Poll: A Surprising G.O.P. Edge for '08

[GaryC 7]

........So it's taken almost as a given among the professional political class that the 2008 Presidential election is the Democrats' to lose. Republicans are so morose in general, and conservatives so unhappy with their current field of candidates, that the assumption of a Democratic advantage has become bipartisan. And with the public so soured on the Republican in the White House, and so many other trends working against them, including an uptick in the percentage of Americans identifying themselves as Democrats, it's hard to find any good news for Republicans these days. So why, in poll after poll, including the new TIME poll, does that advantage seem to disappear whenever voters are asked to pick a President in hypothetical head-to-head matchups among front-runners with solid name recognition. In our poll, Hillary Clinton loses to John McCain, 42%-48%, and to Rudy Giuliani 41%-50%. Even though Clinton maintains a 7% edge over Obama among Democratic respondents, Obama fares better in the general election matchups. It's so close that it's a statistical dead heat, but Obama still loses: 43%-45% to McCain, 44%-45% to Giuliani.

It's hard to know exactly why respondents who are generally unhappy towards — and in many cases fed up with — the G.O.P. might still prefer a Republican for President over a Democrat. Much of it has to do with the individual candidates involved. In Clinton's case, as TIME pollster Mark Schulman points out, "with Hillary the Democratic front-runner, most voters have made up their minds about her, both pro and con. She may have limited upward potential against Republicans. The emerging anti-Hillarys, Obama and Edwards, suffer from low awareness at this point."

Another G.O.P. advantage in these matchups is the way the party's top two candidates are viewed by the public. "Giuliani and McCain are not traditional Republicans," says Schulman. "Rather they both have an independent streak that plays well in certain traditional Democratic bastions, such as the Northeast and California, the left and right coasts." As anyone following the campaign knows, the perceived "independent streak" that helps both McCain and Giuliani with the general electorate could hurt them, and possibly doom them, with G.O.P. primary voters. Also, as Schulman points out, every Republican candidate is vulnerable because of his support for Bush's policy in Iraq and his closeness to Bush in general. "If Iraq persists as an issue, all of our polls show this will undercut Republican candidates," he says. "Being seen as 'close to Bush' is a real negative in the polls. When the campaign really heats up, the Democrats should have a lot of cards to play."

Democrats also may have a residual disadvantage going into 2008 — a long-standing disposition among voters to view Republicans as stronger on issues involving national security. Without question, Bush has done serious damage to the Republican brand in this arena. But, with the nation waging two wars and terrorism still a threat, that underlying sentiment might be one of the reasons G.O.P. candidates appear competitive at all.

There are other interesting developments in the poll. John Edwards has surged among Democrats since he announced that his wife Elizabeth's cancer had recurred. In a three-way matchup, Clinton polls 38% among registered Democrats, versus 30% for Obama and 26% for Edwards. Edwards received just 17% in mid-March.

In the G.O.P. race, Giuliani's post-announcement honeymoon appears to be over. The former New York City mayor's lead over erstwhile front-runner McCain has narrowed to 13 points, 35%-22%, among registered Republicans, down from a 20-point lead two weeks ago.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...1604469,00.html

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

All presidential elections in the recent past have tightened come election time. I don't doubt that will be the case here as well.

All this TIME article says is the obvious - party labels matter less, personalities matter more. It's always been like that in this country in presidential races.

[GaryC 7]

All presidential elections in the recent past have tightened come election time. I don't doubt that will be the case here as well.

All this TIME article says is the obvious - party labels matter less, personalities matter more. It's always been like that in this country in presidential races.

I wouldn't vote for McCain under any circumstances. I would go Libertarian first. Giuliani isn't much better but I guess I would hold my nose and vote for him. If the Reps could find a real conservative and not just a RINO we could stomp all over Clinton or Obama. The only one that I have seen so far that looks good is Fred Thompson. I would love to see him run.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

The Dems will fail to put up an electable candidate and the republicans will win.

[GaryC 7]

The Dems will fail to put up an electable candidate and the republicans will win.

Probably true but winning isn't enough. We need a strong conservative that won't take sh!t from the dems or the terrorists. It's getting to be do or die time. The future isn't looking good unless we get serious about securing our nation.

[mybackpages 0]

Another thing to keep in mind now is that all this polling about candidates- Clinton vs. McCain vs. Obama vs. Giliani etc, is that he people being polled are not the ones who will participate in the party's parimary to choose these candidates. Primaries have usually only a quarter of the eligible voters participating and primary voters are very different from general election voters.

[Dr_LHA 3]

2008 is going to be a stinker,

McCain is sacrificiing way to much of his integrity to broaden his appeal. I used to admire the guy, not any more.

Guiliani is a cross dressing philanderer - not sure how the Christian Right are going to like that.

Clinton - how any liberal could vote for this woman I have no idea, and certainly no Republican will.

Obama is too wet behind the ears IMHO, but is smart guy. Sadly this isn't 24, I doubt a black person will become president, there are too many racist c***s in the USA right now.

I'm glad I can't vote!

[Killer_Clown_2009 0]

A lot of these polls are inaccurate, even the ones that actually have sufficient numbers. They simply may not be getting a good snapshot of the actual populace.

[Dr_LHA 3]

A lot of these polls are inaccurate, even the ones that actually have sufficient numbers. They simply may not be getting a good snapshot of the actual populace.

Even if they were accurate, they're fairly meaningless this far out from the actual election. Look at the historical poll figures for the last few months before an election and see how much poll figures change. If they didn't politicians wouldn't bother spending all that money on campaigning.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

This may be the ONE case where the much-feared NAU (North American Union, basically comprising of all NAFTA countries) could produce some more viable candidates--obviously, I'm thinking here of Harper (currently Canada's PM).

[ace13 0]

I like Fred Thompson, too.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

I like Fred Thompson, too.

Just what the country needs -- another C- to D+ grade actor

[dalegg 143]

We need Tom Tancredo

[Caladan 19]

I wouldn't call it a GOP edge, but it's *very* early yet. 2006 was a referendum on the Iraq war. If that happens in 2008, the Republicans are hosed. But I don't see 2008 as being soley about Iraq (especially if we go and invade Iran), so there might be a bit of a chance for a GOP candidate, especially McCain or Guiliani.

[almaty 19]

it is a long way to the elelction date.,..and many scandals..left to uncover on each of them