purplechoe
10-30-2007, 12:49 AM
http://www.townhall.com/blog/default.aspx?mode=post&g=d9b7986f-9b35-4922-8950-da4b33cd0d7f&comments=true&submitted=true2bc8bdb5-b658-4dfd-9471-31468e53a7fa
Monday, October 29, 2007
Hillary Under 50% vs. Ron Paul
Posted by: Patrick Ruffini at 11:47 PM
Like Brian Faughan, I think this is a very, very big deal. From Jim Geraghty:
Pollster Scott Rasmussen just shared this fascinating observation in an interview: When you average the head-to-head matchups with Hillary Clinton vs. any of the Republicans, she’s always getting 46 to 49 percent against any of them.
“When we polled her against Ron Paul, she got 48 percent of the vote. When we polled on Ron Paul among people who knew who Ron Paul is, she got 48 percent of the vote. When we polled among people who didn’t know who Ron Paul is, she got 48 percent percent of the vote.”
Paul got 38 percent against Hillary.
“In individual head-to-heads with Giuliani it’s essentially a toss up, Thompson trails a little, but they’re all close,” Rasmussen continued. “Clinton and Giuliani, in 11 polls, were within two points of 45 percent - basically ranging from 43 to 47 percent. It reminded me of Election 2004, where after Kerry won the nomination, for more than 60 days,” Kerry and Bush remained quite close to each other.
Listen to Geraghty on this. He was around in 2004. He understands the post-Bush dynamic better than anyone, where 4 points is a landslide. And this is the most compelling evidence I’ve seen that we’re back to the 50-50 divide that marked our politics from 2000-2006.
Basically, Republicans can run a stuffed animal against Hillary and still get 48% of the vote. Only worse. Ron Paul is widely despised by elements of the Republican base. A number of conservatives I know would bolt or sit on their hands if General Zod came down and made sure Ron Paul were the nominee. So what does it say he trails by 10 points? In 1996, the paleocon candidate Pat Buchanan won New Hampshire and he was the subject of a number of head to head polls against Bill Clinton. He got crushed by 25 points or more, and Clinton wasn’t even that popular at the time. And Pat Buchanan had communications skills, and a following in the conservative base.
In 2004, Kerry arose from a muddled field and evened the score with Bush almost overnight. At this point in ‘04, the named Democrat (Kerry, Dean, Clark, etc.) was losing to Bush by 10-15 points; the generic Dem by 6-7 points. The Republican field is similarly muddled this time, and not a lot of people are paying attention to the Republican race. So the Republican nominee has a good opportunity to pick up ground against Hillary post-February 5, who remains largely untested in this campaign. (Obama = $100 million audition for VP.) And she starts no better than even or up a few points against the major Republican candidates.
Hillary not breaking 50% against a guy who wants to abolish the Federal Reserve is a leading indicator of her fundamental weakness in the general election.
Looks like neocon central is getting desperate and trying to discredit the good doctor already!
Monday, October 29, 2007
Hillary Under 50% vs. Ron Paul
Posted by: Patrick Ruffini at 11:47 PM
Like Brian Faughan, I think this is a very, very big deal. From Jim Geraghty:
Pollster Scott Rasmussen just shared this fascinating observation in an interview: When you average the head-to-head matchups with Hillary Clinton vs. any of the Republicans, she’s always getting 46 to 49 percent against any of them.
“When we polled her against Ron Paul, she got 48 percent of the vote. When we polled on Ron Paul among people who knew who Ron Paul is, she got 48 percent of the vote. When we polled among people who didn’t know who Ron Paul is, she got 48 percent percent of the vote.”
Paul got 38 percent against Hillary.
“In individual head-to-heads with Giuliani it’s essentially a toss up, Thompson trails a little, but they’re all close,” Rasmussen continued. “Clinton and Giuliani, in 11 polls, were within two points of 45 percent - basically ranging from 43 to 47 percent. It reminded me of Election 2004, where after Kerry won the nomination, for more than 60 days,” Kerry and Bush remained quite close to each other.
Listen to Geraghty on this. He was around in 2004. He understands the post-Bush dynamic better than anyone, where 4 points is a landslide. And this is the most compelling evidence I’ve seen that we’re back to the 50-50 divide that marked our politics from 2000-2006.
Basically, Republicans can run a stuffed animal against Hillary and still get 48% of the vote. Only worse. Ron Paul is widely despised by elements of the Republican base. A number of conservatives I know would bolt or sit on their hands if General Zod came down and made sure Ron Paul were the nominee. So what does it say he trails by 10 points? In 1996, the paleocon candidate Pat Buchanan won New Hampshire and he was the subject of a number of head to head polls against Bill Clinton. He got crushed by 25 points or more, and Clinton wasn’t even that popular at the time. And Pat Buchanan had communications skills, and a following in the conservative base.
In 2004, Kerry arose from a muddled field and evened the score with Bush almost overnight. At this point in ‘04, the named Democrat (Kerry, Dean, Clark, etc.) was losing to Bush by 10-15 points; the generic Dem by 6-7 points. The Republican field is similarly muddled this time, and not a lot of people are paying attention to the Republican race. So the Republican nominee has a good opportunity to pick up ground against Hillary post-February 5, who remains largely untested in this campaign. (Obama = $100 million audition for VP.) And she starts no better than even or up a few points against the major Republican candidates.
Hillary not breaking 50% against a guy who wants to abolish the Federal Reserve is a leading indicator of her fundamental weakness in the general election.
Looks like neocon central is getting desperate and trying to discredit the good doctor already!