Poll: Next President?

[Bubba Wheels]

More and more I see this as the coming matchup, so lets get a quick read on who its going to be. Please vote your preference, not your prediction.

[Crapshoot]

I don't think Hilary will get as many votes as Rudy, given (and I may be off here completely) the older, medium-to-upper income white-male demographic here - which I believe is the group she does the worst with. That being said, I'd be curious to see what the breakdown is (I voted for Rudy, fyi).

[flere-imsaho]

If it ends up being Hillary vs. Rudy, then I think Hillary takes it in a walk. Rudy has waaaaaaaay too many skeletons in his closet, a number of which will alienate, specifically, the "family values" and "Reagan Conservatives" in the Republican Party. This will probably be enough to keep enough Republicans home to allow Hillary to win.

I don't see this as the matchup, however. For one, I don't think there's any way Rudy gets the Republican nomination. I still think the Democratic nomination is 50/50 Hillary and Obama.

[sachmo71]

Like flies on a rib roast.

[clintl]

I still think it's going to be Romney as Republican nominee when it's all over. Rudy is vulnerable on so many issues that the conservative base cares about that I don't see him winning. Plus, Romney is trouncing him in campaign donations. I think that's a strong indicator that he will probably prevail.

[st.cronin]

Way too early to be calling the nominations. I think its 5 to 1 that those two are the candidates, at best.

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

If it ends up being Hillary vs. Rudy, then I think Hillary takes it in a walk. Rudy has waaaaaaaay too many skeletons in his closet, a number of which will alienate, specifically, the "family values" and "Reagan Conservatives" in the Republican Party. This will probably be enough to keep enough Republicans home to allow Hillary to win.

Satan could be the republican nominee and that wouldn't keep Republicans away if Clinton was on the ballot.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Mustang

Satan could be the republican nominee and that wouldn't keep Republicans away if Clinton was on the ballot.

Although, that could confuse the voters who think that Clinton is Satan.

[flere-imsaho]

Realistic candidates for the Republicans (in no particular order):

McCain
Romney
Thompson
Paul
Giuliani

Realistic candidates for the Democrats (in no particular order):

Obama
Clinton
Edwards

I think that's the state of play now, to be honest. I think the Democratic nomination comes down to Clinton's connections & name recognition vs. Obama's charisma & money, with Edwards as a dark horse should one of the other two implode.

I think the Republican nomination is completely in the air currently, with the McCain campaign imploding, Giuliani running well but inevitably not electable by the base, Romney raising the money, and Fred Thompson fading out of being Flavor of the Month.

[Crapshoot]

I dunno Flere - Guliani continues to top Republican polls, even in places like South Carolina. I think his strategy of ignoring Iowa and going for the bigger states (CA, FL, etc etc) will pay off for him.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mustang

Satan could be the republican nominee and that wouldn't keep Republicans away if Clinton was on the ballot.

Maybe. But if the thrice-married, pro-gay, pro-abortion, dresses-in-drag, got-kicked-off-the-9/11-commission-for-laziness Rudy Giuliani is on their half of the ballot, I can see a lot saying "screw it" and staying home.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

If it ends up being Hillary vs. Rudy, then I think Hillary takes it in a walk. Rudy has waaaaaaaay too many skeletons in his closet, a number of which will alienate, specifically, the "family values" and "Reagan Conservatives" in the Republican Party. This will probably be enough to keep enough Republicans home to allow Hillary to win.

I don't see this as the matchup, however. For one, I don't think there's any way Rudy gets the Republican nomination. I still think the Democratic nomination is 50/50 Hillary and Obama.

I'm not sure its accurate to say that Rudy has skeletons in his closet. His skeletons are all strewn about the living room.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Maybe. But if the thrice-married, pro-gay, pro-abortion, dresses-in-drag, got-kicked-off-the-9/11-commission-for-laziness Rudy Giuliani is on their half of the ballot, I can see a lot saying "screw it" and staying home.

Fyi, I think the one thing (that I'm surprised Romney hasn't played up) regarding Guliani is that his kids have refused to campaign for him, because of the circumstances of the 2nd divorce. In the GOP in particular, the idea that your own family doesn't have faith in you ought to be a killer.

[sabotai]

My choices are Hilary and Rudy....I suddenly got really depressed.

[Pumpy Tudors]

I went with "third party" as I would prefer that Ozzie Smith be the president, or perhaps John Stockton or David Baker (commissioner of the Arena Football League). David Baker gets shit done. He makes Roger Goodell look like a damn bunny rabbit.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

I dunno Flere - Guliani continues to top Republican polls, even in places like South Carolina. I think his strategy of ignoring Iowa and going for the bigger states (CA, FL, etc etc) will pay off for him.

Possibly. Bear in mind also that "None of the above" currently leads all Republican candidates when polls are run, so there's a lot of room for someone to grab the lead between now and the primaries. I think that underscores exactly how open the primary race is for the Republicans right now.

Primaries are funny things, too. Iowa may have an insignificant number of electors, but if you win there you grab a lot of media attention and it can very quickly infuse your campaign with interest and demoralize the supporters of another.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

I went with "third party" as I would prefer that Ozzie Smith be the president, or perhaps John Stockton or David Baker (commissioner of the Arena Football League). David Baker gets shit done. He makes Roger Goodell look like a damn bunny rabbit.

Well, I just got a little upset because I found out that David Baker used to be the mayor of Irvine, California. I don't really want a politican to be president. I'd like to think of David Baker as somebody who has come to his senses, though, so I'll still go with him.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I'm not sure its accurate to say that Rudy has skeletons in his closet. His skeletons are all strewn about the living room.

LOL.

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Fyi, I think the one thing (that I'm surprised Romney hasn't played up) regarding Guliani is that his kids have refused to campaign for him, because of the circumstances of the 2nd divorce. In the GOP in particular, the idea that your own family doesn't have faith in you ought to be a killer.

If he's smart, he'll wait until closer to the primaries so the public doesn't have time to forget about it.

[Sgran]

Obama and Edwards haven't been able to make a dent in Hillary's lead after several debates and it looks to me like they're out of bullets. I like what Edwards is doing and saying, but it doesn't look like he's going to get any traction. Obama is a great speaker, but the Clintons are proven winners and the Dems just want to win (talk about voting even if Satan is on the ballot). They'll tell Barack to wait his turn.
As for the GOPs, I honestly don't have a clue. Rudy will lose because he won't turn out the vote. Romney? Another damned Yankee! Thompson. Maybe, but where is he?

[st.cronin]

I still think Al Gore gets the Dem nomination. My gut tells me he's going to run.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by clintl

I still think it's going to be Romney as Republican nominee when it's all over.

My sense is the same. Despite what the polls are showing, few voters have been giving any of this much consideration, so there is more than enough time for things to shift this way or that.

My first impulse was that Fred Thompson would have the most appeal to GOP voters, especially given that Romney was on the liberal side of most of the conservatives' core social issues not too long ago. But everything I hear from my colleagues over on the Senate side is that his reputation for extreme laziness is well earned. It takes a big machine running on your side to make up for that flaw as a candidate, and I don't think he's got one.

[flere-imsaho]

I don't know if people have followed the Electoral Vote Predictor for the past few elections, but the guy running it has done pretty well by aggregating polls and determining outcomes. He's an admitted liberal, but his analysis has usually been pretty on. Anyway, as of yesterday, this was his take:

Here is an update on the primary polling. With 138 state polls so far, a picture is beginning to emerge. On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton has a wide lead just about everywhere except Iowa, where John Edwards has a narrow lead. If Edwards manages to win big in Iowa, he might shake things up, but barring that or a surprising event, Hillary is going to tough to stop. If we compare the average of all the polls for July and April we get the following, with the April data in parentheses.

Hillary Clinton 36% (34%)
Barack Obama 23% (20%)
John Edwards 12% (17%)
On the Republican side, the picture is murkier. For the first time I have now included former lobbyist, senator, and actor, Fred Thompson because it is increasingly clear he is a candidate, despite his not having announced yet. But he is doing all the things candidates do: raising money, hiring staff, building an organization. In contrast, Newt Gingrich and Al Gore are doing none of these, and look increasingly like noncandidates, although both might be draftable at a deadlocked convention. If we compare July and April for the Republicans, we get

Rudy Giuliani 27% (31%)
Fred Thompson 18% (-)
John McCain 14% (21%)
Mitt Romney 14% (9%)

Here it is clear that Giuliani is dropping, McCain is crashing, and Romney is rising (especially in Iowa and New Hampshire), but the big story is Thompson, who is now second even though he is not in the race yet, and only 9% behind front runner Giuliani. When Thompson enters and starts hitting Giuliani hard on his liberal views on everything, he will probably move into the #1 slot. It is unlikely Thompson will hit Giuliani on his marital track record because this would open the way for Romney (the only Republican with one wife) to go after Thompson on this score (shotgun wedding to pregnant girlfriend in high school, divorce, marriage to woman 24 years his junior). Thompson is already making the point that he is the only top-tier conservative in the race. Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR) are certainly conservative, but neither one seems to have caught the fancy of the media, whereas Thompson is a rising star.

[Crapshoot]

Romney = Mormon = No way. I don't particularly like Romney (I liked when I lived in MA - perfect GOP governor, IMO, but his bashing of MA on the way out and pandering to the religious right makes me think he'll say whatever he needs to to get elected), but significant portions of the evangelical electorate will not vote for Romney, especially now that a perceived "conservative" such as Fred Thomson is in (or will be). Consider me shocked if Romney wins.

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

My first impulse was that Fred Thompson would have the most appeal to GOP voters

Plus he has experience on the terrorism issue given his dealings with General Esperanza.

[Izulde]

I believe if Hillary gets the nomination, the Republicans win this election. I still don't see this country being ready for a woman president, particularly not one as polarizing as her.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Izulde

I still don't see this country being ready for a woman president

If you're right about this, it doesn't say much for us as a country, considering that we have seen a number of successful women leaders of other countries in recent decades.

particularly not one as polarizing as her.

This, I think, is the much bigger problem, and the biggest reason I'm hoping Obama can beat her. We need to move beyond the polarization of the Clinton/Bush eras.

But, I don't really see any of the major Republican candidates having what it takes to win at this point, either. They're all pretty flawed candidates, and I think the Republican second-tier actually has some candidates that should be more attractive.

Note - as a Democrat, I don't really want the Republicans to figure that out.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by clintl

If you're right about this, it doesn't say much for us as a country, considering that we have seen a number of successful women leaders of other countries in recent decades.

I've heard this sentiment before about the United States still not being ready for a woman president. I think that the taboo is not as strong as it was even ten years ago, but according to recent public opinion polling, the view is still expressed by a large percentage of the electorate. And I agree with you, it does say something about our country. Even several Muslim-majority countries, such as Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Indonesia have had female heads of state.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Izulde

I believe if Hillary gets the nomination, the Republicans win this election. I still don't see this country being ready for a woman president, particularly not one as polarizing as her.

I think that depends on if Rudy wins the Republican nomination. I think it'd be interesting to see how in the world the religious right handles that. They'd desperately want to get Hillary out (somewhat wierd since she IS a very religious person herself and not as left wing as some of her opponents portray her as... ie, she's not John Edwards), but wouldn't want a pro-choice Republican in the White House. I wonder about the possibility of someone like Dobson running on a 3rd Party (kind of like, you Republicans can't just take us for granted Party), but I wonder if their hatred for Hillary will squash that impulse.

I do think a Hillary/Rudy race would be highly interesting as they'd be very non-traditional (or rather non-stereotypical of their respective parties would be a better way to put it) candidates. Rudy suscribes to the somewhat authoritarian impulse on crime and terrorism (no real right to privacy there), but is very strong on the right to privacy over a woman's body (abortion), pro gun control, and somewhat pro gay rights. He is also, IMO, somewhat of a moderate on fiscal issues. Hillary is a moderate Dem who is very, very, very religious (though a more communitarian view of her Methodist faith), but is seen as a far left socialist for advancing a health care policy that is very similar to one that Republican Mitt Romney passed as Governor of Massachusetts (and probably for other strange issues).

[Bubba Wheels]

New Wall Street Poll out shows Hillary and Guiliani as respective front-runners. But the surprise is, if Bloomberg gets in he takes votes from Rudy not Hillary. Thompson's support being described financially as 'dissappointing." What a bummer if this is what it comes down to.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Mustang

Plus he has experience on the terrorism issue given his dealings with General Esperanza.

Gold

SI

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

But the surprise is, if Bloomberg gets in he takes votes from Rudy not Hillary.

Why is that a surprise?

[Toddzilla]

As soon as the Democrats - Howard Dean as pres. of th party - can start to campaign against Rudy Guliani, Rudy's chances of being president are DONE. All they need to do, really, is give the NYPD and the FDNY a national forum, and we're talking landslide.

[MalcPow]

Originally Posted by clintl

I still think it's going to be Romney as Republican nominee when it's all over. Rudy is vulnerable on so many issues that the conservative base cares about that I don't see him winning. Plus, Romney is trouncing him in campaign donations. I think that's a strong indicator that he will probably prevail.

For what it's worth, this isn't really true. Romney and Giuliani are in basically a dead heat when it comes to contributions, the difference is that Romney has put in $9m of his own money. Of course Romney has also spent nearly twice as much and is still trailing big, and has about 33% less cash on hand in his campaign coffers. Not that it really matters in Romney's case, he can bail himself out if money becomes the issue, but as others have mentioned, he's got other problems (like no committed base). Both of them are flawed and vulnerable, and it would certainly be best for the country if those vulnerabilities sunk them before a showdown with a Dem, but who knows in this race. I will say, as a transplant to NYC, that Giuliani is regarded much more highly everywhere else than he is in New York. I would bet he polls better in Oklahoma City than he does here. It's a bizarre phenomenon, but certainly not an illusion that can sustain itself when the other heroes of 9/11 in the city start trotting out to burn him. We shall see. It's probably unfortunate that Rudy might not have to face that kind of heat unless he wins the nomination (much like John Kerry and his war record), and I just can't see him surviving that fight with any semblance of his image intact.

[Tyrith]

I think Rudy/Hillary would have very profound implications for this country's suicide rate.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Romney = Mormon = No way. I don't particularly like Romney (I liked when I lived in MA - perfect GOP governor, IMO, but his bashing of MA on the way out and pandering to the religious right makes me think he'll say whatever he needs to to get elected), but significant portions of the evangelical electorate will not vote for Romney, especially now that a perceived "conservative" such as Fred Thomson is in (or will be). Consider me shocked if Romney wins.

Bingo. This isn't something people will get past. They can possibly live with a 3 times married pro gay guy, but the notion of electing a member of a perceived "cult" is simply off the table. It doesn't make any fucking sense, but it's the way it is.

[Kodos]

I like Edwards, but since he doesn't seem to really be in the thick of things, I can only hope that Al Gore comes in from the sidelines. I think if he comes in, he kicks everyone's ass on either side.

[stevew]

Fred Thompson FTW!!

This blows, I hate all the canidates i think.

[Sgran]

I just realized that we're supposed to say who we WANT to see as president. I would be equally happy with Obama or Edwards. If I had to choose, I would say Edwards just because he seems more ready to swim with the sharks.
I agree wholeheartedly that if it becomes a three-way New York race, Hillary would win in a landslide. Turnout would be an all-time low. I think people outside of New York fail to realize how much anti-New York resentment is out there, even in other big cities (I can speak for Chicago).
Truth be told, I don't see how a Republican can win at this point, unless someone charismatic like Thompson gets in the race.
One more thing: I completely disagree with the notion that Hillary draws more ire than other candidates. When right-wingers get their dander up they can hate anybody. I mean if they can get in a frenzy over Carey changing his opinion on an issue and pretend Bush was more capable of a military leader after avoiding service in the national guard than Carey was because Carey's boat didn't actually come under fire (or whatever), then how much more fury can they muster against someone who wanted (NOT WANTS) to nationalize health care?

[Jas_lov]

Originally Posted by Tyrith

I think Rudy/Hillary would have very profound implications for this country's suicide rate.

I think so too, and it would be advantageous for a 3rd party to come in and offer a good alternative. Basically other than the outside chance of Paul, Kucinich, or Gravel becoming the next President we're going to get a lot of the same as we have now. Fred Thompson is pretty much the same as all of the other top tier Republicans and people just don't know where he stands on a lot of issues yet. The top tier Republicans and Democrats are just two sides of the same coin.

Unfortunately, Hillary will probably get the Dem nomination, but I agree with others who said that Gore will probably get it if he runs. The Republican race seems pretty wide open. It's probably between Romney and Thompson. Rudy will eventually be brought down when people hear about his past. And the polls everyone references to aren't very accurate at this point because it's pretty much a lot of name recognition this far away from the primaries.

[larrymcg421]

If Gore runs, it would be very bad for the Democratic party. A Gore/Hillary/Obama tussle would sap alot of money from the donor base in the primary. Also, whoever came out on top would be too bruised from the battle to win.

Gore missed his chance four years ago. I think he could have won.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by MalcPow

It's probably unfortunate that Rudy might not have to face that kind of heat unless he wins the nomination (much like John Kerry and his war record),

Not to derail the thread too much, but why do people continue to perpetuate this falsehood? Yes, Kerry's Purple Hearts were given out for likely superficial wounds, but that was the norm (by many accounts) for Vietnam. Kerry served, he served in combat, and he served with a certain amount of distinction. It's now been proven that pretty much all of the SBVT muckrackers had ties to the Republican Party and/or the Bush campaign and their claims have been found to be unsubstantiated, especially in light of the recollections of the men who actually served with Kerry.

Could we give this a bit of a rest?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MalcPow

For what it's worth, this isn't really true. Romney and Giuliani are in basically a dead heat when it comes to contributions, the difference is that Romney has put in $9m of his own money. Of course Romney has also spent nearly twice as much and is still trailing big, and has about 33% less cash on hand in his campaign coffers. Not that it really matters in Romney's case, he can bail himself out if money becomes the issue, but as others have mentioned, he's got other problems (like no committed base). Both of them are flawed and vulnerable, and it would certainly be best for the country if those vulnerabilities sunk them before a showdown with a Dem, but who knows in this race. I will say, as a transplant to NYC, that Giuliani is regarded much more highly everywhere else than he is in New York. I would bet he polls better in Oklahoma City than he does here. It's a bizarre phenomenon, but certainly not an illusion that can sustain itself when the other heroes of 9/11 in the city start trotting out to burn him. We shall see. It's probably unfortunate that Rudy might not have to face that kind of heat unless he wins the nomination (much like John Kerry and his war record), and I just can't see him surviving that fight with any semblance of his image intact.

I think that's true of Romney, too, isn't it? Less popular in his home state than he is elsewhere?

[MalcPow]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Not to derail the thread too much, but why do people continue to perpetuate this falsehood? Yes, Kerry's Purple Hearts were given out for likely superficial wounds, but that was the norm (by many accounts) for Vietnam. Kerry served, he served in combat, and he served with a certain amount of distinction. It's now been proven that pretty much all of the SBVT muckrackers had ties to the Republican Party and/or the Bush campaign and their claims have been found to be unsubstantiated, especially in light of the recollections of the men who actually served with Kerry.

Could we give this a bit of a rest?

I wasn't trying to perpetuate anything. I think Giuliani served with distinction in his handling of 9/11, doesn't mean that he won't get trashed by NYPD and FDNY members for a multitude of reasons, many of them politically or personally motivated just like with Kerry. I was trying to draw a parallel between a perceived image strength that's going to take a beating in a national election, rightly or wrongly, not trying to disparage either of them. Just to clarify.

[MalcPow]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I think that's true of Romney, too, isn't it? Less popular in his home state than he is elsewhere?

Dola, I think that's probably true to a degree, but I can't speak to how stark the contrast is. It may just be one of those things you notice and exaggerate because it's somewhat surprising, but Rudy is pretty roundly despised here in my experience. Apparently he's more of a speak loudly, carry a big stick, and screw people over to get what you want kind of leader.

But I agree, it's not unique. Gore and Tennessee might be an even wider gulf between a potential candidate's support inside and outside his home state.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Not to derail the thread too much, but why do people continue to perpetuate this falsehood? Yes, Kerry's Purple Hearts were given out for likely superficial wounds, but that was the norm (by many accounts) for Vietnam. Kerry served, he served in combat, and he served with a certain amount of distinction. It's now been proven that pretty much all of the SBVT muckrackers had ties to the Republican Party and/or the Bush campaign and their claims have been found to be unsubstantiated, especially in light of the recollections of the men who actually served with Kerry.

Could we give this a bit of a rest?

I don't think MalcPow was judging the validity of Kerry's war record. But he does illustrate the point that in politics, perception is reality, whether that perception is valid or not.

[Young Drachma]

Neither.

[clintl]

You know Rudy's in trouble if he's barely beating the third party candidate.

[Carman Bulldog]

So, if Clinton can win the next two elections and maybe Jeb Bush could win the two after that, then the Presidency could be dominated by those two families for what, 36 consecutive years?

[Kodos]

I would hope that this country is done with Bushes as Presidents at this point.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I think that's true of Romney, too, isn't it? Less popular in his home state than he is elsewhere?

There is probably more of a hatred for Romney in MA though, seeing as how Romney seems like he can't get through a stump speech without bashing his home state.