Edwards continues running way ahead of his Democratic rivals

Survey USA keeps coming out with general election polls pitching major Democrats versus major Republicans, and John Edwards keeps running way ahead of his Democratic rivals. First came news from Alabama and Kentucky. Then came Ohio.

Now, SUSA has released a poll from Missouri:

• Clinton wins two out three. She loses the marquee matchup against Giuliani, 48% to 45%. That is the only matchup of the nine the Democrat loses. Obama wins against Giuliani 46% to 44%.
  
• Clinton and Obama have exactly the same numbers against Thompson and Romney. They both win 48-45 against the former and 51-40 against the latter.
• Edwards crushes the entire Republican field. He wins by 5 against Giuliani (47-42), by 10 against Thompson (50-40) and by 24 against Romney (56-32).

Let's summarize: Edwards is now in a position to pick-up Alabama, Kentucky, Ohio and Missouri (a poll of Kansas last week also showed him in striking distance). I have repeatedly argued against the possibility of voicing an electability argument, but SUSA is starting to function as an effective surrogate for the Edwards campaign. One of Edwards's main argument is that he is the most electable of the three major Democratic candidates, and that he will be able to redraw the political map.

It is important to notice that only SUSA has shown such a huge and consistent disparity between Edwards and the two other Democrats. Let's see if other polling firms confirm, or if something in SUSA's methodology is leading to such results. Also, Contrary to the Ohio, Alabama, Kentucky numbers in which Obama ran 10 points behind Clinton, he is here equal with her (and even ahead of her against Giuliani).

And Clinton and Obama's electability is taking even more hits today. The Washington Post reports that a never-released poll taken in August by Democratic pollster Celinda Lake shows the extent of Clinton and Obama's divisiveness. This is a poll of only the 31 congressional districts currently held by Democrats deemed most vulnerable to Republican take-over.

The poll first asked a general congressional ballot question, with the Democrat leading the Republican by 19%. Then, Lake polled presidential matchups: In this Democratically controlled land, Obama trails Giuliani by 1, and Clinton trails Giuliani by 10. Finally, Lake asked a question tying Clinton and Obama to the district's Democratic incumbent:

Some people say (YOUR DEMOCRATIC INCUMBENT) is a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama and will support her liberal agenda of big government and higher taxes if she becomes President. If we re-elect (YOUR DEMOCRATIC INCUMBENT) they will be a rubber stamp for Clinton/Obama and will forget the values of our district. After hearing this if the election for U.S. Congress were held today, would you vote for [ROTATE] _the Republican candidate OR _(the Democratic incumbent), or are you undecided?

Both in the case the question referred to Obama and in the case it referred to Clinton, the Democratic incumbent's advantage shrank from 19 to 6%, leading the pollster to conclude that Clinton and Obama are highly polarizing figure that would have terrible effects on downballot races.

But don't take this poll too seriously. It has gaping problems:

1. The 31 most vulnerable districts are on Republican terrain. That is why they are vulnerable! Many (if not most) of the seats Democrats conquered in 2006 were in districts carried by Bush in 2004. Some (PA-10, OH-18, TX-22, ...) were in very heavily red areas. So these 31 districts might be held by Democrats today, but it is not at all a surprise that the Republican presidential candidate would be carrying them.
2. The pollster's question tying Clinton and Obama to the Democrats is bound to produce such results if the voter hears about the "liberal agenda of big government and raised taxes!" The poll's second congressional ballot that shows the lead shrinked to 6% is about as valuable as the number's of a push poll would be. Or last week's NC Senate poll where Dole trailed an unknown Democratic candidate after the pollster read a glowing bio of the Democrat with no compensating information about Dole. Campaigns can never spread their message in such a vacuum.