New National Polls

Two new national polls out today. Oh, my kingdom for some Iowa and New Hampshire polls. First, ABC News / Washington Post:

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Feb. 22-25, 2007. N=1,082 adults nationwide. Fieldwork by TNS. Results below are among leaned Democrats.
Clinton: 43%
Obama: 27%
Edwards: 14%
Richardson: 3%
All others: 4%
Unsure / none: 9%

There are also numbers with Gore included, which I don't care to post because I have long made it clear that I don't think unannounced candidates should be included in these polls. I think they pushed undecided a little too hard in this poll, but whatever. An argument could be made that you should either push undecideds very hard or not push them at all. I think the most interesting part of the poll by far was the following:
Clinton's and Obama's support among white voters changed little since December, but the changes among black Democrats were dramatic. In December and January Post-ABC News polls, Clinton led Obama among African Americans by 60 percent to 20 percent. In the new poll, Obama held a narrow advantage among blacks, 44 percent to 33 percent. The shift came despite four in five blacks having a favorable impression of the New York senator.
Wow--the subsample of African-Americans probably was not very large, maybe around 120 people, but even a group with that large of a margin of error can't account for such an enormous shift. For quite some time, basically as long as I have followed Democratic primaries, I have wondered if an alliance between African-Americans and white progressives could result in a progressive African-American winning the Democratic nomination (back in early October of 2003 at a Dean Meetup, I actually wrote a letter to Jesse Jackson asking him to endorse Howard Dean in an attempt to forge just such an alliance). Obama was able to use that alliance to win the Democratic primary for Senate back in 2004, but it remains to be seen if he can put together such an alliance--or even if such an alliance would work--in a national campaign. If he continues to rise among African-Americans while maintaining his young, progressive, netroots base, it may only be a matter of three or four months before he catches Clinton in national polls. It will certainly be interesting to see if this crosstab is replicated in any other national trial heats.

This is a little bit more perplexing:
The Post-ABC News poll found that 52 percent of Democrats said her vote was the right thing to do at the time, while 47 percent said it was a mistake. Of those who called it a mistake, however, just 31 percent said she should apologize. Among Democrats who called the war the most important issue in deciding their 2008 candidate preference, Clinton led Obama 40 to 26 percent.
Man, the Democratic base has the idea of compromise so thoroughly beaten into it, it is really kind of sad. Even though nine in ten Democrats oppose the war, fully half say that supporting it was a good idea back in 2002? We really don't expect much from our leaders, and have developed a perverse belief that compromise will lead to a victory for our principles. That is quite the loser attitude for a large portion of our base to hold. If there is one attitude adjustment I would like to see the netroots have make among the Democratic base, expecting more would be it.

On the Republican side, Giuliani crushes McCain, 44-21. Without Gingrich, he leads by a whopping 53-23. There isn't a single national poll where Giuliani doesn't hold a strong lead right now, and all of the trend lines favor him. And just in case anyone had any lingering doubts as to whether or not conservative, white evangelicals are actually issue voters:
The principal reason was a shift among white evangelical Protestants, who now clearly favor Giuliani over McCain. Giuliani gained among this group of Americans despite his support of abortion rights and gay rights, two issues of great importance to religious conservatives. McCain opposes abortion rights.
They love the guy who disagrees with them. I have to second what Matt wrote on this one:
Like a lot of us, he thinks that Republicans base their political judgment on issues, ie. gay rights, abortion, national defense, taxes, etc. He makes the same mistake that a lot of Democrats make, assuming that conservatives think the way that we do. They don't. They are authoritarians. Gay marriage, abortion, taxes, national security, none of it really matters to them. What they are looking for is an authoritarian to look like he's taking charge, and the way an authoritarian takes charge is to attack liberals and stomp on people who aren't like them. Giuliani did this in New York, so he's a rock star in Alabama.
That sounds about right to me. Of course, considering Clinton's lead among war opponents, many Democrats might not be all that different.

There is also a new Diageo / Hotline poll out today (PDF), that has a lot of interesting (and odd) information, but I have run out of room to summarize it here. Check it out, and supply your own commentary.

Tags: Democrats, Ideology, polls, President 2008, Republicans (all tags)



Re: New National Polls

Unless it is an outlier McCain's campaign is really starting to take on water fast.

by robliberal 2007-02-27 03:16PM | 0 recs
Re: New National Polls
Doesn't look like an outlier, considering the other national polls out right now. the best poll for McCain right now shows him down by seven--the average is well into the double digits.

As soon as Romney passes McCain in Iowa, I think it is time to pop open some champagne, and celebrate the defeat of his presidential campaign. Then, it is on to stopping Giuliani.
by Chris Bowers 2007-02-27 03:19PM | 0 recs
Re: New National Polls

Giuliani appears hard to stop for the GOP nomination.  Gingrich did well here, much better than Romney.   Is Romney about to go down the drain?  Poll numbers like these must be very disheartening for him.  

by georgep 2007-02-27 03:27PM | 0 recs
Re: New National Polls

Giuliani would have major problems with the GOP base in the general election.

But there's risk as Giuliani's positions become better known. Nearly half of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say they're less likely to vote for him given his past support for legal abortion and gay civil unions. Of that group, half -- 23 percent of all leaned Republicans -- say there's no chance they could vote for Giuliani on account of those views.

Indeed, even among Giuliani's current supporters, more than a third, 36 percent, say they're less likely to support him because of his position on these issues. (Among Republicans who support other candidates, that rises to 54 percent.)

by robliberal 2007-02-27 03:37PM | 0 recs
Re: New National Polls

The republican nomination is fascinating but so difficult to predict what might happen. I mean none of the top 3 look like your obvious nominee yet none of the 2nd tier have any momentum or capacity to raise funds. Somebody has to win. Expect Rudi to come under sustained attack for the rest of the year. He must be the most vulnerable frontrunner I've ever seen.

In contrast the democratic race is tedious. Nothing has happened since Obama entered the race.

by kundalini 2007-02-27 03:42PM | 0 recs
Romney is not gaining traction here

I have not seen anything to indicate that he is gaining. I don't think a flip-flopping Mormon from Massachusetts has much of a chance with these people.

Failed GOP gubernatorial candidate Jim Nussle is supposedly on board with Giuliani. I still find it hard to believe that the GOP caucus and primary voters will look past his stand on abortion, though. Also, I don't think his opponents will just hand him the nomination without spreading around the stories about marrying his cousin, cheating on various wives, being a jerk to his kids, etc.

I still believe a second-tier social conservative will break out this year and will snag the GOP nomination. The candidate will have an unimpeachable anti-choice record and will say we need to bring troops home from Iraq, because we've done all we can for "those people" (without criticizing Bush for sending them there).

by desmoinesdem 2007-02-27 03:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Romney is not gaining traction here

With McCain going down and Romney so weak Huckabee could move up to first tier if he could get the money and media.

by robliberal 2007-02-27 03:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Romney is not gaining traction here

I don't see that happening.  Giuliani and McCain have built strong operations.  Giuliani is now actually starting to gain traction with the right-wing blogosphere and punditry because of his strong law enforcement background (in NY) and "hero" image during 9/11.   They are right now on the verge of hopping on his waggon, helped along by his promise that he would promote conservative judges.

by georgep 2007-02-27 03:52PM | 0 recs
right-wing blogosphere in IA not with him

This is not a scientific poll, but it is a snapshot of the right-wing activist sentiment in Iowa.

Ted Sporer, the chairman of the GOP in the largest county in Iowa, has a blog called The Real Sporer. It's real boring inside baseball stuff most of the time, so you can bet that it's mostly party activist types who are reading.

I just checked the online poll he has going on the right side of his front page. (didn't vote, just viewed results)

Who would you support for the Republican 2008 Presidential nomination if the Iowa Caucuses were held today?

Selection         Votes
Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas     9%    43
Mr. John Cox of Illinois     15%    72
Gov. Jim Gilmore of Virginia     12%    57
Hon. Newt Gingrich of Georgia     24%    117
Hon. Rudy Giuliani of New York     4%    20
Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas     6%    31
Hon. Duncan Hunter of California     6%    30
Sen. John McCain of Arizona     4%    18
Gov. George Pataki of New York     1%    6
Sec. Condoleezza Rice of California     2%    11
Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts     8%    37
Hon. Tom Tancredo of Colorado     5%    24
Gov. Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin     4%    17

483 votes total
Poll powered by Pollhost. Poll results are subject to error. Pollhost does not pre-screen the content of polls created by Pollhost customers.

Sure, it's not a large sample, and there was probably some poll-stuffing on behalf of Mr. John Cox of Illinois, whom I'd never heard of (he's an anti-abortion guy).

But look at all the candidates who are doing better in that poll than either McCain or Giuliani! Newt Gingrich, who's not even in the race, is getting six times as many votes.

The people reading this blog are part of the GOP's activist core. They seem not to be happy with their front-runners.

There is an opening for a social conservative to break through and take the GOP nomination.

by desmoinesdem 2007-02-27 07:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Romney is not gaining traction here

I tend to agree with you about Giuliani.  And don't forget his 1994 endorsement of Mario Cuomo which I outline below.  

Also, wait until Giuliani has one of his famous meltdowns with someone who doesn't agree with him, especially if it is on abortion or another social issue. NYers are loud and somewhat obnoxious and tend to shrug that stuff off but I am not sure that will sell so well in other parts of the country where people are more polite.

by John Mills 2007-02-27 04:02PM | 0 recs
Gore makes the race interesting

not withstanding Chris' displeasure with someone polling with Gore included.

When the two poll results from WaPo's poll, one with and one without, are placed side by side, we get some interesting insights:

Clinton: 43%
Obama: 27%
Edwards: 14%
Richardson: 3%

Clinton: 36%
Obama: 24%
Gore: 14%
Edwards: 12%
Richardson: 3%

It seems that Clinton will run away with the nomination, unless Gore enters the race. Should Gore decide to run, I expect that he will rise to the #2 spot within days and catch up with Clinton in 2-3 months of hard campaigning.

Which maybe why the Clintons are apparently watching Gore closely: Clinton campaign sizes up Gore

In any event, it is good to see that Washignton post asked the poll question both with and without Al Gore. I'd like to recommend (and request) professional polling outfits to follow this approach primarily because the race is still in its early stages and, further, arguably Gore is in a unique position to enter the race several months down the stretch and still be a serious contender for the nomination.

(I am posting this comment up here to bring the thought above to pollsters' attention. Thanks, robliberal!).

by NuevoLiberal 2007-02-28 07:43AM | 0 recs
Re: New National Polls

That is really interesting.

Of those who called it a mistake, however, just 31 percent said she should apologize. Among Democrats who called the war the most important issue in deciding their 2008 candidate preference, Clinton led Obama 40 to 26 percent.

by robliberal 2007-02-27 03:18PM | 0 recs
Re: New National Polls

That translates into only about 14% of all Democrats wanting Clinton to apologize.   As they say, that may come into play in a close primary, but appears to be a lot less of a factor than the media coverage would suggest.  And, over time it will most likely become less of a factor.  

by georgep 2007-02-27 03:50PM | 0 recs
Re: New National Polls

I wonder what the number is for 'wants Clinton to acknowledge she made a mistake?' As opposed to 'wants an apology,' that is. They seem like pretty distinct desires to me, but I keep seeing them treated interchangeably.

by BingoL 2007-02-27 03:54PM | 0 recs
we don't need more apologies

In contrast to admitting a mistake, the Democrats apologize too much as it is.'

by John DE 2007-02-27 04:05PM | 0 recs
Re: New National Polls

Good point.  We will probably see that addressed in a future poll.

by georgep 2007-02-27 04:13PM | 0 recs
Re: New National Polls

Is anybody graphing/tracking the outcomes of these kinds of polls with time?

by Silent sound 2007-02-27 03:27PM | 0 recs
Re: New National Polls is, even if they do not seem to update very frequently.
by Chris Bowers 2007-02-27 03:30PM | 0 recs
Re: New National Polls

I like, but a better tallying and archiving into group-types of the polls can be found here, IMO:

Click on "See all poll data" to get a most comprehensive poll list for each category.

by georgep 2007-02-27 03:42PM | 0 recs
Re: New National Polls

The average for Edwards is down to 11.6% from recent polls. Clinton is polling nearly 4 times as much and Obama nearly twice as much. That is a lot of ground to make up.

by robliberal 2007-02-27 04:00PM | 0 recs
Re: New National Polls

Where's Jim Webb when we need him?  That guy would blow everyone out the water.  

by Nick Stump 2007-02-27 03:35PM | 0 recs
no, we need him in the Senate more

I want him to stay there for a while.

by desmoinesdem 2007-02-27 03:38PM | 0 recs
Re: New National Polls ling_for_the_Democratic_Party_%28United_ States%29_presidential_primaries%2C_2008

by yitbos96bb 2007-02-27 03:49PM | 0 recs
Re: New National Polls ling_for_the_Democratic_Party_%28United_ States%29_presidential_primaries%2C_2008

by yitbos96bb 2007-02-27 03:50PM | 0 recs
Re: New National Polls

Good God, I suck tonight...

by yitbos96bb 2007-02-27 03:51PM | 0 recs

One of the most interesting things about the Hotline poll is that 6% identified Obama as a Muslim.  That compares to 22% who identified him as one of the Christian denominations (with 1% as no religious affiliation).

by Ramo 2007-02-27 03:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Hussein

yeah people are fucking morons...

by yitbos96bb 2007-02-27 07:04PM | 0 recs
Re: New National Polls

McCain has made some fatal errors and it looks like it will eventually be Guillianni vs Obama.  I am, of course, counting on the fact that Hillary will not get the nomination.  If she did I would have to skip voting all together.  I do see obama catching up to her and overtaking her by spring, maybe early summer.

by vwcat 2007-02-27 03:57PM | 0 recs
Re: New National Polls

One wonders what the situation would be right now if Guillianni hadn't gotten cancer in 2000.  Him v HRC is a fight many have been wanting to see.  I do think he probably has the most skeletons in the closet... it will be great when someone gets the Ex wife who wouldn't leave Gracie on TV.  Almost Jerry Springer like.

by yitbos96bb 2007-02-27 07:07PM | 0 recs
Re: New National Polls

Jerry Springer like is why I think he would be a very weak candidate even in some of the reddest states.

by robliberal 2007-02-27 07:53PM | 0 recs

The base may be able to forgive his stands on gay rights and abortion rights but will they be able to forgive his endorsement of Mario Cuomo in 1994?  After all, he was practically the anti-Christ to many on the right.  I am not convinced Giuliani is going to cruise once that becomes public knowledge.

This is shaping up to be one of the most interesting Presidential races in a long, long time.

by John Mills 2007-02-27 03:57PM | 0 recs

I was having a discussion with a friend today and we were trying to figure out what the Evangelical community's problem is with a Mormon.  After all, they see eye to eye on many of the social issues important to Evangelicals.  Is it Big Love?  Does anyone have insight on this?

by John Mills 2007-02-27 04:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Romney

I found this philosophical comparison between Mormonism and evangelical Christianity, if it helps:

by georgep 2007-02-27 04:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Romney

Thanks.  This is very helpful.

by John Mills 2007-02-27 04:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Romney

Christian evangelicals basically see the Mormon Church as a cult, as a parody of Christianity. I think its hard to understate the distrust that most evangelical Christians would have towards a Mormon president. Evangelical Christianity is based around strict interpretation of the Bible as the living word of God.

Since LDS (the real name, Church of the Latter Day Saints) bases its beliefs on the Bible and the Book of Mormon, which they believe was given to Joseph Smith by the angel Gabriel, there's really not a way to mesh the two. They may have similar beliefs on many issues but the rift will be too large for most to cross. For evangelical Christians, his candidacy is a complete non-starter. And a Kennedy type speech just won't work.

by okamichan13 2007-02-27 06:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Romney

The biggest issue I know of is the Book of Mormom.  If one subscribes to a literal biblical interpretation, then the Book of Mormom is an abomination and a violation of God's laws.

by yitbos96bb 2007-02-27 07:08PM | 0 recs
Re: New National Polls

Chris, I think you are misreading this section:

[i]The Post-ABC News poll found that 52 percent of Democrats said her vote was the right thing to do at the time, while 47 percent said it was a mistake. Of those who called it a mistake, however, just 31 percent said she should apologize. Among Democrats who called the war the most important issue in deciding their 2008 candidate preference, Clinton led Obama 40 to 26 percent.[/i]

You commented:  

Man, the Democratic base has the idea of compromise so thoroughly beaten into it, it is really kind of sad. Even though nine in ten Democrats oppose the war, fully half say that supporting it was a good idea back in 2002?

I read the result differently.  A lot of Democrats believed in 2002 that they did not vote FOR war, but actually AGAINST it.  Remember, the AUMF replaced one that was basically a complete rubberstamp of "anything" Bush wanted.  The replacement stipulated that the UN would be given leeway to put weapon inspectors back into Iraq (which, presumably, would then find out whether WMDs were even there, settling the matter.)  There were also solid assurances by Bush and Powell that diplomatic means would be exhausted first, and that war was only going to be used as "a last resort."  Sure, they were duped, but at the time many felt they were voting for more diplomacy and a larger involvement of the UN.   The GOP had the votes to push the AUMF (even the tougher one) through with or without Democrats as it was.

With that in mind, the subset of Democrats you refer to did not necessarily state that "supporting war" was a good idea back in 2002, but that the vote was made against the backdrop of what I mentioned above, can therefore not be considered a "mistake" per se.  Misjudgement of the sincerity of Bush, Powell and other members of the administration, perhaps.  But not a vote "for" war in the sense that it stipulated ways to avoid war altogether, none which were heeded, as we know in hindsight.  

by georgep 2007-02-27 04:07PM | 0 recs
Good idea at the Time

Man, the Democratic base has the idea of compromise so thoroughly beaten into it, it is really kind of sad. Even though nine in ten Democrats oppose the war, fully half say that supporting it was a good idea back in 2002?

I believe that approval for the war at the very beginning was about 70% in the general public, which means about 50% of Democrats supported the war. I thought the figure would be lower (around 40%), but not that much lower.

by niq 2007-02-27 04:35PM | 0 recs
Re: New National Polls

In 2002, most Americans supported George Bush and his War on Terror; many believed there was a 9/11-Iraq connection.  The WMD argument was bought hook, line and sinker.  We had gone to war with Iraq previously and won, so the general assumption was this was the same.  The war went bad, people are mad and they now know they were misled.  Now if you were one of those Democrats who initially supported the war, but who now thinks its all fucked up, you are going to accept Hillary's position that if she knew then, what she knows now, she would have voted differently, because that's where you are.  Trying to tell these people that she should have known better and her explanation is BS doesn't go over well, because they didn't know better then either.  Just to make clear, I was one of those Dems who thought the war was BS from the beginning, but her vote is a forgivable offense for me.

The African American shift is interesting.  I wonder if she will keep at least half that vote or continue to lose out to Barack once Bill starts his serenade of the Black community.

by Kingstongirl 2007-02-27 04:36PM | 0 recs
Re: New National Polls

I think Democratic Senators who voted for the 2002 Iraq resolution should be forgiven but not forgotten.  True, trying to force Iraq to admit and comply with UN inspectors was a worthy goal, and the President was at fault for not letting them finish the job (of finding nothing).  That said, Senators should have been in a position to know that Bush was not just trying to disarm Iraq but intended on full-scale regime change.  In my mind, the natural consequence of voting for the resolution was voting for the war, and all its messy implications.  I certainly will not forget those who voted no.  

As for the Obama numbers, could his increase in support simply be a reflection of growing name recognition?  I was skeptical of the early stories saying that Hillary was prefered by the Black community, just because I thought many people (even in the Black community) didn't know much about Obama yet.

by Mr DC 2007-02-27 05:11PM | 0 recs
Re: New National Polls

I think Democratic Senators who voted for the 2002 Iraq resolution should be forgiven but not forgotten.

The Democratic senators who voted for the Iraq War in October 2002--especially the ones who knew they were going to run for president in a few years--did so because they wanted David Broder and Howard Fineman to say they were "strong on national security".  That's it.  It was a vote cast purely out of cynical opportunism.  

by Will Graham 2007-02-28 02:33AM | 0 recs
In Re: Giuliani

My assumption is that all articles bring the social issues because they know that Giuliani will be subject to a vicious attack.

Mel Martinez won his Senate primary by attacking his main rival for being "the darling of the homosexual lobby" for voting for hate crimes legislation. It's total death in the Republican primary, more than anything on the Democratic side except saying you want to fiddle with Social Security (which no one ever says). It will take one TV ad and one direct mail piece, and it will be over.

by niq 2007-02-27 04:38PM | 0 recs
African-Americans keep their cards close to the

vest. That's my take as a white-guy. I saw it first in the Harold Washington election when it took a long time for the polling numbers to shift to Harold. I believe that it's partly that they don't want to seem to be supporting someone simply because they are black. They know how to vote principles are quite good at knowing which side of their bread the butter is on. While Clinton did a lot of harm to their community, he also did much more good than likely any of the other possible winners. They do not want to waste their votes.

What I'm saying is that the true support of Obama from the African-American community when it's time to vote will be much greater than those numbers indicate now. High 80,s easily and even the 90's possibly.

by Jeff Wegerson 2007-02-27 04:48PM | 0 recs
Re: African-Americans keep their cards close to th

Ummmmm no way.

by robliberal 2007-02-27 05:48PM | 0 recs
What no way?

The vest part or the fact that when blacks run their percentage of vote raises to meet the total potential with time?

by Jeff Wegerson 2007-02-27 06:42PM | 0 recs
Re: What no way?

It is a unique situation since Bill Clinton is the most popular politician among African Americans since FDR and JFK. They will split the black vote but no way will Obama get 80 to 90%.

by robliberal 2007-02-27 06:49PM | 0 recs
Re: What no way?

Unfortunately, I agree with you on this...  Hope you are wrong though :-)

by yitbos96bb 2007-02-27 07:11PM | 0 recs
Re: What no way?

We'll see eh? Maybe I'm optimistic. But again I saw a similar dynamic in the 1983 Chicago mayoral election. Machine vs popular woman vs black. Granted the woman wasn't married to a man popular with blacks, but she was the incumbent.  SO yes there is a way and it's not "not way."

by Jeff Wegerson 2007-02-28 07:07AM | 0 recs
Re: New National Polls

Here's an interesting scenario:

We continue to pound McCain until he's starting to worry about being the Republican Kucinich; he then starts the heavy negative campaigning in a last ditch effort to save his ass. Giuliani, of course, is quite susceptible, and Romney is a joke even now. Then all three of the Republican frontrunners are jokes by, say, July. We're then treated to a second wave of conservative fire breathers, escaping to the public view after the wall of "moderates" has come tumbling down. Gingrich, Brownback, and Tancredo as the new front-runners? Then we get to see them tear each other apart in their lust to rise to the top in the shortened time span. It'll make the 2008 election a bloodbath. The spoils of the accelerating, continuous news cycle.

Of course, I'd love to see Giuliani as our opponent. He's a paper tiger, for one, and definitely beatable (though less so than McCain or Romney). The great part comes, however, with the down ticket races. Most Republicans will still vote, but I can see maybe 5% in excess (of the other candidates) staying home (who already will depress turnout somewhat). That's more than enough to gain significantly more in the Senate and the House both, along with picking up state positions too.

Democrats, by contrast, have fine candidates all around who agree with our values and are great choices for the nomination. 2008 is a year to look forward to.

by Zephyrus 2007-02-27 05:19PM | 0 recs
Re: New National Polls

the latest Iowa polling I've seen is from Feb 16-18th:

John Edwards 24%
Hillary Clinton 18%
Barack Obama 18%
Tom Vilsack 14%
Joe Biden 5%
Bill Richardson 3%
Wesley Clark 2%
Chris Dodd 1%
Dennis Kucinich 1%
Undecided 14% a_poll_022207.htm

Anyone have anything more recent?

by okamichan13 2007-02-27 05:55PM | 0 recs
Re: New National Polls

Not according to the Wiki Repository.  This is what I failed to post right earlier... I recommend bookmarking however.

Wikipedia Polling Repository

by yitbos96bb 2007-02-27 07:17PM | 0 recs
Re: New National Polls

and I think you guys are underestimating Giuliani. He has weaknesses of course, but he would be an incredibly formidable candidate that could potentially make a lot of must win states competitive and make others impossible.

by okamichan13 2007-02-27 05:58PM | 0 recs
Re: New National Polls

Perhaps I am missing a lot but I just do not see anything about Giuliani that would be appealing to Republicans or Democrats.

by robliberal 2007-02-27 06:40PM | 0 recs
Re: New National Polls

With the right spin, I could easily see how he could be appealing to many middle of the road democrats. And spin it he will. Strong on terror, tough on crime, liberal on social issues - that's where most of America is at.

He is also in some ways a larger than life figure because of 9-11. Its an incredibly strong connection that many have of him and able to make people miss a lot. Giuliani is beating the pants off of McCain and there is a reason for that.

by okamichan13 2007-02-28 12:11PM | 0 recs
I don't understand...

   How does supporting Clinton reveal authoritarian, domination-loving tendencies among Democratic primary voters?  I just didn't understand your comparison.

by cilerder86 2007-02-27 06:00PM | 0 recs
Religious and Guiliani

Why would they want to vote for  a thrice divorced guy who is pro choice and for gay marriage?

by jasmine 2007-02-27 06:11PM | 0 recs
hey, the first was an annulment

the marriage to his second cousin, that is.

This guy's private life is the biggest train wreck I've ever seen in a presidential candidate.

by desmoinesdem 2007-02-27 07:53PM | 0 recs
Re: New National Polls
From Update: A new CNN poll finds Clinton leading Obama by 15-20 points among black voters.
by bsavage 2007-02-27 06:22PM | 0 recs
Re: New National Polls

Whoever supports the concept of enforcing our current immigration laws, allowing only 800,000 LEGAL applicants into the States on a yearly basis, moves in a new direction supporting a NO AMNESTY AGENDA, and getting the troops out of Iraq as soon as possible, that candidate will pick up the support of Moderate Democrats nationwide, and will WIN BIG!

by DfD 2007-02-27 07:19PM | 0 recs
McCain attack ad agasint Giuliani

"More Liberal than Harry Reid!"

Just sayin'

by David in Burbank 2007-02-27 08:41PM | 0 recs
Re: New National Polls

Giuliani has an 84% favorable rating among Republicans. The other key thing in the Republican poll is that both McCain and Giuliani's support is really soft. 6 in 10 voters are "somewhat" supporting their candidate. Contrast that with Hillary and Obama, where six in ten voters are sure about their candidate.  

by Dave Sund 2007-02-28 06:10AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads