CNN echoed WSJ assertion that only Dems face electability questions
Echoing a January 11 Wall Street Journal article, headlined "Democrats' Litmus: Electability" (subscription required), CNN senior political analyst Bill Schneider asserted on the January 22 edition of CNN's The Situation Room that the "three frontrunners" for the Democratic nomination -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY), Sen. Barack Obama (IL), and 2004 vice presidential nominee and former Sen. John Edwards (NC) -- "all face questions about their electability," while the "three frontrunners" for the Republican nomination -- former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, Sen. John McCain (AZ), and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney -- "all face questions about their conservatism."
As Media Matters for America noted, the Journal purported to examine whether Democratic voters would consider whether Clinton and Obama were "electable" in a nationwide race, compared with Giuliani, McCain, and Romney, who the Journal article said are "considered electable."
While CNN has not made public whether its January 19-21 poll includes a general election match-up, Schneider mentioned only intraparty results on The Situation Room. However, according to CNN's own December 15-17 poll, carrying a margin of error of +\- 3 percent, when asked to vote for either Clinton, McCain, Romney, or Giuliani, respondents were split evenly between Clinton and McCain (47 percent), and favored Clinton over both Giuliani (48 percent-46 percent) and Romney (57 percent-34 percent). When respondents were asked about head-to-head match-ups involving Obama, Obama trailed Giuliani (47 percent-43 percent) and McCain (49 percent-42 percent) but was favored over Romney (51 percent-35 percent).
Additionally, a January 17-18 Newsweek poll found that Clinton was favored over McCain (48 percent-47 percent) in a potential general election match-up, but was outpolled by Giuliani (48 percent-47 percent). Obama was favored over McCain (46 percent-44 percent) but was outpolled by Giuliani (47 percent-45 percent). Edwards was favored over both McCain (48 percent-43 percent) and Giuliani (48 percent-45 percent). The poll's margin of error was +\- 4 percent.
Also echoing the Journal, Schneider suggested that Romney, McCain, and Giuliani face the challenge of persuading the GOP base that they are conservative enough. The Journal had reported that the three "have the opposite problem of their Democratic counterparts. Each of them is considered electable. The question is whether they can get nominated in a party in which the conservative base demands that the nominee oppose abortion, same-sex marriage and taxes, but believes that each of these men is suspect." As Media Matters noted in response to that assertion:
[T]he reason Romney and McCain may be considered "suspect" by the conservative base is not that the candidates' views are different from those held by the base on these issues, but that they have hedged or flip-flopped on them. According to The Washington Post, Romney, in preparation for his 2008 presidential bid, became "an outspoken opponent of same-sex marriage and supported overturning the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion," but during his 1994 Senate campaign, Romney boasted he would be "effective in fighting discrimination against gay men and lesbians" and "proudly recalled his family's record in support of abortion rights."
As Media Matters for America has noted, McCain has equivocated or flip-flopped on all of these issues. McCain offered a nonsensical defense of South Dakota's proposed ban on all abortions except when the life of the woman is threatened -- he claimed he would have signed the bill into law but would "also take the appropriate steps under state law ... to ensure that the exceptions of rape, incest or life of the mother were included." He voted to extend the 2003 tax cuts on dividends and capital gains after years of opposing them. And he has taken several inconsistent positions on gay rights issues.
From the January 22 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
SCHNEIDER: There are three frontrunners for each party. For the Democrats: Clinton, Obama, and Edwards -- and they all face questions about their electability. For the Republicans: Giuliani, McCain, and Romney. They all face questions about their conservatism, which is why so many other candidates think they have a chance.















ADDITIONALLY:
McCain 48...Clinton 39...Diageo - Jan 07
McCain 53...Clinton 43...Geo.Washington - Jan 07
Giuliani 53...Clinton 43...Geo.Washington - Jan 07
McCain 50...Clinton 36...LATimes - Dec 06
mmfa must have overlooked these polls...just doing my part to help them out.
I'll give you even money that there will not be a Republican president or Vice President in '08.
What do you say?
At first I was curious as to why your polls were weeks old. After a little research: http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm I realized that the two most recent polls from Newsweek and ABC,WaPo from this week show Hillary and Obama either tied with or beating both McCain and Guliani. Pretty much blowing your whole post out of the water. No wonder you ignored those and misleadingly posted the older polls.
Don't worry - Wesley is loading up his choicest Nixon-McGovern polls to (movie announcer voice) BLOW US ALL AWAAAAAAAAY!!!!!
The real question should be is whether a Conservative will ever be electable again after the Bush regime has completely discredited their ideology.
I have mixed feelings about the polls and the WSJ comments.
The Dems have "electability" problems, usually associated with the swings and undecideds seeing them as too different from politicians as usual.
And the Repubs have problems with not being conservative enough, meaning the far right sees them as not politics-as-usual enough.
So is it a wash? The Dems lose the stoopidest part of middle America, the Repubs get them and the next rung down(their base), but the cellar-dweller voters who consider the GOP too "edgy" stay home and watch rasslin' or vote Nazi party?
I guess I'll have to wait and see.
I've said it before - and I'll say it again:I really wish all the people who keep flapping their lips about Clinton supposedly being "unelectable" would ask some of the 55% of NY voters who sent her to the US Senate in 2000 or some of the 69% who reelected her in 2006 . . .
Not just mainstream media is ignoring the other Democratic candidates, so is Media Matters. Why doesn't Media Matters cover that the media is ignoring the other Democratic candidates? And with the candidate the media does cover (Obama & Clinton) they don't even bother to cover the issues. It's all about personality, money, and triviality. The fact is, some of the other Democratic candidates have pretty much the same domestic policies as Clinton, so why does Clinton get the attention? Money and power. Why not report differences between the Democratic policies (especially foreign policy)? Is Media Matters just going to spend the next two years protection Obama and Clinton and ignoring the other Democratic candidates? Wake up America, we have lost our ability to choose a president. The elites and corporate media have narrowed our acceptable choices.
I've long ago learned that depth is totally absent in US politics. The 2004 election was a prime example. With a war, torture chambers, war crimes, the impoverishment of the working class...and all the press could focus on was the Vietnam records of the candidates.
In the great pool of world events, the US press is always wading ankle-deep in the shallow end.
Two things:
1) MMFA can cover any topic they want and can not cover any topic they choose not to. If you don't like it, run your own site and then sit back and watch as no one reads it.
2) Anyone who uses the phrase, "Wake up, America!" is usually the one who has been long asleep.
You will appreciate Boehler's column and the posts beneath it, particularly the one support Dennis. See http://mediamatters.org/columns/200701220010
I believe that ONLY Democrats have 'electability issues'.
For example, Repulicans elected Bush Jr. for heaven's sake. Obviously THEY are willing to elect anybody. It really is true that anyBODY can become President. Even a body of water if it has an (R) next to it's name!