Skip to comments.Hillary's Poll Numbers Startling (Early 2008 Poll Numbers)
Posted on 12/19/2004 6:38:55 PM PST by nj26
If the 2008 election were held today, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton would handily defeat three of the top Republicans being touted as possible candidates, a startling new survey by Fox News Opinion Dynamics shows.
In a race between Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Clinton, the New York Democrat would win by 7 points, defeating Frist 40 percent to 33 percent, according to Fox Dynamics figures cited Sunday by Angus Reid Consultants.
Matched against New York Gov. George Pataki, Clinton's margin of victory drops by 1 point, but she'd still win 41 percent to 35 percent. The former first lady would even defeat Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, 46 percent to 35 percent.
Two of the most popular Republicans, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Arizona Sen. John McCain, were not included in the survey.
However, a Quinnipiac University survey released last week showed that Giuliani would defeat Clinton 45 percent to 43 percent if he were to run for her Senate seat in 2006.
The Fox Dynamics poll also showed that John Kerry would defeat Gov. Bush if Kerry were to run again in 2008, but by a smaller margin than Clinton - 45 percent to 37 percent.
And she hasn't even started moving to the right yet.
Of course polls for 2008 in 2004 are still "polls for 2008 in 2004." But GOP candidates who try to blur distinctions with their "friend" Hillary will wind up far behind in the electoral vote. It is when GOP candidates try to make the distinctions clear and compelling that they have a "chance" to win. For some reason though, many of these GOP candidates cannot figure out such an elementary truth. Maybe Dr. Frist should go back into surgery and forget politics.
Polls showed "generic Democrat" beating Bush earlier this year. It's way too early for polls in 2008.
And a turd sometimes floats
polls, smolls, ignorant a$$holes.
"Of course polls for 2008 in 2004 are still polls for 2008 in 2004."
That's true. But she's already running stronger than John Kerry (as evidenced by match-up with Jeb Bush.)
Wait until she launches her anti-illegal alien platform. She gets on tv and starts talking about deportation, she'll be up another 5 points.
You are right. We need to run a strong, principled conservative to provide a contrast with this unprincipled, carpet-bagger opportunist. We can't "out-Hillary" Hillary with flip-flopping and bad morals.
the country will not elect another Bush on the heels of Bush 43. no way. Jeb knows this, so he is smart to sit this one out. besides, if Hillary wins in 08, we will need Jeb for 2012 to try and stop her from a 2nd term.
"Journalists" like "polls."
Why would anybody even care about 2008?
Hillary could get run over by a truck tomorrow, who cares ?
The Polls Are Always Right!
I have looked into the 2008 crystal ball and the winner is?????????
Yeah, but Dewey was the Republican. Truman was the Democrat.
"polls, smolls, ignorant a$$holes."
I'm just shocked that she hits 46% in any national poll. I would think she would be hitting 35% or so with her hard-core supporters.
She's having to do that to counter Bill Richardson's lock on the Hispanic vote.
In the 2008 primaries all the professional political consultants will agree that the Democrats must recapture a larger percentage of the Hispanic vote in order to win the general election.
Hillary can never compete with Richardson in that area so she is attempting to create a backlash against Hispanics while winning favor with unions, blacks, and environmentalists who oppose immigration.
The majority of these polsters were soooo accurate predicting 2004, that we should trust them about a future event in '08? Ha ha. Right.
John McCain is a popular Republican?
With the leftist media perhaps.
don't worry the wicked witch won't get past 2006
Newsmax is full of crap. A few months ago, they had an article titled, "All Pollsters Wrong in 2000 Except Zogby."
I wonder who the Republicans will run?
She hit 39% in a poll last week. Way too early to look at 2008 polls, and IMO Shrillary can't win a national election. Theres not too many out there that people despise more than a klinton. The turnout was great this time for GWB against a wanna be, and klinton is another wanna be, but she also happens to be a wanna be with serious baggage.
The super intelligent here at FR will not vote for her...
Not so with the stupider other voters..
Hillary can STEAL this issue easily and OWN IT, so much for the super intelligent.. No doubt Dick Morris is makeing a few bucks adviseing her as we speak..
(Dick is a whore you know)..
... so Quinnipiac threw out that poll and found some lesser known Republicans that the poll would show her defeating.
Do you think Dick Morris is back on the Clinton payroll? I thought Hillary doesn't like him.
This border security platform is pure genius, though. Of course, any idiot could have figured it out by reading an opinion poll, but apparently none of our other political leaders.
I think you're right, especially as Bush has stated he is going to spend political capital. He is not greasing the skids for an official successor.
"I think you're right, especially as Bush has stated he is going to spend political capital."
Depends on what. Spend capital on real conservative policies? No problem. Spend it on amnesty for illegals and raising taxes for Social Security "reform"? That's a problem.
Heck, there are idiots on this site who have already publicly declared they will vote for Hillary as long as she promises to get rid of the illegals.
Yes but the self righteous Buchananites on FR are already saying they will.
Opinion Dynamics is a WORTHLESS (political) pollster . . . their record in November was LAUGHABLE -- as were the results obtained by all other 2-day quickie polls purposely skewed to the left!!!!
First of all FOX News Dynamics Poll had Kerry up by three the day before the election. They were actualy on of the worst pollsters. Rasmussen on the other hand was dead on. He came out with a poll last week showing Hillary trailing a generic Republican. I trust the latter poll
"Heck, there are idiots on this site who have already publicly declared they will vote for Hillary as long as she promises to get rid of the illegals."
We just can't forget that she'll make it illegal to be a conservative if she gets her hands on power.
I will say, though, that I am enjoying watching some of these pro-amnesty "conservatives" sweat a little at Hillary's charge to the right.
R-lefty beats D-lefty. BFD.
Jeez, the woman hasn't had to campaign (NY was a walk in), debate or take a decent interview.
Just you wait - this woman can't hide and doesn't have her husband's lying and charming skills.
Hillary's '08 Kickoff
By Dick Morris
FrontPageMagazine.com | November 19, 2004
Thursday's events in Little Rock had less to do with a library retrospective of the Bill Clinton years than a campaign launch for the prospective presidency of Hillary Clinton.
Doubt it? Then why it was Hillary, not Bill, who appeared on all the talk shows? It's his library. But it's her candidacy. So she did all the softball TV interviews, not him reminding voters of her availability for 2008 while seeming to talk about the '90s.
The timing is perfect: Democrats demoralized by John Kerry's defeat get to behold hope for the future.
It also re-launches Hillary as a red state kind of girl. Needing to live down her recent New York pedigree, Mrs. Clinton gets to renew her identification with Arkansas so she can avoid being labeled a bi-coastal liberal.
And it gives Hillary a moment to bask in the reflected glory of her husband's middle-of-the-road policies and presidential programs. To wash away the Kerry identification with gay marriage and opposition to the war in Iraq, Hillary can summon forth memories of welfare reform, balanced budgets, anti-crime initiatives and the Defense of Marriage Act her husband signed.
In short, the library gives Hillary the chance to moderate her image, relocate her venue and update her profile to position her for a White House.
Promoting a "nonpartisan" event, interviewers let Hillary get away with anything she wanted to say. For example, when she spoke of the transparency of the architecture of the library building as symbolic of the openness she deems admirable in government, Larry King didn't ask why the names of the donors to the library remain cloaked (let alone why Hillary sued to keep the records of her health-care task force secret) if she is so committed to transparency.
Plus, Hillary now has all the staffing she needs for a White House run. When she sought the Senate seat, she used the White House staff. Now she has the library workers to prepare her background papers, develop policy initiatives and provide the staffing overhead it takes to run for president. Funded with donations from Democratic Clinton allies, the library is really a support network for Hillary's candidacy.
How typical of the Clintons to refuse to release the names of the library donors or the amount of their contributions. And how exemplary of their shady ethics are the known contributors: Denise Rich and others who benefited from Bill's outrageous presidential pardons.
Give money directly to a president, and it's a bribe. Contribute to a campaign, a party or a 527 Committee, and the use of the cash is severely restricted by law. But donations to a presidential library can be used in any way the Library Board allows. And Bill can replace the board anytime he chooses. Sure, the library can't spend money on overtly political purposes, but it can provide the staff and creature comforts the former president and his candidate-wife require.
Why did Bill Clinton build a library with hidden donations and use the opening ceremony to promote his wife's candidacy for president three weeks after his party's defeat? Because He Could.
Frist is unknown by most American voters; outside of the Northeast, so is Pataki. Jeb Bush is unelectable -- Americans will not vote for a Bush as the 44th President.
There are stronger Republican candidates. Guliani is one. I'd love to see numbers head-to-head against Sen. Clinton for that.
Also, do bear in mind -- in 1997, who would have suggested that George W. Bush would run for President in 2000? Trying to identify who will run in 2008 is a tricky proposition at best, and more likely an exercise in futility.
Bring it on PIG
Likely voters? Registered voters?
The 2008 primaries haven't been held yet. She hasn't won any state races yet.
Hillary has a critical election to win in 2006 and it is not clear that she has won that election yet.
Are we looking at four years of the old media being in the tank for Hillary since the one plus years that they shilled for the democrats before this past election did not have the desired effect of defeating President Bush?
I agree with you about Frist. He's a non-starter in terms of presidential politics. The voters won't go for a third Bush, and Pataki is another non-starter. McCain is far too unreliable, though electable. Absent the emergence of a new star, I think we have to go with Rudy.
The poll simply reflects name recognition and the leftism of the Democratic base. Hillary will be a strong opponent for us in '08 -- contrary to some smug predictions, she is quite electable, sadly enough. But we can beat her.
"There are stronger Republican candidates. Guliani is one."
The problem with Giuliani is that he's a pro-choice, anti-gun social "moderate." There will be a third party conservative on the ballot if Giuliani runs, mark my words. Mark and Denise Rich will provide the financing, if necessary. And then Hillary can win with the 43-45% of the vote she is garnering in these polls. Just like her hubby, who won with 43% in 1992.
We need to nominate a pro-life, pro-2nd-amendment, anti-illegal-amnesty conservative. She will divide and conquer this party, otherwise.
Hillary can't lose in 2006 - either she runs against the usual "no-name" NY republican, and wins in a landslide. or Rudy runs against her, and she drops out of the Senate race and just moves right into the 2008 presidential run.
either way, she will not lose the 2006 race.
Thought aliens, legal and illegal, were mostly Republican these days....
I'd wait until at least the inauguration before making any predictions for 2008!
"Hillary has a critical election to win in 2006 and it is not clear that she has won that election yet."
As far as I can tell, the GOP can't find anybody to run against her in 2006. Pataki now hints he is running for reelection, and Giuliani seems likely to wait for the presidential race in 2008.
Not sure if it was likely or registered voters.
Hillary is dangerous. Very dangerous. Freepers underestimate her. There's a big, big cult surrounding her. Just ask the Freepers who Freeped her book signings and saw hordes of women literally weeping in her presence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.