Posted by Jed Lewison on Wed May 28, 2008 at 6:17 PM Pacific

Edwards more of a boost than Clinton?

Interesting result from the latest SurveyUSA VP pairings poll, this one in Michigan: an Obama-Edwards pairing would provide a small boost to Obama while an Obama-Clinton pairing would a small negative. Without VPs, Obama loses to McCain by 4; against a McCain-Romney ticket, Obama-Edwards loses by 3 and Obama-Clinton loses by 5.

This might not be enough to prove that Edwards would give a bigger boost to Obama than Clinton, but it should help knock back the idea that Obama needs Clinton in any way.

The difference seems to mostly be gender-related. While the Obama-Clinton ticket does 2 points better than the Obama-Edwards ticket among women, it does 7 points worse among men.

Another advantage Edwards would provide over Clinton is his spouse: I think Elizabeth Edwards would be a tremendous asset, whereas Bill would be more...complicated.

SUSA also tested tickets with Richardson, Clark, Sebelius, Rendell, Kaine, Biden, and Webb. All lost to McCain-Romney by between 14 and 19 points. The big difference of course is that John Edwards is better known than any of the other people. It may be an unfair advantage, and it might be a surmountable one, but it is real -- Edwards, who is already pretty well-defined, could hit the ground running. Most of the other candidates would need to be introduced to the public, a process that can take several weeks.

The two names I'd like to know more about on that list are Sebelius and Kaine, mostly because I keep on hearing such good things about them, particularly Sebelius. The other candidates on that list, for various reasons, don't excite me.

Edwards more of a boost than Clinton?

Interesting result from the latest SurveyUSA VP pairings poll, this one in Michigan: an Obama-Edwards pairing would provide a small boost to Obama while an Obama-Clinton pairing would a small negative. Without VPs, Obama loses to McCain by 4; against a McCain-Romney ticket, Obama-Edwards loses by 3 and Obama-Clinton loses by 5.

This might not be enough to prove that Edwards would give a bigger boost to Obama than Clinton, but it should help knock back the idea that Obama needs Clinton in any way.

The difference seems to mostly be gender-related. While the Obama-Clinton ticket does 2 points better than the Obama-Edwards ticket among women, it does 7 points worse among men.

Another advantage Edwards would provide over Clinton is his spouse: I think Elizabeth Edwards would be a tremendous asset, whereas Bill would be more...complicated.

SUSA also tested tickets with Richardson, Clark, Sebelius, Rendell, Kaine, Biden, and Webb. All lost to McCain-Romney by between 14 and 19 points. The big difference of course is that John Edwards is better known than any of the other people. It may be an unfair advantage, and it might be a surmountable one, but it is real -- Edwards, who is already pretty well-defined, could hit the ground running. Most of the other candidates would need to be introduced to the public, a process that can take several weeks.

The two names I'd like to know more about on that list are Sebelius and Kaine, mostly because I keep on hearing such good things about them, particularly Sebelius. The other candidates on that list, for various reasons, don't excite me.

The Jed Report Home Page

© Jed Lewison