CA-Field poll: Clinton remains strong, Democrats would beat all Republicans

[Tender Branson]

New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton maintains a commanding lead over her Democratic challengers in California's Feb. 5 presidential primary, holding more than a 2-1 margin over Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, according to a Field Poll released Thursday.

The poll, conducted Oct. 11-21, also found Clinton handily beating all potential Republican opponents in California in hypothetical general election matchups.

Among those likely to vote in the Democratic primary, Clinton had support from 45 percent, Obama had 20 percent and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards had 11 percent. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson had 4 percent, while Ohio Rep Dennis Kucinich and Delaware Sen. Joe Biden each had 3 percent. Fourteen percent were undecided.

...

Even when pollsters threw former vice president and recent Nobel Peace Prize winner Al Gore in the Democratic primary mix, Clinton prevailed, albeit by a smaller margin. That survey found Clinton with 35 percent to Gore's 22 percent and Obama's 16 percent.

The poll found that Clinton and Obama would get at least 50 percent of the vote when matched with potential top-tier Republican candidates Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson or John McCain in the November 2008 general election. It showed Edwards defeating all four as well, though his margin against Giuliani was only 46 percent to 40 percent.

"Democrats outpoll Republicans no matter who you put up," DiCamillo said. "It's a Democratic state."

http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/454793.html

[Tender Branson]

I´ve created a Clinton vs. Romney map of all the latest General Election state polls, primarily by Rasmussen and SurveyUSA:

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

My GOD! that's a beautiful sight.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

That's why Mitt Romney isn't going to win the nomination he is a weak candidate to field especially in the south for the primaries and general election.

[Tender Branson]

My GOD! that's a beautiful sight.

That's why Mitt Romney isn't going to win the nomination he is a weak candidate to field especially in the south for the primaries and general election.

Assuming Clinton vs. Romney, the map above will certainly change to the better for Romney during the campaign. If you look at current GE polls from early primary states only and where Romney is running ads, such as IA, NH, MI and NV - Romney is already catching up to Clinton. Romney is in a toss-up with her right now in New Hampshire, moderately behind in Iowa and Michigan and leading in Nevada. Expect him to close gaps in Alabama, Oklahoma and other solidly Republican states soon in early 2008 ...

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

But the large states such as CA, NJ, and NY will either go to F. Thompson or Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani's social liberalism on abortion or F. Thompson's clear conservative stance are going to sway voters, Romney's flip flopping and arch conservatism isn't going to sway or change voter's minds. And Romney is in single digits like in IL to make  up significant ground. I am convinced Romney isn't going to win the nomination. Romney is pretty conservative on outlawing abortion.

[Tender Branson]

But the large states such as CA, NJ, and NY will either go to F. Thompson or Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani's social liberalism on abortion or F. Thompson's clear conservative stance are going to sway voters, Romney's flip flopping and arch conservatism isn't going to sway or change voter's minds. And Romney is in single digits like in IL to make  up significant ground. I am convinced Romney isn't going to win the nomination. Romney is pretty conservative on outlawing abortion.

Romney could still win CA for example, after winning IA, NH, MI and SC and infusing tons of his personal money after these wins, to run trillions of ads in the Golden State ...

I would not be surprised if he injects 10-20 Mio. $ of his own money to his campaign in the 4th quarter of 2007 and another 10-20 Mio. $ in January 2008, significantly outraising Giuliani ...

Read this:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6535.html

[Tender Branson]

GE results:

Clinton vs. Giuliani: 52-38
Clinton vs. McCain: 54-35
Clinton vs. Romney: 53-33
Clinton vs. Thompson: 56-31

Obama vs. Giuliani: 51-35
Obama vs. McCain: 50-33
Obama vs. Romney: 54-31
Obama vs. Thompson: 55-28

Edwards vs. Giuliani: 46-40
Edwards vs. McCain:  49-33
Edwards vs. Romney: 52-32
Edwards vs. Thompson: 54-30

http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2244.pdf

[Mr. Morden]

But the large states such as CA, NJ, and NY will either go to F. Thompson or Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani's social liberalism on abortion or F. Thompson's clear conservative stance are going to sway voters, Romney's flip flopping and arch conservatism isn't going to sway or change voter's minds. And Romney is in single digits like in IL to make  up significant ground. I am convinced Romney isn't going to win the nomination. Romney is pretty conservative on outlawing abortion.

Romney is actually a bit closer to Giuliani in CA than he is nationally, so he definitely has a shot there.  If Romney is the big winner in the January primaries, he could get a national bounce of something like 20 points, if not more.  That would be enough to give him victories in CA, AZ, UT, CO, MO, and IL.  Add in a few of the smaller states as well, and he's the big winner of Super Tuesday, and he likely wins the nomination.

Regarding the point you raise about whether Romney's electability problems will stop him from getting the nomination, I just don't think the average voter has a sufficiently sophisticated understanding of electability for this to stop him from getting the nomination.  Let me quote Mark Blumenthal, who made this point in talking about the Democratic race, and why Clinton is viewed as "the most electable" by so many rank and file Democrats:

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/mellman_on_the_ia_electability.php

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So simply by winning a few early primaries, I think Romney will get enough favorable press coverage that the average GOP voter will look at him as electable.  The same thing happened in 2000, when GOP voters thought Bush was more electable than McCain simply because Bush was doing better in the primaries, despite the actual head-to-head polling, which showed McCain doing better than Bush against Gore.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I currently reside in IL, Romney has no shot with the republican voters here. Here in IL we are known for having  moderate republicans win in IL and all the people are talking about in McCain and Giuliani.

[Mr. Morden]

McCain could well be out of the race before Feb. 5th.  And I'd be willing to bet that if Romney is the big winner in the January primaries, he'll be very competitive in IL.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

You may very well have a point. But I want to go back to Romney's pro-life stance along with his morman philosophy. He wants to outright ban abortion.  And want adoptions. I think that once it comes down to a two person race Giuliani who wants a more incremental approach to outlawing abortion, will make that very clear opposed to Romney who wants to out law abortion altogether. Also, once it comes down to a two person race, the religious right will come all out opposing Giuliani, and hammer that home and turn off many moderate republican voters like in IL and NJ and CA.

But like in all cases we will have to wait and see what happens between now and then, abortion may be blurred and come down to economic issues, Romney has the advantage on economic issues where Giuliani has more of an advantage on social issues. We will have to wait.

[Mr. Morden]

I'm not sure what you mean by an "incremental approach to outlawing abortion".  Giuliani doesn't want to outlaw abortion.  He's for certain restrictions around the edges like parental notification, but he's basically pro-choice.  Romney is basically pro-life (at least as of today).  I know that IL is somewhat more liberal than the country as a whole, but aren't a majority of IL *Republicans* pro-life, and closer to Romney than Giuliani on abortion (not to mention on gay rights, gun control, etc.)?  I would have thought that there are only maybe a couple of states, like MA and RI, where a majority of Republicans are pro-choice.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

In many of the states like IL and CA and NJ had been known to elect pro-choice republicans, George Ryan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Christie Whittman and the majority of republican voters voted for them. I think republicans want to outlaw abortion, but they want a winner and just like in 2000 when Gary Bauer and Alan Keyes who were more conservative than Bush on abortion they didn't get the nomination, I think Giuliani is more acceptable as a general election candidate than Romney is.

[Eraserhead]

GE results:

Clinton vs. Giuliani: 52-38
Clinton vs. McCain: 54-35
Clinton vs. Romney: 53-33
Clinton vs. Thompson: 56-31

Obama vs. Giuliani: 51-35
Obama vs. McCain: 50-33
Obama vs. Romney: 54-31
Obama vs. Thompson: 55-28

Edwards vs. Giuliani: 46-40
Edwards vs. McCain:  49-33
Edwards vs. Romney: 52-32
Edwards vs. Thompson: 54-30

http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2244.pdf

Obama has the biggest margins of victory!

[Alcon]

GE results:

Clinton vs. Giuliani: 52-38
Clinton vs. McCain: 54-35
Clinton vs. Romney: 53-33
Clinton vs. Thompson: 56-31

Obama vs. Giuliani: 51-35
Obama vs. McCain: 50-33
Obama vs. Romney: 54-31
Obama vs. Thompson: 55-28

Edwards vs. Giuliani: 46-40
Edwards vs. McCain:  49-33
Edwards vs. Romney: 52-32
Edwards vs. Thompson: 54-30

http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2244.pdf

Obama has the biggest margins of victory!

Not really a shock for the West Coast.  Suburban West Coasters just don't seem to be big on Clinton.