Interesting early 2008 poll numbers

[Bonnie]

Of course it's silly to take this to the bank, but I thought it interesting given the so called troubled Bush presidency.

02/09/06 FOX News Poll: Republicans Have Edge in Early 2008 Presidential Matchups
Thursday, February 09, 2006
By Dana Blanton

NEW YORK — A new FOX News poll finds that strong support from within their party as well as from majorities of independents helps Republican candidates outperform Democratic candidates in head-to-head presidential matchups.

It might be early, but it is still fun to look at hypothetical matchups between possible 2008 candidates. The poll asked about Republican candidates Arizona Sen. John McCain and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Democratic candidates Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Overall, the Republican candidates top their Democratic opponents, and while the two Republican candidates get about the same level of support in each trial heat, Clinton performs significantly better than 2004 Democratic presidential nominee Kerry.

Among registered voters, Giuliani bests Clinton by 11 percentage points and Kerry by 19 points. McCain tops Clinton by 13 percentage points and Kerry by 20 points. These results are in line with past FOX News results on these vote questions, with the only real change being a lessening of support for Kerry.

There are clear differences in the amount of support the candidates receive from within their own party. For instance, Giuliani and McCain capture between 84-89 percent of the Republican vote in the matchups, while Clinton captures 70-75 percent among Democrats and Kerry’s highest is 65 percent.

Furthermore, Democrats are two-to-three times more likely than Republicans to say they would vote for the other party’s candidate. In the Giuliani-Clinton vote, 17 percent of Democrats say they would vote for the Republican, while 7 percent of Republicans say they would vote for Democrat. The other matchups show even higher numbers of party switchers among Democrats.

What about swing voters? The Republican candidates receive over 50 percent of the vote among self-identified independents in each of the four matchups.

Clinton has the highest portion of voters that say they would “definitely” vote for her, but she also has about twice as many as Giuliani and McCain that say “under no conditions” would they vote for her.

“Clinton is clearly a polarizing candidate,” comments Opinion Dynamics CEO John Gorman. “The question for her is whether she can piece together enough support on her side of the divide to reach a majority of the electoral vote. The vote in 2004 was also polarized, but the Bush campaign managed to find enough groups to knit together a majority.”

Over a third (35 percent) say they would definitely vote for Clinton, 19 percent say maybe and 44 percent say no way. In comparison, 30 percent would definitely vote for McCain, 40 percent would consider it and 22 percent definitely would not vote for him. Giuliani’s results are almost identical to McCain’s.

2008 Presidential Election

Would you vote for:
Definitely vote for Think about voting for Under no conditions
Clinton 35% 19 44
Giuliani 33% 38 24
Kerry 29% 23 45
McCain 30% 40 22


For the most part these candidates are well known and have high name recognition. Voters view Giuliani, Clinton and McCain more positively than negatively. Moreover, Giuliani’s 64 percent favorable rating is not only higher than the other potential candidates, but is also higher than President Bush’s 46 percent favorable. Kerry’s favorable has dropped 9 percentage points since the end of 2004 and current stands at 42 percent.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184357,00.html

 

[BATMAN]

Of course the Republicans were ahead, the poll was done by FOX.

 

[Mariner]

more conservative types here feel about a moderate/liberal Republican like Guiliani. Would you vote for him?

Mariner.

 

[Bonnie]

more conservative types here feel about a moderate/liberal Republican like Guiliani. Would you vote for him?

Mariner.

If it was a choice between he or Frauline Hillary absolutely.

 

[Annie]

If it was a choice between he or Frauline Hillary absolutely.

I'd vote for Guilliani over nearly any Democrat I can think of. I disagree with him on abortion, but I'll leave that to the courts.

 

[Bonnie]

I'd vote for Guilliani over nearly any Democrat I can think of. I disagree with him on abortion, but I'll leave that to the courts.

Especially given his strength during crisis and his similar to Bush tough stance on terrorism. He did amazing things for NY. Because of him Times Square is absolutely a great place to go again.

 

[Annie]

Especially given his strength during crisis and his similar to Bush tough stance on terrorism. He did amazing things for NY. Because of him Times Square is absolutely a great place to go again.

For me, terrorism is Job1. He has the cajones. He'd get my vote.

 

[Bonnie]

For me, terrorism is Job1. He has the cajones. He'd get my vote.

Well said!!

 

[Annie]

Well said!!

Thank you. Anyone want to argue that terrorism is NOT job1?

 

[Avatar4321]

more conservative types here feel about a moderate/liberal Republican like Guiliani. Would you vote for him?

Mariner.

He would no doubt be alot better than Hillary. But i dont foresee him getting the nomination.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

He would no doubt be alot better than Hillary. But i dont foresee him getting the nomination.

Put him in charge of Homeland Security? Maybe? I wouldn't mind him being involved somewhere with the federal government, but I think you're right. he would have a slim chance of getting nominated.

 

[Adam's Apple]

more conservative types here feel about a moderate/liberal Republican like Guiliani. Would you vote for him? Mariner.

Absolutely (and because I'm a Christian, I'm considered "Christian right"). Don't know how the other "Christian right" thinks about Guiliani, but in my opinion, Guiliani is far superior to any Democrat they put up.

 

[Stephanie]

I'd vote for Guilliani over nearly any Democrat I can think of. I disagree with him on abortion, but I'll leave that to the courts.

I second what Kat said here,( there is NO democrat I'd vote for). I'd vote for Guilliani and let the courts take care of abortion.

 

[Mariner]

we should keep it in perspective. I've been reading the (conservative) Cato Institute website with some interest recently. Here's one of their analysts' comments on terrorism:

"Dozens and dozens of dangers to Americans' life and health come before terrorism. For the average American, the chance of dying in a terrorist attack is essentially nil. Yet many Americans speak of 'the terrorists' as if they are among us in every mall and on every plane. Some blame for the ongoing fear goes to the unfortunate rhetoric the Bush Administration uses to defend the NSA's domestic surveillance program.

"There is no doubt that the Bush Administration is committed to fighting terrorists. And fair-minded people do not doubt the good faith or intentions of the White House. But domestically, at least, terrorism is not so much the locus of a 'war' as a challenging, but soluble, security dilemma.

http://www.cato.org/homepage_item.php?id=195

Take a look through their website. People here might find it interesting to hear a different strain of conservative thinking. They (like me) worry that we've been a bit distracted by this "war on terror" from keeping our house in order, in terms of deficits, domestic needs, and more effective ways to ensure our security. They warned in 2004 that our intervention in Iraq risks being counterproductive, increasing rather than reducing the number of potential terrorists.

Another question--who here would vote for McCain? I'd consider it. I do think he was little thin-skinned in his last campaign, but I admire his honesty and willingness to take on very hard subjects (campaign finance reform, lobbying influence, torture).

Mariner

 

[rtwngAvngr]

we should keep it in perspective. I've been reading the (conservative) Cato Institute website with some interest recently. Here's one of their analysts' comments on terrorism:

"Dozens and dozens of dangers to Americans' life and health come before terrorism. For the average American, the chance of dying in a terrorist attack is essentially nil. Yet many Americans speak of 'the terrorists' as if they are among us in every mall and on every plane. Some blame for the ongoing fear goes to the unfortunate rhetoric the Bush Administration uses to defend the NSA's domestic surveillance program.

"There is no doubt that the Bush Administration is committed to fighting terrorists. And fair-minded people do not doubt the good faith or intentions of the White House. But domestically, at least, terrorism is not so much the locus of a 'war' as a challenging, but soluble, security dilemma.

http://www.cato.org/homepage_item.php?id=195

Take a look through their website. People here might find it interesting to hear a different strain of conservative thinking. They (like me) worry that we've been a bit distracted by this "war on terror" from keeping our house in order, in terms of deficits, domestic needs, and more effective ways to ensure our security. They warned in 2004 that our intervention in Iraq risks being counterproductive, increasing rather than reducing the number of potential terrorists.

Another question--who here would vote for McCain? I'd consider it. I do think he was little thin-skinned in his last campaign, but I admire his honesty and willingness to take on very hard subjects (campaign finance reform, lobbying influence, torture).

Mariner

Mccain is a showboating little sellout who doesn't believe in free speech.

THink tanks are often divorced from reality.

 

[Mariner]

divorced from reality, RWA--we all just see our little slice of it, from our little angle or attitude. Think tanks are supposed to try to sift and summarize for us. I'm sure they're vulnerable to their own "group think." Cato describes themselves as market-libertarian conservatives. What I most like about them is that they seem to care less about partisan politics and more about actual ideas and policies; as a result, they're willing to criticize Bush and to give Clinton and other Democrats credit when due. See the website for yourself. It's impressive.

Sanjay

 

[Adam's Apple]

Here's the opinion of one of the leading libs in our state about Hillary and 2008. Makes you wonder if they're starting to do some serious thinking about Hillary.

Hillary May Lead Pack, But She's Going to Lose Ground
By Ken Bode, The Indianapolis Star
February 10, 2006

Hillary has become sui generis, now as much a celebrity as a politician. When she stonefaces George W's joke about her husband at the State of the Union, it's fodder for late-night comedy. The GOP chairman used her frosty look to denounce Hillary as a person with great anger. Americans don't elect angry candidates, said Ken Mehlman.

Nevertheless, in the opinion of those who set the opening odds for the 2008 Democratic nomination, she is definitely the frontrunner. Sen. Clinton is sure to win easy re-election in November. She is the best-heeled contender, with a savvy, loyal staff and Bill as resident braintruster. That's not a bad start. But the other part of the opening line on Hillary is this: If the Democrats nominate her, she is a certain loser. You hear this even from those who like Hillary, or want to.

The "can't win" argument has footing because the 2008 election will not be decided on personality or competence, or experience. It will be decided on geography. The common sense derived from that fact works against Hillary. First, the Democrats must give up their post-Bill Clinton fantasy of winning in the South. Gore couldn't do it and choosing North Carolina Sen. John Edwards didn't help Kerry a bit. Hillary couldn't even carry Arkansas.

The critical battleground for 2008 is the eight states of the Midwest. Some big states, some swing states. In 2004, four went for Bush, four for Kerry. Five were squeakers with margins of 1 to 3 percent. This is where the 2008 race will be decided and there is no reason to believe that nominating Hillary will add a single state to the Democratic column.

For full article: http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060210/OPINION/602100420/1002

 

[Mariner]

on whether the strategies she used to reform her image in New York State work nationwide. She spent a lot of time in every corner of the state and paid serious attention to what concerned people. She then remade herself as a more moderate Democrat, and has gone on to be extremely popular. New York is not New England, so I don't think she'll carry Kerry's Taxachusetts baggage.

I was struck by your quote, AA:

"A civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself." Jean-Francois Revel

I guess I would answer that a civilization that feels guilty for nothing it is and does will have become monstrous. The ancient Greeks, the ancient Hindus, and the ancient Chinese (yin/yang) had it right: balance.

Mariner.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

on whether the strategies she used to reform her image in New York State work nationwide. She spent a lot of time in every corner of the state and paid serious attention to what concerned people. She then remade herself as a more moderate Democrat, and has gone on to be extremely popular. New York is not New England, so I don't think she'll carry Kerry's Taxachusetts baggage.

I was struck by your quote, AA:

"A civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself." Jean-Francois Revel

I guess I would answer that a civilization that feels guilty for nothing it is and does will have become monstrous. The ancient Greeks, the ancient Hindus, and the ancient Chinese (yin/yang) had it right: balance.

Mariner.

But feeling guilty isn't really enough for you libs; we must lose the upcoming world war for you to be happy, apparently.

 

[Bonnie]

we should keep it in perspective. I've been reading the (conservative) Cato Institute website with some interest recently. Here's one of their analysts' comments on terrorism:

"Dozens and dozens of dangers to Americans' life and health come before terrorism. For the average American, the chance of dying in a terrorist attack is essentially nil. Yet many Americans speak of 'the terrorists' as if they are among us in every mall and on every plane. Some blame for the ongoing fear goes to the unfortunate rhetoric the Bush Administration uses to defend the NSA's domestic surveillance program.

"There is no doubt that the Bush Administration is committed to fighting terrorists. And fair-minded people do not doubt the good faith or intentions of the White House. But domestically, at least, terrorism is not so much the locus of a 'war' as a challenging, but soluble, security dilemma.

http://www.cato.org/homepage_item.php?id=195

Take a look through their website. People here might find it interesting to hear a different strain of conservative thinking. They (like me) worry that we've been a bit distracted by this "war on terror" from keeping our house in order, in terms of deficits, domestic needs, and more effective ways to ensure our security. They warned in 2004 that our intervention in Iraq risks being counterproductive, increasing rather than reducing the number of potential terrorists.

Another question--who here would vote for McCain? I'd consider it. I do think he was little thin-skinned in his last campaign, but I admire his honesty and willingness to take on very hard subjects (campaign finance reform, lobbying influence, torture).

Mariner

Cato is an interesting site, however I disagree with them here in that It's not the idea of getting blown up in a a shopping mall, although that is a very real possibility that it could happen somewhere, what it really is about is one dirty bomb getting into our country and even if only a few were killed the other ramifications would be staggering to our economy and our everday way of life. Look at what happened after 9/11 aside from the horrible loss of life, the airline industry and air travel was completely shut down for days, people were stuck not being able to get home to their families, then came a recession that we could very well have stayed in. Another incident like that is very possible and could cause a chain of events that we may well not recover from so quickly the next time, and since our economy is very closely tied with the world economy it could be catstrophic for the world. I don't think some people really get that. Iran's shenanigans for example could cause the world oil markets to shoot up to 300 dollars a barrell or more, can you imagine the devastation that would cause us and Europe???