New poll shows Clinton trails top 2008 Republicans

[SoCalBronco]

New poll shows Clinton trails top 2008 Republicans
Mon Nov 26, 2007 1:46pm ESTPost Your Comments | All Comments Email | Print | Share| Reprints | Single Page | Recommend (18) [-] Text [+]

1 of 1Full Size
Related News
Democratic presidential race tightens: poll
Undecided voters give Obama hope in 2008 race
Undecided voters give Obama hope in 2008 race
Clinton and Obama spar over experience
Democrats court activists in Iowa

powered by SphereWASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton trails five top Republican presidential contenders in general election match-ups, a drop in support from this summer, according to a poll released on Monday.

Clinton's top Democratic rivals, Barack Obama and John Edwards, still lead Republicans in hypothetical match-ups ahead of the November 4, 2008, presidential election, the survey by Zogby Interactive showed.

Clinton, a New York senator who has been at the top of the Democratic pack in national polls in the 2008 race, trails Republican candidates Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, John McCain and Mike Huckabee by three to five percentage points in the direct matches.

In July, Clinton narrowly led McCain, an Arizona senator, and held a five-point lead over former New York Mayor Giuliani, a six-point lead over former Tennessee Sen. Thompson and a 10-point lead over former Massachusetts Gov. Romney.

She was not matched against the fast-rising Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor, in the July poll.

The results come as other national polls show the race for the Democratic nomination tightening five weeks before the first contest in Iowa, which kicks off the state-by-state nomination battles in each party.

Some Democrats have expressed concerns about the former first lady's electability in a race against Republicans. The survey showed Clinton not performing as well as Obama and Edwards among independents and younger voters, pollster John Zogby said.

"The questions about her electability have always been there, but as we get close this suggests that is a problem," Zogby said.

Obama, an Illinois senator, and Edwards, a former North Carolina senator, both hold narrow leads over the Republican contenders in the hypothetical 2008 match-ups

"It all points to a very competitive general election at a time when many people think the Democrats are going to win the White House," Zogby said.

The poll of 9,355 people had a margin of error of plus or minus one percentage point. The interactive poll surveys individuals who have registered to take part in online polls.

(To read more about the U.S. political campaign, visit Reuters "Tales from the Trail: 2008" online at http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/)

(Reporting by John Whitesides, editing by Vicki Allen)

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2645320920071126


My take: Again, this reflects her unending problem of the dangerously high negatives. She's never going to breakthrough against anyone in a horserace. When you start out with 40-45% of the electorate dead set against you, it makes it very easy for the rival, even a fairly unappealing one, to at the very least make it a photofinish if not an outright victory for the other side.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Clinton's top Democratic rivals, Barack Obama and John Edwards, still lead Republicans in hypothetical match-ups ahead of the November 4, 2008, presidential election, the survey by Zogby Interactive showed..

[SoCalBronco]

Yeah LABF, but it doesnt look like they're going to get the nomination, dude.

The only way Clinton is going to get derailed is a defeat in Iowa (which is very possible, given that it is now a statistical dead heat). That's the only way a snowball effect might get started and its not necessarily a given that a snowball effect WOULD happen, just that it would become at least a real horserace at that point. There is some tightening a bit in NH too, but its still a fairly decent Clinton lead there from what I've read...and she's dominating in the other states.

[cutthemdown]

a lot of men just wont vote for a woman. It transends political ideaology and hits on male ego.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I think it would be hilarious if Republicans elected Rudy babe president.

[Crushaholic]

a lot of men just wont vote for a women. It transends political ideaology and hits on male ego.

I'd be fine with voting for a woman...just not THIS woman. Her attempt at adding the health care system to the bloated government rolls early in her husband's administration did it for me...

[Hotrod]

Billary will be the down fall of the dems.

[Bronco Bob]

a lot of men just wont vote for a women. It transends political ideaology and hits on male ego.

Yes, but a lot of women will. That too transcends political ideology.

Hillary's Elderly Women Edge

DES MOINES, Iowa, Nov. 26 — They usually sit in the front row — to hear her better, to see her better and to make sure they have a chance to shake her hand. Some lean on canes. Some have traveled a great distance. Some have never been to a political event before.

The first one who shared her story with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton was Ruth Smith, 87. She drove 160 miles to Des Moines from Buffalo Center to attend Mrs. Clinton’s first rally in Iowa as a presidential candidate and went up to her afterward.

“I told her that my grandmother was the first person in town to vote, and my mother was the second,” said Mrs. Smith, who was born three months before the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920. “And I told her I was born before women could vote, and I want to live long enough to see a woman in the White House.”

Since then Mrs. Smith’s story has become a grace note in Mrs. Clinton’s stump speech. At the same time, the many other elderly women who turn out for Clinton campaign events have become welcome set pieces, visibly demonstrating the candidate’s effort to highlight her sex and her overtures to female voters, whom the campaign is counting on to propel her to the Democratic presidential nomination.

Many young women have been enthusiastic supporters, but Mrs. Clinton, of New York, has shown particular pride in the women in their 70s, 80s and 90s at her events. She spends extra time with them on the rope line and repeats their stories to audiences.

“A couple of weeks ago in New Hampshire, a woman said, ‘I’m 98 years old, this will probably be my last election, we need to hurry up,’” Mrs. Clinton recounted recently in Vinton, Iowa. “And I said, ‘I don’t know, I may need you for my re-election.’ And she said, ‘Well, my doctor just put in a new pacemaker, and she says it’s good for seven years.’”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/27/us/politics/27ladies.html?ref=politics

[Hotrod]

Yes, but a lot of women will. That too transcends political ideology.

Hillary's Elderly Women Edge

DES MOINES, Iowa, Nov. 26 — They usually sit in the front row — to hear her better, to see her better and to make sure they have a chance to shake her hand. Some lean on canes. Some have traveled a great distance. Some have never been to a political event before.

The first one who shared her story with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton was Ruth Smith, 87. She drove 160 miles to Des Moines from Buffalo Center to attend Mrs. Clinton’s first rally in Iowa as a presidential candidate and went up to her afterward.

“I told her that my grandmother was the first person in town to vote, and my mother was the second,” said Mrs. Smith, who was born three months before the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920. “And I told her I was born before women could vote, and I want to live long enough to see a woman in the White House.”

Since then Mrs. Smith’s story has become a grace note in Mrs. Clinton’s stump speech. At the same time, the many other elderly women who turn out for Clinton campaign events have become welcome set pieces, visibly demonstrating the candidate’s effort to highlight her sex and her overtures to female voters, whom the campaign is counting on to propel her to the Democratic presidential nomination.

Many young women have been enthusiastic supporters, but Mrs. Clinton, of New York, has shown particular pride in the women in their 70s, 80s and 90s at her events. She spends extra time with them on the rope line and repeats their stories to audiences.

“A couple of weeks ago in New Hampshire, a woman said, ‘I’m 98 years old, this will probably be my last election, we need to hurry up,’” Mrs. Clinton recounted recently in Vinton, Iowa. “And I said, ‘I don’t know, I may need you for my re-election.’ And she said, ‘Well, my doctor just put in a new pacemaker, and she says it’s good for seven years.’”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/27/us/politics/27ladies.html?ref=politics

On the other hand alot of women wont vote for another woman.

[Bronco Bob]

Lots of polls show Hillary ahead. So if you average them out, she still is ahead of every GOP candidate.

Against Guiliani by 2.5%
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_giuliani_vs_clinton-227.html

Against Romney by 11%
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_clinton-230.html

Against McCain by 2.8%
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_clinton-224.html

Against Thompson by 8.1%
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_thompson_vs_clinton-266.html

[Bronco Bob]

Here is an interesting article that calls the Zogby poll into question:

Their charts are also interesting.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/zogby_internet_poll_trial_heat.php

A new Zogby Interactive poll, conducted using volunteers over the internet, has produced some odd results for trial heats involving Senator Clinton against all four top Republican opponents. What makes this especially odd is that the results are not equally unusual for Obama.
This poll was reported by Reuters' John Whitesides (http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2645320920071126?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=10000), who also reports on the Reuters sponsored polling Zogby does by conventional telephone methods. The similarities in the reports make it hard to tell, but apparently these results are not part of the Reuters-Zogby polling partnership, but are independent work by Zogby Interactive. Likewise Zogby's website posts the results without mention of who sponsored the work (http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1393), so presumably Reuters did not.
The Zogby poll was conducted 11/21-26/07 with 9150 respondents who had agreed to take part in Zogby's online polling. This is not a normal random sample of the population. More on the technical issues below.
The hugely surprising result is that the Zogby poll finds Sen. Hillary Clinton losing to all four top Republicans in head-to-head trial heats. What makes that surprising is that Clinton LEADS all four of those Republicans in the trend estimates based on all other polling by between 3.8 and 11.6 points. Zogby also has Clinton losing to Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee by 5 points. There are too few Clinton-Huckabee trial heat polls from other organizations for me to compute a trend estimate for that comparison.
The chart above shows all the trial heat data from national polling and the estimated trend lines for each pairing. The data points for the new Zogby data are indicated in the charts as "Zogby Inet" in blue for Clinton and red for each Republican.
What is immediately clear is that the Zogby Clinton numbers are well below the estimated trend for Clinton in each of the four comparisons. Clinton is consistently 8-10 points below her trend estimate based on other polling.
In contrast, the Republican results are quite close to the trend estimate in most cases: Giuliani is at 43 in Zogby, with a trend of 44. Romney is 43 in Zogby, 38.3 in trend; Thompson is 44 in Zogby, 41.3 trend, and McCain is 42 Zogby, 42.7 trend. Those Republican numbers are about the kind of normal noise we see around the trend estimate, so don't seem out of line.
Why then is Clinton so far down in comparison to other polls? The Reuters story doesn't note that these results are far from other polling, and instead uses the theme that Clinton is declining to frame these Zogby results:
The results come as other national polls show the race for the Democratic nomination tightening five weeks before the first contest in Iowa, which kicks off the state-by-state nomination battles in each party.
Some Democrats have expressed concerns about the former first lady's electability in a race against Republicans. The survey showed Clinton not performing as well as Obama and Edwards among independents and younger voters, pollster John Zogby said.
While this is certainly a theme of recent reporting, boosted by a pre-Thanksgiving ABC/WP poll showing Obama leading Clinton in Iowa, it is striking that no other poll has found recent results as far from the trend estimates as are Zogby's results and that the Reuters story fails to note that fact.



There's more at the site, and it's an interesting read if you want the whole story. But to sum it up for the Hillary haters, don't get your hopes up too high.

[Rohirrim]

Didn't one poll say that there are as many as 50% of the voting public who will not vote for Billary under any circumstances whatsoever? The Dems are idiots, anyway. They are acting like just because Bush has screwed the pooch, they are somehow entitled to the WH. Right now, they're riding high, believing they are going to waltz into the Oval Office.

I think Pat Buchanan was right. When the Repugs start whacking them over the head with the immigration issue, their numbers are going to stall and drop. Over 70% of the American people are opposed to the Dem position on immigration and they put that issue in their top three concerns.

Mark my words: The Dems are going to get killed on illegal immigration. It's the new abortion/gay rights/flag burning red-meat issue for the Right. And the Dems are so full of themselves they don't even see it coming down the road like a friggin 18 wheeler right into their living rooms.

Besides, if there is one thing Bush should have taught us all, polls don't mean a thing. Especially exit polls, eh? ;D

[defenseman]

Here is an interesting article that calls the Zogby poll into question:

Their charts are also interesting.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/zogby_internet_poll_trial_heat.php

A new Zogby Interactive poll, conducted using volunteers over the internet, has produced some odd results for trial heats involving Senator Clinton against all four top Republican opponents. What makes this especially odd is that the results are not equally unusual for Obama.
This poll was reported by Reuters' John Whitesides (http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2645320920071126?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=10000), who also reports on the Reuters sponsored polling Zogby does by conventional telephone methods. The similarities in the reports make it hard to tell, but apparently these results are not part of the Reuters-Zogby polling partnership, but are independent work by Zogby Interactive. Likewise Zogby's website posts the results without mention of who sponsored the work (http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1393), so presumably Reuters did not.
The Zogby poll was conducted 11/21-26/07 with 9150 respondents who had agreed to take part in Zogby's online polling. This is not a normal random sample of the population. More on the technical issues below.
The hugely surprising result is that the Zogby poll finds Sen. Hillary Clinton losing to all four top Republicans in head-to-head trial heats. What makes that surprising is that Clinton LEADS all four of those Republicans in the trend estimates based on all other polling by between 3.8 and 11.6 points. Zogby also has Clinton losing to Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee by 5 points. There are too few Clinton-Huckabee trial heat polls from other organizations for me to compute a trend estimate for that comparison.
The chart above shows all the trial heat data from national polling and the estimated trend lines for each pairing. The data points for the new Zogby data are indicated in the charts as "Zogby Inet" in blue for Clinton and red for each Republican.
What is immediately clear is that the Zogby Clinton numbers are well below the estimated trend for Clinton in each of the four comparisons. Clinton is consistently 8-10 points below her trend estimate based on other polling.
In contrast, the Republican results are quite close to the trend estimate in most cases: Giuliani is at 43 in Zogby, with a trend of 44. Romney is 43 in Zogby, 38.3 in trend; Thompson is 44 in Zogby, 41.3 trend, and McCain is 42 Zogby, 42.7 trend. Those Republican numbers are about the kind of normal noise we see around the trend estimate, so don't seem out of line.
Why then is Clinton so far down in comparison to other polls? The Reuters story doesn't note that these results are far from other polling, and instead uses the theme that Clinton is declining to frame these Zogby results:
The results come as other national polls show the race for the Democratic nomination tightening five weeks before the first contest in Iowa, which kicks off the state-by-state nomination battles in each party.
Some Democrats have expressed concerns about the former first lady's electability in a race against Republicans. The survey showed Clinton not performing as well as Obama and Edwards among independents and younger voters, pollster John Zogby said.
While this is certainly a theme of recent reporting, boosted by a pre-Thanksgiving ABC/WP poll showing Obama leading Clinton in Iowa, it is striking that no other poll has found recent results as far from the trend estimates as are Zogby's results and that the Reuters story fails to note that fact.



There's more at the site, and it's an interesting read if you want the whole story. But to sum it up for the Hillary haters, don't get your hopes up too high.

question the "polls" that don't live up to the 'right hype. Applaud the polls that endorse your candidate,,,,,,more hypocrisy from "hillary's boy"....dman

*they can help with trends and leanings, that's about it, as far as accuracy, they all have issues. So don't endorse or denograte any of them, they are what they are...........get over it wuss boy.

[Bronco Bob]

Didn't one poll say that there are as many as 50% of the voting public who will not vote for Billary under any circumstances whatsoever?


And there are polls that have her at 40%. And there are polls that say
40% of the voters would never vote for Guiliani.


I think Pat Buchanan was right. When the Repugs start whacking them over the head with the immigration issue, their numbers are going to stall and drop. Over 70% of the American people are opposed to the Dem position on immigration and they put that issue in their top three concerns.

Mark my words: The Dems are going to get killed on illegal immigration. It's the new abortion/gay rights/flag burning red-meat issue for the Right. And the Dems are so full of themselves they don't even see it coming down the road like a friggin 18 wheeler right into their living rooms.

And Hillary is going to let Sanctuary City Rudy get the upper hand on her on
immigration? Where exactly does Rudy stand on immigration as compared
to Hillary? Or Romney. Name items where their positions differ from that of
Hillary's. And let's not even talk about McCain, he's already dead meat as far as immigration goes.

[Bronco Bob]

question the "polls" that don't live up to the 'right hype. Applaud the polls that endorse your candidate,,,,,,more hypocrisy from "hillary's boy"....dman

*they can help with trends and leanings, that's about it, as far as accuracy, they all have issues. So don't endorse or denograte any of them, they are what they are...........

So did you read the entire article? If so, what do you dispute?
And how do you explain why other polls show ALL the Democrats ahead,
and yet in this poll, only Hillary is behind, and more-over, none of the
GOP candidates gained any ground. You would think if less people are
going to vote for Hillary, MORE people would be voting for the GOP
candidate. So where did all the people that were going to vote for
Hillary before go to?

Look at Rasmussen's poll, Hillary's numbers are virtually unchanged for the
past two months, while Obama and Edwards are both under 20%.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/daily_presidential_tracking_polling_history

So if Democrats are still as strong for Hillary as ever, why did they
magically decide not to vote for her in the Zogby poll, and only in
the Zogby poll?

get over it wuss boy.

No need to be a prick about it, Sally.

[c_lazy_r]

Didn't one poll say that there are as many as 50% of the voting public who will not vote for Billary under any circumstances whatsoever?


Count me in on that statistic...

[Bronco Bob]

Count me in on that statistic...

Count me in as one who will never vote for Rudy. Or Romney. Or McCain.
Or Thompson. Or Tancredo. Or Gingrich.

[Hotrod]

Count me in on that statistic...

Throw me on the list and add my entire family and friend base.

[Spider]

Fighting over polls is like fighting over who gets the ugliest woman . polls change by the minute .......

[Rohirrim]

And there are polls that have her at 40%. And there are polls that say
40% of the voters would never vote for Guiliani.



And Hillary is going to let Sanctuary City Rudy get the upper hand on her on
immigration? Where exactly does Rudy stand on immigration as compared
to Hillary? Or Romney. Name items where their positions differ from that of
Hillary's. And let's not even talk about McCain, he's already dead meat as far as immigration goes.

If you go to Hillary's website you see the word "comprehensive" over and over again. Shorthand for amnesty. If you go to Rudy's site what do you see? Nothing. No mention of immigration at all. Why? My guess is they are going to pull something like this: Go hard Right on immigration in the general election (if they win the primary). No doubt they'll pull some crap out of the hat like saying, "We agree with Hillary that, as a mayor, Rudy was forced by the failures of the federal government to deal with the issue... blah, blah, blah." Then, they'll show video of Ted Kennedy and Billary hugging each other while Mexican flags fly behind them.

The swing has already started: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/us/politics/22giuliani.html

[peacepipe]

whoopty-doo, My money is on Hillary winning the the nomination & presidency. The only way Hillary doesn't become president is if she loses the nomination in which case whoever the dem is that gets the nomination will be our next president.

[Rohirrim]

Zogby's response to questions about the interactive poll were that they used it in the senatorial races and picked 17 out of 18 correctly. So, ???

[Hotrod]

Fighting over polls is like fighting over who gets the ugliest woman . polls change by the minute .......

Your right you can have her ;D

[Spider]

Zogby's response to questions about the interactive poll were that they used it in the senatorial races and picked 17 out of 18 correctly. So, ???

well for one we are still far away from elections ....... the average joe out there , probably cant name all the candidates right now ...........Wait untill it gets down to 1 person on each side ....... then take your poll

[TheDave]

well for one we are still far away from elections ....... the average joe out there , probably cant name all the candidates right now ...........Wait untill it gets down to 1 person on each side ....... then take your poll


Agree... Polling this early in regards to the general election is rediculous. Once the nominations are in place then the "polls" start to have some meaning.

[Spider]

Your right you can have her ;D

pervert ;D

[Bronco Bob]

Zogby's response to questions about the interactive poll were that they used it in the senatorial races and picked 17 out of 18 correctly. So, ???

And how was Zogby's track record as compared to Gallup in those races?

Here is Gallup's latest numbers on the Hillary and Obama vs the GOP:


November 26, 2007

POLL: Gallup General Election Match-ups

Additional results from the most recent Gallup national survey of 897 registered voters (conducted 11/11 through 11/14) finds:

Nationwide Match-ups:

Clinton 49%, Giuliani 44%
Clinton 50%, McCain 44%
Clinton 54%, Romney 38%
Clinton 53%, Thompson 40%

Obama 45%, Giuliani 45%
Obama 47%, McCain 44%
Obama 51%, Thompson 38%
Obama 52%, Romney 35%

The Zogby poll was an internet poll where people sign up to participate.
It is thus plagued by a problem called the "voluntary response bias."
That is, the type of people who volunteer to do a poll do not represent
the overall population.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_gallup_general_election_m.php

[Bronco Bob]

If you go to Hillary's website you see the word "comprehensive" over and over again. Shorthand for amnesty.

You mean comprehensive doesn't include strengthening of our borders,
greater cross-cooperation with our neighbors, strict but fair enforcement
of our laws, federal assistance to our state and local governments, and
strict penalties for those who exploit undocumented workers?

I don't see where Rudy has one up on Hillary, in the NYT article itself it
says Giuliani’s approach is similar to the one proposed by President Bush,
advocating an orderly flow of immigrants by providing a clear path to
citizenship and thereby easing the pressure at the border. IOW, amnesty.


If you go to Rudy's site what do you see? Nothing. No mention of immigration at all. Why? My guess is they are going to pull something like this: Go hard Right on immigration in the general election (if they win the primary). No doubt they'll pull some crap out of the hat like saying, "We agree with Hillary that, as a mayor, Rudy was forced by the failures of the federal government to deal with the issue... blah, blah, blah." Then, they'll show video of Ted Kennedy and Billary hugging each other while Mexican flags fly behind them.

The swing has already started: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/us/politics/22giuliani.html

What I see in that article is Rudy doing a major flip-flop on immigration.
All Hillary needs to do is run videos of Rudy defending illegal immigrants,
ordering city workers not to deny them benefits, and advocating measures
to ease their path to citizenship. His years as mayor, when he fought federal
efforts to curtail public hospital or educational services to illegal immigrants.

[Rohirrim]

I'm not defending Zogby, I'm just noting their response. I agree with Spider and The Dave, these polls regarding the possible matchups are meaningless right now. Once the two main candidates are chosen the electorate will begin to polarize. Right now, we're just buying clothes for a baby that isn't born yet.

[Bronco Bob]

I'm not defending Zogby, I'm just noting their response. I agree with Spider and The Dave, these polls regarding the possible matchups are meaningless right now. Once the two main candidates are chosen the electorate will begin to polarize. Right now, we're just buying clothes for a baby that isn't born yet.

True. I was just sort of pointing out to the Hillary haters that they can't
get their hopes up too high just on the basis of one or two polls.
Especially polls that sound sort of fishy. Just like the Hillary lovers
can't get overly excited by polls that have her up. Michael Dukakis
at one time led George H.W. Bush by 17% in the polls back in the
1988 elections. The only poll that matters in the one on the
first Tuesday in November, 2008.

[cutthemdown]

Count me in as one who will never vote for Rudy. Or Romney. Or McCain.
Or Thompson. Or Tancredo. Or Gingrich.

wow no democrats on the list? When you are that obviously a straight party guy it's already obvious you won't vote for any of them.

[Rohirrim]

You mean comprehensive doesn't include strengthening of our borders,
greater cross-cooperation with our neighbors, strict but fair enforcement
of our laws, federal assistance to our state and local governments, and
strict penalties for those who exploit undocumented workers?

I don't see where Rudy has one up on Hillary, in the NYT article itself it
says Giuliani’s approach is similar to the one proposed by President Bush,
advocating an orderly flow of immigrants by providing a clear path to
citizenship and thereby easing the pressure at the border. IOW, amnesty.



What I see in that article is Rudy doing a major flip-flop on immigration.
All Hillary needs to do is run videos of Rudy defending illegal immigrants,
ordering city workers not to deny them benefits, and advocating measures
to ease their path to citizenship. His years as mayor, when he fought federal
efforts to curtail public hospital or educational services to illegal immigrants.

We'll see. I have a hunch that once we have two candidates, and the electorate begins to polarize, the Dems will come across as the party of amnesty and the Repugs will position themselves as the opposite. Your take is based on reason. I don't know how much reason will figure into this particular issue. It's like the sale of the ports to Bahrain. In its true effects, it really didn't mean much, but in its perception, it set off a firestorm. Reason might not matter if the issue is decided on emotion. Every poll I've seen says the majority of Americans are opposed to amnesty. Whoever is made to appear the candidate of amnesty will be in trouble.

[Bronco Bob]

wow no democrats on the list? When you are that obviously a straight party guy it's already obvious you won't vote for any of them.

I like Huckabee's stand on the environment and fiscal issues.
Ron Paul also has some ideas I like.
McCain, I could have voted for in 2000, but he is a major
disappointment now.
Romney flips flops so much, I don't know where he stands.
OTOH have my doubts about Edwards or Obama, but if it's either
of them vs the Rudy, McCain or Thompson, they have my vote.

[Bronco Bob]

We'll see. I have a hunch that once we have two candidates, and the electorate begins to polarize, the Dems will come across as the party of amnesty and the Repugs will position themselves as the opposite. Your take is based on reason. I don't know how much reason will figure into this particular issue. It's like the sale of the ports to Bahrain. In its true effects, it really didn't mean much, but in its perception, it set off a firestorm. Reason might not matter if the issue is decided on emotion. Every poll I've seen says the majority of Americans are opposed to amnesty. Whoever is made to appear the candidate of amnesty will be in trouble.

That's where the Democrats might have the edge this time around.
They are raising a lot more money than the GOP candidates,
so they can by more ad time, unlike past elections where the GOP
outspent the Dems, and thus was able to shape public opinion.
And Rudy is especially vulnerable on immigration. Just look what
that NYT article said.

It was a role he (Rudy) seemed to cherish, becoming a national leader for the cause of welcoming immigrants in the 1990s. To the surprise of many people in both parties, he also spoke passionately about helping those here illegally become citizens, advocating for $12 million to start a city agency that would assist those seeking citizenship. He vigorously defended the city’s policy of forbidding city employees, including police and hospital workers, from asking a person’s immigration status.

As other anti-immigration movements spread across the country in 1990s, Mr. Giuliani consistently pushed back. “The anti-immigration issue that’s now sweeping the country in my view is no different than the movements that swept the country in the past,” he said in 1996. “You look back at the Chinese Exclusionary Act, or the Know-Nothing movement — these were movements that encouraged Americans to fear foreigners, to fear something that is different, and to stop immigration.”

These days, when he says he opposes amnesty, Mr. Giuliani says he does not mean that the millions of people here illegally should be deported, but rather, that they should have to earn their citizenship and that nothing should be accorded automatically.

On the campaign trail, he says the first order of business must be to try to identify the 12 million immigrants who are here illegally and issue them “tamper-proof” identification cards.

Tamper proof ID cards. Would that sort of be like a driver's license?

I can't read everything, but was Hillary ever this strong of an
advocate for illegals? The only real gotcha on her was the driver's
license thing, and that was more of a case of being loyal to a
fellow Democrat, the Governor of New York, than any real passion
to give illegals a drivers license.

[Garcia Bronco]

I'd be fine with voting for a woman...just not THIS woman. Her attempt at adding the health care system to the bloated government rolls early in her husband's administration did it for me...

I have no problem with her foreign policy, but her desire to become the entitlement President is enough to push me away. This is the curse of the baby boomer generation and their parents.

[Garcia Bronco]

whoopty-doo, My money is on Hillary winning the the nomination & presidency. The only way Hillary doesn't become president is if she loses the nomination in which case whoever the dem is that gets the nomination will be our next president.

A few months ago I would have agreed with this...not-so-much anymore

[Garcia Bronco]

That's where the Democrats might have the edge this time around.
They are raising a lot more money than the GOP candidates,
so they can by more ad time, unlike past elections where the GOP
outspent the Dems, and thus was able to shape public opinion.
And Rudy is especially vulnerable on immigration. Just look what
that NYT article said.

It was a role he (Rudy) seemed to cherish, becoming a national leader for the cause of welcoming immigrants in the 1990s. To the surprise of many people in both parties, he also spoke passionately about helping those here illegally become citizens, advocating for $12 million to start a city agency that would assist those seeking citizenship. He vigorously defended the city’s policy of forbidding city employees, including police and hospital workers, from asking a person’s immigration status.

As other anti-immigration movements spread across the country in 1990s, Mr. Giuliani consistently pushed back. “The anti-immigration issue that’s now sweeping the country in my view is no different than the movements that swept the country in the past,” he said in 1996. “You look back at the Chinese Exclusionary Act, or the Know-Nothing movement — these were movements that encouraged Americans to fear foreigners, to fear something that is different, and to stop immigration.”

These days, when he says he opposes amnesty, Mr. Giuliani says he does not mean that the millions of people here illegally should be deported, but rather, that they should have to earn their citizenship and that nothing should be accorded automatically.

On the campaign trail, he says the first order of business must be to try to identify the 12 million immigrants who are here illegally and issue them “tamper-proof” identification cards.

Tamper proof ID cards. Would that sort of be like a driver's license?

I can't read everything, but was Hillary ever this strong of an
advocate for illegals? The only real gotcha on her was the driver's
license thing, and that was more of a case of being loyal to a
fellow Democrat, the Governor of New York, than any real passion
to give illegals a drivers license.

There is no amount of money they can spend on ad time, either party, that would make people forget that they support amnesty for millions of criminals.

[Traveler]

No matter what all the polls show, the one constant is the presidential election is going to be much closer than alot of folks think.

[Bronco Bob]

There is no amount of money they can spend on ad time, either party, that would make people forget that they support amnesty for millions of criminals.

See, but Roh has the idea this is a losing issue for just the Dems because he
thinks the Repubs can make people forget the Repubs are for amnesty too.
But the point of the ad time is to get people to think the other guy (or girl)
is the one in favor of amnesty. And I'm saying the Dems have more money
this time around to paint the Repubs as also the party of amnesty. So if you
can succeed in getting people to think there is no real difference in either
party, it becomes a non-issue for the Dems, and people move on to other
things in evaluating the candidates. So for the Dems the point isn't to make
people forget, it's to make people remember that Rudy is also for amnesty.
As is Mitt. As is McCain.

[defenseman]

See, but Roh has the idea this is a losing issue for just the Dems because he
thinks the Repubs can make people forget the Repubs are for amnesty too.
But the point of the ad time is to get people to think the other guy (or girl)
is the one in favor of amnesty. And I'm saying the Dems have more money
this time around to paint the Repubs as also the party of amnesty. So if you
can succeed in getting people to think there is no real difference in either
party, it becomes a non-issue for the Dems, and people move on to other
things in evaluating the candidates. So for the Dems the point isn't to make
people forget, it's to make people remember that Rudy is also for amnesty.
As is Mitt. As is McCain.

BOTH parties ATTEMPTED to sell a bill of goods, with Bush leading the way I might add, on saying the last attempt WASN'T amnesty. Both are dead wrong, both heard the american citizen LOUD AND CLEAR. Shut it down, or we shut you down. They capitulated. DO NOT even go there with this garbage. Bottom line is, IF a 'major' candidate is very strong on security and NO FREAKING ILLEGALS, they have a damn good chance of being elected. However, don't think for a second the dems will pull the wool over anyone's eyes, especially hillary. They won't. Tancredo is the ONLY candidate right now who is entirely on the correct side of the issue, shut down the borders and boot the ILLEGAL SOB's out of the freaking country. Just ONE of the major players adopts this stance it will immediately vault them up, however, trick is them doing if elected.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I have no problem with her foreign policy, but her desire to become the entitlement President is enough to push me away.

Says the staunch defender of the current entitlement president (massive entitlements for hedge fund managers, oil companies, the defense industry, et al.)