[QUOTE=Come Back to NY;2190326]I don't know about Ca or even NY....but he will win CT and would have a major advantage in NJ....Wisconsin would also be up for grabs...[/QUOTE]
Wisconsin was decided by only a few points in the last few elections. It is up for grabs anyhow. Keep in mind, however, that voters there are extremely anti-Bush, due mostly to foreign policy. Russ Feingold gets reelected there for a reason. And Rudy basically is no different from Bush on foreign policy.
[QUOTE=nuu faaola;2190296]He has no chance in California, but an outside shot in NY. (He was losing narrowly to Hillary in that senate campaign when he got sick a few years back, recall, although that was before 9/11 so who knows what the impact of that will be.) The bottom line is that Bush is universally reviled in both states, and it is going to be hard for him to win either place when his foreign policy positions remain basically indistinguishable from GWB.
On the other hand, he's going to be more vulnerable in states where the Republicans need a big turnout from their base to win. Ohio and Missouri, for instance, are places where the GOP has really relied on huge turnout for evangelical voters to win; those voters will still skew Republican, but they will not turn out in nearly the same numbers for Rudy as they did for Bush, which means he probably won't win either, assuming whoever the Democrats run polls relatively similar to Kerry in each state.[/QUOTE]
Nuu - Rudy vs. Hillary will be a landslide.
Jets Insider VIP JetsInsider.com Legend Charter JI Member
[QUOTE=nuu faaola;2190330]Wisconsin was decided by only a few points in the last few elections. It is up for grabs anyhow. Keep in mind, however, that voters there are extremely anti-Bush, due mostly to foreign policy. Russ Feingold gets reelected there for a reason. And Rudy basically is no different from Bush on foreign policy.[/QUOTE]
the number of "anti-Bush" people voting in '08 will be fractional to the number of anti-Hillary people who will come out and vote....keep pinning your hopes of winning on an anti-Bush vote.....
[QUOTE=sackdance;2190331]Nuu - Rudy vs. Hillary will be a landslide.[/QUOTE]
No, it won't. The war will be the biggest issue. The public still hates Bush's foreign policy, and Rudy foreign policy is identical to Bush's. That hurts him --and any Republican with similar views-- immensely. And Hillary --by virtue of how long she's been eying this run-- has a much stronger political organization and clearly superior fundraising, which matters.
What Rudy versus Hillary will be, however, is the most insufferable, polarizing, hideous campaign anyone has ever seen. It will pit two of the nastiest personalties in the history of American politics against each other, each encouraging their rabid partisans to follow their nastiest impulses.
It will be unpleasant, it will chase moderates away, and it will ultimately come down to whoever turns out their base better. And neither base is all that happy about its candidate, as the antiwar folks don't trust Hillary, and the social conservatives are openly disdaunful of Rudy.
So, look at the electoral map. What Kerry states does Rudy have a chance of taking away from Hillary? Wisconsin, maybe. Possibly NJ and Connecticut. NY is a very long shot, and polls suggest it isn't very close right now. Really nothing else.
What Bush states does Hillary have a chance of taking from Rudy? Ohio, Florida, Missouri -- all decided by razor-thin margins and all impacted by significant evangelical turnout that presumably will not turn out in the same numbers from Rudy, at least if Mullah Dobson and the other self-appointed leaders of that political movement can be believed. Also Colorado and Nevada, which are becoming heavily latino and more Dem-leaning in each election.
So Rudy can certainly beat Hillary, but it will most certainly not be a landslide. It will come down to a few swing states, just like the last few elections did.
She's not my horse in the race (I'm for Obama), but I wouldn't be so naive as to declare that she can't win. She can.
[QUOTE]My conclusion from this closer look at the current GOP front-runner comes down to this: Speaking as a private citizen and not on behalf of any organization or party, [B]I cannot, and will not, vote for Rudy Giuliani in 2008. It is an irrevocable decision. If given a Hobson's – Dobson's? – choice between him and Sens. Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama, I will either cast my ballot for an also-ran – or if worse comes to worst – not vote in a presidential election for the first time in my adult life. My conscience and my moral convictions will allow me to do nothing else. [/B][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Come Back to NY;2190460]it's laughable how the rat-wing uses individual people to make their feeble case.....perfect example is using an article six months old...
even the rats trying to win the candidacy are all over the fact hillary is unelectable based and they point to polling data....[/QUOTE]
Groups like Focus on the Family and their turnout efforts won Bush Ohio in 2004. If he had lost Ohio, he would have lost the election. It is a big deal for the GOP if they won't work as hard in the swing states, because this election will likely come down to a few battlegrounds yet again.
Also, polling does not show Hillary to be unelectable, at all. It does tend to show she may have a tougher road than a candidate with fewer negatives, like Obama, but I am unaware of any key swing state poll that shows her getting killed.
In fact, the most recent Rasmussen poll, released Sunday, shows her in a statistical dead heat with either Giuliani or Thompson:
[QUOTE]Election 2008: Clinton vs. Giuliani & Thompson
Both Giuliani, Thompson Now In Toss-ups with Clinton
Sunday, October 28, 2007
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows former Mayor Rudy Giuliani leading Senator Clinton 46% to 44% in an early look at a general election match-up. Clinton has a 47% to 45% edge on another Republican hopeful, Fred Thompson.
These numbers reflect a significant turnaround from recent polls.
Clinton and Giuliani have been in a very competitive match-up for most of the year, but Clinton had gained ground in three bi-weekly consecutive polls. By October 9, the Democratic frontrunner was leading the former mayor by seven percentage points. But, the current results suggest a return to the longer trend-line established for this race.
Individual polls can sometimes overstate volatility in a race, especially when the results carry a four percentage point margin of sampling error. One way of addressing this is to look at a rolling-average of three consecutive polls. Using this approach, Clinton and Giuliani have both been within two points of the 45% mark for eleven consecutive polls dating back to May 1, 2007. The candidates have been within two points of each other on seven of those eleven surveys.
Still, while the candidates have hovered consistently around that 45% level of support, a modest trend in Clinton’s favor can easily be detected. During the first eight sets of three-poll averages, Giuliani was “ahead” in seven and tied with Clinton in the eighth. Clinton has held the advantage in the last three updates of the three poll rolling average. She currently leads 47% to 44%.
It’s worth noting that on individual polls with a four point margin of sampling error, Giuliani has been within four points of the 45% mark for thirteen consecutive surveys dating back to March. Clinton has been within four points of the 45% mark on seventeen of eighteen surveys dating back to December.
The bottom line is that the latest trend reversal in the Clinton-Giuliani is interesting but not very surprising.
A similar observation can be made about the reversal found in the latest Clinton-Thompson numbers. Clinton led Thompson by double-digits in early October but that lead has essentially disappeared. Between then and now Thompson participated in two televised GOP debates, after sitting out all previous ones. The first was held the evening of October 9, the second October 22. The current poll was conducted October 22-23. Thompson's performance in the October 9 clash was regarded as passable if not stellar; the second, still uneven but stronger.
But, given the small audiences for the debates, it is perhaps better to evaluate the current results as part of an overall trend.
Since their first Election 2008 match-up, in March, Rasmussen Reports has conducted ten surveys matching the former Tennessee Senator with the former First Lady. The first five found the candidates essentially even, but Clinton increased her lead over Thompson in five consecutive surveys before this latest release.
A look at the three-poll rolling average for this match-up shows Clinton at 45% or 46% in the early match-ups moving up to the 48% to 50% range for the last four sets of results. Thompson started out at 44% or 45% for the first sets of data and has been in the 40% to 43% range more recently.
Currently, in the three poll rolling average, Clinton leads Thompson 49% to 41%.
So, the most recent poll current results showing Thompson the closest he has been to Clinton since July, may signal the start of an upward trend for the GOP hopeful or may be nothing more than statistical noise. The same could be said for Clinton’s spike to a double-digit lead over Thompson last month.
Some of the change in Thompson’s status may reflect the fact that he was little known in the early surveys so the results were more or less entirely based upon perceptions of Hillary Clinton. Now, as Thompson is getting a little better known, the numbers take on a different dynamic.
Those with no opinion of Thompson now number only 13%, down from 22 points two weeks ago. He is viewed favorably by 43%, unfavorably by 44%. Two weeks ago his favorables were 39% and 39%.
A Rasmussen Reports analysis released today shows the polling impact when a little known challenger faces an established candidate like Clinton. In a match-up with Ron Paul. Clinton receives 48% of the vote against Paul. Among people who have never heard of Ron Paul, Clinton still receives 48% of the vote. In other words, it’s all about her.
A separate analysis released today shows that, on average, Clinton attracts 18% of Republican women in general election match-ups. But, she also loses support among Democratic men.
Clinton shows surprising competitiveness in Southern states like North Carolina, Virginia and Tennessee. She is also the dominant frontrunner in the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination and leads all Democrats in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Giuliani and Thompson top the national polls in the race for the Republican nomination. Mitt Romney leads in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Giuliani is viewed favorably by 51%, unfavorably by 47%. That’s the first time he has moved back above the 50% positive mark in six weeks. Clinton is viewed favorably by 46%, unfavorably by 52%. But, with Clinton, you again need to take the longer view—virtually all year her numbers have hovered around the 49% favorable and 49% unfavorable level. Two weeks ago, she was a few points above that and now she’s a few points below. [/QUOTE]
Last edited by nuu faaola; 11-02-2007 at 01:20 PM.
[QUOTE=sackdance;2190331]Nuu - Rudy vs. Hillary will be a landslide.[/QUOTE]
Indeed......for Hillary if you ask me. And I don't say that because I like her or want to see it happen. I'd be shocked if Clinton didn't wipe the floor backwards and forewards with Rudy G. in a General Election situation.
[QUOTE=Warfish;2190531]Indeed......for Hillary if you ask me. And I don't say that because I like her or want to see it happen. I'd be shocked if Clinton didn't wipe the floor backwards and forewards with Rudy G. in a General Election situation.[/QUOTE]
I don't think Hillary can win --or lose-- in a landslide. Too many people have their minds made up about her already, and her favorable and unfavorable ratings are both locked in at about 49%, which is almost unprecedented.
I suppose there could be an anti-Rudy landslide if a third-party candidate emerges to carry the religious right banner, but I see the odds of that as roughly the same as an antiwar party emerging as an alternative to Hillary. Would be interesting if both happened, actually.
[QUOTE=Buster;2190350]The Republicans wont be able to use their 'Gay Rights' or 'Pro-Life' cards to get out the vote.
That will help Hillary.[/QUOTE]
Immigration is a gorilla. You will have run-of-the-mill Democrats voting for Rudy if Hillary keeps up the 3-tiered drivers licenses that accommodate illegals compromise. And if she listens to people and reverses course, well, she'll catch hell for it. The trick about liberals, and I'm serious, is to keep the electorate from learning about what they really think. And in this instance, immigration, a dirty secret wandered off her reservation.
Jets Insider VIP JetsInsider.com Legend Charter JI Member
[QUOTE=nuu faaola;2190515]Groups like Focus on the Family and their turnout efforts won Bush Ohio in 2004. If he had lost Ohio, he would have lost the election. It is a big deal for the GOP if they won't work as hard in the swing states, because this election will likely come down to a few battlegrounds yet again.
[QUOTE]The online survey of 9,718 likely voters nationwide showed that 50% said Clinton would never get their presidential vote. This is up from 46% who said they could never vote for Clinton in a Zogby International telephone survey conducted in early March. Older voters are most resistant to Clinton – 59% of those age 65 and older said they would never vote for the New York senator, but she is much more acceptable to younger voters: 42% of those age 18–29 said they would never vote for Clinton for President.
[QUOTE]More than half of Americans say they wouldn't consider voting for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for president if she becomes the Democratic nominee, according to a new national poll made available to McClatchy Newspapers and NBC News. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Half of voting-age Americans say they would not vote for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) if she became the Democratic nominee for president in 2008, according to a Harris Interactive poll released Tuesday.
More than one in five Democrats that participated in the survey said they would not vote for Clinton. Overall, 36 percent say they would vote for the former first lady and 11 percent are unsure of their top choice.
Guess what? She doesn't need 50% to win. Bill never got 50% and won twice. If Rudy --whose unfavorable ratings are just as high-- is the candidate, she probably only needs about 45% of the electorate to win, because the fundies won't come out for him as well as they did for Bush.
[QUOTE=Phoenixx;2190602]Only because Perot received 18+% and 8+% in '92 and '96, respectively.
The discussion seems to be focused on a head-to-head race...and Hillary's consistently high negatives are an issue in that case.[/QUOTE]
Absolutely, but it is extremely likely in THIS head-to-head race that there would be a third party (religious right) and possibly even a fourth party (antiwar) candidate in some way shape or form. Given the lack of enthusiasm for the current frontrunners from their bases, and the absence of any strong incumbent, the current environment looks a lot more like 1992 than it looks like 2004, in my opinion.