General Election Trial Heats, February Through March

by Chris Bowers, Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 11:04:07 AM EDT

How do the three well-known Democratic contenders for President--Clinton, Edwards and Obama--perform against the two well known Republican contenders--Giuliani, McCain--in hypothetical trial hear matchups? There is a general perception that Clinton does the worst, which many people emphasized this week during the electability discussion. However, a comprehensive look at the actual numbers during the post-announcement phase of the campaign (that is, polls taken after January) is necessary before any definitive statements are made. So, in order to develop a baseline for these discussions, using resources at Polling Report, Rasmussen Reports, Pollster.com, and Real Clear Politics, I compiled data looking at all of the general election trial heats taken in February and March involving the five best known candidates (well, five of the six, since everyone crushes Gingrich). Here are the results:

Giuliani vs. Clinton (15 polls)

Trial heat mean: Giuliani 47.9%--43.1% Clinton.
Raw score median: Giuliani 47%--43% Clinton
Median margin: Giuliani +5
Two-Month Trend: None

Giuliani vs. Obama (12 polls)

Trial heat mean: Giuliani 45.5%--42.1% Obama
Raw Score median: Giuliani 45.0%--42.5% Obama
Median margin: Giuliani +5
Two-Month Trend: Obama

Giuliani vs. Edwards (6 polls)

Trial heat mean: Giuliani 46.5%--42.3% Edwards
Raw score median: 46.5%--42.5%
Median margin: Giuliani +4
Two-Month Trend: Giuliani

When match up against Giuliani, Obama does very slightly better than Edwards and Clinton. The difference, however, is less than two points. Now for the McCain numbers:

McCain vs. Clinton (11 polls)

Trial heat mean: McCain 45.8%--44.0% Clinton.
Raw score median: McCain 46%--44% Clinton
Median margin: Even
Two-Month Trend: McCain

McCain vs. Obama (10 polls)

Trial heat mean: Obama 44.0%--43.6% McCain
Raw Score median: Obama 44.0%--43.5% McCain
Median margin: Even
Two-Month Trend: McCain

McCain vs. Edwards (6 polls)

Trial heat mean: Edwards 43.5%--43.2% McCain
Raw score median: McCain 43.5%--43.0% Edwards
Median margin: McCain +1
Two-Month Trend: Edwards

Once again, Obama does a little bit better than Edwards, and Edwards does a little bit better than Clinton. However, as with Giuliani, the differences are minor, and come out to less than 3% in all categories.

Does a 2-3% difference this far out represent an "electability" problem for Clinton, and a boost to an "electability" argument for Obama and Edwards? This far out, that is not an easy argument to make. On the one hand, Obama and Edwards still give away 10-15% in name ID to Giuliani and McCain, which indicates their numbers could go up, but on the other hand neither have suffered the level of assault from the right-wing noise machine that Clinton has faced for the pat fifteen years, so their numbers could go down. Still, unclear as it may be, it is a better argument than the crap, establishment "inexperienced" narrative being spun to try and take down Obama on the "electability" front right now. This may be splitting Pringles, but the "inexperienced" narrative isn't based on any facts whatsoever.

Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, John McCain, polls, President 2008, Rudy Giuliani (all tags)

Comments

9 Comments

Sort by

permalink

Should throw in Romney, too.

Edwards and Obama just annihilate Romney, who might have raised the most money on the GOP side in the first quarter. March polls:

Rasmussen:

Edwards 55%-29% Romney
Obama 51%-36% Romney
Clinton 50%-41% Romney

Newsweek

Edwards 58%-30% Romney
Obama 54%-Romney 34%
Clinton 53%-Romney 38%

by MeanBoneII 2007-03-31 11:38AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Should throw in Romney, too.

Actually, I can't see much point in it. Romney's numbers have been fading - last few GOP nomination polls I've seen including him in single digits, just above white-noise level.

I'd say include him again if he pulls ahead of Gingrich and Fred Thompson.

by RT 2007-03-31 02:06PM | 0 recs

4a2fab88-ed3b-47a4-8f14-3ec8a24504ac_normal

permalink

Re: General Election Trial Heats, February Through

Seems to me, from the most recent polls, that the whole race might have been shaken up by the Elizabeth Edwards announcement. Hard to say if that's a permanent thing or not.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-03-31 11:41AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: General Election Trial Heats, February Through

That vibe is coming across isn't it? It's almost like the John Edwards that people in Iowa and NH have been seeing for a while now was finally shown for the first time to a national audience.

I think his bump bodes well for him staying on top in Iowa, since it seems like the more people see of him, the more they like him.

by adamterando 2007-03-31 11:51AM | 0 recs

permalink

only 4 pts behind Obama

in the latest Times poll, doing pretty well

by okamichan13 2007-03-31 10:22PM | 0 recs

permalink

generally agree Cris

but you did not post about personal likeabilty or favorabilty ratings on those numbers Hillary is doing far worse than Obama or Edwards for that matter, Voters rarely pick a candidate they don't like over someone they do regardless of issues (remember Bush's plea even if you don't agree with me vote for me anyway) her numbers mean she is going to have a hard time winning the undecideds in those trial heats, to simply her general election prospect numbers are even worse than they appear in trial heats not even factoring a Republican base that anecdotally we know will be more pumped up to beat Hillary than our others considering how pathetic thier choices are.

by nevadadem 2007-03-31 03:56PM | 0 recs

permalink

I don't buy the last argument

The one typically made, that the GOP will be frothing to defeat Hillary, more than our other potential nominees. They've lost the House and Senate, with no realistic chance to reclaim them in '08. They are down in governorships. So they'll be desperate to hold onto the presidency regardless of who we nominate. Hell, the GOP showed up in 2006. We won via rare support from independents.

IMO, likability is somewhat less important in an open race than trying to oust an incumbent. You absolutely need a charismatic challenger against an incumbent, unless that incumbent is imploding with 40ish approval ratings like Carter '80 and Bush 41 in '92. An open race is typically after two terms of one party holding the presidency, and the course of the country is at issue. Voters will overlook likability to higher degree in a situation like that. Gore, for example, fit an open race MUCH better than trying to oust an incumbent. He would have been routinely dismissed in '04.

by Gary Kilbride 2007-04-01 12:34AM | 0 recs

permalink

this really should not be a factor

I doubt that any of these general election polls can really tell us any thing. We should judge the contenders colbert style, with our gut.

by bentheben 2007-04-01 08:30AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: General Election Trial Heats, February Through

I think you under-estimate the inexperienced "narrative". Obama's ratings are where they are IN SPITE of a sense of concern about his actual experience. Many of those who support Obama have decided to do so because they find his inclusivness to be worth the gamble; they have chosen to take the risk of his (perceived) inexperience for the reward of his (perceived) optimism. It is a balancing act of two perceived qualities. What Obama needs is some crisis, some defining moment that challenges his principles in a significant way. Successfully handling that situation would greatly broaden his support.Thus his opponents must walk a careful line to be sure they don't manufacture such a moment for him.

"Narratives" are trickey things. They can't be destroyed simply by claiming (or even proving) that there is no factual past basis for them. They must be disproven by actual events onthe ground.

by kimhanson 2007-04-01 09:23AM | 0 recs