CNN Poll: Giuliani, Clinton favorites for 2008 nominations

[DeepModem Mom]

Poll: Giuliani, Clinton favorites for 2008 nominations
September 7, 2006

(CNN) -- Republicans favor former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani for the GOP presidential nomination in 2008, while Democrats are looking toward Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York for their nominee, according to a CNN poll released Thursday.

Thirty-one percent of the 432 poll respondents who identified themselves as Republicans chose Giuliani from a list of potential 2008 nominees, according to the survey conducted by Opinion Research Corp. on behalf of CNN.

The next closest choices were Sen. John McCain of Arizona, with 20 percent, and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, with 12 percent....

***

Among the 517 identifying themselves as Democrats, 37 percent chose Clinton, and 20 percent favored former Vice President Al Gore.

The 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, and Kerry's running mate, former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, trailed with 11 percent each....

***

Asked if they would only vote for a candidate who opposed the Iraq war at its inception in 2003, 56 percent of Democrats said no, and 41 percent said yes....

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/07/poll/index.html

[ixion]

1. CNN polling the DLC again, I see

how avante garde. :eyes:

[ThomCat]

2. I'd LOVE to see Giuliani get nominated

and then watch his entire life get disected. I don't think he has a chance.

[KurtNYC]

17. He already ran against Hillary and she kicked his butt

so badly during the campaign that he made an excuse and slipped out of the race.

The more people see of Rudy the less they like him.

[ThomCat]

19. Exactly right. That's why I want to see him run.

It'll be quite a show. :7

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. For the sake of accuracy, that was before 9/11

Rudy was pretty unpopular in and out of NYC at that point in his career, and at that point in his career no one in the Republican Party would have given a stray thought to running him for President. The whole boomlet for Rudy is completely a result of his being Mayor of NYC on 9/11 and for the months that followed. Nixon lost a bid to become Governor of California after losing to JFK in 1960, before going on to win the Presidency in 1968. Careers have their ups and downs, Rudy was at a real low in 2000.

[KurtNYC]

21. So the GOP ran him for the Senate against Hillary Clinton

because he was at a low point in his career? I don't think so.

He had built up his rep outside the city by being positioned as the guy who Disney-fied 'porno-plagued Times Square.' They made it out like he was the sane guy who brought sanity to NYC. He was losing to Clinton in the City but beating her upstate but the more he campaigned upstate the more his own base (GOP) turned against him.

[Tom Rinaldo]

23. Argue the details if you want but don't miss the main point

The 2000 Senate race was before 9/11. Rudy became a national icon of sorts because of 9/11. Yes "cleaning up Times Square" and all that was the schtick Rudy had going for him in 2000, but it didn't hold a candle to being "America's Mayor" and a "hero" of 9/11. The ugly spat Rudy had with his estranged wife because he moved his mistress into City Hall was putting a lot of tarnish on Rudy's glow back in 2000.

[KurtNYC]

24. Ok and here is my point in a nutshell -- once GOP voters see more

of this:


Rudy will tank.

[Tom Rinaldo]

25. LOL. I agree that Rudy can be taken down.

But we can't count on the media to do it for us. If Rudy manages to get past the Fundies the media will go into full scale worship mode over him. They almost mangaged to get W elected the first time, for Christ's sake!

[KurtNYC]

18. - dupe

[bigendian]

3. I hope the Green Party drafts Gore!

That would shake things up a bit.

[NYCGirl]

6. They can try, but he's 100% Democrat!

He would NEVER run as a Green.

[Benhurst]

4. Name recognition, nothing more nor less. My guess neither

of them will be in the race come September 2008.

[SaveElmer]

9. Yes because as we know...Democratic voters are so stupid...

They don't know who the last two Democratic Presidential nominees were, or the last legitimate vice president.

Hillary-mania has just washed it all from their brains!!!

[Benhurst]

11. Presidential polls this early are meaningless.

How was John Kerry doing this far out in the 2004 election cycle?

Check out the less than overwhelming Republican support for a Dubya Bush presidential run in 1998.

And what ever happended to John Connaly's great prospects?


At best polls taken this far out are meaningless column fillers. At worst they reflect efforts of the corporate media to influence the selection of candidates.

[SaveElmer]

13. I agree they are relatively meaningless...

As a predictor of a final result...

But Hillary's number in these polls are not the result of name recognition. She is the most popular Democrat currently being polled in the Presidential race. That may change, but as a snapshot of what the current mood is it is accurate, and is consistent with other polling.

[Benhurst]

15. I believe Gore when he says he doesn't want to run.

But Gore, is at heart, a Boy Scout. If he is convinced, as many I'm sure are trying to do, that he is needed by the country, he'll run. If he does, he'll blow the other candidates out of the water. That's my prediction.

But it's still to early for any speculation to be of value.

If we fail to take either the House or Senate in November, the 2008 elections won't matter. The Republic as we knew it will be dead and buried.

[saltpoint]

5. Two non-governors from New York State. Why do I think this isn't

an accurate reflection of the outcome of the 2008 Iowa caucuses?

I don't really care who likes Rudy Giuliani among Republican primary voters. I don't care if a handful like him or countless hordes. I think he sucks. He's one of the most despicable human beings to ever walk the earth and I hope Godzilla tears into his house and tears him to bits on the front lawn.

I'll vote for Senator Clinton is she's our nominee but I'm less enthusiastic about her chances against McCain, for example. She won't have my vote in the primary. Her name recognition puts her first in most of these early polls, and that's fine, but I don't see her placing in the top three spots in the Iowa caucus either.

Oddly, if these two were the nominees, I think HClinton would whip Rudy. But I don't think either one of them will be on their respective parties' tickets in 08.

[IndianaGreen]

7. Another way of looking at this: 69% reject Giuliani, 63% reject Hillary

And that's probably their high water mark!

[JNelson6563]

8. Excellent perspective IG!

:toast:

[SaveElmer]

10. No you don't know that...

The only way to make that determination is to poll second and third choices...which they did not do here.

Everyone has a preference. I prefer Hillary, but I do not reject the others.

[SteppingRazor]

12. Is this the political version of a Subway Series?

;)

[Tom Rinaldo]

14. CNN is so sleazy. Notice how they left out Clark again from the full list

There is no plausible excuse for this except for a deliberate attempt to marginalize Clark by cutting him out of all serious 2008 discussions. CCN includes Vilsak in their Poll for God's sake, they included Richardson. In other National polls Clark is polling at 4% when included, about twice what Warner tends to poll. Vilsak and Richardson only get 1% if they are lucky Clark also consistently comes in higher than Feingold in National polling when Clark's name is included. Biden is ususally below Clark although sometimes they tie.

So only the 4 Democrats who have run on National Democratic Party tickets before or have been married to someone who did score higher than Wes Clark in National Polls that include him. The media is hard at work trying to shut out Clark already. He is too independent for them to want to touch if they have any choice in the matter, and at this point it obviously seems CCN thinks they do. CCN is again in the business of creating political news rather than reporting it.

[FrenchieCat]

26. What else is new? Clark is consistently ignored......

when there is no reason for it. "They" deliberatly keep his name recognition low so that they won't ever have to deal with him....which makes me that much more determined to support him. Hell, I prefer the Dem guy who has the creds while the world is blowing up all around us and while the corporate media continues to ignore him as much as possible.

Hell, they did that during primary 2004, once out of Iowa. I remember that in January, Clark had come back strong in the national polls....and once the media did the Michael Moore/Bush AWOL attack on Clark during those last debates right prior to New Hampshire, Clark became "the unmentionable".

I want to kick their ass....these folks that attempt to manipulate our Democracy.

Fuck 'em!

[AtomicKitten]

16. new poll, different day

interesting, but so is astrology sometimes

[AspenRose]

22. I predict a Clinton v. McCain showdown

Don't like it, don't support it, hope I'm wrong, but I bet that's what'll happen.

[FrenchieCat]

27. If this list is the best that this country can do as the world burns.....

than I think that there is no hope.

Wes Clark's not listed.....of course! :eyes:

Hell, Clark could beat Giuliani with both hands tied behind his back...if the issue is to be National security. McCain too, with his old dilapitated ass!

[pdxmike]

28. no way in hell

does a pro-choice, gay tolerant New Yorker get the GOP nomination. I don't care how much he is pimped by Matthews et al.

BTW- Clinton ain't gonna get it either. The way the primary/caucus schedule is constructed, Edwards is going to be tough to stop.