New Polls: McCain would top Hillary in ME, NH, VT, MA and RI

[WI_DEM]

If we needed any further proof that Hillary Clinton would be a disaster it is this. McCain would top her in five NE states all of which supported John Kerry in 2004. Hillary would win in Connecticut. But to be fair, at this stage of the game McCain probably would poll ahead of any of the prospective Democratic candidates.

Maine: McCain tops Hillary 46-42
NH: McCain wins by a whooping 52-32
VT (!) McCain has a 9-point lead 47-38
MA (!) McCain leads by 9-points 48-39
RI (!) McCain is ahead 44-40.

In CT Hillary is on top 49-39--Why does she poll well there and so dismally in these other states?

McCain would also beat Hillary 52-32 in South Carolina.

Among Democratic voters lots of undecideds at this early stage but Hillary is the current clear leader.

SC: Clinton leads Edwards 30-15 percent. Gore achieves 8% Kerry 4% the rest are 2% or under. 36% are undecided.

Maine: Hillary leads with 36% and her nearest competitor is Edwards with 6% and Clark, Kerry and Gore receive 5%

NH: Hillary is ahead with 32%. Edwards achieves 9%, Kerry and Clark 7% and Gore 6%.

VT: Hillary has 34%, Gore 6%, Kerry 4%, Edwards, Clark and Feingold 3%

CT: Hillary has 38%, Gore has 4%--39% undecided.

RI: Hillary has 34%, Kerry 8%, Gore 6%

MA: Hillary leads Kerry 36-10 percent with 7% favoring Gore.

Each state had 600 completed telphone interviews. plus/minus 4-points.

McCain has a clear lead for the GOP nomination.

SC--McCain 42% and Gingrich 9%
ME: McCain 39%, Romney 10%, Ginrich 7%
NH: McCain 41%, Romney 9%, Gingrich 8%
VT: McCain 46%, Pataki 7%, Romney and Gingrich 6%
MA: McCain 49%, Romney 20%
CT: McCain 42%, Pataki 12%, ginrich 9%
RI: McCain 45%, Romney: 17%

http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/

Hillary would be a disaster, but I think McCain would be (at this point) difficult for any Democrat to beat in '08--I hope he isn't the nominee.

[Selatius]

1. If they are smart, they will run McCain if Hillary wins the Dem nomination

They do not like McCain at all; he is too much of a loose cannon, but they'd rather have a Republican in the White House than a Democrat.

[WI_DEM]

3. I read that McCain in the last few years has done alot for himself

with the base because of his active campaigning for Bush in 2004, but yes--they WANT to win and I honestly feel that McCain would be the toughest Republican for any democrat to beat. But Hillary would probably be the easiest Democrat for any Republican to beat.

[Renew Deal]

2. I agree on both things you said.

I just wonder if the pukes and fundies will let McCain go through.

[WI_DEM]

6. If it means winning I think so

But in both parties there are still lots of undecideds. Allen who many had thought would be one of the main compititors for the nomination is not polling well at all, but at this point it is mostly name recognition. The problem is both McCain and Hillary have strong name recognition and McCain is the overwhelming favorite among the two even in the northeast.

[annofark]

10. McCain is Media Hungry

John McCain is NUTS and a media whore. It is known by many in DC that John McCain is driven by one thing Publicity. Do NOT ever believe his BS on bi-partisanship. He uses it to keep him in the spotlight.

He would be the Repub's worst nighgtmare because he would sell the Repub party down the river.

Democrats need to bring in NEW BLOOD. No Hillary. The people want someone with no ties to the past (iraq, lewinsky scandal, etc)

[melody]

4. That's now, against Hillary

The best female candidate is not going to beat any man in this day and age. Hillary isn't the best female candidate by any stretch of the imagination, imho.

If Gore got out and positioned himself as a contender, then I think he'd be unbeatable. McCain has too many skeletons in his closet for a full-frontal attack. He's also very easy to anger in debate.

[second edition]

5. This looks to me to be a Republican poll.

I doubt Hillary has that much support throughout the NE and as far as McCain, he hasn't gotten any bad press YET. Just wait until he is challenged and see how he reacts.
Finally, I would still go for Kerry, no matter who may be ahead.Kerry is the only one I see who take on Mccain with any success.
Anyway, it's to early for any real serious polls. It just keeps these people in business.

[WI_DEM]

8. American Research is an independent polling operation they give Bush

a 36% approval rating which is lower than many other polls.

[papau]

7. now we drink - and talk again on this in 2 years!

McCain gets good US Media 24/7/365 -

and bad stories as in the truth about his sucking up and having no real political principles beyond ass kissing the rich and corporate's "property rights" are always buried by US Media.

The latest phrase for the excuse of never printing a bad word about any GOPer - esp McCain - is that the media does not want to get ahead of known facts -

Christ - what a change from the 8 years of Whitewater :-( :toast:

Hillary looks to me to me the strongest to fight this media crap - I do not see any other Democrat doing better.

But again, we will discuss again in 2 years!

:toast:

[WI_DEM]

9. McCain is the media darling and that is one of the problems

we face if he is the nominee.

[Gabi Hayes]

33. EXACTLY, and it's the KEY issue. it was the MEDIA that went after

Gore and Kerry both, hammer and tong

it was the MEDIA who went after Clinton relentlessly, as soon (before, actually) he took office, and was at least as at fault for the impeachment as the pugs

just remember the role of the likes of Gerth, Schmidt, Weiskopf, ISIKOFF, etal, in fanning the flames of the nonexistent Whitewater "scandal," which the ever-shamed David Brock was able advance via the Paula Jones "scandal"

the media have loved him since 2000, and swallow his garbage with RELISH. for example, he's been on MTP over 120 times...almost always by himself

the best hope for the country is if some jamoke like George Allen just goes crazy/dirty on him during the primaries, and gets all the fundies to do what they did to him in South Carolina. it's going to be very very nasty for the pugs in 07/08. watch them tear each other up.

but don't count on ANY sort of media balance during the elections that year, or this year, either. they're as bad as Pravda ever was.

[Zinfandel]

11. Whatever, the next one in office will inherit a debt the world has NEVER

known...and that person will have to raise taxes on the rich...that "EVIL" person will be vilified to no end...a one-term-er!!!!!

That's why the republicans want to make the tax cuts for the rich permanent under the law!!!

[WI_DEM]

12. Well, Clinton had to clean up Bush's mess and raised taxes on

the rich and was vilified and was a two term president.

[Robbins]

15. Hilary Vs Mccain

Let's point out that a lot can change. In fall 2003 polls said Bush would beat any of the possible
Democratic nominees In their home state,and In the end he lost In Kerry,Dean,Braun,and Sharpton's
states. And polls after the fall 1998 election had Bush beating Gore In a blowout. Hilary and Mccain
are not going to have easy primarys. Feingold,Clark,and Gore If he runs will blast Hilary for her
pro Bush stances on Iraq while Clark,Warner,Richardson,Vilsack,and Bayh will argue they are electable and she Isn't. Mccain also will have a tough time from those like Allan,Frist,and
Gingrich because 10 percent of the time he doesn't vote with the right wing. In a general election
Hilary has trouble with antiwar Liberals while Mccain has trouble with relgious right(In some ways
Alan Alda's character on the West Wing Is like Mccain although a bit more to the left on some
social Issues than Mccain Is) but the problem Is Hilary would lose some left leaning Independents
and even some moderate Democrats to him. This Is why Democrats need to consider who would be the
toughest opporent for Mccain. I say they are Gore,Feingold,or Clark.

[WI_DEM]

17. Of course it's too early

but since both Hillary and McCain have good name recogntion--it can't be completely discounted either.

[Zinfandel]

16. By the time BushCo leaves it's going to three or four times what Clinton

had to clean up...plus a war and all the laws that have been changed to ensure the republicans hold power...this is nothing like what Bill Clinton had to face!!!!!

[WI_DEM]

20. not necessarily

Yes the deficit is somewhat larger but government is bigger too than in those days. And we had a war during Bush I day--but not a continuing war like in Iraq. I don't agree with you that any president who takes over after Bush II would necessarily be a one-term president--not if they do the right thing and make their case to the country.

[Zinfandel]

27. Via whom? The bought & owned republican owned media?

Things will be dramatically different in 2009 concerning the owned media for a democratic president to get the truth out...it actually really started to drastically change in around 1999 ten years when the next prez will take office...the corporate republican owned media hates democrats!!! and the extremely well paid will say or spin anything they are told to keep their jobs, as we see every day...

TV stations are only as liberal as their CEOs and owners....Both corporations, ABC (Disney) and CNN & CNN Headline (Time-Warner), are in the top ten republican list of top donors to the republican party General Electric owns NBC, CNBC & MSNBC, GE is in the top three of corporations receiving weapons contracts from the Pentagon, its not to GE advantage to tell the American people the truth. Viacom's CEO pledged his support publicly to Bush and the republicans before the 2004 elections, Viacom wouldn't even allow a progressive ad to be shown on their stations before the election, Viacom corporation is as right-wing a corporation as there is in communications...Fox "news" is not news at all, just the right-wing feeding us their propaganda, Fox is owned by right-wing prick, Rupert Murdoch...And finally the 20 million or so Christian viewers who watch CBN owned by ultra conservative Pat Robertson.

Talk radio, everyone knows the neocons conglomerates control almost 96% of talk radio...right-wing talk 24/7 border to border, coast to coast.

These TV & radio stations is where over 80% of the country gets its information.

[Tactical Progressive]

13. Uh-huh

And what if you were to poll another Democrat against McCain, like say Russ Feingold?

Bet he'd beat McCain in those polls, right?

No? Huh.

Does that make every Democrat "a disaster", or just Hillary?

[WI_DEM]

14. sounds like you didn't read even my first paragraph

where I write, "to be fair McCain would probably poll ahead of any prospective democrat at this time." And why do you think I'm supporting Feingold? I haven't made a decision on '08.

[Tactical Progressive]

23. I read your whole post

Including the last line where you said "I think McCain would be (at this point) difficult for any Democrat to beat in '08". I got that you qualified your remarks both by candidate and by time.

My sarcasm was directed at your obvious dumping on Hillary, which you didn't hide with your "Hillary would be a disaster" conclusion, even insofar as you qualified it as above.

My question stands: Is every Democrat "a disaster" in 2008 against McCain, or is it just Hillary that is "a disaster"?

[Bucky]

25. If I may help clarify...

It is not just Senator Clinton who would be a disaster. But she is just about the most guaranteed disaster. There's a reason Dick Morris and Fox News and the entire Republican punditocracy keep putting her name out there as the "only viable Democratic candidate." They want to run against her. She uniquely fires up their base in ways most of the other contenders can't. They had to work their asses off to smear Kerry in '04. With Mrs Clinton, the hard work is more than half done.

[Tactical Progressive]

29. I think the Republicans are terrified of Hillary

I can hear it in their voices every time they mention her name. Lefty detractors of Hillary pretend that Republicans want her to run. They are wrong. You can see it in a thousand ways, but if you want just one concrete one, it is that they are actually considering Condi as a candidate just to defend against that. Try to see what that means about their mindset.

Will their terror of Hillary turn into hatred and even more committment than they would have against another Dem candidate? Maybe, but two things 1) they are terrified of anyone they are up against and will gin up their hatred against whoever it is. I saw it with Kerry and Wes Clark. Quantifying their hatred is meaningless at best, and counterproductive in any case. 2) To the extent that they have that little bit of extra hatred for Hillary will only make their more loony partisans (ie, all of them) go that extra mile in humiliating and disgracing themselves. They can't help it.

Their hatred of Hillary is a factor in our favor.

Who cares if their base is fired up. They are already voting against every Democrat they see, and as I said, their impression on voters who are undecided is likely to be negative.

Lastly, there is little to smear Hillary with, which plays into their self-destructive tendencies yet again.

You've got it all wrong because you are afraid of their hatred. Get used to their hatred - that is what they are. Hillary will judo that hatred better than most anyone, though Wes is good at that too.

[WI_DEM]

30. I'm basing my opinion on the fact that Hillary is a well-known

national figure as is McCain and that in a battle in traditional Democratic states that McCain is easily beating her.

[Tactical Progressive]

31. Inotherwords, every 2008 Dem candidate is "a disaster"

compared to McCain since Hillary is by far the highest polling Dem for the Presidency.

In fact, given that it is primarily name recognition at this stage, and Hillary has the highest name recognition, the most accurate interpretation of these poll results would have to logically be:

'Hillary is "less of a disaster" than other Dems against McCain in 2008'.

At least at this stage.

"Less of a disaster" sure doesn't sound good. I can certainly see why Hillary detractors on the left don't want to take these polling results out to their logical conclusion, rather, just far enough to use them against Hillary. I could be wrong there, of course; it's possible that Hillary opponents on the left would take even worse poll results for a McCain vs Feingold or vs Warner or vs Clark or vs whoever matchup - to push for a Hillary nomination. But really, no they wouldn't. It's a one-sided poll watch.

McCain is a problem because Republicans, apparently unlike Democrats, will do anything to stay in power, including voting for someone like McCain who they vilified and deeply, publically abused for years with lies and innuendo. They have no illusions; they just want power. It will be as if they never had a bad thought about John McCain in their entire lives. All they care about is winning. Which is why they win.

[yankeedem]

18. A poll 2 1/2 years before the 08 conventions

shows that Hillary would lose? Yea, I'm convinced. Hillary Clinton is obviously a disaster.

:eyes:

[WI_DEM]

21. if it were a poll with McCain and some unknown I would agree

but Hillary is very well known as is McCain and if she can't run any better in NE states like MA and RI against McCain or any Republican then, yes, I do think she would be a disaster.

[Tom Rinaldo]

19. For Dems, so much is name recognition right now

But a lot of Clinton's unfavorables are already set in stone or the next thing to it, for most of the public, so her numbers have to be taken with that lump of salt. McCain has gotten massive press over the last 6 years, and he has that residual independent image still going for him.

It's interesting that only Democrats who have either been married to a President, or recently ran on a national Democratic ticket for President or VP (meaning Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and Edwards) poll with large enough numbers to get mentioned, with the exception of Wes Clark, and Feingold once, in the states cited. For all the attention given Warner by the media and inside pundits since Kaine won the Governor's race in Virginia, he hasn't broken out yet. Neither has Biden for all of his Sunday talk show appearances, and Richardson lags as well. Bayh isn't mentioned. Either they left him out or his polling numbers are too low.

[WI_DEM]

22. While I think Hillary would recover in a national campaign enough

to win some of these states which currently show her down--it is indicative of how high her negatives are that we might have to fight for Massachusetts and RI in '08 if McCain is the nominee. We need to nominate somebody, imo, who doesn't have the kind of baggage that Hillary already brings into the race.

[Bucky]

28. Good points. But we're still 18-20 months away from "break-out" time

Some time in the closing months of '07 is when you'll see the inevitable one or two surprises break out from the pack. Up until then it's all positioning. Kerry and Clinton will make it to Super Tuesday cause they got the money to make it stick. So will Sharpton, if he runs, or so will whoever fills the Jesse Jackson niche among the 30-50% of African-American voters who will vote on race.

But one or two surprises inevitably break from the pack--and the "breaker" is always the best bet among the Democrats. If Dr. Dean had managed his image a little better in late '03, he'd probably be president right about now. Actually, he'd have been all but guaranteed being president if he'd only been governor of Michigan or Ohio instead of Vermont. But I digress.

We won't see who breaks from the pack for a while yet. My prejudices are betrayed by my sigfile. But any one of the Jimmy-Whos this go round (Bayh, Warner, Feingold, Clark, Richardson, and at least four people I've not mentioned yet) could be it. I see too often the pundits and analysts in big media trying to portray Mrs Clinton as inevitable, but I think that's not so much conspiracy as it is is herd mentality among journalists who value their egos and their reps as effective prognosticators more than they do their responsibility to inform busy voters.

And so it goes. I think in the main, we can afford to be patient with the process and wait to see who really gets the voters inspired. I think we're in an okay position right now.

[stepnw1f]

24. Whatever....

If people in this country are dumb enough to vote for a Republican, I'm afraid there is no hope at all.

[FrenchieCat]

26. Poll results are based on name ID......

I'm surprised that Clark polls as well as he does, considering that most of his counterparts are much more mentioned than he is in the media on a daily basis from the 2004 campaign. It's good to see that.

[Texacrat]

32. Name a Democrat that CAN beat McCain

Hillary is polling better than Kerry or Warner right now.