Skip to comments.Hillary Leads Giuliani in Three U.S. Polls
Posted on 11/10/2007 10:35:20 AM PST by Ol' Sparky
(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton could defeat Republican Rudy Giuliani in the 2008 United States presidential election, according to three recent voting intention polls. In a survey by the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion released by WNBC, 50 per cent of respondents would vote for the New York senator, while 40 per cent would support the former New York City mayor.
In a study by Gallup for USA Today, Rodham Clinton holds a six-point lead over Giuliani. In a poll by Opinion Research Corporation released by CNN, the Democrat also leads the Republican by six points.
(Excerpt) Read more at angus-reid.com ...
He has no chance of winning the general election. It's time to find an electable nominee that can unite the base.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
There is no such animal.
And aren't you popping the champaign? He's no contest for your girl.
Time to throw Rudy under the bus!!! Long over due!
This is going to be one crazy year.
Rudy cannot beat Hilary. Dem-lite won’t beat a real dem. We need a real alternative. A pro-gay, pro-abort, dress wearing, and pro-illegal candidate isn’t a great alternative.
I’m sorry but if Americans would rather vote
for Hillary the pathological liar Jesus himself
could not defeat her.
I guess Ron Paul is our only salvation.
If I were a Democrat, I would pop the champaign as soon as Giuliani got the nomination. He is likely the ONLY candidate she can beat because he fractures the Republican base and keeps millions of conservatives at home.
“Despite Hillary’s recent gaffes, Giuliani has lost significant ground in all three polls.
He has no chance of winning the general election. It’s time to find an electable nominee that can unite the base.”
You guys are making WAY too much of this poll. Click the link. This poll was done among “American adults,” not likely voters or even registered voters. To get an accurate read on which direction the election might go, you need to poll those voters who self-identify as being likely to vote, not just poll any old schmo who answers the phone, who may not even be registered to vote, who might not even be a citizen of the country!
Rasmussen on the other hand which polls LIKELY voters, shows Rudy beating Hillary by 2 points. That is a much more accurate and meaningful poll than these 2 that just asks anyone who answers the phone.
Besides, for all those saying this shows Giuliani has to be thrown under the bus, it’s not as if any polls are showing the other Republicans performing better than Rudy against Hillary. So what’s the logic here? I think it’s interesting how so many of us poo poo polls, until they enable us to say “See! Rudy sucks!” which really these 2 worthless polls do not allow us to say.
Despite Hillarys recent gaffes, Giuliani has lost significant ground in all three polls.
He has no chance of winning the general election. Its time to find an electable nominee that can unite the base.
You guys are making WAY too much of this poll. Click the link. This poll was done among American adults, not likely voters or even registered voters. To get an accurate read on which direction the election might go, you need to poll those voters who self-identify as being likely to vote, not just poll any old schmo who answers the phone, who may not even be registered to vote, who might not even be a citizen of the country!
Rasmussen on the other hand which polls LIKELY voters, shows Rudy beating Hillary by 2 points. That is a much more accurate and meaningful poll than these 2 that just asks anyone who answers the phone.
Besides, for all those saying this shows Giuliani has to be thrown under the bus, its not as if any polls are showing the other Republicans performing better than Rudy against Hillary. So whats the logic here? I think its interesting how so many of us poo poo polls, until they enable us to say See! Rudy sucks! which really these 2 worthless polls do not allow us to say.
Jesus wasn't an adulterous, gun-grabbing, pro-abortion liberal that liked to wear dresses and march in gay pride parades, so He wouldn't have a problem beating Hillary.
Nor would Ronald Reagan have had any problem destroying her.
Hillary nor the mood of the country is the problem. Giuliani is the problem.
Our economy is rather erratic right now, and I think there are many things which will be held against the right (despite any reasonable explanation). Rudy’s the wrong choice in any case.
I agree. The best chose is to unite the base....
I’m sure this wil be very comforting to the beast on the way down.
Ah someone who knows the language of polls. You are 100% correct and I don’t think there is any way she will defeat anyone for the Oval Office. I just think the glue has started to come apart.
She can only win by being buffered from everyone. It’s not as simple when the media supports you on a “listening tour” in New York versus the country.
The more people see of her unscripted the more obvious joke she is. And I’m speaking from the guy and pray I’m right.
It really kind of depends on the internals of the polls. What if they oversampled blacks and Hispanics? What if they oversampled women? Without knowing the composition of people they sampled, we don’t really know if the numbers are accurate. And few of the pollsters ever release these numbers - probably because they’re afraid of having their polls picked apart.
You are correct. The Democrats have held a generic poll advantage ever since the days of FDR. This means Democrats can generally win elections by default. It is up to the Republican candidate to make the case for why the Democrat should not be elected.
Wow. I did a double take when I first read that as,"...the Marxist College Institute..."
Don’t trust CNN/Opinion polls, they are Clinton operatives/Gupta the corruptor.
Even though I am for Fred............
Here is Rudy's gift to America!!!!
From your lips to God’s ears, but I do think this is going to be a very difficult fight. I think we should be careful about underestimating Hillary, because she will have the entire media backing her and trashing her opponent and the fearsome Clinton political machine to steamroll over the GOP. We’re going to have to get united and quick if we expect to beat Hillary, instead of having these silly little spats that rip the GOP apart. In the end, whoever the GOP candidate is we’ll get a great deal of what we want. From Hillary, we’ll get a whole lot of what we don’t want. We need to remember that. Better 3 quarters of a plate of what you want than a buffet of bullsh-t from the Clinton crime cabal.
I am not voting for either of these idiots.
I don’t like Rudy but these polls are less tahn worthless. Any poll showing Hillary winning among men is garbage of the third kind. Hillary will lose the male vote by 10-15 points.
Other polling shows that more than 50% of the population would not vote for Clinton at any time or under any circumstances. So how does she get 50% in this Marist poll?
I do not see any GOP beating Hillary at this point. Rudy is not my candidate of choice, but I do not see another GOP candidate that is doing that well. None of these candidates is without serious flaws, but some are more flawed than others. I will predict that no matter which candidate receives the party’s nomination, there are going to be a significant number of Republicans that will not support him. At some point in time, people are going to have to decide whether any GOP candidate is better than Hillary.
Generalizing about GOP candidates and then including Rudy in the mix just doesn’t work.
It is like oil and water.
Rudy just ain’t a real republican.
He is the archetypical example or the perfect example of what a RHINO is.
He will destroy the GOP if nominated.
He is the only candidate guaranteed to hand the Presidency to Hillary.
In short, Mr. Inevitable is unelectable.
Wake up Conservatives!
Thats fine,polls can state that, but Neither will be on the Ballots in November!!
The odds are small, but there’s a chance both hillary and Rudy will not be their party’s nominees. If Hillary loses in Iowa, I think she’s in big trouble.
You mean there is actually a single guy who would vote for her?
These polls are worthless. The Republican field is open. Hillary’s support is solid. Once the Republicans form around a single candidate, then the polls will mean more, especially after the conventions.
They all beat her, she is clearly the most flawed candidate. I don't believe the majority of American's will overlook this but much will depend on the response of the GOP to her predictable claim of unfair play that will occur during the general election. If they let her play the victim then it is over if they stick their guns and call her every bluff and show her as the opportunist she is then she has no chance.
America has been feminizing it’s men for a couple of generations now, it’s starting to take a toll.
Olde Rootie looks very feminine there(eg:in drag). Thats Blackmailable and that latest wife of his is really a step down and scary. Rootie is definitely not Presedential Calibre and Hildabeast knows he (she/It) is the one RINO she is most likely to beat.
Giuliani has been the medias pick as a front runner since day one. Giuliani never had a chance nor does Smellary. Niether of them have addressed the main isues of illegals or bringing real factory based jobs back to America. A straight shooter may still rise...maybe it is Thompson.
Any of the present Republicans with a chance to win the nomination would be better than Giuliani. It's only Giuliani that will cause a significant percentage of the base to stay home or vote third party.
That is tired and failed argument that was used to justify voting for Arnold Schwarzenegger in California.
With a RINO like Giuliani, we'll be getting more like 3/4rd of what we don't want. His election moves the Republican party to the left, guarantees no conservative in the White House until 2016 and eliminates any chance of the Republicans taking back Congress. That isn't acceptable.
Hillary, on the other, would lead to resurge in conservatism, just as Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton did. And, that is better than have a hostile takeover of the GOP by liberals.
And, when the Democrat is unpopular and not some unknown and still has a commanding lead, there is a problem with the Republican being polled against her.
Don’t panic. Howard (SCREAM) Dean had the DNC by the b@lls and still lost the nod.
‘The Beast’ will NEVER be President. Never. Six points ahead and a year to go. She’ll implode. She’ll have a “family crisis” or some “health issue” to save face.
And if not, she’ll be “Swift-Boated” worse than the worst nightmares John Kerry is still having, LOL!
(Not necessarily by the GOP, but by the likes of you & me and Doug in Upland, MiaT, etc.)
OTOH, Kerry took it up the ying-yang with no effective response..
Do you really think that the Clinton War room (with helpers like Larry Flint) hasn't got a 5 inch thick folder on every Republican contender documenting every sin that these guys ever had or can be made to believe they had.
This time it'll be the battle of the swift boater - put your money on it.
“This time it’ll be the battle of the swift boater - put your money on it.”
No doubt. Goodness wins, though. :)
Nah, the polls are inaccurate if Hillary is winning the male vote. History tells us this very clearly.
“Hillary, on the other, would lead to resurge in conservatism, just as Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton did.”
Burning the village in order to save it didn’t work in Vietnam, it won’t work in politics. The country is very different now than it was at the time it elected Reagan and even since 1994 when it but the GOP in charge of Congress. The country has taken a hard left hand turn, driven by this idiotic idea that things are so terrible now, and a huge influx of Hispanic voters. Theoretically conservative backlashes a decade hence are not enough to make palatable what will come of having an extremist Hillary White House and an extremist Pelosi and Reid Congress rubber stamping one another’s far left wing initiatives.
The Dems. will spend the next 8 years implementing socialism and creating middle class depedency on the government just like in Europe and the Dems. will manage as a result to create a semi-permanent majority and White House presence. When the GOP does manage to get back into the White House, perhaps 2 decades from now, just like European conservatives we will be unable to touch anything of the middle class welfare programs the Dems. will have created, as it will become another 3rd rail in American politics. Government run health care and other middle class vote buying schemes the Dems. will have dreamed up will have entrenched themselves permanently into American governance and the psyche of the American voters.
The GOP will be left to acting as nothing more than protectors of the welfare state thus created if they ever want to be in power again, the only difference being they’ll slow the creation of more and more socialism rather than being able to roll it back outright. You only need to look to Europe to see how that happens. That is what will move the GOP to the left, not Rudy’s election. He has never been a proponent of big government programs. That’s Mike Huckabee.
The difference between you and me is that I don’t believe Americans are against government nanny state any longer. I see more and more our spoiled society demanding government create a risk free, adversity free life. And that starts with healthcare. More and more Americans are becoming convinced that government needs to have a bigger hand in health care. And the first thing Dems. will do when they have total control of the federal government is to create government healthcare and then campaign from there to eternity on protecting it and on the fear campaigns of Republicans rolling it back if they get into power.
Sorry, what you propose is far too dangerous at a time like this. In addition to creating a dependency culture, the Democrats will dismantle our homeland security apparatuses, including the Patriot Act and NSA wiretapping and retreat from Iraq which will likely lead to an Al Qaeda and Iranian victory in Iraq, and the loss of the overall war on terror stemming from our capitulation in Iraq. Meanwhile, Al Qaeda and Iran will grow bolder from their victory, sitting atop billions in oil wealth to wreack havoc with in the world while the US retreats within itself to create a European-style dependency culture.
The Democrats just simply do not take national security seriously. To suggest we can afford 4-8 years minimum of them in charge of it while more and more of our enemies are sharpening their knives against us to create some imagined conservative renaissance is folly. Meanwhile, what will have become of our security stance and our position in the world while all this is going on? How many years can our country’s security survive in the face of Democratic neglect? How big of a hit will our economy take while our enemies take over control of the oil resources of the Middle East while Democrats just wave it all off saying oil is just evil anyhow. How many Americans will have to die for this experiment of yours?
In the end, the basis for claiming we’d get 75% of what we don’t want from Giuliani is simply his governing stand on abortion, identical to Thompson’s by the way, which is it should go back to the states to decide which is consistent with an overturn of Roe and his stand on guns (from the 90s) which he’s said there will be no new gun laws on his watch, realizing as the Democrats do that gun control is a political disaster. Otherwise, Rudy is solid on fiscal, tax and security issues, having cut taxes and spending in New York. He’s got conservative Ted Olson advising him on judge appoints and has said he will appoint Scalias to the bench. That being the case, whose judges are you more likely to get an overturn of Roe v. Wade from if that’s your goal, Hillary or Rudy’s?
You compare Rudy to Arnold. The difference is, Arnold is a Republican governing a liberal state one where he unfortunately felt he had to move left in order to keep power. Being a Californian, as pissed as I’ve been at Arnold’s leftward turn in the last 2 years he has stopped some of the worst Democratic excesses here by vetoing tax hikes, bigger spending in some instances, implementing worker’s comp. reform which literally saved this state’s economy, vetoing driver’s licenses for illegals and California’s version of the illegal alien Dream Act and a lot of other unbelievably looney things our Assembly as cooked up that would make your head spin. While Arnold has not been as conservative as I’d like and I’ve actually turned against him for the most part, I have to say we are still better off having had him as governor than a far left wing lunatic like Gray Davis, Cruz Bustamante or Phil Angelides who’d have rubber stamped everything coming out of our far left wing State Assembly. As disappointed as I’ve been since his re-election, I would rather have him as governor as not. I just think he wasted an opportunity in turning to the left on some things when he’s not even up for re-election again.
But back to my point. Rudy as president on the other hand would be governing a more conservative country than is California, even accounting for the leftward drift I see in the nation. Rudy will not have to move left to maintain himself in office like Arnold did. With him as president, socialism can be forestalled. But when Americans get a bigger taste of it under complete Democratic control, they’ll be intoxicated by it just like Europe. You may dispute the idea, but I do see Americans becoming more and more like Europeans as we become more secular, more thin skinned in their ability to deal with adversity and more adverse to self-sufficiency in the face of mounting economic and financial challenges.
Experts are saying the newest generation of Americans entering the workplace may be the first to have a lower standard of living than their parents. That almost guarantees Americans will relish government doing more and more to make up for that. Rudy will slow if not stop that process. Hillary will accelerate it.
So knowing all this, where does this idea come from that Rudy is predominantly liberal? Frankly he has fewer liberal positions than Thompson’s record in the Senate (I can provide a record of this if you don’t believe me) and Huckabees’s as governor. Read Rudy’s REAL conservative record, as opposed to the propagandistic misrepresentation put out by his opponents: http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_1_rudy_giuliani.html
well, there’s Bill but *technically* he’s not single
Yah? And when did that start happening??? ;)
If the choice is between two NY liberals it’s only natural to go with the Dem.
You’re not going to suck me down into this “Nattering Neighbob of Negativity” thinking. :)
She will not win. A good 50% of REAL, voting Americans loathe her.
Those inside the Beltway and NY Politics (leftist journalists included) are afraid of her; hence the reason they sing her praises and publish bogus “polls.”
And if, through skulldugery or cheatin’, she wins, you can come back and rub my nose in it; I’ll welcome it. I’ll embrace it! I’ll learn from it and come back even stronger than before. :)
(Count your blessings that Alito and Roberts sit on the Supreme Court right now; if 2008 comes down to counting and counting and counting and then re-counting those last remaining votes, just remember what President Bush did for us.)
But, FRiend, we will be up to our @sses in alligators by then and both you and I will be a little too busy to play “I told you so!” I’m a gracious loser, but an even MORE gracious winner. :)
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.