Hillary Under 50% vs. Ron Paul
by Patrick Ruffini :: October 29th, 2007 11:46 pmLike Brian Faughan, I think this is a very, very big deal. From Jim Geraghty:
Pollster Scott Rasmussen just shared this fascinating observation in an interview: When you average the head-to-head matchups with Hillary Clinton vs. any of the Republicans, she’s always getting 46 to 49 percent against any of them.
“When we polled her against Ron Paul, she got 48 percent of the vote. When we polled on Ron Paul among people who knew who Ron Paul is, she got 48 percent of the vote. When we polled among people who didn’t know who Ron Paul is, she got 48 percent percent of the vote.”
Paul got 38 percent against Hillary.
“In individual head-to-heads with Giuliani it’s essentially a toss up, Thompson trails a little, but they’re all close,” Rasmussen continued. “Clinton and Giuliani, in 11 polls, were within two points of 45 percent - basically ranging from 43 to 47 percent. It reminded me of Election 2004, where after Kerry won the nomination, for more than 60 days,” Kerry and Bush remained quite close to each other.
Listen to Geraghty on this. He was around in 2004. He understands the post-Bush dynamic better than anyone, where 4 points is a landslide. And this is the most compelling evidence I’ve seen that we’re back to the 50-50 divide that marked our politics from 2000-2006.
Basically, Republicans can run a stuffed animal against Hillary and still get 48% of the vote. Only worse. Ron Paul is widely despised by elements of the Republican base. A number of conservatives I know would bolt or sit on their hands if General Zod came down and made sure Ron Paul were the nominee. So what does it say he trails by 10 points? In 1996, the paleocon candidate Pat Buchanan won New Hampshire and he was the subject of a number of head to head polls against Bill Clinton. He got crushed by 25 points or more, and Clinton wasn’t even that popular at the time. And Pat Buchanan had communications skills, and a following in the conservative base.
In 2004, Kerry arose from a muddled field and evened the score with Bush almost overnight. At this point in ‘04, the named Democrat (Kerry, Dean, Clark, etc.) was losing to Bush by 10-15 points; the generic Dem by 6-7 points. The Republican field is similarly muddled this time, and not a lot of people are paying attention to the Republican race. So the Republican nominee has a good opportunity to pick up ground against Hillary post-February 5, who remains largely untested in this campaign. (Obama = $100 million audition for VP.) And she starts no better than even or up a few points against the major Republican candidates.
Hillary not breaking 50% against a guy who wants to abolish the Federal Reserve is a leading indicator of her fundamental weakness in the general election.
Tagged: 2008 
hillary clinton ron paul
Comments (13) 
Trackbacks (1) 
del.icio.us 
digg it 
subscribe
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
The reason Guliani gets a tossup is because he is a liberal, and us conservatives would probably just stay home. Ron Paul has the ONLY chance to take democrat votes away from Hilbillery
Let the warmongers sit on their bloody hands, they’ll only have themselves to blame when Hillary wins. They could support Ron Paul and take her down but it’s more likely they’ll try to blame Ron Paul for the Republican loss. Maybe it’s because the “top-tier” Reps and Dems within the entrenched establishment all belong to the same ring-clicking club and push the same scripted agenda.
I agree with a lot of what you wrote, but I do want to quibble with the Buchanan ‘96 / Paul ‘08 comparison. Buchanan was getting plenty of negative media in 1996 for being the paleocon is he, whereas Paul has been getting fairly positive press given that he is anti-war and an oddity, both things the media loves. He is kooky and has no real chance of winning, so they need not bash him.
I see no data which supports this poll at all… Do you? With that said lets look at what America wants.
America says we want out of Iraq. A CNN poll suggest nearly 71% support this plan, a Fox Poll suggests 67% a naitonal poll I think zogby (i don’t remember which national poll it was) is 70-73%
Clinton stated is she was pres the troops would be in Iraq until 2013.
Paul says “Just bring them home”
Who supports Ron Paul? The people do by virture of the naitonal request to bring the troops home. Paul is the only one who has pledged to bring them home asap.
Also a recent poll proves that Paul is beeting clinton in various agree brackets more so then any other GOP member.
Folks do your homeword, don’t trust all the data and decide for yourself.
One more thing our meet up group has over 320 who attend over 65% are GOP members and the rest are from the donkey world and other parties.
Ron Paul has the largest bipartisan support and I have foun d no poll which reflects this data.
IN the case of Clinton vs. Paul Rasmussen also reported the following:
October 23, 2007
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA—Public opinion service Rasmussen Reports recently released data from its October 12-14 polling that indicates that Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul leads his GOP opponents against Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton among likely voters ages 30-49. He is the leading White House contender for the key demographic, polling higher than Clinton among baby boomers. Congressman Paul polls in at 47 %, compared with Clinton’s 44%, among likely voters aged 40-49.
The 30-49 demographic has been a key indicator in recent elections, and one in which Republicans tend to fare well in hotly-contested elections. In 2004, exit polls reveal that George Bush beat John Kerry 53% to 46% among 30-44 year olds, and all accounts indicate that this will be the most instrumental demographic in the 2008 presidential election as well.
I support Ron Paul 100%.
IF you want to learn more about Ron Paul then visit his article section whereas he has provided hundreds of articles over the years with details of Abortion, Terror, etc.
Patrick -
Doesn’t Rudy or Romney putting a Southern, conservative woman on the ticket take the woman-thing out of play and make it very hard for Hillary to break that 48%? Not Condi, and Lynne Cheney might be pushing it, but Kay Bailey Hutchison? Certainly as qualified resume-wise as any of the top three Democrats. I don’t know much about her otherwise, but if the question is “Which woman?” maybe the answer isn’t Hillary.
“Basically, Republicans can run a stuffed animal against Hillary and still get 48% of the vote.”
Actually you’ve got that reversed. The Republicans can run a stuffed animal against Hillary and *she* will get 48% of the vote. In the (very) hypothetical matchup between Hill and Paul, the doctor got only 38% of the vote.
You might want to read the Constitution before slurping the Federal Reserve. The Constitution gives Congress, not a private institution like the Fed, the power to “coin money and regulate the value thereof”, and the Constitution prohibits the states from “making any thing other than gold or silver coin a tender”. Both Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson dismantled earlier incarnations of a “national bank”. Ron Paul will be the third president to do so. Have you enjoyed watching the Euro go from .80 to 1.40 in five years? If not, vote for Ron Paul.
Unfortunately it took segregationist Governor Wallace to reveal the truth that “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between” Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats willingly went along with the War in Iraq, suspension of Habeas Corpus, detaining protesters, banning books like “America Deceived’ from Amazon, stealing private lands (Kelo decision), warrant-less wiretapping and refusing to investigate 9/11 properly. They are both guilty of treason.
Support Dr. Ron Paul and sve this great country.
Last link (before Google Books bends to gov’t Will and drops the title):
http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-38523-0
I disagree with your argument. Rudy’s still unknown by much of the American public beyond his 9/11 performance; his negatives will undoubtedly go up to over 40 percent. Hillary’s are at their peak now and will probably go down as swing voters and moderates. And to say she’s not been tested is ridiculous. She’s survived 15 years of right-wing attacks, and now she’s being hit hard by her Dem opponents and the MSM, who clearly favor Obama (see Tim Russert). Rudy’s been getting a free ride in comparison. Frankly, I’m surprised she’s doing as well as she is against Rudy at this point.
What does it mean that the other Republicans only gwet a couple more points than Ron Paul against Senator Clinton? What means is that 38% of the electorate will vote for any republican over Senator Clinton (or any other Democrat). And that’s all he would get in general election as he wouldn’t get any independents to vote for him when they knew what his positions were.
To those who think any Dems will vote for Ron Paul - please remember that Paul is first and foremost a libertarian - and only secondly an anti-war advocate. No Dem wants to vote to abolish social services. Dems believe that taxes are vital to maintaining the social infrastructure that allows our society to function. Paul believes that we would all be better off as every man for themselves. Paul would be satisfied to see a Greater division of wealth, More corporate influence, and No social services. This is so far outside of mainstream American political thought it is laughable. Sure, Paul is right about the war, but even Hitler was right on an occasion.
Phil, it’s time that you accept the fact that Ron Paul is on his way to the Republican nomination because he is the only candidate with integrity. The American people have been sleeping for many years and voting (or refusing to vote) for the lesser of two evils. Finally, we have a solid, well-educated candidate who is getting people who have never been involved in politics excited about a presidential election.
I’m 33 and I’ve never donated to a presidential campaign in my life, never paid attention to primaries, and never paid attention to presidential election until it was down to two people. Ron Paul is that uncanny candidate who is exciting both Republicans and Democrats about the possibility of having a REAL choice in 2008. To me, he’s the clear front runner and I am proud to donate to his campaign and watch his support grow daily.
However, it is also fascinating and eye opening to watch Fox News bend over backwards to diminish his support. This year has been a great lesson in how controlled our mainstream media really is. I’m not going to allow anyone in the media to tell me who the front runners are this time.
I’ve been doing my own research online and talking to many people; the overwhelming evidence proves that Ron Paul is NOT “kooky” as Steven says above and is exactly what America needs to restore our respect throughout the world, strengthen the US dollar by ending the out-of-control spending and dependency on China buying up our debt, and bringing integrity and honor back to the White House.
If Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination and the American people are actually exposed to him and learn what he stands for, there’s no way that he can lose against Hillary.
Thank you for listening,
Matt
Say what you like about Ron Paul, but at least he is an honest man with integrity - which to me is more important than anything else. Yes he says some stuff that doesn’t go over well - but that just shows how he acts according to his principles, and doesn’t pander to get votes.
Cleaning up Washington is more important than anything else - and America is more important than Iraq.
[…] The Influence Peddler and Patrick Ruffini think yesterday’s revelation - that Hillary gets 48 percent against Ron Paul, including 48 percent among those who know who Ron Paul is, and 48 percent against those who don’t know who he is - is worth more attention. […]