(CNN)–Former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, and Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York, are both leading the race for their respective party's nomination in a new national Associated Press-Ipsos poll.
In the race for the GOP nomination, Giuliani was the favorite candidate of 27 percent of those surveyed. Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson was at 23 percent, Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona was at 13 percent, while former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney was at 11 percent. Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee registered at 7 percent. None of the other GOP contenders got above 1 percent in the poll.
Of the Republicans surveyed in the poll, 18 percent say they remained undecided.
On the Democratic side, Clinton pulled away from her closest rival for the nomination, Senator Barack Obama, D-Illinois, by more than 20 points. The poll showed her with 46 percent support, compared to Obama's 25 percent.
The remainder of the Democratic field was in single digits.
Former North Carolina senator John Edwards registered at 9 percent, while New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, and Sen. Joe Biden, D-Delaware, each had 2 percent. Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Connecticut had one percent.
The Associated Press said the poll was conducted October 1 – 3, 2007, and was based on telephone interviews with a nationally random sample of 1,005 adults from all states except Alaska and Hawaii.
Click here to CNN's new political portal: CNNPolitics.com
– CNN Political Desk Editor Jamie Crawford
Clinton is a far more serious frontrunner than Howard Dean. She has more organizational depth, support, and other resources than Dean ever imagined. Also, while Dean had a committed following, he was hardly anybody’s second choice during the run-up to Election 2004. Clinton is more acceptable to those who see other candidates as their top choice.
I agree to a certain extent that a loss in Iowa may have an immediate impact on Clinton’s polling and prospects in other states. But, the magnitude of the impact will likely depend on the magnitude of the defeat.
In 2004, Howard Dean didn’t just lose in Iowa, he lost very badly. Kerry won 38% of the vote and John Edwards came in second at 31%. Dean couldn’t even reach half of Kerry’s total and finished a distant third at 18%. If Clinton loses that badly in Iowa 2008, her status as frontrunner would be in serious jeopardy. A more narrow loss in Iowa would be a challenge for Clinton, but not necessarily a challenge that would undo her campaign.
At the other end of the spectrum, a Clinton victory in Iowa would likely end any hopes for Obama or Edwards to wrest the nomination from her. In some ways, Clinton’s current status as a frontrunner more clearly resembles that of George W. Bush in Election 2000 rather than Howard Dean in 2004H. He enjoyed strong support from the party establishment and great fundraising capabilities. Bush won the Iowa caucus but was defeated by John McCain in New Hampshire. Still, he had the resources to eventually fight back that challenge to win both the nomination and the White House.
Democrats need to understand why they have only managed to elect two presidents in the last forty years. Maybe this relates to a preoccupation with a failing and inappropriate primary process. After all Iowa has never selected a successful Democratic challenger, and New Hampshire not since Jimmy Carter.
Van, polls don't mean anything they are all of the place and I was using a polls to illustrate the lie being reported that HRC made it over the 50% mark. She hasnt, which is strange since she is the most well known canidate and her husband has a high favorability while he was president. I like this poll better because it tells you their methodology. Here is the polls I was referencing:
Angus Reid Global Monitor) – Democrat Barack Obama holds a high level of public support in the Evergreen State, according to a poll by SurveyUSA released by KING-TV. At least 52 per cent of respondents in Washington would support the Illinois senator in head-to-head 2008 United States presidential contests against three Republican politicians.
Obama leads former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani by 11 points, actor and former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson by 14 points, and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney by 22 points.
In other contests, New York senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is tied with Giuliani, but leads Thompson and Romney. Former North Carolina senator John Edwards is almost even with Giuliani, but ahead of Thompson and Romney.
In 2004, Democrat John Kerry won Washington’s 11 electoral votes, with 53 per cent of the vote. The last Republican to carry the Evergreen State in a U.S. presidential election was Ronald Reagan in 1984.
Incumbent George W. Bush is ineligible for a third term in office. The next United States presidential election is scheduled for November 2008.
A few questions now about the next election. If there were an election for president of the United States today, and the only two names on the ballot were (the following) who would you vote for?
Rudy Giuliani (R) 41% – 52% Barack Obama (D)
Fred Thompson (R) 40% – 54% Barack Obama (D)
Mitt Romney (R) 35% – 57% Barack Obama (D)
Rudy Giuliani (R) 47% – 47% Hillary Rodham Clinton (D)
Fred Thompson (R) 42% – 52% Hillary Rodham Clinton (D)
Mitt Romney (R) 40% – 54% Hillary Rodham Clinton (D)
Rudy Giuliani (R) 44% – 45% John Edwards (D)
Fred Thompson (R) 36% – 51% John Edwards (D)
Mitt Romney (R) 31% – 55% John Edwards (D)
Source: SurveyUSA / KING-TV
Methodology: Telephone interviews with at least 473 registered Washington State voters, conducted from Sept. 14 to Sept. 16, 2007. Margin of error is 4.6 per cent.
STEPHEN IN FLORIDA...I'd rather be under British rule than Republican.
As a Republican, I believe that Obama would have a far better shot then Hillary (many people I spoke with would never vote for her....and they are true Democrats) – if he ran against Giuliani – I would go for the candidate who is socially liber (thats both) and fiscally conservative (thats Giuliani) – if Obama ran against any of the other Republicans though..he would have my vote...I don't want the religious minority running our party anymore
How is it possible that the two most divisive candidates are leading the latest polls?
To Sonya of Atlanta:
Your data are old. The more recent two separate polls do show that Hillary beats Obama, vs Giuliani.
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Sept. 27-30, 2007. N=1,114 adults nationwide
"If the 2008 presidential election were being held today and the candidates were Rudy Giuliani, the Republican, and Hillary Clinton, the Democrat, for whom would you vote?"
Hillary – 51%
Giuliani – 43%
FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Sept. 25-26, 2007. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3
"Thinking ahead to the next presidential election, if the 2008 general election were held today for whom would you vote if the candidates were [see below]?"
Hillary – 42%
Giuliani – 32%
Obama – 41%
Giuliani – 40%
Oh my God! Hillary's lead over Obama nationally dropped from 53-20 in the last poll to 46-25 in this latest poll!! Obama just closed the lead by -12- POINTS!
Of course, the article doesn't highlight this, and instead suggests Clinton "pulled" away, when, in fact, she did not pull away AT ALL, but rather, Obama pulled -closer-. Bias bias bias CNN. Then again, when has the media EVER been fair?
Come on, a "national" poll that talks to just 1,000 "likely" voters? And we're getting all worked up? You know, at every Obama rally I attend,there has not been one person who's been polled NOT ONE! We ask, we're all trying to understand the methodology because we never see any Hillary support oimn the streets. We never see yard signs, we never see Hillary canvassing efforts – or any other grassroots efforts, and we never see a Hillary bumper sticker. I live in California and I just don;t see the support. I see much more Edwards support than Hillary but according to the polls Hillary is crushing everyone. This just shows that people at this stage of the primary season are answering poll questions by using the name they know most and that's the woman with less elected legislative experience than Barack. The woman who somehow is getting a free pass from the MSM for counting her 16 years as a first lady picking China patterns. A lady whose first national policy assignment resulted in setting the universal health care issue back 15 years because she's an inept politician. A lady whose been riding Bill's coattails for 30 years. Yeah, people are going to utter her name because she is the default candidate. The Obama wave is growing and will crest just in time to upset the "inevitable one." She's already pissed that Obama has outraised her and has a much better grassroots organization. That cackle will really be turned up a notch when she starts to really feel the pressure come December and January. I can't wait. 08bama08!
conducted from Sept. 14 to Sept. 16, 2007. Margin of error is 4.6 per cent.
Posted By sonya, atlanta, ga : October 7, 2007 12:27 am
Look at those dates. Would you eat cold cuts or bread with those dates? The stuff you quote, is STALE!
It is an example of cherry-picking ONLY the information that supports your contentions. It is intellectually dishonest, at the least.
Were you unable to access the RCP site with ALL THE MOST RECENT POLLS?
Hillary is more and more inevitable to win the nomination and the election!
George Bush already thinks that she will win the Democratic nomination. The Republican candidates, particularly Rudy Giuliani, are positioning themselves as “Hillary-slayers”. And Hillary's Democratic rivals are paying her the ultimate compliment of concentrating their fire on her rather than on each other. More reasons:
First, Hillary is not like Howard Dean of 2004, who was favored first and then lost. The situation today is very different from 2004, when Iowa's unfortunate Democrats were confronted by a left-wing insurgent, the unattractive Howard Dean, and a rabble of second-division candidates.
Second, people put far too much unnecessary emphasis on Iowa.
Hillary's narrower margin lead in Iowa is swamped by her strength elsewhere. She is ahead in national opinion polls by about 20 points, a lead she has sustained for months. She is also ahead in New Hampshire and South Carolina, where her nearest rival, Obama, has been losing traction since late summer. Hillary is currently crushing Obama in the political futures markets by as much as 55 points. These poll numbers are built on rock. Hillary is formidably disciplined and knowledgeable. And she has the best political machine in the business—built up over decades and honed by relentless battle with the “vast right-wing conspiracy”. The machine boasts most of the Democratic establishment's mainstream thinkers.
Third, the dem voters want Hillary and Bill back to white house. Most Democrats associate the Clinton years with peace and prosperity rather than stained dresses and disappearing furniture. Bill Clinton left office with a job-approval rating of 66%. Three-quarters of Democrats, and 53% of voters in general, would like him to play an active role in a future Clinton administration. Nearly nine in ten Democratic voters (88%) express a positive view of Hillary's candidacy; 38% express a very positive view.
Bush has proved that polarisation is far from fatal, provided you can combine it with a ruthlessly disciplined campaign. Hillary does not have to paint America blue; she only has to win one more state than John Kerry. And Giuliani seems less impressive in person than he does in the polls. His speeches are poorly prepared and convoluted, and he is given to silly gimmicks, such as stopping in mid-speech to the NRA to take calls from his wife on his cell-phone.
Moreover, Hillary 2007 is not Hillary 1993. She has shown an impressive ability to learn from her mistakes. She has also moved sharply to the centre: witness her success in winning rural votes in upstate New York in 2006, and her ability to work with former Republican tormentors in the Senate.