« Poll: Johanns Way Ahead In Nebraska GOP Senate Primary | Home | Michelle Obama: If Barack Doesn't Win Iowa, It's All Over »
Poll: Hillary Holds Sizable National Lead Over Rudy, Thompson
A new poll from Rasmussen puts a crimp in the argument that Hillary is unelectable in a national general election, finding that she enjoys a sizable national lead over Rudy:
Clinton 48%Giuliani 43%
She fares even better against Fred Thompson:
Clinton 48%Thompson 41%
Rasmussen holds this up as proof that Hillary's "surging," pointing out that two weeks ago, Hillary's lead over Rudy was a statistically insignificant one point. "Prior to that, Clinton had held an advantage over Giuliani only once in fourteen consecutive Rasmussen Reports polls," Rasmussen says, theorizing that her gains are largely due to the good reception that greeted her recently announced health care plan.
Advertisement
Wait ... that's not a sizable lead at all! MOE on the survey is 3.5, which means MOE on a lead between two candidates is 6 or 7 -- which is MORE than the difference between HRC and Rudy.
More accurate headline, please!
September 27, 2007 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope democrats realized who she really is now by her support of the Lieberman ammendment. Let me say again the Lieberman ammendment. The congress has taken the first step to a war with Iran, and Hillary helped by her vote. It is insane to call Iran's military a terrorist group. What if Iran labeled the US military a terrorist group. This is insane. I have no love for Iran's leader, but he is not all of Iran. Iran has a lot of people who greatly admire americans who do not support anti US sentiments. Also, Iran does not suport using weapons of mass destruction against other countries. That is not who they are. Pakistan has more terrorist than Iran and they have nukes. I am now ashamed of congress for taking this step to war with Iran.
September 27, 2007 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
These polls are meaningless. "Hilary" has had 2 to 3 times the coverage as a candidate as Giuliani and Thompson. She should do better on name recognition alone!
September 27, 2007 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The point is; Hillary is surging ahead. Ronald Reagan, despite the conventional wisdom at the time, surged ahead before the primaries in 1980, proving he could be elected.
September 27, 2007 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey. TPM. Did Rasmussen only poll HRC against the thug candidates (if so, why?)or did they also poll Edwards and Obama and you guys just didn't want to show those results?
September 27, 2007 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, Richard, "surging" ahead has rather different connotations now then it did in 1980 ... Hillary is indeed "surging," circa 2007.
September 27, 2007 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm..."sizable lead". The margin of polling error is + or - 4%. That means Hillary's "sizable lead" may he anywhere from -3% to 14%. What is also important is how the other 9% are going to go.
Having been on all 5 Saturday talk shows and years on the public stage, you rarely see a poll where she garners more than 50% in a national general election poll.
While Hillary is certainly the front runner among Democratic voters thus far, I would like to see how her "sizable" lead compares to those of Edwards and Obama in similar match-ups.
September 27, 2007 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rasmussen did post results for another Dem:thug matchup with Bill Richardson, a second tier Dem who polls just slightly lower than Clinton against Guiliani and Thompson. Which would indicate the public has seen Rudy and the DA enough now to start getting turned off and moving over to the Dem column, not that they are now suddenly thilled at the prospect of Hillary's inevitability.
September 27, 2007 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am a Hillary fan but what counts in winning the Presidential election is not national totals but how they are distributed by states.
I do believe that Hillary can win this because she is more acceptable to middle Americans than are either Obama or Edwards but this polling while providing evidence for that is not conclusive as to who would have the best shot at winning the Presidency away from the thugs.
September 27, 2007 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not that Hillary is unelectable -- although I wouldn't put too much faith in the polls, since I suspect there are a lot of closet chauvinists out there who will SAY they're going to vote for Hillary but who will find it hard in the privacy of a voting booth to pull the lever for a woman.
Still, given the GOP's seeming determination to throw the election away over Iraq, SCHIP, etc., she definitely could win.
But another Dem -- an Edwards or even an Obama -- might have a better chance of winning BIG, maybe even in a 35 or 40 state blowout, pulling a lot of down-ballot Dems across the goal line with him.
So the real question is: How many Democratic House, Senate and gubernatorial candidates that might have won next year won't win because Hillary -- the archvillainess in every conservative ballbusting fantasy -- is at the top of the ticket? I think it could be a lot, at least in the red and purple states.
September 27, 2007 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
How many polls does Clinton have to show her strength before people give up on the notion that she is unelectable? Really, one or two polls showing her competitive or ahead wouldn't mean much. But there is so much data now indicating her electability.
The Lieberman-Kyl ammendment turned out not to be anything like some are making it out to be. The use of force language was taken out and it ended up a basic reiteration of standard practice, though emphasizing diplomacy. It ended up a lame amendment that doesn't really indict anyone who voted for it. It's nowhere near a first step toward war with Iran as some are making it out to be. It definitely was before the language was taken out.
September 27, 2007 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr rrsri What Would You Call Them Choir Boy's I Don't Think So They Just In Case This Must Have Slipped Your Mind,Are Transporting Illegal IED's Across The Borders & Other Weapons That Are Killing Our Soldiers Are Maybe Your Assumption Of This Kind Of Behaviour Acceptable,Just Because Senator Clinton Voted To Name Irans Quods Terroist Organizations,She Did Not Vote For A Preemptive Strikes On Iran No Even Close,Next Time Do Your Homework Before You Jump In Water You Can't Swim In
September 27, 2007 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sargent's got his eye on a job at GQ
September 27, 2007 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
But can he pass their "cut and paste" test?
September 27, 2007 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
We don't need a 30 state strategy.
We don't need a 40 state strategy.
We need a 50 state strategy.
We need a 50 state candidate.
September 27, 2007 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink