Fox News Dynamic Opinion Poll of Registered Dem & Rep choices for 08

[ShaneGR]

44% of Democrats picked Hillary out of a list including Edwards, kerry, Clark and Gore.


29% of Republicans picked Guiliana while 26% picked McCain in an equally complete list of viable names (JEB BUSH NOT ON LIST).

They then polled a sample of the combination (Which I find ended up weighted Republican) and asked some matchup questions.

http://www.pollingreport.com/2008.htm

[ewagner]

1. First thought?

Lying MFs./

[BlueCaliDem]

27. Mine Too.

Who in high hell (or with half a brain these days) can believe a word from Faux News--let alone their proven skewed polls!

Yeah. They WISH Hillary's gonna run in 2008! Now thatwould get their Clinton-hating fundies neatly back into the corrupt Repub fold, wouldn't it?

[HereSince1628]

2. Personally, unless the Iraq war is over by then

I don't think anyone who voted for it has a prayer as a democratic candidate. I see nothing in the tea leaves or in the movement of planets that is going to make the Democratic base happy about the quagmire we descended into in Iraq.

[1932]

11. Every anti-Vietnam War Senator in '68 and '72 who ran for president voted

for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution

[HereSince1628]

12. Well, as I remember, THEY LOST. Nixon who didn't do that vote

because he was out of office actually WAS elected.

What does that prove? Nothing. Really. In 1968 the leading democratic candidate was ASSASINATED. And as a consequence the party didn't have a chance to run the best person.

If there is still current levels of US involvement in an Iraq war in 2008 I can guarantee it will be VERY unpopular.

[PeaceProgProsp]

15. Good point. RFK was also for the war and then was anti-war

and would have won.

[Donna Zen]

16. No comparison

They were actually lied to about the Tonkin Gulf Res. In this case everyone one of them knew that Iraq was not an imminent threat. They knew and they put their little political jobs above the good of the country.

Amending that statement: There were some Dems. who actually agreed with PNAC. Probably still do but have quit admitting it openly.

[AntiCoup2K4]

19. "Dems" who agree with PNAC have no place in this party.

The PNAC agenda is fascist and traitorous. Anyone endorsing it should stand trial for treason, and should never be allowed to run for elected office again (assuming they aren't behind bars - or otherwise ineligible)

[1932]

20. They were lied to in both cases. I'm sure many knew then that it didn't

make sense.

There are more similarities than differences.

Democrats did not penalize anyone, RFK included, for supporting the war and changing his or her mind later.

[Donna Zen]

22. Private meetings

They were talked behind closed doors; at least those who would listen. Ritter offered to speak with all of them, but others did talk to them.

Immanent threat. There was no immanent threat. None. They were told that in public hearings. They were warned behind closed doors. The PNAC letter was common knowledge, and the AEI had been touting their theory in meeting after meeting.

We talking about risking the lives of America's sons and daughters; we're talking about squandering treasure. 23 Senators stood and delivered, the rest worried about how this look on their resume. Is that who you think should run this country: people who are too dumb to know what so many others knew, or were so ego-centric that they didn't care about our country?

People who learned nothing from Tonkin Gulf are doomed to repeat it.

[Clark2008]

29. If they let themselves be lied to, then they weren't paying attention.

Wesley Clark TOLD the HASC that the war wasn't a good idea and listed several credible reasons for it, including that Saddam was contained, that diplomacy should be allowed to work and that we needed to finish the war in Afghanistan and/or catch Osama bin Laden.

If they didn't hear or read the transcript from that testimony, then they allowed themselves to be trapped.

It wasn't a huge secret.

[BlueCaliDem]

30. You Hit The Nail Smack On It's Head...

...and from what I've been hearing around here (in liberal Democratic SoCal) that's exactly what I heard people say during the 2003-2004 Democratic primaries.

That's why Howard Dean, and Gen. Wesley Clark were the MOST popular here, and there descended a cloak of mourning when they both were cancelled out in the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries...

[AllyCat]

3. First thought: only 900 respondents in a sample?

That's not too good. Where did they find these 900 people? All in one town? If they went all over the country, that's not a very representative sample.

Second thought: Dems cannot seem to come up with a candidate that can win anything. Everyone is doing a great job following JUST what the media has told us to think: support Clinton (and we'll lose again).

The only match up where she showed promise was against Condiliar, showing that Repukes still won't vote for a woman, especially one with brown skin. Dems would at least support a woman candidate.

Scientific observation on my part? Heck no. Knee-jerk reactions. Flame away.

[BlueCaliDem]

32. I LIKE Your Science... :-D

You get NO "flaming" from me today. ;-)

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[expatriot]

5. social conservatives don't have a clear alternative to mccain....

i am torn, the only thing that could unite the republican party behind a mccain candidacy is if his opponent had the last name "Clinton" **sigh**

[ShaneGR]

6. Editing my post up there a bit cuz of responses....

If I had been called, as a Registered Democrat, I'd have picked Hillary too. I view her as more than a viable candidate. A former first lady, by then a twice elected Senator from New York, she's got the background I'd dream of in a President. Also people seem to easilly forget, the Clintons are OUTSTANDING campaigners and they've done a lot to rehabilitate their images.

As for the Iraqi vote, the Reublican's already used that line in 04, it won't hold water four years later (ESPECIALLY IF WE'RE EVEN STILL IN IRAQ). If we are out of Iraq by 08, look for a great deal of that campaign year to shift towards, well, you guessed it, "The Economy Stupid".

Besides, Bill Clinton as "The First Man"??? PRICELESS!

[JNelson6563]

7. Ugh! Clintons=Sell-outs

No thanks. I wouldn't lift a finger for that candidacy. Never again will I work for a candidate I don't really believe in. Never.

Julie--done with sell-out Dems

[ShaneGR]

9. Part you forget....

Many people, including myself, feel that the Clinton Years were genuinely good years both from a social and financial perspective. When you look past Clinton's scandals, he knew how to govern and I liked that about it.

And there's a big difference between "betraying Democratic Principles" and being a smart politician.

[JNelson6563]

17. No, I don't forget

sure, the times were better, of course we're in some of our darkest days.....

Hillary has been so busy sucking up to the right at all the wrong times, on many of the wrong votes~~especially the war vote!!!. I'll never forget, and in fact it still makes me ill to recall, when she stood ont hat Senate floor and said "I trust this White House...." when announcing her yes vote.

Sickening and incredibly stupid. I don't forget but I bet she wishes I and many like me would.

Julie

[BlueCaliDem]

28. Then Wouldn't Gore, Having Been Part of Those Successful...

Clinton years, and even conducive to it's success, be the prime candidate for 2008? One whom the Repukes can't paint as a "voted for the war before it was fashionable to vote against it" Dem. One who had beaten a Bush hands-down already?

I loved the Clinton years too, but I also know the rage with which Clinton hating Repubs would go after Hillary with LOTS of help from corporate media, and if you think it won't work again, think again.

They attacked Vietnam Vet Max Leland (I believe his name is; forgive me if I got it wrong) the same way as they attacked Kerry, and BOTH times, they were successful.

With the Iraq war growing more and more unpopular, it's best to remind the electorate that there were still prominent people out there who were against it from the git-go; from before it was "all the rage" in Washington.

[Clark2008]

33. But Bill is not Hillary.

Why are they grouped together? Hillary was a Goldwater Girl. Bill has always been a Democrat - liberal on some issues and moderate on others.

Hillary is NOT Bill - she can't campaign as well and she's NOT the same person, despite what the wingnuts want you to believe, for good or bad.

[AntiCoup2K4]

18. "they've done a lot to rehabilitate their images."

Yeah..... sure they have....

http://www.ksdk.com/assetpool/images/0513111234_bush,clinton,bush.bmp%20324.jpg

Yeah, that's great rehabilitation.... if you want the REPUBLICAN vote.

And Hillary's voting record has kissed more Bush ass than Bill has.

[Clark2008]

31. Why do you want to lose?

We need to flip a couple of red states to win, to unite the country AND to overcome Diebold in the few key states.

Hillary will do NONE of those things, especially not flipping any red states!

[Lexingtonian]

8. why care?

There's always some Democrat getting 40%, the story is the identity changes at something like a whim. I call it The Flavor Of The Month Candidate. Wes Clark, Hillary Clinton....look at the other ones, who have stable baselines. Plus, 40% of the Democratic electorate lives in Red States and as a pattern irresponsibly champions people who are behind the times or irrelevant or unelectable, i.e. unbearable and unappealing to majorities of Blue State folks.

Republican polling is always nonsense. Giuliani and McCain are too old and, in McCain's case, too senile to endure a full Presidential run. This stuff distracts from the people the GOP insiders have as Plan A and the backup, Plan B. These seem to be Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney, with it not being terribly clear who is A and who B. (I think Jeb's recent family screwups took him out of being the clear A, leaving Romney the opening he's trying his darndest to exploit at the moment.)

[safi0]

13. I agree somewhat

But I think George Allen is there #1 choice right now.

[dolstein]

10. President Joe Lieberman can attest to how worthless these polls are

Joe Lieberman led in all the early polls in 2004 (at least once Al Gore had dropped out). These polls are based entirely on name recognition. They don't count for a heck of a lot -- just ask John Edwards, who barely registered in the early 2004 polls.

While I certainly wouldn't dismiss Hillary's chances, the fact remains that nobody is paying attention at this point.

[skipos]

14. Yup. This reminds me of my gradeschool elections...

vote for the name you recognize the most.

[mgnk99]

21. what??

kerry?!?! you can't be serious...he won't get any more votes now than he did back in 04...i was never a fan of Edwards...Clark im just starting to actually research the guy...and Gore..well didn't the oil run out of his robot appearance yet??!?! we need someone!

[wisteria]

23. According to these poll numbers any name repub would win

against our candidates. Oh yeah, this is real fair and balanced polling. Who did they interview, Repubs pretending to be Dems? This poll smacks of name recognition and should not be accepted as anything closely resembling professional polling.

[I_am_Spartacus]

24. Notice how much better Edwards does than rest despite

scoring second place consistently to Clinton with about 15-16% of voters supporting him.

I suspect that once that number went up to 20% he would make up that 3% gap with McCain and would open up his lead on Rudy by even more.

[Clark2008]

35. He only has name recognition, too.

Sorry, but he gives me the willies.

I like his wife MUCH better. She should run.

[I_am_Spartacus]

37. Clark scores about 5% consistently and comes behind other

people who didn't run in 2004 and don't have regular spots on Fox.

So name recognition isn't helping Clark. There's some mix, obvioulsy, of name recognition and agreeing with what the person talks about.

And you know what gives me the willies? People who say decent Democrats give them the willies.

[madville]

25. Did they mention Condi Rice ?

I think she is the Republicans trump card for Hillary.The right does not want Rudy or McCain after seeing how "moderate" GWB has been in their eyes. Condelezza Rice seems far more right than GWb at this point and she is a real threat to Democrats getting the presidency back.

[newyawker99]

26. Hi madville!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[LSK]

34. FOX has no clue

Every poll I see on DU has Clark winning, Gore 2nd and Hillary with like 5%. Just goes to show you that FOX either has no clue or doesnt really poll at all, they just make shit up as they go.

[bluedawg12]

36. Meaningless- way too soon, there may be newcomers

in the field and haven't heard any of them actually campaign formally- 'cept Biden, sort of.


Mentioning Hillary's name is baiting the radicalright base- that's all.

[jackbourassa]

38. A more viable poll at this point would be...

Do you support Hillary or someone else?

Jesus, it's way too early for this kind of stuff.