October 6th, 2007
01:31 PM ET
11 years ago

Giuliani and Clinton lead latest poll

(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

soundoff (37 Responses)
  1. Joe, Yorktown, VA

    National polls really mean nothing as far as party nomination – it will all be decided in the state of Iowa. Am I right or AM I RIGHT?

    October 6, 2007 02:28 pm at 2:28 pm |
  2. Lioness, Washington DC

    Could CNN at least pretend to show some integrity?

    Please include the link to the AP poll's raw data so that the rest of us can analyze what it actually says, and at least bother to tell us what the margin of error is in the story itself.

    Because the last time you published a poll – one conducted by CNN- you contended that Clinton led by a wide margin in New Hampshire while minimizing the fact that the poll showed about 81 percent of respondents undecided – the only real wide margin.

    October 6, 2007 02:28 pm at 2:28 pm |
  3. JJS, Cleveland, Ohio

    Who are you polling? The CNN staff? Do they get bonuses?

    Fired Up! - Barack 08

    October 6, 2007 02:45 pm at 2:45 pm |
  4. VanReuter NY NY

    You're wrong.
    Iowa is important, but it's more important to some campaigns than others.
    Edwards-Must win or he's done. Short on funds and organization in other states, he's staked his whole campaign on winning IA, so losing could knock him out of the race.
    Obama-Must win or he's ALMOST done. He still has an outside shot at SC, but a 3rd place finish in Iowa almost surely damages his chances in SC. If he doesn't show something in the first THREE primaries (IA NH SC) it's pretty much over.

    Clinton-Has to finish in the top two to run the table, but has such a big lead in NH that she can be the,"comeback kid", like her husband before her with an almost certain win there.
    Clinton is the only one of the big three who could lose Ia and STILL steamroll super Tuesday.

    So while Iowa is important, it is not the whole enchilada, for everyone.

    October 6, 2007 03:06 pm at 3:06 pm |
  5. Jeff Spangler, Arlington, VA

    Be a good lemming and support the cackling female cuckold if you think she can beat Rudy, but make sure to follow her over the cliff to consummate your death wish.

    October 6, 2007 03:11 pm at 3:11 pm |
  6. A. Thomas, New York, NY

    Hillary leads in state polls and in the national polls.

    Win or loss in Iowa for Hillary is just symbolic, not fatal. As of today, the dem voters have indicated that she will win all other state primaries by a big margin, except Illinois & maybe Idaho.

    While Edwards has fallen to the third in Iowa, and Obama climbing, Hillary is still leading by 4 points, and climbing, based on the last 4 recent polls.

    Obama may pour all his money into Iowa for a symbolic win. He may win that Iowa battle, but he SHALL lose the national state primaries war for sure.

    Hillary leads by a big margin in other state primaries in January: New Hamshire, SC, NV, Michigan, Florida, etc., and all others for super tuesday in Feb. Obama leads in Illinois and maybe Idaho only. Edwards leads in none. I can see the Hillary tsunami brewing in the horizon.

    It should be noted that the polls say Hillary will beat Giuliani in the general election, if the election were held today. And, the polls also say that, in the next election, MOST american voters will vote for a dem nominee than a rep nominee.

    October 6, 2007 04:19 pm at 4:19 pm |
  7. We must win in 08

    Remember: A LOT CAN HAPPEN IN A WEEK, MONTH, OR YEAR WITH POLITICS....Do not count your ballots to early!

    We need Bill Richardson to run for the Senate....Draft Bill for New Mexico Senate NOW....

    We need a powerhouse ticket....Clinton/Obama can get it done!

    October 6, 2007 05:12 pm at 5:12 pm |
  8. A. Thomas, New York, NY

    For Idaho state, Hillary also beats Obama in recent dem party polls (35 vs 23).

    That means Obama only leads in his home state of Illinois, Edwards none, and Hillary wins all other states.

    October 6, 2007 05:14 pm at 5:14 pm |
  9. Mary, Dc

    I wonder if this will change peoples mind. Does any one know what she stands for:

    Clintons General says Clinton doesn't oppose Iraq War

    ABC News' Eloise Harper reports: A retired U.S. general visiting New Hampshire to campaign for Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., said yesterday that Clinton does not oppose the Iraq war, and the General said she's never heard Clinton oppose it, reported New Hampshire's Union Leader.
    Retired Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy, the Army's first woman to reach the three-star rank, said in a telephone interview with the paper, "I have not ever heard [Clinton] say, 'I oppose the war.' I've heard her say that we need to begin withdrawal under a plan led by the military and defense secretary. I've heard her say we need to create a regional stabilizing group by allies, by leaders in the world and by all of the states that are bordering Iraq."


    October 6, 2007 05:31 pm at 5:31 pm |
  10. David TN

    You people are really mad if you think Clinton will win in Idaho, Arkansas or anyother stayte Kerry could not win. Your blinded by your loyaltity, polls and beltway punditry. Right now polls are meaningless ask President Dean.

    October 6, 2007 05:56 pm at 5:56 pm |
  11. VanReuter NY NY

    "A Clinton spokesperson tells ABC News that "Senator Clinton opposes this war and is trying to do everything she can to end it as quickly as she can- a goal that she and General Kennedy share."

    Nice edit. Here's the rest of what was used to cast aspersions on where Clinton stands on Iraq.
    It's easy to see where YOU stand.

    October 6, 2007 06:06 pm at 6:06 pm |
  12. VanReuter NY NY

    . Right now polls are meaningless ask President Dean.
    Posted By David TN : October 6, 2007 5:56 pm

    Right now polls are meaningless, ask ANY OBAMA supporter. lol

    October 6, 2007 06:07 pm at 6:07 pm |
  13. Frank Virginia Beach VA

    No-one believes in polls anymore, they're a joke and rigged.

    October 6, 2007 06:22 pm at 6:22 pm |
  14. sonya, atlanta, ga

    but this weeks polls indicated that in the general election Obama would beat Guiliani by 15 points where as it's a 45-47 match up with Clinton. With the margin of error, Clinton could easily loose against Guiliani. The polls also indicates that Edwards and Obama have the largest double digit margin over any Republicans unlike Ms. Clinton. And as much as I hate to say this, Rudy's right in his view that some blue states would become competative such as California, Oregan and Washington because Clinton has only a small lead against him in those states. So the issue of electability is still at play.

    I just don't understand how stupid we Democrats are acting. Why would you put risk losing die hard blue states by nominating Hillary. But then again, we are the party that nominated Kerry, Mondale and Dukasis. Remind me never to take a democrat with me to a horse race.

    October 6, 2007 06:58 pm at 6:58 pm |
  15. Olson Johnson; Rock Ridge

    With her media co-conspirators, such as Vin.od Gup.ta and Doug.las Scho.en, and the fact that one must be a "likely Democratic" voter mean that the polls will probably always show Hillary in the lead until actual votes/caucuses occur. Once that starts happening, Barack Obama is going to win.

    Barack is going to win Iowa because he's got the best grassroots organization and passionate supporters.

    Barack is going to win New Hampshire because the independents will break his way.

    Barack is going to win South Carolina because black voters will come home to him.

    I'm less sure about Nevada, but he will probably win there too.

    October 6, 2007 07:10 pm at 7:10 pm |
  16. A. Thomas, New York, NY

    In a race between two New York politicians, New York voters stay with the party line and prefer Hillary Clinton over Rudy Giuliani by a twenty-five point margin, 58% to 33%.

    The former first lady is viewed favorably by 63% of New York voters, while America’s Mayor is viewed favorably by 47%.

    October 6, 2007 07:12 pm at 7:12 pm |
  17. Scott, Washington D.C.

    It is truly amazing that none of you see what is really going on. This blindness of our
    populous is really the problem with America. You actually believe
    that one of these candidates is different from another and that the
    two parties stand for different principles. Don't you see that the
    same people have been in power for decades and the changing of
    control in congress from one party to another is mere theatrics. If
    Hillary is elected, either a Clinton or a Bush will have been in the
    presidency for a minimum of 20 years! Many senators started back in the 1970's and keep getting re-elected. If
    you want our country back YOU have to stop putting the same people in power, remove the career
    politicians, introduce term limits on senators and sponsor true
    statesmen. Otherwise, the agenda of the status quo will continue as
    it has for the past 75 years. Learn your history people and stop
    repeating your mistakes...I beg this of you. Oh, and don't forget to
    wear your flag pin!

    October 6, 2007 07:39 pm at 7:39 pm |
  18. Daniel, NY

    This comes in the heels of last week's ABC poll which had Clinton above 50% for the first time. Link here.

    October 6, 2007 07:45 pm at 7:45 pm |
  19. Antony

    Polls mean nothing so far. They keep flip floping. They were very much for Hiallry before they were not so much for Hillary. See for yourself. I guess Obama just slashed Clinton's lead by 33% in one day.

    Democrats 2008: Hillary 40%, Obama 26%

    October 06, 2007

    (Angus Reid Global Monitor) – Hillary Rodham Clinton remains the most popular United States presidential contender for supporters of the Democratic Party, according to a poll by Ipsos-Public Affairs released by the Associated Press. 40 per cent of respondents would vote for the New York senator in a 2008 primary.

    Illinois senator Barack Obama is second with 26 per cent, followed by former North Carolina senator John Edwards with 12 per cent. Support is lower for New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, Delaware senator Joe Biden, and Connecticut senator Chris Dodd.

    October 6, 2007 08:04 pm at 8:04 pm |
  20. VanReuter NY NY


    You got your numbers wrong, which is typical of those who quote numbers without sources. If you follow this link to RCP, you will see that you are incorrect.


    There are many other places and sources to Hillary's increasing leads over the republicans, if you look for them.
    Hillary will clobber any of the current republican, "fatally flawed", crop. Bring 'em on!

    October 6, 2007 08:08 pm at 8:08 pm |
  21. Scott, Des Moines Iowa

    Edwards will win the Iowa caucuses with his widespread rural support and the realization that he is the ONLY candidate that can win "purple" states like Virginia, etc... He will then be swept to a New Hampshire primary victory when New Hampshirites look at him again after his Iowa victory. He just moved into second place in a South Carolina poll, and will win the state. The Nevada caucuses this time around are very different. Union members make up a large percentage of caucus goers. The service workers and carpenters are the two largest unions in Nevada. Since Edwards is who the union guy, he will carry that state too. The carpenters' union has already endorsed him. I actually praise the firefighters' union for choosing Dodd, even though it's most likely he won't win. They actually backed who they thought was the best. We all know HIllary is not the best for unions, and unionmembers know that. I'm tired of unions choosing Hillary just because they want to be with who the "winning" candidate will be. In January, they will see who the real winning candidate is. John Edwards.

    October 6, 2007 08:14 pm at 8:14 pm |
  22. Tony G, Dallas TX

    A. Thomas, New York, NY

    You must be smoking something. Dean was leading in almost all the states other than MA. We know how it went downhill. If that helps you in "dissing" the Hillary Kool-Aid, you are welcome.

    October 6, 2007 08:16 pm at 8:16 pm |
  23. laurinda,ny

    Giuliani isn't going to win in the Bible Belt. The Republicans there don't like him because he is pro abortion, etc. They want an independent nominee. He's finished. Plus he's a womanizer.

    October 6, 2007 08:46 pm at 8:46 pm |
  24. A. Thomas, New York, NY

    In a race between two New York politicians, New York voters prefer Hillary Clinton over Rudy Giuliani by a twenty-five point margin, 58% to 33%.

    The former first lady is viewed favorably by 63% of New York voters, while America’s Mayor is viewed favorably by 47%.

    October 6, 2007 10:22 pm at 10:22 pm |
  25. Stephen, Naples, Florida

    If Hillary is nominated maybe we can get the British to take us back.

    October 6, 2007 10:40 pm at 10:40 pm |
1 2