Rereading The Polls: Does Edwards Really Do Better Against Giuliani?

Does John Edwards consistently beat Hillary Clinton in head-to-head matchups against Rudy Giuliani in national polls?

Says a senior Clinton adviser of this memo from Edwards pollster Harrison Hickman: "If 'Edwards' is Hickman’s secret code name for 'Hillary Clinton,' then he is correct."

They point out that, because Edwards has dropped into single digits in some national Democratic primary polls, fewer pollsters are testing him against Republicans.

And in some of the most recent national and state polls, Clinton seems to have a comparable lead -- or even, in case, a bigger lead. Consider Quinnipiac's six-day national survey ending 8/13.

Clinton: 46    Giuliani: 43

Edwards: 43   Giuliani: 42

The California-based Field poll:

Clinton: 52     Giuliani: 37

Edwards: 47     Giuliani: 42

The Concord Monitor's latest poll (July)

Clinton: 47  Giuliani: 45

Edwards: 43   Giuliani: 44

Comments

This is silly knit-picking. The polls clearly show that it's toss up at this point between Giuliani and any of the Democratic front runners. The foundation for Hillary Clinton's candidacy seem to be polls and her interpretation of history not any vision. According to her, Democrats should pick her because she knows how to beat 'em, meaning...her husband was only impeached but not removed from office; she, like every other Senate Democrat, won her election; her husband won two elections--neither with a clear majority even as an incumbent and against an elderly Republican; her husband's "greatest" policy achievements were marked by capitulation and compromise. Yeah, she really knows how to beat 'em.

Posted by Dee | August 29, 2007 4:19 PM

To answer your quesiton...YES, the polls clearly show that John Edwards does better against the Republicans than Clinton does, if you look at all of the polls as a whole.

Quinnipiac is a joke. They don't even include John Edwards matched up against Republicans IN A LOT OF THEIR POLLS. They use Gore instead, which shows how stupid of a company they are.

Quinnipiac is like The Wall Street Journal. It used to be something, now it's a joke.

Gore has said a thousand times that he isn't running, yet, Quinnipiac thought it was a great idea to include him in almost every poll they have done this year, because him in the mix took support from John Edwards, and therefore they had an excuse to match Gore against Republicans instead of Edwards, because Gore showed up third in a lot of those polls.

Clinton is weak electorally, specially in the battleground states. And yes, John Edwards still puts more states into play than she does.

Posted by OEST | August 29, 2007 5:28 PM

Add Rasmusssen to the mix and you get

Clinton: 40 Giuliani: 47
Edwards: 49 Giuliani: 41

and Clinton has lower favorables and higher unfavorables and is perceived more as a liberal. Put it together and you have to answer the question Yes, there is some support to suggest that Edwards would do better against Rudy.

Posted by John Q Public | August 29, 2007 6:29 PM

Please. the polls count people who say the are leaning to or thinking of voting for so and so.
Anyone who thinks the large majority of voters have decided who they are voting for, let along have even been paying attention, are living in fantasy world much like Hillaryland does.
Not until December should anyone be paying attention to any polls outside the campaigns.
And no one is even able to poll those who have not been involved before or participated in anything.
Show me the polls in December. Before that they are useless.

Posted by vwcat | August 29, 2007 8:01 PM

I don't know how anybody could make anything out of these polls, as there's really no difference between Giuliani and Edwards. One is a liberal and the other is just a socialist.

http://www.newyorkforhuckabee.blogspot.com

Posted by Peter | August 29, 2007 10:53 PM

I hope we forget the national polls and start focussing on state ones for a change, ie., Iowa, NH, Nevada, SC. Because in the end that is all that matters. The winner in Iowa and NH, if there are two different people would be the one who continue to compete. For instance, if Edwards wins in IA and finishes second in NH behind Clinton, Obama is finished...kaput, history, even though he may be far ahead of Edwards now in the national poll. To all of you who dispute this, I have only one message: Howard Dean!!

Posted by Chell | August 30, 2007 11:36 AM