Rasmussen Poll: Giuliani Now Tops Hillary Clinton by Seven Points (47% to 40%)

[TeamJordan23]

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

In Surge, Giuliani Now Tops Clinton by Seven Points
Thursday, August 16, 2007

After being virtually tied with Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton for several months, Republican contender Rudy Giuliani now leads Clinton up 47% to 40% in the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

In the match-up of the frontrunners, this result marks a significant shift. For the last three months the two frontrunners have never been further apart than three percentage points. Last month, Giuliani and Clinton were separated by just a single point.

Senator Clinton fares modestly better against former Senator Fred Thompson. Clinton now has a three point edge over him, 46% to 43%. All four previous Clinton-Thomas have also been toss-ups.

[billyoc]

1. Wasn't it just the opposite this morning?!

These early polls are a maddening waste of time. :grr:

[liberal N proud]

3. It's Rasmussen math

Just like Republicon math at election time.
You take the highest number and switch it with the lowest number and then you have your answer.
:sarcasm:

[William769]

2. Being a daily poll thats going to change daily.

Want to know why they are not doing it for Obama?

[TeamJordan23]

4. This is not a daily poll. Rasmussen does it for different candidates each week. nm

[William769]

5. Yes it is. NT

[TeamJordan23]

8. Where are the results for yesterday and Tuesday, than?

[slick8790]

21. ...No, It's not.

It was TAKEN over 2 days, but they do a different one of these every week, not a different hillary/guiliani poll every day.

[durrrty libby]

10. Now that you mention it, I am curious. I wonder why? Hmmm

[Colobo]

12. The Daily Poll is the Presidential Primary Poll, not the Head to Head Matchups

[Skarbrowe]

6. Guess they figured out they still have the voting suppression thing and screwed up machines

on their side. Better have the Republicans leading in the polls from now on. Gotta make it believable again. Personally, I don't believe the Republicans have a candidate they would come out on rainy day and vote for as of yet. Polls, schmolls.

[beberocks]

7. I'm really hoping Giuliani is the GOP candidate

All any Democratic candidate would have to do is show an ad where Giuliani is dressed in drag. I just can't picture those GOPers voting for a man in drag. I think they will stay home rather than say they voted for him. Add to that his pro-choice position, adultery, flip-flops on immigration, and just stick a fork in Giuliani, he's a goner.

[TeamJordan23]

9. I think GOP will get desperate; ignore their principles and vote for the most electable Repub. nm

[zbdent]

16. Actually, it could be four pictures

"Who will be the first lady? Wife #1, wife #2, wife #3, or Rudy him/herself?"

[SaveElmer]

He is doing better against Edwards and Obama too...ot will take a couple more polls..

To see if this is really a surge, or a statistical variation...

Really need more than one to make much of a judgment...

[buff2]

11. That is a rightwingnut website

and to have a REPUKE 7 points ahead of a Dem......I AM SHOCKED!!!! :sarcasm:

[Colobo]

13. Rasmussen has been the most accurate pollster lately.

The guy is good at what he does regardless of his political affiliation.

[ClintonTyree]

14. Could Americans be that stupid?

In a word, yes. They put Bush in office (one way or another) for two terms, didn't they?

Never underestimate the stupidity or gullibility of the American public.



Pathetic sheep! :grr:

[trayted]

20. Since 50% say they won't vote for Clinton under any circumstances, they wouldn't be the stupid ones

if they didn't vote for her in that matchup, if the Democrats nominate her.

[rinsd]

15. Could be an outlier. Rudy and Hillary have been within a pt of each other for months.

Rasmussen had a weird Obama-Rudy result in June where Obama was losing by 12.

We'll have to wait till they do matchups again to see.

[zbdent]

17. Gotta be all that time he spent in the danger zone of the 9/11 attacks

I mean, didn't he spend more time there than all the 9/11 rescuers combined?

:eyes::sarcasm:

[BlueStater]

31. I wonder if this poll was taken before that little assholish remark n/t

[bunkerbuster1]

18. This country knows SHIT about Ghouliani

I hope those fuckheads run him as their candidate. Put to rest all the 9/11 myths once and for all. (It's not like any Democratic challenger could choose to ignore them.)

[Mutineer]

19. Rasmussen is a GOP poll right?

???

[Dawgs]

24. Rasmussen is a Republican, but...

...this poll is the first in a long time that has Hillary down to anyone (R or D).

[slick8790]

26. Rasmussen the guy is, yeah.

He's a loon, he lives in a right wing commune down on the Jersey shore. But the polls are pretty right on, most of the time. Naturally any poll is gonna be wild this far out, but as you get closer, rassmussen is usually pretty good. i think they came within like 3-4% of the actual voting in the 06 senate/governor elections.

[Nimrod2005]

22. I am glad she is not going to be our nominee

[mzmolly]

23. I don't think Hillary can win. And, I think that will be demonstrated

in coming polls. I am sorry to say this because as a woman, I'd love to rally behind such a campaign. I'm luke warm on Hilary for many reasons, and this is yet another.

Clinton's unfavorables have always been high and are currently at 52%. I don't think those unfavorable numbers are very movable.

[juajen]

33. I believe there was a thread a day or so ago that reported

that her unfavorability rating was down in the forties and still heading south. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[mzmolly]

34. I'd love to see it.

:hi:

[usregimechange]

25. Which is why we must not nominate her

[bvar22]

27. The REALITY is much worse for the DemParty than this poll indicates.

This poll does NOT consider the inevitability of a strong AntiWar/ProLABOR 3RD Party challenge if Hillary is the Dem nominee. Considering Hillary's HIGH unfavorables, it is safe to predict that an Anti-War 3RD Party would attract a considerable # of Democratic voters and almost ALL of the Anti-War Independents.

This poll and ALL other polls are counting votes that Hillary will not get on Election Day.

Nominating a conservative Pro-Occupation (DLC) Democrat in 2008 will destroy what is left of the Democratic Party.
The damage downticket will be severe.

[rinsd]

28. "a strong AntiWar/ProLABOR 3RD Party challenge"

:rofl:

[bvar22]

35. So how many votes are you willing to throw away?

3%...4%....10%?
Al Gore lost 3% to Nader in 2000, and he didn't have near the negatives as Hillary, nor did he support a very unpopular Occupation.

Do you think any Anti-War Independents are going to rally for Hillary who has promised to keep the WAR going for years?

The Anti-War Left turned out for "Win the War" Kerry in 2004, and after the election felt they had wasted their votes. They are still ANGRY. They won't turn out for Pro-War Hillary, especially after the poor performance of the Democratic Party since 2006.
How many Anti-War votes can Hillary lose to a 3RD Party before you think it isn't so funny?


Ross Perot ran on an Anti-Free Trade Platform and got 19% of the vote in 1992, and THAT was before the PROOF of the Free Trade Disaster had hit the middle class. Are you sure a Democratic Free Trade/Pro-Outsourcing candidate won't lose votes to a Pro-LABOR/Populist 3RD Party on this issue?

So how many votes are you willing to throw away?
How "STRONG" does a 3RD Party need to be when most of the polls are within 3%?
Given the History of Presidential Elections in the last 20 years, don't you think it is wise to at least consider the effect of a 3RD Party before supporting a candidate with such high unfavorables?


I have great compassion for the blind, but none for the willfully stupid.---bvar22

[rinsd]

36. Bloomberg could make it interesting but he's not the candidate you're talking about.

"Given the History of Presidential Elections in the last 20 years, don't you think it is wise to at least consider the effect of a 3RD Party before supporting a candidate with such high unfavorables?"

Nominate who we want and fight like hell to get them elected.

You wanna take your ball and go home, be my guest.

[bvar22]

37. Didn't answer the question.

I do give you some credit for at least asking it again.

"Given the History of Presidential Elections in the last 20 years, don't you think it is wise to at least consider the effect of a 3RD Party before supporting a candidate with such high unfavorables?"


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[rinsd]

41. So we should have our nomination held hostage by threats of leaving?

Seriously, who is the anti-war/pro labor Dem candidate that has to be nominated in your mind in order to prevent a 3rd party run?

[calteacherguy]

29. It's going to be extremely difficult for any Democrat to win the Presidency in 08'.

The only one that would have a probability of winning is Clark in the political climate that will doubtless surround the election...October surprises, etc.

Unfortunately, the Party leaders aren't wise enough in their wisdom to give him the call.

[BlueStater]

30. Why?

What the heck has the sleazeball done that would improve his standings in the polls?

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2007 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend on donations
from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for your support.

[populistdriven]

38. Support Obama!!!

[mistertrickster]

39. Hillary is the only Dem who can lose in '08. Just saying . . . nt.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[rinsd]

42. You're new here. Calling out other DUers is a no no.

[antiimperialist]

43. Rasmussen also said Obama cut Hil's 20% lead to 12%, only to go back to 20% again

Rasmussen daily tracking poll has very wild swings.
This news that Hillar unexplainably went from being tied to Giuliani to being down 7% defies logic. Nothing has happened in 1 week to justify this wild swing. It is possible that Rasmussen is trying to attract attention, (and members) by playing shock jock.
Rasmussen loses nothing by making up numbers as long as it's not the week before the elections. There is no such thing as accurate or inaccurate poll numbers these early, because there are no election results to compare polls to.

[zulchzulu]

44. Obama 44% Giuliani 43%, Obama 46% Thompson 39% in same poll

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008_obama_44_giuliani_43_obama_46_thompson_39

I think Obama would do a lot better against Rudy G than the poll indicated...

[agincourt]

45. What does the GOPig party have to do

to really get Americans mad? Sell us as slaves to Saudi Arabia? Run up 100 trillion in debt for corporate welfare? Make Osama the attorney general? Twelve years of their shit and these polls say we want more. Rudy and rest of those scumbags should all be trailing by 30%.

[GreenTea]

46. Oh my...the bubble has burst for a day...do we believe it?

They'll be many more polls each day....pushing the one and only we must vote for.