RCP Average 11/01 to 11/20 - 44.5% 47.2% Clinton +2.7%
Rasmussen 11/19 - 11/20 800 LV 46% 42% Giuliani +4%
FOX News 11/13 - 11/14 900 RV 43% 47% Clinton +4%
Cook/RT Strategies 11/08 - 11/11 855 RV 43% 46% Clinton +3%
NBC/WSJ 11/01 - 11/05 1509 A 45% 46% Clinton +1%
CNN 11/02 - 11/04 929 RV 45% 51% Clinton +6%
USA Today/Gallup 11/02 - 11/04 938 RV 45% 51% Clinton +6%
Still shows Clinton beating Rudy. Edwards does far worse, and Obama slightly worse.
Besides Rudy can’t get the GoP nod for the nomination. Sure, Rudy vs Hilary is a very close race, but since Rudy won’t be in it, what does that matter?
When one looks at each of the GOP candidates in turn, it’s obvious that each of them in turn is incapable of winning the nomination. But the rules dictate that one of them will win anyway, so it could be Rudy.
And the reason to be concerned about that, if one is a Dem, is that Rudy polls better against the major Dems than any of his GOP rivals do. If Rudy isn’t the GOP nominee, the Dem almost certainly wins. If Rudy IS the GOP nominee, then I’d trust Hillary over the others to beat him in the fall.
We can have fun talking but at this point it’s ridiculous to be polling for who’ll win next November. The candidates are still competing against the other people in their own party. The only reasonable information we’re getting from polls now is who has the best shot at being nominated. When we’re down to two people after the conventions, then the campaigns will focus on each other and we’ll start getting real polling numbers about who’ll get elected.
What’s in her resume? ONE term as US Senator, and her presidential campaign was well in development before her second election as Senator. She was married to a president. Big whoop. She got to kibbitz in meetings and had pillow talk with the man in charge. Nobody voted for her, no departments answered to her, no policies were her official responsibility. She basically wrote a termpaper on health care and her proposals were DOA. And we can see the documentation of all her exploits as First Lady oh, say in 2009 or so. The empress has no clothes.
Yes, you’re wrong. Having Edwards on the ticket did NOTHING for John Kerry. Edwards couldn’t even deliver his home state of North Carolina, let alone any other Southern states.
Perhaps that’s a bit unfair- VERY few running mates of either party are ever popular enough to add many electoral votes to their parties’ columns. But John Edwards has shown absolutely no ability to connect with the so-called “NASCAR Dads” that the Democrats need.
Your opinion is almost certainly wrong since you cannot even get your facts straight.
Your opinion might carry more weight if you could at least spell the name of the candidate you are disparaging correctly (it’s “Barack”) and avoid misquoting or misrepresenting what he said (his quote about nuclear weapons referred to a particular circumstance regarding Al-Qaeda in Pakistan; it was an off-the-cuff response and not a policy position; and it was qualified by a follow-up remark “involving civilians.”) None of that qualifies Mr Obama as a pacifist. If you cannot correctly characterize what someone stands for, any “debate” belongs in IMHO.
I find Edwards to be the most progressive and liberal candidate. He is the only democrat in the disappointing debates to actually mention corporate capitalism and corruption. He is the only candidate that I believe sincerely wants some level of reform. As we all know, it takes more than ideas to win an election. It takes three billion, strategy, and mass appeal.