October 24, 2007

The 2008 Subway Series?

The Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll released today shows the frontrunners of both parties solidifying their leads, although the Republican primary still looks wide open to Rasmussen. Both frontrunners have at least doubled up the number of their closest rival, and in Hillary Clinton's case, none of her competitors show any sign of reversing the trend She also has head-to-head leads on all of the Republicans, with Giuliani coming the closest to matching her in a general election. The news is not all good for either, however:

Clinton is favored for her party's presidential nomination by almost half -- 48% -- of Democratic-leaning voters nationwide; as The Times' Peter Wallsten writes, that gives her a formidable lead in the contest. Her number is right on track with the average of her support -- 48.5% -- in several other recent national surveys, as aggregated on the RealClearPolitics Website. And trend lines could hardly be more favorable for her -- as Clinton's backing has grown, Barack Obama's has not, as we noted earlier. He came in this time with only 17%.

The poll also found Clinton doing significantly better in potential general election matchups with the top Republican presidential contenders, compared with the results in a Times/Bloomberg poll conducted in June. Back then, she lost each of these faceoffs; now, she's ahead.

Still, there's that little matter of her favorability rating.

When a sample that included Democrats, Republicans and independent voters was asked their impression of the New York senator and former first lady, she just barely ended up in positive territory: 48% said they had a favorable view of her, 44% unfavorable (a difference that falls inside the margin of error for this question -- 3 percentage points, plus or minus).

Most important, she did not score as well with independents, who loom as such a crucial bloc in so many states. Among these voters, 42% gave Clinton favorable marks, 46% unfavorable.

Obama appears to be fading rapidly from the picture. When he entered the race in January after getting drafted by the activist Left, he started off amazingly strong. Despite facing the well-oiled Clinton machine, the novice outraised Hillary in both total dollars and numbers of donors in the first two quarters of the race. He remained a strong second place and gave every appearance of being the best option for the anti-Clinton wing of the party.

Suddenly, however, Obama looked like Icarus on a sunny day this summer. A series of rhetorical gaffes confirmed the impression that Obama didn't have the experience necessary to run a national campaign. His fundraising numbers began to slide, and his support went with it. In this poll, Obama is only four points ahead of John Edwards and two points ahead of Don't Know.

For the Republicans, the results may surprise some who thought that Rudy Giuliani would soon start to sink. He leads his nearest national competitor, Fred Thompson, 32%-15%. Rudy also leads in almost every demographic except among the self-decribed Religious Right and fundamentalists, where Thompson holds a slight edge. Rudy actually picks up two points among self-described conservatives in the poll.

At Rasmussen, those numbers look somewhat different. Rudy has only a 23%-19% lead over Fred Thompson, with Mitt Romney (15%) and John McCain (14%) close behind. Rasmussen still has Hillary beating all comers in head-to-head races, and the state polling data looks even more intriguing --- and depressing. In Michigan, Hillary only gets a majority against Fred Thompson in beating him by 13 points, but the best any other Republican does against her is -7 points (McCain and Romney). Ohio looks better, where all Republicans except Mitt Romney beat Hillary by a whisker (Mitt loses by eight points). Republicans all get positive favorability in Ohio, but Mitt fails to muster a majority. Ohio, despite problems with the state Republican Party, appears to be still a red state.

The LA Times/Bloomberg poll has some revealing internals, which I discuss at length today at Heading Right. Like the CBS polls, we have a lot of sampling issues which render the cross-party questions suspect.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The 2008 Subway Series?:

» Polling Indicates the Republican Presidential Race Still Up for Grabs from QT Monster's Place
While Hillary has a lock on the Democrat nomination, Rasmussen's poll indicates that Rudy and Fred are both, within the margin of error, in the lead for the GOP nomination. Hillary is leading in head-to-head polls against all of the top tier Republican... [Read More]

Comments (12)

Posted by Hugh Beaumont | October 24, 2007 8:58 AM

For the life of me, I can't see how anyone who has observed politics over the last 30 years can even think that Fred Thompson has a chance in hell against Ms Hillary.

Posted by Concerned | October 24, 2007 9:23 AM

Rudy is the only candidate that has a shot at defeating Hillary.

Posted by Ron C | October 24, 2007 9:32 AM

Well - I've observed politics for over 50 years now, and been involved in the GOP at state and national levels for decades - and I can categorically state without any doubt whatsoever that there are many more reasons why Thompson will easily beat Hillary than there are any whatsoever that he could not.

Posted by Tommy | October 24, 2007 9:40 AM

Fred Thompson = Bob Dole
Fred Thompson = Walter Mondale


Posted by LarryD | October 24, 2007 9:42 AM

Rudy is the only candidate that has a shot at defeating Hillary.

Rudy's partisans have been saying that for years now. Doesn't make it true. Hillary's negatives, strong even in her own party, make her very beatable in a general election. And they could drag down the Democrats generally, which is why some Democrats are very worried.

Posted by NoDonkey | October 24, 2007 9:43 AM

This unaccomplished, unqualified, entirely corrupt and utterly incompetent woman must be kept out of the White House at all costs. And her bizarro cabinet of geriatric, drug addled hippies needs to be barred as well.

I fully expect to open up my checkbook to whomever wins the Republican nomination and I think the funding will follow from others as well.

Posted by flenser | October 24, 2007 10:55 AM

Given a choice of two New York liberals, I'll chose none of the above.

Posted by SupplyGuy | October 24, 2007 10:55 AM

It seems to me that the dems always poll well this early on, but then fade in the general election. Why are we so worried this far out?

Personaly I like Rudy for his optimism and his attacks on Hillary.

I don't agree w/ Rudy's position on abortion and gay marriage, but as long as he nominates conservative constructionist to the Supreme Court, these are both non issues. And I trust Rudy to appoint the right judges more then I do McCain.

Posted by TomB | October 24, 2007 11:09 AM

We shouldn't be concerned; this pool was by ordered and published by MSM after all. I see it as one of the first shots in just starting dirty election propaganda war, led (free of charge) by the MSM. We are going to be bombarded by the media and Republican candidate will be repeatedly assassinated and ridiculed till last possible moment. Remember the Election Day exit pole for John Forbes Kerry?

Posted by Jim Katz | October 24, 2007 4:41 PM

I think Fred is right on most of the issues that matter to most on the right. The War, Immigration, Abortion and the Second Amendment. The MSM will do their best to see that his message does not get out, but they will fail like they failed with Reagan.

Posted by Carol Herman | October 24, 2007 7:49 PM

I'm with Tommy, at 9:40. Fred's toast. (Which goes with his meal at his kitchen table.)

I think his biggest problem is that he didn't do live theater. And, the hollywood bit, in front of cameras that cut away when you flub, did him a dis-servse.

I know people called Reagan "an actor."

But he was way more than that! For starters, he was a spokesman; and a very successful one, for GE. So instead of visiting the "base" and trying to appeal to people on Sundays. He actually went onto the union floors. Full of thousands of men. Who were in AWE, when he spoke.

He did this before there really was an industry of "motivational speakers." He seemed to sense how to do well.

And, of course, Walt Disney was alive. And, in hollywood. With some keen ideas of successful ways to take cartoons, and movies; and turn this into "The Magic Kingdom.'

You can't replace genius! And, Reagan was also a spokesman for Disneyland, when it first opened.

Reagan was most comfortable, by the way, in his skin. He could go for hours. With crowds. And, give everyone a sense, where they were encouraged. That he was listening to them.

FDR also had this skill.

Not too many others.

Fred? Oy. Given that he's also done sit-coms, someone put up where he played Rosanne's boss. And, he "came onto her" ... on the factory floor. He'd have been better off playing scenes with a monkey. Because? There's no "One For The Gipper" line in anything Fred's done.

And, of course. Nixon met him ... (when? Back in 1973?) He said he was as dumb as a rock.

WHich is the "wrong way" to be ... when you're trying to show that you're easy going. And, instead? You look like grandpa. And, you seem a bit retarted.

But where I think the republicans are just asking for trouble, comes from the nature of the debates; which produce their lines. And, actually get "attendance." Do the people viewing share the views of the audience? No. I don't think so. And, the audience doesn't share the views of the moderators. Or whatever name you give to those "asking the questions."

Better or worse than C-Span?

While Hillary has been on the campaign trail since the beginning. Very much like she did when she was running for senator of New York, in 2000. Her win? She drew more votes than Gore. In New York! People said she was just amazing in the way she could campaign.

I know Guiliani (and Rush), use the line that she hasn't even so much as run a corner store. Well? Harry Truman was a failed haberdasher. Uylesss S. Grant failed t business. So, too, did Lincoln.

It may not stick, just thinking of names to call Hillary. While, guess what? As the months pass she looks competitive.

And, the Clinton's are in better shape at the 50/50 line.

For the republicans to win they need someone who can pull in votes from the mainstream. Votes from the democrats.

All the while Bush stays in office, without being able to make a sale. And, except for Ron Paul, whose taken on the weaknesses ... that polling seems to indicate is out there?

Ron Paul won't win! But he's getting attention because something wrong's with the republican set up.

Nope. Dunno how Reagan would have handled this. But I doubt he'd have been going to extremes to kiss the butts of the GOP right. Heck, in Reagan's day that was the John Bircher's! Boy, did the journalists try! I remember the following:

"Hey, Mr. Reagan! The John Bircher's have co-opted you! They say they'll vote for you, now that you've adopted their message."

"Oh, no, said Reagan. You've got that wrong! I'm pleased that the John Birch members have climbed on board MY MESSAGE."

Reagan let it be known he was in charge.

You didn't catch him "pandering."

Hillary has a shot!

Worse, instead of being successfully past 9/11 ... to a lot of independent voters ... Bill Clinton was the last popular president they remember. While he was in office, Bubba had a fan club.

Bush? He's just the Realtor to the Saud's.

Posted by Red Wolverine | October 26, 2007 8:41 AM

Rudy is against gay marriage!!!! So he is with us on that one. Just wait till Mccain nominates some middle of the road gang of 14 nominee. Would rather have that or Janice Rogers Brown whom Rudy has expressed as one of his favorites on teh DC circuit?

Post a comment