Rasmussen general poll. McCain, Guiliani vs Gore,Clinton,Obama

[cnlst8]

John McCain vs Al Gore
Rudy Guiliani vs Gore
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Presidential%20Match-Ups/McCainGore.htm
McCain 48% - Gore 41%
Guiliani 47% - Gore 44%

McCain is viewed favorably by 55% of voters and unfavorably by 37%. For Giuliani, the numbers are 63% favorable and 27% unfavorable
Opinion concerning Al Gore is more evenly divided—47% favorable and 48% unfavorable

McCain vs Hillary Clinton
Guiliani vs Clinton
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Presidential%20Match-Ups/presidentClintonvMcCainvGiuliani.htm
McCain 48% - Clinton 43%
Guiliani 46% - Clinton 46%

Clinton is viewed favorably by 52% of voters, unfavorably by 48%. For McCain, the numbers are 56% favorable and 36% unfavorable. Giuliani earns favorable ratings from 64% and unfavorable opinions from 27%.

McCain vs Barrack Obama
Guiliani vs Obama
Mitt Romney vs Obama
Mike Huckabee vs Obama
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Presidential%20Match-Ups/ObamavGiulianiandMcCain.htm
McCain 47% - Obama 39%
Guiliani 48% - Obama 39%
Mitt Romney 33% - Obama 48%
Mike Huckabee 31% - Obama 50%

Forty-six percent (46%) have a favorable opinion of Obama while 29% have an unfavorable view.

[Clarkie1]

1. If we wish to have a good chance of winning in 08', our choices are clearly limited. nt

[stepnw1f]

2. Rasmussen Has No Credibility Here

Just thought I'd let ya know.

[cnlst8]

5. why?

I don't like the results myself, but it doesn't mean the results can't be untrue. Rasmussen was the most accurate public polling firm (for Senate and Governor) this election in term of percentages. You can go to www.pollster.com and do a comparison if you like.

[stepnw1f]

7. It's BIASED....

most DUers already know it leans for the Republican Party. We've seen it again and again for the last 6 years. Sorry....

[tritsofme]

17. Read this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2710497&mesg_id=2710497

And then get back to me.

[enough already]

19. Curious as to why no credibility

He pretty much got it right again this election.

[rep the dems]

3. God, what the hell.

McCain,Guiliani, good, but Al Gore bad. People piss me off so much. Once more people start seeing Obama his popularity will rise. But I still can't belive how many people still like McCain and Guiliani.

[blm]

9. They haven't had any negative portrayal in the media - nothing close to what

both Gore and Kerry endured. But both of those Dems did extremely well despite the unprecedented barrage of animosity from the corpmedia.

Could McCain or Giuliani be expecting a free ride the way Bush got for his campaigns? I don't think it's as possible post Katrina and during Iraq war. People aren't as willing to be snowed by an image anymore.

There are just too many inconsistent statements from both while both CONSISTENTLY protected the Bushboy. Any savvy Dem can collect all those remarks and make some hay - at least in ads, even if media neglects to keep them accountable.

[bigwillq]

4. It's way too early for this stuff.

I have no idea at this point who I would even vote for in the primary, let alone the GE.

Talk to me around April 2008.

[Uncle Joe]

6. There has been no war waged against McCain or Guilani's integrity

by the mass corporate media, because they did not empower us the way Al did when he championed the internet. These results are not surprising to me, the mass corporate media slandered Al almost non stop from March of 99 through the coup of 2000 solely because he took some of their power and gave it to us: the people.

[Rowdyboy]

8. After the great job Rasmussen did in projecting senate races this time

I tend to take these polls as serious general indicators.

[Ignacio Upton]

14. Presidential polls two years out are not credible enough

No matter what pollster does them.

[Rowdyboy]

18. Oh, I agree....Especially since both Gore and Obama are unlikely to run

and Hillary is at best "likely". Gore went through so much in 2000, and now he's doing important work on the environment. Why would he give up his freedom for the nightmare of another campaign? Obama is far too fresh a face and he's smart enough to know he needs seasoning. Hillary, I think, will wind up majority leader of the senate in 2009 so, while the poll is unimportant in the overall scheme of things-it is fun.

Regardless of what we want and how stupid it is, we'll be seeing these weekly for the next two years.

[Le Taz Hot]

10. This stuff is meaningless

I doubt if 10% of the voting population knows who most of these people are. Everything you see in the OP is name recognition.

[nodular]

11. Good point, but

how much different is that when they cast a vote in the
election?

[Le Taz Hot]

12. We're 2 years out.

A lot! 'Course it doesn't really matter. We're stuck with a DLC loser regardless.

[Ignacio Upton]

16. Lieberman was leading the national polls at this point in 2002-2003

Well..if you exclude Gore from the count, since he announced in December 2002 that he wasn't running in 2004.

[fujiyama]

13. All name recognition at this point

Who the hell has heard of Huckabee and Romney outside of residents of those respective states and political junkies?

Obama's only real exposure was a good speech at the convention in '04. Otherwise, there are many that don't know him.

And McCain (and to a slightly lesser extent, Giuliani) gets very positive coverage still. The media still kisses their asses.

[Eurobabe]

15. '08 polls are a big circle jerk at this point

Especially from R-ASS-mussen. I agree with caller number 4. Talk to me in April 2008.

Once burned, twice shy with these fucking stupid early polls.