MyDD :: CPAC poll on 2008

CPAC poll on 2008

by Jerome Armstrong, Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 08:47:26 PM EST

The Note's email (via Ruffini) had the results from the CPAC straw poll done by the GOP polling firm Fabrizio-McLaughlin, on who the candidate most likely to garner the Republican and Democratic nomination:

Republican                    Democratic

Giuliani       19%            Clinton       68%
Rice           18%            Edwards        6%
Allen          11%            Richardson     5%
Frist          11%            Warner         4%
McCain         11%            Bayh           3%
Gingrich        5%            Kerry          2%
Pataki          2%            Clark          2%

The interesting thing here is the pre-conceptions of the nominee of the other party. Here on MyDD's poll of members, we can't fathom why the GOP would pass on the nomination of McCain, though from what's been polled of the GOP blog-activists, they want nothing of McCain, and as the poll numbers above show, don't see it as very likely. Across the aisle, for the Democratic nod, MyDD's poll shows Clinton locked in a plurality with the lead of being "likely" (and a distant second to "other"), while Clinton places 7th in preference on MyDD and DailyKos 2008 polls. What's it all mean?

Perhaps what we have here is a bit of projection of strength and preference of idealism. For those of us backing Dean for the 2004 nomination, he was the ideal choice against Bush. Against McCain in 2008, many see Fiengold as the ideal Democratic counter; likewise, for Republicans seeing a Clinton juggernaut in 2008, they view Giuliani or Rice as the ideal Republican candidate to counter.

btw, on CPAC, the chutzpah of Rove sure showed forth, with his blowhard statements about conservatism now being the nation's creed. Why then, in 2004, did Democrats retake the nations lead in state legislative seats? The closer to the ground you get, the stronger the Democratic impulse is emerging.

Tags: Republicans (all tags)

Permalink :: 65 Comments :: Post a Comment

Giuliani (none / 0)

Trent Lott and Rudy Giuliani have a press conference scheduled for Tuesday, 2/22, at the Hilton Hotel in Jackson, MS.

Seems to me that this may be the beginning of an effort to rehab Rudy with the true believers here in Dixie.

by erasmus on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 08:56:34 PM EST

CPAC (none / 0)

One other thing. That seemed pretty cool for the conservative bloggers. I'm actually in the midst of some individuals putting together a bloggers conference for bloggers, and get this, it's not going to be in DC, but in middle America, and it's going to feature bloggers, not political posers or industry hacks.

by Jerome Armstrong on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 09:13:56 PM EST

Re: CPAC (none / 0)

By middle America, what do you mean?

phat

by phatass on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 01:28:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CPAC (none / 0)

Near the middle of the nation.

by Jerome Armstrong on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 11:57:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

they... (none / 0)

They don't want McCain because McCain's not a partisan Republican. Same reason we don't want Roemer.

by joshyelon on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 09:14:45 PM EST

Re: they... (none / 0)

McCain's voting record is quite conservative. In the Senate, he is quite a good Republican.

However, McCain is not partisan, and more importantly he does not pander to the right-wing special interest groups. He called Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson "agents of evil" (which is what really did in his campaign, not South Carolina) and he backed campaign finance reform, which was disliked by big business and many right-wing special interest groups.

by wayward on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 09:40:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Partisan? He meant batshit crazy (none / 0)

The current fight in the GOP is emerging among true conservatives, opportunists, and batshit crazy people who literally want to end the world and pave the way for the return of the Christ.

Poor McCain has been a piss-poor opportunist, and just doesn't have it in him to join the Evangelical Zombies.

by jcjcjc on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 11:11:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Condi (none / 0)

It doesn't surprise me the the rightwing bloggers love Condi. The rightwing blogosphere seems dominated by neoconservative hawks rather than Dobson drones. Combine this with their fear and hatred of Hillary, and Condi seems like a natural choice for them.

However, I always have extreme doubts about anyone's ability to be successful as a Presidential candidate when s/he has never previously been a candidate for anything in the past. No donor network, no connection ot campgin activists and staffers, not to mention never having been on the campaign trial or publicly formulating positions on anything outside of foreign policy. It is very, veyr hard for me to believe that she would be able to speak conservative when it came to social issues. Quite frankly, I bet Guliani has a much better chance of reciving the GOP nod than Rice ever would.

by Chris Bowers on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 09:25:45 PM EST

Re: Condi (none / 0)

Right-wing bloggers are much more National Review conservatives than Free Republic conservatives.

by wayward on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 09:36:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm dense (none / 0)

Is there really that big a difference?

by Chris Bowers on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 09:38:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm dense (none / 0)

National Review conservatives tend to be better educated and more interested in economic and foreign policy. (DYK that National Review came out for the legalization of marijuana a few years back? They also dropped Ann Coulter when she went too far with one tirade.) These are your College Republicans all grown up with their own magazine.

Freepers are the dark, dumb, side of the conservative movement. The people who put use the Confederate flag in a non-ironic context. The people who really do vote on God, guns, and gays. These are scary folks.

by wayward on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 09:49:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm dense (none / 0)

Even the national review guys are dumbing down now.
Its basically the difference between a traditional republicans and the people who thrive on hate. Their policy positions consist of personal insults and spewing hate because they are insecure.

by Christopher Hitchens on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 10:11:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I have no idea why they would choose (none / 0)

Rice. I think she is the off putting female equivilent of Gore. They talk about how Gore and Kerry couldn't connect. Have you ever seen Condi speak? She'd get killed by Hiliary.

Guiliani scares me, though. Still, He's pretty socially liberal. It would be hard for him to get the nominiation.

by descrates on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 11:51:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I have no idea why they would choose (none / 0)

Yeah, but have you heard BUSH speak? And we thought he'd get killed by Kerry. Well, actually, he did get killed by Kerry as far as speaking is concerned (the debates), but nowadays, talk is cheap.

Hillary only needs open her mouth to reinforce the worst mysoginistic prejudices of a distressingly substantial proportion of the electorate, no matter how intelligent the content that comes out of it. Condi drops a few "freedom"s on her and it's over.

I think Rice would be a strong candidate for the GOP. But I'm willing to bet that when push comes to shove, the Republicans are too racist and sexist to nominate her.

And by the way, we Dems need to start putting minorities on our presidential A-list for 2008. Barak in '12, of course, but I don't want to wait that goddamned long.

by Woodhouse on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 02:41:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I have no idea why they would choose (none / 0)

Obama voted to confirm Rice. He lost a lot of credibility with me for that.

I've heard good things about Evan Bayh from a man who used to live there when he was Governor. Aparently he is a good executive. This can be as important as or more than ideology.

by antiHyde on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 08:30:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I have no idea why they would choose (none / 0)

Not for me. For me it's issues, issues, issues. If it came down to Evan Bayh or Al Sharpton, I'd have no choice but to pick Sharpton.

by craverguy on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 08:51:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The reason state legislatures are democrat (none / 0)

The reason state legislatures are Democrat is becuase:

The races are local and people are likley to know who the canidates are.
The democrats in the red states are by and large conservative. They are free from the straight jacket of the party ideology, thus able to win in conservative areas.

I live in Nebraska and I'm sure this is true of other small red states where democrats have hopes of winning.

by Christopher Hitchens on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 09:30:02 PM EST

Re: The reason state legislatures are democrat (none / 0)

Also, the Gerrymandering is different in the SL's.

by descrates on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 11:54:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The reason state legislatures are democrat (none / 0)

I live in Nebraska, too, and I'm not convinced of this argument. Statewide, this may be true, look at Nelson. But what about Gwen Howard, Dave Landis, Chris Beutler (nominally liberal), Ernie Chambers, Lowen Kruse, Pat Bourne and I'm leaving somebody out. That's just the legislature.

In Lincoln we have Terry Werner, Jonathan Cook and Patty Newman on the city council. And the mayor Colleen Seng is definately not a "conservative" Democrat.

I think the idea of local politics being local is a good point. I don't believe, though, that local politicians in red states are necessarily conservative Democrats.

In some ways this drives the point of the "localness" of politics home. The Terry Werners of this country have been able to get people out to vote. He inspires a strong sense of loyalty among liberals. They vote.

The last congressional race, I think, shows just how well a supposedly conservative democrat can do in a red state. Matt Connealy is a great guy. He bought the CW that a democrat needed to seem conservative to win. Well, look how far that got him.

Another example, from the other side, if you will, is Senator Foley, from south Lincoln. He is extremely conservative in probably the most conservative district in the city of Lincoln. His opponent in the last election was considered by the local Democratic party to be "marginal." She's extremely liberal. She also got something like 30% of the vote having spent something like $500.00.

phat

by phatass on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 01:52:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I see the following worst case from GOP (none / 0)

Rice, Powel, McCain or Jeb

Rice and Powel would get a large first time black president crossover vote.

McCain is popular with dems and would get crossover.

Jeb is W is still in vogue.

by donkeykong on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 09:30:20 PM EST

Re: I see the following worst case from GOP (none / 0)

I'm banging the drum to say it's 3 possiblities for the GOP in '08

More of the same: Jebbie, George Allen, Bill Owens, [other handsome but somewhat vacuous Repo]
Cut bait: Hagel, Pataki, McCain
Play against type: Mitt Romney

Who the GOP ultimately pick in the "invisible primary" will largely be a product of what happened between then and now. If Iraq is still a sespool but domestically thinks are perky, its #2, if everything is great #1, and if they need a sacrificial lamb against growing antiRepublican zeitgeist...it's #3...

by risenmessiah on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 10:24:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Romney (none / 0)

would Southern religious conservatives really vote for a Mormon? quite a few of them don't consider Mormonism to be a part of Christianity.

by johnny longtorso on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 05:11:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I see the following worst case from GOP (none / 0)

Rice and Powell would get black crossover and the dems would get red state and midwest crossover in exchange.

Powell wouldn't stand a chance for nomination for same reason as McCain.

http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/

by Vote Hillary 2008 on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 10:55:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I see the following worst case from GOP (none / 0)

Also, Powell wouldn't play ball on the neocon "Conquer the World" agenda. He did give them cover reluctantly on Iraq and I've heard black Vietnam veterans speak very bitterly about this. Basically, they think he squandered an opportunity to stand for something, opting instead to be "the Man"'s lapdog.

by antiHyde on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 08:37:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I would say our electable ones that I have seen (none / 0)

Are

Edwards.
Clark.

And possibly Dean if he can show that his work turned around the 2006 elections.

But I think Dean needs some serious PR coaching before he runs again. Playing very very well to your favorite 10-15% is not as valuable as playing marginally well to 55%

by donkeykong on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 09:32:25 PM EST

Oh, for crying out loud (none / 0)

Dean isn't running. He said he wouldn't run even before he got the DNC chair position. Now, he can't run unless he quits the DNC job, which he ain't gonna do.

by Chris Bowers on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 09:34:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Rudy (none / 0)

If they get Rudy to pass the sniff test with the religious right, he's going to be hard for anyone to beat. If Rudy takes a states' rights position vis a vis abortion, he just might pass muster.

by erasmus on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 09:43:43 PM EST

Re: Rudy (none / 0)

South Carolina is the test for Rudy. Rudy is more liberal than most Democrats down here. If he is the establishment candidate, that gives him a big edge. Lindsey Graham will probably be campaigning for him, unless he is running himself or McCain is running. (Rudy campaigned with Graham in 2002)

If Rudy can get through the minefield in SC without running too far right, he will have a good path to the nomination.

by wayward on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 09:55:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rudy (none / 0)

I don't think Rudy will even run if he doesn't feel he has a pretty clear path -- which is why Lott's bringing him here to Mississippi next week. I think he's angling to be the establishment candidate and that means overcoming his problem with abortion and gay rights. I expect to hear Rudy pledging allegiance to states rights which, as you know, can cover a multitude of sins. Afterall, if it were left up to the states, there's little doubt abortion would be illegal throughout the South.

by erasmus on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 10:08:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rudy (none / 0)

Rudy is actually pretty good at the podium....but he is also generally kind of annoying. He's arrogant, not much of a listener. Don't think much of his message skills. Really, his retail skills are not in the same league as the best politicians in this poll. BTW I lived in NYC during his mayoralty. He did not wear well after a good start (a good start for him, politically).

I wouldn't mind at all if Rudy were the nominee. Can't imagine it happening.

by Andmoreagain on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 09:59:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rudy (none / 0)

Doesn't anybody think Guialani would lose in alot of the south since why would southners vote for a gay-loving, gun-taking, babykiller, also he'd definitly lose the midwest-rustbelt to someone like Feingold or Bayh. Though he'd have a good shot of winning win Maine, New Hamsphire, New Jersey, New York, and maybe Oregon.

Councilman Bill Painter

by Painter2004 on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 11:11:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rudy (none / 0)

Southern republicans may be dominated by rightwing religious ideologues but they are pragmatic and want to win. I think that Rudy can overcome the obvious objections you mention by using coded rhetoric. As I said in an earlier post -- I think he will wrap himself in the mantle of states' rights.

They won't care that he's personally pro-choice, if he will put judges in who will kick the abortion issue back to the states. The rightwing believes that they can win the abortion arguement in the state legislatures -- and they are right, at least in a fairly large number of states.

by erasmus on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 11:22:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rudy (none / 0)

I think if Rudy runs someone like Roy Moore or maybe Pat Buchanann will get 10% and Democrats will have a huge electoral victory.

Councilman Bill Painter

by Painter2004 on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 11:25:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rudy (none / 0)

There are a few exceptions, but most Southern Republicans are SOB's who just want to keep power. Most were Democrats until a few years ago when the national party's fortunes went downhill in the South. They will join which ever party is the majority so that they can send pork to their constituents and kickbacks to their buddies.

by wayward on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 09:28:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rudy (none / 0)

If they get Rudy to pass the sniff test with the religious right, it's time to start shooting the dumb bastards.

If the far right supports Rudy, it just proves that the bastards would vote for a slobbering rotweiler if you dressed it up and called it a Republican.

Oh, wait . . . Arnold. Never mind.

by jcjcjc on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 11:17:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wait... (none / 0)

...so the both the Republican and Democratic polls were of the Republicans attending the CPAC meeting? Why should we pay any attention to the Democratic numbers at all? Who cares who Republicans think the Democrats will pick?

by Geotpf on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 10:16:12 PM EST

Actually, this is a good thing... (none / 0)

...if they think we are picking HRC, and we actually pick Feingold, they will have to throw out all thier attacks and start over. Fine. Let them believe we are picking Hillary.

by Geotpf on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 10:17:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually, this is a good thing... (none / 0)

"they will have to throw out all thier attacks and start over"

No they won't. The GOP attacks with the same shit no matter what. Look at Dean vs Kerry . . . did any of it stop them from using the Al Gore playbook on both men?

This is why we should run Evan Bayh . . . just so we can absolutely gag when the GOP shills call him a knee-jerk liberal.

by jcjcjc on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 11:20:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually, this is a good thing... (none / 0)

You just do this. Then all of us REAL knee-jerk liberals can wave bye-bye to you folks as we vote for Dave Cobb.

by craverguy on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 01:37:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually, this is a good thing... (none / 0)

It was a joke.

by jcjcjc on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 09:12:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually, this is a good thing... (none / 0)

Well, it's really hard to tell, especially when you consider that that seems to actually be the main argument for nominating him.

by craverguy on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 04:29:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually, this is a good thing... (none / 0)

"that seems to actually be the main argument for nominating him. "

Keep that one in the file, because come January 2008, you will need it.

I might suppor Bayh if there weren't other viable candidates out there. But, the fact is that whether you support them or not, Clinton, Clark, Edwards, Feingold, Gore and Richardson are all easily ahead of Bayh.

We don't need fringe members wasting time in 900 endless debate come 2007, like we did through the end of 2003.

Lieberman showed that Bayh will never get through to the base. Better to cut bait, and move on to someone who can hold the center and the left without much hue and cry.

by jcjcjc on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 10:42:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually, this is a good thing... (none / 0)

I think you misunderstand me. I dislike Bayh intensely. I'm a Feingold man.

by craverguy on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 10:48:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

CW (none / 0)

Go Hillary 2008!

She's going to defeat anyone the GOP puts up because only McCain stands a chance to defeat her. Thanks to the GOP being so far to the right-wing of the party, they'll never support a moderater republican let alone a maverick to lead the party.

Bubba will be back in the big house in no time! Ah, rainbows at the end of this 4 year storm!

http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/

by Vote Hillary 2008 on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 10:52:25 PM EST

Re: CW (none / 0)

Bill back in the White House? Why don't you just dig up Pat Moynihan and Paul Wellstone so you can kill them again?

by craverguy on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 01:38:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CW (none / 0)

wow. i don't even think hil will make it through the democratic primaries. i personally think she'd be easily beaten by edwards, clark, or a few others.

by JoelK in AZ on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 02:48:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CW (none / 0)

What's tickles me when I hear comments like yours is how I'll be gloating in 2007 when her momentum is simply unstoppable. There is simply no other democrat in the field that can approach Hillary's spectrum of support within ALL of the party, not just the fringe left wing. No other potential nominee stands a chance.

That's why I'm more concerned about the GOP candidates since I already know Hillary will easily bag her party's nomination.

CW has spoken: http://www.pollingreport.com/2008.htm

http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/

by Vote Hillary 2008 on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 04:42:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CW (none / 0)

Hmm, they only name two contenders besides Hillary in that poll, and they're both guys who just lost a presidential election. Where's Feingold, Bayh, Clark, Gore, Lieberman, Boxer, Kucinich, or any of the other people that I'm positive will run? This looks like a push-poll to me.

by craverguy on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 06:03:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CW (none / 0)

I think Hillary would be a better President than nominee. She still has the problem that she energizes the Republican base more than the Democratic one.

by wayward on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 09:14:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Silly Liberal Optimism (none / 0)

LMAO instead of calling names why not have a real discussion?

"America-hating views and ideas" wtf?

you have no class.

by JoelK in AZ on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 02:51:33 AM EST

Re: Silly Liberal Optimism (none / 0)

also, any notion that this whitehouse is fiscally conservative is a f'n joke.

you can't trust republicans with your money......

by JoelK in AZ on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 02:53:26 AM EST

Re: Silly Liberal Optimism (3.00 / 2)

As a centrist, I can tell you that Bush is as liberal as they get. Let me count the ways:

Pro big government
Huge government spender AND cuts revenue! Fiscally liberal if I ever saw one.
Nation builder extraordinaire. Shrub loves nation-building! Probably his favorite past time.
Interventionist addict. Bush loves to intervene in other country's affairs as much as Wilson ever dreamed of.
Loves pork barrel spending, especially for funding numerous religious pet projects.
Idealism seeping out his every pore! Has a pipe dream of realizing Wilson's pipedream of bringing democracy everywhere on earth.

Sorry but Bush makes Kennedy look downright conservative in my eyes. All the bible-thumping in the world can't disguise the proof of his actions.

http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/

by Vote Hillary 2008 on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 04:52:28 AM EST

Re: Silly Liberal Optimism (none / 0)

For 27 years, I voted almost exclusively for Republicans here in Alabama and Tennessee. Virtually everyone I know is Republican to the core, and before November 2nd, I never heard the hint of a doubt about the policies of the administration, particularly the wisdom of committing our armed forces to a very expensive foreign war that can't be won.

A young lady from my father's church (Southern Baptist, had you guessed), wrote:

"I voted for Bush. I am sick that I did.
I've had my eyes opened in the last few months, and I don't like what I see. I think that there is a very good possibility that the USA is the beast. I believe that we are about to see the opening of the third seal soon."

These are words I didn't think I'd ever hear from a hard-core "wingnut." Now, it might not have larger applicability outside the Bible Belt Deep South ... but here, I believe it marks a major shift, from unquestioning, unwavering support to an ability to entertain just the beginnings of doubt and caution.

by Charles in AL on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 08:31:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Silly Liberal Optimism (none / 0)

Clinton was a conservative. (One of our best Republican Presidents.) Bush Jr. is a radical.

by wayward on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 09:18:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Silly Liberal Optimism (3.00 / 1)

I think large numbers of Americans have only heard the right wing view. I haven't heard a left-wing viewpoint in any sort of local media in years.

This is affecting the local and state races because many people don't know their local candidates or what they stand for. They just know the misleading statements about party leaders. The northern part of my county is becoming increasingly suburban. The suburbanites know nothing about the local candidates or issues, (they get their news from the very-right wing paper in the next county or from Rush) they just vote for the guy with an "R" by his name, no matter what kind of wingnut or criminal he is.

As for Socialism "failing everywhere". I believe you have socialism, communism, and any form of social democracy confused. I don't think Canadians or Europeans (both relatively "socialist" by your definition) would trade their situation for ours. Just ask a Canadian about health care.

by wayward on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 09:26:15 AM EST

It's driving with one eye open... (none / 0)

and only seeing half the road. The members of the liberal blogosphere who hate hillary because she's really not that liberal and could never win, for some reason can't see that the same is true of Dr. Dean.

I love Howard, but anyone who says that Hillary can't win HAS to admit Howard couldn't either. And anyone who says hillary isn't liberal CAN'T say howard is either.

Anyone who thinks Bayh is a great nominee misses the fact that that's like nominating Lieberman or Zell Miller. He's a great politician but he really is almost a republican. He's come down heavily on pro-life and isn't exactly gay friendly. He's not his father and would turn off large segments of the Dem base -- some of which gave up their ideals to vote for John hoping to win and now probably won't do that again.

In a recent Florida poll Hillary was the #2 most wanted candidate after giuliani (who won't win the republican nomination). Hillary's negatives are better than W's, she beats everyone in a senate race here in NY, the base really does love her when you use polls and not the internet to determine it, she'd have a ton of cash, she'd have the best campaign adviser helping her for free. Hillary has as good a chance as anyone (maybe except McCain who can't win the republican nomination). It would be a dog fight. She would at least win all the states Kerry did and could pick up one or two others.

by PHDinNYC4Kerry on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 11:27:07 AM EST

Re: It's driving with one eye open... (none / 0)

In Iowa, December 2003, Hillary could have entered the Iowa race and won, the polls showed it overwhelmingly. That was always Trippi's greateest fear, never realized.

by Jerome Armstrong on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 12:03:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's driving with one eye open... (none / 0)

Chris Bowers, I think, noted something similr. He had a diry up on Kos(and I'm guessing up on the frontpage here) about how the Hilary bashing is unwarranted and that her negatives are actually not that bad. I'm not a big fan of hers, but I wont bash her. She has taken more right wing crap than anyone, and has survived. In a general she gets my vote. I think she could win against any Republican except McCain. Also, if McCain and Giuliani were put up against her, I would expect many conservatives to stay home or voted for the Constitution or Libertarian candidate. That doesnt show up on polls though.

by jj32 on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 01:40:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's driving with one eye open... (none / 0)

Hillary would not be more hated than any other Dem who would excite our base. Bayh, Liberman, or any other Dem who might curry favor with the right would not excite enough of us to GOTV.

At the rate the middle east is going (loss of lives and money spent), we should be so lucky as to have someone so closely tied to this admin (Rice) represent the other side.

by bruindave on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 06:09:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hubris (none / 0)

that's what brigns down politicians and parties. So let Rove and co. think that everyone in this country is a crazy right winger. Meanwhile, we know differently and will continue to mobilize, contribute and vote.

by jj32 on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 01:35:04 PM EST

I hope Guialani gets the Republican nomination: (none / 0)

Because if a Constitution canidate in a moderate Pennsylvania can get 4% for Senate while only spending like a hundred thousand dollars. Then a Constitution canidate like Roy Moore could get probably 6% or 7% nationally, maybe 20-25% in states like Alabama and Missippi.

Councilman Bill Painter

by Painter2004 on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 01:53:08 PM EST

CPAC poll useless (none / 0)

At this point it looks like this poll is little more than name recognition. It is totally out of touch with the thinking of each party's power base. It may have polled people who identified with a party, but it certainly doesn't represent the views of party activists who have the most to say about who will emerge as a party leader.

McCain is the Republican I wish could be their candidate. He is a hard core conservative, but he is also one of the few honest men of principal I would trust to make common cause across the aisle for the good of the country. I thought his pro-Bush endgame in the campaign was probably to position himself as the new party leader should Bush fail in the election. But since the neo-cons and RRR triumphed yet again (at least in the counting of votes) McCain is back in the wilderness never to be seen again.

Guiliani, Swartzenegger, Pataki, Powell and Whitman are loved as window-dressing, but will never be allowed to become candidates because they are too centrist.

Condi wouldn't survive her first exposure to actual voters, (not to mention a media investigation of her prior career) nor will the wing-nuts be able to get over their suspicions about why she is still unmarried. Her only chance is a high profile romance starting NOW leading up to an unofficial state wedding in two years. (Scratch Jeff Gannon off the possible suitors list.)

Jeb's corruption should count him out, but our insanely compliant media might continue to give him a pass. And he's smarter than George!

On the Democratic side, Hillary is very popular among the base (few of whom recognize her as a rather conservative DLC Democrat). But Hillary is also the most hated woman in America. The new paradigm may be that elections are won by energizing your base, not by appealing to the dwindling margin of swing voters, but Hillary would do far too much to energize the opposition's base. This past election confirmed the awesome power of unreasoned hatred.

Just like Al Gore, John Kerry has an underserved reputation as a loser. With a more honest election system he probably would have won, just as Al Gore would have. In a rematch against whatever non-incumbent the Republicans would have to field he should do quite well. But we no longer give second chances to presidential nominees. That is a mistake.

I too would have to say the real front runners for 2008 are Edwards and Clark. But I wouldn't automatically count Obama out, by 2008 he will have had far more experience in elective office than G.W. Bush did in 2000.

-Mark

by nmark on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 02:42:39 PM EST

Feingold (none / 0)

No Feingold? This is good. The Republican spinsters can't find anything on him to get their base riled up about.
(Either that, or they don't consider him a serious candidate, but hey, I'll be optimistic.)

by dbp on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 04:13:53 PM EST

Weak Republican Field (none / 0)

What is encouraging about the Republicans mentioned is that none of them have:

The shitkicker "authenticity" that, while inexplicable to us, many foolish people in red zone America thought Bush had.

The phony religious piety that allowed Bush to bamboozle the evangelicals and win their loyalty.

Does anyone really think the tolerant, cosmopolitan, adulterous Giuliana is going to play in red zone America? And the aura of 9/11 will have further faded in 2008.

by Bob H on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 06:02:34 PM EST

far overestimating the intelligence of CPAC ilk (none / 0)

I think you're all giving these rat bastards far too much credit; I would be willing to wager that these #s correlate closely to the number of mentions of each on Fox News.

I think the "mouth breathers" (as Atrios called them)who would not only attend CPAC but respond to a straw poll (remember the "propensity bias" of the exit polls?) actually know a lot less about all these folks than the average MyDD reader.

by desmoulins on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 10:42:34 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.