GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
The hypothetical Obama vs. Dubya poll:
Barack Obama says a vote for John McCain is a vote for George W. Bush’s third term, but a new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that the Democratic hopeful would have a much easier time of it if he were actually running against the incumbent president this year.
At a time when Obama and McCain are locked in a tight race, the poll shows that Obama would rout President Bush 54% to 34%. Looking at the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll, McCain is outperforming Bush by more than 15 percentage points.
The poll results also show that Obama would have an easier go of it against two of McCain’s chief rivals for the Republican nomination. The presumptive Democratic nominee leads former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney by eight points 49% to 41% and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee 50% to 39%.
However, McCain fares better against Obama than he does against two other prominent Democrats. New York Senator Hillary Clinton leads McCain by eight points, 50% to 42%. Former Vice President Al Gore, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2000, leads McCain 50% to 43%.
These numbers help explain why Election 2008 is competitive even though events so heavily favor the Democrats — because the Republicans are on course to nominate their strongest possible general election candidate but the Democrats are not. Perhaps even more importantly, the data suggests that voters don’t see a potential McCain Administration as the third term of President Bush.
In all five hypothetical match-ups featured in this article, the Democrat leads the Republican among unaffiliated voters. In the match-up between the two presumptive nominees, McCain holds a slight edge over Obama among those voters.
For the record (and despite what it may do to my reputation), I do believe that Dubya, if allowed to run for a third-term, would end up defeating Obama in November. However, I do not believe that there is any Republican that could defeat Hillary Clinton.
You may now commence ripping me to shreds in the comments.
July 15th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
You think that W. could beat Obama? Dream on, Kavon.
July 15th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
interesting side note i was reading mike steele to introduce mccain at NAACP meeting tomorrow?! http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/steele_will_accompany_mccain_t.php
wonder if it’s a VP interview while enroute to meeting city ?
July 15th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Nice to see Alex get his face out of the paperbacks.
Of all the VP predictions Michael Steele is the most idiotic. A failed state politician for McCain? Why not get Jeffrey Fieger? Be serious.
Kavon, from the stupidity out the GOP, they actually did one thing correct this year, nominate John McCain.
July 15th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Thank god Clinton was not the nominee. Thank god the democrats vote with their heart and not their head.
July 15th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Okay, now I have lost all political respect for you. You actually think that an incumbent President with 26% approval rating, bad economy and unpopular war will beat a fresh face, liked by 55% of the country and calling for change? Are you insane? Are you completely insane? Or was it a joke? Please tell me it was a joke. Please.
July 15th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
I think the rippers here are underestimating Bush’s political skills. I’m not sure Bush would win, but I think it would be a lot closer than the CW says it would.
July 15th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
While theses hypothetical numbers are interesting, remember, neither Clinton, Gore, Romney or Huckabee are running for President. They have not been attacked in months. They have not been on the campaign trail. They have not been under scrutiny for quite some time. So, while these numbers are interesting, you cannot say Clinton is more electable than Obama against McCain because simply she is not running.
July 15th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
#6.
Political skill? I will give him the 2000 election. That took some skill. But in 2004, he barely won against a very weak Democrat. You cannot tell me that it will be a close election when Bush’s approval rating is 26%-30%.
July 15th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
I don’t know about G’dub beating Obama but I have always felt that Hillary could have beaten any Republican nominee. McCain will beat Obama. Democrats did it again. They only have themselves to blame.
July 15th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
It wouldn’t be a 20-point race if it were Obama vs. Bush. The so-cons would still come out for Bush and the Democrats are not as united behind Obama as they were behind Kerry. Bush would still lose because his weak supporters would stay home but I have no doubt it would at least be competitive. Probably a 3-5 point Obama victory.
July 15th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Rick,
Weak Democrat or not, all factions of the party were united behind him. That’s not the case with Obama.
July 15th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
11.
Key there. All factions of the Party “were” united behind him. Now he has a 65% approval rating among his own party. Obama is going to get the same share of Democrats that Kerry did (88%-90%) and maybe even more depending on African-American turnout.
July 15th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
This is one Republican who voted for Dubya twice who would never, under any circumstances, ever vote for him again in that hypothetical situation.
The conservative movement in this country has never had a greater enemy than the Bush clan. I regret my vote for him in 2004.
July 15th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Let me be the first to defend Kavon. He is correct to defend Bush and state that Bush would win against Obama.
Many of you are used to US Presidential politics where Presidents are limited to terms. In other western democracies where there are not term limits, many incumbents still win third terms.
Germany’s Schroeder was very unpopular and still won a third term. Bush has also governed, knowing he cannot be re-elected, so he has not cared how popular (or not) his decision have been.
Other most recent third term victors have been Blair (unpopular war), Howard (unpopular war), Chretien (arrogant and corrupt), and Junichir? Koizumi (bad economy).
July 15th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Rick,
The “him” in 11 was referring to Kerry, not Bush. And assuming you’re correct and that Obama gets 88 percent of Democrats - that alone isn’t enough to win as 2004 proved. AA turnout is not far off pace with AA population. You can only milk that cow so much before it runs out. And location of the AA vote is important too. If droves of blacks vote in GA, SC and MS it doesn’t help Obama in the electoral college.
Republicans would come home like they always do and Independent voters this year lean more GOP because of the fact that the GOP has contracted some.
Democrats don’t win national landslides. Obama isn’t on track to change that this year. Even if he were running against Bush.
July 15th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
I completely agree that Hillary was unbeatable this year.
Bush would win 4 states against Obama. I would probably vote for Obama over Bush as well.
July 15th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
This is a tough year. We’ve got a rough economy, Bush fatigue and a battered Republican reputation.
If we win it’s an indication that Barack Obama was a bridge too far. Any moderate Democrat would have won this year. They went with a divisive inexperienced machine politics liberal.
July 15th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
I’m surprised Romney’s that close; it’s actually not clear to me at this point that McCain is substantially more electable then Romney. To be sure, he has a higher starting point, but I suspect he’ll be considerably less effective at exploiting the energy issue and the economic woes. It’s true enough that in times of economic strife, people prefer the guy that can feel their pain (Huck, Clinton), to the guy who can cure their pain (Romney). But, they’ll take either over the guy who seems to have no idea, one way or the other, about their pain (McCain, Obama).
July 15th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Speaking of Hillary Clinton, did anyone see the interesing question and answer between Brokaw and Fiorina regarding Hillary joining the McCain administration? She did not say that was a crazy question, she did not say no.
Could Hillary be Secretary of State?
Aside from that, I agree, we lucked out with McCain.
July 15th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
That Romney is only 8 points back in a bad GOP suggests to me that the public has short memory of his negative attributes from the primary. He even polls better than the Huckster.
I like the idea of Romney for VP.
July 15th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Holy ____, Romney again!!!!!! It is McCain vs. Obama and every post has Romney in it.
Romney was not ready and his inexperience showed. Get over it, PLEASE!
July 15th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
bob,
He did get darn close though. Yes, yes he spent and spent and had the talk radio blabosphere cheerleading, but a 5-point swing the other way in FL would have swung things his way. Romney’s got way more experience than Obama too.
July 15th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Yeah, I can’t take this talk about Romney anymore. Make him go away! Good grief!
July 15th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
- Bush could absolutely give Obama a run. Take away his lame duck status and apply the 2004 map and it could essentially be a repeat of Bush-Kerry
- If Hillary was the nominee she would be up by 10+ points nationally right now and probably leading in Ohio and Florida. I think she would have been virtually unbeatable
- Interesting to see that “the most unpopular man in the world” Mitt Romney can still be within 8 points of Obama in this poll. Can you imagine where he would be if he was the nominee with his organization and campaign ability?
July 15th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Problem is that even people that thought he had no shot to be selected as VP are changing their minds - Chris Cillizza of WaPo’s “The Fix” blog being just one example.
I liked Pawlenty but his stock seems to have gone down as of late. And Palin sounds like she could have been in Fargo . McCain seems to have stopped the bleeding from a month or so ago but he also seems to have plateaued at a 4-point defecit. It’s only natural that people look to the VP selection to perhaps turn it around - and as unlikely as it seemed not long ago it appears that Romney is the favorite.
July 15th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Bush has been doing a decent job lately on pounding on the Dems on the oil issue. Bush needs to pick up the pace on this issue and it will damage the Dems this fall.
July 15th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Tom,
I disagree. Bush let the issue fester for far too long and has been far too ineffective. He should just shut up and get out of the way. 3/4 of the public has simply tuned him out. At this point it’s just bad news to be associated with him, no matter what.
July 15th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Talking about “that former Governor of Mass” deficiencies, is like talking to my brother about his sexual dysfunction.
Uncomfortable, frustrating, and without him acknowledging the root of his problems.
July 15th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Anyone else here the latest rumor? It is unconfirmed but 8 SD superdelegates are saying that given the chance they would change their vote from Obama to Hillary at the Convetion! This should be a front-pager. I’ll post the link (it is a pro-Hillary site but still this could get REALLY interesting).
http://alegrescorner.soapblox.net/
July 15th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
This article is better.
http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Politics/story?id=5378482&page=1
July 15th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
I love how Bush weakened conservatism…you people make me sick!
Bush did a lot with little. How bout that Congress he had? Was he perfect, no; and neither will any candidate be because a true politician has to be involved with politics where compromise outdoes ideals.
Bush will be remembered by my grandkids as one of the best Presidents of our country!
July 15th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Bush would have no chance of beating Obama. If he did it would be a sad indictment on thee electorate. The guy has been a fiscal liberal, increasing spending (but claiming he’s conservative by cutting taxes), and has been given 8 years to demonstrate his incompetence.
He could run as a “Roberts/Alito conservative”, which would win him the Deep South. But he wouldn’t win the electoral college, even against Obama.
July 15th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Two words: Harry Truman.
July 15th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
#33, ah, you beat me to it.
And in a way, that was Truman’s third term of Governing.
July 15th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Bush had a chance of ending up on the good side of history if he only had Iraq to worry about. Now there is a financial crisis and no one sees a way out. History is harsh to presidents who leave the economy in shambles - Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter for example.
July 15th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
ilfigo, your grandkids will remember Bush as the President who rejected Kyoto, cdelaying the acceptance of environmental protection by several years and resulting in irreparable damage to the world they live in.
Unfortunately, his appointments to the Supreme Court will not be remembered nearly as much.
July 15th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
#29 The rumor I keep hearing is that McCain is going to choose a VP and then decline the nomination and use a reemergence of cancer as the reason. That would elevate his VP, which is why he doesn’t want to choose Romney. What I hear is that he favors Lindsey Graham but is afraid of the rumors.
July 15th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Paulette, that’s hilarious. Where did you hear that?
July 15th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
#37 Paulette,
Sipping the Vodka tonight eh?
July 15th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
#37 I don’t think McCain’s delegates would be bound to nominate his choice of running mate in that situation.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
#40, they would anyway.
It would be McCain’s choice, either Lindsey and Rudy.
no chance of this happening anyway.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
The only thing I can add is that amongst the vets and Army guys I know, Dubya would kill Obama. Amongst the general population I have no clue.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
I was wondering about this on the Dem side. Somewhat morbid, but if Obama got shot, would Hillary automatically take the nomination?
And would the answer change if Obama had already announced his VP?
If McCain was going to pick someone in order to drop out, if would be a close friend (like Lindsay) and I can’t see it happening. He;s been running for President for 9 years, why drop out now?
July 15th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Dawnsblood, its interesting that Dubya does well amongst vets. He’s not a veteran, and the war on Iraq was mismanaged & probably unnecessary (resulting in many deaths). Why do they love him?
McCain you can understand. The guys biography demands it. But Dubya?
July 15th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Historians will probably look back on George W. Bush’s Presidency through the lens of the long view. He will probably be placed in the “top tier” to “greatest” pantheon once everything is said and done. Just as the Louisiana Purchase and later the annexation of Alaska were was once derided as folly, years from now, the Iraq war will be seen as one of the greatest and most successful military operations in our Nation’s history. GWB will be viewed as a brilliant Commander in Chief and his economic legacy will be seen as transformative and hearty. The Bush Doctrine of pre-emption will be lauded as one of the most significant changes in American foreign policy since the Manifest Destiny.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Jaype, amongst the guys I talk to they are pretty much of a single mind on it. They (or their friends) shed blood to win this thing and after the surge it looks doable to them. So they don’t want their own efforts and the efforts of their buddies to be in vain. BTW, most of the guys I talk to consider him a vet. He flew the Widowmaker in the Guard after all.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
It is not Romney. Check out this story just on the wires.
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/07/15/romney-zero-chance-of-being-mccains-vp/
YEAH!
July 15th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Good insight Dawnsblood,
The difference in 2004 that I often heard from vets was that George W. Bush was the true war veteran in that race. He wanted to go to Vietnam and supported the war but happened to be stationed State’s side, where he served admirably and bravely. Kerry, on the other hand, got drafted and went to war kicking and screaming and couldn’t wait to get home and came home the first opportunity he got.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
I live less then a mile from Bragg JA and I talk to servicemen all the time and I keep in touch with a few from when I served in the ’90s. I’d ask people to keep in mind that that equals maybe a couple dozen so it hardly counts as a full fledged poll.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Its interesting that the real vets so often seem to lose elections. Refer Bush 41 in 1992, Dole in 1996, Bush 43 in 2000 & 2004. Odd as you’d think it would be a good thing.
I’m amazed people here think Bush 43 was as good as a vet.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
I know the leftist doctrine is strong with you but Bush won in both 2000 and 2004.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
You think Bush could beat Obama ok correct weight we have the singular most bizarre comment made on the internet this year!!!!!!!
Thanks for the laughs anyway.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Because we all know that the closer the polling position of two politicians, the closer their positions on the issues.
[/sarcasm]
July 15th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Amazed? Why? The National Guard is part of the military. He was in the Guard. Case closed.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
I won’t go as far as to say Bush would beat Obama this year, but Bush would get my vote without a second thought. I found it interesting that Obama could only muster 54% against the dreadfully unpopular Bush. If you guys think McCain is going to win anyway, McCain should probably just pick a VP he wants and not look at it in terms of who will help the ticket.
July 16th, 2008 at 12:29 am
Looks like Romney is just positioning himself for another flip flip on the VP. From zero chance and not wanting to play 2nd fiddle to honored and grateful to accept and McCain’s #1 cheerleader. Par for the course for Mitt.
Kerry actually and enlisted for Nam, he wasn’t drafted. Belive me, it wasn’t that hard to go if you really wanted to. Somehow if Bush had really wanted to be thre, I think he could have managed it.
As for SDs switching to Hillary, Obama’s lead is big enought that 8 won’t matter. Especially minor ones. If a major dem comes out and bails on Barack, that would be news.
Adam, Palin does sound a bit like she was in Fargo, but Frances McDormand won best actress for her role, and there’s millions of women in this country who also sound like that. Including a bunch in northern and midwestern and rust belt states that are very important electorally. With everything else going on, I doubt how the VP sounds wil be a big issue with voters. Although, if the Chris Matthews’ and Keith Olbermann’s of the world brought it up and attacked her for it it could gain us a pt or 2 as a result of the backlash.
July 16th, 2008 at 12:57 am
Dawnsblood, #51, I inverted half way through my list (ie. Bush 41 & Dole lost depsite more experience, Bush 43 won despite less experience against Gore & Kerry). Apologies for the error. Although your comment’s kind of funny, as it shows you missed it.
July 16th, 2008 at 1:19 am
Np Jaype. I understand. I guess Kerry’s 4 months qualify as more the Dubya’s years of service and I also guess Gore’s service with body guards are more to you. My best to you. I still don’t see who you convince a vet or a serving military member to support a guy who’s party was done their best to choke of R&D and next gen weapons. Or like Obama wants to abaondon their honor on a forced loseing battlefield like Vietnam. My best 2 u Jaype.
July 16th, 2008 at 2:42 am
Ok, lets clarify a few facts here:
Bush 43 was in the Air National Guard. He is not a veteran, because he did not serve on the frontlines, he never faced combat.
Al Gore was in the US Army for two years. He didn’t do much, acting as a journalist. But he did go to Vietnam, serving on the frontline from January to May 1971. I repeat, he did serve on the frontline.
John Kerry served in the US NAvy from 1966 to 1970, serving on the frontline in Vietnam twice and receiving a Silver Star, Bronze Star, and 3 Purple Hearts.
I’m not arguing political positions here. Some could argue that Bush has better military policy positions than others, or that Kerry/Gore were bad because they criticised Vietnam. But if we steer strictly to facts, it cannot be disputed that Gore & Kerry had both served on the frontline (combat veterans) and Bush 43 did not.
To argue otherwise is rank stupidity.
July 16th, 2008 at 5:49 am
Re my #37 (McCain to drop out and name successor)
Sorry I was not around to answer questions; I was bone tired and went to bed. But this is a bit more than a rumor. Its a whole story. I used to work for a GOP shop in DC/K street and I am still friendly with a lot of people including Bush appointees. This chatter reaches from K street to the Capitol and over to the White House.
Someone here said McCain would not drop out because he’s been running for president for 9 years. Well, the truth is McCain has soured on being president. The scrutiny has been magnified and there is a lot of snooping into his and his wife’s private lives (past and present). Also, the favorable media treatment he is accustomed to is now more balanced. I can tell you from personal 3rd hand knowledge that McCain was furious that the LA reporter asked him about Viagra because it was not about a real issue but intended to embarrass him (and it did).
So, what are the choices? Of course McCain could go through the process, but he’s too genuine to continue hiding his disgust. OTOH, he could bow out and let the convention choose someone new. McCain can’t do that without severely handicapping the new choice. The middle ground would be for McCain to pick as VP someone who can truly be president on day one. As the VP he/she would be entitled to use the funds McCain has already raised. McCain would then drop out and although the VP would need to be nominated and confirmed by the convention, it would be pretty much guaranteed.
Dropping out isn’t easy for McCain. He’s not a quitter. But given his age and health he would be allowed to drop out gracefully if its health-related and that would be the route.
Of course the chatter then turned to who the VP would be. Understandably, a VP under this scenario is far more attractive and a lot of hats have been tossed in the ring. And a lot of surrogates are working overtime, particularly Romney. But this also means a lot of names are completely unacceptable, like Lieberman, Crist and Ridge. McCain prefers Lindsey Graham and Graham wants it and is willing to fight back against the rumors. In typical McCain fashion he doesn’t believe the rumors and so won’t consider them relevant.
I left out a few tidbits but that is the story. Plausible? Absolutely. Likely? Nope. McCain won’t hand the reigns to someone he disagrees with and while his relationship with Romney has improved there is no way McCain would just hand him the nomination. That is why its so interesting.
July 16th, 2008 at 8:40 am
#47
Did you even read the article you posted a link for, bob?
It has the “Zero chance of being Veep” in quotes, meaning it is quoting Romney from having said that at one point. The article essentially confirms that Romney is probably McCain’s best choice.
July 16th, 2008 at 8:46 am
Paulette,
I have long predicted that McCain, despite locking up the primary, will not, in the end, be the GOP candidate in November. I see several scenarios in which a replacement could be chosen due to poor performance in the polls or an “Ariel Sharon” type situation.
July 16th, 2008 at 10:53 am
This whole thing is too hypothetical. The reason being is right now, the media’s focus is on every word and move both McCain and Obama make. If Clinton had won, believe me she has enough history and baggage to be used against her.
In addition, the far right hates her with a passion and that alone would motivate them to get out voting against her. Sad to say for some Obamas race in some parts of the country is an issue. Even if they do not say it because to say it means you are a racist they say it in other ways by attitude etc. That alone I would say is a 2-3% difference maker. Small yes, but in a non blow out election enough.
Bush is about the only one I agree would be beat bad. The mood of the country towards him is awful, worse than it has ever been. With that said though, he would prob have 5% more than what is being posted now, in the opening paragraph.
The convention is the key here. I think that they both will get 5% bounces if they both do then that puts us back in the same position that we are in today heading into labor day with Obama ahead by 4-9 points. Then there is still a good percentage of undecided. What concerns me though realistically not emotionally about McCain and hope for him etc etc that some who have responded have been…..
July 16th, 2008 at 10:56 am
contd have been…………more emotional than relistic. McCain get a bulk of those who are undecided because you are going to need them
July 16th, 2008 at 11:11 am
You guys talk about Mitt Romney like he walked off the back porch and magically stumbled into a presidential run with no money, no support, no name recognition, and no prior experience, and somehow turned all of that into a George-Mason-Boise-State-Colorado-Rockies-esque second place.
He didn’t.
He’s worth 250 million. He “raised” more cash than everybody else. He was every GOP insider’s favorite guy. Not Rudy or McCain, who were both “invented” by the media as frontrunners, and who both fell flat on their faces, with McCain just able to bring it back. Romney never fought from the cellar to the top. He polled a very consistent 8-10% from the get-go, after everybody had announced. And Rudy/Mac were only 16-18. So it’s not like Mitt was some ridiculous underdog. He wasn’t the favorite, but he sure as hell wasn’t Mike Huckabee, or Sam Brownback, or Tommy Thompson. So stop attributing everything to his amazing campaign skills, because I see your “amazing campaign skills” and raise you a “Who let the dogs out” video or a “No to Obama Osama and Chelsea’s Momma” sign.
July 16th, 2008 at 11:32 am
#65, if those were Romney’s two biggest campaign blunders then I would say he ran a pretty good operation. Nobody outside of internet people who followed every move of the primaries ever even heard of those two “controversies”.
July 16th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
They’re not controversies. They’re campaign blunders that show his weakness as an absolutely and out of touch politician and an utterly offensive human being. Those aren’t the worst things he did, they just undermine his campaign ability.
July 16th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Robbie, you’re offended by “Who let the dogs out?”
Wow, talk about a chip on the shoulder…
Frankly, I thought it was pretty darn funny. Juxtapose that with Fred “I can win this thing without talking to people” Thompson and I think Mitt comes off looking pretty good. Which is why Mitt beat Fred to a pulp when the votes were counted.