Widgetized Section

Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone

Hillary, Rudy still hold leads

By
April 10, 2007

041007hillary.jpgLatest polling in the 2008 White House campaign shows Hillary Clinton (left) leading a three-way race for the Democratic nomination, while Rudolph Giuliani heads the Republican field, with former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney showing early signs of a surge.

While opinion surveys are simply long-range indicators nine months before first nominating contests, they do serve to set perceptions of the race in the media and among likely voters, and spotlight trends that can be used by campaign chiefs to sharpen tactics.

New York Senator Clinton appears to be maintaining the lead in national polls that she has had for months.

A Time magazine national opinion survey in late March gave her the support of 31 percent of voters, compared to 24 percent for rising star Senator Barack Obama and 16 percent for defeated 2004 vice presidential nominee John Edwards.

The latest Fox News poll had her at 36 percent ahead of Obama with 18 percent support and Edwards back on 13 percent. Rasmussen last week put the race at 33 percent for Clinton, 26 percent for Obama and Edwards at 17 percent.

But when the focus turns to the key states of Iowa and New Hampshire, the race appears much tighter, and Clinton consequently more threatened.

After months of intense campaigning in Iowa, and several weeks after revealing that cancer had returned to haunt his wife Elizabeth, John Edwards led Clinton in a University of Iowa poll conducted between March 19 and 31, earning the support of 34 percent of likely voters, compared to the former first lady’s 29 percent. Obama trailed with 19 percent.

His lead in the state, the first to weigh in on the nominating process next January, was confirmed by a Strategic Vision poll last week, which pegged him at 27 percent compared to Obama on 20 percent and Clinton in third on 19 percent.

In the other key early voting state, New Hampshire, Clinton appears to be holding on to a steady, yet small lead.

A Zogby poll had Clinton at 29 percent last week, with Obama and Edwards tied at 23 percent. A CNN survey had Clinton on 27 percent, followed by Edwards with 21 percent and Obama with 20 percent support among likely New Hampshire primary voters.

All other Democratic candidates lagged well behind.

On the Republican side, Giuliani is at the head of the national race, well ahead of former front-runner John McCain and Romney, according to polls.

The ex-mayor of New York stacked up 34 percent support in a Cook Report/RT Strategies poll up to April 1. McCain had 17 percent followed by former senator and television actor Fred Thompson, who is mulling a White House bid with 10 percent. Romney came in fourth with six percent, behind former House of Representatives speaker Newt Gingrich, who is also thinking of running and had nine percent support.

In Iowa, Giuliani was leading the field in a Strategic Vision poll, nine months before the caucuses, with 25 percent, ahead of McCain with 20 percent. Thompson had 11 percent support. Romney had eight percent and Gingrich had six percent.

An average of several recent Iowa polls on the Republican side by independent political website Real Clear Politics had the race led by Giuliani, with 25 percent of the vote, McCain with 22 percent, Romney with 11 percent, Thompson with nine percent and Gingrich with five percent.

McCain was clinging on to a lead in New Hampshire, at 27 percent, in an average of polls taken in the state over the last month, ahead of Giuliani on 24 percent, Romney on 20 percent and Thompson on 6.3 percent.

But in a poll published last week by Zogby, Romney had rocketed into a tie to lead New Hampshire with McCain, doubling his support to 25 percent, followed by Giuliani with 19 percent.

Most of the Republican polling was however conducted before Romney shot to the top of the party’s fundraising race last week, raising more than 21 million dollars in the first three months of the year compared to Giuliani’s 15 million and McCain’s 12.5 million.

The money advantage could help Romney, who is vying to become America’s first Mormon president, increase his visibility and improve his opinion poll numbers.

Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse

12 Responses to Hillary, Rudy still hold leads

  1. Lawerence Boyd

    April 11, 2007 at 11:01 pm

    To be honest, I didn’t know much about Ron Paul until I read about him at http://www.ronpaul2008.com. Also being honest, I was impressed with his voting record since he’s been a player in the political arena, not that I agree with everything. However,
    he looks to me to be the best that Republicans have to offer. Rudy, has too many skeletons, Mitt, God only knows what’s going on with him? He looks like he will probably be the republican nomination because McCain’s steadfast approval and support of the Iraq war will do him in. Its hard to believe that he (McCain) just dosen’t get it. That America wants out of Iraq and we do not want to send more troops over there to die in a war that we never should have gotten involved in.
    It’s really too bad for you guys because he’s (Paul) basically a nobody in the Republican Presidental field.
    If he could somehow win the Republican nomination, he might be able to give the Democratic selection and eventual President Hillary Clinton a challenge.

    Eddie C.

    I believe I’ve heard Hillary say many times since she announced her intention to run for the Oval Office that if President Bush does not put an end to the war in Iraq, that when she becomes President, she will. What more do you want?

  2. Pondering_It_All

    April 12, 2007 at 12:15 am

    Edwards, Obama, Clinton, or Giuliani: Any of them would be at least 1000 times better than the current set of scoundrels we have in the White House. I’m looking forward to 2008 as a new era in which American begins cleaning some of the slime off our reputation around the world and returns to the Constitutional Republic form of government.

    Personally, I hope the Democrats run the most electable combination (Edwards/Obama) and that the Republicans run the least electable (Romney/Gingrich or vice versa). I have nothing against MS. Clinton and I am sure she would be very competent, but she has such a load of baggage that I think she would draw few independant or crossover votes. Edwards/Obama could get a lot of those votes, if the Republicans oblige them with the right combination of candidates that cause offense to key portions of their strange coalition.

  3. voodoo

    May 14, 2007 at 9:55 am

    serduchka forever

  4. Jim

    April 10, 2007 at 6:44 am

    I am pulling for Edwards/Obama ticket. I will vote for Hillary but I would much prefer Edwards.

    So far on the Republican side, there is noone who would get my vote. I am a little attracted to Duncan Hunter, but he has some views that I dislike.

  5. EddieC

    April 10, 2007 at 8:38 am

    Is this country so devoid of sense and honor that we would REALLY nominate candidates that support the war in Iraq? (Hillary, Rudy, etc)? Have we learned nothing? To paraphrase Joseph Welch: “Until this moment, America, I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency?”

  6. Pamela Cosmo

    April 10, 2007 at 9:14 am

    I wonder why it is that when candidates for the presidency are covered there is no mention of the one Republican candidate that never supported the war in Iraq: Rep. Ron Paul. Here is one of the few candidates of either party who really has a handle on both foreign policy, fiscal responsibility, immigration, corporate globalism, and resource depletion. Coverage in the press? None. It figures.

  7. Sandy Price

    April 10, 2007 at 10:03 am

    The Republican National Committee will endorse, support and finance only candidates who will work for a prohibition on abortion, gay marriages, stem cell research and death with dignity. The RNC is the party of police state giving the federal government total control over all American people.

    In 2000 a false support for Candidate Bush appeared and the message went out that only the Republican Party stood for “family values.” The voters bought it and we were in a war almost immediately.

    Family values come from the family not the federal government. Hmmmmm, sounds like a good title for a commentary doesn’t it?

  8. Carl Nemo

    April 10, 2007 at 11:14 am

    So now she’s the lead “dud”…!:)) I guess the old expression holds true in her case “in the land of the blind the woman with one eye is queen”…?!

  9. Lawerence Boyd

    April 10, 2007 at 10:04 pm

    Listen, the way George Bush and his administration lied to the Senate, Congress and the House as well as the American people, it should come as no suprise that millions of people were fooled by that egotistical, pompass jerk that we call Commander and Chief. Regardless of what you may think of Hillary, she is after all, human.
    She was fooled just like most of us, including myself. When you can get a man like C. Powell to come before the masses and tell them that there was definite proof of WOMD and that Saddam was preparing or prepared to use them, I wanted us to go to war to protect our way of life. And, from a personal standpoint I hate everything about George Bush. I am a democrat from Florida, and thats all I need to say.
    But after all the lies from the Bush Administration trying to connect Saddam with Bin Laden as our reason now for going to war in Iraq, it makes me sick.
    Hillary has said several times that if she knew then what she knows now she would not have voted for us to go to war in Iraq. Obviously the majority of the American feel that way. Just look at Bush’s overall approval and what happened in the last election.
    But you know what really says it all to me? I’ve been having a hard time lately finding anyone that I know personally to own up to voting for Bush!!!!

    Nuff said!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  10. EddieC

    April 11, 2007 at 7:59 am

    Lawerence, I’m not dissing Hillary because of her vote for the war. I’m dissing Hillary because of her continuing support of the war.

  11. mojibyrd

    April 11, 2007 at 6:19 pm

    All i got to say is yuck, yuck and yuck, what a pathetic trio to choose from…can the american people not realize they have a lot better choice in Rep. Ron Paul from Texas a true american patriot….go Ron Paul…see http://www.ronpaul2008.com and get on the right path

  12. Ray

    April 11, 2007 at 6:47 pm

    Anyone who votes for Hilliary, Rudy, Obama, McCain, etc are suffering delusions. There is but one honest, uncorrupted, patriotic, american who believes in America, has served his duty, who is experienced, who believes in the constitution and the bill of rights, and has an honorable track record of true representation of the people. Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who is true blue american. He hasn’t sold his soul to any corporation or bought into world order. If you people truly want honest leaders then don’t go for the big spenders unless youre stupid and don’t realize that campaign money is not free. Hiliary is the next president unless wisdom makes a huge comeback in america and people wise up to the repeated scam of bush clinton domination of america.