AP Poll: Republicans Divided, Hillary Still Leading

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 12:53:33 PM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The latest AP poll shows Republicans are divided about who to support for President.

The poll showed the contest remains a virtual tie between Giuliani, the former New York mayor, at 24 percent and Thompson, the actor and former senator from Tennessee, at 19 percent. Not far behind at 15 percent is McCain while former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has 7 percent.

The numbers were about the same in last month's poll. Who's supporting Giuliani and Thompson?

Giuliani and Thompson each had about a quarter of those over 50, white males and married men. They also each had about one-fifth of conservatives, Southerners and evangelicals.

As to the Democrats, Hillary's lead remains strong. Here are the numbers:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York has a clear, across-the-board lead in the Democratic race over Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois by 34 percent to 20 percent, roughly the margin she has enjoyed for months. Lagging behind was former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina at 10 percent, while another 12 percent had no preference.

Clinton's lead stretched even more when Democrats supporting former Vice President Al Gore, who has not said he will run, are divided among their second choices. Then, she is ahead of Obama by 43 percent to 23 percent, with Edwards at 13 percent.

< The Problem With Polls | Contraband Underpants Found at Guantanamo >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

AP Poll: Republicans Divided, Hillary Still Leading | 9 comments (9 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I simply cannot believe (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Jeff in Texas on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 01:05:48 PM EST

That at this epic, historical moment, with Republicans in disarray and the entire Bush/Cheney neocon vision of the world revealed as the morally bankrupt fraud that it is, that the most likely Democratic Presidential candidate is the person whose views on the powers of the Presidency and foreign policy most closely resemble Bush's. It is just incredibly depressing.

clinton voted for Reid/Feingold and (none / 0) (#2)
by oculus on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 01:09:30 PM EST

against the Capitulation bill. Here statements during the hearings w/the General and Ambassador support those votes. Her question didn't. If only she would speak up and lead, not just vote.

[ Parent ]

I think those votes... (none / 0) (#3)
by Jeff in Texas on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 02:23:28 PM EST

On bills that would have no chance of affecting anything simply blow smoke to obscure what her substantive positions are on the most pressing issues facing the country. She has never fully disowned her support for the Iraq debacle, she is providing no rhetorical cover (or, apparently, behind the scenes pressure) for a stronger stance from the Democratic Congressional leadership on executive overreach or the war, and her plan to "leave" Iraq apparently involves our basically staying there. On top of that, she seems pretty okay with the prospect of expanding the war to Iran. Given that there is an opportunity for a watershed election and break from the policies of the last 6 years, her being the leading Democratic candidate makes absolutely no sense.

[ Parent ]

: I do not disagree with you, although I haven't (4.00 / 1) (#4)
by oculus on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 02:28:32 PM EST

seen anything from her about going into Iran.

[ Parent ]

GOP break away from Bush or Loose in 08 (none / 0) (#5)
by Saul on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 03:16:24 PM EST

This what New Gingrich just said.

Republican presidential candidates need to make a "clean break" from President George W. Bush and the U.S. government or they will lose in November 2008, a veteran Republican leader said on Friday.

If you don't represent real change, you just gave away the 2008 election," said former House Speaker Newt Gingrich

So, he is running? (none / 0) (#6)
by oculus on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 03:29:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]

: one can only hope! (none / 0) (#7)
by cpinva on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 09:31:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]

figures don't lie, but... (none / 0) (#8)
by Lora on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 09:01:13 AM EST

From the linked article:

In contrast, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York has a clear, across-the-board lead in the Democratic race over Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois by 34 percent to 20 percent, roughly the margin she has enjoyed for months. Lagging behind was former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina at 10 percent, while another 12 percent had no preference.
Clinton's lead stretched even more when Democrats supporting former Vice President Al Gore, who has not said he will run, are divided among their second choices. Then, she is ahead of Obama by 43 percent to 23 percent, with Edwards at 13 percent.

From the first paragraph, 34% + 20% + 10% + 12% = 76% with 24% unaccounted for. Gore had how many percentage points? They didn't see fit to report that.

From the second paragraph, 43% + 23% + 13% = 79% with 21% unaccounted for.

Are we supposed to assume that Gore was responsible for 43% - 34% (Hillary's change in percentage points) + 23% - 20% (Obama's change in percentage points) = 13%...? That's substantial support for a candidate who isn't a candidate yet.

The article does not report Gore's percentage points, and also takes him right out of the running by splitting up his points between the other candidates, using the second choice for Gore only. Let's see what ALL those "second choice" percentages look like, and let the reader draw the conclusions, not the writer of the article. "Nice" way to influence the voters, eh?

It's early yet. The hype is pretty loud already.

Fund raising (none / 0) (#9)
by Natal on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 07:14:00 PM EST

Obama has more individual donors than Clinton. One would think there would be some sort of direct relationship to the number of support votes. But that isn't the case by a wide percentage margin. What am I missing here? Clinton supporters don't donate? Please help me understand.