Clinton and Obama — Drags on the Ticket?
EmailVery interesting Democratic poll, revealed in today’s Washington Post (LINK), showing that GOP frontrunner Rudy Giuliani is more popular in key congressional Democratic swing districts than Obama or Clinton.
This would seem to show that despite enthusiasm among Democrats (and some in the media) for their candidacies, Obama and Clinton may not be as powerful in a general election match up as they may right now seem — and in fact, may be a drag on the ticket in some areas, an argument Sen. John Edwards is trying to underline as he depicts himself as the more mainstream Democrat.
The Clinton and Obama campaigns dispute the findings, of course.
"I find all of these polls with these questions tend to overestimate any real ticket effect, especially when accompanied by leading phrases like ‘liberal policies,’ " said Mark Penn, Clinton’s chief pollster.
And, says Obama spox Bill Burton, only Obama "has a vision to change politics [that] appeals to people of all political stripes in all parts of the country."
– jpt
UPDATE: A little bird helpfully reminds me that Lake polls for the presidential campaign of Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., who of course has an interest in its conclusions. That said, this isn’t the first time this notion has been raised, by Purple and Red State Democrats and John Edwards supporters in particular.
CPAC: Romney Struggles to Convince Voters 
Obama Backs Off Birth Control Battle?
OBAMA/EDWARDS is the ticket!
Posted by: rw | September 23, 2007, 1:54 pm 1:54 pm
Obama & Clinton are two of the WORST possible candidates.
Neither represent the true needs of this country.
Both have their own adgenda and will tell you what you want to hear, and then do something completely different.
If either of them become President, I think Canada or Mexico would look like a good temporary home.
Posted by: A.R | September 23, 2007, 2:08 pm 2:08 pm
I believe that many democrats and republicans would love to see Hillary as the democrat party nominee. The democrats will honestly believe she can win, but the republicans will believe that’s all they will need to keep control over the presidency.
Posted by: TexBork | September 23, 2007, 2:23 pm 2:23 pm
Why do conservative or Republican speakers consistently confuse the noun ‘democrat’ with the adjective ‘democratic’. I guess conservative failures in education have created a generation of intense but ill spoken reactionaries – I mean Republicans.
Posted by: Gene | September 23, 2007, 2:38 pm 2:38 pm
Someday a candidate will come along that appeals to all Americans regardless of their label(black, white, hispanic, gay, straight, abortionsts, religous fantics, rich, poor etc.). This presidential candidate will attempt to cure all the wrongs in this country and bring us all back together with trust and decency. The only thing is, that candidate isn’t on the 2008 ticket.
Posted by: steve | September 23, 2007, 2:41 pm 2:41 pm
Drag on a ticket…is he talking about Giuliani?
Posted by: Natalia | September 23, 2007, 2:42 pm 2:42 pm
If you read the actual text of the “poll,” it was not a poll at all–the question was SO leading that the results are completely unreliable. It asked whether the respondent would support his incumbent Democratic congressman in the light of his support for “Hillary Clinton’s liberal agenda of big government and higher taxes.” This is a NONSTORY–and I’m not even a Clinton partisan.
Posted by: LM | September 23, 2007, 3:02 pm 3:02 pm
If the poll is trustworthy, I do not find it surprising that Rudy would appeal to the racist and misogonistic blue collar union workers that have given us Reagan and two Bushs. They seem to take a perverse delight in voting for ghouls like Giuliani. Rudy`s prop man needs to lose the phone and get him a rocker: I swear he reminds me of Mrs. Bates in “Psycho.”
On the other hand, I still have seen no credible evidence that Rudy is a draft dodger, not that being a draft dodger would bother the blue collar “Democrats.”
Posted by: A Viet Nam Vet | September 23, 2007, 3:06 pm 3:06 pm
Gene:
Because the adjective “democratic” does not apply to today’s Democrat party.
Dick
Posted by: Dick Larsen | September 23, 2007, 3:17 pm 3:17 pm
A.R – I absolutely agree!!
Posted by: Getalife | September 23, 2007, 3:25 pm 3:25 pm
Edwards is going to be the dem nominee because people aren’t ready to vote for a woman or AA.It’s called paradigm thinking.Romney will win the GOP because he has the most traditional family and best hair.Women are suckers for these things.
Posted by: Joe | September 23, 2007, 4:23 pm 4:23 pm
I’m not surprised by this article and I am not surprised by the Edwards’ campaign interest. There was a debate awhile back when John Edwards made the comment, “If you won’t vote for Hillary because she’s a woman and you won’t vote for Barack because he is Black-I don’t want your vote.” Watching him I thought to myself, “Liar, liar pants on fire.” What he said sounded altruistic, but the message he clearly sent was vote for the white man. Despite all these polls that say the country is ready for a Black man or a woman I’m not convinced; especially given Harold Ford loss following the racist ad run by the RNC. Whether he acknowledges the subliminal message or not some of John Edwards rhetoric speaks directly to the racism and sexism still rampant in our society.
Posted by: RealB.G. | September 23, 2007, 4:28 pm 4:28 pm
how can a man that could not or would not hold his family together run the u.s.a.?
Posted by: sandyb | September 23, 2007, 5:25 pm 5:25 pm
Canada or Mexico looking like a good temporary home? Funny, I was thinking along those same lines if America were to commit itself to another four years with a neo-con as President the likes of George Bush and a Congress (whether controlled by Democrats or Republicans) that lacks the will power to resist deficit spending.
Posted by: Opa | September 23, 2007, 5:38 pm 5:38 pm
Perhaps because there’s nothing democratic about the Democratic party… In all seriousness though the Republicans use the term because they see the term “Republican” in “Republican Party” referring to the noun, Republican, rather than being adjectival (after all, one is a Republican or a Democrat, not a Democratic).
Posted by: Gene | September 23, 2007, 6:22 pm 6:22 pm
The shrill voice of Hillary alone will drive all men to behave like Bill(turn away from her) Bill deos not love this shrew-she has something on him that keeps this poor man from divorcing her and enjoying his life.
Posted by: rockychance | September 23, 2007, 6:23 pm 6:23 pm
Is Clinton and Obama a drag on the ticket? Yes, not because of gender/race, they are just politically to far left and with little experience behind them, as simple as that.
Based on the last to Presidential elections cycle, the Democrats just cannot do the math. They fail to appeal to moderates and conservatives and always focus on Northeastern and California liberal voting blocks to carry them through and ignore the Western and Southern states, the NRA crowd, military families, and faith-based voters. The truth of the matter is, the Democrats need to grow their base towards the right and center if they wish to cull enough votes to have a reform mandate otherwise, more of the same. There are other candidates, like Biden, Dodd and Richardson. I like Joe Biden, but based on the credibility issues of his 1987 Presidential campaign, not sure, if he is honest Joe and often shoots his mouth off unnecessarily. Biden been in Congress so long, I perceive him as part of the do nothing Congress. Based on the current Supreme Court, I am not impressed with is his work on judicial committee. The Biden-Gelb Plan is nothing but paper tiger. But I still would prefer Biden over Clinton and Obama. The problem lies in that the Clintons are calling the shots for the Democrats, so what’s new? So my guess Senator Clinton will get the nomination, not sure who will be her VP, its anyones guess (but who would want that gig with Bill Clinton as the most trusted advisor). The most recent article in the “The Economist.” about Bill Richardson points to the fact that Hillary Clinton does not like Richardson, so this is good news for him. However she will not win a reform mandate without conservative Westerner either. Richardson has more appeal to center and right than any other Democrat running. My preference in 2008 is Richardson/Dodd or vote for a RINO to send a message to my party.
Posted by: threeriverscrossing | September 23, 2007, 7:18 pm 7:18 pm
Dig up an old poll to make a point? Let’s stay current please.
Posted by: Nikki | September 23, 2007, 7:25 pm 7:25 pm
No point in going to Canada if BO or Hillary are elected. Socialism will take over domestically. Going to Canada wouldn’t be much different I don’t think, but where will Canadians go for better health care? Not the US anymore. Also, I hear the illegals are now invading Canada. Great. Sorry Canada! That’s OUR fault for refusing to deal with the illegals that have invaded the US. They never should have made it across the US without being busted and tossed. Again, sorry ’bout those illegals and the effect they are going to have on you. It’s not pleasant. I hope you are better at controlling the illegals situation better than we did.
Posted by: TexBork | September 23, 2007, 7:37 pm 7:37 pm
Hilary&edwards will be the only ticket that will win……. If it is anyone else we will see four more years!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: david | September 23, 2007, 7:43 pm 7:43 pm
This reflects more on Guiliani’s strength with moderates than it does on Obama and Clinton’s weaknesses. Guiliani is a damn strong moderate candidate – pro-gay, pro-gun control, pro-choice, tolerant towards immigrants, favors lower taxes, perceived as strong on security and…he’s a hero. I mean, on paper he’s got it in the bag. How could any democrat compete with that in moderate districts?
Posted by: cordelia525 | September 23, 2007, 8:19 pm 8:19 pm
Hey Mike Huckabee – The story about your son torturing and killing a defensless dog is gaining momentum on the internet. It’s being associated with similar cruel and revolting animal treatment of dogs by Vick and DMX. This sick behavior is going to haunt you through your campaign when you try to speak of the preciousness of life and family values – the fact that your family apparently never learned from you the values you want us all to believe in you. I’d like to see you address this adequately before you are given further consideration.
Posted by: Rick_VT | September 23, 2007, 8:23 pm 8:23 pm
The Democrats will have a hard time winning the presidency if they continue to lean to far to the left, moderation is needed.Contrary to what far left liberals think, they are not the predominant philosophy in this country.
Posted by: BTL musings | September 23, 2007, 9:13 pm 9:13 pm
Guiliani is a vain, arrogant authoritarian headcase – there’s no way he can win the general election.
Posted by: Mary Ann | September 23, 2007, 11:58 pm 11:58 pm
What kind of findings do you expect from a poll run by the Washington Post?
Obama is the most intelligent and actually the most experienced of all the credible candidates. Actually he is the only credible candidate on the Dem side. He is the only one who was against the War from the beginning and that is more than any of the others can say. How can you vote for someone for president who was apart of getting the US into this most horrible mess? Think about who you are voting for before you actually do so.
Posted by: Socialist | September 24, 2007, 12:07 am 12:07 am
Edwards WAS on the Presidential ticket last time around if you happen to recall………and that sure worked out well for Democrats in those swing districts didn’t it?
Edwards is already a two time loser, lost in the 04 primary, lost in the 04 general election. If Dick Cheney is Darth Vadar then Hillary is Jar Jar Binks when it comes to her popularity among independents and republicans.
Hey Democrats how about nominating someone who can actually win for a change like Barack Obama?
Posted by: PetraeusSucks | September 24, 2007, 3:28 am 3:28 am
want to rattle the mindless dem?
from now on refer to them as “democrat”!
the term “democrat” originated as an epithet and referred to ‘one who panders to the crude and mindless whims of the masses’.
could anything better define today’s democrat party?
Posted by: E | September 24, 2007, 8:59 am 8:59 am
Intriguing results, but we have more than a year before the national election, and a lot can change in that time. Mayor Giuliani is certainly a strong candidate as a moderate Repub, but he will lose some of that strength if he continues pandering to the more conservative elements of his party to get their votes (cf., his appearance before the NRA last week where he backpedaled about 100 mph to rationalize possession of assault weapons).
Posted by: chuck | September 24, 2007, 9:27 am 9:27 am
Look at Clinton’s record: She favors only the rich owning guns. Favors illegal aliens over Americans. Favors government intervention into every aspect of our lives. …She’s almost as much of a left wing elitist as Giuliani. …. In a Giuliani vs Clinton election, I favor secession. McCain vs. Obama would be just as bad. Face it, Thompson, Huckabee and Paul are the best choices out of a bad crowd.
Posted by: Royce | September 24, 2007, 10:05 am 10:05 am
Since all the Deomcrats/Socialists/Libs want Goverment intervention into every aspect of our Life and destruction of the Constitution, they all are competing who can go further Left then the other. It is sad to say at the least. Obama is just Niave, Clinton is a power hungery individual who will say anything to get what she wants but will never follow thru, and Edwards well he is just a airbag.
moving to Canada does nothing if they win because it will be the same socialist country the libs want to bring here.
As far as Ron Paul, well he might be decent but his nutcase supporter ruin that.
Why is it that the Libs want to give more rights to illegals then Citizens?
I would not be surprised if someone not in the race at this time win the Dem primary. Do not forget the other nutcase Hypocrisy Gore.
We need Fred/Rudy or Huckabee!
Posted by: spock | September 24, 2007, 11:26 am 11:26 am