Remixing the Newsweek Poll… Again
by Patrick Ruffini :: January 28th, 2007 11:09 amMy post last weekend on the Newsweek poll’s severe Democratic lean was a bit of a hit, so I made a beeline over to this week’s results, with blazing headlines about Presidential approval reaching a new low.
Curiously, Newsweek doesn’t disclose the party breakdown question this week, after a few us made a stink about the Democrats’ 11-point lead. With polls getting more and more transparent about the party breakdown question, this sudden pullback seems odd.
However, the tested Republican candidates for 2008 generally best the Democrats in allegiance among their respective bases, while winning independents. So once again, their 2008 ballot tests — which show Democrats leading — are bogus.
UPDATE: This week’s remixed results are as follows. Again, I use the 38% D, 36% R, 26% I breakdown found in 2006, a Democratic tide year.
McCain 48.1% - Clinton 47.1%
McCain 46.7% - Obama 45.1%
McCain 47.6% - Edwards 46.2%
Giuliani 49.2% - Clinton 46.4%
Giuliani 48.2% - Obama 43.9%
Giuliani 50.5% - Edwards 45.3%
Clinton 53.5% - Romney 40.0%
Obama 52.6% - Romney 33.9%
Edwards 56.5% - Romney 31.0%
Disclaimer, until I come up for a permanent thingamajig for the sidebar: I’ll be doing some work for Rudy Giuliani’s exploratory committee.
Tagged: 2008 
newsweek poll
Comments (5) 
Trackbacks (0) 
del.icio.us 
digg it 
subscribe
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
More reasons not to remix anything.
The latest Rasmussen polls agree with Newsweek and show McCain losing ground to Obama and Edwards. The numbers are pretty similar.For example Newsweek has Obama beating McCain 48-42 and Rasmusssen has it 47-44. Same for Edwards.They don’t seem to have measured Clinton this time (the poll they have is from December).
This makes a lot of sense. Unless the situation in Iraq changes dramatically no one who supports the war will win in 2008. The more people focus on McCain’s support for the war the more he will fall. Giuliani has similar problems, compounded by the fact that he’s to the left of Hillary on social issues.
Polls have shown the lack of support for strong moderate Democrats like Mark Warner (who spent almost a million $$$ in attending and promoting himself at the Las Vegas NETroots convention)then Russ Feingold stepped away, and Evan Bayh also stepped away. Just this week, John Kerry got the reality check of almost ZERO support for him to run again.
That is 4 Democrats out of the 2008 race and no one has voted.
If it lack of money? Or is it lack of support in the polls?
Mark Warner was on the cover of the New York Times Sunday magazine last year, got a lot of BUZZ, but stepped away to spend more time with his family. DUH……Warner, if you planned to run for president, when did it dawn on you to be worried about your family?
It is just interesting to see the Democrats racing for a the finish line now, for a race which is a year from now.
IIRC about this time in the 92 cycle Bush 41 was a prohibitive favorite.
Perhaps there’s been a permanent shift to the partisan advantage the Dems had pre-1980. I wouldn’t bet an organic farm on it
At this point the polls really do not mean anything. That is why I believe that any candidate who was seriously considering a run should have stayed in the race. I still believe that at least one major candidate on each side will be gone before the end of 2007. And it won’t have anything to do with the polls. We need an exchange of ideas by serious candidates. Political rhetoric is not going to work this time. You can also throw out the history angle. This will be a unique election, and it will change the course of our country, no matter who wins.
It’s way too early top predict 2008 ad no poll pretends to do that. But if you look at all polls it’s also clear the Dems are gaining ground, which makes a lot of sense.
Remixing the results may make you feel better but it is analytically useless.
The Dems are favored in the WH in 2008 for two reasons. Historically, since WW2 the two parties tend to alternate the WH every 8 years. The only exception was 76-92.
The second reason is Iraq. It’s the 800 pound gorilla in the political room (does that metaphor make any sense?). McCain is starting to drop in several polls because Americans are finally focusing on how much they dislike Iraq and how much McCain supports it.
It’s not clear where you get that the tested Republicans best Democrats in the poll among independents. That’s true of Clinton but false of Obama (Edwards is basically tied, and in any case if you include Edwards on the Dem side you have to include Romney on the GOP side and he’s bested by everyone.)
I think you are seriously deluding yourself if you don’t accept just how uphill it looks for the GOP in 2008. Right now the most likely scenario is Dems keeping Congress and gaining the WH.