The latest ABC News/Washington Post poll has Sen. Barack Obama leading Sen. John McCain by 12 points and Sen. Hillary Clinton leading Sen. McCain by 6 points.

This does not look like good news for McCain.

However, a closer look at the poll's internals reveals that the poll's respondents self-identified 40% Dem and 28% Repub, with 28% as independents (among independents, Dem-leaners among the poll's respondents went 46% Dem, 26% Repub, and 22% neither).

Overall, the ABC News/Washington Post poll's respondents went 56% Dem-leaning and 36% Repub-leaning, a 19-point spread. Only 84% of the voters questioned were registered. (See questions 901-904)

To put this in historical perspective, the Democratic Party has fielded only 3 presidential candidates who won two-candidate races by more than 10% in its entire history*: FDR in 1932 (+17.6%) and 1936 (+26.3%) and LBJ in 1964 (+22.5%) -- Woodrow Wilson won by 14.4% in 1912 over a split Republican Party.

Yet the ABC News/Washington Post poll assumes a 19-point spread favoring the Dems.

Interestingly, a November 2006 ABC News/Washington Post poll had it 51% Dem-leaning and 45% Repub-leaning for likely voters, and 53% Dem-leaning and 43% Repub-leaning for registered voters. (See question 4)

That poll, along with Pew and Gallup, were the only three to accurately predict the 2006 generic congressional vote, which the Dems won by about 7.5%.

(In November 2006, Pew, which predicted the generic spread at 4 points, had 48% Dem leaners and 40% Repub leaners in its November 2006 poll. In Gallup's November 2006 poll, the generic congressional spread predicted the Dems by 7 points. Gallup's breakdown of voters by party wasn't immediately available.)

How on earth can anyone defend a 19-point advantage for the Dems in the 2008 presidential election?

Update: Ed Morrissey and Jim Geraghty have more.



*This should read Post-Civil War history.