The leaders are Clinton (41%), Obama (28%), and Edwards (13%), but adding Al Gore to the mix would put him in second place at 25% and drop Clinton to 31%. Bill Richardson is in fourth place in single digits. Clinton runs strongly among Latino voters, support that Richardson could erode if and when his campaign gains traction. Clinton has the highest reported unfavorables (19%), Edwards the lowest (6%). The California primary is still ten months off, so a lot can happen to change these numbers.
Your Personal Note:
The GOP poll is out now at http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2225.pdf
Giuliani leads McCain 36% to 24%. All others are back in single digits. Clinton, Obama, and Edwards would all carry California against either Giuliani or McCain.
McCain’s “unfavorables” are at 20%. Romney still is a bit on an unknown to California voters. Gingrich gets 9% if added to the field. Thompson would get 7%. Romney holds at 7% with or without the Gingrich and Thompson.
Posted by: Leo Brown | Apr 4, 2007 8:25:33 AM
Currently, all the pundits speculate that the leading candidates from the Democratic party for the presidential election in 2008 are Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and maybe Gore. In case you didn't notice, they are all senators or former senators!!!!!!!
The Republican list, on the other hand (Romney, Gugliani, and McCain)
includes only one senator.
Let’s look at the last 40+ years—or the last 11 presidential elections.
" Of these 11 Presidential elections, NOT ONCE did a Senator win (an exception could be made for Johnson, but he was already president due to Kennedy's death, and his opponent was a senator).
" Of these 11 Presidential elections, the loser was a Senator 7 times. Of the other 4 losses, three were of a sitting president, so the odds of losing were really 7 of 8.
" Seven times the winner was a former Governor.
" Only once was the loser a former Governor.
If this were a horse race, wouldn’t you want to go with the odds on favorite? Unless the Democrats like long-shots, they simply must not nominate a senator (and probably not a former senator).
Posted by: Joe Rook | Apr 20, 2007 3:03:59 PM
Why are there no field offices in California? I can understand there being offices in Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and South Carolina but none in California? It is the largest state on "Super Duper Tuesday." Over 1/10th of the DNC delegates are from California. In all honesty, I think there will be no clear front-runner on Feburary 5th (Edwards will take Iowa, Hillary will take New Hampshire, Obama will take South Carolina, and either Richardson or Hillary will take Nevada). I'm tired of national campaigns ignoring my home state. It's one of the largest economies on the planet. Start paying attention
Posted by: Peter | May 22, 2007 8:26:56 PM
Ads by Google
(and yes, we know that sometimes they're very, very wrong. Other times, they're right on.)