Thompson Ties Clinton in Rasmussen 2008 Election Poll
This poll is definitely a watershed:
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds New York Senator Hillary Clinton (D) tied with former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson (R) in an Election 2008 match-up. Both candidates attract support from 45% of voters. Given a Clinton-Thompson match-up, 5% of voters say they’d pull the lever for some other candidate and 4% are not sure.
Lower in the report, one reason why this is happening is that Clinton has more of the highest negatives than any other candidate. AND:
The survey also found Clinton holding a four-point advantage over former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (R), 46% to 42%. In that match-up, 9% would prefer some other candidate and 3% are not sure. The survey was conducted June 27-28, 2007, just before the July 4th holiday festivities began to unfold.
Compared to our previous survey of these matchups, conducted early in June, Clinton has lost a net five points against both Thompson and Romney. In May, Clinton led both of these GOP hopefuls by three points.Clinton has consistently been atop the national polls for the Democratic Presidential nomination. She also leads solidly in New Hampshire, attracting more support from women than all the other candidates combined.
Among those seeking the Republican Presidential nomination, Thompson has recently vaulted to the top of the polls and holds a narrow lead over former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R). Romney is currently in a battle for third place with Arizona Senator John McCain (R) in the national polls, but Romney has a nine-point edge in New Hampshire.
Some thoughts:
(1) Thompson is still at the stage where he’s supported because he hasn’t been in the race and is still a kind of blank slate on which people can draw what they believe him to be. The problem for Thompson is that his other Republican and Democratic rivals are very soon going to start drawing some things themselves on that slate to influence voters. And he’s also going to have to start participating in debates where not only his ideas will be on trial, but how he performs in a less-scripted atmosphere (even though “debates” are where candidates now regurgitate on cue the talking points prepared for them by their staffs, in most cases).
(2) Clinton remains a flawed candidate. When pundits say that, they’re immediately accused of hating Hillary Clinton — but she remains a flawed candidate. That’s a political reality that even her staff knows and is working on. She has high unfavorables and there are many lingering doubts about her. And she is going to have to beat back or neutralize them rather quickly with new, enduring positives. It’s kind of like the idea of hypnosis: hypnosis cannot undo the “negative tapes” in your mind, but it can insert new “positive tapes” in your mind that override the negative ones. Clinton also walks on the shakiest tightrope of all the candidates with the exception of Arizona Senator John McCain who has fallen off his political tightrope and is quickly tumbling towards political-sudden-death earth.
(3) Many Democrats remain over-confident. It is not going to be enough for the party to be the anti-Bush or a candidate to be the anti-Bush or anti-Republican. A Democratic candidate is going to have to have a solid, specific, uplifting and positive message that needs to be laid out for the nation — and backed by solid, nuts-and-bolts political machinery with a unified party focused on the need to win.
And even with all of this, you have to throw in the potential political wildcard of one or even two major independent party candidacies that will siphon some votes away from the major parties.
So, more and more, 2008 seems to be an upcoming election in which all of the smug, all-knowing assurance of experts need to be taken with a big grain of salt (except perhaps in the case of Larry Sabato — who MUST have a real crystal ball..)
opinions powered by SendLove.to
41 Responses to “Thompson Ties Clinton in Rasmussen 2008 Election Poll”
Hillary is the definition of a hack.
Of course, this means the Ds will nominate her, unlike someone fresh- like Obama, someone with detailed ideas- like Edwards, or someone with eminent qualifications (if charisma challenged) like Richardson.
Thus, those of us who hate hacks will seek alternatives- Greens, Nader, Bloomberg, and the Ds will whine that we don’t care about our country, and that we ‘cost’ them their God-given (yes!) right to run the country.
[...] Joe Gandelman has some good things to say on this.  But the bottom line is that Thompson really, at this point, is more of a cypher – he represents a “none of the above” vote relative to the other GOP candidates. He has no place to go but down as he has to commit to actual policy. [...]
Hillary Clinton is not the definition of a hack. I see no evidence that she is more interested in power for personal use than for the public good. As to D’s whining if certain elements support Nader or other like him if she is nominated, you would have thought that you would have learned your lesson with W on that one but maybe not. Maybe you need W II before you wake up.
Jammer:
Watch Hillary speak, watch the debates. She has no new ideas, she has no vision. She has nothing but her husband’s coattails. That is the definition of a hack.
One would have thought folk like you would have learnt your lessons after nominating hacks like Gore and Kerry.
That’s why W is!
Hillary simply has the most bad baggage, by far, followed by Edwards (merely a smooth-talking smiley-faced BSer) and Obama (a typical Blue Nation metro area politician with a “fresh face” [tm]).
Right now it’s easy for those on the left to be smug and assume it’s still too good to be true for the Dems — but you never know. If the GOP needs another desperation brand-name candidate in 2008, don’t be surprised if Jeb Bush comes to the rescue. (“But you said you weren’t going to run for the Presidency!” “Circumstances Have Changed…I have been drafted by America”)
DLS- I’ve watched the Ds and Rs debate. Edwards is by far, the most substantive candidate out there. He’s been running for Prez since ’03. Like him or not, there’s no one else even close.
But, Hillary will likely get it, for the Ds have a masochistic streak the size of Texas.
“Hack”? What does that even mean?
Hillary has been subjected to polymorphous hostility from the likes of Rush Limbaugh since 1992. “Hack” is one of their milder criticisms. So mild, perhaps, that even a moderate might use it.
Why are Edwards or Richardson–or Nader, for God’s sake–less hackesque than Hillary?
Why are Romney or Giuliani or McCain or Fred Thompson less hacky?
Reflecting on this as purely a case study in political science, one wonders if the “blank slate” isn’t a remarkably effective new approach in this cynical age? As with many things, “conventional wisdom” sometimes runs itself out of value and the counterintuitive approach works surprisingly well. I’m not heralding its intrinsic value, merely its pragmatic value.
I will hasten to add, Joe, while Thompson himself has only spoken so far in broad themes, you are incorrect to believe the negative “drawing” hasn’t already been out there in full force for at least a month.
Crooks and Liars, Oliver Willis, the NYT, ThinkProgress, HuffPo….and all the other usual suspects for this task…….have been averaging about 2 “negative” stories per week, without holding back on any of the typical hyperbole. If he is succeeding so well despite their best efforts, going “blank” may well put a whole lot of people out of a campaign consulting paycheck.
George: I defined hack- ‘She has no new ideas, she has no vision. She has nothing but her husband’s coattails. That is the definition of a hack.’
Obama and Edwards- like them or not, at least have a vision and ideas. Hillary offers zero, but a return to the narcoleptic 90s, which led to the disastrous 00s.
Of course in the general election any Democratic candidate can remind Democratic and Independent voters that Thompson supports a complete pardon for Scooter Libby. It won’t do wonders for Thompson’s reputation outside of the hardcore Republican base.
JS-I can’t help but notice your continual negative tirade against Thompson these past two months. (?)Point in fact, Thompson’s support for LIbby was well-publicized long before (since late March/early April) Bush’s action. But, here’s to hope springing eternal for whatever your cause may be.
Deep-thinking political wonks have to learn to separate events that are a big deal to them and a big deal to the guy trying to get rid of the crabgrass from his lawn. Scooter Libby will be wrapped around the 4th of July barbeque plate cleanings and will rest in peace in the trashcan.
What is it with Republicans and actors?
Fantasy over reality?
both Hillary and Thompson will have some ‘splaining to do over the pardon issue. Thompson because he voted to impeach Clinton for the very same offenses that Libby was convicted of when he was in the Senate. Hillary because some of Bill’s last minute pardons were in the friend, relative and campaign donor categories.
Um, I don’t know whether Democrats outnumber Republicans among actors by 10 to 1 or 50 to 1, but I’m pretty sure it’s somewhere in there….
cosmoetica–
Then please define “vision”.
Does George W. Bush have a vision?
Is that what’s made the 00′s so disastrous?
Jimmy Carter was a bumbling, fumbling nitwit and yet
A week before the Election is was a statistical dead heat when turing to the polls.
Pulling the lever is different the saying how you might vote over the phone.
Yet the 08 election is not a given for the democrats for one simple fact. No matter how bad Bush has been those who lean conservative know he will be gone and that the next GOP nominee might bring hope.
That’s true enough- George W Bush is a bumbling fumbling nitwit- yet polls showing Gore and Kerry beating him in 2000 and 2004 turned out to be oddly wrong (of course he did have a little help winning both of those elections)
Right of course we all know republicans steal every election. This one will be no different. The little green men from Alpha Centuari is 4 light years away.
Anyone every wonder about that? They send a new crew every 4 years and they just happen to get here around the first of november every 4 years.
It’s an interesting thing…but Thompson has nowhere to go but down. He’s not yet a candidate, hasn’t had to be held accountable, and nobody’s hit him up on being lazy and a Washington insider. Once he has to let himself be pinned down on actual policy questions, he’ll sink. Thompson’s popularity is really a reflection of the desire for “none of the above” on the major candidates.
Someone above said that Fred Thompson represents “none of the above” among Republicans. I don’t think so. But he does do better against the probable Dem candidate because he actually is a more-or-less principled conservative=Reagan in the eyes of a lot of hopeful people. Read “Her Way” or the other Clinton bio and find out how many ways and on how many levels Clinton Inc. will be horrible for this country.
I know Richardson personally and think he has the competence. I wonder if he can stop doing the Biden schtick of open-mouth, insert-foot.
Fred Thompson = Nixon mole during Watergate hearings, what a legacy – and look at what he has accomplished during his 12 years in the Senate once a little light shines on FT, he will go way down
Sorry. I still refuse to put that much weight to a mid-summer poll 16 months away from the general election (when IF they are the candidates, they would face each other)
We are still 6 months away from the start of the primary season, and that picture is far from clear for either party.
These polls are just mental masturbation for political junkies.
George-
Vision is having a coherent view of aims and how to achieve them, usually uplifting. No, W lacks vision.
‘Right of course we all know republicans steal every election. ‘
No just those two- George W Bush is used to having the deck stacked in his favor- that’s why he has done everything he could to ignore Congress and amass presidential power under his constitutional role as Commander-in-chief. I honestly think that the main reason he picked Cheney was that Cheney was an old hand in Washington and knew how to get around Congress, the Constitution and the president’s own Cabinet, in a way that Bush could never have managed on his own.
Oh well, OT again, lol.
of course he did have a little help winning both of those elections
Yes, indeed. (No, we’re not talking about all-too-true Democratic election fraud.)
1. Gore proceeded to lose the election at the end of the campaign, beginning with the debates. (Once Gore managed to lose the debates, the public then began to think Bush might actually win, which he then did. The Democrats’ disgusting tactics after the loss vindicated morally those who chose Bush.)
2. Kerry had long established himself as part of the Democratic party’s left wing, and he is from Massachusetts, both sources of the politics and the ideology most alien and antithetical to America and to Americans. Kerry was the candidate non-liberals dreamed would be chosen to run against Bush. It was even worse for the challenger than when [ugh] Bob Dole was run against an otherwise-doomed, held-in-contempt-by-Americans Bill Clinton in 1996.
(Romney is from Massachusetts. DQ!)
DLS- Yes the last 7 years have vindicated your excellent choice all right—8)
That’s what happened in 2000 once Gore lost the debates(!!!). Those who really didn’t want Gore to win, and were assuming Gore would win and were preparing for Gore to win, were totally surprised and uplifted. Bush won the debates! He really could win the election! (Which he eventually did.)
Democrats may consider their prospects better than ever in 2008, better than Gore’s in 2000 against a desparation candidate. Too good to be true. Just don’t get too cocky, Dem kids. This time, try to calm down and follow through and cash in the odds.
If the Dems lose again, will they and left activists soil themselves again by trying to steal again what they lost as in 2000?
Cosmo:
That is scary.
There were a lot of voting ahem irregularities in Ohio (remember Sec of State Ken Blackwell?) in 04 and in Florida in ’00- where the president’s brother had promised to deliver the state, and where the Sec of State was none other than the certifiable Katherine Harris. Daddy’s friend Jim Baker went down to make sure nothing went wrong for Sonny. When the Fla courts sided with Gore- the “activist” SCOTUS split 5-4 Conserv-liberal.
K. Ritter:
Hillary will say that this is an “ugly partisan attack” by “extremists” who are “attacking the past because they offer the American people the wrong future.”
And the media will nod their heads up and down.
Next issue!
2000: Florida court misbehaved, Supreme Court ended the games.
Mine was an anti-Gore, anti-Dem choice.
Last 7 years? You know I’m awake and aware and that I’m often saying “President Clinton” in preparation for the eventual result of that choice.
By the way, was the Clinton-Thompson comparison done before or after the commutation of Scooter Libbby’s sentence (and the White House warning it would not refuse to pardon Libby in the future)?
The previous eight years she was co-President gave us plenty of warning.
The Florida courts broke the law? I thought conservatives believed in a minimum of federal interference in the state’s business. Remember there was only a 500 vote difference between the two candidates. What’s the plan for ’08? lol
DLS- I don’t know when the poll was done- but the way I look at is this. Mrs. Clinton has had her dirty laundry aired- you like her or you don’t. Thompson confuses people that he’s a combo of Arthur Branch and Ronald Reagan. Who he really is, and why he wants to run- no one even knows. So its way too early for these kind of poll results.
If you believe campaign funds count though, we will either have a Madam Clinton or a President Obama- as he raised twice as much as Giuliani did in the same time period.
And DLS- you can really say with a straight face that you are pleased with the results of your votes??? I’d be embarassed to admit I voted for such an incompetent man (even if her were a Democrat)
Jason.
My ‘Republicans and actors; comment was JOKE!!!
Lignten Up!
We have months and months of outlandish comments ahead of us. Just check this thread.
I don’t care for Thompson because when I look at him I just see a slicker, somewhat brighter GWB. Southern Good Old Boy with a nice far right wing agenda that he hides underneath the jovial mask. If I wanted more Supreme Court justices like Roberts and Alito I could just push for Dubya to be eligible again.
The Rasmussen Poll actually had Thompson tied with Hillary two months ago. It was only last month that Hillary took a slight lead. No other poll shows Romney anywhere near Hillary, however, which suggests that this poll is picking up a stronger anti-Hillary vote than other polls.
I certainly hope Democratic primary voters go with Obama and not HIllary. The Tennessee primary is on the mega-super primary day so we’ll probably have a good idea where things are going by that point.
cosmoetica–
I guess your meaning is a little clearer.
But I’m not really looking for uplift. I’m looking for someone to clean up the mess.
Jim S- Thompson was a career lobbyist before he was a Senator- he’s as much of a Washington insider as anyone is here. But he’s going to run as an outsider that wants to clean up Washington- a good ol boy with a red pickup truck. Because men in the GOP identify with someone who hates Washington.
Bush lost his first political race when he ran as who he was- an east coast elitist with money. He came up with the Texas personna, bought the ranch- dropped his g’s and r’s and never lost another election.
We are being sold a product- so shop carefully- its a fake.
Exactly, kritter. Whatever his personality is I recognize what kind of politician he is and what kind of policies he would push for, which would just be more of what we got with Bush.
DLS:
Edwards is by far, the most substantive candidate
That is scary.
It is, because all the rest are hacks. Every republican, and all the Dems- save Obama & Richardson. Obama has not shown much substance, except picking off plans by Edwards, and Richardson has substance, but the charisma of a lamprey.