Politico claimed "[o]ther recent polls ... placed Giuliani ahead of Clinton" but did not report which ones
SUMMARY: A Politico article discussed the results of a recent poll showing that in the 2008 presidential election, registered voters would choose Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton over Rudy Giuliani by a margin of 51 percent to 43 percent. It also reported that "[o]ther recent polls, however, have placed Giuliani ahead of Clinton in a head-to-head race." The Politico did not cite any of these "other polls," and, in fact, of eight polls released in October that featured questions about such matchups, just one found Giuliani leading Clinton.
A November 1 Politico article headlined "Clinton would cream Giuliani, poll finds" discussed the results of a recent Pew Research Center survey showing that in the 2008 presidential election, registered voters would choose Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) over former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) by a margin of 51 percent to 43 percent. The article also reported that "[o]ther recent polls, however, have placed Giuliani ahead of Clinton in a head-to-head race." However, the Politico did not cite any "other polls" finding Giuliani leading Clinton in a head-to-head matchup; in fact, of eight polls released in October that featured questions about such matchups, just one found Giuliani leading Clinton.
A Quinnipiac University poll of American voters conducted October 23-29 found that "if the 2008 election for President were being held today," 43 percent would vote for Clinton, compared with 45 percent who favored Giuliani. The Quinnipiac University poll results contrast with seven other recent polls that found Clinton leading Giuliani:
- A poll conducted October 21-23 by Democracy Corps, a Democratic polling group, found that "if the election for president were held today and the candidates were -- Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Rudy Giuliani," 48 percent of likely voters would vote for Clinton, compared with 44 percent who would vote for Giuliani.
- A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg survey conducted October 19-22 found that among registered voters, Clinton leads Giuliani 47 percent to 41 percent in a head-to-head matchup.
- An October 18-21 Cook Political Report/RT Strategies poll of registered voters found Clinton leading Giuliani 43 percent to 39 percent in a head-to-head race.
- An October 12-14 CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll of registered voters found that "when the two front-runners are pitted against each other, Clinton leads Giuliani 49 percent to 47 percent.
- A Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll of registered voters conducted October 9-10 found that "if the 2008 general election were held today" and the candidates were Clinton and Giuliani, 47 percent of respondents would vote for Clinton, compared to 43 percent who would choose Giuliani.
- A head-to-head matchup in an October 4-6 National Public Radio poll found that of likely voters, 44 percent would choose Clinton and 40 percent Giuliani if the "election for President were being held today."
- A Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted September 27-30 found that "[i]f the 2008 presidential election were being held today and the candidates were (Rudy Giuliani, the Republican) and (Hillary Clinton, the Democrat)," 51 percent if respondents would vote for Clinton, while 43 percent would select Giuliani.
9/11
Urine smell gone from the subways
Rudy licked prostitution.
And, don't forget...NINE-FRICKIN'-ELEVEN.
Don't leave out he was MAYOR of New York on 9/11, MAYOR remember, MAYOR.
The Yankees briefly considered Giuliani as their new manager to replace Joe Torre but the deal fell through when Giuliani found out he couldn't wear jersey number 9/11.
The ultimate uniform for RG would be the ones from 'League of Their Own' with the number 9/11.
Plus they didn't have a cap in size 6-9/11.
They tried to get Hillary as she is by far the best at covering all the bases. :-)
Careful AA, your sense of humour is getting better and better. Naturally I attribute the progessive improvenment to your exposure to the many hilarious comments here at MMFA. Take just about anything from HBL for example. Covering all the bases, that is a good one!
Whoa, Pit! Are you bagging on my crappy jokes? I don't care about that, but you're not giving AA any compliments, as he's labeled me a troll more than once.Still,I'm happy just to be a bad influence on one person.
Well said AA, very clever!
Rudy was talking to James Dobson the right wing religious leader of Focus on the Family pleading to get his endorsement...without much success.
Exasperated, Dobson said, "Mayor, with all due respect, you've been divorced twice!"
Giuliani quickly replied, "But that number is deceiving. The ratio of happy relationships I've had with women to unhappy relationships is actually... 9/11.
It is incredible, though common, to see the far right cherry-pick polls to advance an agenda. But what else can they do? There is no way a Republican will win this election. It just won't happen.
Let's take our own pole for President
I pick SOLON
Here's my humble prediction. Assuming that these two are the nominiees...Hillary will receive the ultimate anal exam in the MSM.
Whitewatergate...Filegate...Travelofficegate...VinceFostergate... Monicagate... Healthcaregate...will all be rehashed ad nauseum...we'll be magically transported to the 90s. Meanwhile, to hear anything remotely negative about Rudolph, you'll have to go on the web. The cable networks will wallpaper their broadcasts with images of him "Bestriding the ruins of the World Trade Center like a Colossus" on 9/11.
If it unfolds any differently, I'll be greatly surprised.
me too. Hillary is doomed.
doomed ? hardly ! all of that crap is really really old news that even the right wingnuts aren't interested in any more. except the nuttiest, like yourself.
Shucks. Walnut perfect, I am trying to smooth things over but only with mixed results Shell we talk it over beer or cocktails sometime? :-)
Keep up up AA and you'll be saying Madam President!
Barney, I think you missed Nerzog's point- that if all of those smears are revived, the most sheeplike of our fellow Americans will think "Hillary is doomed".
Of course, they don't need to be revived for some , like , 30%.
If it's Hillary and Rudy, there will be more mud and crap flying back and forth at both of them, from both of them, we will all need showers just to wade through it everyday. It will be the lowest of lows, in my opinion...nasty, mean, negative, hideous, contentious, brutal and we will be so bruised as a country and so polarized and divided like never before. Sad, but inevitable.
Abner Luima?
Abner Luima?
This thread is about polls...not poles. (Ooh, sorry, bad joke...I doubt if Abner would think it's funny.)
Anyway... 9/11
Irony, speaking of polls, and how much they relate to reality, I saw an interesting citation of one tonight-
Disgraced war criminal Ollie North was on Fox (the place where he's not a criminal, but a hero), I think it was on Hannity's show, and he was pushing a poll that suggested that a growing number of Americans see Iran as a serious threat.
hmmm... I wonder where they got that idea.
hint: The station he was on was ____.
HBL: I'm sure there must have been a poll question that read something like this:
Do you wish for you and your family to die painful deaths in a nulear conflagration or are you in favor of protecting our great country, America the Beautiful, Land of the Free, Home of the Brave, from Islamofascist terrorists who took 3,000 American lives on 9/11; and finishing the War Against Terror by taking immediate military action against the country of Iran before they kill us, instead of wasting time trying to appease them by "talking to them" like the United Nations and countries like France, who hate America, would like us to do?
FOX is Ollie North's sanctuary where he has been guaranteed immunity from prosecution. ;>)
As usual, the results are skewed in favor of Hillary. At least in one case I checked, which is the LA Times/Bloomberg poll
Included are 1,039 registered voters, 469 Democratic Primary voters and 364 Republican Primary voters. "Primary Voters" include both registered party members and eligible others who plan to vote in the party primaries.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the Dems Primary Voters account for 45% of registered voters and the GOP Primary Voters account for 35%.
No wonder Hillary looks better. The funny thing is she only leads by 6 points when there is, (as it looks to me), a built in 10% respondent bias in her favor.
As usual, the results are skewed in favor of Hillary. At least in one case I checked, which is the LA Times/Bloomberg poll
AA, try a little honesty. ANYTHING will be skewed involving ANYONE EXCEPT A REPUBLICAN, in your opinion.
Pearlene,
Your Honor, I would ask the court to direct the witness to address the facts. ;-)
Thank you.
Yea, but nowadays many people are ashamed to admit they're Republicans... ;>)
Hahah.. good point!
Many people are ashamed to admit that they're Democrats as well. Many people are actually leaving both parties and becoming independents.
You didn't read carefuly.
Included are 1,039 registered voters, 469 Democratic Primary voters and 364 Republican Primary voters. The 2008 presidential election match-up questions were split among two random sub-groups of 512 and 522 registered voters respectively
Notice that 469 + 364 does not equal 1039. Notice that two groups of 512 and 522, which does add up to 1039, answered the matchup questions.
"Notice that 469 + 364 does not equal 1039"
You forgot to include independents. There were 206 independents which ends up adding up to the 1,039 voters that were sampled. The subgroups were simply groups that were split up among Republicans, Democrats, and independents, with Democrats being the largest group by far.
Exactly where in the survey does it state that 206 participants were "independents" ?? Apparently you can't read either. Worse, you just make sh*t up to cover up your ignorance ! It's astounding ! Just because someone is not a registered Republican or Democrat doesn't mean they have any particular affiliation. I am not a registered anything.
"Just because someone is not a registered Republican or Democrat doesn't mean they have any particular affiliation"
No kidding. People who are not registered with either major party are independents. They make up the rest of the sample. Your ignorance is truly showing here.
READ AGAIN ! Why is reading so difficult for you ? The Republican and Democrat voters were REGISTERED PRIMARY VOTERS ! Just because someone is not registered to vote in the primary does not mean they are "independent" !!! You're just making crap up as you go along ! NOWHERE in the survey do they claim that there are a particular number of independents.
I'm sorry you are so upset that Hillary is going to win, but it your upset doesn't give you the right to pull pieces of poo out of your behind and present them as facts.
You're exactly right, which is why these polls can't be trusted. They intentionally over sample the Democrats by a large amount to skew the poll. In the 2006 election the turnout was 38% Democrat and 38% Republican. There wasn't a 10% gap like there is in these skewed polls.
It is highly inaccurate to base the percentages of R's and D's from an election held 4 years ago. I think we would all agree that a lot has changed since then, including a congrssional election where the R's got pounded. Regardless, the scientific way to determine how many R's and D's to include is to do a survey on which party a demographically balanced sample identifies with right now. The Pew study did that and we saw that from their survey of 2,000 people, 36% identified themselves as R's and 50% identified themselves as D's, with 14% identifying themselves as neither. This compares to 2003, where it was 42%, 44%, and 14%.
You see, when you have more recent data, such as the pew survey, on which party is more popular than election turnout from 4 years ago, you can have a more accurate poll. That is why those other polls had a D and R breakdown resembling the Pew results. Sorry, but it is not a giant liberal polling conspiracy. Rather, the country is sick of republicans and thinks that the dems are making more sense these days.
Sorry, your turnout figures were from the 2006 election, but my main point still stands.
Not really. It pretty much knocks down your whole point. And Republicans are also more likely to vote than Democrats, so likely voters tend to be more Republican and conservative than registered voters.
Please elaborate on how it knocks down my whole point. The Pew survey conducted in October 2007 identified the percentages of who identifies as D's, R's or I's. Those figures correlate with the percentages of D's and R's surveyed in the other polls. Explain to me how the turnout from a year ago is more applicable than the survey from a month ago.
I'm sorry that people are fleeing the republican party in record numbers, but the stats don't lie. You can try to spin it any way you want, but it is right there for all to see.
Notice how when Rino or Another American or any of the other right wingnuts is asked to actually backup their statements with documented data ... there is total silence ?
Checking the Washington Post/ABC poll
NET LEANED PARTY: 50% Democrat 38% Republican
Looks to me like a 12% bias toward Hillary.
Exactly. When the turnout in the 2006 election was 38% Democrat to 38% Republican the poll is obviously skewed.
Hey Rino, what's Rasmussen poll like?
Democrats Have Edge on Two-of-Three Top Issues Generic Congressional Ballot: Democrats 48% Republicans 36% Party Affiliation: Dem 37.2% GOP 32.6%
21% Say Nation Heading In Right Direction
57% Want Troops Home from Iraq within a Year
37% Say U.S. Should Stay Until Mission is Complete
And yet Guiliani is still beating Hillary. Sounds like you simply need to get more likeable candidates since the American people seem to agree with you on the issues.
CNN
38% TOTAL REPUBLICAN42%^ TOTAL DEMOCRAT
(What is it with the greater than sign after the Democrat. Does that mean more than 42%?)
Hey, AA... all the polls I've seen show Giuliani trailing Hillary by a ratio of about, oh... 9/11. ;>)
Hahah. Very good. You are on a roll! :-)
(My guess is Romney wins the GOP nomination. After all, he has more-mon.
;-)
Before Mitt Romney was married he and his girlfriend were taking a walk and spotted another young couple in love having coffee at an outdoor cafe..the boy was giving the girl a beautiful bouquet of flowers.
Mitt's girlfriend sgihed and hinted, "I wish more men would give flowers."
Mitt replied, "No, we can! I just don't think we're allowed to drink caffeine."
That never gets old :o).
I remember after the Repub convention in '04 someone put together a highlights video of the speakers featuring nothing but fearmongering and references to 9/11. The Rudemeister was featured prominently.
I saw that; it was hilarious...and quite telling. Somebody should do one of just Rudy since he started running for President. If the Democrats would just steal some of Jon Stewart's videos, they could make some killer commercials.
Irony, don't forget Rudy was Mayor of New York on 9/11. Did I mention 9/11. Just in case I forgot, 9/11. ;-)
Another American, are you sure you're not misreading these other polls as you have misread the LA Times Bloomberg poll ? I've done your work for you on that poll, now you check the other polls again and post your own corrections. You're a typical knee-jerk can't-read-more-than-one-sentence Republican.
Atheist,
Hey now. Don't take credit for my small contributions. Your reward will come later. :-)
My hats off to Rhino for explaining the difference in those poll numbers.
Rhino posted BS and you didn't even verify that it was BS, you just assumed it was true. The LA Times survey says *NOTHING* about "independents". So nice try. Go back and read all of the other surveys now and see if you're still full of sh*t.
It doesn't have to say anything about independents. They just knew that anybody with half a brain would realize that the remaining sample has to be independents since they're not registered with either major party and the total had to end up being more than 1,000. Do a little math.
What you really mean is that any republican wingnut who can't read would assume that any participants not mentioned are independents, and then you apparently conclude, because you are so good at republican logik, that all independents are split 50-50 D-R or are skewed D, and therefore the polls are unfair. But as I mentioned in my prior response to you, the problem is that you pull sh*t outta your ass and present it as facts. Well it's not facts. It's sh*t.
As a pundit recently pointed out...these national polls don't prove much in our electoral system. Just ask Al Gore.
Yea, but they've improved. Rudy's polls only have a margin of error of roughly... 9/11. ;>)
How many times you gonna use that reference? I'm betting either 9 or 11.
AA, the more pertinent question is how many times Giuliani is going to use 9/11.
Probably about as many times as John Kerry talked about his Vietnam service.
So, Rino, you're saying Rudy's gonna lose, as Kerry did, for exaggerating his accomplishments?
Could be. I think that candidates need to focus more on the future and what we need to do to solve problems rather than focus on the past.
So does that mean you're going to stop spewing about all of Hillary Clinton's past pseudo- scandals ? And you'll stop your other wingnut comrades from doing so as well ? To focus on the future ? I think it's a good plan. You've got my support.
Here's another poll that has Guiliani ahead. Media Matters conveniently left out this poll:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_clinton_vs_giuliani_thompson
And Rasmussen was by far the most accurate polling organization in the 2004 and 2006 elections. They had the results almost exactly right. They have much more credibility than these other organizations which don't specialize in polling but only do it from time to time.
Still, while the candidates have hovered consistently around that 45% level of support, a modest trend in Clinton’s favor can easily be detected. During the first eight sets of three-poll averages, Giuliani was “ahead” in seven and tied with Clinton in the eighth. Clinton has held the advantage in the last three updates of the three poll rolling average. She currently leads 47% to 44%.
It’s worth noting that on individual polls with a four point margin of sampling error, Giuliani has been within four points of the 45% mark for thirteen consecutive surveys dating back to March. Clinton has been within four points of the 45% mark on seventeen of eighteen surveys dating back to December.
Exactly. The race is currently very close. It isn't a steady lead for Clinton as Media Matters suggests.
Which polls, as Politico has suggested, show Rudy ahead?
The Quinnipiac University poll and the Rasmussen poll. That makes his assertion that Giuliani leads in other recent polls completely currect.
Sorry. Meant "correct"
Ah Rino
Maryland: Clinton 46% Giuliani 41% - Posted 23 hours ago 11/1/07
Is your data from Oct, 28th?
Individual polls can sometimes overstate volatility in a race, especially when the results carry a four percentage point margin of sampling error. One way of addressing this is to look at a rolling-average of three consecutive polls. Using this approach, Clinton and Giuliani have both been within two points of the 45% mark for eleven consecutive polls dating back to May 1, 2007. The candidates have been within two points of each other on seven of those eleven surveys. Rasmussen
Rino, you probably should have added that little fact in your polling.
Pearlene, I happened to come across these poll results earlier today: ;>)
CLINTON: 46%
GIULIANI: 9/11
What are you getting at, Irony?
Anyway, did you see Giuliani's stop in Germantown, where he worked the bakery counter for a photo-op? A customer asked for some matzos or flatbread, and he said "Nein! Leavened!"
I think someone take a photo of a fire that looks miraculously like Rudy at Ground Zero on 9/11.
Good stuff all. But I hate these "national polls" because that's not how we vote. I'd like to see it broken out by state, and then have them project the hypotheticla electoral votes.
After all, in 2000, a poll of actual (as opposed to likely) voters showed that 48.3% fvored Gore, while 47.8% favored Bush. That poll had a margin of error of 0.0. It was called the election. And Bush still won.
Granted the margin in the Hill/Guili polls is MUCH wider, but these are the same studies that got me optimistic about Kerry in '04.
I want to know which STATES are close enough to go either way, and if they represent enough electoral votes to get the 'Pubs the WH in '08.