Edwards, Obama, and Hillary all paste Romney in early head-to-head polls

[Czolgosz]

Link: http://rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Favorables/Favorables.htm

Here's a summary of the polling:

HILLARY CLINTON - Her positives are 2% higher than her negatives. She beats Repub nominees except McCain or Guiliani:

Clinton (46%) Brownback (41%)
Clinton (50%) Gingrich (43%)
Clinton (43%) Giuliani (52%)
Clinton (48%) Hagel (40%)
Clinton (44%) McCain (45%)
Clinton (51%) Romney (41%)

JOHN EDWARDS - His positives are 6% higher than his negatives. He beats Repub nominees except Guiliani (and does better against Giuliani than any other Democratic nominee):

Edwards (44%) Giuliani (46%)
Edwards (50%) Huckabee (41%)
Edwards (45%) McCain (44%)
Edwards (52%) Romney (34%)

BARACK OBAMA - His positives are 8% higher than his negatives. He beats Repub nominees except Guiliani, who he loses to, and McCain, who he ties:

Obama (49%) Brownback (34%)
Obama (48%) Gingrich (38%)
Obama (40%) Giuliani (46%)
Obama (50%) Hagel (34%)
Obama (50%) Huckabee (31%)
Obama (44%) McCain (44% )
Obama (50%) Romney (36%)

DENNIS KUCINICH - His negatives are 10% higher than his positives.

WESLEY CLARK - His positives are 11% higher than his negatives. He loses by more than 15% against Repub nominee.

CHRIS DODD - His negatives are 6% higher than his positives.

JOE BIDEN - His negatives are 2% higher than his positives. He loses by more than 10% against Repub nominees.

BILL RICHARDSON - His positives are 5% higher than his negatives. He loses by 17% against Giuliani and by 9% to McCain.

[saltpoint]

1. On Romney. There's this palpable creepiness to him that is unnerving.

In Kafka's "Metamorphosis," a man wakes up only to discover that he's become an insect. Very possibly a cockroach.

If the man woke up prior to the complete morphing into a cockroach but nevertheless had the internal psyche of a cockroach while maintaining exterior human features, that man would be Mitt Romney.

"The Metamorphosis Revisited" starring Mitt Romney is a job for Stephen King or Wes Craven, or both. And let's arrange it so that 20% of ticket proceeds go to the Democratic Party.

[AshevilleGuy]

2. I don't think they will nominate Romney.

If they want to win, it will be Rudy. And the repukes nominate to WIN, while we Dems tend to nominate whom we LIKE. Could we not do that this time? One or two more repukian SCOTUS justices and we are screwed for the rest of most of our lifetimes. We have to WIN in 2008!

[loudsue]

3. Rudy will show the world how morally bankrupt the GOP is, if that's the best they can do..

The dude is skanky.

:kick::kick::kick:

[AshevilleGuy]

4. I hope you are right.

But I suspect he has that Reagan thing going. Voters will LIKE him, and ignore his personal life and other things in his past. In the 1980s people just didn't WANT to know anything negative about Ronnie, and I fear it will be the same with Rudy.

Remember, the vast majority of voters do not analyze candidates the way we do. To millions it's just like voting back in high school for class president or student council: a popularity contest.

[Czolgosz]

5. ...and for the Repubs, Giuliani (who won't get the nom) is the only one who polls well head-to-head

RUDY GIULIANI - His positives are 43% higher than his negatives (just wait as they plummet - he's peaked too early). If he could win the nomination (which he can't), he beats all comers:

Giuliani (49%) Biden (38%)
Giuliani (52%) Clinton (43%)
Giuliani (46%) Edwards (44%)
Giuliani (46%) Obama (40%)
Giuliani (52%) Richardson (35%)
Giuliani (56%) Vilsack (28%)

JOHN McCAIN - His positives are 19% higher than his negatives. He loses to Edwards, ties Obama, and beats the rest of the Democratic field:

McCain (49%) Biden (36%)
McCain (51%) Clark (33%)
McCain (45%) Clinton (44%)
McCain (44%) Edwards (45%)
McCain (44%) Obama (44%)
McCain (45%) Richardson (36%)

MITT ROMNEY - His positives are 4% higher than his negatives. He loses by 17% to Edwards, by 14% to Obama, and by 10% to Hillary:

Romney (41%) Clinton (51%)
Romney (34%) Edwards (52%)
Romney (36%) Obama (50%)

SAM BROWNBACK - His negatives are a whopping 19% higher than his positives (his negatives are fully twice as high as his positives). He loses by 5% to Hillary and by 15% to Obama.

NEWT GINGRICH - His negatives are 5% higher than his positives. He loses by 10% or more against Democratic nominees.

CHUCK HAGEL - His negatives are 3% higher than his positives. He loses by 8% to Hillary and by 16% to Obama.

MIKE HUCKABEE - His negatives are 7% higher than his positives. He loses by more than 15% against Democratic nominees.

DUNCAN HUNTER - His negatives are 6% higher than his positives.

[AshevilleGuy]

7. You think he won't?

I predict that the RNC machine will 'install' Rudy, because they know that the RW evangelicals will vote in lockstep for their nominee anyway. They always do, and that is one reason they win so many elections. No, they won't like Rudy on the social issues but they know he is still better for them than our nominee would be.

[Czolgosz]

8. The Bushes and Rove (d.b.a. the RNC) are already working behind the scenes for Romney

Rove won't let Giuliani get the nomination because Giuliani would kill the Repub ticket in the South (a whole generation of state legislators, governors, and other Repub functionaries would lose in the South with Giuliani at the top of their ticket - God, I hope he gets the nomination!).

I don't think anyone gets anywhere betting against the Bushes and Rove in the Repub primary.

[AshevilleGuy]

9. That may be so, but all Rudy would have to do

would be to win NY and NJ and we are screwed. There is no way we could get back the 46 electoral votes that it would cost us. Even if we barely won those states our nominees would have to devote so much of our resources there it would cost us in the other states. They know this.

But I just can't see Rudy having such negative coattails in the South either. I hope you are right, but I doubt it.

[Czolgosz]

10. But Rudy can't win NY or NJ, plus Rudy jeopardizes the WHOLE South from the Repub electoral college

scorecard.

Rove spent his career building the fundamentalist-corporatist-neocon coalition. Rove's coalition of one-issue-voters demands unity because their success at achieving tighter unity than we achieve is the key factor (along with a little help from election riggers) which allows them to succeed despite the fact that they hold minority views. Guiliani threatens that unity (Southern fundamentalists won't get on board). McCain threatens that unity (neither the fundamentalists nor the corporatist-neocons trust him and Rove thinks McCain is too old).

The corporatist-neocons love Romney and so Rove is betting that the fundamentalists will eventually become comfortable with Romney as a "Christian" notwithstanding the skepticism that Romney's Mormon faith is considered a "cult" by many fundamentalist Christians because they will have no choice given that they distrust Guiliani and McCain more than they distrust Mormonism (Rove is hoping that neither Huckabee nor Brownback catches fire with the fundamentalists - watch FauxNoise spin the "unelectability" of these two candidates in the coming months).

The Bush family and their consigliere Rove are working full tilt to position Romney as the inevitable Repub nominee. Count on it happening. But what if Rove is wrong and Romney wins the nomination but then loses? That sets up Jeb '12.

[AshevilleGuy]

13. Rudy couldn't win NY or NJ? I hope you are right.

But it just seems like they would go for him in memory of 9/11, etc. And as I said, I can see his Reaganlike thing going for him. I am not all that sure how much power Rove will have left a year from now, even in his own party. The RNC might look at the numbers and overrule him.

I do think the evangelicals would vote for Rudy, faced with a Hilary or Gore or Edwards and especially an Obama. They know that Rudy would appoint far better SCOTUS nominees (for them) than would any Dem. Many of those people hav been brainwashed by their preachers to believe that Dems are the devil.

But I would rather have Romney as their nominee; he would be easier to beat. Gore or Edwards, especially in combination could do it, and maybe Hilary could. Maybe.

[Czolgosz]

14. Hillary, for example, would slaughter Guiliani by 10% in New York

From NewsDay:

New York Democrats and Republicans have clear hometown favorites _ Hillary Rodham Clinton and Rudy Giuliani _ for their parties' 2008 presidential nominations, a statewide poll reported Wednesday.

But when it comes to the possible 2008 political subway series between the two, New Yorkers give the nod, 50 percent to 40 percent, to Democrat Clinton over the former New York City mayor, the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute survey reported.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--clinton-giuliani0214feb14,0,4339314.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork

[chaska]

6. I've only had contact with two Mormons....

One indirectly: a friend's parents. He thought they were total nutjobs, and was estranged from them.

Another directly: Worked with her. No doubt about it, she was a total nutjob.

I'm sure there are Mormons that aren't nuts, but I wouldn't risk my vote on one.

If this offends ... I don't really care. You can say something equally mean about atheists if you want.

[loudsue]

11. There are nutjobs everywhere there are people.

My sis in law is Mormon (her family is), and she's one of the coolest people I've ever known. Her parents are very down to earth...salt of the earth, really.

Mormonism is just like any other religion. It's organized to keep people occupied, to have control, and to make $$. People who are truly spiritual and enlightened are the "good ones", and people who are afraid and hateful are the "bad ones".

[Colobo]

12. It's cool to see Obama doing so well

[Catchawave]

15. Giuliani's about to free fall

This is trickling into the MSM this weekend:

http://www.amny.com/search/ny-usrudy095122917mar09,0,4363175.story

"Firefighters slam Giuliani"

(this story's on DU's homepage also)

[Czolgosz]

16. definitely!

Southern Baptist Leader Questions Giuliani's Marital History

A Southern Baptist leader said Tuesday that evangelical voters might tolerate a divorced presidential candidate, but they have deep doubts about GOP hopeful Rudy Giuliani, who has been married three times.

Richard Land, head of public policy for the Southern Baptist Convention, told The Associated Press that evangelicals believe the former New York City mayor showed a lack of character during his divorce from second wife, television personality Donna Hanover.

"I mean, this is divorce on steroids," Land said. "To publicly humiliate your wife in that way, and your children. That's rough. I think that's going to be an awfully hard sell, even if he weren't pro-choice and pro-gun control."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,257300,00.html

[Bucky]

17. If they really nominate Giuliani, Obama would be our best candidate

I still can't imagine it. They fundies are demoralized, but not that far out in the cold that they can't keep a pro-gay, anti-gun, extramarital affairin' New York yankee off the top spot.

There will be a real conservative on their ticket. McCain's gambit is that it can be him. I still think he's the smart money.