Everyone assumes that the most important New Hampshire primary development was the comeback of Sen. Hillary Clinton and the blow to the juggernaut of Sen. Barack Obama. Those developments were undeniably momentous, but in the long run, a case could be made that the Republican result -- the victory by Sen. John McCain, which not only brought his campaign back from the dead but also installed him as the race’s nominal frontrunner -- may end up having a bigger impact on the Democrats’ chances of retaking the White House in 2008.
According to an extensive, but apparently little-studied, trove of polling data produced by SurveyUSA, McCain performs significantly better than other members of the GOP presidential field when matched head-to-head in polls against both Clinton and Obama.
Most polling operations have been concentrating, understandably, on the internal dynamics of each party’s primary field. By contrast, SurveyUSA has focused on pairing the top four Republican contenders -- McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney -- against Clinton and Obama on a state-by-state basis, which of course is how the Electoral College determines winner.
These polls were taken in 9 battleground states: Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Virginia, Washington state and Wisconsin. They were all taken between mid-December 2007 and early January 2008 -- just before the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary.
The upshot of the polling: In most of these states, McCain does better than most of his GOP colleagues in head-to-head matchups against Clinton and Obama. So much so, in fact, that at least at this early stage in the race, it almost doesn’t matter which Democrat runs -- either one would either loses a purple state to McCain outright or finds themselves in a much tighter race than they would have against any of the other GOP hopefuls.
Take the uber-important state of Ohio. In an early January poll, Clinton beat Giuliani and Romney by eight points, and (perhaps unexpectedly) Huckabee by one point. However, the poll had her loing to McCain, 48-46 percent. Obama, for his part, beat Giuliani in the same poll by eight points, Romney by 12 and (again, unexpectedly) tied with Huckabee. But the poll had Obama losing to McCain, 50-43 percent.
Or take Virginia, an emerging purple state. Clinton was up by 10, 13 and 14 points against Giuliani, Romney and Huckabee, yet only led McCain by two points. Obama led the same three candidates by three, seven and nine points, but he trailed McCain by 6 points.
In Oregon, Clinton beat the three Republicans by eight, 11 and eight points, respectively, but she found herself in a 46-46 tie with McCain. Obama was up by 10, 12 and 11 in the three head-to-heads, but he led McCain by only two.
The list goes on. In no fewer than six states polled by SurveyUSA -- Iowa, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon and Wisconsin, plus arguable battleground state Kentucky -- McCain is the only GOP candidate to beat or tie Clinton. In two others, Virginia and Washington state, he was the only Republican to come close to beating Clinton. And in Missouri, McCain is joined only by Huckabee as the only Republican to come close to beating her.
Meanwhile, McCain is the only GOP candidate who managed to beat Obama in the Ohio and Virginia polls, and the only one to come close in Oregon and Wisconsin. McCain even got within two points of Obama (though not Clinton) in Massachusetts, the state that once voted for George McGovern.
None of this suggests that McCain will win his party’s nomination, or that Clinton and Obama would be destined to lose to him if he does. Still, it does suggest that both Democrats will face a rougher road to the presidency if McCain is on the ballot -- something few would have expected before his New Hampshire victory.
-- Louis Jacobson is the editor of CongressNow and a contributing writer for Roll Call.
January 12, 2008
PREMIUM BLOG AD
BLOG ADS
GOOGLE ADS
The largest collection of political memorabilia in one place.
The largest collection of political memorabilia in one place.
