Posted on 12/14/2006 9:13:07 AM PST by Courdeleon02
Thursday, Dec. 14, 2006 11:15 a.m. EST McCain Beats Hillary in New Poll
Sen. John McCain would easily defeat Sen. Hillary Clinton in a head-to-head race for the White House in 2008, a new poll reveals. In the Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg survey, half of those polled said they would vote for Arizona Republican McCain, while only 36 percent said they would choose New York Democrat Clinton. The rest said they weren’t sure, or would vote for someone else. The poll also found that Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney would give Clinton a tough fight – 42 percent of respondents picked Clinton over Romney and 36 percent picked the Republican. The poll results "lend credence to some Democrats’ fear that despite Mrs. Clinton’s clear strength within the party, she would prove too polarizing a figure to win the White House,” the Times reported. The poll also demonstrates that McCain "would be a strong general election candidate because of his appeal to independent voters,” the Times also noted. Half of the independents surveyed said they would vote for McCain, compared to 32 percent for Clinton. Also, 49 percent of respondents said they would prefer to see a Democrat win the White House in 2008, and 41 preferred a Republican. That means some respondents who prefer a Democrat said they would vote for McCain rather than Clinton in the general election.
Really?
Ask yourself: How many times has he caved and followed the liberal drumbeat?
If the answer is quite often, then the criticism is more than legit.
And guess what, it is quite often.He stabs the entire OP in the back, then whines like a beaten rented donkey when people call him on it.
He's a RINO, and a LIB parading as a Repub.
Yes, he is one of the few who would commit more troops in order wo win. This was a courageous stance and he went against the MSM on this issue when all of them were praising the Baker commission.
If he stabs us in the back on other issues, what makes anyone think he'd commit more troops?
If he's willing to cave to liberal ideas on everything else, he's willing to cave on that.
He cannot be trusted.
Over a year ago, as Dubya became a consistent 40% approval president and as confidence in Congress diminished, there were many obnoxious, smirky Freepers whose analysis never got beyond 'looks like no third term for Bush!'
Then election 2005 came along and the electorate slapped the GOP upside the head. Never fear - the FR analysis quickly turned to losing is winning, winning is losing, and that there was nothing wrong.
The next year was a mixture of poll denial (and yes, it was denial - any one poll is suspect, any 10 polls that tell the same story have a truth in there somewhere) and neurotic insistence that none of this mattered. Well, it did matter. Election 2006 came along and the GOP was kicked squarely in the balls and the electorate told Dubya where he can stick it.
Early polls may not be particularly probative, but that's not to say they are meaningless, either. Frankly, political analysis on FR fell off a cliff in 2005 and is increasingly becoming divorced from reality. For example, mant Freepers were hot for Senator Allen until he blew it, demonstrating the disconnect between FR consensus and reality.
The dems will nominate a star in 2008. You can't beat a somebody with a nobody. That's not meaningless.
Don't tease us with a headline like that.
"McCain Beats Hillary" had me salivating until I read this was about a damn poll.
If thats what you think of McCain what are your feelings on Guiliani. If McCain is a liberal are you going to tell me that Guiliani is conservative? Check out Rudy's social agenda. Its not very conservative. Alongside McCain, it is Guiliani who looks like a liberal.
This must be in the defeatocrat primary. I can think of no reason why any Republican could ever vote for McCrazy.
FReepers became overconfident. That's what happened. We have to work harder and find ways to counter MSM lies to the American people.
I'll pay attention to the general election polls after the primaries.
Based on what? Most of the evidence coming in suggested the electorate lost confidence in Dubya and the GOP. If they were overconfident, it was based on nothing - which isn't particularly comforting.
Overconfidence by way of denial - and we're listening to these guys for political analysis?
That's true, but after the primaries it could be too late.
Guiliani?
I live in NY, and Guliani would have made a better Governor.
Keep in mind NY is the land of Sheldon Silver and Bruno.
One doesn't CAVE to the opposing side and expect to survive politically here.
Just look at how Silver made Jake Gunther pay for his attempt to break Silver's stranglehold on the Dem party in the NY assembly.
Jake eventually ended up having a heart attack.
His widow Aileen runs unopposed for his seat, and is listed as a conservative.
Compared to most in NY, she is.
"But compared to Lucifer, Cthulu is a saint" describes NY politics best.
With Guiliani, you are talking about a NY politician.
Politicians in NY ARE NOT something people from, say, Tennesee or even Ohio would vote for.
Can you say Apples and Oranges?
Mccain has a 83% ACU rating, while he has been disloyal to the party he is not a liberal by any stretch of imagination. Rudy is actual a liberal even though he is very loyal to the party, Mccain is more conservative as per his voting record.
See post 53 for my thoughts on Guiliani.
NY politicians should stay in the twilight zone of NY and leave the rest of the country in peace.
As for McPAIN, what makes anyone think he won't sell out yet again, and again, and again, and again, and again?
" he is not a liberal by any stretch of imagination."
McCain Feingold, 527's.
Repeat.
Great news. I'm in the "anybody but Hillary" camp.
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.