Well, they got THAT right:
Posted on 10/04/2007 6:43:43 AM PDT by presidio9
Democrat Hillary Clinton would beat Republican Rudolph Giuliani in the race for the US presidency if the election was held now, according to poll data released Thursday.
Senator Clinton, wife of ex-president Bill Clinton and the strong front-runner for the Democratic nomination for next year's election, held a 51-43 percent margin over Giuliani in a Washington Post-ABC News poll.
The poll showed Democrat voters favoring Clinton over Giuliani by 88-9 percent while independents were for Clinton 48-44 percent. Republican voters preferred Giuliani, the former New York City mayor, 88-10 percent.
The poll also showed that two-thirds of voters believe Clinton would take the country in a different direction compared with her husband during his 1993-2001 presidency, with most considering that "a good thing."
Another Washington Post-ABC News poll released Wednesday showed Clinton was the solid favorite for the Democrat nomination in the November 2008 election.
She held a 33 point lead over her closest rival, fellow Senator Barack Obama.
Giuliani, meanwhile, leads most polls in his party's race,but is more closely dogged by rivals Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson.
Yawn... push poll. The “inevitability factor” again.
America had a fairly conservative President for two terms elected by a landslide.
Followed by a one term moderate.
Followed by a two term left wing traitor which some think was conservative.
Followed by a two term moderate that squeaked by because the democrat nominees were so bad.
So some people think the RNC should nominate a far left wing that could only win if the democrat is much worse.
The RNC should nominate a real conservative and watch him Win in a landslide!
WTF?
Well, they got THAT right:
nuff said
Yeah, that’s BS. Those same people loved Bill Clinton during that time (and many still even now) so why would his old supporters want the OPPOSITE from Hillary IN THE FUTURE? Doesn’t add up.
If Hillie’s lead is so overwhelming, her election so inevitable, why then do they feel the need to keep coming out with more “proof”?
When people get a choice of a liberal over a liberal, they always choose the liberal.
None of the pollsters found that response to be a bit contradictory?
They’re not reading it the way you and I are - that’s their problem. They’re probably too stupid.
The poll showed Democrat voters favoring Clinton over Giuliani by 88-9 percent
So much for the Rootybot meme that Rooty would put Blue States in play. With Rooty it's Hillary in an Electoral landslide.
The mutt should just go away, to some deserted island where he can be King, Czar, 'Supreme Leader' (Oberster Führer), Caesar, etc. etc.
With 49% unfavorability ratings this poll postulates she will garner every voter who hasn’t already said they dislike her. Not likely.
Actually, it's more like 700,000 fewer votes in 2006 vs. 2000. However, she captured 67% of the vote in 2006, vs. only 55% in 2000. Therefore, I'm not convinced the actual votes are the important factor to focus on, considering she won by a full 12 percentage points more in 2006 than 2000.
Lazio did a lot better against her in 2000 than Spencer did against her in 2006, that's for sure.
The “Stop Rudy” ping list!
E-mail/ping me if you want on/off the list! SPREAD THE WORD!!!
Oh come on, indylindy, this can’t be true. Rudy911 has promised to thump Hitlery, bringing all fifty states into play, not to mention Washington D.C. and Canada. And you still won’t bow down to him?!?!?! Sheeesh!
Clinton? No. Damn near anyone else. Yes. I can’t stand Julie Anne.
And no bias in the poll, of course.
Screw Rudith. I’ll never vote for it.
If Hillary’s running mate is Satan, I will not vote for the leftwing mayor. I am fine with any other GOP nominee.
Amazing how Washington Post polls are accepted as gospel around here if they prove what people want to believe, but ridiculed if they don't.
This is actually a fairly bogus poll deserving of some ridicule. The sample is not likely voters. It's not even registered voters. It's randomly selected adults. Half of them probably aren't even registered to vote.
The results are pretty meaningless. These kind of samples generally give an advantage to the RATS. Of course the Post knows this.
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.