Three General Election Maps(SurveryUSA): Giuliani vs. Top Dems ...Hillary only dem to top Guiliani

[SaveElmer]

Three General Election Maps: Giuliani vs. Top Dems
by: Chris Bowers
Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 13:48:33 PM EDT

With the latest wave of Survey USA state general election polls, it is now possible to produce nearly comprehensive general election maps for all of the top Democrats against all of the top Republicans. Using information from Polling Report, Survey USA, and Rasmussen, here are general election maps for the top three Democrats against Giuliani, using only the latest polls from each state. In states where no polls were conducted this year, 2004 results were used.

Giuliani 327 - 211 Edwards


States Within Three Points: California, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, Wisconsin
New Republican States: New Jersey, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin
New Democratic States: Iowa, Missouri, New Mexico, Virginia, plus four congressional districts in North Carolina

Giuliani 297-229 Obama

States Within Three Points: Connecticut, Nevada, Oregon, Michigan, Missouri, New Mexico, Virginia, Wisconsin
New Republican States: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey
New Democratic States: Iowa, Missouri, Virginia, plus four congressional districts in North Carolina
Tied States: Oregon, New Mexico

Clinton 261-235 Giuliani

States within three points: Florida, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, New Hampshire, Tennessee, Washington
New Republican States: Connecticut, New Jersey
New Democratic States: Arkansas, Iowa, New Mexico, Tennessee, Virginia, plus four congressional districts in North Carolina
Tied States: Florida, New Hampshire, Washington

I will have more of these maps throughout the day, comparing the top three Democrats against other top Republicans. It will take time for me to compile all of the maps. I should note that polling on Clinton vs. Republicans is far more comprehensive, as Rasmussen has done a substantial amount of surveying in states without including Obama and Edwards. Even so, I think this complicates the most frequent electability arguments we see online, at least in so far in the event of a Giuliani nomination.

http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1667

[NC_Nurse]

1. Clinton wins Tennessee?

Bullshit.

[rinsd]

2. Vs. Rudy and Romney she does.

[Dawgs]

3. I'm sorry rinsd, but there is no way Hillary wins any state near the southeast.

I don't care what any GE poll says; especially one that comes out before the nomination.

[rinsd]

6. Suprisingly, I disagree. ;-)

She will take Arkansas, guaranteed.

VA is also a strong possibility.

[Quixote1818]

7. Gore couldn't even win Tenn. how do you think Hillary will win Arkansas

when she moved to NY and became a Yankee?

[rinsd]

9. Polling, home state connection, Wes Clark etc.

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=839

[SaveElmer]

14. SHe is polling upwards of 20 points ahead in Arkansas...

It's a lock...

[Quixote1818]

25. That is favorability rating not polling

nt

[rinsd]

27. Here's a more direct link

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/state_toplines/arkansas_toplines_august_15_2007

[Quixote1818]

28. That says Oregon not Arkansas

Oregon: 2008 Presidential Election Match-Ups

Clinton


55%


Clinton


55%


Clinton


56%


Clinton


60%

Giuliani


37%


Thompson


36%


McCain


33%


Romney


28%

Other


5%


Other


5%


Other


7%


Other


9%

Not sure


3%


Not sure


3%


Not sure


4%


Not sure


4%

[rinsd]

29. Oh I think Ras may have mislabeled it. See question #2 which asks about Beebe (nt)

[Quixote1818]

32. You are correct. Here is the best link

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/clinton_enjoys_big_lead_in_arkansas

[Lerkfish]

4. dupe

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3568857&mesg_id=3568857

[Quixote1818]

5. This is an electoral map based on name recognition

No one is tuned into the election yet so of course Clinton and Giuliani come out the best. They probably think they are talking about Bill Clinton.

[Stop Cornyn]

11. AMEN!

[depakid]

8. Meaningless

It's laughable to try to predict an outcome over 13 months from the election.

You may recall a MUCH more sophisticated poster named TruthIsAll (I hope he's alright) who put together data from all of the cheap media polls and predicted a Kerry victory with a very high probability.

We saw how that came out

Don't be swayed by those trying to hammer Hillary down our throats with crap like this. Common sense and experience should tell us that not only will Hillary likely lose, she'll drag state and local candidates- and ballot measures- down with her.

[emilyg]

10. Disagree strongly.

[depakid]

13. Is that like "strenuously object" from the film "A Few Good Men?"

Ask yourself why these sorts of worthless polls are constantly being shoved down our throats (and not just here).

Could it be because the substantive discussion of issues isn't in their interest?

[Quixote1818]

12. Agree 100% nt

[SaveElmer]

16. If common sense is defined as ignoring evidence...

Then possibly you have a point.

[depakid]

18. Evidence needs to be judged by its merits

and I think my first post shows how this sort of game has gone down in the past.

With a much more sophisticated modeler at the helm.

[Kelly Rupert]

15. Funny how the anti-Hillary squads

love to crow about the occasional polls that show Hillary behind anyone anywhere at any stage, but yet when shown yet another poll showing that she's the favorite of both the Democratic electorate and America in general, they go back to "Polls are worthless! They're all part of the pro-Hillary corporate machine!"

[depakid]

20. depends on the poll -and the type of poll

and how it's being used.

[Kelly Rupert]

21. What exactly do you find wrong with the methodology of the polls used? n/t

[depakid]

42. That's a set of questions you may want to ask yourself.

Be curious- don't take anyone's opinions for it.

[Quixote1818]

22. You might want to read the mechanics behind these maps

Many of the states don't have any current polling. They just guessed. Though the actual national polls show Edwards beating the Republican candidates by the largest margin and Hillary doing the worst. Something does not ad up.

This was put together by some blog who is probably pro Hillary. It has nothing to do with the real polling companies.

[rinsd]

24. Except national polls do not show Edwards winning by the largest margin. One poll does.

Rasmussen has him ahead by the largest margin in national heats.

The problem is Rasmussen is the only one that really has updated matchups for Edwards.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

[Quixote1818]

26. The only recent poll for Edwards has him with the best margin

The other polls on there for Edwards are two months old. Hardly decisive one way or the other.

[emilyg]

39. Good observation. Definitely noticed that, too.

[avrdream]

17. ...

:hide:

Is this a safe thread for those of us who like Hill?

I do agree that it is still very early in the process but the "name recognition" part of the argument should be decreasing as the MSM writes more and more about the other candidates besides Hillary.

In any event, I think I would prefer to be in the front-runner position instead of trying to catch up.

[SaveElmer]

19. Name recognition is a bogus argument...

If that were truly the case, her poll numbers should not improve...yet they are...even as other candidates are more well known...

And to suggest she has a significant name recognition advantage over Guiliani is ridiculous...

[Quixote1818]

23. Whoever put these maps together is full of shit

I just went to all three links they provided and there is no way in hell he could create these maps from the data provided.

Survey USA only has data on about 14 states and it puts Hillary, Edwards and Obama about the same in each.

Here are the states they have recent data on:

NY, CA, WA, OR, MN, WI, VA, NM, IA, MO, OH, KT, KS, AL

Rasmussen didn't have anything state by state but did have recent national polls posted. In their national polls Edwards did the best against Giuliani

Polling Report didn't have any state by state info either.

Whoever did these maps pulled most of these numbers out of their ass!

[rinsd]

30. Its Chris Bowers. I don't think he would pull numbers out of his ass.

[Quixote1818]

34. Anyone who thinks Edwards and Obama would lose in a landslide

and Hillary would win in a landslide is pulling numbers out of their ass. The real data probably would put Hillary, Obama and Edwards about the same against the top Republican in a General election.

[Hawaii Hiker]

41. There is no fucking way Obama or Edwards would lose in a landslide

as predicted above.....Jesus Christ, Paris Hilton should be able to get 100 electoral votes against a Republican candiate, LOL....No way in hell would Obama or Edwards get beat like that...Every time, I've seen a general election mock match-up of Rudy "9/11" Giuliani vs. Obama or Edwards, the Democrats win - so I'm not buying the above electoral maps at all..

[Alamom]

31. k&r

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. This Is Very Encouraging

All I would infer is that Obama, Edwards, and Clinton are very competitive at this point with Clinton being a tad bit more competitive than the other two...

That being said, I don't think Rudy will wear well and I think any of the big three can beat him...

[Quixote1818]

35. Once the commercials start showing Rudy and Bush together

and Rudy supporting the war and riping on the troops, he will drop like a rock. Many Americans don't know if he is a Republican or a Democrat yet.

[emilyg]

40. Watch Rudy trip over himself trying to get away.

[Karmadillo]

36. No wonder the liberal media has gone into 24/7 Hillary Hate mode

nt

[reggie the dog]

37. Wisconsin

would vote Obama but not Edwards??? and Michigan would vote Edwards but not Obama????

Obama would win in Missouri but not Clinton??? Racism is less strong than sexism in Missouri?

Giuliani would win New York against Edwards???????

I thought Giuliani was not too popular in New York.
Well I guess the Democrats are less popular.

But wait, these folks that would not vote Edwards over Giuliani would vote Obama and Clinton.

Add on Giuliani winning Massachusetts over Obama, Massachusettes would vote Republican for president?????? Over a Democratic senator from Illinois????? The only state to vote against Nixon in 72 would vote against the Democrats? What is Giuliani another Reagan? REAGAN being the only Republican to win in Massachusettes since Kennedy was president.
Who did they poll????
Did they even poll Giuliani against Kucinich?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. Connecticut And New Jersey Will Not Go Red

I don't care if those states border NY...

[Awsi Dooger]

43. The important numbers are the national polls

Bowers and other analysts repeatedly waste time with statewide polls. They are basically meaningless. State results predictably fall in line with the national mood. We're not winning Tennessee, for example. That's hysterical. Unless our nominee carries the national popular vote by roughly 10 points we've got no chance in Tennessee, unless the nominee is Al Gore.

Also, it's hardly proper analysis to conclude Hillary fares better against Giuliani than Edwards or Obama. If one of them defeats Hillary it will be a huge upset and story, and they soar as a result, in popularity and therefore in the polls, vs. Giuliani or any other Republican. You've got to apply a bit of common sense to this.