Time.com's Cox cherry-picked poll results, claimed "voters still choose Republicans every time"
Despite the finding in a March 23-26 Time magazine/SRBI poll that Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Barack Obama (D-IL) each would handily defeat former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) in a hypothetical general election matchup, Time.com Washington editor Ana Marie Cox wrote in the April 9 edition of Time that "when presented with matchups between the front runners of both parties, voters still choose Republicans every time." According to the Time poll, Clinton beat Romney by 17 percentage points, while Obama beat him by 24.
In the same article, Cox described Romney as one of the front-runners for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination along with Sen. John McCain (AZ) and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and she identified Clinton, Obama, and former Sen. John Edwards (NC) as the front-runners for the Democratic ticket.
As Media Matters for America also noted, in a March 29 article, Time Washington bureau chief Jay Carney similarly asserted that the poll's result show that voters "might still prefer a Republican for President over a Democrat" without mentioning the poll's findings on Clinton and Obama matchups against Romney. Moreover, although the poll indicated that 16 percent of Democratic registered voters and those who lean Democratic would vote for Edwards in the Democratic primary, compared with the 11 percent of Republican registered voters and those who lean Republican who said they would vote for Romney in the Republican primary -- Time did not provide polling data on hypothetical matchups between Edwards and any Republican candidates.
From Cox's article:
On the left and the right, the only way to make a truly strong candidate is to take a composite of the front runners: Edwards' health-care plan plus Clinton's toughness plus Obama's charisma. Or Romney's social conservatism plus Giuliani's leadership plus McCain's reputation for candor. The Democrats can't seem to settle on a sweetheart, while on the right, "I'd like to be able to choose a little of each one," as a senior Republican lawmaker put it recently. If his best competitors are Frankenstein's monsters, why shouldn't a distant contender like [Sen. Chuck] Hagel [R-NE] try to cobble together an image that proudly shows its seams?
As a new TIME poll indicates, there's an underlying incoherence to the electorate right now. Americans are profoundly disillusioned with the Administration. But when presented with matchups between the front runners of both parties, voters still choose Republicans every time.
just monkeys slapping away at the keyboard... and, seriuosly, 'McCain's reputation for candor...' How about his reputation for cansayanything...
Did she even LOOK at the poll?
Earth to Media Matters, Romney is not a front-runner, he finishes no higher than third among Republicans in any recent poll. Ana Marie Cox specifically wrote in "matchups between the FRONT RUNNERS" of both parties which Romney is NOT.
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08rep.htm
Earth to Bruce...take your beef up with Cox. She identified Romney as a front runner.
You're right. Cox's misinformation is in identifying Romney as a front-runner.
Please read the second paragraph of the post... no need to thank me...
Bruce, You're right, Romney is not a "front runner" - but Cox does give him that label in her article, along with the others......so she really should have said "voters choose Republicans most of the time."
Romney did top all of the Repubs in donations. That indicates some level of support.
I think the poll shows the incoherence that Cox writes about, but doesn't conclude a Republican is necessarily going to win, not by a long shot. Giuliani appears to be the only relatively sure-thing against whatever Democrat ran. IF the election were held today.
Time did not provide polling data on hypothetical matchups between Edwards and any Republican candidates.
Because he wasn't going to do any better than Obama or Hillary unless the poll was in North Carolina.
What I've found interesting in listening to the conservative talkers lrecently (Hannity, just a few minutes ago) is the lack of enthusiasm for any Repub candidates, but much more commentary on Hillary's fear of Obama, etc.
That is, I don't hear much about GOP front runners intimidating the Dems, more about one Dem being more viable than another.This competition and surplus of decent candidates is being spun as "trouble" for the Dems.
Conservatives aren't enthusiastic about any of the "republican" candidates because none of them are conservative. They're all Luke-warm RINOs.
So where are all these "real" Republicans? Shouldn't one of them be able to blast into the front runner position?
Assuming that this country is made up mostly of conservatives, as declared endlessly by the con media, the GOP ought to be lousy with perfect Repub. victory machines.
But you have no data to support this other than your own opinion, and this article ostensibly was intended to interpret the Time poll results.
Edwards leads in the polls in Iowa and has raised quite a bit of money.
He should have been included in the Time poll.
Bruce,
Good point. MMFA is way behind the curve on this one, (of course.) I read one report where Romney is in 5th place with only 3%.
The MMFA story should have been that Time.com editor Cox was way off in describing Romney as a front runner.
I find it mildly amusing that the blurb by MMFA is pretty short and does not list the following poll numbers from the Times:
McCain 48% Hillary 42%
McCain 45% Obama 43%
Guiliani 50% Hillary 41%
Guiliani 45% Obama 44%
oops.. My last sentence should haver read "...from the Time magazine's poll."
It can get confusing when referring to Time Magazine and The New York Times.. Sorry for the confusion.
AA,
Despite the fact that MMFA did a little cherry picking of their own by what they chose to highlight here - the beef should be with Cox for putting Romney, at this point, up with the front runners........he is not.
But she should have not been so general in her assessment of the poll either.
Tommy, MMFA is not highlighting... they are pointing out Cox's sloppy writing and HER cherry picking... jeez, come on, man...
AND hilary and Obama BOTH had higher percentages than McCain during SOME of the polls... remember, MMFA is highlighting the cherry picking of the polls...
Romney has raised more money for his campaign that any other Republican. I think you could call him a front runner.
What's interesting to me is the fact that Cox is talking about McCain and Guliani "leading" Obama. You can be sure that if Obama were two points ahead of McCain and one ahead of Guliani Cox would have mentioned that the numbers are "within the margin of error; a statistical dead heat."
Question eight cracks me up... the prez doesn't want them under oath 'to protect the seperation between the presidency and congress..?!?' When was THAT ever offered as an excuse not to look into Gonzales???
Mr. L,
I may be wrong, but I do believe that was one of the first responses to this Democratic attack on Presidential perogative.
In the same vein, I thought the question near the end showed the poll another example of liberal 'push polling' because it asks the respondents after making judgement calls regarding the administration in very biased terms if they intended to register to vote. The biased implication being that now that you've decided the Administration is 'bad' and the GOP has the edge so far in the next election, are you going to do something about it? An subtle, yet obvious to this casual observer, a ploy to get out the vote for the Democratics. ;-)
Again my apologies to everyone for my poor grammer. I need to do a much better job of proofreading my posts before submitting.
thanks for the feedback- I didn't hear that line before... Tony Snow talks so damn much about nothing, I probably tuned out his triple speak out of habit...
I'm not a polling expert so maybe some one can help me out. I know the numbers don't look good for Clinton, but Obama is only down, at the most, 2%. Now this is a candidate that, according to this poll, people know the least about yet he's only behind by a narrow margin against the top Republican candidates. Is that saying anything?
www.prorev.com Has Hillary winning all but I think 2 of the states currently considered to be in the democratic camp.
romney has discussed picking as his vice presidential candidate....gag....jeb bush. imagine a more smarmy and arrogant version of w and that's jeb.
The election is two years away and they're polling for front-runners now? Can anyone say the words "instant gratification"? Two YEARS to go! Who cares who leads in the polls today, tomorrow or next week...the election is two YEARS away!
It's official. Get out the straight-jackets. The US body politic is insane.
Who are the Greens going to run, Red?
I looked through this poll and didn't see a matchup between Romney and Clinton or Obama. The only direct matchups I saw were between Giuliani and McCain against Clinton and Obama. Giuliani and McCain beat both Clinton and Obama, with Guiliani dfeating Clinton 50-41.
I like David Brock, but he was a slippery character over there on the right wing. Hopefully that slipperiness hasn't oozed its way over to our side.