More Polls
Fox has Hillary up 16, Giuliani up 11; CBS News/NY Times has it Hillary +19, Giuliani +9, along with the no-longer-that-surprising stat that a whopping 63% think it is likely that Hillary Clinton will be the next President of the United States.
In fact, I’d say that the odds on Hillary being the next president are almost even at this point, call it 3-2 against. She nearly has the Democratic nomination wrapped up, barring some shocking development, but she still faces the incredible obstacle of being not a woman, but this particular woman. There is a LOT of anti-Hillary sentiment out there, and not only among Republicans, and the fact is that she does not wear well.
Ah, yes, but there is a deeply divided Republican Party and this little thing called Iraq working in her favor…
I would agree with your odds — although I’m not sure if Iraq works in her favor (at least certainly not to the extent that it supports the Edwards and Obama candidacies) –
It will be interesting to see if the Republicans on 2008 end up resembling the Democrats of 1968. Hubert Humphrey faced a weak and generally disliked candidate but was tied to the unpopular VietNam war. He never disassociated himself from LBJ’s policies until the very end of the campaign, when he announced a half-hearted disavowal of the war strategy. His campaign surged at the end, but it was not enough to win a fairly close election.
While the analogy is not exact — at least unless Cheney runs — it will be interesting to see if the Republican candidate is broadly supportive of the war to win Republican votes in the primaries and then claims that “things have changed” during the general election and veers over to the anti-war side.
By the time the general election gets underway, enough could change on the ground in Iraq (that will be after the September report on the war) to justify a GOP candidate changing his views on the matter without appearing completely opportunistic.
Otherwise, it seems that the best strategy for the GOP candidates (based upon rising Rudy and Fred and falling McCain) is to stay quiet about the war. McCain is really the only GOP candidate I recall who has been outspoken about his support of the war in Iraq. Of course, that won’t work when the general election comes around because the Democratic candidate certainly won’t maintain the pact of silence that the GOP field currently holds.
Iraq won’t tip the primary to Edwards or Obama, but it will probably help whoever the Democratic nominee is. Hence it will probably benefit Hillary.
Hmmm . . . maybe the GOP senators should just let the Democrats force the US out of Iraq to take the Democrats’ strongest issue off the table in 2008.
To all the brilliant geniuses on this site posting their views, I would like to point out one way for you all of you to be even smarter. Here it is are you all ready? The Republicans in Congress will vote with the Democrats in Congress if they have any brains (even though I think this is cutting and running and surrendering to the terrorists) and will vote to pull the rug out from President Bush’s feet right after the G.O.P. Primaries and well before the 2008 elections.
This will “KILL” the Democrats Major Avantage in the polls on the Iraq issue by almost completely neutralizing the issue. My heart knows this is the only way to win, but if this is the only way to win it makes me not want to vote even though I will, because politics should not always be about the best chess moves.
While not disagreeing with your prognostication I would argue that the Republicans cannot gain from voting to ignore the President and exit Iraq, only Democrats can. Hillary may be disliked because she refuses to apologize (a wholly empty gesture if you ask me and a hugely ridiculous demand) but she gains greatly from being opposed to continuing in Iraq.
I see no way for the GOP to win this cycle. The smart thing for the Republicans to do would be to have Senators who do not face election in 2008 vote with the Democrats on the leave-Iraq now legislation (including a vote to end a filibuster). That will leave enough time for Iraq to descend into complete and utter chaos and for a broad resurgence of al Qaeda before our election, responsibility for which can then be blamed on the Democrats.
Oh, wait, but that would be working for us to lose so that the GOP would win. Hmmmmm….. perhaps I need to think about this some more.
It is absolutely chilling to think that such a large number of people are actually suggesting that they belive that Hillary will be the next President. Aside from the fact that she is the phonyiest person in public life today, her positions on nearly everything are just plain wrong.
I would love to see someone actually articulate what we stand to gain or lose by a withdraw from Iraq. These people that think we are going to simply pick up our toys and go home are deluding themselves to the danger that the terrorists pose to us and our allies. Now is the time to apply even more pressure in the middle east, not less. The people in this part of the world do not understand diplomacy…compromise is a foreign concept unless we are pushing from a position of strength. We will have none if we pull our Army out. Right now things are beginning to change again in Iraq. The news back home would have you believe that the Iraqi’s will feel compelled to all get along and sing camp fire songs if we pull out to Kuwait , Oman, Bahrain or any number of other bases waiting for something to happen. This is foolishness… we have been in Kuwait and Turkey for years and it didn’t keep people in line.
I disagree wholeheartedly with Jake. I think the war is the ONLY issue the Republicans have at this point. Taking it off the table only highlights that the Democrats have a set of plans for things like health care and education, while the Republican candidates have… Giuliani pretending that national health insurance is socialized medicine, I guess. It seems to me that the average voter is going to prefer the Democrats on pretty much every one of the domestic issues, which is a serious problem for the GOP. Of course, the average voter also prefers the Democrats on Iraq, so I’m not sure where this is going. I’m just saying, the GOP candidates are fairly empty suits on all the issues, which is largely being covered up right now because of the war.
Yes it will be interesting to have a woman president. I think she gets a bad rap but I generally like her and think she will do the country a world of good.
I dont think that 63% translates in any way to votes for Hillary. Wasnt it just a couple weeks ago that a poll showed 60% of voters wouldnt ever vote Hillary. This is a clear example of media guiding public opinion. Americans dont want Hillary president but they think she will be because they have been fed the idea that everybody else wants her to become president. The only way the gop can win on the issue of Iraq is to win Iraq. The dems will take any and all credit for a retreat (withdrawl) and the gop will take the heat for the ensuing genocide. If Iraq becomes relatively stable and can “govern, sustain, defend itself and be an ally on the war on terror” than the election is over and Giuliani is president. Frankly, I think he sealed the presidency the moment he announced he wanted it but only time will tell.
Any political savy person knows that if the Democrats win in the 2008 election for President, everyone knows the troops will be pulled out of Iraq, so basic logic would at least tell me, that if the Republicans were to leave our strong brave men and woman in Iraq, the Republicans would likely lose the election. Any person with a liberal mindset holding the Executive Branch of Government, would just pull the troops out of the Theatre of the Middle East, the second they gained the Power of the Presidency and made their home in the Ivory Towers.
So knowing this, why not use these tactics: 1: know your enemies intentions. In this case, this is being aware you are in a vulernable position, act accordingly by taking the issue away from your enemy by voting with them in Congress on roll call votes they are strong on with the voters, and vote to remove “some”, or “all of the troops” from Iraq, thereby taking their position away by removing there strong hand against you. 2: the voters will blame the Party in Power they believe is responsible for any failure of this “Surrender Plan” if it is perceived to be related to the Massacre in Iraq that will surely result, as it did in 1: Somalia 2: Darfur 3: Vietnam 4: South Korea, when these governments broke down from their once more stable standing.
Conclusion, most civil people of both parties will reconize even when opposed to this matter, that this is a sad state of affairs and people are people, and it does not matter who dies, a life is a life. So when Hundreds of Thousands die from the “Easy Way Out Option”, the Democrats as I forcast it, are going to be where the Republicans are Today, and will find themselves in a very horrible position both Politically and Morally. If Politicians with a Liberal Ideology Win the Office of the Presidency, I forsee Catastrophic Death in Iraq resulting in having “So Few” or “No Troops” to Stop the Terrorists Dreams. This scenario is very likely if the Liberals continue to show an unwillingness to prepare for a measured drawdown of troops as “Events Warent Based on Success” and nothing else. If Democrats continue to show a lack of will towards this situtation, Is there really any other outcome that can be expected from the obvious consequences of an all out removal of U.S. Military Personnel? I hope Democarts are not this stipid and will realize the Voters will look harshly on this outcome, when there is en mass slaughtering of the Iraqi people.
I so hope that all the talk by the left, is nothing more than political posturing as they campaign, and that these positions they are taking, are nothing more than empty words being blown out from the lips of power hungry politicans. I hope that if Liberals Win the next Election, that once they are seated in a position of power, the administration will not rush to do something utterly stupid. I would love to think that even the Democrats can not possibily be so uninterested in the Iiaqi people as they seem to be, just to gain in temporary public opinion polls. Otherwise, this is surely the upitimy of the definition of the word Capricious or maybe even Evil. Im really Not Sure even Democrats can be this Stupid or Negelent, but maybe they are so subhuman as to really only care about power and maybe are only interested in a 1 time Electoral Success, that they will ignore what will be certain genocide and will worry about the fallout from the voters later.
If the Republicans are only interested in political gains as well, maybe they will vote with the Democrats in Congress so that we Conservatives can prevent the Democrats from making a Profound Human Rights Catastrophic Error, and help the Democrats by voting with them to “Only Pull Some Troops” away from the war so that Republicans can increase their chances of a win in 2008 by lowering the advantage the Democrats have in the polls. This move by Republicans might help prevent thousands from being slaughtered by decreasing the Democrats chances of being seen as the “Only Party that wants the Military out of Iraq”, and could possiblity Reduce the chances that voters would vote Democrat thereby putting this party is a position of great power. This Measure would at least allow Some Troops to remain in Iraq and increase the likelihood of Having the Office of the President be held by a Conservative.
Or, if the Republicans were truely Evil themselves, they could purposely allow the Democrats to win the 2008 election (highly unlikely), with the knowledge of Iraq breaking down into all out chaos, knowing the voters would almost certainly vote in the very next Election to restore, en mass, the G.O.P. back into control of Congress in the 2010 Mid-Term Elections, and maybe even the White House in 2012. This would certainly benefit the Republican Party for years.
I would rather the correct plan be carried out, which is to stay in Iraq. I also know, that if we stay in Iraq the Democrats will win. So, it is for this very reason that I am relunctly in favor of “Drawing Down Some” of our U.S. Forces to Increase the Conservatives Chances of winning the overall war. This would decrease the Liberal Minded Politicans chances from attaining the White House in 2008, resulting in the hope, I at least have, that some troops in Iraq will remain after the 2008 election. Hopfully by this plan, Public Opinion will move against the “All Out No Matter What” Removal position that Liberals hold, so that the Iraqi people are not slaughtered by the Hunders of thousands by terrorists.
If the United States of America is having this big of a problem stabilizing Iraq, and we are a Super Power, Can you imagine what it will be like when we turn our backs on the people in Iraq?
Whoa, who let all the nuts out?
I wonder if Hillary isn’t going to turn out like Nixon. Get elected on the promise to end the war, then escalate trying to win (and thus leave on a high note). I could see her embrace the Iraq Study Group and try to implement it (never mind it will not work and even if it would it will be 2 years behind events by then). Given how hard they’ve been shaking down the donors I’m sure we’ll have more Clinton Fundraising scandals, plus Bill will be unable to stay out of the way. The Republicans in Congress, bitter after getting slapped around for the last 2 years, will be anxious to exert some “oversight” payback. Everything old is new again.
For all the interested poll watchers including myself, I thought it would be worth adding a link to a Flordia poll conducted on July 18th though July 19th of 2007, which surveyed Republican Primary Voters. The Flordia poll was conducted by Scott Rasmussen, of Rasmussen Reports.
It shows Rudolph William Louis Giuliani III with 22% of the vote, while Fred Dalton Thompson receives 21% of the voters support. The link to this poll is shown below.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/florida_giuliani_22_thompson_21