Hillary ranks a 49% favorability rating amongst a mix of Republicans and Democrats, with 7% either never having heard of her or having no opinion. For a woman everyone always says is universally hated, she's polling higher than Bush was polling when he won. Bill Clinton has a 60% favorability. I think there's no argument that he'll be a great asset to her. Al Gore has a higher favorability, but ranks lower on liklihood of getting the votes.
Asking 447 Democrats (a bit less than half the polling group) who they will vote for in the primaries:
Clinton 37% Obama 22% Gore 14% Edwards 12% Richardson 3%
Everyone else is either 1% or lower. Hillary has gained 10 points since October, Obama has gained 5 points since October.
46% of those polled say they are locked into their choice, 52% say they could change their mind, so there's still plenty of work to do over the next 10 months. But Hillary is out in front with a 15 point lead.
Not that when the same people were asked to answer again as if Gore were NOT running (as he claims he won't), the numbers change to 44% for Clinton, 23% for Obama, and 14% for Edwards, giving Hillary a 21 point lead. That's massive (though not unbeatable this early in the race). And sadly I think that second set of numbers is safe. Gore won't run. When that becomes apparent, he won't be included in polls anymore, and you'll start seeing even MORE funding go Hillary's way, as a lot of people are still holding off in hopes that Gore will change his mind.
Here's a really interesting part of the poll. When asked in December of 2000 how many people thought Bush won the election on a technicality, stole it, or won fair and square, 18% said stole, 32% won on a technicality, and 48% won fair and square. When asked today, those numbers change to 24% stole, 30% technicality, and 40% fair and square. Maybe that's a piece of 20/20 hindsight and voting regret, but 60% of the population doesn't think Bush won the election in 2000 fair and square.
Also in the poll: As a whole, Democrats are far more satisfied with their choices than Republicans, which makes a lot of sense to me, considering the choices. 40% of Republicans think a Democrat will win in 2008, 78% of Democrats think a Democrat will win. A majority of the public as a whole thinks the Democrats will win by as much as a 2 to 1 ratio (I personally find that highly unlikely, that's a dramatic skewing of the numbers, and unheard of in the last 20 years).
By all accounts, these are great numbers for Democrats, and overwhelmingly great news for Hillary Clinton. Other polling data suggests that Giuliani is overtaking McCain as the frontrunner. He's been gaining a lot of points on McCain lately, but really, I don't get why. The man is unelectable as a Republican. His only issue is defense, and that was enough to get Bush reelected, but things are drastically different than they were even 2 years ago. Running on pro-war pro-security reminds everyone of a Bush victory, and those are not fond memories for the majority. When everyone remembers ALL of Rudy's history, I think he's going to take a hit. His law firm, it was reported recently, is involved in representing Venezuelan oil interests in the US. That can't be good (though also probably not that bad publicly, not until McCain or Romney seize on it). Statistically, Hillary and Giuliani have been a tie in the polls, but that doesn't at all take into account people remembering what they DON'T like about him. Hillary is liberal enough to hold onto any Liberal votes that Giuliani might steal, and he's certainly liberal enough to make sure plenty of Republicans don't vote at all on Election Day. I think after a five or six month campaign, Hillary wins in a landslide.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would gladly vote for Gore, Richardson or Obama. But please god, not Hillary and not Edwards.
I would rather vote Libertarian or Green. Or maybe for that crazed Native rights candidite who always runs from his prison cell.
Posts: 211 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
Shh...!! It's supposed to be a secret. Kinnda like how John McCain has only been running for less than a month and not for eight years.
Posts: 211 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Giuliani "is" overtaking McCain as front-runner? He left McCain in the dust weeks ago. It's still possible for McCain to regain his footing, but my guess is that he peaked back in '05, and his continual and vocal hawkishness, combined with his newfound willingness to roll over for the evangelical crowd, are going to continue to torpedo him.
Speaking as someone who will be voting for whichever Democrat gets the nomination (but only enthusiastically so if it's Obama, Gore, or Richardson), I can still easily see the Republicans taking the victory this round. Giuliani's got a lot of political weaknesses, yes- but importantly, they're all weaknesses that anger Republicans more than Democrats. On social issues, he's a Republican in Name Only, which can and will pull moderate and hawkish Democrats towards the red. Republicans sure as hell aren't going to vote for Hillary or Edwards over Giuliani. Obama, maybe, through sheer force of charisma. Admittedly, it's likely that Republican turnout will be lower than usual because of Giuliani's moderate views and general odor of corruption, but I suspect this may be balanced out by the fact that the GOP has far superior GOTV organization, and by the aforementioned swing voters. We'll see.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
No way will he pull hawkish Democrats away from Hillary. She possibly the most hawkish Democrat in the party. She's unapologetically pro military, and THAT is what is pissing off so many of her colleagues. I think by the end of the campaign, when Democrats see how bad Giuliani really is, and that all he has to offer us is the same social policies that Hillary has, they'll vote for Hillary. The idea of having another Republican in office is wretched to too many people. Bush has stained the party, and it might take 4 years to fix that. Giuliani is running almost entirely on a security footing, and Hillary is hawkish as all hell. She's on the Senate armed services committee, she has experience and a record of supporting our national defense. All Rudy has is a set of impromptu speeches he made on some rubble, and now he's even being attacked by Firefighters for what he did to the remains of victims of 9/11. The man is a timebomb.
Some polls recently show McCain ahead by a few points, some show them tied, and some show Giuliani way out in front. It depends on who is doing the polling and who is being polled, but generally I agree with you, I just don't think it's a runaway pull ahead yet. He has momentum, but it's hard for a frontrunner to maintain a lead.
I don't think Gore will run. He should have announced by now, given what everyone else is doing. If he hasn't announced by May, I think it's safe to say he's out, at which point his supporters will be released to support whomever, of which the majority will probably throw themselves behind Hillary.
The advantage that Republicans have had in getting voter turnout to swing for them is diminishing greatly. We saw it in the midterms. Democrats finally have phone banks, and door to door, and people driving little old ladies to the polls, and it was used to great effect in 2006. They don't have it all over the nation, but they are laying groundwork, and I think you are going to see the traditional advantage of the Republicans in that area shrink in 2008.
I think it's highly likely, that barring some horrible gaffe, Hillary will be the Democratic candidate, and while she might not be my first choice (I really don't know who is, I waffle from her to Barrack and back), I will gladly vote for her. Why? I don't care if she is opportunistic. ALL presidential candidates are opportunistic, it's just that people against her are trying to make it into a bad word for her ONLY. I think she has good ideas, I think she plays well with others, I think she'll bring a fresh, very fresh view to the White House, with a great team, with more experience than any of her direct opponents in the party, and I find her compelling and charismatic, as well as highly intelligent, and when it comes down to it, I trust her not to get us all killed (a lot more than I can say about any of the Republicans), and I trust her to fix the Republican mess. Only Gore and Barack meet those same requirements, and nothing I've seen that's negative about her amounts to more than Republican slash jobs and "odd feelings," that people get, which isn't enough to me.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I'm with Prometheus on this. I'd NEVER vote Republican but if Hilary wins the nomination, I don't know what I'm going to do on election day. Might be a good time to move up my Canada or Japan plans.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Obama can pull a surprise from behind. The man has a crap-ton of charisma and he knows how to use it. Plus, he hasn't yet been corrupted by Washington politics too much and he's using a message of bipartisanship from the get-go. If he sticks to his guns and gets his message out, I'd be he could over take Hilary in the primaries and even win over quite a few Republicans.
At least, I'm sure as hell hoping that's what happens cause I'm really not a fan of Hilary. And I know quite a few people who aren't either... they just never seem to be the people polled Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"He should have announced by now, given what everyone else is doing."
Waiting would be, imho, smarter. People, and people in the media particularly, will get bored and/or pissed-off at Sens. Clinton and Obama. Politicians simply can't run a good campaign for that long. They're bound to slip up. Remember when Howard Dean was everybody's darling?
Posts: 211 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no doubt Hilary will win the popular vote if she makes it as far as the general election. But could this turn into another 2000 election? Somehow I see her losing the electoral college.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think this election is the democrat's (and especially Hillary's) to lose. Barring a major screw up, there is going to be someone with a D beside their name sitting in the white house come January of '09.
It would be nice if, at that time, they would work on federal recognition of gay marriage, but I think they're going to be too busy raising taxes on "the rich" and starting up new entitlement programs.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
It would be nice if, at that time, they would work on federal recognition of gay marriage, but I think they're going to be too busy raising taxes on "the rich" and starting up new entitlement programs.
Not to mention compromising. Part of getting in will probably be to give up on topics like Gay marriage. Just wait for the debates, they will say they don't support it, or will say it is up to the states to decide (more likely of the two).
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hillary gave a big speech a couple weeks ago with a I think the Human Rights Campaign supporting gay rights. And I think it was John Edwards who said the same thing, only more strongly even more recently. You can't just take that stuff back. Saying it now then changing your mind in the debates costs you votes. They aren't stupid, by and large, not on a major policy point like that.
I should also add, that if the Democrats don't pick up a fillibuster breaker majority in the Senate, then who is in the White House won't matter a lot when it comes to social issues like Gay Marriage. The president can't just throw it out. Democrats have a narrow lead in the Congress, one that I think will widen after this next election, but if it's not enough, then we're only slightly better off than before. The best you can probably expect is for them to overturn DOMA, which isn't nothing.
quote:Waiting would be, imho, smarter. People, and people in the media particularly, will get bored and/or pissed-off at Sens. Clinton and Obama. Politicians simply can't run a good campaign for that long. They're bound to slip up. Remember when Howard Dean was everybody's darling?
I don't really think Howard Dean's man scream is indicative of a trend. The longer Gore waits, the more of his supporters will be drawn off into other camps, and will only make it harder for him if he actually should decide to go for it. Dean wasn't trumped until after the primaries had already started, Gore certainly can't wait that long. He has the advantage of name recognition over almost any other candidate, with the probable exception of Hillary. But even Hillary is going to amass an unprecedented war chest for a Democrat (then again, she needs the PR points more than he does). Waiting in the hopes that the frontrunners will simply implode is, I think, wishful thinking. The two frontrunners have the cream of the crop of Democratic campaigners, and they are both smart, charismatic people. Also keep in mind that Dean was an underdog from the beginning, and his flub sent him back down to the minors. Hillary and Obama aren't underdogs, they're presumptive favorites. It will take more than a scream or a simple flub to crack their lead, especially Hillary's lead. Barack can overtake her with a great campaign, if people decide he is what they really want, but expecting a mistake and doing nothing is just plain silly if you're that serious about a presidential run. I think we would have heard rumors by now from people close to him about his status. (I wouldn't rule out, however, the chance of Hillary or Barack drafting him into service as the VP again. He'd be a fantastic campaigner, he's an expert on a lot of liberal issues, has a lot of cred with the greens (would balance Hillary out nicely), and is very well liked).
quote:I have no doubt Hilary will win the popular vote if she makes it as far as the general election. But could this turn into another 2000 election? Somehow I see her losing the electoral college.
All she has to do is win every state that Gore did in 2000 plus one. I think it's very doable. Kerry picked up, I think it was New Hampshire in 2004. If that trend stays, or if states that are choosing Democratic senators over Republicans decide to also vote Democrat in the General, you might see a lot of red states go blue, and I think Hillary will have a lock on most liberal bastions in the northeast (which is why she really needs someone from the south (Gore) or west (Richardson) to balance out her ticket).
The margin of victory for Bush in Ohio was slim compared to the previous election. And in 2006, the people overwhelmingly chose Democrat by electing a Democratic senator and a handful of Reps and booting the Republican incumbents. I think that is a trend that will carry over to the General, depending on things go in the next year. If Hillary were to run with Richardson, that'd bring New Mexico back into the fold. And that'd be the election right there, if she can hold every other state Kerry held, even better if Iowa comes back. Even if Rudy runs, I think New York will stay Democrat. New Yorkers will remember better than anyone what his mayoral terms were like. Besides, Democrats will line up firefighters to talk about how he destroyed the remains of their friends and fellow heroes in order to have an expedient clean up and to get at the gold and silver in the vaults, and it will tarnish his image, true or not.
I don't really expect a "new" cavalcade of entitlement programs. I really expect they'll focus on fixing ones that don't work well enough and expanding the ones that do. Besides, anything too big or too bad and the Republicans will fillibuster.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hope it's Obama vs. Giuliani. Then, while I would vote for Obama, I would be moderately happy either way. Who are you guys all rooting for in the Republican primaries?
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the subject of primaries, briefly. Many of you may have heard about all the dates moving around for the primary.
January 14, 2008 - Iowa (caucus) January 19, 2008 - Nevada (caucus) January 22, 2008 - New Hampshire (primary) January 29, 2008 - South Carolina
Those are still the first four, in that order. But many states have either moved their primaries up drastically, or they are considering such a movie. We used to talk about Super Tuesday, where Iowa and New Hampshire were the test beds for candidates before, and that day sealed the deal. But now Nevada has snuck in early. They want to be the voice of the west when it comes to vetting candidates, and they don't want Iowa and New Hampshire deciding who gets to be the candidates. SC is still where it was.
But now we have the so called Hyper Tuesday:
February 5, 2008 - Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Idaho, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Utah.
Also considering moving to that date are: Florida, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, Texas, West Virginia, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
It would become almost a de facto National Primary.
For Republicans:
January 21, 2008 - Iowa, January 29, 2008 - New Hampshire, Florida February 2, 2008 - Alabama, South Carolina February 5, 2008 ("Giga-Tuesday") - Arizona, Arkansas, Missouri, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah, West Virginia (which will nominate a candidate at a state nominating convention), Michigan (unofficial), California, New Jersey, Illinois, New York, Texas (proposed new date)
Things are coming earlier and earlier, and now they're being blocked together. It's all basically going to be decided by February 5th, 2008, then the race starts, but the early primaries still matter, a bit.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The best you can probably expect is for them to overturn DOMA, which isn't nothing.
Do you have any information that even a majority of Dems support overturning DOMA? Clinton said she supports it, and it received a majority of Senate Democrat support when it passed.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Republican candidates who have filed papers and are running for President:
John Cox - His big issues are implementing the FairTax, and forcing Iraq to pay for the war via oil profits. He has run unsuccessfully for several Illinois state offices and has never even gotten past the primary.
Rudy Giuliani - Pro Gun Control, Abortion and SSM. He's also Catholic.
Duncan Hunter - Representative from California and former chairman of the Armed Services committee. High ranking Republican in the House. He is a strong opponent of illegal immigration, opponent of NAFTA and the WTO, and is trying to gain support for the Right to Life Act, which will protect the life of unborn citizens.
John McCain - He has a mixed history. He's always been labeled as a maverick, and now he's called that because he supports the war in Iraq when most don't. He's a traditional fiscal conservative, and traditional on social issues.
Ron Paul - Was previously running as a Libertarian for the post. Probably the most left leaning of Republican candidates. He was one of the tiny handful of Republicans (7) who voted against the Iraq War. He opposed the PATRIOT Act, he disagrees with Bush and the Republicans on a lot of issues.
Mitt Romney - After the dozen or so threads about him on here, we should all know about him. He's a Mormon. He's raising quite a bit of cash for what many consider to be an underdog.
Candidates with exploratory committees but who have not announced.
Jim Gilmore - Former governor of Virginia, formed committee after a large VA based "Draft Gilmore" campaign got him moving. He would cut taxes, make the Bush tax cuts permanant, cut spending. No amnesty, kick out illegals, secure the borders. Send even more troops to Iraq, as many as necessary to keep civil order. Get guns out of the hands of criminals, but other than that we should all have guns. Promotes adoption and increases to abstinence only education. Promotes energy independence via ethanol and other means like hydrogen.
Mike Huckabee
Tom Tancredo
Tommy Thompson
Candidates who have expressed interest but have not formed committees
Newt Gingrich
Chuck Hagel
George Pataki
Fred Dalton
Sorry I didn't finish the list, I'll look up the sites of the candidates and post their platforms later tonight or tomorrow, I just ran out of time.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The best you can probably expect is for them to overturn DOMA, which isn't nothing.
Do you have any information that even a majority of Dems support overturning DOMA? Clinton said she supports it, and it received a majority of Senate Democrat support when it passed.
Change expect to mildly hope for. No I don't, but short of an impossible constitutional amendment, what can the federal government do to create SSM rights for gay Americans that overrules state constitutional amendments?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
