Jump to content


New LA Times Presidential Hopefuls Poll


Passion
 Share

Recommended Posts

Republican:

 

Giuliani - 27%

Thompson - 21%

McCain - 12%

Giuliani - 10%

 

When they only allowed those polled to choose from the top 4 the percentages in that same order went (32 - 28 - 17 - 14).

 

Democrat:

 

Clinton - 33%

Obama - 22%

Gore - 15%

Edwards - 8%

 

When they only allowed those polled to choose from the top three declard the percentages in that same order went (42 - 32 - 20 [Edwards])

 

VS.

 

Giuliani v. Clinton - 49% to 39%

McCain v. Clinton - 49% to 45%

Romney v. Clinton - 43% to 41%

 

Obama v. Giuliani - + 5% (Didn't give both percentages)

Obama v. McCain - + 12%

Obama v. Romney - + 16%

 

Yes I know these don't mean that much in June of 2007 but still interesting.

  • Thompson has just started running (and it isn't even official yet) and he has gained a ton on Giuliani since he announced his exploratory commitee.
  • I'm surprised by Clinton's lead. I don't follow the Dem side of things in this that much but I would have thought Obama would have been hugher.
  • Interesting that Gore remains so high despite saying he won't run
  • I'm not surprised by Obama in the matchups vs. the GOP

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/po...0,6280343.story

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think McCain is done. He is lagging in funding and in the polls. He needs to pull a Kerry and really impress people in Iowa. Thompson needs to get in soon. I'm not sure how things will end up, but he can't underestimate the importance of money. It could end up not mattering, but who knows. I do think the desire to get a electable conservative will result in Thompson getting the nod.

 

Obama has been behind Clinton the whole time but he has time and money is the most important thing right now. People still don't know him but they do know Clinton. The number of people who don't like him is vastly lower than the number of people who don't like Clinton.

 

The new primary system really throws the whole thing upside down too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Night Phantom

Why do outlets continue to ignore Paul? Didn't they learn from the first Republican debate?

 

As a side note, it's interesting to me to see Richardson leading Obama in the online poll. I would have expected Obama to be running away with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do outlets continue to ignore Paul? Didn't they learn from the first Republican debate?

 

As a side note, it's interesting to me to see Richardson leading Obama in the online poll. I would have expected Obama to be running away with it.

 

Well he leads everyone, which makes no sense.

 

I wouldn't put it past Richardson to pad his online poll numbers by voting for himself 1000 times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thompson needs to get in soon. I'm not sure how things will end up, but he can't underestimate the importance of money. It could end up not mattering, but who knows.

When you think about it, how much has any of the positioning and money spent now really accomplished?

 

Thompson not even formally announcing yet being that close to Giuliani who has been the biggest name in the race since it has started, participated in debates, etc. is pretty telling to me how useless campaigning in March, April, and May is.

 

Like Fred Dalton Thompson said, "They say I needed to raise 20 million at the beginning of the year. Well, I think I've cut that number in half."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think obama's is going to have a hard time bridging the gender gap in the democratic primary, i think clinton will win the women's vote by a large margin and that will propell her into the democratic party nomination

I sure as hell hope not, but you may be right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do outlets continue to ignore Paul? Didn't they learn from the first Republican debate?

 

As a side note, it's interesting to me to see Richardson leading Obama in the online poll. I would have expected Obama to be running away with it.

 

Though it doesnt mean much I like that Obama fares well against the Repubs.

 

Everytime I see a new poll with Clinton leading, it makes me wonder who these Democratic faithful are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do outlets continue to ignore Paul? Didn't they learn from the first Republican debate?

 

As a side note, it's interesting to me to see Richardson leading Obama in the online poll. I would have expected Obama to be running away with it.

 

Though it doesnt mean much I like that Obama fares well against the Repubs.

 

Everytime I see a new poll with Clinton leading, it makes me wonder who these Democratic faithful are.

Same here. Clinton bores me to death, and has to be the worst at at least pretending to be a real person. Obama also has nowhere near the same amount of personal baggage as Hillary does either. There are lots of people on the right who are salivating at the possibility of going against Hillary in the general election, and I don't blame them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only people I could see voting for Hillary are Reagan Democrats, just so they can act like the little Benedict Arnolds they are and vote for the Republican candidate while leaving the base with a horrible candidate.

 

And if Republicans in NH are allowed to vote in the Democratic primary in addition to the Republican primary, watch them vote for Hillary en masse so they can pull the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hillary is the next in line candidate for the dems. She's followed the traditional (at least since McGovern) party line, and fits right into the centrist to left-center part of the voting block within the party. It seems that the long time democrats I've talked to like Hillary over Obama. Whereas Obama is more popular with moderates tired of the establishment and with college students (who don't vote in large numbers anyway).

Truth be told after reading up on the issues, Hillary really isn't as bad as people say, and she has good plans that can actually get done and flourish. Obama on the other hand is not road tested, people know little about his policies, and some of the policies are too zero-sum and won;t get past a split congress/senate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Clinton got elected that would mean for at least 24 years this country will have been run by two families.

which scares the heck out of me.

 

If JFK Jr didn't die he would of been running most likely in this election.

You are probably right, I hadn't even thought of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Clinton got elected that would mean for at least 24 years this country will have been run by two families.

which scares the heck out of me.

 

If JFK Jr didn't die he would of been running most likely in this election.

 

Apparently he wanted to run for Hillary's Senate seat in 2002 but she trumped him and he was annoyed.

 

Thompson needs to get in soon. I'm not sure how things will end up, but he can't underestimate the importance of money. It could end up not mattering, but who knows.

When you think about it, how much has any of the positioning and money spent now really accomplished?

 

Thompson not even formally announcing yet being that close to Giuliani who has been the biggest name in the race since it has started, participated in debates, etc. is pretty telling to me how useless campaigning in March, April, and May is.

 

Like Fred Dalton Thompson said, "They say I needed to raise 20 million at the beginning of the year. Well, I think I've cut that number in half."

 

The idea might be that campaigns really haven't hit the ground hard yet and that the early period is the time to raise money and more money. The more money you have, the more ads you can run, the more people you can get out on the streets, and the more you can define your opponent before he or she defines you.

 

Is it definitive? Definitely not. Is it possible for there to be diminishing returns. Probably.

 

This is probably a different kind of election so money might not mean as much. And usually money means less on the dem side-see Howard Dean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hillary is the next in line candidate for the dems. She's followed the traditional (at least since McGovern) party line, and fits right into the centrist to left-center part of the voting block within the party. It seems that the long time democrats I've talked to like Hillary over Obama. Whereas Obama is more popular with moderates tired of the establishment and with college students (who don't vote in large numbers anyway).

Truth be told after reading up on the issues, Hillary really isn't as bad as people say, and she has good plans that can actually get done and flourish. Obama on the other hand is not road tested, people know little about his policies, and some of the policies are too zero-sum and won;t get past a split congress/senate.

 

Only thing I agree with Hilary is her plan for the Iraq War.

 

Have a small contingency force to eliminate any possible terrorist camps developing and try to secure the border with Iran. While bringing back most troops home and getting them out from the middle of a civil war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...