A new Zogby Poll is out and what’s interesting is it still doesn’t show that much movement in the presidential derby. Giuliani continues to lead the Republicans with McCain a surprisingly distant second (although Romney and F. Thompson are practically neck and neck with McCain…. What does this mean when F. Thompson enters officially?). On the Dem side, no big movement either. Hillary still leads comfortably over Obama with “John of Edwards” (if that sounds like a hair salon, it’s deliberate) luffing in the rear.
What’s significant in this poll is the potential power of Obama in a general election. He is evidently quite popular with swing/independent voters. He defeats the Republican leaders in head-to-head polling. Hillary does not.
Looking down the list, it’s worth noting that Mike Huckabee is creeping up on the Republican side. He is a candidate with practically no money or organization, but is acquitting himself very well in the early debates and TV appearances. He seems to have quite a bit of wit and grace.
Huckabee is now at four percent. Compare this with Ron Paul (still under one percent here and on Gallup) whose supporters continue to bombard Pajamas Media like so many lemmings on steroids. It’s an oldie… but maybe they should have a look at this book.
What does this mean when F. Thompson enters officially?)
It’s easy for him right now as he can stay above the fray and choose the issues he wishes to talk about. Once he’s been in the race he can’t dodge awkward questions and issues.
I’d be interested to see how Newt Gingrich would do. I wouldn’t say I like him but he’s intelligent, confident, and well spoken. After 8 years of one of the most inarticulate men to ever hold office the GOP could do with a leader who can speak in sentences.
That should be: Once he’s in the race he can’t dodge awkward questions and issues.
I was having a George Bush moment.
Can’t dodge awkward questions? Over the last six months he’s written a position paper on just about every controversial subject known by using blogs and op-eds. Is Iraq important? Yes. Does the Second Amendment protect the individual right to bear arms? Yes. Is Hollywood morally bankrupt? Yes. The list goes on.
This is the longest election cycle in history. I applaud FDT for staying out until the people are ready to start thinking about it.
But Thompson is doing it on his own terms. He’s not having to be questioned on TV or debates on subjects chosen by others.
Well someday Thompson the man will have to reconcile his voting record while Senator with the stands he takes today. And so long as he just writes articles, he controls the narrative. I would still vote for him against any Democrat out there, but it was not so long ago he was taking flak for calling for bipartisan cooperation. As if that were a sin.
But over all, I would take a Zogby poll with a grain of salt. Especially now.
Coisty:
Newt is also one of the most disliked men in America.
I checked Thompson’s conservative rating, it is at 86% which is pretty close to McCain’s. But I think the following link might give us an idea as to the kind of questions Thompson would face if he were actually in the race.
He supported McCain/Feingold and worked with Diane Feinstein on an to the bill.
I don’t think that is a big deal, but there are some zealots out there who might. He does have a strong pro life record.
Let me try that link again. Amendment to McCain Feingold
Here is another link. This is one is on Thompson’s voting record Immigration is mixed to say the least. But that was then, and then is now. I think the 1997 vote might have been part of the welfare reform.
I thought that McCain-Feingold was an act of zealotry.
This is a really long electoral season. Politics has turned into the NBA (but go Pistons!-ed). Given the length of this, which candidate will wear well?
Newt has a history of grating on people, although he’s less the bomb thrower today that he once was. It’s hard to imagine he could win a general election though.
Obama is an empty canvas. Until people learn more about him, he will receive kudos in polls because his supporters feel good about themselves by supporting him. At present the vote for Obama is like saying, “Gee, I must be a good person–I support Obama.” His support depends upon this at present (and the anti-Hillary vote). How he adjusts to having people know him better (Is he the Oakland of politics—there’s no there there or is he the real deal?) will be telling.
Actually, there are many unknown unknowns (to coin a phrase) out there. How well the various candidates handle a shifting terrain will be telling. There is a world of difference between pulling out of Iraq and what that political landscape will look like vs. seeing the surge being effective and a sense of optimism returning in Spring ’08 and what that political landscape would look like. These human beings will have to react to change and adjust to events they cannot manage or control. I think that many of them will hang in for a very long time. But we will probably be more familiar with whomever wins than anyone who has assumed office.
Barry:
I agree. Too soon to tell. Anything can happen.
Gore could into the race.
That is just what we need. Head preacher of the church of Global Warming.
“Compare this with Ron Paul (still under one percent here and on Gallup)”
Actually Paul was at an astounding 0% on the last Gallup Poll. 0%, (that’s zero, nobody picked him).
Only an idiot would make a prediction this early in the race. However, in the opinion of this idiot, Romney is the cream of the crop and will win in a walk.
He has taken the right position on all of the issues and he expresses himself as well as, or better than, anyone. As for looking Presidential he looks like he’s from Central Casting.
The only drawback is his religion. Since Joseph Smith was about as genuine a prophet as Mohammed only time will tell whether this will prove to be too much of an obstacle. I hope not as Mitt would roll over Hillary.
Huckabee was on Fox today, a Chris Wallace interview. I thought he did very well. I like his push on “Fair Tax”. Also wish he wasn’t from Arkansas.
While I like Huckabee’s desire to fix the tax system, he lost me on the immigration issue.
Wallace asked Huckabee about his support for in-state tuition for the children of illegal aliens, as well as a host of other benefits he backed when he was governor of Arkansas.
The GOP candidate’s response?
“You don’t punish a child for the crimes of the parent.”
Really? When I send a father to prison (Did I mention I’m a D.A.?) because he committed a crime, his children lose a parent; their income goes down; their standard of living declines. Those innocent children are not allowed to keep the stolen loot their father had, even though the property — cash, guns, drugs — could be sold and the cash used to enrich their lives.
How is that materially different from saying that the children of illegal aliens — whose parents broke the law by crossing our border, jumping to the head of the line, cheating those foreign nationals who have patiently, lawfully waited their turn — shouldn’t be deprived the benefits of their parents’ ill-gotten gains.
Scratch this fellow from the list of Stupid Party candidates I’d consider.
Good point, Mike. Scholarships are out there for the needy and qualified. Citizens paying out-of-state tuition have a large gripe about the program mentioned.