Idiotic poll, or idiotic poll respondents?

Here's the results of a poll that are just... bizaare.

If the presidential election were held today and the choices were Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain, "Hillary Rodham Clinton" would win 51% to 44%, according to a poll conducted by CNN. However, if "Hillary Clinton" ran, she'd only win 48% to 47%.

The poll suggests that Hillary Clinton has a better chance of beating John McCain if she runs using her middle (maiden) name.

On the other hand, if she runs against Rudy Giuliani, "Hillary Clinton" would win 50% to 44%, but if "Hillary Rodham Clinton" ran, she'd only be winning 48% to 47%.

The poll asked the question of 506 adult Americans. The margin of error is 4.5%

Even with the margin of error, you wouldn't expect people to reply differently. I mean, it's the same person they are talking about! It's not like it's between her and a twin sister.

This poll is just weird. Beside the fact that it was asked in the first place, why would people vote differently for a politician based on their name and their opponent? I could understand if her middle name was "Hitler" or something preposterous, and they answered the same way for her running against McCain or Giuliani, but I just can't understand why people would vote differently for her based on her middle name and her opponent.

I can't decide if there's something wrong with the poll, or something wrong with the people who were questioned. Maybe both.

CNN's article about the poll is here:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/20/poll.08/index.html