Posted on 01/10/2007 5:54:55 AM PST by areafiftyone
A new IBD/TIPP poll gives Republican front-runners Sen. John McCain and Rudy Giuliani an edge over top Democratic contenders and shows that John Edwards might be their toughest opponent.
In a potential presidential matchup, McCain led the former one-term senator from North Carolina and 2004 vice presidential nominee by 44% to 43% but had a more comfortable margin over the two Democratic heavyweights expected to run. New York Sen. Hillary Clinton trailed McCain 48% to 41% while Illinois Sen. Barack Obama was down 48% to 36%.
In a matchup against Giuliani, the former New York mayor, Clinton and Edwards both trailed by 5%, (48%-43% and 47%-42%, respectively) while Obama lagged by 13% (49%-36%). But as in the matchup against McCain, Edwards showed a bit better ability than the former first lady to pull in Republicans and independents.
|
While Clinton and Obama have been cast as the Goliaths of the Democratic field, "when you look at the numbers, they're not the strongest in the general election," said Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion.
The poll of 951 adults for IBD by TIPP, a unit of TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence, was conducted Jan. 2-4.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
Half of America, at least have no idea who Romney is yet. That's OK, it's only January of 2007.
"Hey Helen, that's why Ford never won anything but a gerrymandered House seat, but she already knew that."
She likes Ford so much because he gave us our most liberal SC member Stevens.
You're all "moderatophobes" and I'm filing a federal hate crime suit tomorrow.
:)
| FRED THOMPSON The RIGHT man for the job! |
were managing a rival Democrat's campaign, I would try and force Hillary to speak as much as possible, in particular, I'd try to make her give speeches. She's possibly the worst public speaker in American politics today; her condescending manner, flat tone, and lack of any genuine warmth will switch off people in droves...even Democrats.
Ivan
You can say that again
Check out this quaote in todays Ny Daily....
David Dinkins: "Rudy as President is kind of frightening. My question will be, will I move to Bermuda?"
LOL the libs are thinking about packing up already!
Geez, it's all liberals. When are we going to get a conservative in these polls?
" I am not convinced that once given the power of the Presidency he would have surrendered."
I grant you that no one knows what RFK would have done, however you do assume a lot about your man. At the very least you are suggesting that RFK (like the typical liberal - "means justifies the ends" philosophy )will say one thing to the 'McCarthy Kids' he was trying to lure only to leave them in the lurch once in power.
I might also add RFK lacked the fortitude to challenge Johnson until after McCarthy showed how vulnerable LBJ was.
I will give you the fact that Robert Kennedy did strike me as the better family man of the Kennedys - even if he did or did not bonk Marilyn - lol.
Exactly.
Too bad my home state is home to so many brain-addled sheeples. It's really a great place were it not for the ultraliberal politics.
EXCEEEELENT!
There are two Americas. One that will see through the class warfare demagogic populism that Edwards represents, and the other that will vote for the Republican.
Personally, I will support the GOP candidate against any Dem. Times are too dangerous to allow setbacks and weakness.
I am still supporting Rudy. For these times, I think he would be best. And I think he could win.
Me too!
I think Richardson has worse problems. Very tied to Slick and the Monica Lewinsky affair. Hillary has all the dirt that's needed, plus more, to bury him.
>>"Poverty" in this country is now defined as not being able to have digital cable television (42-inch plasma) AND buy spinning-rims for your car.<<
Yup. Drive through any lower-income (read: 2nd America) neighborhood and you'll see more Direct TV dishes than teeth in people's mouths.
I'm not saying it's easy to be poor, and people needn't deny themselves everything...but c'mon. If'n you can't afford to get your car off the cinder blocks, you shouldn't be paying big money to get 478 channels.
Howdy!
"I agree. He was on the right general track, but not very efficient at picking specific targets. For example, regarding Communists in the State Department. Someone once said (I forget who) that if you listed all the State Department employees of the 50's on a wall chart, and blind-folded yourself and threw darts at the chart, you'd hit more commies that Joe did."
You are incorrect. It is in fact very hard to find anyone McCarthy fingered that -wasn't- a communist. McCarthy could have been 10x more sober and 100x less "hysterical" and he would've gotten the exact same treatment, because he was the victim of a Stalinist propaganda campaign that needed no actual malfeasance on the victim's part to work.
Read Treason by Ann Coulter. Learn about the Venona Project, and how it confirmed the vast majority of McCarthy's targets as communists.
Qwinn
I will read what you suggested. Thanks.
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.