Marist Poll: Hillary leads Kerry, Edwards, Biden, Clark, Feingold for '08

[WI_DEM]

nomination.

According to Marist if the election were today, Hillary would have a sizeable plurality of the vote:

Hillary: 40%
Kerry: 18%
Edwards: 16%
Biden: 4%
Clark: 4%
Feingold: 2%
Richardson/Warner/Bayh/Vilsak: 1%
Undecided: 12%

*72% of self described Democrats want Hillary to run in '08 while 76% of Republicans do not want her to run.

Rudy Giuliani leads the GOP with 27%, McCain with 20%, Jeb at 10%, Newt at 8%, Santorum 3% and Frist 3%.

In early general election matchups:
McCain would beat Kerry 51-41
McCain would beat Hillary 50-42
McCain and Edwards would be in a statistical deadheat 46-43.

Rudy and Kerry are in a dead heat 48-46
Rudy and Hillary also are tied 47-46
Edwards has a small edge on Rudy 48-45.

Interestingly, Edwards might be the strongest General election candidate of these three Democrats.

http://www.maristpoll.marist.edu/

[angryinoville]

1. Sad to see Clark at 4%

If this poll were DU'ed, I think it might look a little different

[Mass]

3. These polls are totally meaningless

Given that Clark does not have a platform to speak at this point and that these polls are based on name recognition, it is great that he is in the poll at the same level as Biden, who is a sitting senator and on TV every day.

[Tom Rinaldo]

28. Not a bad showing really

Tied for fourth behind a media powerhouse ex first lady and both halves of our 04 Ticket is a reasonably good showing. Biden was a prior Presidential contender and is a high profile long term Senator. Everyone else is stuck at around 1%, so Clark is doing fine at this stage. It mostly means that any legit pundit has to include Clark in the list of possible 2008 contenders, and that really is the major cut to make at this point.

[Melodybe]

2. Why don't we just let the corporate media pick our nominee again

Why don't we just let the corporate media tell us over and over again that any republican will defeat our nominee no matter what.

I call BS on this poll.

[WI_DEM]

4. I'm just reporting, obviously it is way too early

and it doesn't surprise me that Hillary is leading the poll this early, she has amazing name recognition and basically that is all these polls are at this point. We didn't let the polls pick our nominee in '04--if it had, Dean would have been nominated.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

6. Great point. (nt)

[Dr Ron]

11. No, Lieberman

If we let polls pick the candidate from the beginning, Lieberman would have been the candidate. Dean was not a factor at this point in the election cycle. Lieberman led early polls purely due to name recognition from having been on the ticket.

It shows how meaningless these early polls are.

[AP]

18. The media wasn't promoting any candidate when Lieberman led.

But seriously, mediatenor.org reported that throughout 2003, Dean got more media coverage than all the other candidates combined.

Even if you like Dean, I don't think you can deny that the media pushed him hard. I think late in the game, the media might have feared that they created a monster who could actually win (because some people in the Democratic Party performed a little political judo and said, OK, if the media pushes Dean, we will not push back -- we'll give him a few Union endorsements, Gore will endorse him, and we'll see where it goes).

[fujiyama]

12. Remember

if we had let polls this early determine our candidate last time, Lieberman may very well have won due to name recognition alone.

[AP]

9. The corporate media didn't want Kerry to be the nominee.

Kerry won the nomination on his own a despite a media that was very hostile towards him in the fall of 2003.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

5. Yeah, and everyone thought Elizabeth Dole was the front runner in 2000

She didn't even mount a serious challenge for the Republican nomination!

Truth is, Hillary is the only one with serious name recognition other than Kerry (and Hillary's certainly even outweighs his). This poll isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

[AP]

7. Another interesting poll confirming...

... Edwards's strength vs Republicans from March 2004:

Furthermore, in a hypothetical November matchup against President Bush, Edwards fared significantly better than Kerry. While Kerry and Bush were tied at 47%, roughly a quarter of the participants favoring Bush in that matchup said they would be undecided or would prefer Edwards if the choice were instead between Bush and Edwards. In all, 48% said they would vote for Edwards and only 37% for Bush, if Edwards were the Democratic nominee. The contrast with the control group, which showed a similar but significantly weaker pattern, was highly significant statistically (26% of Bush supporters defected in the experimental group while only 12% defected in the control group). These results suggest a strong appeal of Edwards among Independents and Republicans.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/btp/march04-poll.html

[FrenchieCat]

13. Citing a poll from March 2004?

jeeze!

[AP]

15. I have a feeling it's not the date to which you object.

[FrenchieCat]

17. Yes, it is. But you could be happy

since Edwards is up there with all of the other senators.

He's in good company. You should be thrilled!

[AP]

21. My personal emotions aren't relevant.

Democrats winning elections is what I care about. If we pick a candidate who can win in 2008, I'll be happy. I have no personal emotions like "happiness" about these polls. My only interest is analytical. These polls provide facts that confirm or contradict other facts and all those facts work together to paint a bigger picture.

I'm not "happy" that the bigger picture that this poll and the March 2004 poll paints is that Edwards is a good candidate (because I already know that). The emotion that describes how I feel is "informed." I feel informed.

[LittleClarkie]

8. Won't the plagarism issue hit Biden again

or will he have an answer for it this time>

Meanwhile, I'm having trouble even conceiving of a Hillary nom.

I agree with the person who said these are meaningless. In fact, it would seem that the last thing anyone would want to be right now is the frontrunner. All the attention and the attacks go to you then. I can already see the RW sound machine starting to gear up to smear Hillary. Those people are drooling at the thought.

[IndianaGreen]

35. The plagiarism issue will hit Biden again

I'll make sure it gets mentioned ad nauseum!

Biden is unfit for the Presidency.

[LittleClarkie]

38. I've only liked him once so far since I've been paying attention

and that was on the Bolton issue. Finally he isn't talking one way and voting another. He gets a cookie for that. But not the presidency. At least not from my vote.

[Skwmom]

10. Edwards the strongest in the general election.

Yeah right. An ad featuring a voice over of the channeling of the unborn child closing argument and the "hair video" would do far more damage than any swift boat attack against Kerry. Plus it will be very easy for Rove to portray the whole poverty work as blatant political calculation.

I'm not a Hillary Clinton fan but she'd do a heck of a lot better than Edwards in the general election. I think it is Edwards (and not Clinton) that is Rove's wet dream.

To remain silent while Rove once again manipulates the Democratic primary is not an option.

[AP]

14. If the debat shifts to health care, spirituality and hair and away from...

....militarism, we should consider ourselves lucky. I think we could win a lot of votes on those issues, and it will be nice not to be talking about who conservative models of good citizenship (who's the best soldier).

The swift boat ads weren't powerful because they were insightful, relevant criticizms of Kerry. They were powerful because the affirmed conservatives frames for seeing the world (war, soldiering and fighting communists in SE Asia) as being the most relevant issue in a discussion of who should be president .

I think we need to look for a candidate who invokes more progressive models for thinking about the world, like looking after the interests of people injured by bad corporate citizens and good grooming.

[Inspired]

37. Yeah right.

Edwards is the way to the White House in 2008. Channeling unborn voices? Hair video? If that is all Rove has then we've already won.

BTW...why are the polls only wrong when your man/woman isn't on top?

[FrenchieCat]

16. I just think that we need a

mean sonaovabitch who can smile while being full on the attack! (see Clark who is a baaaad motherfuuuu...Shut your mouth!)

If Hillary can get the nomination, more power to her. Be warned, however, that the GOP will start talking about how easily she can be misled (read Bill lying to her) by world leaders (making her weak on defense), or how terrible her health Care proposal was the last time out (and health care will be one of the issues....GOP will make sure of it, if Hillary is the nominee).

Biden? Well he's on Television every fucking Sunday. What did you expect? He's being pushed too...but more subtly (nothing like a Democratic neo-con to wake you up on Sunday morning).

Edwards? for those wishing for Peace on Earth by 2008, in order for Edwards to be strong, be warned...that if this is the case, then the GOP wins, cause it would mean that they made it happen.

Kerry? Has every right to run again. The people will determine how that will go.

So that's 4 SENATORS in a row....AND THEN CLARK, AND THEN THE GOVERNORS & Alfafa Bayh.

Gee, I think the media is really good at what it does...and it ain't reporting.

[cobaindrain]

19. no, this poll is not meaningless

and it should be a wakeup call to all clark supporters, unless the field significantly narrows, he has no shot.

[FrenchieCat]

25. Does it look like Bayh has less than Clark in this poll?

Since it does, let's just wait before cashing in our chips....K?

[NewJeffCT]

20. Wasn't Mario Cuomo way out in front at this time in 1989 & 90?

I know he was way ahead early prior to him taking his name out of the running. That left it open to Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and the gang that I think was called the 7 dwarfs (or was the group in '88 the dwarfs?)

[getmeouttahere]

22. Sorry, folks, but Hilary spells disaster!

She's way too centrist now...we need a real opposition leader for what is supposed to be the opposition party. She's saying things like "the jury is still out on abstinence-only education" and that sounds way too much like Republican-lite for me. We need to start raising the profiles of people like Russ Feingold or not be afraid to back Howard Dean.

[Dr Ron]

23. Not even true re abstinence-only education

I've seen data I believe from Texas A&M showing that abstincence only education led to increased teen pregnancy. I'd expect Hilary to know better.

[getmeouttahere]

27. Yep, we understand that, and the vast majority....

of the world understands that...but not our radical religious right government. They would consign us (and by extension, through the gag rule, the rest of the world) to higher teen pregnancy and VD rates, even AIDS, because they insist on abstinence-only education. It's one thing to force the U.S. to adhere to their draconian policies, but to impose them on the rest of the world is unacceptable. This is why organizations like 34millionfriends.org are so important. I urge everyone to check them out...they are helping women achieve reproductive freedom everywhere.

[Dr Ron]

31. Timing was also amusing

I came across the data showing that abstinence-only education is a failure shortly after the State of the Union Address where Bush talked about getting rid of x number of government programs which do not perform. Then Bush's budget increased funding for abstinence-based education. It sounded like something which needed to be cut.

[Pepperbelly]

32. So what? Your vote should count more than the ...

40% who favor her?

Just wondering...

[liberaltexas]

24. There isn't a one of them who wouldn't be a disaster for us

None of those people can cut the mustard. They're all closer to republicans than anything else.

If we let these faux-democrats run then we get what we deserve. You think after we got Dean put in as DNC chair that would have sent a message about what we think of Democrats light.

Cheers

[FrenchieCat]

26. I think it's ironic that a texan talk about

Faux Democrats.

What's Faux to you is not so to someone else.

Big tent or no tent is the choice.

[liberaltexas]

44. Please, you character attack is so boreing

Just so you know almost 40% of Texas voted for Kerry and Gore. Dumbass would-be liberal euradites who fancy themselves SOOOOO worldy are part of why we dont' fight harder there.

I'm actually not from Texas, I was born in D.C. and raised in Northern Vriginia in a very liberal community. I've lived in IL for year and Iowa.

I went to Texas with the same sad pathetic stereo-types that you just attempted to propogate. It's why the democrats keep loosing in Texas. Not because Texas won't vote democrat (hell the democrats held the state legislature there for almost 100 years), but because superior biggoted people like yourself dismiss it.

Ass.

[Texas_Kat]

45. Actually I'm FROM TEXAS and still live here.

You're right, there are a lot of Texans who would vote for a Democrat, and just FYI, Clark was extremely popular here.

Old-line Dems, new Dems, Greens and those who consider themselves independent were all very happy with the idea that Clark might be the Democratic nominee.

Clark is STILL very popular.

BTW, the reason that Texas has been taken over by the Republicans has more to do with lack of a well-run Texas Democratic Party and the fact that Texans have never identified themselves with the 'party' label.

Ask any Texan and they'll tell you they vote for the 'person', not for the Party.

[WI_DEM]

29. I don't see how anybody could say that Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, Clark

or any of the others on the list aren't real democrats. Look at what Kerry is saying and doing in the Senate. Edwards is talking about poverty and trying to seek solutions. Clark is taking the administration on with its Iraq policy. Clinton, despite some griping has a strongly Liberal voting record. Cmon' we will never find someobody who is perfect--this is a big tent party--but each of these people are strong democrats.

[Zynx]

30. Other than Hillary there, who exactly is a faux-democrat?

[lojasmo]

34. Finegold is the real deal

Voted against both the patriot act and the IWR.

[liberaltexas]

43. Nice

You're right, I'm just so tired and jaded with our current leadership that has led us to disaster.

As for Kerry, I think any Democrat that would support him is out of their friggin mind? The guy all but threw the election last time. He did not follow through with his promise to make sure every vote counts, hell he had to be shamed into contributing cash to do so. Kerry is AWFUL, he's a true opportunist pollitican and as quickly as he called off the challenges to the votes with so many questions open, I really question if he wanted to win at all.

It's true, some of the others aren't bad either. But I have a real problem with the establishment in our party. They've continually failed us and overseen a loss in power for a long peroid of time now.

I also struggle greatly with the fact that none of our party's leadership took aim at the Democrats who voted for the faux-bankrupcy reform legislation. It was such blatent class warfare, the rich declaring war on the poor and middle class. And did we punish or call out our party members who supported it? NO. It's wrong and it's a shame that when members of our party break so far away from our platforms and principals but yet we continue to call them Democrats. Anyone who voted for the bankrupcy reform bill is NOT a Democrat.

[RAF]

33. pure name recognition

nothing more. Geeze,it's too damn early to even consider anything dealing with the 2008 presidential election.

BTW, Clark's run this time around will be nothing like the 2004. With an early jump in the game and a well oiled campaign machine he will be the man to beat. H. Clinton doesn't come close to most of the people mentioned.

[LynneSin]

36. It's 2005 - this poll means squat and plus Hillary isn't running

and where the heck is Ed Rendell? He has a better chance at the nomination than Joe Biden

[WI_DEM]

39. Is Rendell running?

[zulchzulu]

40. Those poll numbers remind me of the same numbers in December 2003

Very relevant numbers...not.

[WI_DEM]

41. of course it is too early

but it is intersting to see how the prospective candidates are lining up. Alot of it may be name recognition, afterall, Hillary is very well-known, but then so are Kerry, Edwards, and Clark who all also ran in 2004.

[demwing]

42. Hillary has Joe-mentum

I hope she uses it to our advantage, just as Joe did