Politico's political "Juice" rankings 12/19

Politico's political "Juice" rankings:

1) Hil Clinton --- The frontrunner in the elections, but a very soft frontrunner. SHe doesn't campaign well in close races.
2) Barak Obama --- A blessing from the good witch of Harpo has Obama primed to win Iowa and New Hampshire. If he takes both, edwards supporters (who are strongly anti-hillary, could easily join the swell and overtake Hillary.
3) Mitt Romney --- rising in Iowa lately and may pass the falling Huckabee. Only Huckabee and Romney are considered "politically acceptable" by the confeild faithful.
4) Mayor 9/11 --- Current GOP national frontrunner, but IMO a joke of one. He has no momentum at all. Biden's wicked tongue has ripped the only platform out from the former Mayor of NY; silencing Guilani's 911 mantra and leaving his faithful with no reason to vote for him. I expect a Dean-like implosion after Iowa.
5) Mike Huckabee --- Scandals and general meanness will cut Huckabee with both his conservative faithful and his moderate supporters. He still has little money to campaign beyond Iowa and, as such, remains a longshot in a national race. He has to win Iowa to get the "bounce to relevancy" whereas the filthy rich Romney can take a close second in Iowa and a media fueled win in New Hampshire and become the Rep. frontrunner...unless...
6) The Zombie John McCain --- Simple math. If Mayor 911 slumps following a Romney win in Iowa, Huckabee can't gain momentum outside of the state due to financial limitations, Fred Thompson proves a failed candidate and doesn't break say 10% in Iowa....that is darned near 50% of the republican nomination in play. The Religious Reich consider Mormonism a cult and Rudy G a male Hillary Clinton. If Huckabee and Thompson are proven financially and politically unviable, where else can that support go? Do not be suprised to see a lazarius-style resurrection of John McCain in New Hampshire. The McCain Zombie could come out of nowhere to steal the nomination.
7) John Edwards --- He has to win Iowa to have even a slim shot at this. I cannot see him overcoming Oprah, even with the help of kung fu fighter Chuck Norris. Technically, Edwards is surging, but Obama and Hil have more juice, so it doesn't show. Look for his implosion after Iowa to fuel anti-Clinton Dems joining Obama.
8) Joe Biden -- Biden is surging. Do not be suprised if he finishes 3rd in Iowa. The state has been bombarded with messages for almost a full year. Biden has the advantage of being a known commodity in the state. Logically he will do a little better than he has been polling for that reason. I think that, his strong knowelged of foreigh policy, and his total dismantling of Rudy Guilani might make him the perfect foil/attack dog for an Obama presidency. Peaking at the right time.
9)Richardson --- technically has less support than Thomspon, but is theoretically holding firm in Iowa. I would not be suprised to see him lose about half of his support to Biden on election day though. Biden has been through the state campaigning before. In a way Biden is "family"; That will be a hard pull vs. a guy who is showing no momentum. Still he has to be the front runner to be Hillary's VP.
10) Fred Thompson --- D.O.A. He really hasn't shown anything at all since declaring. He was brought in to be a ringer. His supporters support frontrunners. By the end of the Iowa race, it will be abundantly clear that he is not a frontrunner. His followers will have a choice of being politically irrelevant and letting two reprehensible candidates (romney and Guiliani, in their opinion) vie for the GOP slot or chose a viable 3rd candidate -- McCain or the imploding Huckabee.

Huckabee: Flawed candidate on verge of implosion?

I have been a watcher of Mike Huckabee and a general fan of him personally, even if his politics fall on the other side of the fence from my normal comfort zone. he seems a fiancial realist and a practical politician.

How about this populist gem from Huckabee?
“Do you realize that if we could increase just by 50 percent the number of adults who have a college degree, it would add $5 billion to the economy and it would result in a net income to the state of Arkansas of $340 million a year?” --- That is someone who financially thinks like I do. Government can invest in its people to a good return.

I have watched him grab ahold of the the Religious Reich and the Gun Nut rank and file (against the wishes of the ruling elite of those political blocks) and turn himself into a legitimate political candidate in Iowa.

He seemed like an honest, straight-forward guy who was religious, but didn't wrap himself in the cloak of moral superiority. He has said some crazy things in currying the gun-nut/rr vote*, but in the primaries you campaing to your base, in the elections you campaign to the middle. I don't hold that agaisnt him, but...

(* "I'm pretty sure there's gonna be duck hunting in heaven... and I can't wait!")


I am inclined to think his metoric rise is over, in spite of him recently adding the excellent Ed Rollins as his campaign manager. I think Huckabee is being outed as a candidate with just as many skeletons in the closet as Mayor 911. When you figure in the fact that Huckabee's base are the folks who's leadership declined to endorse Huckabee to begin with (presumably they saw these skeletons in the closet and decided he was unelectable), it seems likely that he may find a lot of these leaders jumping over to McCain or Romney in the next 2 weeks. It is, afterall, in their interest to say to their consituency, "you backsed the wrong horse this time, stick with me and we will get the right one next time." rather than sitting back and being seem as impotent or irrelevant in this race. Deals will be cut.

Huckabee has shown himeslf to be mean-spirited in the last 45 days or so, he has gone out of his way to be unneccessarily hateful to gays and Mormons. He has moved from being devoutly, and righteously pro-life to dogmatically pro-life. Huckabee's momentum was based on his positive message and his general likeability. He has shown his petty side over the last 3 weeks and has seen a couple of missteps from the past (his AIDS ideas, women's subserviant roles, and the rape scandal) come back to haunt him. His upwards momentum has stalled and his negative numbers have gone way up. That can't be corrected in 3 weeks. I think Huckabee is going to lose Iowa to Romney or McCain and I think he may have also lost out on the VP job if Romney (or perhaps McCain) gets the nod.

--------------

What is the rape issue floating over Huckabee's head?

Well, this is it in a nutshell. I got the story from the McGlocklin group. I make no pronouncements over whether this is a justified criticism or a fair one, but this is it. A rapist in Arkansas was granted an early release. His victim begged the Governor not to allow him to be pardoned. The Governor says he had nothing to do with the pardon and says it was all the parole board, but a member of the parole board has come out and said they pardoned the guy because the governor wanted him pardoned. He put it all on Huckabee.

Anyway, this is where it gets really seedy. The political insiders on the M.G. said there is some thought that the release of this guy may have been a political slap at the Clintons as the victim was a cousin of Bill's.

Anyway this guy got out and raped 2 women and killed them. Their families are mad as hell and will make a world of stink to keep Huckabee out of the presidency.

Now there are scandals and there are SCANDALS. If even half of this is true, Huckabee is going to have a very hard time rallying voters who favor strong sentancing. Republicans don't want to escape the primaries with a lame duck candidate.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/04/documents-expose-huckabee_n_75362.html

Huckabee falling back as Romney narrows lead.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_republican_caucus-207.html

Guiliani, Edwards, Thomspon -- put a fork in them

I am prononuncing Mayor 911 as D.O.A. effective today. His strategy was to accept a few defeats in the early states comfortable in the knowledge that he would win NY, FL, CA, and do well in most of the states where he has campaigned for most of his supporters. Now it is looking like he may be swept in the early primary states and worst of all he has NO momentum.

He's done kids. This is going to be a Howard Dean-type implosion.

And while I'm at it, put a fork in Fred Thompson and John Edwards as well. Neither candidate has any momentum and both will see their suport vanish overnight after Iowa.

Now that support will redistribute itself in what may seem strange ways. Look for the McCain Zombie to rememege on the republican side and either take New Hampshire or run a strong second as Thompson, (in spite of the dreams of the GOP power brokers) was in essence, a leech of McCain supporters. With his lack of clothes being revealed in Iowa, McCain will probably get a second wind.

Remember kids, hard work does pay off. Look at Uncle John!

Edward's base is the liberal left of the party. They don't like Hillary because they see her for what she is, the left hand of the power elite. They prefer Edwards over Obama, but they are in the 40% of America that doesn't like Hillary. Look for Edwards' support to fall off a cliff after Iowa and Obama to be neck and neck with Hillary. Also don't be suprised to see political Vet Biden take some of the anti-hillary vote and make a strong case to be Biden's VP. Biden can be a very effective attack dog and his knowledge of foreign relations would erase many questions on an Obama ticket. Plus they see to genuinely like each other.

Hurricane Oprah sweeping Obama into office?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/09/oprah.obama/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7134895.stm

I think in general terms people don't really get how influential Oprah is. If I could name one person who's political touch could potentially swing an election, it is Oprah. With the right candidate, Winfrey could put them over the top as amuch as any religious powerbroker. Obama might be that candidate.

I say this only partially tongue-in-cheek, but a stirringly heartfelt endorsement like oprah is giving Obama may be second only to an endorsement by Jesus Christ himself.

Hardball political power rankings are just nuts.

their rankings:

1) Hil Clinton
2) Barak Obama
3) Mayor 9/11
4) John Edwards
5) Mitt Romney
6) John McCain
7) Fred Thompson
8) Mike Huckabee
9) Richardson
10)Biden/Dodd

I can only speculate that they based those rankings off the "candidate vs. candidate" polls --- IMO a very flawed bit of polling as it doesn't take into account the realities of the electoral college. I think you really have to put these candidates in order by political juice --- share of the current audience, how solid it appears to be, and what kind of momentum potential they seem to have.


Politico's political "Juice" rankings:

1) Hil Clinton --- The frontrunner by 7-20% in all primaries.
2) Mitt Romney --- Could double Guliani in Iowa riding it into the GOP frontrunner position.
3) Mayor 9/11 --- Current GOP frontrunner, but IMO a very soft front runner. Under fire from Biden and beset by scandals; could finish 4th in Iowa and implode.
4) Barak Obama --- 20% of the vote is nothing to sneeze at, but has no idea how to attack and opponent. Dead in the water.
5) John McCain --- Everytime I want to throw dirt on McCain's grave he gets another endorsement. If Thompson implodes or quits before the election, the McCain Zombie could come out of nowhere to steal the nomination.
6) Mike Huckabee --- He may be topped out, but 12% is a heck of an accomplishment with no one giving him money. That is a very solid 12%. He owns the religious and gun nut vote.
7) John Edwards --- I do not think he is a real candidate. I think he is campaigning hard, but again the message is good, but I think a lot of people doubt the messenger.
8) Fred Thompson --- Slowly bleeding candidates. I think he has a very soft 17%. He could lose large chunks of his support in the next 2 months as his followers realize he has no forward momentum and they could get squeezed out of the ear of the incoming president.
9) Richardson --- The only reason I don't have richardson 10th is because I have a feeling he has sewn up the VP job for Hillary. His polling numbers have slid as it became apparent to his supporters that he wasn't going to crack the big 3.
10)Biden -- Biden is gaining momentum, but the big 3 are too settled in as frontrunners in the minds of national Dems. I would guess that if they held all of the primaries today he MIGHT finish 4th. There is no question he is miles ahead of Dodd.

Joe Biden for Secretary of State!

Ok, so my boy Joe Biden is not going to win the election. Check out his interview on the troubles in Pakistan, a nuclear power, and you'll understand why I like the guy for his views on foreign policy.

http://www.joebiden.com/contribution/2?id=0014

zeitgeist movie, very well made, mind-blowing expose' movie

www.zeitgeistmovie.com

This is an excellent, high quality piece of editorial work that investigates the role of the rich elite in American war efforts and the manipulation of our economy. It also delves into the similarities between religions --- which may or may not interest the readers of this blog --- fast forward through that if it doesn't interest you.

I encourage you to watch the movie critically and draw your own conclusions. There are many compelling arguements made in the movie, but a critical mind will do its own research and make its own determinations.

It is a very well-made documentary with high production values. It is 2 hours long and has a 5 minute introduction to set a very moody tone, so watch it when you have the time and inclination.

from the site:

"Zeitgeist, produced by Peter Joseph, was created as a nonprofit filmiac expression to inspire people to start looking at the world from a more critical perspective and to understand that very often things are not what the population at large think they are. The information in Zeitgeist was established over a year long period of research and the current Source page on this site lists the basic sources used / referenced and the Interactive Transcript includes exact source references and further information.

Now, it's important to point out that there is a tendency to simply disbelieve things that are counter to our understanding, without the necessary research performed. For example, some information contained in Part 1 and Part 3, specifically, is not obtained by simple keyword searches on the Internet. You have to dig deeper. For instance, very often people who look up "Horus" or "The Federal Reserve" on the Internet draw their conclusions from very general or biased sources. Online encyclopedias or text book Encyclopedias often do not contain the information contained in Zeitgeist. However, if one takes the time to read the sources provided, they will find that what is being presented is based on documented evidence. Any corrections, clarifications & further points regarding the film are found on the Clarifications page. Non-Profit DVDs / Free Video Downloads are available through the Downloads page.

That being said, It is my hope that people will not take what is said in the film as the truth, but find out for themselves, for truth is not told, it is realized.

Thank You"

Hillary is in the lead in Iowa; is it time for Edwards to cut a deal?

Hillary surged up to 30% of the Iowa vote in the latest polls, up from 19.5% in April. Edwards on the other hand has slowly lost momemntum in Iowa, falling from state best high of 31.3% in April down to 19.6%.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_democratic_caucus-208.html

It has been said that if Edwards loses Iowa to Hillary, he likely is out of the race nationwide. I agree with that assessement.

What happens then? Is Hillary likely to name him her VP? I would doubt it. Edward's base is not going to vote for a republican and among the Democrats out there they are the most angry with the republicans and their policies. They are going to vote in numbers for the democratic candidate come hell or high water.

Would Obama invite him to be his VP if Obama gets the vote? I happen to think Edwards would be a decent foil, but that Obama would not offer him the position. The body language I have seen between the two suggests to me that Obama despises the guy. My take on it is that Edwards is a political opportunist and Obama hates that.

(Plus, honestly Obama, like Clinton, would have a better chance of getting elected with Governor Richardson as his VP, and he would deliver New Mexico and give Obama a bump with voters in key large swing states with heavy Mexican populations like Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, and Florida. Heck, if the GOP runs Guliani --- A NEW YORKER!!! :P --- with a yankee VP, even my home state of Texas that gets out of bed conservative each morning could be in play in that scenario due to Republican apathy.)

Anyway, as it stands Edwards appears to be on his way to falling out of the race in about 2 months.

What if he cuts a deal?

Supposing Edwards backs out of the race and endorses Obama. I recognize that not all of Edward's supporters will jump to Obama, but I suspect most of them will. They are, afterall, in part supporting Edwards because they are dissatisfied with Hillary's conservative, pro-war stance. Hillary has the highest negative rating in the race, Obama among the lowest.

If Edwards dropped out of the race now and endorsed Obama, it is entirely possible that overnight Obama would become the democratic frontrunner nationwide and in Iowa. As the frontrunner, his campaign philosophy works. In a Clinton/Obama dogfight, Clinton is hamstrung. Obama pulls as much or more money than her. She cannot just bury him under ads. In that scenario, she is clearly the establishment vs. the new blood. She is the war candidate vs. the peace candidate. She has to then fight to max out her potential voting block. The problem is that she doesn't fight well --- often becoming quite catty ---which only further adds to her negative rating.

Edwards could re-enter the race as Obama's VP in a marriage of convenience. Edwards as a southern white man, would help make a black candidate tolerable in less progressive states. Or perhaps to further help the odds of success, the deal could be that Edwards would be Obama's high profile secretary of state for the next 4 years allowing Richardson to be VP and allowing Edwards a lot more freedom in gearing up his next presidential run.

...So, will Edwards deal?

The apparent goals of the candidates in the last quarter before primary season

Democratic Candidates

Candidates:

Joe Biden, U.S. Senator from Delaware - Biden is clearly hoping that Mrs. Clinton spontaneously combusts, because the only way he will be on the democratic ticket in the spring is as the Democratic Nominee or Obama's VP. The odds of either are ridiculously long. all that said, it was a good election race to enter for him IMO. He really blew the races with his off-the-cuff day 1 Obama comment. Quite honestly, If that had not happened and if Elizabeth Edwards (who I think DESERVES to be the first lady through her excellent campaigning) did not have health issues that have bonded a portion of the Dem electorate to her husband, Biden could very well have displaced Edwards as the voice of the left in this race and he might be sitting at 20% and trying to make a move past the limp Obama. Although some of it is his own making, with all respect to Mrs. Edwards, I think Biden has had some crap political luck. I think Biden recognizes that he is too much of a high risk candidate with too little political muscle to be a front runner in the race to be Hillary's VP. He is smartly focusing his attacks on Republican front runner Rudy Guliani. That does two things, 1) It legitimizes the moderate Guliani as the frontrunner 2) It points out his weaknesses just as the primaries are beginning. Large constituencies of the Republican party will bail on a likely loser. Biden's strategy really helps the Democratic candidate's chances long term. Biden is probably angling for the Secretary of State job. It should be noted that Hillary did include him in the piling on ad. A warning to ease up?...

Hillary Clinton, U.S. Senator from New York and former First Lady - She spiked in Iowa last week even with her debate trouble. If she wins Iowa, the nomination is hers.

Christopher Dodd, U.S. Senator from Connecticut - He is also a possibility for the Secretary of state job, but would also do well in most cabinet positions. I think he had the same strategy as Biden. It is very difficult for a senator from a small state to make the jump to the presidency.

John Edwards, former U.S. Senator from North Carolina and 2004 Democratic Vice Presidential candidate - He has been a pest to both Obama and CLinton and I think is not in either of their plans. THey both realize that his voters are protest voters who see Obama and Clinton as moderate poseurs and frauds who are not about liberal values. Ultimately his voters will vote Democrat because of a deep hatred of the republican party.

Mike Gravel, former U.S. Senator from Alaska - If this were Survivor, Gravel would have been voted off the island in week one. TO know him as a candidate is to discount or dislike him. It is telling that he has something like 1-3% of the democratic vote and yet his negative rating is not far of hillary's.

Dennis Kucinich, U.S. Representative from Ohio - If only Kucinich was half as hot as his wife. If Kucinich looked like Gary Hart instead of Alfred E. Newman, he would have probably won this nomination. He will get a nice cabinet position under hillary, but if he wants to be a President one day, he needs to do some investing in his physical looks. (I am not hating. American voters are superficial.)He can't do anything about his height, but there are several things he can do. He needs to get his ears done, possibly get braces, to hire a personal trainer, and get a better haircut. His stances are almost as hot as his wife. He just falls short. For America's benefit, I hope he takes the advice.

Barack Obama, U.S. Senator from Illinois - Michelle Obama is the only one on that campaign who "gets it". She said months ago that if they were going to win the election, they had to win Iowa. It appears that they are in the process of losing Iowa. Obama falls in the middleground. He has too much of a shot to take it easy on Hillary in case she falters, but at the same token with each attack falls further out of consideration for the VP spot. I have said this before, Bill Clinton delivers the black vote better than Obama, so why would Hillary need Obama? Barring BIll's health faltering, she doesn't. And why would she reward someone who has been kind of a jerk to her over the Iraq war vote with a cabinet position. IMO, there is no reason for that. He has to attack until the end and hope for a CLinton meltdown.

Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico and former Secretary of Energy - Richardson has been faltering in the polls, but I suspect it is mainly an acknowlegement that he isn't going to pass edwards and become a serious candidate. He has smartly been taking Hillary's defense lately. I have said for months that a Clinton/Richardson ticket is a winning ticket. I think Richardson gets that and is trying to get Hillary on board with it.

Republican Party

Candidates:

Rudy Giuliani, former Mayor of New York City - Mayor 9/11 has about a 5-12 point lead in the national polls over the other republican contenders. In simple terms, he is a soft frontrunner. I think his inexperience in national campaigns is hurting him. He doesn't seem to get how important Iowa will be in this election. Romney has a real shot of doubling him in Iowa. Guiliani might finish 4th there. That will cause some re-evaluaion. I do not expect a Dean-like implosion, but it is VERY possible.

Mike Huckabee, former Governor of Arkansas - Huckabee has had to talk crazy to land the gun and religious nut vote, but he has done it. In spite leaders in those movement's desires to endorse "serious" candidates, huckabee has wooed the rank and file. He has IMO moved to the head of the list of vice presidential candidates.

Duncan Hunter, U.S. Representative from California - In terms of the race, he should have dropped out months ago. He seems an angry crazy man and I am glad THompson is running to block him from any serious impact on this race.

Alan Keyes, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Economic and Social Council - Sigh. You know what role he plays in the Republican Party. Not worth dwelling on.

John McCain, U.S. Senator from Arizona - McCain dug his own hole by embracing Iraq and trying to push through that fiercely unpopular immigration legislation. He has no one to blame but himself. Bush fucked him in 2000 and in return McCain had Bush's back on the war and immigration in 2007? WTF!?!?!? You don't cost yourself an election propping up the current president. AMerican Hero. Man of honor. Sadly, I have to pronounce him an idiot when it comes to running a presidential campaign. As a VP, I think he is a high risk as Biden is for the Dems as a VP. McCain is done as a mover and shaker in the Republican Party and may want to seriously consider jumping to the Dems in a year or so.

Ron Paul, U.S. Representative from Texas and 1988 Libertarian Presidential nominee - The Republican version of Gravel.

Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts - Romney really needs to start his media blitz in the other early primary states now. Project Iowa has gone swimmingly, but once you study Romney's history, you understand why. Guy is a top notch executive.

Tom Tancredo, U.S. Representative from Colorado - He needed to get out of the race yesterday. I think Tancredo is too much of a centralist to fit into today's Republican Party. I think if he had come out stronger against the war at the opening of the campaign season he might have gotten a bounce to relevence on his immigration stance, but as it is now he seems to just be upsetting the republican base. He has very high negative numbers. I think he'd do best to get out of the race now rather than trying to attack Hillary. Everyone does that. It won't give him the bump that Biden is getting in people's minds. (I do recognize that Biden isn't getting a push in the polls, but I think both the Dem candidates and the Dem voters think positively about him.) Tancredo should seriously consider jumping to the Dems. He is young enough to be a strong Presidential candidate in future elections, but there is a strong body of evidence that the GOP has no place for him in that position.

Fred Thompson, former U.S. Senator from Tennessee - I said that Fred want to lose this primary and I think his recent joking with a reporter about how he doesn't think he will win speaks volumes. He wants to get back to his retirement.

Debate Fallout: Round Two for Clinton by wonkette

http://wonkette.com/politics/debate-fallout/round-two-for-clinton-317619.php


Debate Fallout: Round Two for Clinton
by Wonkette

In a matter of 24 hours, Sen. Hillary Clinton went from referring to her presidency as done deal to acting like the victim of a schoolyard beat down. She’s kept a low profile since Tuesday night’s trouncing in the debates, where even her closest allies and advisers said she dropped the ball (“As someone who loves her,” said former Clinton adviser James Carville. “This was not her best performance.”). As she regrouped, Clinton went on the offensive (or defensive?) producing a video titled “The Politics of Pile-On.” And honestly, it just doesn’t work.
Clinton Regroups As Rivals Pounce [WP]
The Politics of Pile-On [YouTube]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zk16oxb4Ck4


In the surface, it appears that this is about liberal crybabies in the Hillary camp putting out something to point out that Hillary is being treated unfairly by the other candidates -- the men in this race -- and maybe that was their goal, but I'd argue the end result is something entirely different than what Wonkette sees.

By putting this out, the Clinton Camp has changed the debate from being about hillary being a flip-flopper to be being about Hillary playing the "victim" card.

Frankly that change in focus has snuffed out much of the momentum that debate COULD have generated. By putting Hillary back under critique by Fox News over playing the victim card, Fox News has in essence normalized Hillary's realtionship with America.

Fox News has been routinely attacking hillary over playing the victim card when she hasn't, so now that her camp actually HAS played it, their criticism lacks teeth. They have, in effect, cried wolf too many times.

I think Hillary has essentially played this get out of jail free card to get out of her debate faux pas. She can't use this one again, but there are other criticisms Fox News has put against her that she can use in the future.

At this point, barring a SERIES of gaffes of equal measure, I am about 99% sure she will win the Democratic nomination.

The Iowa Primary: polling result update.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_democratic_caucus-208.html

clinton pulling away in Iowa after debate trouble? --- More proof that debates don't give rise to instant momentum, more that they only open the door to new strategies. Neither Obama or Edwards really are applying new strategies, so they won't win.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_republican_caucus-207.html

Romney maintains commanding lead in Iowa, Huckabee destined to hold on to second?

Hillary weathers "driver's license" storm? It appears so...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/weekly_presidential_tracking_polling_history

The new national polls are out.

10/28/07 (before Hillary's debate debacle)

Clinton - 44% (down 2% from the polls on the 15th and 22nd)
Obama - 20% (down 4% from the poll on the 22nd)
Edwards - 14%(up 3% from the polls on the 15th and 22nd)

11/4/07 (after the debate debacle)

Clinton - 42% (down 2%)
Obama - 22% (up 2%)
Edwards - 12% (down 2%)

When you consider the margin of error, it appears that -- like most debates -- this debate had little to no immediate affect. Debates can have long term effects though by introducing concepts that can be played out over time. It appears to me that this will most likely hurt hillary in the general election by opening the door to "flip-flopper" criticisms.

I think ultimately, the democratic feild has made up it's mind on the top 3 for now. Movement is only going to come if Edwards or Obama run away with Iowa and force a reconsideration.

On the republican side, Huckabee and Romney continue to chip away at Thompson and Guliani. I am not prepared to crown Romney the front-runner yet, but I think if Guliani's numbers stay floating in the 23-25% range he will be in real trouble after Romney destroys him in Iowa. There will be a reconsideration there.

10/28/07

Guliani -21% (down from 29% on the 15th and 25% on the 22nd)
Thompson - 18% (down from 19% on the 22nd)
Romney - 12% (down from 15% on the 22nd)
McCain - 14% (up from 12% on the 22nd)
Huckabee - 12% (up from 8% on the 22nd)

11/4/07
Guliani -23% (up 2%)
Thompson - 17% (down 1%)
Romney - 13% (up 1%)
McCain - 13% (down 1%)
Huckabee - 12% (no change)

I think Guiliani and Huckabee are moving and everyone else is more or less staying in place. I think Huckabee has taken a jump in Republican voter's minds to "serious candidate and IMO the front runner to be vice president. I think all 5 candidates had a solid core of 10-15% of the republican voters who love them and the rest are people leaning their way. Guliani should be considered the frontrunner, but this race will be a dogfight.

"Border control Nazi" Lou Dobbs weighs in

For those of you who don't know Lou Dobbs, he is an economist who interprets the news in economic terms on his show on CNN. He is a little full of himself, IMO, but the man is clearly a patriot who says things because he believes they are in the best interest of America. Unlike other editorialists on TV, he is not a political shill for one of the parties.

He is against NAFTA and open borders because they drop the effective wages of the middle and lower classes --- the majority of America --- and contribute to an eventual loss of national identity and autonomy. If our borders with Canada and Mexico are slowly being dissolved, how can we efficiently make the financial corrections to the US economy that history has shown us we have to make from time to time?

Anyway, illegal immegration is his hot button and the idea of NY giving driver's licenses (a legal document) to illegal immegrants sets him on fire, so it is no suprise that he would be one of Hillary Clinton (and the Democrats) harshest critics on these issues.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3AUf7zUP00

The wolves are out on Hillary

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6634.html

"Obama, Edwards attack; Clinton bombs debate
By: Roger Simon
Oct 31, 2007 06:02 AM EST


PHILADELPHIA — We now know something that we did not know before: When Hillary Clinton has a bad night, she really has a bad night.

In a debate against six Democratic opponents at Drexel University here Tuesday, Clinton gave the worst performance of her entire campaign.

It was not just that her answer about whether illegal immigrants should be issued driver's licenses was at best incomprehensible and at worst misleading.

It was that for two hours she dodged and weaved, parsed and stonewalled.

And when it was over, both the Barack Obama and John Edwards campaigns signaled that in the weeks ahead they intend to hammer home a simple message: Hillary Clinton does not say what she means or mean what she says.

And she gave them plenty of ammunition Tuesday night.

Asked whether she still agrees with New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s plan to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, Clinton launched into a long, complicated defense of it.

But when Chris Dodd attacked the idea a moment later, Clinton quickly said: “I did not say that it should be done.”

NBC’s Tim Russert, one of the debate moderators, jumped in and said to her: “You told (a) New Hampshire paper that it made a lot of sense. Do you support his plan?”

”You know, Tim,” Clinton replied, “this is where everybody plays ‘gotcha.’”

John Edwards immediately went for the jugular. “Unless I missed something,” he said, “Sen. Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes. America is looking for a president who will say the same thing, who will be consistent, who will be straight with them.”

Barack Obama added: “I was confused [by] Sen. Clinton's answer. I can't tell whether she was for it or against it. One of the things that we have to do in this country is to be honest about the challenges that we face.”

Earlier, when Clinton was asked whether she had made one statement on Social Security publicly and a conflicting answer privately, she ducked the question, saying she believed in “fiscal responsibility.”

And when Russert asked her if she would make public certain communications between herself and President Clinton when she was first lady, she responded weakly: “Well, that’s not my decision to make.”

Perhaps just as bad was her general tone and demeanor. All of her opponents seemed passionate about one issue or another. But Clinton seemed largely emotionless and detached, often just mouthing rehearsed answers from her briefing book.

True, she was relentlessly attacked all night. But she can’t claim that she was stabbed in the back. She was stabbed in the front.

“Who is honest? Who is sincere? Who has integrity?” Edwards asked and then provided the answer: Not Hillary.

“She has not been truthful and clear,” Obama said at one point.

Hillary Clinton will certainly live to fight another day. She still has a huge lead in the national polls, a good staff and a ton of money.

But, in the past, Clinton could always depend on her opponents to lose these debates. All she had to do was stay above the fray to win.

Those days seem to be over."

RIchardson defends Clinton; 1st step to Vice Presidency?

http://haussamen.blogspot.com/2007/10/guv-defends-clinton-as-his-poll-numbers.html

"Guv defends Clinton as his poll numbers drop
by Heath Haussamen

The bad news continues for Gov. Bill Richardson’s presidential campaign. I wrote on Monday about his decline in the polls. Today, three new polls further confirm his sinking support.

To top it off, the National Journal has moved Richardson from fourth in its rankings among Democratic presidential contenders to sixth. In addition to being behind Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards, he’s now also ranked by the publication behind Chris Dodd and Joe Biden.


“The issue we have with Richardson is that he’s a terrible liberal; it’s not in the guy’s DNA,” the National Journal states. “He’s trying to become the anti-war candidate but doesn’t seem like a credible messenger.”


Three American Research Group polls released today have Richardson at 7 percent in Iowa, 5 percent in New Hampshire and 1 percent in South Carolina. All three are drops from the group’s September polls. Meanwhile, Biden has climbed to 5 percent in Iowa, 4 percent in New Hampshire and 6 percent in South Carolina in the new polls.


In the face of all the bad news, Richardson came to Clinton’s defense today, saying he regrets the “negative tone” Obama and Edwards have taken in accusing her of being too close to lobbyists, according to the Associated Press.


“I think that Senators Obama and Edwards should concentrate on the issues and not on attacking Senator Clinton,” the news service quoted Richardson as saying. “It’s OK to get aggressive on the issues, but to make personal attacks on somebody’s attachments to lobbyists, that’s not the kind of positive tone I want to see.”


Richardson – a guy who has accused all three frontrunners in recent months of deceiving the American people with their Iraq plans – also predicted he’ll win the nomination because he’s running a positive campaign.


But his defense of Clinton is raising eyebrows in part because it comes on the same day that Clinton, on her campaign’s official news Web site, took the unusual step of putting up video of and information about the attacks by Obama and Edwards. Clinton also included a link to a news release from her campaign that essentially says she’s being unfairly attacked.


Richardson and Clinton defending Clinton from attacks on the same day? While Richardson is sinking in the polls? What does it mean?


Maybe nothing. Maybe much more than that. It will be interesting to see whether the two are chummy at tonight’s debate."

I think a lot of politicians see the writing on the wall. As of today, I think the movement and tactics of the various politicans say a lot about how they perceive their chances.

Hillary Clinton debate gaffe video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_B0uHybfmmY

-----------------------------------------------------

Above is the video that shows clinton struggling with whether she supports the legislation the Governor of NY has proposed that would grant illegal immigrants driver's licenses.

I personally feel that she did bungle the answer by not answering it in politico speech, but that the answer DOES actually make sense. She is IMO not being treated fairly as a candidate on this, but that is life in the fast lane when you are the presidential front runner.

She clearly states in her inital attempt to answer the question that the issue is a failing of national policy, closing with the statements "No state, no matter how well intentioned, can fill this gap. There needs to be federal action on immegration reform." The words "well intentioned" clearly betray simpathy to the writers of that legislation and also a belief that it in spite of their efforts it may not be an ideal law conceptually.

That is a point that is not reported in any of the accounts. Why is that? Well, in part, because the media is always looking for something to bring in reader and viewers and reporting it in the stilted fashion that they did, did bring in more viewers. Additionally, Clinton and the media have an adversial relationship dating back to her first Health Care legislative effort. When Clinton went back and said the line about "gotcha" it was stating that the media would take this out of context as they would finally have something on her. That does presuppose a lack of professionalism. It should come as little suprise that was what was delivered.

The correct answer IMO would have been to challenge the initial loaded question. (And by loaded, I do not fault Tim Russert. A loaded question is a fair tool for a debate because every candidate will voice an opinion from time to time that they might want back. A loaded question often digs up these statements and forces a candidate to weigh their answer. The question is a fair one for a reporter to ask of a candidate.)

Tim Russert: "Senator Clinton, Governor of NY Elliott Spitzer has proposed giving driver's licenses to illegal immegrants, you told the national new hampshire editorial board 'it makes a lot of sense', why does it 'make a lot of sense' to give an illegal immegrant a driver's license?"

IMO the correct answer: "Tim, that is taken out of context. The truth is the National government has failed the state governments by failing to enact a coherent and sensible immigration policy. This puts our states in the awkward situation of having to write laws to cover issues that come out of that. Gov. Spitzer is doing his best to address the immediate concerns of New Yorkers because the national Government under Bush has failed to address the issue in a sensible fashion. It would be irresponsible for him not to try to come up with a stopgap solution to protect NY citizens. If I am elected we will have that coherent national immegration policy and we will free the states from having to take action on immigration law."

That's probably a 60 second answer for a supposed 30 second slot, but she took about 50 seconds anyway.

Hillary was not sharp, she spent about 15 seconds of her time revealing that we have illegal immegrants. You have to get into the meat of a question like that a lot quicker. Additionally, she attempted to back up the Governor's policy on this and took a big hit over it. She should not have backed the policy as it is halfbaked liberal garbage. She should have backed the man instead, by bemoaning the fact that he is being forced to write halfbaked liberal garbage to offer a minimum of protetction for his citzens to cover the failings of the Bush administration.

Ultimately her defense of the governor's policies cost her. Maybe he will help her land NY and the surrounding states in the election. He clearly owes her. Time will tell if this worked out for her, but for now we all want to know if this is the gaffe that drops her back into a real race with Obama and Edwards.

Who should each candidate chose as their running mate?

If Guilani is the Republican candidate:

He is weak with the religous groups.
He has a scandal waiting to break that will make voter's question his thoroughness.
As a New Yorker, he will be a weak conservative in the south.
While he has name recognition, he doesn't have enough of the republican groups buying into him to win an election. If those outside his supporters are not motivated to vote or worse yet, splinter and deft to clinton who they see as MORE CONSERVATE!!! he could lose in a landslide. His choice of running mate is crucial.

If Clinton is the Democratic candidate:

She had the highest negative opinion rating in the election in the early days of the race.
She is seen as a pant-suit wearing, feminazi ball-breaker who looks down on housewives. (If I ran her campaign she'd be weaing dresses almost every day from here on out and the media would "luck on to" Chelsea getting a carepackage in the mail of cookies baked by mom.)
Her "inner harpy" emerges in close races.
She is capable of rallying the Republican regligious faithful against her if she pushes too many liberal agendas in the campaign.
She should do well in Kerry's states and might be somewhat strong in the mid-continent corridor (Arkansas, Missouri).
She might be able to pull +5-10% of the voting populace on their "chance to be a part of history".

Clinton Vs. Guiliani

Clinton's running mates:
1) Richardson - The governor of New Mexico would be an ideal running mate for Clinton. Like Clinton, Richardson will draw votes because of his unique status --- a Mexican American. Mexican Americans are, to some degree, a tough sell as voters. They have not committed to a party. They generally vote as a block on issues or local candidates, but rarely national ones and often don't vote at all. But they haven't been offered a Mexican candidate at this level. If they have a chance to vote for a Mexican VP though, IMO they will organize and vote in blocks. Politics aside, he could be good for a gain of +3-5% nationwide just on his status as a Mexican American. That would be enough to swing states that could go either way and more importantly really helps in large states with large mexican populations that can singlehandedly decide the election --- Florida and Ohio. He would deliver New Mexico and might deliver a state or more in the southwest. Great resume. Grateful to President Bill Clinton for his career. Good team player. Delivers exceptional political value. An optimal VP choice. I don't this ticket losing barring a major Hillary gaffe.

2) Obama - I don't know campaign finance law, but if Hillary can take in Obama's money, it might be worthwhile to bring him in as a VP candidate so you can advertise more, but if I were advising Hillary, I would tell her not to do it. Bill Clinton delivers the black vote better than Obama can. Obama would be an anchor dragging her down in the deep south and would kill any push she has in Arkansas and Missouri. Obama can only deliver states Hillary already has.

3) Edwards - Once the Primaries are over, the motivated liberal base will flock to whoever wins the nomination. Right now that is edward's core. In that respect he doesn't really give Hillary a bounce from his current constituency --- those people were definitely going to vote and were definitely voting for Democrat. That said, Edwards might help Clinton in smaller southeastern states by recruiting new voters. He'd help in Arkansas and possibly Missouri. With Rudy being a true yankee, an Edwards Vice Presidency might swing southern independents to clinton. That said, most beleive this election is about change. Thowing out Kerry's failed VP says "business as usual". Additionally, while it isn't a given, Edwards might pull Hillary too far left. Could be a workable VP candidate, but far from optimal.

4) Biden - I think with more face time, Biden would sell well in all regions -- even if he is a northeasterner. He is very personable and seems to carry himself with the dignity of a president or vice president. That said, he doesn't deliver any state Hillary isn't already favored to win and he does have a knack for putting his foot in his mouth every 3-4 months. The risk to reward measure is just not there.


Guiliani's running mates vs. Hillary
1)Gingrich - Gingrich would solidify Guliani in the midwest and south by roping in corporate and christian conservatives, but would cost Rudy on the west coast. Loyalty means a ton to corporate and christian conservatives and they have a ton of loyalty to Gingrich. Gingrich might be able to sell them Guilini based on Rudy's loyalty to the party as well. That would be a winning continuation of RudyG's recent "you have noting to fear from me" speil. Gingrich would be a combination of Dick Cheyene and Bush political mastermind Karl Rove. He would be a ruthless and brilliant pit bull in attacking Hillary. (On the flip side, telling America, "if you vote Guliani you are a heartbeat away from having Newt Gingrich as President" is a chilling thought to most of America, but come on --- these are the Democrats. They probably wouldn't think of that, and if they did, would not have a clue how to get that concept out there without shooting themselves in the butt.) The Guliani/Gingrich team would once more divide America decisively red and blue and that alone might be enough vs. a candidate with high negative numbers --- especially if she choses a bad VP.

2) Huckabee - Huckabee is coming on strongly and the religous rank and file adore him. He would dramatically strengthen Guliani accross all states, especially the deep south. He is a very clever and personable guy who can be an attack dog and slip the return fire. He again makes the election quite similar to the last one in how the states would likely fall.

3) Romney - not a good choice. That would be two guys who are very recent and dubious converts to conservative beleifs. Additionally, I think he makes a good presidential candidate, but would be a poor Hillary attack dog --- what Rudy needs from his VP.

4) Tancredo - I don't think he helps deliver the corporate or christian conservative.

5) Paul - I think he is a freak and may be unyokable, but he could be a workable VP.

"Flip-flopper" concept kills Thomspon; Romney wins straw poll at Values Voters Summit

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/20/romney.values/

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney narrowly won a straw poll of mostly Christian conservative voters at the Family Research Council's Values Voters Summit held this weekend in the nation's capital.

The former Massachusetts governor won almost 28 percent of the 5,776 votes cast, edging out former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who finished 30 votes behind him.

"The vote is a validation of Governor Romney's core message to grass-roots Republican activists," Romney campaign spokesman Kevin Madden said at the close of the two-day conference.

"His is a campaign built on the important issues of national security, economic security and stronger families."

Texas Rep. Ron Paul finished in third place, with 15 percent of the vote, and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson finished in fourth place with 10 percent.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani finished with 107 votes, just under 2 percent of all ballots cast, and Arizona Sen. John McCain was just behind Giuliani, with 81 votes.

"It's hard to gauge how big a victory this is for Romney because we're not entirely sure whether these voters represent the larger Christian conservative constituency," CNN senior political analyst Bill Schneider said.

"Romney won the Ames, Iowa, straw poll in August by spending a lot of money. We don't know how much of an organizational effort was behind this victory," he said.

"Romney's true acceptability to Christian conservatives will not become clear until we see how he does in January in the Iowa Republican caucuses and the South Carolina Republican Primary.

"But the results suggest that being a Mormon may be a barrier for winning the support of Christian conservatives," Schneider said.

A recent CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll shows that Americans' attitudes toward Mormonism appear to be changing.

Half of those surveyed last weekend considered Mormons Christian, up from 34 percent last year.

Far fewer people voted in person at the conference than participated online or by mail.

Huckabee was the clear winner of the in-person balloting, with 488 of the 952 votes. Romney was second with 99 on-site votes.

Only members of the council's political arm could vote.

During the voting period, which began in August, the conservative organization saw its membership increase from about 5,000 members to 8,500, said Tony Perkins, council president.

"The straw vote is a setback for Fred Thompson, a Southerner who is trying to lock up the conservative wing of the party. Thompson's 10 percent is an embarrassingly weak showing," Schneider said.

But Thompson's spokeswoman saw the results in a different light.

"Fred Thompson was happy to have received an enthusiastic response and standing ovation from attendees at the Values Voters Summit," Karen Hanretty said.

"While it's easy for a candidate to buy votes in an unscientific straw poll, what matters more is that Christian conservative voters favor Fred over the other candidates, as evidenced in a recent CBS poll," she said.

Powerful voting bloc

Christian conservatives carry a lot of clout within the Republican Party.

They vote in great numbers in the Republican primaries, especially in the crucial early presidential contest states of Iowa and South Carolina. That's one reason all of the GOP presidential candidates came to Washington to court their vote.

Coming into the Values Voters Summit, Christian conservatives appeared to have problems with all of the top-tier GOP White House hopefuls.

The front-runner in the national polls, thrice-married Giuliani, supports the legal right to an abortion.

Romney -- the leader in Iowa and New Hampshire, which will hold the first primary -- supported the legal right to abortions before changing his stance.

His Mormon faith may be a problem for some values voters.

Thompson -- who is second in most national polls -- is against a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. He believes the states should decide. Some top Christian conservative leaders have questioned Thompson's commitment to their core issues.

McCain also opposes a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, and he's had a rocky relationship over the years with Christian conservative leaders.

Huckabee could be considered the ideal candidate for evangelical voters -- he's the only minister.

But he's not well known, and regardless of his strong performances in the Republican presidential debates so far this year, few think he has a shot at winning the GOP nomination.

The other presidential hopeful who also saw eye-to-eye with the religious right is no longer a candidate. Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas dropped out of the race for the White House on Friday due to a lack of campaign cash.

While Giuliani received only polite applause from the audience after his comments, Huckabee won several ovations.

The former Baptist preacher called legalized abortion a "holocaust."

"Sometimes we talk about why we're importing so many people in our work force," he said.

"It might be for the last 35 years, we have aborted more than a million people who would have been in our work force had we not had the holocaust of liberalized abortion under a flawed Supreme Court ruling in 1973."

Huckabee also spoke adamantly of the need for conservative lawmakers to show no compromise on fighting for a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

"I'm very tired of hearing people who are unwilling to change the Constitution, but seem more than willing to change the holy word of God as it relates to the definition of marriage," he said."



--------------------------------------------------------------


A lot of interesting stuff happened at the Values Voters Summit. People inside the building voted overwhelmingly for Huckabee after hearing him speak, while internet voters voted for Romney. What does that mean?

IMO, it means the plain spoken Huckabee has resonance with values voters, even if the leaders or the Religious Reich do not feel he is a sexy enough candidate and as such are not prepared to endorse him.

It should trouble all of the other republican candidates, because if you look at the polls, the ONLY republican who appears to be surging is Huckabee. To me, it appears that the religious vote is starting to accept the candidates in the race, even if their leadership only last month suggested that none of the candidates were up to snuff.

The individual rank and file of the religious right see a 2 horse race: Romney and Huckabee. That says a LOT.

It suggests that Romney's message is speading, seeping out of Iowa. Voters may not know point for point what his stances are, but they know that everytime they hear about him, he is being knocked because he is saying what conservatives want to hear. Conservatives gravitate to politicians who are under media seige for spouting conservative rhetoric.

This is a textbook case of how to leverage an early primary properly. People in Iowa are probably sick of hearing what he thinks, but the fact is it has been national news for 4 months that Romney is destroying the feild in Iowa. That makes people think, "Hey this guy is campaigning mostly in Iowa and the conservatives out there LOVE him over the feild. He must be the real deal."

If you can create that kind of assumption, you can leverage an early primary win into a national movement.

Romney's internet values voters suggests that IF he wins big in Iowa, he will almost certainly get the "bounce to relevancy" I have mentioned before. Internet voters are younger and read a lot on line. Their overwhelming selection of Romney seems like of the big three Republicans (Guliani,Thompson, and Romney) in their mind Romney is the hands down choice. The internet crowd seems to be a little ahead of the game in revealing new trends, I don't think politics is an exception.

This spells HUGE trouble for Fred Thompson, who looks like like a legless duck today. Thompson was the guy the corporate tax evaders' power brokers sold the religious conservative power brokers on early in the race. The plan was for Thompson to pull both audiences and TV fans and garner about 35-40% of the vote to secure the nomination, but IMO Thompson waited far too long to get into the race --- making the republican base question his resolve (they hate flip-floppers, remember?*) --- and on top of that, he failed his interview with the leaders of the Religious Reich.


* I think this is a real gem of a factoid in this election. The corporate tax evaders are the real power in the republican party, even though the Evangelicals get the credit. The facts are, the Evangelical base is the tail of the party, not the dog. They are a willing and useful tool. The Coporations have their agenda. The Corporations select candidates that support their policies and are controllable.

The Corporations wanted a candidate who would do what they wanted. They considered Romney and Huckabee long shots and too likely to raise taxes if the good of the country depended on it (ie. liberal). They liked McCain's voting record overall, but considered McCain too much of an unpredictable and uncontrollable maverick.

I think as a whole they question the electablity of Guliani --- Is Guiliani's lack of care in directing the citizenry of NYC into moving back into areas poisoned by the toxic fallout from the collapse of the twin tower --- an act that has lead to many deaths --- what amounts to a crippling scandal waiting to break and crush his candidacy? Even if he survives that, will the Mayor of New York motivate residents in Oklahoma to vote? Will religous voters even show up if the choice is Guliani vs. Clinton? Or will they put a 3rd party candidate out there who will further hurt Guiliani's chances by forcing the issue at the polls.

So they dug Fred Thomspon out of his political grave telling him the nomination was his to collect. Thompson, who's voting record reportedly almost identically mirrors McCain's, recinded his support for McCain (effectively killing McCain's front runner status and reducing McCain to a darkhorse candidate) and promptly publically mulled running. Thompson took his recruiter's words to heart and didn't bother to even announce his candidacy officially for months on end. As he hemmed and hawwed about when to accept his Presidential rubber stamp, the republican voters on the fringes of the various groups within the party looked at him and subconsciously categorized him. They knew smarter people who ran the republican Party who had warned them in 2004 about voting for a candidate who lacked consistency. There was a word for that... a "Flip-flopper".

And the people who came up with that strategy? Not the religous right --- they aren't politically savy --- The Corporate Tax Evaders.

So now, with the election looming, the Corporate Tax Evaders find themselves riding a dead horse. They have sunk a lot of money into Thompson that looks like lost money. They have killed McCain as a viable candidate. I am sure they'd love a do-over today. (If you add McCain and Thompson's numbers together you probably have McCain's numbers in a race without Thompson.)

Looking at this as a business decision, their best bet may be to find a viable candidate and cut a deal with him. They promise to usher Thompson out of the race and throw their support behind the new candidate in time for the primaries and in return they get a choice seat at the white house table.

The problem is Thompson is fueled by honeriness. If they support him with kind words he will continue to laze about and lose the election. If his supporters bail on him and try to get him out of the race, Thompson would essentially lose face. He would prove correct everyone who questioned his heart and he would piss off his power- and fame-hungry trophy wife who(IMO) appears to despirately want to be the first lady. If put into that position, his wife will insist he resist and Thompson might campaign a lot harder and smarter. A motivated abandoned Thompson might actually pull this out, which would again put the corporate power brokers on the outside looking in.

(My personal opinion is Thomspson is an old man who just wants to be married to his trophy wife, father to his kids, and an actor. The Presidency sounded like a hassel but it was something he was willing to pursue for his wife when it was going to be given to him, but --- admittedly looking from the outside --- I suspect the campaign has quickly ruined his percieved quality of life and become an issue in his marriage. I think he wants out, but the only way he can get out of this quickly and back to his comfortable life with his marriage intact is to come in 2nd or 3rd in the primaries. And that is why you have a lackluster Fred.)

It is a funny little trap for themselves the corporations have made of the republican primaries. It seems clear if Thompson doesn't win the nomination, they are going to have to pony up a LOT of money next year to get the nominee to forget their dismissiveness in the early days of the race. If they lose the primaries you might see a real splinterring of that group, with certain parts of that group throwing most of their money to the Dems --- joining the stockbrokers in trading large campaign contributions to the Clintons for the creation and protection of promised tax loopholes.

"It Takes an Agenda: Conservatives cannot live by Hillary-hate alone" by David Weigel

http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_10_22/cover.html

"October 22, 2007 Issue
Copyright © 2007 The American Conservative



"It Takes an Agenda: Conservatives cannot live by Hillary-hate alone" by David Weigel

It’s a balmy, beer-drinking evening in the middle of August, and the conservatives trickling in to a meeting of the Robert A. Taft Club can’t enjoy it. They’re mostly under-30 Washington professionals, and they’re fed up with the Republican Party. They think George W. Bush’s bumbling and ideological hat-trading have reduced the conservative movement to a pitiable, piddling state. If Karl Rove stepped inside, he’d come out looking like Oscar de la Hoya after a bout gone wrong.

They settle into a debate about the future of the conservative movement and the Republican Party. Panelists take turns whipping the party for its sins. “We beat them on immigration,” says Richard Viguerie, the direct-mail pioneer, “but right now, we just don’t have the strength or the resources to affect public policy the way we want to.” He beseeches the crowd to help save the movement, but that gets a muted reaction. So he steps it up: “I still think that in the short term, as many problems as we have right now, Hillary Clinton can bring conservatives back together.”

The name does the trick: soft laughter moves around the room. Keeping Hillary out of the White House is literally the only motivation some conservatives have to pull the Republican lever in 2008, especially if their party nominates a pro-choice candidate for the first time since 1976. “Just enough people might go to the polls next November nursing one conviction that trumps all others,” Terence Jeffrey wrote a few weeks after the panel (which he also appeared on). “There’s no way they would vote for Hillary Clinton.” Fred Barnes, the Weekly Standard executive editor and a sturdy weathervane for Republican popular opinion, expressed the same thing in a late-September column: “Nearly all Republicans, plus a lot of independents, rally around the need to defeat Senator Hillary Clinton and keep her away from the presidency. So it follows, not entirely logically, that they wish for her to win the Democratic nomination.”

Is this wishful thinking from a party and a movement on the ropes? Not according to pollsters. There are voters who have given up on the GOP over the last few years and utterly loathe the Clintons in general or Hillary in particular. Americans are aching to vote Democratic, and polls that test a generic Republican candidate against a generic Democrat give Clinton’s party a double-digit lead. But their enthusiasm flags when they ponder the flesh-and-blood Democratic frontrunner. Pollster Scott Rasmussen points out that at least 45 percent of Americans don’t like Clinton personally. She simply rubs them the wrong way—in every way. Despite that generic lead, she only ties or narrowly outpaces Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and John McCain.

“Of the top three Democratic candidates, she’s absolutely the weakest in the general election,” Rasmussen says. “Hillary is a unifying factor for Republicans, and Republicans aren’t otherwise unified. If Hillary is the nominee, this is a competitive race.”

But see if you can spot the problem. Conservatives are fraught, angry at their traditional party, unable to decide on a standard-bearer, unsure even what they stand for. They don’t think this is the year to sort those problems out. They’re counting on a short-cut when the Democrats nominate an unelectable cold fish who has infuriated the Right for a decade and a half. Millions remember how they felt when she belittled other wives for “staying home and baking cookies,” and Bill Clinton promised voters “two for the price of one” if they sent his family to the White House.

On the Right, the list of grievances was even longer. Both Clintons were seen as ambassadors of 1960s radicalism and cultural decadence, and Hillary was the worse of the two: a pro-choice feminist who didn’t take her husband’s name until pollsters told her it would help him make a political comeback.

Yet for all of that outrage, Republicans lost that election to the Clintons. And the hope that voters will see what they see and reject what the Clintons stand for resembles the plan Democrats clung to in 2004. They choose John Kerry on the theory he would be the least controversial general-election candidate, then counted on an electorate fed up with George W. Bush to deliver the election.

In the nearly three years since, Hillary has been the de facto Democratic candidate. The Right’s efforts to attack her have fallen completely, pathetically flat. Her popularity is low, but not much lower than Bush’s was in 2004. If the linchpin of a 2008 campaign is unifying Republicans in the cause of defeating Hillary, it might be enough to stitch together most of the conservative movement—but not enough to win.

Compare the efforts of 2007 to the efforts of 1999 and 2000. After First Lady Hillary Clinton started seeking a Senate seat, Republican donors practically sprained their wrists signing checks. Rudy Giuliani, a social liberal whom Republicans weren’t as comfortable with then as now, raised more than $20 million. When Giuliani left the race, Rep. Rick Lazio raised $4.5 million in six weeks.

That wasn’t the limit of the Hillary effect. The National Republican Senatorial Committee saw its donations surge when it asked supporters to banish the Clintons from Washington once and for all. By the middle of 2000, the committee raised $20 million, twice as much as it had raised in 1998 and triple what it raised in 1996. “She’s now the Republican Party’s No. 1 fundraiser,” said a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee to a reporter from The Hill.

It was a simpler time. This past July, the National Republican Senatorial Committee sent out a “quiz” to donors that warned, “Hillary Clinton is calling Senate Democrats to push a passage of measures to institute government-run healthcare.” Imagine, a President Hillary Clinton with a massive Senate majority to do her bidding! But appeals like that have done nothing for the NRSC: their Democratic counterparts have out-raised them by $34.1 to $18.1 million. The month of the quiz letter, the Democrats beat them by $2.7 to $2.2 million.

It’s the same story in the presidential race. Since the start of the year, the nine remaining Republican candidates have raised about $104 million. The Democrats, including Clinton, have raised $144.3 million. When John McCain campaign manager Rick Davis sent out an 11th-hour fundraising e-mail, he played what he thought was his strongest card: “There are many reasons to support John McCain, but as we approach this quarter’s fundraising deadline Saturday at midnight, let me remind you of just one of them: John McCain is the only candidate who can defeat Hillary Clinton.” That was the prelude to a weak finance report and a staff purge that completed McCain’s descent to hobbled dark horse.

And those efforts have been absolute triumphs compared to the third-party anti-Hillary efforts and PACs. The first sign that conservative donors were growing less animated about the Clintons was the launch of Stop Her Now in February 2005. Republican strategist Arthur Finkelstein planned on raising $10 million for a campaign along the lines of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the 2004 group that raised $27 million to attack John Kerry’s Vietnam service and his homeland antiwar activism.

Finkelstein failed. The group recorded a radio ad that was never broadcast and from its founding through June 2005, reported only one $500 donation. Over the next year, Clinton glided to her Senate re-election as the group raised only $25,000, and she out-raised her opponent by nearly ten to one.

Stop Her Now actually survived that election after Texas philanthropist Richard Collins (a Swift Boat donor) bought it and hired a new crop of media consultants. Now the group offers a news feed that collates Hillary headlines and a series of cartoons that mock the senator as a humorless, power-mad talk-show host. Collins wants to raise about $8 million before the end of the race—a much more modest goal than Finkelstein’s $10 million for a race in New York—but there will be no mention of family problems or sex scandals. “We want to define the radical ideas of Hillary Clinton,” he says, “but not in a mean-spirited way.”

What changed between 2000 and 2007? Why isn’t the mention of Hillary Clinton’s name the motivating factor it used to be for conservatives? Some activists argue that the GOP and the movement are distracted. In Rudy Giuliani, there’s a Republican frontrunner who defies decades of party stances on social issues and personal mores. Conservative donors are too busy sorting out the party’s future to cohere and battle Hillary.

“Back in 2000 we had a plan,” says Viguerie. “It was a simple plan: beat Hillary. Keep Hillary out of the Senate. And at first we had Rudy Giuliani as the focus of that, but after he dropped out, you could help out Rick Lazio. We’ll get a presidential candidate, and then we’ll get focused.”

That might be one reason the Right can’t rally against Hillary. Conservative division has led to depression, a sense that a Clinton restoration is inevitable, and that the best plan going ahead is to wait for her election and watch as, like her husband, she stumbles and seeds a GOP comeback. A mid-July CBS News poll revealed that 53 percent of Republicans thought it was very or somewhat likely that Clinton would win the presidency. Few Republicans think the party can win back Congress in 2008. Combine that with the anger that between one-third and one-quarter of the GOP base feels toward George W. Bush, and the relentless negativity starts to make sense.

“There’s a big difference between 2000 and 2007,” says John LeBoutillier, a former Republican congressman from New York and the head of Stop Hillary PAC. “In 2000, everyone on the Right hated Clinton and Gore, and we rallied to the guy we didn’t know: Bush. It’s different now. We hate Bush, and we hate the Bushes. We hate watching the Clintons palling around with the Bushes on goodwill tours and the like.”

There is another reason conservatives can’t count on Hillary: she offends and irritates them so deeply that they have trouble actually strategizing against her. They launch attacks, but compared to the carefully plotted Swift Boat strike on John Kerry or the years-long effort to spotlight Al Gore’s strange bragging and fibbing, the anti-Hillary attacks are erratic, grabbing early media attention and then fading out of the picture. Conservatives fixate on long-dormant scandals, like Bill Clinton’s treatment of Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick, without appreciating that reporters no longer want to chase those stories and that their very mention stokes sympathy for Clinton’s wife.

But it’s all some anti-Hillary agitators know how to do. In July, Sean Hannity told professional Hillary slayer Dick Morris the question he wanted some intrepid hack to ask the candidate: “Do you believe the women that claim that your husband serially abused them? Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones. Is that a legitimate and fair question?” Morris repeatedly shook his head and tried to explain where Hannity was going wrong: “Whenever anybody hits Hillary on her personal life, her marriage, or whether she is a lesbian or not, it plays into her hands.”

Morris is right. Clinton has never been as popular as she was in 1998 and 1999, during the height of her husband’s sex scandals, when voters grew to see her as a courageous wronged woman. (New York Democrats recruited Clinton to run for their open Senate seat hoping to cash in on that popularity. She didn’t, as it’s sometimes remembered, “parachute” into the race.) She’s not completely immune from Republican attacks on her character, but she can deflect an awful lot of the damage. Most attacks on Hillary’s past, her ethics, or her scandals either backfire or fall off the radar.

Why is the media so disinterested? Simple: Hillary-phobia doesn’t sell like it used to. Four books about Clinton have been released from major publishers in 2007, with varying levels of fanfare. According to Nielsen Bookscan, Carl Bernstein’s A Woman in Charge has been a sizable hit, selling 52,000 copies on the strength of the author’s fame and interviews with Clinton’s late childhood friend Betsy Ebeling. (It benefited from anticipation, too: its original release date was in 2003.) But Her Way, a much-hyped effort by investigative reporters Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr. released the same week as Bernstein’s book, has sold only 18,000 copies. Bay Buchanan’s The Extreme Makeover of Hillary (Rodham) Clinton sold half as many. Amanda Carpenter’s The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy’s Dossier on Hillary Clinton, helped along by a push and some free distribution at the Conservative Political Action Conference, sold 1,000 fewer copies than Buchanan’s book. A little perspective: no one expected Sen. Joe Biden’s autobiography to be a hit, and no one’s much interested in poring through it for dirt, but it has moved 10,000 copies anyway.

There’s still a market for anti-Hillary books, and if you’re a publisher they’re a better bet than Ten Reasons You Can’t Trust Chris Dodd or Mike Gravel: Unfit for Command. But the Hillary books are, in the end, bad for conservatives. Just as she did in her Senate race, Hillary has raised millions of dollars with pearl-clutching direct mail and e-mail pleas to help her defend herself from the vast conspiracy that wants to destroy her. The Politico’s Ben Smith has dubbed the anti-Hillary groups a “small bunch of failed business schemes that pile up debt while Hillary herself raises money off their attacks.”

So she eggs along her opponents in an ongoing, losing effort. Nothing that conservatives can do to Hillary Clinton can fix the fractures in the movement or re-commit the voters who have abandoned them during the Bush era. Attacking Hillary is a short-term fix, a flawed strategy that Democrats tried only three years ago as they nominated a ticket with a muddled Iraq War position and tried to make up the difference with $300-million worth of third-party attacks. They never dealt with their internal crises, hoping that a campaign against Bush would be enough to win.

“I’d prefer these things be contests of ideas,” says Craig Shirley, a longtime political strategist who’s doing some work for Stop Her Now. “Our conservative, libertarian ideas are better than their collectivist ideas. But running on ideas, you know, that requires the people on our side to have the courage and intellect to understand what this is all about.”

That would require a little bit of cool-headedness and distance, and the Republican Party doesn’t have much of either at the moment. When I pressed John LeBoutillier on what the conservative movement needed to do, he fretted about the damage of the last seven years. “The Bush experience has really turned them off,” he said. “We’re so thrown that we don’t have our heads on straight.” But when I asked if his energy would be put to better use reforming the Republican Party, he hedged. Clinton had to be defeated first.

Obviously, 2008 is not going to lack for anti-Hillary campaigns. There will be more books, more speculation about scandals, more digging into financial records—a treasure hunt for some silver bullet that will finally end her career. This is exactly what the Clinton campaign is ready for, and they’re in luck: the swing vote that will elect the next president is far angrier at Republicans and George W. Bush than it is at her right now. It’s moved on. It wants to hear some new arguments.

The question for conservatives is whether they want to spend the next year making those arguments or whether they want to spend it spinning Hillary Clinton.

__________________________________________

David Weigel is an associate editor of Reason."

'Candidate Hillary: the GOP's dream' by Jonah Goldberg

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-goldberg23oct23,0,3831108.column?coll=la-opinion-center


"'Candidate Hillary: the GOP's dream' by Jonah Goldberg
A campaign against Sen. Clinton may give Republicans the best shot at running as the party of change.
October 23, 2007


The most interesting thing to come out of the umpteenth Republican debate Sunday is confirmation that the GOP is dying to run against Hillary Clinton. Like Don Rickles flaying a heckler, each candidate whacked at Clinton as if she were a pants-suited piñata. When they were done with their one-liners, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee deadpanned: "Look, I like to be funny. There's nothing funny about Hillary Clinton being president."

No, but there's something deeply advantageous about having her as an opponent. So far, the commentary about the Republican offensive against Hillary has focused mostly on how it reflects poorly on the GOP (those Clinton-hating wing nuts are at it again!). What's not been fully grasped is how Hillary gives the GOP its best chance at being the party of change.

Newt Gingrich, for one, has been pointing this out for months, using the electoral triumph of Nicolas Sarkozy in France last spring as an example. A Cabinet minister for the unpopular Jacques Chirac, who'd served in office for a biblically long term of 12 years, Sarkozy ran against his own incumbent party's complaisance as well as his Socialist opponent, Segolene Royal, arguing that she merely represented a return to a failed past and "more of the same."

America -- obviously -- isn't France, but Democrats may be misreading America nonetheless. It seems incandescently clear that voters want a change, and, up to now, change meant little more than Democratic victory and no more President Bush. But Democrats got a significant victory in 2006, when they took control of both houses of Congress. And now Congress is even less popular than Bush. In other words, the clamor for change in Washington is much bigger than Bush.

Besides, Bush is leaving no matter what. And unlike every other election since the 1920s, there's no White House-approved candidate in the race. Any Republican will start with 40% to 45% of the vote in his pocket once he gets the nomination. The question that remains is whether the critical 5% to 10% of swing voters will think Hillary Clinton represents the sort of change they want.

What most independents and swing voters want is an end to the acrimony and bitterness in Washington -- and a candidate they like. Whether that's right or not is irrelevant. That's what they want.

Which Democratic candidate would be most likely to give those voters what they want? Not Hillary, it's safe to say.

Right now, during the primaries, she can get away with boasting about her tenure in the Clinton administration. Party activists are drunk with Clinton nostalgia. On the stump in Iowa, Bill Clinton responded to the claim that Hillary was "yesterday's news" by saying, yeah, but "yesterday's news was pretty good."

In the general election, audiences will remember Whitewater, travelgate, illegal fundraising, bimbo eruptions and impeachment. If they don't, you can be sure Republicans will remind them. Fair or not, the Republicans' intense dislike of Hillary will underscore the idea that a vote for her is a vote for more of the same rancor.

Hence the irony of the Clinton candidacy. Liberal activists keep saying that they want a candidate who is pure, who speaks from the heart and refuses to "triangulate" on core principles the way Bill Clinton did. But Hillary Clinton is Clintonian in more than just name. On national security in particular, she has been alternating between reflexive anti-Bushism to bouts of outright hawkishness on Iran. Desperate to win, Democrats have been willing to overlook that -- so far. But such shifting costs her credibility and passion.

It's all deeply reminiscent of how John Kerry wound up as the nominee in 2004. Once Howard Dean, the conviction candidate, experienced the political equivalent of spontaneous human combustion, Democrats immediately cast about not for another principled politician but one they deemed electable. Bizarrely, they settled on the left-wing senator from Massachusetts who synthesized Ted Kennedy's politics with Michael Dukakis' charisma while bragging about his service in a war he built a career denouncing.

If Democrats could get out of their bubble, it might dawn on them that virtually all of their other candidates are better positioned to run as champions of change. Hillary Clinton has shrewdly tried to trim the differences between her and the competition by claiming that any of them would be better than George W. Bush. From a liberal perspective, that's obviously true. But that perspective won't necessarily dominate come next fall, particularly if conditions in Iraq continue to improve.

Is it really so obvious that, say, Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney represent "change" less than the ultimate Clinton retread, complete with Bill as "first gentleman?" That's how Democrats are betting right now, and they may be bitterly disappointed -- again -- when it comes time to collect.

jgoldberg@latimescolumnists.com"

Which Presidential candidate gets your worldview? Find out now!

There are a lot of websites cropping up that ask you a series of 9-15 questions on issues of the day and then based up your results tell you which candidate comes closest to your world view. Why the Government doesn't have a more in detail site like this for every presidential candidate in every election..?...hmmmph.

None of these sites are great. All of them have at least 2-3 "bad" questions. For example they ask, "Energy: Do you support federal assistance for the production of ethanol and/or biofuel as an alternative to oil?"

The idea behind the question is essentially, "Should be we giving money to US corporations to develop alternate fuel sources so situations in the Middle East will not dictate the price of fuel, or should the government not give out money, even to end our reliance on the middle east?" As it stands, I think a lot of people would not get the implications of the question.

They ask, "Social Security: Do you favor the concept of privatization of Social Security to any degree?" Well, as someone who answered "No", I think the problem with this question is that it is a very weighted issue. Do I think we could do something positive to privatize social security? Possibly. Do I think the odds are that any move to privatize social security will backfire on a large chunk of the populace due to stock market fluctuations which will ultimately dictate a hugely expensive government bailout--- Absolutely. So I am forced to say no. If you give in on privatizing social security, there is no way social security (which is quite fixable) will ever be fixed. As soon as you go with privatized social security, the politicians will loot National Social Security funds.


Then their are the questions that have answers that don't match up with the candidate's views or are quite similar. Do I vote "Decentralize Iraq by dividing it into regions of separate governments." or "Draw down the U.S. troops and decentralize Iraq by dividing it into regions of separate governments."? I voted for the latter and they said Joe Biden disagreed with me on this issue, but on his site he clearly states, "It is now time to start drawing down U.S. forces, not just to pre-surge levels but well below them, and to limit the mission of those who remain to fighting al-Qaida in Iraq, training Iraqis to police themselves and helping them protect their own borders." So in fact, the site is wrong on this issue.

That said, this site is pretty good. They rightly named my top two candidates as Biden then Obama.

This one is a scaled down WQAD candidate survey is based on the original SELECT A CANDIDATE survey developed by Minnesota Public Radio and posted at: http://minnesota.publicradio.org/projects/ongoing/select_a_candidate/.

http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460

****************************************************************************
The original is much more detailed (made by NPR, so no suprise there.)

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/projects/ongoing/select_a_candidate/poll.php?race_id=13


"Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Does Select A Candidate tell me who to vote for?

A: Absolutely not. Its main purpose is to introduce you to the candidates who are running and their positions on the issues.

Q: How did you come up with these questions?

A: The questions mirror the campaign. There might be issues we are interested in that haven't come up in the campaign so far, and those aren't listed here. Should they come up -- and we have a mechanism for your interests to be part of the campaign -- they will be added to Select A Candidate. The choices from each question mirror positions that candidates have stated. If no answer is close to your position, do not answer the question, for there is no candidate with that position.

Q: How does the scoring work?

A: Each candidate gets 1 point for each question that matches your answer. If you indicate that an issue is very important to you, the candidate gets 3 points. If you indicate that the issue is of no importance to you, the candidate gets 0 points. In this way, the "match" is weighted to reflect those issues on which you decide elections."

Once more confirmed: Poll results prove America rejects politicians with principles.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1109

"October 10, 2007 - Clinton Express Rolls Through Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania,

Quinnipiac University Swing State Poll Finds ---
FLORIDA: Clinton 46 - Giuliani 43;
OHIO: Clinton 46 - Giuliani 40;
PENNSYLVANIA: Clinton 48 - Giuliani 42


New York Sen. Hillary Clinton is overwhelming Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and the rest of the Democratic primary field, and slowly increasing her lead over New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, the Republican front-runner, in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, according to Quinnipiac University's Swing State Poll, three simultaneous surveys of voters in states that have been pivotal in presidential elections since 1964.


Sen. Clinton's support appears to be as deep as it is wide. In Ohio, 74 percent of her supporters say they are not too likely or not likely at all to change their mind. In Florida, 59 percent of her supporters are unlikely to change their mind; in Pennsylvania it's 56 percent.


Giuliani voters are less committed, as no more than 39 percent in any state say they are unlikely to change their mind.


Clinton and Giuliani dominate their party primaries in each state, even though voters say Obama and Arizona Sen. John McCain are more principled in their decision-making.


Matchups by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds:
Florida: Clinton tops Giuliani 46 - 43 percent, breaking a 44 - 44 percent tie September 12;
Ohio: Clinton tops Giuliani 46 - 40 percent, compared to 47 - 40 percent September 6;
Pennsylvania: Clinton beats Giuliani 48 - 42 percent, up from 46 - 44 percent August 23.

"The news just keeps getting better for Sen. Clinton. She has a Democratic primary lead over Sen. Obama ranging from 27 to 34 points in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania and is widening her margin over the Republican hopefuls in each of those three critical states," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.


"The candidates who trail Sen. Clinton and hope that they can pry voters away from her should wake up and smell the coffee. Not only is she far, far ahead, but a much greater share of her voters say they are unlikely to change their minds than those committed to other Democrats. This should not be any surprise. Sen. Clinton has been a favorite of Democratic activists for the past 15 years and benefits greatly from being Bill Clinton's wife - since he is probably the most popular Democrat in America," Brown added.


Many Democrats think Clinton has the nomination "locked up," 44 percent in Florida, 43 percent in Ohio and 31 percent in Pennsylvania.


Very few Republican voters think Giuliani has the nomination "locked up," 14 percent in Florida, 11 percent in Ohio and 15 percent in Pennsylvania.


"Mayor Giuliani's lead over his Republican counterparts remains stable, but the vast, vast majority of Republicans don't believe he has the nomination locked up, and even six in ten of his supporters say they are somewhat or very likely to change their mind," Brown said.


Florida Findings


Looking at other possible 2008 presidential matchups in Florida, the Quinnipiac University Swing State Poll finds:
Clinton tops McCain 46 - 42 percent, former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson 48 - 39 percent and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney 48 - 37 percent;
Giuliani bests Obama 42 - 39 percent and edges Edwards 43 - 41 percent;
Obama beats Thompson 45 - 36 percent and Romney 43 - 36 percent, but trails McCain 41 - 39 percent;
Edwards edges McCain 42 - 40 percent and beats Thompson 44 - 36 percent and Romney 47 - 33 percent.

In a Democratic primary, Clinton gets 51 percent, followed by 17 percent for Obama and 10 percent for John Edwards.


Among Republicans, Giuliani gets 27 percent, with 19 percent for Thompson, 17 percent for Romney and 8 percent for McCain.


By a 49 - 41 percent margin, Florida voters have a favorable opinion of Clinton. Favorability ratings for other contenders are:
49 - 34 percent for Giuliani;
43 - 30 percent for McCain;
47 - 27 percent for Obama;
46 - 32 percent for Edwards;
29 - 24 percent for Thompson;
30 - 20 percent for Romney.


Ohio Results


In other possible 2008 presidential matchups in Ohio:
Clinton beats McCain 48 - 38 percent, Thompson 50 -36 percent and Romney 51 - 34 percent;
Obama tops Giuliani 44 - 38 percent, McCain 43 - 39 percent, Thompson 44 - 33 percent and Romney 47 - 31 percent;
Edwards bests Giuliani 46 - 36 percent, McCain 46 - 35 percent, Thompson 48 - 31 percent and Romney 50 - 28 percent.

Clinton leads in a Democratic primary matchup with 47 percent, followed by 19 percent for Obama and 11 percent for Edwards.


In a Republican primary race, Giuliani gets 29 percent, with 17 percent for Thompson, 10 percent for McCain and 8 percent for Romney.


Ohio voters give Clinton a 49 - 42 percent favorability rating. Other favorability ratings are:
42 - 33 percent for Giuliani;
40 - 28 percent for McCain;
45 - 26 percent for Obama;
47 - 26 percent for Edwards;
23 - 19 percent for Thompson;
19 - 22 percent for Romney. Pennsylvania Results

In other possible 2008 presidential matchups in Pennsylvania:
Clinton tops McCain 48 - 41 percent, Thompson 50 - 39 percent and Romney 49 - 37 percent;
Giuliani edges Obama 45 - 43 percent and gets 44 percent to Edwards' 43 percent;
Obama beats McCain 45 - 41 percent, Thompson 45 - 37 percent and Romney 49 - 33 percent;
Edwards tops McCain 47 - 39 percent, Thompson 47 - 34 percent and Romney 49 - 32 percent.

In a Democratic primary, Clinton leads with 41 percent, with 14 percent for Obama and 11 percent for Edwards.


Giuliani leads Republicans with 32 percent, followed by 13 percent each for Thompson and McCain and 8 percent for Romney.


Clinton gets a 51 - 42 percent favorability rating from Pennsylvania voters. Favorability ratings for other contenders are:
51 - 30 percent for Giuliani;
43 - 26 percent for McCain;
48 - 22 percent for Obama;
49 - 27 percent for Edwards;
26 - 21 percent for Thompson;
24 - 23 percent for Romney.

"Fred Thompson is chasing Giuliani in all three states, but his momentum seems to have slowed. Mitt Romney may be a household name in Iowa where he leads the polls, but in the Big 3 of Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania he remains far back. He has picked up some support among Republicans in Florida, where he is the only candidate advertising on television," Brown said.



Principled Decision Makers


In each state, Obama tops Clinton on the question of "principle," asking whether a candidate makes decisions based on what he or she thinks is right or based on what is popular with voters. Florida voters say 43 - 32 percent that Obama decides on principle rather than popularity; 40 - 34 percent in Ohio and 45 - 29 percent in Pennsylvania.

This compares to Clinton's "principle" scale, negative in each state: 42 - 49 percent in Florida, 39 - 52 percent in Ohio and 40 - 48 percent in Pennsylvania.


Among Republicans, McCain has a higher "principle" rating than Giuliani in each state. McCain's scale is 51 - 29 percent in Florida, 43 - 33 percent in Ohio and 49 - 29 percent in Pennsylvania.


Giuliani's "principle" scale is 43 - 42 percent in Florida, 40 - 40 percent in Ohio and 42 - 41 percent in Pennsylvania.


"Voters say they want politicians with principles, but they don't seem to vote for the candidates who have them," said Brown. "Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain are considered by far the most principled in their decision-making, but they are both far back in their races for their respective party nominations.

"When it comes to the front-runners, voters see Mayor Giuliani as more principled than Sen. Clinton."


From October 1 - 8, Quinnipiac University surveyed:
869 Florida voters with a margin of error of +/- 3.3 percent, including 345 Republicans and 337 Democrats, each with a margin of error of +/- 5.3 percent;
946 Ohio voters with a margin of error of +/- 3.2 percent, including 321 Republicans with a margin of error of +/- 5.5 percent, and 357 Democrats with a margin of error of +/- 5.2 percent;
878 Pennsylvania voters with a margin of error of +/- 3.3 percent, including 355 Republicans with a margin of error of +/- 5.2 percent and 393 Democrats, with a margin of error of +/- 4.9 percent.

The Quinnipiac University Poll, directed by Douglas Schwartz, Ph.D., conducts public opinion surveys in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio and nationwide as a public service and for research. For more data -- http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x271.xml, or call (203) 582-5201.



1. (If registered Democrat) If the 2008 Democratic primary for President were being held today, and the candidates were Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton,Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, Barack Obama and Bill Richardson for whom would you vote?


REGISTERED DEMOCRATS
FL OH PA

Biden 2% 2% 5%
Clinton 51 47 41
Dodd - - -
Edwards 10 11 11
Gravel - - -
Kucinich 1 2 3
Obama 17 19 14
Richardson 2 1 3
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 1 - 2
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 1 2 3
DK/NA 14 15 18



2. (If registered Republican) If the 2008 Republican primary for President were being held today, and the candidates were Sam Brownback, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, John McCain, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Tom Tancredo and Fred Thompson for whom would you vote?


REGISTERED REPUBLICANS
FL OH PA

Brownback 1% 1% -
Giuliani 27 29 32
Huckabee 4 5 2
Hunter - 1 1
McCain 8 10 13
Paul 2 1 4
Romney 17 8 8
Tancredo 1 1 -
Thompson,F. 19 17 13
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 3 3
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 3 3 2
DK/NA 16 22 20



1. (If registered Democrat) If the 2008 Democratic primary for President were being held today, and the candidates were Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton,Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, Barack Obama and Bill Richardson for whom would you vote?


REGISTERED DEMOCRATS
........................FL Men Wom

Biden 2% 2% 1%
Clinton 51 46 54
Dodd - - -
Edwards 10 17 6
Gravel - - -
Kucinich 1 2 1
Obama 17 12 20
Richardson 2 4 1
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 1 2 1
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 1 2 1
DK/NA 14 14 14

........................OH Men Wom

Biden 2% 3% 1%
Clinton 47 41 50
Dodd - - -
Edwards 11 13 10
Gravel - - -
Kucinich 2 3 2
Obama 19 22 17
Richardson 1 2 1
SMONE ELSE(VOL) - 1 -
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 2 2 2
DK/NA 15 13 16

........................PA Men Wom

Biden 5% 8% 2%
Clinton 41 36 44
Dodd - 1 -
Edwards 11 13 10
Gravel - - -
Kucinich 3 4 2
Obama 14 14 15
Richardson 3 5 1
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 2 2
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 3 3 2
DK/NA 18 14 21



1a. (If express choice) How likely is it that you could change your mind? Very likely, somewhat likely, not too likely, not likely at all?


REG DEMS EXPRESSING CHOICE Q1
Q1
........................FL Men Wom HC

Very likely 11% 5% 14% 10%
Smwht likely 33 41 28 30
Not too likely 16 15 16 14
Not likely at all 39 38 40 45
DK/NA 2 2 2 1

........................OH Men Wom HC

Very likely 11% 15% 8% 6%
Smwht likely 29 28 29 18
Not too likely 21 19 22 26
Not likely at all 38 37 40 48
DK/NA 1 2 1 1

........................PA Men Wom HC

Very likely 11% 13% 9% 6%
Smwht likely 43 48 39 38
Not too likely 19 15 22 23
Not likely at all 26 23 29 33
DK/NA 1 1 1 -



2. (If registered Republican) If the 2008 Republican primary for President were being held today, and the candidates were Sam Brownback, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, John McCain, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Tom Tancredo and Fred Thompson for whom would you vote?


REGISTERED REPUBLICANS..........
WtBrnAgn
........................FL Men Wom Evnglcl

Brownback 1% - 2% 3%
Giuliani 27 25 29 17
Huckabee 4 5 3 8
Hunter - - - -
McCain 8 8 7 8
Paul 2 4 - 2
Romney 17 23 10 16
Tancredo 1 1 - -
Thompson,F. 19 20 17 22
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 2 2 3
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 3 3 3 2
DK/NA 16 9 25 19

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Men Wom Evnglcl

Brownback 1% 1% - -
Giuliani 29 29 30 21
Huckabee 5 6 4 9
Hunter 1 1 - 1
McCain 10 11 8 6
Paul 1 2 1 2
Romney 8 10 6 9
Tancredo 1 - 1 1
Thompson,F. 17 21 13 20
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 3 2 3 2
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 3 3 3 2
DK/NA 22 15 29 25

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Men Wom Evnglcl

Brownback - - - -
Giuliani 32 32 32 30
Huckabee 2 2 2 4
Hunter 1 2 1 3
McCain 13 8 18 14
Paul 4 6 2 -
Romney 8 9 8 11
Tancredo - - - -
Thompson 13 18 8 13
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 3 3 3 5
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 2 1 3 -
DK/NA 20 19 21 19



2a. (If express choice) How likely is it that you could change your mind? Very likely, somewhat likely, not too likely, not likely at all?


REG REPS EXPRESSING CHOICE Q2......
WtBrnAgn Q2
........................FL Men Wom Evnglcl RG

Very likely 17% 19% 14% 13% 11%
Smwht likely 44 39 52 52 49
Not too likely 21 22 19 20 19
Not likely at all 18 20 15 14 20
DK/NA - - - 1 -

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Men Wom Evnglcl RG

Very likely 17% 13% 21% 11% 19%
Smwht likely 48 51 45 54 43
Not too likely 16 16 16 18 18
Not likely at all 17 19 15 14 19
DK/NA 2 1 3 3 1

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Men Wom Evnglcl RG

Very likely 11% 11% 11% 14% 11%
Smwht likely 58 56 61 60 61
Not too likely 15 16 13 16 14
Not likely at all 14 14 14 10 12
DK/NA 2 3 1 1 2



3-14. If the 2008 election for President were being held today, and the candidates were -- the Democrat and -- the Republican, for whom would you vote?

FL OH PA

Clinton 46% 46% 48%
Giuliani 43 40 42

Obama 39% 44% 43%
Giuliani 42 38 45

Edwards 41% 46% 43%
Giuliani 43 36 44

Clinton 46% 48% 48%
McCain 42 38 41

Obama 39% 43% 45%
McCain 41 39 41

Edwards 42% 46% 47%
McCain 40 35 39

Clinton 48% 50% 50%
Thompson 39 36 39

Obama 45% 44% 45%
Thompson 36 33 37

Edwards 44% 48% 47%
Thompson 36 31 34

Clinton 48% 51% 49%
Romney 37 34 37

Obama 43% 47% 49%
Romney 36 31 33

Edwards 47% 50% 49%
Romney 33 28 32



3. If the 2008 election for President were being held today, and the candidates were Hillary Clinton the Democrat and Rudy Giuliani the Republican, for whom would you vote?
WtBrnAgn
........................FL Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Clinton 46% 8% 86% 36% 35% 56% 29%
Giuliani 43 85 9 45 52 33 62
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 1 1 1 3 1 2 1
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 4 1 1 7 6 2 3
DK/NA 6 5 4 9 6 7 5

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Clinton 46% 5% 86% 33% 41% 51% 32%
Giuliani 40 86 7 45 45 37 54
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 1 1 5 3 2 3
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 4 3 2 5 6 2 5
DK/NA 7 3 4 12 5 9 7

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Clinton 48% 11% 83% 45% 42% 54% 29%
Giuliani 42 82 9 45 47 38 63
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 3 1 2 3 1 2
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 3 1 2 3 5 1 2
DK/NA 5 3 5 5 3 6 5



4. If the 2008 election for President were being held today, and the candidates were Barack Obama the Democrat and Rudy Giuliani the Republican, for whom would you vote?


WtBrnAgn
........................FL Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Obama 39% 7% 71% 36% 33% 45% 24%
Giuliani 42 83 11 45 49 35 58
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 1 2 3 - 4 3
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 5 2 6 4 8 3 5
DK/NA 11 7 11 12 9 13 10

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Obama 44% 8% 76% 38% 41% 46% 28%
Giuliani 38 82 8 39 41 35 53
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 3 1 3 6 5 2 4
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 5 3 6 6 6 5 5
DK/NA 9 5 7 12 6 12 10

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Obama 43% 9% 74% 42% 39% 46% 27%
Giuliani 45 79 16 47 50 40 61
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 3 1 1 2 2 2
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 3 - 3 3 4 3 1
DK/NA 7 9 6 6 5 10 8



5. If the 2008 election for President were being held today, and the candidates were John Edwards the Democrat and Rudy Giuliani the Republican, for whom would you vote?


WtBrnAgn
........................FL Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Edwards 41% 7% 75% 37% 35% 47% 30%
Giuliani 43 87 9 45 51 35 55
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 1 2 3 - 4 3
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 5 - 8 4 7 3 3
DK/NA 8 5 7 10 6 11 9

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Edwards 46% 9% 79% 40% 42% 50% 33%
Giuliani 36 81 7 36 43 31 47
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 3 1 3 6 5 2 4
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 4 4 3 4 5 3 4
DK/NA 10 6 8 14 5 15 12

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Edwards 43% 11% 72% 39% 40% 45% 31%
Giuliani 44 79 13 51 48 40 57
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 2 1 2 3 1 2
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 3 1 3 2 5 2 1
DK/NA 9 7 10 6 5 12 10



6. If the 2008 election for President were being held today, and the candidates were Hillary Clinton the Democrat and John McCain the Republican, for whom would you vote?


WtBrnAgn
........................FL Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Clinton 46% 10% 82% 39% 35% 57% 33%
McCain 42 84 11 44 52 33 58
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 1 - 3 1 2 1
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 4 1 2 6 5 2 2
DK/NA 6 5 5 8 7 6 6

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Clinton 48% 6% 87% 36% 41% 54% 32%
McCain 38 82 8 40 43 34 55
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 2 - 5 3 2 3
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 4 3 2 6 6 2 3
DK/NA 8 7 3 13 7 9 8

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Clinton 48% 14% 82% 42% 40% 55% 29%
McCain 41 78 10 45 48 35 63
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 2 1 2 3 2 2
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 4 4 1 5 5 2 2
DK/NA 5 2 5 6 4 6 3



7. If the 2008 election for President were being held today, and the candidates were Barack Obama the Democrat and John McCain the Republican, for whom would you vote?


WtBrnAgn
........................FL Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Obama 39% 11% 68% 36% 35% 44% 23%
McCain 41 81 17 38 47 36 62
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 1 - 4 - 4 2
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 6 2 8 5 7 5 5
DK/NA 11 6 6 17 11 11 8

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Obama 43% 12% 73% 37% 40% 46% 24%
McCain 39 76 13 40 43 35 56
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 3 2 3 4 4 3 4
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 4 2 5 5 6 3 3
DK/NA 10 8 6 14 7 13 13

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Obama 45% 16% 75% 42% 38% 52% 29%
McCain 41 70 15 47 48 35 56
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 2 1 1 2 1 1
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 4 4 2 4 4 3 3
DK/NA 8 9 7 6 7 9 11



8. If the 2008 election for President were being held today, and the candidates were John Edwards the Democrat and John McCain the Republican, for whom would you vote?


WtBrnAgn
........................FL Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Edwards 42% 8% 77% 38% 34% 50% 30%
McCain 40 81 13 39 48 33 58
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 1 - 5 2 3 1
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 5 2 5 6 8 3 3
DK/NA 9 9 5 12 8 11 7

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Edwards 46% 10% 78% 41% 43% 49% 33%
McCain 35 78 7 33 38 32 47
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 3 2 3 6 5 2 4
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 4 4 5 5 7 2 3
DK/NA 11 7 8 15 8 14 13

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Edwards 47% 15% 74% 44% 43% 50% 33%
McCain 39 72 13 44 45 34 54
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 2 1 - 2 2 1
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 4 3 2 3 4 3 2
DK/NA 9 7 9 8 6 11 10



9. If the 2008 election for President were being held today, and the candidates were Hillary Clinton the Democrat and Fred Thompson the Republican, for whom would you vote?


WtBrnAgn
........................FL Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Clinton 48% 11% 85% 41% 37% 58% 35%
Thompson 39 79 10 37 47 30 55
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 1 1 - 3 - 2 1
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 5 3 2 9 7 3 2
DK/NA 7 6 3 11 8 7 6

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Clinton 50% 9% 90% 36% 43% 56% 34%
Thompson 36 79 5 38 44 30 54
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 2 - 4 2 1 1
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 3 3 1 6 5 2 2
DK/NA 9 7 3 16 7 11 9

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Clinton 50% 16% 84% 47% 44% 56% 31%
Thompson 39 76 9 39 46 33 61
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 1 1 3 2 1 1
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 3 3 2 3 4 2 2
DK/NA 6 5 5 8 4 8 6



10. If the 2008 election for President were being held today, and the candidates were Barack Obama the Democrat and Fred Thompson the Republican, for whom would you vote?


WtBrnAgn
........................FL Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Obama 45% 12% 76% 44% 40% 50% 26%
Thompson 36 75 10 35 43 30 55
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 - 2 3 1 3 3
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 5 3 3 4 7 4 3
DK/NA 12 10 8 14 9 14 13

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Obama 44% 15% 75% 35% 39% 49% 28%
Thompson 33 71 8 34 40 28 49
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 3 2 3 4 3 3 3
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 5 2 7 7 6 4 3
DK/NA 14 10 8 20 11 16 17

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Obama 45% 13% 75% 44% 39% 50% 29%
Thompson 37 68 12 37 44 31 51
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 3 3 2 3 3 2 2
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 4 1 3 5 4 3 3
DK/NA 12 14 8 11 9 14 15



11. If the 2008 election for President were being held today, and the candidates were John Edwards the Democrat and Fred Thompson the Republican, for whom would you vote?


WtBrnAgn
........................FL Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Edwards 44% 11% 74% 44% 38% 51% 33%
Thompson 36 75 12 31 43 29 53
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 - 2 3 - 3 2
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 6 4 4 7 8 4 3
DK/NA 12 10 8 14 10 13 9

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Edwards 48% 15% 78% 41% 43% 51% 34%
Thompson 31 69 6 32 37 26 46
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 3 2 3 4 4 2 3
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 5 2 6 7 6 4 3
DK/NA 14 12 8 17 10 17 15

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Edwards 47% 16% 72% 48% 46% 47% 33%
Thompson 34 64 14 31 39 30 48
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 1 1 3 1 3 2
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 4 3 2 5 4 4 2
DK/NA 13 16 10 13 10 16 15



12. If the 2008 election for President were being held today, and the candidates were Hillary Clinton the Democrat and Mitt Romney the Republican, for whom would you vote?


WtBrnAgn
........................FL Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Clinton 48% 9% 86% 42% 38% 58% 33%
Romney 37 79 6 36 45 29 54
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 1 - 3 2 1 2
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 4 4 2 6 5 3 5
DK/NA 9 6 6 13 10 9 7

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Clinton 51% 9% 91% 38% 43% 57% 35%
Romney 34 78 5 35 41 28 51
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 1 - 5 3 2 2
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 4 3 1 7 6 3 3
DK/NA 9 8 3 14 8 11 9

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Clinton 49% 12% 85% 47% 44% 54% 32%
Romney 37 75 7 38 43 32 59
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 2 1 2 3 1 -
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 3 3 2 4 4 2 3
DK/NA 8 8 5 9 6 10 6



13. If the 2008 election for President were being held today, and the candidates were Barack Obama the Democrat and Mitt Romney the Republican, for whom would you vote?


WtBrnAgn
........................FL Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Obama 43% 7% 74% 45% 38% 47% 25%
Romney 36 77 10 32 43 28 53
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 1 2 4 1 3 3
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 6 4 6 4 7 5 5
DK/NA 13 10 8 15 10 16 13

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Obama 47% 14% 79% 39% 44% 49% 28%
Romney 31 69 6 31 37 26 47
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 3 2 2 5 3 3 5
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 6 5 6 7 7 5 4
DK/NA 14 10 8 18 9 18 15

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Obama 49% 14% 79% 53% 43% 55% 32%
Romney 33 69 9 29 39 28 52
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 3 1 2 3 1 1
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 4 3 3 3 5 3 3
DK/NA 11 12 7 13 10 13 13



14. If the 2008 election for President were being held today, and the candidates were John Edwards the Democrat and Mitt Romney the Republican, for whom would you vote?


WtBrnAgn
........................FL Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Edwards 47% 14% 79% 44% 39% 55% 38%
Romney 33 74 6 31 40 26 47
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 1 2 4 2 3 3
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 6 4 3 6 8 3 4
DK/NA 12 7 10 15 11 14 8

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Edwards 50% 16% 80% 45% 45% 54% 36%
Romney 28 68 4 22 34 23 40
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 4 2 3 6 5 2 4
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 4 4 4 6 6 3 3
DK/NA 14 10 8 21 9 18 17

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Edwards 49% 15% 78% 50% 47% 51% 39%
Romney 32 66 8 30 37 27 44
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 1 1 3 2 2 1
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 4 3 2 6 5 4 2
DK/NA 13 15 11 11 9 17 14



15. Is your opinion of -- Hillary Clinton favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about her?


WtBrnAgn
........................FL Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Favorable 49% 16% 81% 46% 42% 56% 34%
Unfavorable 41 76 10 44 52 31 56
Hvn't hrd enough 7 5 7 7 4 10 8
REFUSED 3 3 2 3 1 4 3

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Favorable 49% 10% 87% 38% 43% 55% 34%
Unfavorable 42 83 7 52 49 35 61
Hvn't hrd enough 6 4 5 8 6 6 3
REFUSED 2 3 1 2 1 3 2

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Favorable 51% 15% 84% 47% 43% 59% 35%
Unfavorable 42 76 10 47 50 35 56
Hvn't hrd enough 4 6 4 3 3 5 6
REFUSED 3 3 3 3 3 2 3



16. Is your opinion of -- John Edwards favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about him?


WtBrnAgn
........................FL Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Favorable 46% 25% 67% 45% 44% 49% 41%
Unfavorable 32 55 10 34 37 26 39
Hvn't hrd enough 20 18 22 20 17 23 19
REFUSED 2 2 1 1 2 2 1

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Favorable 47% 24% 68% 45% 41% 53% 41%
Unfavorable 26 53 8 27 33 20 39
Hvn't hrd enough 24 22 23 26 24 25 18
REFUSED 2 1 2 2 2 3 2

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Favorable 49% 25% 69% 48% 50% 49% 42%
Unfavorable 27 44 12 27 33 21 32
Hvn't hrd enough 21 27 16 22 15 27 24
REFUSED 3 4 2 3 3 3 2



17. Is your opinion of -- Rudy Giuliani favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about him?


WtBrnAgn
........................FL Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Favorable 49% 78% 28% 52% 54% 44% 60%
Unfavorable 34 8 50 33 34 33 21
Hvn't hrd enough 15 13 20 11 9 21 17
REFUSED 3 2 2 4 3 2 2

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Favorable 42% 75% 21% 42% 44% 40% 50%
Unfavorable 33 12 48 33 34 32 25
Hvn't hrd enough 23 12 29 23 21 25 22
REFUSED 2 1 2 3 1 3 3

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Favorable 51% 74% 34% 50% 51% 50% 61%
Unfavorable 30 10 44 31 33 27 19
Hvn't hrd enough 16 14 18 16 13 19 18
REFUSED 3 1 4 3 2 4 2



18. Is your opinion of -- John McCain favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about him?


WtBrnAgn
........................FL Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Favorable 43% 58% 31% 51% 48% 39% 54%
Unfavorable 30 18 38 27 30 30 22
Hvn't hrd enough 23 19 29 17 18 28 22
REFUSED 3 5 2 4 4 3 2

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Favorable 40% 64% 24% 38% 46% 35% 44%
Unfavorable 28 17 39 26 29 27 25
Hvn't hrd enough 29 15 35 32 22 35 28
REFUSED 3 4 2 3 3 3 3

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Favorable 43% 58% 27% 51% 47% 39% 55%
Unfavorable 26 17 34 24 30 23 17
Hvn't hrd enough 29 23 37 24 22 35 27
REFUSED 2 1 2 2 1 2 1



19. Is your opinion of -- Barack Obama favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about him?


WtBrnAgn
........................FL Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Favorable 47% 22% 65% 50% 45% 49% 38%
Unfavorable 27 51 11 21 30 24 35
Hvn't hrd enough 25 24 23 28 24 26 25
REFUSED 1 2 1 1 1 2 3

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Favorable 45% 25% 61% 46% 42% 47% 28%
Unfavorable 26 47 12 25 33 20 37
Hvn't hrd enough 27 25 25 28 23 30 34
REFUSED 2 3 2 1 2 3 1

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Favorable 48% 33% 64% 49% 46% 50% 41%
Unfavorable 22 30 11 23 27 17 24
Hvn't hrd enough 28 34 24 26 24 32 32
REFUSED 2 2 1 2 3 1 2



20. Is your opinion of -- Mitt Romney favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about him?


WtBrnAgn
........................FL Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Favorable 30% 54% 13% 30% 38% 23% 41%
Unfavorable 20 8 28 22 18 22 17
Hvn't hrd enough 48 37 58 45 43 53 40
REFUSED 2 1 1 3 1 2 2

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Favorable 19% 41% 9% 13% 25% 15% 29%
Unfavorable 22 11 31 22 25 20 15
Hvn't hrd enough 57 47 58 63 49 64 55
REFUSED 1 1 2 2 1 2 2

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Favorable 24% 43% 8% 27% 28% 22% 34%
Unfavorable 23 8 32 26 27 20 15
Hvn't hrd enough 51 48 58 45 44 57 50
REFUSED 2 1 1 2 2 2 1



21. Is your opinion of -- Fred Thompson favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about him?


WtBrnAgn
........................FL Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Favorable 29% 52% 14% 28% 38% 21% 40%
Unfavorable 24 8 35 25 25 23 15
Hvn't hrd enough 45 39 50 43 35 55 45
REFUSED 1 - 1 3 1 1 -

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Favorable 23% 44% 9% 24% 27% 20% 36%
Unfavorable 19 7 29 18 22 17 10
Hvn't hrd enough 55 47 59 57 50 60 52
REFUSED 2 2 3 1 2 2 2

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Favorable 26% 41% 13% 30% 32% 21% 31%
Unfavorable 21 8 32 20 24 18 10
Hvn't hrd enough 52 51 55 50 43 60 59
REFUSED 1 - 1 - - 1 -



22. (If registered Democrat) How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the choice of candidates for the Democratic nomination for president this year - Are you very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied?

REGISTERED DEMOCRATS
........................FL Men Wom

Very satisfied 45% 46% 44%
Smwht satisfied 39 34 42
Smwht dissatisfied 8 12 6
Very dissatisfied 7 7 7
DK/NA 1 1 2

........................OH Men Wom

Very satisfied 39% 37% 41%
Smwht satisfied 43 35 48
Smwht dissatisfied 11 18 7
Very dissatisfied 3 6 2
DK/NA 4 5 3

........................PA Men Wom

Very satisfied 33% 29% 37%
Smwht satisfied 50 48 52
Smwht dissatisfied 9 13 5
Very dissatisfied 6 10 3
DK/NA 2 - 3



23.(If registered Democrat)Do you think Hillary Clinton has the Democratic nomination for President locked up?


REGISTERED DEMOCRATS
........................FL Men Wom

Yes 44% 51% 40%
No 45 44 46
DK/NA 11 6 14

........................OH Men Wom

Yes 43% 44% 43%
No 48 49 47
DK/NA 9 7 10

........................PA Men Wom

Yes 31% 30% 32%
No 58 66 53
DK/NA 10 3 15



24.(If registered Republican)How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the choice of candidates for the Republican nomination for president this year - Are you very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied?


REGISTERED REPUBLICANS ........
WtBrnAgn
........................FL Men Wom Evnglcl

Very satisfied 18% 20% 17% 13%
Smwht satisfied 49 50 48 61
Smwht dissatisfied 21 18 24 20
Very dissatisfied 9 10 7 3
DK/NA 3 2 4 4

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Men Wom Evnglcl

Very satisfied 16% 15% 16% 15%
Smwht satisfied 54 63 46 58
Smwht dissatisfied 22 13 30 20
Very dissatisfied 7 8 5 5
DK/NA 2 1 3 2

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Men Wom Evnglcl

Very satisfied 13% 15% 11% 7%
Smwht satisfied 55 49 60 65
Smwht dissatisfied 22 25 19 21
Very dissatisfied 8 8 7 6
DK/NA 3 3 3 1



25. (If registered Republican)Do you think Rudy Giuliani has the Republican nomination for President locked up?


REGISTERED REPUBLICANS ........
WtBrnAgn
........................FL Men Wom Evnglcl

Yes 14% 15% 14% 11%
No 78 80 75 81
DK/NA 8 5 11 7

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Men Wom Evnglcl

Yes 11% 12% 11% 15%
No 78 82 75 76
DK/NA 10 5 15 8

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Men Wom Evnglcl

Yes 15% 16% 14% 17%
No 76 81 71 71
DK/NA 9 2 16 12



26. Do you think that most public officials make decisions based on principle and what they think is right, or do so based on what they think is popular at the time?


WtBrnAgn
........................FL Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Principle 18% 19% 23% 9% 12% 23% 17%
What's popular 72 68 68 80 75 68 75
DK/NA 11 13 8 11 13 9 8

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Principle 19% 22% 21% 14% 16% 22% 19%
What's popular 70 71 66 75 74 67 72
DK/NA 11 8 13 11 10 12 9

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Principle 21% 23% 24% 13% 18% 23% 17%
What's popular 69 67 67 76 74 65 73
DK/NA 10 9 9 11 8 12 10



27. Whether you personally agree with him or not, do you believe -- Rudy Giuliani makes decisions based on principle and what he thinks is right, or does he make decisions based on what he thinks is popular at the time?


WtBrnAgn
........................FL Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Principle 43% 61% 31% 44% 43% 43% 52%
What's popular 42 27 52 43 45 40 37
DK/NA 14 11 17 13 11 17 11

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Principle 40% 60% 26% 41% 43% 37% 46%
What's popular 40 27 49 42 42 39 37
DK/NA 20 13 25 18 15 24 17

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Principle 42% 62% 29% 44% 44% 40% 51%
What's popular 41 22 55 41 43 40 30
DK/NA 17 16 16 16 13 20 18



28. Whether you personally agree with him or not, do you believe -- Fred Thompson makes decisions based on principle and what he thinks is right, or does he make decisions based on what he thinks is popular at the time?


WtBrnAgn
........................FL Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Principle 28% 45% 18% 28% 35% 22% 42%
What's popular 29 19 38 28 30 28 23
DK/NA 43 36 45 44 36 50 35

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Principle 24% 42% 14% 21% 30% 19% 34%
What's popular 25 17 33 26 29 22 16
DK/NA 51 41 53 53 41 59 50

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Principle 22% 34% 15% 20% 26% 18% 28%
What's popular 24 17 28 24 29 19 17
DK/NA 54 49 57 56 45 63 54



29. Whether you personally agree with her or not, do you believe -- Hillary Clinton makes decisions based on principle and what she thinks is right, or does she make decisions based on what she thinks is popular at the time?


WtBrnAgn
........................FL Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Principle 42% 14% 72% 32% 35% 50% 34%
What's popular 49 76 21 59 60 38 57
DK/NA 9 10 6 9 6 13 9

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Principle 39% 14% 64% 29% 33% 44% 28%
What's popular 52 78 30 59 59 46 65
DK/NA 9 8 7 11 8 11 8

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Principle 40% 17% 62% 37% 32% 47% 29%
What's popular 48 70 28 52 55 42 60
DK/NA 12 13 10 11 13 11 11



30. Whether you personally agree with him or not, do you believe -- Mitt Romney makes decisions based on principle and what he thinks is right, or does he make decisions based on what he thinks is popular at the time?


WtBrnAgn
........................FL Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Principle 27% 44% 19% 27% 29% 25% 42%
What's popular 30 24 35 28 31 29 27
DK/NA 43 32 46 44 40 46 31

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Principle 22% 33% 14% 21% 26% 18% 31%
What's popular 29 22 33 32 35 24 21
DK/NA 49 45 53 47 39 58 48

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Principle 24% 36% 17% 25% 26% 23% 30%
What's popular 28 21 32 26 33 23 25
DK/NA 48 44 51 49 41 54 44



31. Whether you personally agree with him or not, do you believe -- John McCain makes decisions based on principle and what he thinks is right, or does he make decisions based on what he thinks is popular at the time?


WtBrnAgn
........................FL Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Principle 51% 57% 47% 58% 54% 48% 63%
What's popular 29 32 29 24 31 28 24
DK/NA 20 11 24 18 15 24 13

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Principle 43% 62% 31% 42% 45% 40% 50%
What's popular 33 24 40 33 36 30 26
DK/NA 25 14 29 26 18 30 24

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Principle 49% 56% 42% 57% 53% 45% 58%
What's popular 29 22 35 25 29 28 22
DK/NA 23 22 23 18 18 27 20



32. Whether you personally agree with him or not, do you believe -- Barack Obama makes decisions based on principle and what he thinks is right, or does he make decisions based on what he thinks is popular at the time?


WtBrnAgn
........................FL Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Principle 43% 30% 59% 41% 38% 49% 40%
What's popular 32 43 23 30 38 26 36
DK/NA 25 27 18 29 24 26 24

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Principle 40% 31% 52% 35% 38% 42% 32%
What's popular 34 44 25 36 40 28 38
DK/NA 26 24 23 29 22 30 30

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Principle 45% 32% 57% 48% 43% 47% 39%
What's popular 29 36 23 28 35 24 29
DK/NA 26 32 20 24 22 29 32



33. Whether you personally agree with him or not, do you believe -- John Edwards makes decisions based on principle and what he thinks is right, or does he make decisions based on what he thinks is popular at the time?


WtBrnAgn
........................FL Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Principle 39% 23% 57% 37% 34% 44% 35%
What's popular 41 57 24 46 48 35 45
DK/NA 20 20 19 17 18 21 19

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Principle 39% 27% 54% 35% 33% 44% 35%
What's popular 40 56 27 42 49 32 45
DK/NA 21 17 19 24 18 24 20

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Principle 40% 24% 51% 45% 39% 41% 36%
What's popular 38 47 30 37 42 34 44
DK/NA 23 29 19 18 20 25 20"


.................................................................................


Those of you who have read this blog for a while may recall my questioning of Republicans for not voting for McCain --- someone most would agree is a hero and a patriot. I have also lightly questioned why Hillary has as much of a stranglehold on this nomination as she does, although I put a lot more of the fault on Obama's advisors, who are absolute shit.

It is nice to see that something I have thought for a long time is true. Regardless of the Bush phenomenon, Americans CAN identify candidates with principles --- most just chose not to vote for them. Americans' like winning lying bastards more than a potential losing candidates with principles. I hope one of these days the majority of Americans change our voting habits, but I am not counting on it.