New SurveyUSA tracking polls: Clinton vs. Giuliani

[Tender Branson]

Taken on August 13, 2007:

Alabama: Giuliani - 50% / Clinton - 44%

California: Clinton - 56% / Giuliani - 39%

Iowa: Clinton - 52% / Giuliani - 40%

Kansas: Giuliani - 54% / Clinton - 40%

Kentucky: Clinton - 49% / Giuliani - 44%

Massachusetts: Clinton - 57% / Giuliani - 37%

Minnesota: Clinton - 47% / Giuliani - 44%

Missouri: Giuliani - 47% / Clinton - 46%

New Mexico: Clinton - 49% / Giuliani - 43%

New York: Clinton - 59% / Giuliani - 37%

Ohio: Clinton - 48% / Giuliani - 45%

Oregon: Clinton - 52% / Giuliani - 42%

Virginia: Clinton - 49% / Giuliani - 46%

Washington: Clinton - 55% / Giuliani - 40%

Wisconsin: Clinton - 46% / Giuliani - 46%

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Hopefully the ratio will be better than only 1/4 being swing states.

[Tender Branson]

Hopefully the ratio will be better than only 1/4 being swing states.

They are updating them right now on their page. I´ll post them as they come

WA still to come. I doubt they polled TX.

And it looks a bit Clinton friendly this month. Her leading in KY and VA ? Strange, but nice to see.

[poughies]

Two surprise me, Kentucky and Virginia (more Kentucky).

But alas, its summer polling from surveyusa.

[Person Man]

Yeah. It's promising, that's for sure.

[Lief 🗽]

Leading in Kentucky but tied in Wisconsin? Hm...

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Clinton is doing better in Kentucky than she is in Minnesota?  Okay...sure....

[Tender Branson]

Two surprise me, Kentucky and Virginia (more Kentucky).

But alas, its summer polling from surveyusa.

Could be, could not. SUSA is quite accurate. Projected every winner in 2006 (Senate+Governors) and wasn´t far off in their winning margins, undecideds factored in.

At least we have proof now that if Giuliani is the nominee, WI will be a tight race again, CA won´t be close (nearly the same result as the Field-poll) and NY isn´t winnable for Giuliani. The only contradiction is OR, where Rasmussen has it a tie, but obviously Clinton´s favored in that state too. VA and KY is to be seen ... I doubt somehow that Clinton leads there.

[Alcon]

Where are these coming online?  I can't find the main page.

[Tender Branson]

Where are these coming online?  I can't find the main page.

They are not updated on the main page. I have it from pollster.com.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_surveyusa_16_giuliani_vs.php

On that page it´s still from June, but if you klick on each state, you can see a crosstabs table and if you click on the "T" for "tracking" above the names, you can see the data for every month.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Clinton is doing better in Kentucky than she is in Minnesota?  Okay...sure....

Giuliani's social positions (and lack of a southern home base) and Clinton's southern connections will turn the traditional map on its ear—that should be no large surprise.

[© tweed]

periSouth in play?

[Tender Branson]

periSouth in play?

Myeah, the alarm bells should ring in the Giuliani and Romney camp ...

I´d wait for other polling companies (Mason-Dixon and Rasmussen) though to see if there´s something about it ...

[© tweed]

Clinton has a double-digit lead over Giuliani in a recent Ras poll so I think there's something to it.

[Tender Branson]

The brand-new updated GE election map with all the latest state polls (Rasmussen, Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA, R2000 etc.):

Giuliani vs. Clinton:

Clinton: 288 EV
Giuliani: 106 EV

Changes: Hillary Clinton picks up OH, KY and VA. I used the Rasmussen polls from OR and WI, cause they were conducted 1 day after the SUSA polls, while the SUSA OH poll was conducted after the OH Rasmussen poll.

[Dan the Roman]

We seem to be seeing the opposite dynamic between Clinton and Rudy in these polls, or at least a continuation of what seems to be Rudy's greatest weakness in the primaries. In regards to  the Republican primaries, Rudy polls very well nationwide, but he is fairly weak, or at least weaker than his national numbers on a state by state basis, and this seems to have carried over into general election state-by-state polls. Clinton on the contrary, polls not so well at the national level, but very well at the state level.

 I'm not sure who here gets the hotline, but if you look at all of the state polls that have come out, Clinton is a stronger general election candidate in almost every single one than Obama or Edwards, despite the fact that Obama and Edwards do better nationally.

The indication I take from this is that Clinton is probably a lot stronger candidate than she appears, wheras Giuliani, Edwards and Obama are a lot weaker. Romney too I would stick with Clinton as someone who polls much better at the state level than at the national.

[Tender Branson]

The indication I take from this is that Clinton is probably a lot stronger candidate than she appears.

I agree with you, when looking at this "current" map. The fact that IA and NM are shown consistantly in Clinton´s column by every poll that came out recently is a good indicator and the recent AR poll in which she dominates the Republicans and now her lead in VA and KY.

Kerry actually never achieved to lead in a VA or KY poll and was ahead in AR by 1 in just one single poll. I´m looking forward if she can sustain that formidable showing until September of next year when the important phase begins (if she´s the nominee)...

[Flying Dog]

I think people are so used to the 2000 and 2004 maps that some think it cant change much. 

[Tender Branson]

OH will again go down to the wire:

Quinnipiac: Tie

Rasmussen: Giuliani+1

SurveyUSA: Clinton+3

[Aizen]

I think people are so used to the 2000 and 2004 maps that some think it cant change much. 

True. Looks like a state that went 60-40 for Bush (Kentucky) could be... interesting in 2008.

[Dan the Roman]

Clinton won Kentucky comfortably. It was Gore's gun control that killed him, as happened in West Virginia. Clinton carried both easily, and I think Fletcher did a number on the KY GOP.

Another note, don't underestimate Hillary's appeal to rural whites. All of the attacks on her have focused on making her a mean manipulative bitch, but is that such a bad thing in the person you want leading the fight against Al-Quada? The Labor party tried the "Heartless Iron Lady" approach with Maggy Thatcher, and it backfired, keeping her in office for ten years on the backs of working class male voters(she never once won the female vote). This probably wouldn't be as much of an issue against Thompson, but against Giuliani the New York City cross-dressing Mayor, or god forbid against Mitt Romney. You bet they might have some serious trouble in the rust belt.

[Joe Republic]

Clinton won Kentucky comfortably.

With a margin of 0.96%, Kentucky was the closest result in 1996.

[agcatter]

If these state polls were accurate, Hillary would be leading nationally by 8 to 10 points.  Rasmussen had Giuliani up 6 or so nationally within the last 4 or 5 days.  I don't believe that one either BTW.  I can tell you however that Hillary carrying Kentucky and Virginia means a popular vote landslide on the order of about 8 percent.  A candidate with negatives sky high (52% Rasmussen, high 40s in every other poll) is sweeping the electoral college?
When pigs fly.

[Boris]

If these state polls were accurate, Hillary would be leading nationally by 8 to 10 points.  Rasmussen had Giuliani up 6 or so nationally within the last 4 or 5 days.  I don't believe that one either BTW.  I can tell you however that Hillary carrying Kentucky and Virginia means a popular vote landslide on the order of about 8 percent.  A candidate with negatives sky high (52% Rasmussen, high 40s in every other poll) is sweeping the electoral college?
When pigs fly.

I concur. These polls are worth laughing at in 15 months and nothing else.

[Person Man]

Well, at least we know that ANYTHING can happen. I mean, Guiliani was whooping ass nationally in Colorado and nationally by about 10 and losing by the same margin in Florida, Arkansas and Kentucky.