I found the Reid-Pelosi numbers intriguing.  Reid is really unpopular, Pelosi has moved up to middling.

I wonder why.  

Did people choose one person from a list? Also, this may mean that people who chose names further down the list may find objectionable (won't vote) for others on the list....

In the end, it'll come down the the AVAILABLE choices presented to the voters, AND the mind game of "should I vote for my best favorite, or for the one most ..electable?"

I think it's too early. For example, Guiliani will fall many notches if he's put to scrutiny. In the abstract many people look good...

The interesting thing is that they are more all less all bunched together in the second or so quartile.

What the poll suggests about the leading Democrats is that, with the exception of Barack Obama, the Republicans have succeeded in demonizing them all among their own supporters.  

Three points:
1.Obviously the Republicans haven't had the time yet to attempt to demonize Mr. Obama, he's pretty much come out of nowhere.  They may feel it's a little more difficult as well given his race and all that.  Republicans are obviously somewhat sensitive to being called racist.

2.The fact that it's pretty much Republicans that are negative on the Democrats is very evident if you check out Republican leaning chat rooms, web sites, blogs...  It's interesting how the Republican supporters pretty much all parrot the same talking points.  You will likely see a skew in the numbers though regarding the % of independents who are negative on the Democratic leaders.  One of the talking points all the Republican supporters parrot is that "they aren't Republicans, they are independents."

I can thoroughly understand why a Republican would be too embarrased to admit it, but, rest assured, they are Republicans and not independents, despite their protests to the contrary.

3.The support among Democrats of Rudy Guliani and John McCain isn't really a surprise.  Democrats are more open and willing to consider opposing ideas than Republicans.  I wouldn't be too surprised if a demonization campaign against either of them wasn't too succesful among Democrats.  I don't know if it matters or not, as long as Democrats vote Democratic, it doesnt' matter if they still like McCain and Guliani.

In the dictionary, next to the definition of "paper tiger," sits the picture of Rudy Giuliani. His positive ratings are based on nothing more than vague 9/11 hagiography. Once the focus turns to his personal life and shady dealings, his support will plummet.

McCain is a much bigger problem because he's better known as a politician and not just a "feel-good" figure. He can be taken down, but it's going to have to be a steady effort from now until the election. I sense a move among the insiders to reconcile the base of the party with McCain. He's a very dangerous man, possibly the worst choice for President we could make as a nation at this point in our history.

For the Democrats, I don't see too much interesting, except the very low number for Al Gore. I'd like to see Wes Clark on here, but Edwards and Richardson are both in OK positions, with Richardson having good potential for growth if he can get his name ID up. Hillary is what she is, a not-unpopular figure that has little growth potential. She's not the albatross some make her out to be, but she's never going to be elected on a wave of popular enthusiasm, I think ...

I gotta say, this business about Obama being a serious 2008 candidate is all a fantasy.  Perhaps VP, but there is 0 chance he is our next pres.  All this talk is for his book and for the media to sell newspapers (or get viewers)...

www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com

I would think McCain's support for Rich Tarrant during his nasty campaign against Bernie Sanders could be used against him.

How about this ticket, Barrack with Bill Clinton vp?

We don't have much to worry about with Giuliani.  No way a guy with his issue positions makes it out of a Republican primary.

McCain is a much more difficult beast.  I still don't think conservatives have really warmed up to him, and may not have forgiven him for hating Bush's tax cuts.  But whatever.  How about subtly suggesting that Americans don't want a guy who's in his seventies to start his first term in the White House?

As also pointed out at politicalwire, Sen. Joe Lieberman's numbers are excellent.

He actually does better than every single undeclared but very likely Democratic candidates in Hillary Clinton, Edwards, Bayh, Biden, Richardson, Kerry & even Gore. While Clark didn't even make the list.

This just shows you the huge difference in perception (whether fair or not) people have of Lieberman outside of your typical partisan hard core activist base.

Same with Giuliani. He is not popular at all among your hardcore conservative GOP base but has a very positive image among majority of voters.

At the end of the day, ( just like our winning formula last Nov. 7), the choice of majority of Independent non-partisan moderate voters will still decide the 2008 elections. A perceived partisan left or partisan right candidate will not win.

Right now, Rudy G. & McCain hold that positive image from the huge independent minded electorate.

As Chris Bowers has repeatedly stated, it is our job to exposed that False Image that majority of voters have. There's a lot of work to be done.

I just want to draw everyone's attention to the fact that (wildly unpopular) President Bush is 15th here. I don't see how anyone who couldn't statistically separate themselves from him could possibly be considered a viable candidate.  That means Romney and anyone southwards.  Biden, Richardson, Edwards, and Obama would fit the bill of someone at least not wildly unpopular, and with room to grow.  If they work hard, they might someday be as popular as Lieberman.  I wish that were snark.  At posts 3 & 6, chatter about a Unity '08 McCain/Lieberman ticket is going to get a boost with this poll.

Do they ever give out raw data? They have essentially gotten 1,623 registered voters to vote on a ratings ballot, and I'd love to feed it into my usual election method and analysis tools.

Wes Clark!!!!!

Looking at the cross-tabs for 2008 democratic contenders:

Amongst democrats:

Obama 74.3
HRC 72.6
Gore 66.1
Edwards 64.6
Kerry 58.8
Richardson 54.4

Amongst independents:

Obama 60.8
HRC 51.5
Edwards 50.5
Richardson 47.1
Gore 44.9
Kerry 39.3

In general the democratic voters are simply more generous to republicans they dislike than the republican base is towards known democrats. I mean Condi scores 44 amongst democrats.

I prefer to raise our profile than to drag theirs down.

What this tells me is that Obama is our most intruiging bet... and that if Guiliani or McCain dont get the nomination (pllllease be thrice divorced Guiliani!!!!) they're SOL.

The world may have less to fear from Giuliani than from McCain, so that probably isn't a bad thing. Do you really think Republicans will vote for him in a primary, though?

Answer for what?

How can the Republicans seriously make an issue of it when they just twice backed the least qualified person for the Presidency in the history of the United States.

By that, I don't just mean the short length of time he had served in electoral office, but also the quality of his ideas, his ability to think through issues...

From what I've seen of Mr. Obama, he has no trouble in those areas.

I'm sure humility wouldn't stop the Republicans from trying to make an issue of it should Mr. Obama win the nomination, after all, lack of facts and evidence has never stopped them before, but I think virtually all people who aren't Republican drones would just find the attemp laughable.

No one cared about Bush's lack of experience

You're right, although I think none of that matters (nor would it have happened) without the 9/11 mythos. And the central point still stands: he's a media creation almost entirely, and he won't stand up to the pounding of a campaign.

Exhibit A: Condi Rice. She is quite well-known, has high favorability or "warmth" numbers, and gets smoked in head-to-head matchups.

Obviously, Giuliani hasn't come under any nationwide scrutiny at all, has some nasty biographical issues, and will have to run hard to the right to get the nomination, driving down his overall numbers.

McCain is not terribly popular among Republicans (many view him as disloyal) but makes up for it with independents and Democrats. But he has to run to the right also, and I don't think his ludicrous call for more troops in Iraq (what troops?) is helping him. It's not what a majority of Americans want, and it is a clear opportunity for Democrats to POUND him right now. He's also in a virtual dead heat with Edwards.

Where's Huckabee?  Huckabee strikes me as much more worrisome than even McCain or Giuliani, and not just because he has an easier path to the nomination (though that is obviously a big concern).  

McCain and Giuliani both have iffy family issues that are going to turn off a lot of the wingnut base.  In contrast, the only real criticism of Huckabee is that he's a flaming right-wing lunatic.  I'm not convinced that actual, substantive concerns are going to be enough to get enough people excited about taking him on, but it'll get the base fired up.

I think that there's a lot of reason to start attacking Huckabee more than McCain or Giuliani, since noone who's not politically aware has formed an opinion on him yet.  More room for improvement (from a Dem perspective) and more work that needs to be done.

The evidence we have is that the introductions they have already made are poor, which bodes ill for their future introductions.

Favorability (percentage of score greater than 50%, among those with an opinion):

Obama: 67% (red states: 62%)

Edwards: 55% (red states: 53%)

H. Clinton: 53% (red states: 49%)

Gore: 47% (red states: 43%)

Kerry: 40% (red states: 35%)

Acceptability (percentage of score 50% or greater, among those with an opinion):

Obama: 71% (red states: 66%)

Edwards: 61% (red states: 60%)

H. Clinton: 56% (red states: 52%)

Gore: 53% (red states: 48%)

Kerry: 47% (red states: 42%)

Experience is important, but not so important that it trumps the ability to get ones ideas across.  If Experience was the most important thing Gore and Kerry would have trounced Bush43.  As inarticulate as W can be, he was able to get across 3-4 simple ideas for his platform.  Gore and Kerry tried to get across WAY to many ideas, and neither stood up for themselves when attacked, which made them look like bad leaders to many uneducated voters.  And cry as much as we do about these unfair stereotypes, the vast majority of voters are uneducated ones (one just has to look to Conneticut's senate race to see that).  Obama posesses the empathic listening ability that Bill Clinton was a master of.  The question is whether he will stand up for himself in the face of withering attacks.  Stoller would say no based on the McCain issue earlier, I tend to disagree with him on that issue.  But a charismatic guy who articulate his platform so that stup... I mean Uneducated voters can easily understand it and will stand up for himself when attacked will have a FANTASTIC shot in winning the Presidency...  

Unless Gore and/or Obama get into the race and then Bayh is DOA... No way he is going to get media time competing against HRC, Gore and/or Obama.  2 of the three in the race significantly hurts nearly all the rest of the candidates.  

Where's the evidence to support the idea that these numbers are any more valid than head to head match ups?  One of the reasons McCain does well is he has 26% of the population in the "Meh," range of 40-60, two years out those people could go either way.

Head to head match ups at least mimic the actual structure of how elections are conducted.