Edwards with comfortable leads over Thompson and Giuliani

[bluestateguy]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008_edwards_vs_giuliani_and_thompson

Former Senator John Edwards now attracts 50% support in the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey matching him with former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani. He leads Giuliani 50% to 41%. The poll also shows Edwards with a ten-point advantage over former Senator Fred Thompson, 49% to 39%.

One interesting twist to this year’s early Presidential polling is that Edwards typically outperforms other leading Democratic hopefuls in general election match-ups but remains a distant third in the competition for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. This seems to have impaired his fundraising and Edwards recently decided to accept public funding. The move subjects his campaign to strict spending limits that many political observers believe will handicap his efforts.

Still, Edwards currently leads the top four Republican candidates by an average of nearly nine points. Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton leads the top GOP hopefuls by an average of six points while Barack Obama holds an average lead of five points (see a summary of general election match-ups and other key stats for all Democratic and Republican candidates).

The new poll results reflect little change in the Edwards-Giuliani match over the past month. In August, the Democrat had a 49% to 41% advantage. Edwards has been ahead in this match-up in seven of the eight polls conducted since April. The two men were tied in June. This is the first time Edwards has hit 50% support when matched against Giuliani (see history).

more

[saracat]

1. So much for the Hillary supporters that "insist" this isn't true.

In fact an aggregate of "all" the polls posted somewhere on DU proves Edwards has the largest lead nationally against all GOP on average. Why would we want Hillary?

[movonne]

2. I just don't see how anyone could support hillary after she voted

the Lieberman (let's go to war with Iran) bill..unless they want more war...

[lazer47]

3. I supported Hillary up until last week, I just don't like what I have seen

[goodgd_yall]

5. Same here

I had just decided a couple of weeks ago that she would get my vote, but not now.

[MindMatter]

4. The only electable candidates in teh field are Edwards and Biden

The MSM is pushing Hillary and Obama because they know that neither of them can possibly amass enough votes to win. In an election likely to be decided by a million votes or less, there are tens of millions of Hillary-haters and tens of millions of black-haters.

That is the simple truth. We have to get either Edwards or Biden nominated.

[NoodleyAppendage]

6. The PRIME reason for his being tarred/feathered as a hypocrite and girly man by Repukes.

Edwards, like Dean, is being destroyed by the media and their corporate masters for the sake of the status quo. Populist ideals MUST be smashed, so says the "system."

J

[Bluebear]

8. Gore was a geek, Kerry was French, Edwards is a faggot . . .GOP 101.

And it's pathetic.

[mark414]

7. to be completely honest i don't think any Republican has a chance in hell

i think this election is already sealed for the Democrats (thank the fucking god i don't believe in) no matter who the Repub. nominee is. The American people may be sometimes stupid and sometimes naive but they also sometimes become overloaded with common sense. and they can see what will happen if they elect another Repub. Romney? Guiliani? McCain? Are you fucking kidding me? does anybody really truly believe that any of these nutcases can take votes from any Democrat save a very small percentage outside of the rabid republican base?

and so with that, although perhaps it may even be naive on my part, it is why i absolutely cannot support Hillary Clinton. and it is a chance I am 100% willing to take. if i have to hold my nose any longer to vote for a Democrat i think i'll suffocate. i think Hillary for the most part has good intentions though a few things about her worry me and turn me off to her candidacy....to me it seems too much like people are aching for the days of the Clinton years.

and while it would be nice to bring ourselves back 10 years to 1997, that's exactly the problem - we would be bringing ourselves back. I've said it before but...no matter how good it was America does not need a rerun...we need new ideas from somebody who comes from a radically different angle than any presidential candidate we've seen in years. Somebody who gets it from the ground up instead of a DC pedestal looking down. I like Hillary, and I like Bill, but we need to move on. We need somebody like Barack Obama.

again...I am not a Hillary hater. I know she's a good Democrat. but it's time for something new.

it makes me uncomfortable, in a country where even a kid born into poverty to a single mother (like Bill Clinton), can grow up to be the Most Powerful Man in the World, to think about the possible repercussions of a situation like this...to me (obviously this my opinion alone), it is unhealthy for a democracy:

1981 - Bush (VP)
1982 - Bush (VP)
1983 - Bush (VP)
1984 - Bush (VP)
1985 - Bush (VP)
1986 - Bush (VP)
1987 - Bush (VP)
1988 - Bush (VP)
1989 - Bush
1990 - Bush
1991 - Bush
1992 - Bush
1993 - Clinton
1994 - Clinton
1995 - Clinton
1996 - Clinton
1997 - Clinton
1998 - Clinton
1999 - Clinton
2000 - Clinton
2001 - Bush
2002 - Bush
2003 - Bush
2004 - Bush
2005 - Bush
2006 - Bush
2007 - Bush
2008 - Bush
2009 - Clinton???
2010 - Clinton???
2011 - Clinton???
2012 - Clinton???
2013 - Clinton???
2014 - Clinton???
2015 - Clinton???
2016 - Clinton???


(edited for spelling...call me crazy, call me a troll, but anybody (except a Republican) but Hillary, 2008)

[charlie]

9. Add Dole

and you can make a further case for how skewed our "choices" for the top office have been. There hasn't been an election without a Bush, Dole, or Clinton on the ticket since 1976.

[MindMatter]

10. And that is no accident.

In the modern era, the press is dominated by a small number of giant corporations. They have constructed a "Heads I win, tails you lose" system. Of course, they prefer to have Republicans in power because they will pass all the legislation they want directly. But they also understand that we have this inconvenience called the Constitution that means from time to time, the people tire of the fascists, making it impossible for the corporations to elect them, no matter how much they promote the fascist-friendly candidates.

Their fallback is to manipulate the system to neuter the progressive movements by jamming up the works with the likes of the Clintons, Kerry, and other candidates the fascists can live with for a few years if necessary.

It isn't really very complicated. They looked at the field last time and saw Dean was the real threat to the corporate status quo. It was child's play to bury him and replace him with Kerry. As it turned out, Kerry ran an inept campaign, but he wasn't going to make any waves for the fascists if he had gotten elected. Hell, it took him three years after that election disaster to even speak out about it.

This time, clearly Edwards is the guy who is the threat to the the fascist status quo. They have not yet found it necessary to attack him in their personal, vicious mode. Thei game plan, obviously, it to promote Hillary as inevitable and marginalize Edwards.

If we have to live with Hillary, we can, assuming that we elct a fair number of true progressives to Congress. However, the big risk is that Hillary may not actually be electable. Her negatives are very high, and immovable. If it were not the total meltdown of the Bush regime, she would not stand a chance. But the problem is that Bush will be completely off the stage this time next year. She wouldn't be running against Bush, no matter how much she would want to. If nominated, she will be runninging against one of those right-wingers all dressed up to appear moderate for the general election.