Poll: Obama Has Most Supporters of Anyone in Either Party


A new Rasmussen poll out today asked people if they would “definitely” vote for someone or “definitely not” vote for someone. Because it’s early and few people have made their selections, it’s really hard to get a high number in the “definitely vote for” category, and it’s nearly impossible to have more “definitely fors” that “definitely againsts.” Last month, Rudy Giuliani was the only person who had more people saying they would definitely vote for him than definitely vote against him, and this month no candidate can claim such a sweet seat. (By the way, someone will want to explain the definition of the word “definitely” to those ex-Rudy supporters.)

Obama’s doing the best; Gingrich the worst. Here are the numbers:

Obama
Def FOR: 33%
Def AGAINST: 33%
Differential: Even

Giuliani
Def FOR: 29%
Def AGAINST: 34%
Differential: -5%

Fred Thompson
Def FOR: 19%
Def AGAINST: 29%
Differential: -10%

Edwards
Def FOR: 26%
Def AGAINST: 37%
Differential: -11%

McCain
Def FOR: 23%
Def AGAINST: 35%
Differential: -12%

Romney
Def FOR: 17%
Def AGAINST: 33%
Differential: -16%

Clinton
Def FOR: 30%
Def AGAINST: 48%
Differential: -18%

Richardson
Def FOR: 10%
Def AGAINST: 28%
Differential: -18%

Biden
Def FOR: 9%
Def AGAINST: 38%
Differential: -29%

Gingrich
Def FOR: 20%
Def AGAINST: 49%
Differential: -29%

Gainers include Obama, Edwards, and Fred Thompson. Discuss.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.