New SurveyUSA tracking polls: Clinton vs. Giuliani

[Jacobtm]

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%

Wisconsin: Clinton - 46% / Giuliani - 46%

NM, KY and VA are more likely to go for Clinton than MN and WI?

I Don't trust that one bit...

[Verily]

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.

There was another poll with Clinton leading Giuliani in Kentucky, too, wasn't there?

Some of it may be anti-Republican sentiment due to the scandal-ridden Ernie Fletcher; that may pass after Fletcher is defeated this year. Some of it may also be the perception of Clinton as a southern, small-town leftist, whether a correct perception or not, contrasted with the perception of Giuliani as an arrogant city slicker (which is pretty accurate, actually).

[poughies]

look at the margins..... Surveyusa was terribly off in Virginia. And i'm not convinced...

I'll take Rasmussen and Mason Dixon. Even if dixon choked in Tenn last year.

That said surveyusa better than ARG or Zogby.

[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.

There was another poll with Clinton leading Giuliani in Kentucky, too, wasn't there?

Some of it may be anti-Republican sentiment due to the scandal-ridden Ernie Fletcher; that may pass after Fletcher is defeated this year. Some of it may also be the perception of Clinton as a southern, small-town leftist, whether a correct perception or not, contrasted with the perception of Giuliani as an arrogant city slicker (which is pretty accurate, actually).

No, there has been a 3-way-poll out of KY by Rasmussen and Clinton was trailing Giuliani by 2% in this poll (given the fact that Bloomberg currently attracts more votes from the GOP than the Democrats, I assume Clinton would trail by about 5% in a 2 way race).

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=57910.0

look at the margins..... Surveyusa was terribly off in Virginia. And i'm not convinced...

I'll take Rasmussen and Mason Dixon. Even if dixon choked in Tenn last year.

That said surveyusa better than ARG or Zogby.

Yeah, their VA polls were not the best in 2004 and 2006, but they were very accurate in predicting the 2005 gubernatorial election there. We´ll see if its supported by other polling companies later on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_gubernatorial_election%2C_2005

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Kentucky could be a factor from strong anti-GOP sentiment due to Fletcher, and that Giuliani is not a good fit for the state at all.

As for Minnesota, we're just a very polarized state. There's not much room for swing, unless your opponent is a complete f**king joke with no campaign skills whatsoever (Mark Kennedy). Kentucky is more prone to swings than Minnesota, where basically 45% of the state is unreachable for both sides.

[HardRCafé]

Clinton won Kentucky comfortably.

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

Indeed.  I do not consider a margin of 6000 Louisville votes "comfortable."

[Gustaf]

While it does seem like Hillary would do surprisingly well in the South against Guliani I still don't buy her doing BETTER than Bill, which both this poll and that Arkansas poll indicate. I'm ready to accept the Fletcher theory though - makes sense to me.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

That's about a 25 point swing in Kentucky. I would expect something similar in West Virginia.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

They also polled Clinton against Romney and Thompson.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOL

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/8/21/182858/824

[Tender Branson]

Clinton leads Romney 62-33 in Massachusetts ... LOL

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=73e6c4f5-4483-49ca-9f0e-da88bb5367f8

[Dan the Roman]

Clinton leads Romney 62-33 in Massachusetts ... LOL

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=73e6c4f5-4483-49ca-9f0e-da88bb5367f8

Romney has little to no residual support in the Bay State. He could potentially do even worse than Bush. Interestingly enough, he is still polling better here than he was for reelection.(the poll before he dropped out had him trailing Reilly 57-29)