Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Poll: A surprising GOP edge for '08

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Learn2Swim Donating Member (220 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 10:30 AM
Original message
Poll: A surprising GOP edge for '08
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1604469,00.html?xid=site-cnn-partner


Not good. What can we do to change this? It's hard to believe, considering everything we know now, and considering we have a good idea of what another pub (McCain/Giuliani) presidency would look like, that they still have an advantage.

Is anyone out there paying attention!?!


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Could things be any worse for George W. Bush and his beleaguered party? In the new TIME poll, the President's job approval rating continues to wallow near his all-time lows, at 33%, while his disapproval rating breaks the 60% barrier for the third consecutive survey. On Iraq, meanwhile, just 38% of respondents think the U.S. was right to invade, and only 37% believe "the new Iraqi government will be able to build a stable and reasonably Democratic society." Given a choice of policy options going forward, 68% endorse proposals to withdraw most combat troops, either within a year or no later than August 31, 2008, while just 28% say troops should stay in the country "as long as needed until the Iraqis can handle the situation themselves."

And then there's the burgeoning scandal stemming from the Justice Department's dismissal last year of eight U.S. attorneys. Forty-eight percent of respondents say the federal prosecutors were fired because they "refused to be pressured by politics," compared to just 22% who believe they were dismissed "for proper reasons." By a 55-33% margin, Americans believe Bush is refusing to allow top aide Karl Rove and other White House aides to testify under oath "because he's trying to cover up the reasons for the firings" , not because he "wants to preserve the Constitution's separation of powers." A slight plurality, 39-36%, believe Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should resign.

So it's taken almost as a given among the professional political class that the 2008 presidential election is the Democrats' to lose. Republicans are so morose in general, and conservatives so unhappy with their current field of candidates, that the assumption of a Democratic advantage has become bi-partisan. And with the public so soured on the Republican in the White House, and so many other trends working against them, including an up-tick in the percentage of Americans identifying themselves as Democrats , it's hard to find any good news for Republicans these days. So why, in poll after poll, including the new TIME poll, does that advantage seem to disappear whenever voters are asked to pick a president in hypothetical head-to-head match-ups among front-runners with solid name recognition. In our poll, Hillary Clinton loses to John McCain, 42-48%, and to Rudy Giuliani 41-50%. Even though Clinton maintains a 7% edge over Obama among Democratic respondents, Obama fares better in the general election match-ups. It's so close that it's a statistical dead-heat, but Obama still loses: 43-45% to McCain, 44-45% to Giuliani.

It's hard to know exactly why respondents who are generally unhappy towards --and in many cases fed up with -- the GOP might still prefer a Republican for president over a Democrat. Much of it has to do with the individual candidates involved. In Clinton's case, as TIME pollster Mark Shulman points out, "with Hillary the Democratic front-runner, most voters have made up their minds about her, both pro and con. She may have limited upward potential against Republicans. The emerging anti-Hillaries, Obama and Edwards, suffer from low awareness at this point."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 10:32 AM
Response to Original message
1. The keenest of elves tell me that 2008 will be a blue year, not a red one.
As Neil Young once said, "I don't need to read that kind of shit in TIME magazine."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 10:43 AM
Response to Original message
2. Small comfort, but a "statistical dead heat" means a TIE, not a win or loss.
No reliable pollster would call Obama the "loser" because that particular sample showed him 1 percentage point behind the Republican. When two candidates have results within the margin of error, that means that that survey can't show which candidate is actually ahead. If another sample group had been chosen, the results could easily have been flipped, with Obama being the candidate on top.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabatha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 10:43 AM
Response to Original message
3. Its a lie...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Learn2Swim Donating Member (220 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. I've seen that already...
studied it up and down a few days ago. It certainly doesn't make the NEW Time poll a 'lie'. In fact, it has ZERO bearing on the poll conducted. That's actually kind of silly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tempest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. It's as silly as a poll more than a year before the election
And before each party's candidates have been determined.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabatha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. How can it be silly
when it reflects the overall trend of the country?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. It does render the Time headline to be misleading
Edited on Thu Mar-29-07 12:09 PM by spooky3
The only GOP advantage among all the data that Time collected seems to be that some candidates do better than some Democratic candidates in a hypothetical matchup long before the 2008 Presidential election. This probably reflects name recognition more than anything else. The PEW data and all the rest of what Time reported (at least in the beginning, I didn't read the whole thing) suggest that the Dems have most of the "advantages" on all other criteria, at this early stage.

Just for fun, you might want to go to MediaMatters.org and search for Carney. You'll note he has had "issues" with misinformation and misinterpretation of poll results before.

For example:
http://mediamatters.org/altercation/200701240006
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 11:53 AM
Response to Original message
7. It's always that way.
Bush I had a huge lead in 91, and lost to Clinton in 92. Reagan polled as the last person anyone wanted as president, and he won. Clinton had a 37% approval rating in 94 and won re-election in a landslide.

People don't like to admit they have changed their minds, because it means they were wrong in the first place. That's why so many voted for Bush in 04, even though he was unpopular. Now people who have been calling themselves Republicans and deriding the Dems for years are hesitant to admit they will vote Democrat. They say they aren't sure, or they say they'll vote Republican even though they are waivering.

And there are those who vote generally the way the media tells them. This has been lost in the memory hole, but Clinton trailed Bush by a large margin early in 92, and when Perot got in the race, Clinton fell to third place. Clinton was far more despised then than Hillary is now, and every time he stepped before the media every question was about him inhaling, or his alleged affairs, or his Viet Nam avoidance. He couldn't get airtime for his issues. People had written him off, and the media was writing that the Democrats had gone the way of the Whigs. Clinton began skirting the MSM, appearing on Donahue, MTV, and Arsenio. He got mocked for it by the MSM, but his numbers began climbing. By the time of the Dem convention, he had taken the lead in the polls against Bush and Perot, and Perot (as anyone who had followed his career predicted he would) dropped out.

We don't know what will happen. People are polling on what they've believed in the past, not what they want for the future. Few know anything about any of these candidates other than what the media tells them they should know. Closer to the election, people will see the candidates themselves, hear their ideas and the way they handle pressure. People will start forming real opinions then. They will decide if they think Hillary is whatever Drudge says she is that week, or whether Obama is experienced enough or was taught in a madrassa, or whether Giuliani's domestic history really bothers them. Right now all they have are comic book characters to judge.

Don't panic, don't take it easy. Just keep working at it, and believe that our message is the right one. People will see that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Parisle Donating Member (849 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 12:44 PM
Response to Original message
9. There is no mystery here.
--- A majority of Americans,..... note: not "democrats,.... but Americans,...... just do not want Hillary for president. Yet the media has them believing that it's gonna be Hillary, no matter what,... with Obama as the only other legitimate competition. The media is literally rigging the whole goddamned nominating process to suit their own commercial purposes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truebrit71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. THANK YOU! THE MEDIA IS ALREADY GIVING THE NOM TO HILLARY...
...hence the republican angle...

I do not want that woman as the nominee, and i HATE the "liberal" media for shoving her down our throats...

The ONLY way the GOP keeps the WH in '08 is if the Dems 'choose' Hillary...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gloria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #14
24. So is the Democratic machinery, I guess....as every state seems to
change to that one day for their primary.

I absolutely hate the thought of getting railroaded on this....and it will lead to a final break with this party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gulliver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 12:56 PM
Response to Original message
10. Not surprising at all. It's Hillary.
The GOP isn't beating the Dems in this poll. The GOP is beating Hillary. I'm still waiting for her to do something with her name recognition that looks like leadership rather than mere political maneuvering.

Obama will beat Hillary in the long run, IMO, but I am still hoping for Wes Clark to get into the race.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truebrit71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. Yup...
"...but I am still hoping for Wes Clark to get into the race...."

It's driving me a little nuts waiting for the obama/clinton slugfest to be over so that the good General can swoop in and save the day...but I'll be patient...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 01:08 PM
Response to Original message
11. Democrats need to use
the 'Correspondent Dinner' footage in their advertising encouraging the Democratic Vote.

Using this as a backdrop, the Peace and Prosperity of the Clinton presidency is sure to jog the memories of voters for the America we once knew. And the defining moment of Hillary as the way out of this Republican quagmire. Which I happen to believe is absolutely the Truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earthlover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. the Truth,, huh?
OMG
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earthlover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. so what is absolutely the truth....
....is that Hillary should be judged by her husband's accomplishments rather than on her own merits! Talk about taking the woman's movement and turning it upside down! WOW!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. And what is this? Heroics?
Who are you to define anyone or anything?
HRC's accomplishments to date turn your pettiness on it's head!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earthlover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. It wasn't me who defined anything....
...it was you who said...."Democrats need to use
the 'Correspondent Dinner' footage in their advertising encouraging the Democratic Vote.

Using this as a backdrop, the Peace and Prosperity of the Clinton presidency is sure to jog the memories of voters for the America we once knew. And the defining moment of Hillary as the way out of this Republican quagmire. Which I happen to believe is absolutely the Truth"

I think it is pretty clear you are defining Hillary in terms of the "defining moment of Hillary" as the "peace and prosperity of the Clinton presidency".

Sorry. I just don't share your definition. I think a woman should be defined for her own accomplishments, not just as an extension of her husband.

So...wouldn't it be more appropriate for you to give us some positive accomplishments about Hillary instead of bashing me for pettiness?

Sorry, I didn't see the "Correspondent Dinner footage" and furthermore most Americans could give a rip.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Ah, the video footage..
Yes, I agree. Initially, you would need to be apprised of it's contents before proceeding further.

here is some background until the video is made available:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3187528
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-30-07 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #16
28. hillary hasn't accomplished jack shit except getting elected
Edited on Fri Mar-30-07 11:55 AM by dionysus
(due to her husbands name) in a blue state. seriously, nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack Rabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 05:53 PM
Response to Original message
19. I plan to vote for the Democratic nominee
Having said that, I'm not too thrilled by any of the frontrunners and can understand what might be going on here.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
against all enemies Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 05:57 PM
Response to Original message
20. Tweety and his crew already gave the Preidential election to

Fred Thompson.

I guess we can all go home now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nedsdag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. For once,
Tweety may be right.

Hillary can't compete with Thompson's "down home" cornpone schtick. The Red States fall for that crap. She can't even get congressmen from her former homestate of Arkansas to endorse her.

If Thompson wins the nomination, Hillary can forget the South and "purple" states such as Pennsylvania and Michigan.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
against all enemies Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-30-07 06:03 AM
Response to Reply #23
27. Excuse me while I kill myself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueStater Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 07:01 PM
Response to Original message
21. It has more to do with how much Hillary is disliked than of any love for Rudy or McCain n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 08:22 PM
Response to Original message
22. A lot of people still perceive Republican Presidents as stronger leaders.
Edited on Thu Mar-29-07 08:23 PM by Clarkie1
Simple as that. Also, a lot of people prefer one Party in the executive and the other in the White house, so...

The Democratic Party (including primary voters) better get their act together and wake up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 10:06 PM
Response to Original message
25. Impeachment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skipos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-30-07 12:45 AM
Response to Original message
26. It doesn't surprise me. Hillary looks to have serious weaknesses in general election polls
Obama and Edwards aren't as well known, so they have room to improve. Everyone has already decided about Hillary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 11:22 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC