41. If he can't get nominated, we can't run him.

And he didn't run a campaign to win. You can't skip Iowa. And that's largely what he did.

[liskddksil]

43. Yes we have been ignored

But all the coverage we do get is resoundingly negative. See Dana Milbank's hitpiece in the washington Post yesterday. I think the fact that we are still despite the lack of positive attention is very telling of John's ability to connect with voters on the ground.

[cali]

46. that's not even true. See Craig Crawford's piece yesterday.

Not to mention quite a bit of good press in Iowa and NH. JE just hasn't gotten the full national press treatment. If he does well in Iowa, he will.

[Czolgosz]

36. Waaa!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[ronnykmarshall]

54. Puhleeze is right.

Edwards IS electable.

[Perry Logan]

37. These pairing polls never make any sense at all.

[Ladyinblack]

39. I agree

I think he is our best chance for winning the White House. I believe the other candidates would be good, but I do not think they are as likely to win.

[SlingBlade]

40. Kickin It for John Edwards

What a breath of fresh air from these Re-Pugs and Dino’s:dem:

[Quixote1818]

44. K & R

[qazplm]

47. Im sure I'll get attacked for this

but seems to me the common denominator in all of this is that Edwards is much less well known than Obama and Hillary.

So I'd be surprised if he wasnt doing better than those two at this point. Things likely change if he somehow becomes more well known or wins the nomination.

[Sancho]

48. There's a relatively well-known statistician who described your error in logic.

Eelworms, Bullet Holes, and Geraldine Ferraro: Some Problems in Statistically Adjusting for Survey Nonresponse by Howard Wainer.

Over 20 years ago Wainer described Geraldine Ferraro's mistake of believing that she was winning based on polls, crowds, and enthusiasm. Unfortunately, polls don't account for those who don't participate in polls! Just like engineers trying to decide where to put armor on fighters. The answer is to locate the bullet holes on the planes that return from battle and put the armor everywhere else.

We don't have any way to count the future voting behavior of those who don't respond to polls, and we know that is likely a "biased" group what will change the results when they do vote.

Exit polls are accurate IF people don't lie AND the sample is representative of those who actually voted. Pre-election polls are a glorified guess and something to talk about - but very inaccurate.

[mzmolly]

50. One more reason I support Edwards.

:hi:

[ronnykmarshall]

51. I don't what to think about this.

I mean it good news! I know that all of our candidates beat ALL of the GOPEEPS. The McCain thing just makes this seem like ca-ca. He's NO where on the radar for the GOP right now.

BUT ...... ya never know!

[rinsd]

53. McCain has polled surprisingly well against Hillary and Obama for some time now.

[CherokeeDem]

52. This is Great News...but

if anyone saw Wolfie Blizter yesterday report on this poll that CNN sponsored,unless he said something after I stopped watching, he skipped over the Edwards numbers and concentrated on what Obama and Hillary were polling. Edwards can't buy a break from the MSM and yet he still appears to be THE candidate to beat.

Well, Edwards supporters have hope. Below are the numbers from Iowa from this time in 2003, posted by skipos earlier today. Who knows where any of the candidates will be on Jan 4th.



NEW YORK, Dec. 17, 2003


From a post by skipos:

(CBS) Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean has pulled away from the field in the Democratic Presidential nomination race: his support among Democratic primary voters nationwide has risen in the past month, and held steady after the news of Saddam Hussein's capture. But the race remains open: more than half of Democratic voters still have no opinion of Dean, most have not made up their minds for sure, and large numbers remain undecided.

CHOICE FOR DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE
(Democratic primary voters)
Howard Dean 23%
Wesley Clark 10%
Joe Lieberman 10%
Richard Gephardt 6%
Al Sharpton 5%
John Kerry 4%
John Edwards 2%
Carol Moseley-Braun 1%
Dennis Kucinich 1%

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

55. Interesting Numbers...

The two most popular candidates for each party in a nationwide race (Edwards/McCain) are also-rans in their respective parties' primaries.

[Tarc]

56. Misleading topic title

As both Clinton's and Obama's matchup against McCain (who doesn't have a chance in hell of winning his primary, fyi) fall within the margin of error.

[Andromeda]

63. Good for John Edwards.

It wouldn't brake my heart if he won.