WSJ/NBC Poll: Hillary leads McCain with Bloomberg running as an Independent

[Tender Branson]

3-way:

Clinton - 40%
McCain - 39%
Bloomberg - 10%
Other/Not sure/Neither - 11%

2-way:

McCain - 47%
Clinton - 43%
Other/Not sure/Neither - 10%

McCain - 43%
Obama - 38%
Other/Not sure/Neither - 19%

Clinton - 47%
Romney - 37%
Other/Not sure/Neither - 16%

Edwards - 43%
McCain - 41%
Other/Not sure/Neither - 16%

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/WSJ061213_DEC-2006-poll.pdf

[Mr. Morden]

This is the part of the poll I found most interesting:

Percentage who said they would be "very uncomfortable" voting for a presidential candidate who fits the following description:

gay or lesbian 34
member of Bush's cabinet 34
someone over seventy 29
evangelical Christian 28
Mormon 26
Jewish 9
Hispanic 9
woman 8
a governor 5
African American 4

[Tender Branson]

This is the part of the poll I found most interesting:

Percentage who said they would be "very uncomfortable" voting for a presidential candidate who fits the following description:

gay or lesbian 34
member of Bush's cabinet 34
someone over seventy 29
evangelical Christian 28
Mormon 26
Jewish 9
Hispanic 9
woman 8
a governor 5
African American 4

Too bad they didn´t include the word "atheist". This word would probably get 40% + I suppose...

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Edwards - 43%
McCain - 41%
Other/Not sure/Neither - 16%

Good showing by Edwards.

[Verily]

And another terrible result for McCain against Obama considering that everyone knows McCain and Obama still gets 35-45% of the populace saying "who?"

[SPQR]

Edwards leading McCain?Wow.

[Reaganfan]

I think Clinton vs. Romney would be close, Edwards vs. McCain is surprising. I still don't think Edwards would win.

[Saxwsylvania]

Now that McCain isn't being seen as super-electable and undefeatable, where will his supporters go, the ones who are standing behind him based on his electability?

[nini2287]

Why would people not vote for a governor?

[Verily]

Why would people not vote for a governor?

Lack of experience at a federal level?

/Don't ask me.

[Mr. Morden]

Why would people not vote for a governor?

Whenever you get down to the 4-5% level, I take it as being more or less equivalent to zero...simply because you can find 4-5% of the population who will say yes to just about any question the pollster asks, like say, "the sky is green".

[Tender Branson]

Why would people not vote for a governor?

Whenever you get down to the 4-5% level, I take it as being more or less equivalent to zero...simply because you can find 4-5% of the population who will say yes to just about any question the pollster asks, like say, "the sky is green".

Indeed. It´s similar to the show "Who wants to be a Millionaire ?". When there are 4 answers and you take the "50:50"-joker which eliminates 2 wrong answers and you are still not sure which one of the 2 remaining answers is the correct one you may take the "Ask the audience"-Joker. And even if there are just 2 remaining possibilities left for the audience to vote on, some guys still vote for an eliminated answer all the time ...

[Frodo]

If we see similar results a year from now, then I will sit up and take notice.  Polls taken now this early are worth sh*t. 

[DownWithTheLeft]

Why would people not vote for a governor?

The percentage is really low, remember that poll a month or so back saying 2% of ppl did not know who John Kerry was

[adam]

Edwards - 43%
McCain - 41%
Other/Not sure/Neither - 16%

Good showing by Edwards.

I am actually suprised by this. Edwards might be a stronger candidate than I gave him credit for awhile ago. That, or people are finally starting to understand that McCain is a panderer. Either way, a very interesting result.

[Moooooo]

Edwards may be a hell of a candidate come 2008.

[Saxwsylvania]

Edwards may be a hell of a candidate come 2008.

Nah.  John Edwards is the candidate I'm least afraid of.  He's an inexperienced pretty boy with no sense.  His polling has been heavily inflated after the Republican thumping last month, and I think because he's seen by some Democrats as 'what could have been'.  He's a loser in the general.

[Moooooo]

I dont see it that way.  I think he has the qualities that the country may be looking for after 8 years of dimwit Dubya.  They'll want someone who is articulate, good in front of the camera, and someone who gives off a sense of compassion and hope.

Also, if you're hawkish on this war, you could have all the experience in the world and still be a sure loser.

Thats just my 2 cents.

[YRABNNRM]

They'll want someone who is articulate, good in front of the camera, and someone who gives off a sense of compassion and hope.

Obama is this person, not John Edwards.

[Moooooo]

They'll want someone who is articulate, good in front of the camera, and someone who gives off a sense of compassion and hope.

Obama is this person, not John Edwards.

I was going to toss his name in there, but for some reason didnt... You are right though.

[Eraserhead]

Great results for Edwards and Obama...which is what I like to see.

[Saxwsylvania]

I dont see it that way.  I think he has the qualities that the country may be looking for after 8 years of dimwit Dubya.  They'll want someone who is articulate, good in front of the camera, and someone who gives off a sense of compassion and hope.

Also, if you're hawkish on this war, you could have all the experience in the world and still be a sure loser.

Thats just my 2 cents.

I was very, very afraid of an Edwards nomination in 2004.  I remember back in February, after John Kerry won all those primaries, that there were rumors about a mistress of some sort.  I was scared to death that Kerry would drop out and Edwards would be the nominee. 

Against a dummy like Dubya, Edwards is a winner.

But let's look at the Republican nominee in 2008.  It'll either be McCain, Romney, or Giuliani.  Say what you will about them, all three of them are very smart people, and against them Edwards' empty-headedness will be all the more apparent.

As for the war hawk thing, yes, the Iraq war is unpopular right now.  If it becomes even more unpopular, and there is overwhelming support for immediate withdrawal, then you'll see Republicans changing with the winds.  They're not going to run on an extremely unpopular war ... it would be political suicide.

The problem is that no one is saying what needs to be said.  It's all dumb slogans . . . how many times have you heard a Democrat say "He misled us into war" or "Iraq is a quagmire" or "Iraq is in a civil war".  Who cares?  No one has any real ideas.  It's all "stay the course" or "pull out now!".  Very disappointing.

[Deano963]

3-way:

McCain - 43%
Obama - 38%
Other/Not sure/Neither - 19%

Edwards - 43%
McCain - 41%
Other/Not sure/Neither - 16%

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/WSJ061213_DEC-2006-poll.pdf

I'm still shocked that McCain only leads Obama by 5%-6% in these polls that keep coming out. As much as 40% of the country has still never heard of Obama and McCain's name recognition has got to be at least 90%.

Surprising that Edwards leads McCain.

This is the part of the poll I found most interesting:

Percentage who said they would be "very uncomfortable" voting for a presidential candidate who fits the following description:


someone over seventy 29

African American 4

AKA the "How uncomfortable would you be voting for John McCain (over seventy) or Barack Obama (African American)" questions. Things are starting to look down for McCain. Maybe Mr. Straight-Talk Express shouldn't have taken a detour through Bullsh**t Town, in the words of Jon Stewart.

[Padfoot]

Another problem for John McCain is that lately he has been very vocal in his call for increasing troop levels in Iraq.  I think this is could come back to bite him in the ass.  If the Republicans nominate a candidate who is that pro-war they'll be committing suicide and if they don't realize that they're even dumber than I thought.

[Deano963]

Another problem for John McCain is that lately he has been very vocal in his call for increasing troop levels in Iraq.  I think this is could come back to bite him in the ass.  If the Republicans nominate a candidate who is that pro-war they'll be committing suicide and if they don't realize that they're even dumber than I thought.

There's a great write-up on Political Insider right now talking about the very same thing. Apparently, John McCain made a political decision long ago to stake out the "we need 15,000-30,000 more troops" position on Iraq so that he could claim that while anti-war candidates oppose the war, none of them have ever actually put forth an alternantive position or plan. McCain, on the other hand, could say, right or wrong, that he had called for more troops to secure Baghdad. But, now that the White House is leaning towards sending more troops to Iraq, McCain could be ROYALLY screwed. You see, McCain never figured in wildest dreams that Bush would be stupid enough to actually send more troops to Iraq. He never thought his bluff would be called. If more troops are sent, and the situation remains just as bad in '08, McCain's policies will easily make him linked to the chaos in Iraq and make it impossible for him to win.