Survey USA Iowa General Election: Obama beats McCain by 12, Hil behind by 1 (MUST-SEE #s!)

[Dems Will Win]

This is the most important poll of all because it's Iowa voters who have been exposed to all of the candidates for a year, so this poll shows who is most electable for November '08, not the mopstly name recognition polls taken nationally right now.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=cbb37b64-f1d0-4b86-9995-a50378ed3919

New poll from SurveyUSA on general election matchups in Iowa. Internals included below. Clinton barely beats the Republicans (and loses to McCain) but Obama comfortable beats them all outside the margin of error.

POLL: SurveyUSA Iowa General Election

A new SurveyUSA automated survey of 539 registered voters in Iowa (conducted 12/13 through 12/15) finds:

General Election Match-ups for President:

McCain 46%, Clinton 45%
Clinton 46%, Huckabee 45%
Clinton 48%, Romney 45%
Clinton 47%, Giuliani 42%

Obama 51%, Romney 39%
Obama 51%, McCain 39%
Obama 52%, Huckabee 39%
Obama 55%, Giuliani 36%

In the state where both parties know all the candidates the best, where Huckabee is leading comfortably, and more importantly, a state that not only went for Gore in 2000, but Clinton twice, and for Dukakis in 1988. Obama brings this state comfortable back to the Democrats, while Hillary gives Republicans a chance to make this state a permament red state.

Internals
The main thing I noticed was that Obama does significantly better among the 34-55 age group over Hillary. Both perform about evenly well with young voters, and marginally well with elderly voters, but in this critical, middle age group, Obama makes his different.

When the rest of the country gets to know Obama and the Republicans, they'll make the same choice.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/18/114951/04/298/423801

Here are the numbers on the youth vote 18-34. Obama is off the charts.


Obama: 67%
Giuliani: 26%

Obama: 62%
Romney: 32%

Obama: 64%
Huckabee: 32%

Obama: 59%
McCain: 32%

Obama wins an astounding 22% to 29% of REPUBLICANS and 52% to 58% of INDEPENDENTS, showing that the people won't vote for a black man argument is NOT SO.

If you think this new poll on the general in Iowa in '08 shows Obama is much more electable than Hillary, please recommend.

[TeamJordan23]

1. Obama gets a lot of Indep. voters, which is essential for a GE win. nm

[Bullet1987]

2. Hillary get's virtually ZERO Independent support...

[TwilightZone]

11. Try 45%

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3572005

[Bicoastal]

3. Welllllllll.....

....technically, it only proves he's more electable in the state of Iowa, which only has 7 electoral votes to contribute to the overall GE.

Let's see how things go next month....

[TeamJordan23]

4. But it does show that he is able to win over red states. nm

[TwilightZone]

6. Iowa isn't a red state.

It went decidedly blue in 2006.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_gubernatorial_election,_2006

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_House_of_Representatives_elections%2C_2006

[skipos]

13. Wrong. Iowa is a true swing state

Look at the partisan voting index for the last 4 presidential elections

IA '92: 0.46% Democratic
IA '96: 1.81% Democratic
IA '00: 0.19% Republican
IA '04: 1.79% Democratic

There are not a lot of states that are true swings states, except for IA, NM and WI.

NM '92: 3.00% Democratic
NM '96: 1.21% Republican
NM '00: 0.45% Republican
NM '04: 1.67% Democratic

WI '92: 1.21% Republican
WI '96: 1.80% Democratic
WI '00: 0.29% Republican
WI '04: 2.84% Democratic

I'd agree with the assessment that Iowa is a good place to look at polls, as they are paying more attention than most other states.

I'd also say that I still think Biden would be the best general election candidate, though I can admit that 1. very few people poll him, 2. if they did the results would be irrelevent because he has such little name exposure. Remember when Huckabee used to get trounced by all the Dem candidates? Not so anymore.

[TwilightZone]

14. What part of "2006" did you not understand?

Governor race: 54/44 D/R
Iowa House: swung from 51/49 R/D to 54/46 D/R.

Couldn't be much clearer.

[skipos]

17. What part of "presidential race" do you not understand?

Look here and scroll to the bottom
http://electoral-vote.com/
You will see plenty of deep blue states have Republican senators or governors but would never go Republican in a Presidential race.
Look at all the "blue" in West Virginia. Do you think Dems would win West Virginia in a close election?

I can guarantee that IA, NM and WI will have a pvi of less than +5 Repub or Dem in 08, and I am willing to take a wager if you are interested. The only way I will be wrong is if Richardson, T Thompson or Vilsack or someone from one of those states is on the ticket.

[skipos]

18. delete

[TwilightZone]

23. Again, you're ignoring 2006 results.

In 2006, most of the country took a significant shift to the left. We picked up seats at all levels of government and lost no incumbent seats in the House, Senate, or governorships.

Iowa was no exception, as is clearly indicated by the results of the in-state and governor races in 2006.

It's not 2004 anymore. 2006 is a much better indicator of today's political climate.

[skipos]

25. And again, you are ignoring the fact that presidential races are different

Notice how everyone thinks Bush sucks ass, but some Republicans still poll very well in GE polls?
Notice how everyone thinks America is heading in the wrong direction, but many like the idea of President McCain or President Giulliani?
After the Nixon and Agnew scandals, Carter only won by 2%. A new Republican face = a fresh start for many Americans.

In a close presidential election, Iowa, New Mexico and Wisconsin will be close.

[TwilightZone]

26. GE polls at this stage are completely meaningless.

If you think that the current GE polls are a better indication than real-world results from 12 months ago, I doubt that anyone will convince you otherwise.

[skipos]

29. So you agree that presidential elections are different than senate/gov/house/local elections?

Because yes, GE polls are not going to predict the future 12 months down the road. They give an indication where things may be, that is all. Polling a swing state like Iowa, where people know the goods and bads of most candidates, is about as good as a poll gets. But this far out, things can easily change. Personally, I have no confidence that Hillary is going to be able to turn around the 45% of Americans who already want to vote against her. But can she still win, yes.

[TwilightZone]

30. Of course they're different.

It is, however, not 2004 anymore. The political climate has changed. If you don't agree, you might want to revisit the 2006 elections or take a look at the large, recent swings in party identification and voter intent. Iowa's 2006 results provide a quantifiable example.

Polling a state like Iowa is quite certainly NOT indicative of the rest of the country. I'm not sure why people seem so adamant to latch onto that claim.

Ask Tom Vilsack or Dick Gephardt if Iowa is representative of the nation as a whole. Or Bill Clinton, for that matter.

[last_texas_dem]

22. Those partisan voting index numbers are interesting

It's kind of funny when you consider that NM and IA actually went for Gore in '00 and Bush in '04, but were actually voting more Repug than the nation as a whole in '00 and more Democratic than the nation as a whole in '04.

[skipos]

27. Exactly, and that is what you need to look at.

People bitch about Edwards not delivering NC, but most VPs only get a 3-4% boost in their homestate. Look:

NC '96: 13.22% Republican
NC '00: 13.34% Republican
NC '04: 9.98% Republican

Edwards did what most VPs do, and NC is to red for a Dem to win in a close election.

[wyldwolf]

5. WOW! Ohio! Hey, wanna look at the numbers in CA? NY?

[Dems Will Win]

7. That is a very uninformed remark, and here's why:

The voters in Iowa know who Obama is and they don't in the big states yet. When he spends his $80 million and the biggest ground game in the history of the United States starts canvassing in those states, his numbers in national polls will start to look like these.

This is the most significant poll and the one that people in the know watch for the best indicator as to electability in the next year's election.

[TwilightZone]

8. Nobody knows Obama, huh?

Only if they've been living under a rock.

[Dems Will Win]

15. That's right, a third say they don;t know much about him

You can look it up

[TwilightZone]

21. The "name recognition" meme is a crock.

Obama's name recognition was at 84% four months ago: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3470902

It's quite certainly higher than that now.

[rinsd]

24. I did look it up. Obama's name recognition was around 80% back in August

[Dems Will Win]

31. Name recognition is not the same as "knows a lot about him"

That's much higher for Obama than 20%

and why this Iowa poll is such a good forecast for the future.

People don't vote for someone they don't feel they know.

[wyldwolf]

9. LOL

[rinsd]

12. If Obama needed to build name recognition at this stage, he would be losing.

"When he spends his $80 million and the biggest ground game in the history of the United States starts canvassing in those states"

According to 3rd Q fundraising stats he had $36M in the bank going into this last quarter. That he would have to spend a chunk of that dough protecting what should be Democrat turf is not good especially in the NorthEast.

"This is the most significant poll and the one that people in the know watch for the best indicator as to electability in the next year's election."

All it shows is Rudy and Hillary have not campaigned very hard in Iowa.

[JackORoses]

10. if you look at CA, Obama has actually been gaining

Obama has cut the lead by 7 points since the last SurveyUSA poll.

-------------------------------------Clinton-Obama-Edwards
SurveyUSA----12/14 - 12/16----741 LV----49----30----14----Clinton +19.0
SurveyUSA----11/30 - 12/03----735 LV----50----24----16----Clinton +26.0

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ca/california_democratic_primary-259.html#polls

It'll be a whole new ball-game by Super Duper Tuesday.

[Dems Will Win]

16. I love that against Rudolph Hitler in this poll, Obama wins 29% OF THE REPUBLICANS!

[skipos]

19. As someone who think Biden would have the easiest time in the general election

I think these numbers are pretty impressive for Obama considering IA is a true swing state and knows the candidates better than the rest of the states.

If someone has technical evidence as why I am wrong, I'd like to see it.

[Onlooker]

20. But, wait until the Republicans are through

The Republicans did such a good job destroying the Clintons that even a lot of Democrats on this liberal web site now use their arguments against Hillary.

If Obama gets the nomination, they'll play the race card, the Muslim card, the inexperience card, the living abroad card, dig up every single vote he made in Illinois and spin that against him. The Republicans are so good at destroying people, they'll turn independents and some Democrats against Obama. He might be the strongest candidate, but those polls mean nothing.

[jenmito]

28. Also notice how Hillary's highest number is 48%-never breaks 50%, unlike Obama, whose LOWEST

number is 51%!

[Dems Will Win]

32. Yup - Obama is about 11 points more electable than Hillary

against all GOP contenders.

[jenmito]

33. Exactly...

K&R since not many people seem to be interested in this thread. Maybe they missed it. :kick: