Clinton preferred over Giuliani in US race: poll

AFP ^ | October 4, 2007

[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.

[Beatthedrum]

I was watching the final episode of “The War” on PBS the other night, what an incredible documentary by Ken Burns and his crew. I was fascinated when they showed the Americans liberating one of the concentration camps and pulling the Germans out of the town and forcing them to bury the stacks of corpses. Though the stench of death was clearly evident, they claimed they didn’t really know what was going on in that “camp” outside of town ?

I thought about the power of propaganda when combined with apathy. Though many Germans had a sense of what was going on in the camps spread across Europe, most found it easier to believe what the MSM was telling them, easier than looking into the real facts and trying to unravel the lies.

I giggled to myself when I remember how many people today, say that could never happen again. But it is happening again. Not the horror of the death camps, but the ability of propaganda to manipulate mass opinion. That evil is even more strident today in America than it was in Hitler’s Germany.

I couldn’t help but think of Hillary Clinton’s machine, how it makes the German propaganda machine look so small and primitive. As I watched those Germans, so stunned and horrifed, marching into the camp, I thought about all the people in this country who are too busy with their lives, blah, blah, blah to believe anything else but what they are spoon-fed by the MSM 24 /7. The people in that little German town were bakers, doctors, teachers, mechanics, store owners, etc., a typical cross section of any town in terms of education and intelligence, but they didn’t take the time to believe anything outside of what they were told day in and day out.

I wondered if I was looking at the future of America, a long parade of stunned and horrified Americans who were walking through the ruins of a once great country, wondering “How could this have happened ?”

The Clintons, both of them, are vile and odious human beings. Even a brief review of their years in power clearly disqualify them from any further office of public trust. And yet America is buying the package. And if enough Americans sit back and buy the lie, elect this unqualified hack, like the Germans, we will get exactly what we deserve.

[LS]

Well, your logic isn't exactly sound. What the poll doesn't tell is is how much worse Mitt or Fred would lose (I suspect by an additional 5 points, at this time).

Rasmussen and Survey USA polls actually have Rudy beating Hillary in a few of the contested states, (OH in one poll, tied in WI in another). None of the other GOP candidates, on a state by state basis, are even close. And them's the facts.

[freespirited]

It’s a random sample of 1,114 people and not a sample of likely voters or voters. And they add another 212 people who are black for a total of 1326 voters with a guarantee of at least 15% black. What kind of poll is that? Try asking a ramdom sample of VOTERS and then see what you get.

The oversampling of blacks is legitimate. But otherwise I agree, sampling adults rather than likely voters is inexcusable. IMO it was a deliberate attempt to make Hillary's numbers look better than they really are.

[Sig Sauer P220]

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.

You mean instead of the current situation, where Hillary is Satan’s running mate?

[LS]

I don't think it's skewed. It's right in line with almost every other poll, nationally or by state, that we've had: Hillary even or ahead of Rudy; Hillary beating Mitt or Fred by 5-10 points; and on state levels, some polls have Rudy winning OH, KY, a few other of the "must have" states; many have him losing slightly. Most have Fred or Mitt getting creamed.

All this can change, but it's not wise to always ignore the polls. That got us 2006.

[avacado]

"The oversampling of blacks is legitimate."

I am not sure I quite understand that? Is it because they vote in a larger percentage than other groups?

[avacado]

" The oversampling of blacks is legitimate. "

After I replied to you about this once I went and looked at the percentage of black voters in the last presidential race in 2004 and blacks made up 11% of the voters. But the poll we are discussing over samples blacks to guarantee at least 15% in the survey. So that is 15%, or greater, blacks in this survey. I think that is horribly skewed.

CNN EXIT POLL DATA:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

[NKStarr]

>>Agreed. But I also keep in mind that in early 2004 there appeared to be NO CHANCE that Bush would be re-elected.<<

Is that true? I can’t recall, to be honest, how the polls looked at that point.

[biff]

He couldn’t beat her in 2000. He saw the handwriting on the wall and caved.

[Miss Didi]

What a few NYers think of the Socialist Queen...

NOT-SO-BABY STEPS FOR HILL'S BIG GOV'T NY POST Letters to the Editor

October 3, 2007 -- "Hill's $20B Babies" (Sept. 29) confirms that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's hiring of expensive media and political consultants who try to position her as a moderate has failed.

She has finally come out of the closet to reveal her true liberal philosophy: supporting continued growth of big government by increasing taxes and spending for all sorts of new programs.

What's next? Uncle Sam offering every child $100 whenever they leave a tooth under the pillow?

Intelligent parents purchase savings bonds, take advantage of numerous other investment options already available that provide tax deductions or just set up a simple savings accounts to plan for their children's future.

Larry Penner
Great Neck
****
After reading about Clinton's idea to give each American newborn a $5,000 baby bond, it looks like if she wins the presidency, she will not only be our first woman president, she will also be our first socialist president.

Howard Feldman
The Bronx

****
The junior senator from New York has more gall than brains, trying to buy votes by giving away the taxpayers' money to every American newborn.

Does that include the offspring of illegal aliens as well? Rather than slip her hand into the taxpayers' pockets, she can start this brainless idea with the dough that she got from Norman Hsu.

Jerome Levenberg
Cedarhurst

****
The spread of socialism continues relentlessly in America, a country built on natural law, free enterprise and self-determination.

The Democrats' plan to increase the government's roles via the SCHIP and Clinton's baby bonds is nothing more than another ploy to gain greater control of our lives.

And how incredibly stupid are people to give credence to their emotional appeal for the children?

"How can you deny health for children?" is what they say, as if children and the poor can only stay healthy through their programs.

George Orwell may have been off a bit with the timeline, but 1984 is coming faster than we think.

Peter Marengo
Croton on Hudson

****
Clinton's proposal is not pandering. This plan, as with her government-funded health care, is nothing more than voter-buying.

Will the mother have to be married to the baby's father to receive the bond? I doubt it.

If the cost of college continues to rise, by the time the bond matures, it will only buy lunch for a semester at many universities.

Andy Romanic
Freeport

****
Clinton's silly ideas show how we're getting closer to a socialistic America - when, over in Europe, the Germans and French are becoming more like capitalists.

Watch out, America. We're in for a bumpy ride from the Democrats.

Albert Turner
Manhattan

****
The critics of Clinton's baby plan are not aware of her secret plan to fund it.

She'll probably appoint Hsu as secretary of the Treasury.

Michael Brozinsky
Central Islip

****
Now that Clinton suggests $5,000 for every newborn child without telling us how it's to be funded, what's next?

A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage?

Clinton sounds awfully Hooverish, and I'm not talking vacuum cleaners.

Herb Stark
Massapequa

****
I love the fact that Clinton went public with her idea. Now everybody can see what a complete fool this woman is.

Clinton has no business occupying the democratically elected office of president because she's not a Democrat - she's a die-hard socialist.

She's constantly turning out reinventions of herself, and now she wants to reinvent America.

Democracy works just fine here and has for more than 200 years.

Tom Cahill
Jackson Heights

****
Christmas is coming early this year, and Saint Hillary has a present for all those bundles of joy.

Clinton will be paying society to produce children not wealth, and we will all go to the poor house - a socialist's dream.

Gary Schwartz
Fort Lee, N.J.

[chimera]

All this can change, but it's not wise to always ignore the polls. That got us 2006.

We'd better not make that mistake in '08. In '06, we (especially here on FR) desperately tried to convince ourselves that the polls couldn't be right, there was no way the electorate would be so stupid as to turn to the 'Rats. Well, they were, and they did. We didn't want to face the bad news that we were going to lose, and so blissfully went on our way, whistling past the graveyard, ignoring reality, not accepting what would have been obvious to anyone with the eyes to see and ears to hear.

We can't afford to make that mistake in '08 with Hillary!, she's too dangerous. We've got to pay attention to every bit of credible information we can gather, and act accordingly. I don't want to see us lose in another landslide simply because we lied to ourselves about how the polls couldn't possibly be right.

[Badeye]

Yep.

[rhinohunter]

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.

Well Said! You might want to modify item 2 a bit though:

Followed by a one term moderate, who won handily on the coattails of the aforementioned Conservative.

[LS]

Agreed.

There's something else. I watched Fred's entire Iowa speech. Right on, right on. But you know what? It just wasn't INSPIRING. He said all the right things, but not a single sound bite that would catch the average joe's ear and have them say, "Hey, I like that guy." Rudy, for all his faults, was the ONLY Republican to really take it to Moveon for the ad. Now, Fred had a great come-back on the Rush dust-up.

What I'm saying is there is no consistency among ANY of these guys. EVERY SINGLE DAY they ought to be hammering Clinton and the "moveon" Dems, BY NAME.

Given the divisions on our side---and it's clear some will sit on their hands in BOTH the Rudy and Fred camps, regardless of who is elected (just read the wide-awakes web site)---our only shot is to drive Hillary's negatives up.

[trickyricky]

"All this can change, but it's not wise to always ignore the polls."

The delusional Republicrats need to be slapped in the face daily and reminded that:

AL GORE WON THE POPULAR VOTE!!!

Doesn't matter how many votes were corpses.
They will rise again.

We have an extremely unpopular Republican president.
We have an unpopular war going on.
We had a Republican congress that made the democrats look thrifty.

I hope that Fred Thompson starts a revival, because if he doesn't catch fire,
Hillary is going to be sitting in the Oval Office for sure.

I'm not sure that would upset the vast left-wing of the Republican party.

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

Rudy is not a far left candidate. He is liberal on social issues that frankly have little practical effect on the Presidency.
I like several of the GOP candidates, but Rudy is at the top of my list because I believe he has leadership and can get things done. He is conservative were it counts on national defense, fiscal policy and national security.
I could take Romney, McCain, or Thompson, but frankly, I don’t see them beating Hildebeast.
I personally think that Rudy has the BEST chance of beating Hildebeast. The Clintons are afraid of Rudy the most. Face to face in a debate, Rudy will eat her lunch. I understand you want a Ronald Reagan, but there is not a RR in the race.

[presidio9]

You are referring to Tom Tancredo or Duncan Hunter of course. Why is it that after five months of candidacy and three debated neither has been able to gain the support of more than 3% of REPUBLICAN voters. Is there some sort of conspiracy against them?

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

2008 will be a replay of 2006 if the RNC withholds support from conservatives again.

If their message is vote for a person with an R by their name because they might not be as bad as the person with a D by their name.

Nothing positive being said and proved will result in a defeat of the democrat lite politics.

[chimera]

I absolutely agree that the correct strategy is to hammer Hillary and the ‘Rats incessantly, from now until election day. Instead, we seem to be hammering each other, tearing our own candidates up over who is or isn’t a “true conservative”. All the while we’re doing that, Hillary! and the ‘Rats are sitting back smugly, laughing over how yet again conservatives would rather eat their own than fight the real enemy. I mean, look at the statements the ‘Rats make. It’s all about hammering Bush, and he isn’t even running, for cripes’ sake. But they’ll focus on Bush because they know the electorate will buy into that and vote against Republican candidates as a proxy for repudiating Bush. The ‘Rats attack Republicans, while Republicans, seemingly, would rather attack other Republicans.

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

Rudy sure fits a democrat profile!

IT is for the murder of unborn babies!
IT is a big gun control nut!
IT covered for the invaders in ITS city!
IT surrounded ITself with thugs!

Why does IT have an R by ITS name instead of a D?