GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
Some bad news out of Virginia, according to SUSA:
Survey USA Virginia General Election Matchup
- Obama - 49%
- McCain - 42%
Independents fell to Obama 45-41; McCain gets 81% of GOP voters, Obama gets 79% of Dem voters; Hispanic voters go 2:1 to Obama; Obama wins every age group except over 65.
Here’s the matchups with Veeps included, for whatever it’s worth:
- Obama/Edwards - 53%
- McCain/Huckabee - 41%
- Obama/Sebelius - 45%
- McCain/Huckabee - 44%
- McCain/Huckabee - 46%
- Obama/Rendell - 41%
- McCain/Huckabee - 44%
- Obama/Hagel - 41%
- Obama/Edwards - 53%
- McCain/Romney - 40%
- McCain/Romney - 45%
- Obama/Sebelius - 41%
- McCain/Romney - 44%
- Obama/Rendell - 41%
- McCain/Romney - 45%
- Obama/Hagel - 40%
- Obama/Edwards - 54%
- McCain/Pawlenty - 36%
- Obama/Sebelius - 41%
- McCain/Pawlenty - 39%
- Obama/Rendell - 41%
- McCain/Pawlenty - 40%
- Obama/Hagel - 41%
- McCain/Pawlenty - 39%
- Obama/Edwards - 50%
- McCain/Lieberman - 41%
- McCain/Lieberman - 44%
- Obama/Sebelius - 38%
- McCain/Lieberman - 41%
- Obama/Rendell - 40%
- McCain/Lieberman - 43%
- Obama/Hagel - 38%
May 22nd, 2008 at 11:19 am
For anyone keeping track, Huckabee helps in 3 of the matchups and hurts in one (against Edwards, like everyone) - for an average of +1.75 in Virginia.
Romney helps in three as well for an average of +1.50.
Pawlenty drags the ticket in all four matchups for an average of -3.50.
Lieberman helps in two of the four matchups for an average of +0.50.
May 22nd, 2008 at 11:20 am
Lieb actually appears to be the best VP pick (of the three) for Virginia.
May 22nd, 2008 at 11:20 am
See what the Dems are up to:
“Finally, it matters because Virginia is an important state linking the Northeast with the South. If Democrats can continue to gain in Virginia, and eventually turn the state “blue,” we can start pushing into North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, etc. And if we do that, we will help realize Howard Dean’s vision of a Democratic Party that is competitive in all 50 states.”
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/3/24/181555/285
May 22nd, 2008 at 11:23 am
Matt C,
I think your definition of “help” is an odd one. Properly understood, helping the ticket would just be considered narrowing theg margin of loss or increasing the margin of victory. Under this standard, all four candidates “help” in three of their four matchups, though Lieb, Romney, and Huck (in that order) help more then Pawlenty (for fairly obvious reasons).
May 22nd, 2008 at 11:23 am
How does this poll make any sense. McCain is doing as well in CA as in VA. VA is not even close to being as liberal as CA. Every poll I’ve seen from VA gives McCain the lead. Maybe Snobama is doing well b/c the Dems are coalescing around him now, but these polls don’t seem right.
May 22nd, 2008 at 11:24 am
Erm…..how does this square with the last Rasmussen VA poll showing McCain +10 there? If this SUSA poll is true, we’re in for some big trouble.
I continue to be shocked at how well an Obama/Edwards ticket does against everyone else. I think it still has a lot to do with name recognition, but Obama/Edwards beating McCain/Huckabee by 12 and McCain/Lieberman by 9? What’s going on here?
May 22nd, 2008 at 11:27 am
I fully believe that VA is going to be close this fall but I’m really starting to have my doubts about the partisan breakdown in SUSA polls. From the crosstabs SUSA shows a breakdown of 41D, 33R, 22I. In 2004 it was 39R, 35D, 26I. I don’t see how the pollster can justify that sort of a swing. Sean O, are you around? Does this partisan breakdown seem reasonable?
May 22nd, 2008 at 11:30 am
Under most senarios, it is interesting that their are many Undecides. I wonder if it a function of name recognition.
May 22nd, 2008 at 11:31 am
How do pollsters determine partisan breakdowns in polls anyway? The other day SUSA showed a 55D-34R-10I breakdown in PA. It’s NEVER been a 21-point difference in that state before. Who or what determines the partisan shares in a poll?
May 22nd, 2008 at 11:33 am
And what happened in the last month to cause SUSA to weight the D to R to I split differently than it was allocated a month ago?
May 22nd, 2008 at 11:34 am
You guys are right, while the Dems are stronger than they were in Virginia, there is no way they have an 8 point ID advantage.
May 22nd, 2008 at 11:36 am
How stupid for SUSA for not polling Obama/Webb in VIRGINIA?
May 22nd, 2008 at 11:36 am
Adam,
Well, remember that there has been a significant swing in partisan ID in the last 2 years. In 2006, Rasmussen had the breakdown at 36.7%D and 34.0%R. In April 2008, the split had grown to 41.5%D and 36.4%R. This is the worst environment for the Republican Party than at any time since the Watergate years. Given that, it’s a miracle that McCain is hanging close to even with Obama.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/party_affiliation/democrats_retain_huge_advantage_in_party_id
May 22nd, 2008 at 11:37 am
Ohio,
Absolutely Ohio. Look at which matchups have high numbers of undecideds; the matchups with Rendell, Sebllius, Pawlenty, and to a lesser extent Hagel. Republicans are fairly well decided when Romney,Lieberman or Huck are added to the ticket. Dems are pretty well decided when Edwards is added. Independents are very decided when it’s McCain/Known R vs Obama Edwards. Independents are less decided when it’s McCain/Pawlenty vs. Obama Edwards. They’re even less decided when it’s McCain/Pawlenty vs. Obama/Sebellius or Obama/Rendell. What’s happening, is that a certain percentage of people could envision the VP changing their decision, so they’re going undecided when unknown VP’s are added to the equation. Very light dem leaners go undecided when Rendell, Sebellius, or Hagel are added. Very light Rep leaners go undecided when Pawlenty is added. Look at the McCain/Pawlenty vs. Obama/Rendell or Obama/Sebellius matchups, and you’ll see the “persuadables”. Those who might yet be persuaded by the opposing team. And there are alot more persuadeable Dem leaners then persuadable Rep leaners. Thus McCain/Pawlenty is competitive with Obama/Unknown VP.
May 22nd, 2008 at 11:41 am
LJ,
I understand all that - but how does SUSA know if those Hillary supporters are going to “auto-magically” show up for Obama. Also - the numbers you cite are national numbers. How does one assume a showing of 33 percent from Republicans in Virginia when the national number is 36.4?
It doesn’t make any sense to me.
May 22nd, 2008 at 11:41 am
You are probably right Matthew.
May 22nd, 2008 at 11:42 am
Opps. I meant the split had grown to 45.5%D and 36.4%R in 2008.
May 22nd, 2008 at 11:43 am
Recall that John Edwards is from North Carolina. Of course he’s going to help Obama in Virgnia. My post from a month ago suggested Edwards brought Kerry’s numbers up about 5% in Virginia in 2004. That’s why McCain/whoever loses ground to Obama/Edwards in Virginia, but not uniformly in the other states polled.
May 22nd, 2008 at 11:44 am
Adam,
Good point. I’ll try and dig around and find some Virginia Party ID breakdowns.
May 22nd, 2008 at 11:46 am
The partisan breakdown does not seem reasonable Adam. It does look like California was oversampling McCain voters, and Virginia is oversampling Obama voters.
May 22nd, 2008 at 11:51 am
Part of this just seems to be Edwards strength in Virginia. He does far better than any other Dem. Veep, even Rendell, who isn’t much further away from VA.
May 22nd, 2008 at 11:52 am
Adam,
I pulled up the Party ID breakdown for the Webb/Allen race in 2006 according to CNN:
GOP: 39%
Dems: 36%
Indies: 26%
This swing would make sense if there were significant movement by the independents and moderate/liberal Republicans towards the Democratic Party. I’m not that familiar with Virginia trends, but I know at least 8 independent/center-right friends of mine here in Wisconsin who voted for Bush in 2004 who couldn’t wait to vote Democratic during the primary this year.
May 22nd, 2008 at 11:53 am
Did John Edwards, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee pay SurveyUSA to include them against unknown Veeps so they would get McCain’s and Obama’s attention? just kidding
May 22nd, 2008 at 11:56 am
LJ,
Still though - according to the CNN exit poll from 2004 it was 39R, 35D, 26I. So considering the change of fortunes from 2004 to 2006 Dems went from a 4-point defecit to a 3-point defecit. And now all of a sudden from ‘06 to ‘08 Dems go from a 3-point defecit to an 8-point lead?
Something ain’t stirring the kool-aid.
May 22nd, 2008 at 11:57 am
Actually, if you look at these Veep polls of the last few days, far from showing that Huck and Romney are surprisingly strong Veeps, they actually indicate that the Romney, Huck, and Lieberman are very weak VP possibilities. In 12 matchups now, through 4 states, Obama/Edwards has done better then McCain/Romney, or McCain/Huck, or McCain/Lieberman, in every single matchup, relative to the baseline. McCain/Pawlenty has done worse too of course, but that’s no more relevant then the poor performances by the Obama/Sebellius tickets.
May 22nd, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Rasmussen just released a poll for NV
McCain 46
Obama 40
I would bet $1000 that we don’t win NV by 6 on the same day we lose VA by 7.
May 22nd, 2008 at 12:02 pm
And even that doesn’t fully encapsulate the poor showings by Huck, Edwards and Lieberman. Because we KNOW from the McCain/Pawlenty vs. Obama/Sebellius/Rendell polls that in every single state, Democratic leaning voters are significantly more likely then Republican leaning voters to reserve judgment until they figure out who the VP’s are. Actually, if you you were to take McCain/Pawlenty vs. Obama/Sebellius matchups as a baseline for the persuadeables, when Edwards is added to the Dem ticket, and Romney, Huck, or Lieberman are added to the R ticket, something like 60-70% of the persuadables go to Obama/Edwards.
May 22nd, 2008 at 12:04 pm
I meant the poor showings by Huck, Romney, and Lieberman.
May 22nd, 2008 at 12:04 pm
You might have a point that well known candidates should be doing better than they are, but on the other hand, they are well known (and disliked by some as well as liked) and yet only X % say they would vote against them. So it is interesting no matter how you slice it.
May 22nd, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Mathew,
I think it is also difficult to analyze persuadables versus Undicededs based on a few polls.
May 22nd, 2008 at 12:08 pm
#26, has there been a report card that compares the accuracy btw SUSA and Rasmussen. I would like to see that b/c these last SUSA polls are wacky. We’re either doing very well in CA or very bad in PA/VA.
May 22nd, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Ohio,
It’s more then that. If you look at the McCain/Pawlenty matchups, it suggests that only about 3-5% of the voters that initially go to McCain (when it’s just McCain vs. Obama) are persuadable. Something like 10% of the folks that initially go to Obama are persuadeable. Against Obama/Edwards, all of the persuadable D’s go back to Obama, and more then half of the persuadable R’s either go undecided or go to Obama when Romney, Huck, or Lieberman are added. Looking at the numbers closely, they’re actually serious drags on the ticket.
May 22nd, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Matthew, you lost me on that one, and I’m usually good at math.
May 22nd, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Oh come on!
Lieberman is the best pick for Virginia, while Huckabee is the best pick for California and Pennsylvania?!
WTF, America, WTF?
Wake me when this election is over.
May 22nd, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Survey USA always favors Obama in VA. 3 of their last 4 polls have Obama ahead there, whereas no other pollster has shown Obama with a lead.
May 22nd, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Clarence,
McCain starts off with 42%. His lowest point is McCain/Pawlenty vs. Obama/Edwards/ He goes down to 36%. He only falls below 40% a total of 3 times. Obama starts off with 49%. His lowest point is 38%, with Obama/Hagel vs. McCain/Lieberman and Obama/Sebellius vs. McCain/Lieberman. He hits 40% once additionally. So at his worst, Obama loses 11 points, McCain loses just 6, and typically loses less then 2. Furthermore, look at the McCain/Pawlenty vs. Obama/Sebellius or Obama/Rendell or Obama/Hagel matchups. Obama still loses 8 points off his baseline, while McCain loses 3 points twice and 2 points once. This indicates that a far large percentage of people who are ordinarily basically inclined to vote for Obama when it’s simply presented as Obama vs. McCain go undecided when unknown VP’s are added to the question. They’re leaning Obama, but probably only very lightly, and quite alot depends on who the Veeps end up being. McCain has a comparatively small percentage of these folks. I’d term this broad group, the 20% that are undecided in McCain/Pawlenty vs. Obama/Sebellius or Obama/Rendell matchups, the “persuadables”. They lean in one direction, but their minds can still be changed. This 20% goes down to 5-6% when it’s McCain/Romney or McCain/Huck or McCain/Lieberman vs Obama/Edwards. And Obama/Edwards wins almost all of these voters. McCain/Huck wins 2% of the 14% while Obama/Edwards wins 12% of the 14%. All the persuadables positively FLEE from Romney and Huckabee.
May 22nd, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Not sure how, but for some reason SUSA seems to consistently paint a more dem friendly picture than any other polling that I’ve seen. Not saying that they’re wrong, but they certainly seem to be 180 degrees off of most if not all of the other polling firms. They show Obama, what, like eight points ahead nationally? I’m not concerned.
May 22nd, 2008 at 12:32 pm
From personal knowledge (I live just across the Potomac) I can say a few things about VA. Politically and demographically it has changed considerably from 2004 and certainly from 2000. The northern suburbs were booming before the mortgage crisis with young professionals. NOVA is almost identical to the “yuppie” parts of DC. The republican brand is very damaged. There are many parts of the state that still look and vote a lot like Tennessee, but the state is becoming more Mid-Atlantic.
May 22nd, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Mathew, I sort of see your point, but what I see this poll showing is that some voters are more undiceded than others. I think party ID kind of muddles what people really think of the VP candidates.
May 22nd, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Am I the only one, along with people in those polls, that understands that unless McCain gets some superstar, he fails to motivate. I’m not going to the polls. My family, associates, the way things stand, are not going to the polls. Why would a McCain/Huckabee ticket, or worse, McCain/Lieberman ticket, get out the vote over Obama/Edwards? They have terrible policy, true, but they are young and cute. McCain and his match-ups just have terrible policy. And they’re old and crusty. McCain has got to give mainstream Americans a reason to care. Raising my gas tax $1.50 and letting crooks out of prison free and such fails to motivate me, at least.
May 22nd, 2008 at 12:42 pm
I wonder what Lieberman and Edwards would “debate” about when it comes to domestic issues. That would be a good Vice-Presidential debate to watch. As to Matthew Miller, thanks for the explanation. I’m still having trouble processing the numbers, but I’m a little tired today, so maybe that’s why. It’s been the hope of Republicans for awhile that after the 2010 census, we will gain numbers in the electoral college as people move South. However, if the Democrats are able to break into states like Virginia, that does complicate things. They’ve been talking about Virginia for years though. After 1996 they said, “Look how close Clinton came against Dole.” From 1997 on, DNC people have been saying Virginia was going to vote Republican for President sometime very soon, yet Bush won it by double digits twice.
May 22nd, 2008 at 12:47 pm
These numbers are FUBAR. No way are they correct.
May 22nd, 2008 at 1:13 pm
What does FUBAR mean?
May 22nd, 2008 at 1:14 pm
That would be F*cked up beyond all redcognition.
May 22nd, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Clarence,
Actually Bush won VA by about 8 points in 2000 and 2004. The state is trending left - but I sincerely doubt Obama wins it at all - much less by 7 points. It is only a matter of time though before the Dems can win at the presidential level. Just a month ago SUSA showed McCain leading in the state by 8. Some of these polls literally make me fuming mad because I suspect some of them are deliberately skewed - but then after I take a breath I remember that PA, OH, VA, NV, NM, IA, CO, NH are going to change a million times before November.
May 22nd, 2008 at 1:31 pm
As Karl Rove says, there are several geological ages between now and November. Anything can happen. Remember, the Swift Boaters and Rathergate came out in the final stretch of the campaign.
May 22nd, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Also, the cross tabs in terms of things like the white vote, the male vote, the female vote and others are highly suspect.
I mean to go from winning by 8 to losing by 12 or 13, in a state that hasn’t gone Dem since 1964? A 20 pt swing? No way.
From winning the male vote in 2004 by 20 to losing it by 4, a 25 pt swing? I mean, Kerry Edwards lost the male vote by 20. This poll has Obama Edwards winning the male vote by 10 against either McCain/Romney or McCain/Huckabee. That’s a 30 pt swing in the GOP’s strongest demographic, in a southern state, with a black guy at the top of the ticket. If this is anywhere close to reality, McCain may as well give up now. I doubt it’s anywhere near accurate.
And look at the white vote. Bush won it by 38 pts against Kerry/Edwards. Now, against Obama/Edwards, McCain with Huck or romney only wins it 10? A loss of 75% or more. Please. If the GOP can only scratch 51% of the white vote in Virginia against Obama, the pary is trult finished.
Bush was even among women at 50-50. Obama leads by 16. Again, unrealistic.
This poll is so far at odds with what happened in 2004 and every other recent Presidential election in VA, I wouldn’t take it seriously at all.
May 22nd, 2008 at 1:55 pm
They’re not deliberately skewed. I don’t think SurveyUSA necessarily has a liberal bias. I take back what I said about Bush winning Virginia by double digits. I was thinking of North Carolina.
May 22nd, 2008 at 2:02 pm
I wonder if the moderate wing of the party is happy in a way that the generic climate for Republicans is so bad right now because it gives them more evidence to say that we need to pick a squishy running mate, we can’t be that conservative anymore. I’m not sure they’d be that happy if McCain was leading by 20 points, Bush was at 90% approval (which he once was), and it didn’t really matter how conservative McCain’s VP was. For those people who have wanted for a long time to make the Republicans more moderate and less focused on social issues, the fact that the polls are so bad for Republicans is actually very good for them. That is why you will see them emphasize at every opportunity how bad the generic climate is for Republicans, how McCain is the only guy who would have had any chance, on and on. It is part of their agenda. It is also true, but they are glad it is true because it helps them.
May 22nd, 2008 at 2:04 pm
I should rephrase that. I don’t think it is true that McCain is the only Republican who could have won this year. I do think it is true that the generic climate is bad.
May 22nd, 2008 at 2:06 pm
#49 Don’t count me among those. I want to see the GOP end up more extreme. On economics and foreign policy it needs to change its rhetoric rather than its positions.
Yes, on social/cultural issues I’d like to see it move left, but I consider those 5% of the business of the Oval Office, so that is not inconsistent with me wanting it to be more extreme. I’ve always been against the squishy types of moderates most of all (Specter/Pataki/Snowe/Whitman/Voinovich/etc).
May 22nd, 2008 at 2:07 pm
In other words, I prefer a far-right conservative, even if SoCon but far right on everything else… to a squishy centrist who stands for nothing.
May 22nd, 2008 at 2:11 pm
I wasn’t referring specifically to you Metro. I know you’re a slightly different breed than some of the other ones I’ve clashed with on here. There are some who are very conservative in their own beliefs but are not confident enough about it and therefore support squishy people. Then there are others who are squishy themselves. You are of a third breed that is hardline conservative on fiscal issues and hard left socially.
May 22nd, 2008 at 2:11 pm
I didn’t realize Voinovich was a centrist. I guess I wasn’t paying enough attention. I knew the other four were.
May 22nd, 2008 at 2:18 pm
I guess I would name the three groups I referred to as moderates, party hacks, and Metro-TLG types. I don’t want to use the word libertarian because that is kind of confusing. Typically people think of a libertarian as fiscally conservative and socially liberal. So you would think someone like Giuliani would be a libertarian. However, Ron Paul, who actually was a Libertarian at one point, disagreed with Rudy on many things, Iraq, abortion, drugs, the Patriot Act, police-related stuff. It’s interesting how you and Ron Paul could have so many differences and yet still call yourselves libertarian.
May 22nd, 2008 at 2:31 pm
This year has been so quirky that its impossible to know what could have been. I think a younger version of Fred Thompson would have done well, for example. One can only speculate what a Sanford or Pawlenty could have accomplished. And then one can always rethink strategy and wonder if Romney had stayed out of IA and focused only on NH and knocking McCain out, he probably would be the nominee (under that scenario he probably would have won Florida).
So the fact that McCain is the nominee is not a sign that conservatism is dead this year by any means.
May 22nd, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Clarence:
I guess there are more than a few breeds of Libertarians.
May 22nd, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Clarence, I like the term Libertarian Hawk to refer to people like me, Alex, Dondero etc.
May 22nd, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Oh, and by the way, that’s the same thing as a South Park Republican.
May 22nd, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Metro,
I’ve also heard neo-libertarian thrown around as a word to describe our ideology.
May 22nd, 2008 at 3:03 pm
But you guys are not libertarian, or at least Rudy wasn’t, on some of the civil liberties issues. He was always on the side of law enforcement. He was also very supportive of the Patriot Act, something most true libertarians would oppose. It’s funny, I never thought of South Park as having a political agenda before today. I thought it was a just a dirty show where these cartoon characters swear all the time:)
May 22nd, 2008 at 3:16 pm
The Diffence between This poll and yesterdays poll is that Suvery USA polling simple seems to be younger and the VCU Poll tends to be a older poll of voters.
May 22nd, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Clarence, I’m sympathetic with the civil libertarian argument. But I’m also OK with a certain degree of limitations that are necessary to defeat a foreign enemy.
May 22nd, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Other than the already established fact that an Obama/Edwards ticket would be the hardest ticket to run against, it’s impossible to deduce anything meaningful from the above set of numbers. What are the relative intensities and indifferences behind them? We don’t know.
May 22nd, 2008 at 5:10 pm
There’s really several breed of libertarians — Randians, Heinleinians, Rothbardians (which is basically what Ron Paul is), and this doesn’t even touch the left-libertarians (the Proudhons and Bakunins of the world).
But the law and order thing and foreign policy is really why I consider myself a conservative with a strong libertarian streak than a libertarian.
May 22nd, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Edwards won’t be picked for two simple reasons.
One rightfully or wrongfully the neme is that he wasn’t a great VP choice last time.
Secondly as sad as it is he wife has terminal cancer and is likely to be very sick just when the new President gets sworn in.
May 22nd, 2008 at 6:38 pm
On #59. Are the creators of South park that hawkish? I can’t recall any episode that would suggest they have a strong hawkish bent.
May 23rd, 2008 at 12:39 am
How does John “2 Americas” Edwards do so well? I really don’t see why Democrats like him.