RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events The generic '08 election thread

Quote:

---

Democrats trump Republicans solidy in 2008 race: poll

Published: Saturday May 5, 2007


With President George W. Bush's popularity hitting a record low, all three top Democratic candidates can beat the leading Republicans in the presidential race to replace him next year, according to a new poll Saturday.

Four days after Bush vetoed a Democrat Party-driven measure to set a timetable for withdrawing US troops from Iraq, the Newsweek poll said his popularity fell to an all-time low of 28 percent.

That matched the lows of highly unpopular president Jimmy Carter in 1979, the year before he was trounced in the election by Ronald Reagan when he sought a second white House term.

The poll also showed that any of Democratic frontrunners Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards could solidly beat either Rudolph Giuliani or John McCain, the top Republican candidates, in the election in November 2008.

The poll of 1,000 adults, taken ahead of Thursday's debate between the eight Republican candidates for their party's 2008 nomination, showed Clinton beating Republican favorite Giuliani 49-46 percent; Obama beating Giuliani 50-43 percent; and Edwards beating the former New York City mayor 50-44 percent.

Senator Clinton, wife of former US president Bill Clinton, led Republican Senator McCain 50-44 percent, while Senator Obama beat McCain 52-39 percent and Edwards topped him 52-42 percent.

Similar matchups against the Republican former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney showed even greater spreads favoring the Democrats.

While Obama fared best in the matchups, the poll showed that Democrats solidly favored Clinton over Obama and Edwards as their party's nominee for the race, 52-38 percent and 63-32 percent, respectively.

Republicans preferred Giuliani over McCain as their party's nominee 59-48 percent, and Giuliani over Romney 70-20 percent, according to the poll.

---

Quote:

---

PJP said:
It's a good thing the election isn't today then huh?

Much can change from now until then.

Are you sure you're not a Red Sox fan or Oakland A's????

---

Quote:

---

GOP is losing ground in party-affiliation polling
Republicans' inherent advantage in Electoral College math might be gone
By Charlie Cook
Updated: 8:48 a.m. CT Feb 15, 2007
Charlie Cook

WASHINGTON — Last month I wrote a column suggesting that "the Republican brand" had been damaged over the last year, and I quoted several Republicans who agreed with that proposition.

The Iraq war had certainly taken a toll on the GOP's image, as had various scandals and a general dissatisfaction with Congress and Washington, which has been under total Republican control for five of the last six years.

A recent report by the Gallup Organization provided further corroboration of this theory. Each year Gallup aggregates the results of all of its national political surveys for the year and takes a look at party identification.

In 2006, this amounted to interviews with 30,655 adults, with an 0.57-point error margin -- about as close as you can get to perfection in the world of polling.

For 2001 through 2005, the party identification balance in Gallup polling -- before independents are asked which way they lean -- remained within 2 points of each other.

In 2001, Democrats had an edge of eight-tenths of a percent; in 2002 the GOP was up by nine-tenths of a percent, then in 2003, Republicans were 1.9 points ahead.

That GOP lead shrank to six-tenths of a point in 2004, then Democrats pulled within the error margin, with just four-tenths of a point separating the parties.

But for 2006, Democrats pulled away, leading Republicans by 3.9 points, with 34.3 percent identifying themselves as Democrats, 30.4 percent as Republicans and 33.9 percent as independents.

This represents a swing of 5.8 points in just three years, from a GOP lead of 1.9 points to a deficit of 3.9 points. It's not that Democrats grew that much; it's that Republicans dropped, with the independent column picking up much of the slack.

But the real jaw dropper is when independents are asked which party they lean toward. This is important because historically, independents who lean toward a party tend to vote almost as consistently for that party as those who identify themselves with the party. There are just some people who like to call themselves independents but, functionally speaking, are really partisans.

In this category of leaners, Democrats had an advantage of 1.3 points in 2001. The parties were within the margin of error in 2002, when four-tenths of a point separated them and in 2003, when there was just a one-tenth of a point difference.

In 2004, Democrats had a 2.7 point advantage, and it grew to 4.4 points in 2005.

But in 2006, this category exploded to a 10.2-point advantage for Democrats: 50.4 percent for Democrats, 40.2 percent for Republicans. The remaining 9.4 percent did not lean toward either party.

This 10.2-point advantage is the biggest lead either party has had since Gallup began tracking the leaners in 1991.
...

---

Quote:

---

PJP said:
you need to get another hobby MEM.

---

Quote:

---

Frank Rich: Earth to GOP, the Gipper is dead
RAW STORY
Published: Saturday May 12, 2007
"While 10 white, middle-aged Republicans spoke glowingly at the recent debate about the lasting legacy of of former president Ronald Reagan, their party continues to crumble under the weight of the Bush Administration," Frank Rich writes this week in his Sunday New York Times column.

"Much as the Republicans hope that the Gipper can still be a panacea for all their political ills, so they want to believe that if only President Bush would just go away and take his rock-bottom approval rating and equally unpopular war with him, all of their problems would be solved," writes Rich. "But it could be argued that the Iraq fiasco, disastrous to American interests as it is, actually masks the magnitude of the destruction this presidency has visited both on the country in general and the GOP in particular."

"By my rough, conservative calculation -- feel free to add -- there have been corruption, incompetence, and contracting or cronyism scandals in these Cabinet departments: Defense, Education, Justice, Interior, Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs, Health and Human Services, and Housing and Urban Development."

In his column, Rich looks back on the optimism with which Bush and Karl Rove into the White House, noting that his fellow Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote that "We may say a final, welcome goodbye to the wedge issues that have divided Americans by race, ethnicity and religious conviction." Tracing the continuing decline of the Republican party, Rich points out that "the pressing matters that the public cares passionately about -- Iraq, health care, the environment and energy independence -- belong for now to the Democrats."

Exerpts from Rich's column:

#

Wrongdoing of this magnitude does not happen by accident, but it is not necessarily instigated by a Watergate-style criminal conspiracy. When corruption is this pervasive, it can also be a by-product of a governing philosophy. That's the case here. That Bush-Rove style of governance, the common denominator of all the administration scandals, is the Frankenstein creature that stalks the GOP as it faces 2008. It has become the Republican brand and will remain so, even after this president goes, until courageous Republicans disown it and eradicate it.

We've certainly come a long way from that 2000 Philadelphia convention, with its dream of forging an inclusive, long-lasting GOP majority. Instead of break dancers and a black Republican congressman (there are none now), we've had YouTube classics like Rove's impersonation of a rapper at a Washington journalists' banquet and George Allen's "macaca" meltdown. Simultaneously, the once-reliable evangelical base is starting to drift as some of its leaders join the battle against global warming and others recognize that they've been played for fools on "family values" by the GOP establishment that covered up for Mark Foley.

---

Quote:

---

PJP said:
People are safer with Republicans as President.....everyone knows it!

---

Quote:

---

Besides, "class warfare" which is the #1 Democratic campaign strategy, is less and less effective every year.

---

Quote:

---

If Bush hammers out a compromise on Iraq in the next few weeks with Dems (which he will)

---

After 4 years of fucking up Iraq, I'm sure he'll pull it together in a few weeks.

Quote:

---

and passes immigration reform and the economy is still ticking, then quite honestly it all depends on who spews out the better bullshit.

---

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:
Frank Rich...RAW STORY

---

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:
I think even you have to admit G-man that Reagan's name is being used alot though.

---

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:
I think even you have to admit G-man that Reagan's name is being used alot though.

---

Why shouldn't Reagan's name be invoked, as a standard and role-model of effective Republican leadership for other current Republican candidates to follow the conservative principles of?

low taxes

strong defense, re-building our military

avoiding unneccesary foreign military entanglements (as opposed to both Clinton and Bush)

fiscal responsiblility, cutting federal spending

bipartisanship that coined the term "Reagan Democrats"

defending our borders from illegal immigration

---

Iran/Contra.
Slow reaction to AIDs.
His government was allied with Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden.
that movie with the chimp.

Quote:

---

Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man said:

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:
I think even you have to admit G-man that Reagan's name is being used alot though.

---

Why shouldn't Reagan's name be invoked, as a standard and role-model of effective Republican leadership for other current Republican candidates to follow the conservative principles of?

low taxes

strong defense, re-building our military

avoiding unneccesary foreign military entanglements (as opposed to both Clinton and Bush)

fiscal responsiblility, cutting federal spending

bipartisanship that coined the term "Reagan Democrats"

defending our borders from illegal immigration

---

Iran/Contra.
Slow reaction to AIDs.
His government was allied with Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden.
that movie with the chimp.

---

Quote:

---

Ron Paul: Republicans need Reagan's courage
Nick Juliano
Published: Tuesday May 15, 2007

Long-shot Republican candidate Ron Paul said the current slate of candidates need the "courage" of former President Ronald Reagan to be able to withdraw US troops from Iraq.

The Texas Congressman, who has become an internet favorite but does not register much support in polls, said the Middle East is too unstable a region in which to maintain an indefinite US military presence. Paul compared the current "quagmire" in Iraq to military involvement in Lebanon in the early 1980s.

"We need the courage of a Ronald Reagan," Paul said, explaining the former president initially vowed not to withdraw US Marines who were attacked in October 1983 in Beirut while serving as part of a multinational peacekeeping force. Reagan withdrew the troops in February of the following year.

Paul outlined his initial oppositions to the war in Iraq and his warnings that the war would become a quagmire like Vietnam. He said the war has shrunk the Republican base and touted his plan to end the war.

---

Quote:

---

CBS Poll: Clinton, Giuliani Still In Front
Clinton Tops Democratic Field By 22 Points; Giuliani's Lead On GOP Side Slips To 14 Points

(CBS) Sen. Hillary Clinton and former Mayor Rudy Giuliani continue to set the pace in the 2008 presidential race, according to the latest CBS News/New York Times poll, but both are facing some new challenges.

Giuliani's lead over his top Republican rivals is down, while his negative ratings are up; Clinton's lead over her Democratic opponents is up, but she's lost support to Sen. Barack Obama among critical African-American voters.

The poll finds Democratic primary voters continue to be more satisfied with their party's presidential contenders than Republicans are with theirs. That's a change from past elections, when Democrats tended to be less satisfied than Republicans with their candidate options.
...

---

The Democratic presidential candidates meet here Sunday night for their second debate of the young campaign season, with Iraq and health care likely to dominate much of the discussion.

Democratic frontrunners John Edwards, Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama sparred Sunday night over support for the war in Iraq and the war on terror with Clinton telling Edwards that he was wrong to characterize the latter as a "bumper sticker slogan."

The former North Carolina senator, trailing both Clinton and Obama in national polls, criticized their cautious approach in forcing President Bush to withdraw troops from Iraq.

While some members of Congress spoke out "loudly and clearly" last month against legislation to pay for the war through September but without a withdrawal timetable, "others did not," Edwards said.

"Others were quiet. They went quietly to the floor of the Senate, cast the right vote. But there is a difference between leadership and legislating," Edwards told his rivals during a Democratic debate.

Both Clinton and Obama voted against the bill — which passed — but without making a strong case against the legislation.

"I think it's obvious who I'm talking about," Edwards said.

Quote:

---

Clinton responded that it is President Bush who is prolonging the war and that while Democrats have different approaches, "what we are trying to do, whether it's by speaking out from the outside or working and casting votes that actually make a difference from the inside, we are trying to end the war."

---

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:
I thought Clinton had a good response to Edward's jab...

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
At tonight's Democrat candidate debate, Hillary had this to say about the War on Terror:

As a senator from New York, "I have seen first hand the terrible damage that can be inflicted on our country by a small band of terrorists," Clinton said.

Still, she said, "I believe we are safer than we were."

Obviously, if we are safer now then we were on 9/11, then the credit would have to go the government in power between 2001 and the present.

And, whose adminstration would that be? President Bush.

Therefore, Hillary is admitting that the President's War on Terror has made us safer.

---

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:
I thought Clinton had a good response to Edward's jab...

Quote:

---

Clinton responded that it is President Bush who is prolonging the war and that while Democrats have different approaches, "what we are trying to do, whether it's by speaking out from the outside or working and casting votes that actually make a difference from the inside, we are trying to end the war."

---

Washington Post

---

Quote:

---

PJP said:
I'm basing that remark on your whole body of work here at the RKMBs......which is the furthest thing in the wrold away from Fair Play.

---