REPUBLICANS: On the Republican side, Rudy Giuliani continues to dominate the field. In the latest national poll, he led with 27%, versus 17% for the next highest candidate, who happened to be Fred Thompson. Head-to-head against Thompson, Giuliani came out ahead, 54% to 34%. However, it should be noted that Thompson is only announcing his candidacy this month and has not yet raised significant funds. Mitt Romney, the only other candidate in double figures had 12% in the national poll. Romney will do well in Iowa, but beyond that, there is little indication that he has the momentum to challenge the leaders. Unfortunately for Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee fans, their candidates are languishing in the single digits, although Huckabee has been making gains in the south.
MONEY: Giuliani raised $17 million in the second quarter of 2007. Romney raised $14 million.
OPINION: This is going to turn out to be a horse race between Thompson and Giuliani. The Democrats could only hope that Giuliani wins the nomination. He has established himself as a one dimensional candidate and that dimension has its anniversary next week. Also, his star will likely lose some of its luster when the electorate is reminded of the shoddy way he parted from his previous wife, and the fact that the NYPD and the FDNY are not his biggest fans. My guess is that Thompson will emerge as the Republican nominee. He more appropriately represents the conservative agenda, he looks more “presidential,” and, in the end, his positions will win the day.
DEMOCRATS: On the Democratic side, Clinton is in the lead with 40% in Gallup’s latest national poll, versus 28% for Obama and 13% for Edwards. Head-to-head, Hillary leads Barack 54% to 42%. However, when these two candidates are matched up against the leading Republican candidates, their scores are extremely close. And the biggest surprise is that Edwards also beats both Giuliani and Thompson according to Pollster.com. Hillary is leaning on her experience and Barack is constantly on the defensive over his lack of same. However, Obama has secured some impressive backing from such diverse sources as Oprah and Warren Buffett, the “sage of Omaha.” Furthermore, Hillary’s breadth of experience could become a liability if her image as an “insider” begins to work against her, particularly her now cozy relationship with the health care and pharmaceutical industries. Her ace in the hole, however, is her husband, arguably the most popular national figure these days. For some reason, the Republicans appear to want Hillary as the nominee.
MONEY: Obama raised $32.5 million in the second quarter while Clinton raised $27 million. Of the second quarter funds, Obama can spend 50% more on the primaries than Clinton can.
OPINION: It’s going to be a close race between Clinton and Obama, but considering everything that is known today, including Clinton’s current momentum and her strong leads in the early primary states, she is a safer bet to get the nomination. Edwards is a legitimate dark horse and cannot be counted out. The Republicans might least like to see him as the nominee because of his strengths in states where the Democrats could pick up additional seats in Congress.
THE ELECTION: Right now the Bush factor is the best thing the Democrats have going for them, but that could change. So could the fickle independent vote, which has historically been important, and which, today, is tilted towards the Democratic candidate, whoever that may be, by a factor of 44% vs. 30%, according to last Saturday’s LA Times. Amongst the independents, Obama and Clinton do well against all Republican candidates. Edwards lags only behind Giuliani with this same group of voters.
OPINION: The Democrats have the money and the momentum in the polls and the daily news only seems to make matters worse for the Republicans. The Democrats have a solid opportunity here to not only capture the White House, but also to pick up additional seats in Congress.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 44
I have a hard time understanding these polls. Ron Paul has won most of the straw polls he was entered in. He won most if not all of the debates. Yet he is not a contender and hardly worth mentioning. Something is not right!
Ron Paul is a contender last debate I watched the other day on TV, and has a following right here on Gather...but I was unaware that he had been a winner, I must have missed a few................
I was called for a poll on the candidates...Ron Paul was not among the choices. They said they were only using the major candidates for the poll. I told them...why not let the people decide who the 'major candidates' are?
~Thompson remains an unknown quantity where it counts--clearly elucidating his position on issues and policy. He is, at present, enjoying the effects of wishful thinking on the part of desperate Republicans who hope he may be a good enough actor to portray Ronald Reagan in a sequel to "Bonzo Goes to Washington".
~If Romney wins Iowa he'll gain quite a bit of that momentum you say he lacks.
~Sen. Clinton's reliance on her "experience" doesn't cut much ice with me. A five hundred dollar call girl has plenty of "experience" too, but not many guys would want to walk her down the aisle. Quality counts. She has zero executive, decision-making experience, to the best of my knowledge. Her earlier attempt to come up with an overhaul of health care was a miserable failure. That's one kind of "experience" I suppose, but not the kind that I find reassuring. If she goes up against a former state governor, or even someone like Rudy, she's going to pale by comparison on that point. Also, her steadfast refusal to consider turning down lobbyists money has tarnished her image considerably where I'm concerned. I think voters are pretty damned tired of the business-as-usual influence-pedaling game. You can keep your experience, Hillary--I'm ready for a REAL change for a change.
~The reason Republicans, like Karl "The Pig-Faced Boy" Rove, want Hillary to be the Dem's nominee is that they believe that her "negatives" (low "likeability" poll numbers) will make her beatable in the general election. They tend to overlook their own candidates' (very significant) negatives, however.
But I see that everyone else has already done so as I read on down the thread. Polls are taken for a purpose, often written up (composed) to show certain results just for the purpose intended, to make a favored person look good by numbers to be used as a false bragging right in order to convince foolish people that believe in polls to act in a certain way desired by the ones that paid for the poll in the first place.
Yes they are both a science and a game ... yes the numbers matter ... but seldom are they above board, honest or even accurate ... yet people use them to influence other people in certain directions ... usually just fabricated manipulation to sway the gullible. Sadly it often works because most people seem to want so much to believe and trust their leaders, pundits and other 'authorities' to be honest.
Wishful thinking on those terms is why we have the leadership that we do ... people need to wake up to just how much they are being controlled and manipulated so they can actually do something about it ...
But then the religious 'leaders/authorities' have already convinced them that they should do as they are told in life because their reward for that will come in heaven ... another fairy tale concocted by leadership to get it's way here and now ... screw the 'followers' is the name of this world's 'game'. Think [positive they say and trust it will all work out ... BS !!! WAKE UP TO THE REAL TRUTH ... you need to know it in order to change it for your own betterment ... OUR MEDIA IS A STACKED DECK it serves the purpose of the owners that deal the cards knowing what is what before we do.
As a matter of fact, that Edwards trend goes clear through the republican/dem matchups, with the exception that Obama would beat McCain by a slightly higher number than Edwards would beat him, but he beats all republican candidates, and excepting that one matchup, which he still wins handily, he does better than Obama, and much better than Clinton, against any Republican candidate, including Thompson.
I agree with most of the comments above. But.... I think Obama has a little more clout than Edwards right now. Not to say that won't change in the future.... No matter what, this will be an interesting Democratic race and no matter which Dem (besides Clinton) wins will be a huge improvement for the country.
John Edwards, John Edwards, John Edwards, is all anyone needs to know if they want real change in America and want the Democrats to have the best chance of winning the White House and pick up seats in congress. Ron W. is right, Hillary Clinton will be the Democrats best shot at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. And I hadn't thought about it, but she COULD cause a reverse of the gains the Dem's achieved in 2006. Very good point Ron.
You are correct, in that both Obama and Clinton seem to have more momentum with the Democratic voter, that is shown in any poll, but what I am looking at, and seem to see, is that when you look at the rest of the voting public, Edwards' message and personality seems to hit a chord. He has not been the beneficiary of the big dollars, but with little grassroots contributions of people on the Internet, he has managed to strike a chord with many. The democrats could do a lot worse. Trouble is, they probably will, because no one wants to look at the truth. Especially Clinton backers that start out with 46% of voters saying they would NEVER consider voting for her. That's a hell of a hole, unless you are going to get 100% turn out of the Democrats that like you, which is highly unlikely.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18963731/
Cast your vote on the debate
Who stood out from the pack? * 40935 responses
Sam Brownback
0.9%
Jim Gilmore
0.5%
Rudy Giuliani
7.6%
Mike Huckabee
3.1%
Duncan Hunter
1%
John McCain
5.2%
Ron Paul
70%
Mitt Romney
7.6%
Tom Tancredo
2.4%
Tommy Thompson
1.9%
Who showed the most leadership qualities? * 40583 responses
Sam Brownback
0.9%
Jim Gilmore
0.7%
Rudy Giuliani
8.6%
Mike Huckabee
2.4%
Duncan Hunter
1.2%
John McCain
6.9%
Ron Paul
68%
Mitt Romney
8.3%
Tom Tancredo
1.8%
Tommy Thompson
1.7%
Who was the most convincing candidate? * 40398 responses
Sam Brownback
0.9%
Jim Gilmore
0.7%
Rudy Giuliani
7.6%
Mike Huckabee
3.1%
Duncan Hunter
1.1%
John McCain
5.5%
Ron Paul
70%
Mitt Romney
7.9%
Tom Tancredo
2%
Tommy Thompson
1.7%
Who had the most rehearsed answers? * 39821 responses
Sam Brownback
2.1%
Jim Gilmore
1%
Rudy Giuliani
40%
Mike Huckabee
2.1%
Duncan Hunter
0.9%
John McCain
19%
Ron Paul
8.1%
Mitt Romney
22%
Tom Tancredo
1.3%
Tommy Thompson
2.8%
Who avoided the questions? * 39529 responses
Sam Brownback
2.7%
Jim Gilmore
1.6%
Rudy Giuliani
46%
Mike Huckabee
1.9%
Duncan Hunter
1.2%
John McCain
15%
Ron Paul
6.2%
Mitt Romney
21%
Tom Tancredo
1.7%
Tommy Thompson
2.8%
Who had the best one-liner? * 39088 responses
Sam Brownback
1.4%
Jim Gilmore
1.2%
Rudy Giuliani
13%
Mike Huckabee
6.3%
Duncan Hunter
1.7%
John McCain
7.4%
Ron Paul
52%
Mitt Romney
5.4%
Tom Tancredo
6.8%
Tommy Thompson
5.1%
Republican races.
Both Mitt Romney and Mrs. Clinton are political chameleons,
who will change their allegiances and views at the drop of
a hat just to get ahead in the polls.
This country doesn't need someone who leads using
focus groups, it needs a real leader, because it's got
real problems.
And if you keep getting money from lobbyists, Mrs. Clinton,
Mr. Romney, you're going to serve them, not the people you
are elected to serve.
If you want to find out who contributed to Hillary Clinton in 2006,
you can find it here:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.asp?Ind=K02&cycle=2006
Here's another link:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.asp?Ind=K02&cycle=2006
I'm sure there are a lot more sources of information on who gave what to whom.
It's important to know where a candidate gets his or her money.
For example, a presidential candidate is heavily backed by the pharmaceutical industry.
If they get elected, it's probably likely you're going to pay more for your
prescriptions in the future.
Dems are more alike though there is some degree of difference...Edwards would be the dream candidate for the Repubs tho Hillary sure makes alot of non Dems mad enough to vote Repub.
I agree the likely winners of the primaries will have alot of problems going crossover, none of the current front runners have much crossover appeal in either party or to indies/libertarians
There are a lot of them.
Here's the wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Democrats
"During the last few weeks, George Bush and Congress tried to sneak through a horrendous Amnesty Bill. This attack on our national sovereignty alarmed many ordinary Americans and greatly helped Ron Paul, who advocates enforcing existing immigration law and actually deporting illegal aliens. Paul has also advocated getting rid of "birth-right" citizenship so that illegal aliens could no longer produce "anchor babies," which has been a big issue for serious patriots for years. Ron Paul appears to be the only one, who gets it.
Ron Paul is the most popular candidate for interviews on talk radio and Cable news shows. Paul has a tremendous cross-over appeal to liberals and moderates who fear that they will get a pro-war Hillary as the Democrat candidate. After three debates and appearances on a variety of shows, including the Daily Show and the Bill Maher Show, Ron Paul is apparently gaining support among mainstream Americans as shown in the Utah Straw Poll.
Obviously, the Utah straw poll is not some online poll that the pundits can easily dismiss. These were real voters. The expected winner in Utah was obviously going to be the Mormon candidate Mitt Romney and he won the state by a landslide getting over 80 percent. But the most eye-opening result was the second place winner, who was Ron Paul at 5.4 percent. After languishing for the first month of the campaign at one percent in official polls, grouped in the bottom of the poll with the mostly unknown Republicans, Ron Paul has suddenly had a 500 percent surge in his support. Even more significant was the fact that Rudy Giuliani and John McCain were beaten by Ron Paul in this straw poll. All the talk about the "Big Three" candidates, Romney, Giuliani and McCain, now needs to be revised."
see entire article at:
http://www.whitecivilrights.com/ron-paul-places-second-in-utah-straw-poll_844.html
I couldn't get past the web site to read the article. Scary, scary, scary. I actually tried and just felt sick having it on my computer monitor. So let me ask you since you have read it...what are Ron Paul's views on being associated with that site? I even checked to make sure the David Duke mentioned was the one I thought and it was....you know the KKK one. Ewww, I have to go shower under scalding water for an hour or so now.
Deborah, look at the content of the article and not the site. I don't know how you couldn't get past the website...since the link goes directly to the article. What part of the article is racist or has anything to do with the KKK. Try growing up.
Excellent analysis, as usual! I agree with most of it but would be cautious about Thompson as he's not been in the picture up to now and is now in a position where he could blow it in a minute. He lacks the machine to build on his momentum and is something of a novelty to the electorate, which can be either good or bad.
I do think that Edwards, if he wins a few in the early primaries, could make an astounding comeback, which I'd like to see as I consider Edwards/Obama an outstanding ticket. However, he's got a long way's to go and only time will tell.
Hillary, on the other hand has the machine and the money and the connections to keep right on rolling in spite of her negatives. She is, of course, working on some of the negatives such as being too harsh, but has been truthful on her refusal to accept lobbyists money. People will want to weight whether they give preference to honesty or just what quality they want in a president.
Generally speaking and all things considered, most people vote for the one they like! Makes little difference what his or her actual stands are. I've not seen anything about Romney to believe he can capitalize on that factor, however Thompson may well do so. And this is where Hillary must work although it is said that she will bring a lot of women voters to the polls who would not otherwise vote and that, if true, could warp things in her favor.
I don't believe that Obama is a real candidate for the top spot unless Hillary stumbles fairly seriously. I think he could be a vice presidential candidate on any Democratic ticket. I don't think Hillary will take a Vice presidential spot. although Edwards would probably.
Thompson's best assert is his experience before cameras and the fact that the other two top GOP candidates have serious negatives.
These are just my opinion in an admittedly early stage of the game. We could all be wrong and wind up with Obama vs McCain in the final election. Has anyone run that possibility?
Miss Pure and Offended here. Actually that would be Mrs. Pure and Offended. Also known as Reverend Pure and Offended. Of course I never claimed to be pure, I never said you offended me but that site certainly does. Wow racisism offends me, what a horrible immature thing for me to be offended by. Oh wait, no that is actually something that should offend a mature and thoughtful person. And it was pretty obvious without snooping around. It was pretty obvious to anyone who doesn't suffer from tunnel vision. Of course I should also point out that I am grown up. But let me explain it to you as if you were not, I do not give any credit to an article that is from an uncredible source. In this case that web site was the source. I think it is perfectly legitimate and even insightful to wonder what Ron Paul's views are on this matter. I never implied that he (Ron Paul) is a racist. I just was wondering what his views are on this issue.
Of course I know who David Duke is. I have, afterall, been following politics here for, well let's say, three decades and then some. I still remember quiet clearly when he ran for President as a Republican and as a Democrat (different years) and when it came out that he was Grand Wizard of the KKK. Sometimes groups like that will show support because they believe that candidate is like minded. Sometime that belief is based on comments or action, so yeah I wonder, but I dont assume that he is in anyway in agreement with them. I think it would be incredibly unintelligent and small minded of me not to notice such a thing. You seem to be in support of him so I was asking if you knew what his views were on this matter.
That was a good link on contributors, thanks! It looks like both parties are pretty well represented everywhere. Which confirms the fact that those donating are really buying something and donate to both candidates so they are sure to win that access and control they seek!
On this David Duke...I have lived outside of the country during certain periods of my life...I don't recall him running for office. It might have been during one of these periods I'll have to look it up.
You are describing "push polls" and as far as I know they are perfectly legal. I don't know as there are any laws concerning reporting of results but regardless of that the exit polls conducted by the media will still be published as they are privately paid for and are generally, not always, accurate.
Canada, by the way, does not enter into our election process. Polls that are done are paid for by someone and whoever pays for them can dictate who they wish the polls to include. Any way you cut the cake they are going to tell who won the election, or at least who they think won, as quickly as they know it hoping to be the first network with the information.
James, Thanks for the info.