Rudy Surging Again?
Or just an anomaly? After several polls that showed Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani virtually tied, the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll has Rudy up big again:
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s bid for the White House is gaining support, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
Matched with other Republicans, Giuliani won the backing of 33 percent of respondents in the survey, compared with 20 percent for former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson, who hasn’t declared his candidacy, and 17 percent for Arizona Senator John McCain. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney drew 11 percent support in the July 27-30 poll.
Giuliani’s lead over Thompson increased to 13 points from 9 points in a June NBC/Journal survey. Even so, Giuliani would lose to Democrat Hillary Clinton by a margin of 41 percent to 47 percent if a general election were held today, the poll said.
Clinton, a New York senator, has also increased her lead among Democrats, garnering the support of 43 percent of those surveyed, compared with 22 percent for Illinois Senator Barack Obama and 13 percent for former North Carolina Senator John Edwards, the poll found. Clinton’s lead over Obama was 14 points in June.
It’s a bit early to be saying this, but I’m saying it: Hillary is a big favorite to be the Democratic nominee, and barring some truly big scandal, she will be. I’d put her odds (of the Democratic nomination, not the presidency) at 5-2 in favor of.
On the Republican side, I’d take even money on Rudy…
One thing all polls show in the people that make up their samples are 3 things. The first is the worst way to conduct a poll if you are trying to predict the outcome of an election, and that is by polling adults that are of voting age but are not registered to vote. The second way, and most common way polls are conducted is to measure registered voters but that tell the pollster, when asked, that they are not likely to vote. The problem with this is that the pollster continues to add these people into their samples even though they tell the person on the other end of the phone they are “Not Likely To Vote”. This makes the poll pretty much worthless, but does tell the pollster about general public opinion, but that does not win or lose an election, because unless one votes they can not shape the outcome of any election.
Most polling firms do this because it is much easier to get enough information to assemble a poll since they do not throw out almost all of the people that make up their sample as is done with polls that measure “Likely Voters”. The the problem in doing this is that the data is much more susceptible to criticism.
The third and best way to measure voter support, and at the same time, measure how likely a voter is to take the time to vote, is by only adding into a pollsters sample “Likely Voters”. This is the least likely way for a pollster to get information though because “most people in this country Do Not Vote”, and that makes it much harder for people who take polls to gather data because it requires the Pollster to “Throw Out Most Of Their Sample” to weight the averages to gauge the realistic number of people that are likely going to participate in the actual election.
The NBC/WSJ poll had a sample of 1005 adults. This is the worst way of measuring a candidates chances of electoral success, because even though it is a good way of measuring overall public support for a candidate it “does not measure” the intentions of the public to support you by casting a ballot in your favor. This of course does not yeild any information to a campaign about their chances of victory, or for that matter defeat. Most Polls are done this way simply because they do not cost that much money but the data is also not very reliable.
Now here is a poll that deserves attention. This poll is from Rasmussen Reports. It asked respondents who they would vote for if the candidates were 1: Rudy Giuliani V. Hillary Clinton. 2: Fred Thompson V. Hillary Clinton
In both questions presented to those asked the question, the Republican got 46% of the vote and the Democrat recieved 45% of the vote. So from this I would say, why should Republicans vote for Rudy, when they can equally win against Hillary Clinton with a Conservative in Fred Thompson?
Below is the link to the Rasmussen Poll.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008_clinton_virtually_tied_with_gop_frontrunners_giuliani_thompson
I forgot to add a very important point. The Rasmussen Poll measured Likely Voters not the typical Adults most other polls use to gather their samples. Rasmussen Reports also polled Democrats not just Republicans for a guage of the current public attitudes for these candidates in a general election matchup.
“why should Republicans vote for Rudy, when they can equally win against Hillary Clinton with a Conservative in Fred Thompson?”
For me, the answer to that question is very simple. I think Rudy is infinitely more qualified, and I think he would be a better President. And that is coming from someone who is much more conservative than Rudy.
I think I am to the right of Genghis Khan. But the best person to be the next President of the US is a center-rightist who can get elected in a landslide and thereby get a governing majority. He will also acquire at least the grudging consent of those who did not vote for him that he is a legitimate President.
Ever since Mr.Gore’s character flaw allowed him to be seduced by the ambulance chasers to overturn the narrow victory in Florida. that has not been true.
Tort layers prevaricate and dissemble. That is their stock in trade and working modus operandi. Before they were done, the Presidency was discredited and de-legitimized.
Now is the time to end it with an unequivocal victory by an experienced Executive and not some sleazy lawyer who has never commanded more than an office staff.
It’s why I will vote for Rudy Guiliani.
For those of you who ask yourselves why I trust Rasmusen Polling information so much, consider the below comments from well respected pollsters. You can obtain the information I posted by visiting Rasmussen Reposts website at http://www.RasmussenReports.com
Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.
The Rasmussen Reports ElectionEdge™ Premium Service for Election 2008 offers the most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a Presidential election.
Rasmussen Reports’ Election 2006 coverage has been praised for its accuracy and reliability. Michael Barone, Senior Writer for U.S. News & World Report and co-author of The Almanac of American Politics, mentions, “One clear lesson from the Republican victory of 2004 and the Democratic victory of 2006 is that the best place to look for polls that are spot on is RasmussenReports.com.” And University of Virginia Professor Larry Sabato states, “In election campaigns, I’ve learned to look for the Rasmussen results. In my experience, they are right on the money. There is no question Rasmussen produces some of the most accurate and reliable polls in the country today.”
Rasmussen Reports was also the nation’s most accurate polling firm during the 2004 Presidential election and the only one to project both Bush and Kerry’s vote total within half a percentage point of the actual outcome.
During both Election 2004 and Election 2006, RasmussenReports.com was the top-ranked public opinion research site on the web. We had twice as many visitors as our nearest competitor and nearly as many as all competitors combined.
Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade.
DB and Stan, I definitely agree. If Republicans have learned anything from George W. Bush, winning elections is not enough. If a candidate wins an election, he better be able to accomplish something or his party will be punished in subsequent elections. Giuliani has shown that he can get stuff done even with a hostile legislature. If Thompson is elected, I’m afraid he may be the nail in the GOP’s coffin.
Truthfully I think the only real way to assess a candidates true strength is to ask “likely voters” who they would rather vote for, Candidate A, Candidate B or None of the above. The truth is most people at least dislike most politicians. Campaigns are determined by more who doesn’t vote then who does vote. Almost half the elecorate doesn’t vote.
Tens of Millions of Americans would of never voted for Bush in any circumstances (including me) but couldn’t get up the desire to vote for Kerry. For all you Hillary haters out there don’t think that she can’t win because of this. Her organization is just as slick, well founded, well organized and well staffed monster that Bush campaign in 2004 was. Some say Clinton 08 could be the first billion dollar campaign. That and four years of the worst president in American history has left the GOP with nothing left to sell and looking more and more pathetic as time goes along.