Poll: Hillary Inches Ahead Of Rudy In Swing States For First Time
A new Quinnipiac poll finds that Hillary is gaining ground against Rudy in the big three swing states, inching past him in Florida and Pennsylvania and tying him in Ohio.
* Florida: Clinton tops Giuliani 46-44 percent, flipping a 46-44 percent Giuliani lead July 23* Ohio: Clinton ties Giuliani 43-43 percent, compared to a 44-42 percent Clinton lead July 12
* Pennsylvania: Clinton edges Giuliani 45-44 percent, compared to a 45-45 percent tie June 27.
The Quinnipiac University pollsters attribute the results to her success at winning over Republican and independent voters who once viewed her negatively. They report that the Senator's favorable rating increased in these states to about 50 percent for the first time, while her unfavorable rating has dropped slightly.
Update: It should be noted that the poll also finds Obama losing in all three states to Rudy.
Go on girl!!!!
August 8, 2007 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am not sure this poll means anything.
Hillary is well known. People are just learning about Rudy and as they do his negatives are going up. When he is better known all top Dems will be in a position to defeat him easily.
I also doubt Rudy will be the GOP nominee. So this poll is not very meaningful.
August 8, 2007 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not only does this poll not mean much at this point in the cycle, it's not clear that the numbers are even significant.
If anything, Hillary lost ground in Ohio, according to the results, and she had just a 1% rise in Pennsylvania. Sure all these results, including Florida's, are well within the survey's margin of error?
August 8, 2007 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1089
From July 30 - August 6, Quinnipiac University surveyed:
* 962 Florida voters with a margin of error of +/- 3.2 percent, including 366 Republicans with a margin of error of +/- 5.1 percent, and 380 Democrats with a margin of error of +/- 5 percent;
* 974 Ohio voters with a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percent, including 344 Republicans with a margin of error of +/- 5.3 percent, and 366 Democrats with a margin of error of +/- 5.1 percent;
* 1,011 Pennsylvania voters with a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percent, including 434 Republicans with a margin of error of +/- 4.7 percent and 419 Democrats, with a margin of error of +/- 4.8 percent.
August 8, 2007 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
There we go. This is non-news. All within the margin of error. For all we know, Rudy is ahead in all three states. HRC didn't "flip" anything.
August 8, 2007 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
February '08 is an eternity away in politics: I am afraid we are going to spend that time in spin city.
Any of the Democratic candidates would be so much better than any of the Republican ones who are so dreadfull that even their own voters are dissatisfied.
I am heartened anytime a poll comes out showing one of ours beating one of theirs.
Particularly when it is one of ours with a good shot at the nomination.
August 8, 2007 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh look! Just right of center trumps just left of right . . . by two points. Clash of the Titans!
August 8, 2007 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
While some of what you say about people beginning to know the true Giuliani may be true, I think that there is quite a bit of double standard here, don't you think? When poll after poll showed Clinton leading Obama by double digits but trailing Giuliani, while Obama was besting Giuliani, all we heard was how those polls showed that HRC would be less electable than Obama in GE. Something else we heard was how Clinton's "negatives" were so high and that some people were so set against her that there was no way she would ever be elected president in '08. Now look what has been happening: Not only has HRC increased her lead over Obama (up to ~20 points now in many polls), she is also besting Giuliani AND appears to be attracting an increasing number of Republicans and Independents! This makes sense because the only way she would make gains against Giuliani would be if she were attracting Repubs and Independents, who were previously leaning toward the Mayor.
I have said this all along: Hillary's so-called high 'negatives' are the result of the MSM's constant drumbeat about how 'polarizing', and cold and calculating she is. That is a myth that is despelled as soon as people get to know the real HRC, unfiltered by the MSM pundits and the wingnuts' noise machine. Just ask New Yorkers, including those in the Repub bastion of Upstate NY who have come to love her, about the true HRC and we'll tell it to you...unfiltered. The debates, in which HRC has outshined the other candidates by her intelliegence, mastery of issues, poise, and, yes, warmth, have been telling the voters a different story, causing them to now begin to believe their own lying eyes rather than the pundits!!
DCS, NYC
August 8, 2007 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
the shifting and incoherence of all of these numbers doesn't give any indication of who is "ahead" or who is most likely to win. at all. they mean less then nothing, at this point its still a big name-recognition contest, which yes, Hillary wins.
Hillary does have high negatives, that's just a fact. effusive praise for her from the conservative media does indeed boost her positives overall, but people who want to re-take the White House should be wary of all of the conservatives coming out of the woodwork and praising her. its not because they think she'll make a good president.
August 8, 2007 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
You missed the point. The story here is that until now,these same polls had shown HRC trailing Giuliani, which many had interpreted as evidence that HRC was unelectable in GE. Now, she is tied or slightly ahead of the Mayor. Regardless of whether the numbers are statistically significant, the trend is clear: HRC has been gaining in broad support, even among the Repubs. The more regular voters see and hear her, the more they are willing to give her a second look or even switch allegiance.
August 8, 2007 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
A sampling of what has been posted in response to the latest poll numbers:
So here it is again: You missed the point. The story here is that until now,these same polls had shown HRC trailing Giuliani, which many had interpreted as evidence that HRC was unelectable in GE. Now, she is tied or slightly ahead of the Mayor. Regardless of whether the numbers are statistically significant, the trend is clear: HRC has been gaining in broad support, even among the Repubs. The more regular voters see and hear her, the more they are willing to give her a second look or even switch allegiance.
Got it now?
August 8, 2007 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think these polls are meaningless. The swing state voters are paying very little attention to the race at this point.
Also, technically, Obama is within the margin of error in at least two of the three states.
August 8, 2007 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, there is no double standard. In your blind allegiance to Hillary you missed the significance of the most salient point, which is: Hillary is a national figure who has been on the scene for 16 years. Her name recognition is national. Obama is a rookie, without national name recognition. Anytime he beat Hillary in those national polls...it was significant...he was ALI taking down Liston. Got that?
Hillary is not climbing in the polls. Her initial numbers have plateaued. She peaked from the jump. She has nowhere to go but down. We see this in IA, NH, and SC where the primary is being contested right now. Hillary is not the frontrunner.
HRC is the status quo. People want change. She has mastered the soundbite but when folks she their other choices, up close and personal...she is not the top choice. The pundits and experts were wrong about the war and they are wrong about Hillary as the choice for the democratic Presidential nominee.
August 8, 2007 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the context.
August 8, 2007 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
We must not have been watching the same debates. I thought she looked less than impressive. She appeared to be giving the most calculating nul content answers posible.
I believe she is cold and calculating not because of the MSM but because I have been watching her DLC, GOP lite behavior for years. The best example is her vote on the use of force in Iraq. She was scared of apearing weak and voted with the political wind instead of the right. Now she is too intelectualy dishonest to admit that it was an error.
If she were any more disingenuous she would give Mitt a run for his money in the lack of credibility race.
August 8, 2007 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup, no argument there...
August 8, 2007 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL. He still missed the point. To regain phase coherence and refocus, please look at the title of the TPM-EC piece that this thread is discussing. This was about Rudy and Hillary. If you wish to discuss Barack and HRC, let's do it when that is the context. Now read my post again and address the points that I had raised.
With respect to being in the spot light for a long time, HRC does not even come close to Rudy! Do you remember the flamboyant US Attorney who was constantly in the evening news during his 'crusade' against the mob crime families in the 80's? Well, that was Rudy! And then he became the flamboyant Mayor of NYC, before becoming "America's Mayor" after 9/11. FOr almost 30 years, Rudy has been in the spot light. Therefore, name recognition is NOT his problem. He's being trounced by HRC in every NY State poll because we know the real Rudy and know the real HRC, and know who we prefer. Soon enough, the whole country will by privy to this knowledge too...
August 8, 2007 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Josh Marshall made a post a few weeks ago in which he talked about our slime ball liar radar. He was wondering why some people's is set of by Bill Clinton and some by Mitt Romney. I wonder why mine is set off by both Hillary and Mitt. I have read posts by some who think that Obama is overly slick and untrustworthy. To me he is the most genuine sounding pol in years. What makes one person and not the other trustworthy in ones eyes?
August 9, 2007 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink