Gallup: No obvious gender gap or other advantage seen for Clinton vs. Rudy.

"Given the historic nature of having a female Democrat running against a socially liberal Catholic Republican, it is remarkable how similar it appears the results would be to the 2004 election in which two white males representing the mainstream politics of the two parties faced off. In that election, President George W. Bush, the Republican, beat Sen. John Kerry, the Democrat, by about a three-point margin. (This comparison is made using Gallup's final pre-election poll from November of 2004, based on the subset of "likely voters" who most closely represent the electorate. Of the last six presidential elections, the results based on likely voters have only once deviated from the results based on registered voters by more than a few points.)

Most notably, it appears Clinton would run no stronger among women than Kerry did in 2004 -- or, for that matter, than Al Gore did when running against Bush in 2000. On average in 2007, women prefer Clinton over Giuliani by a six-point margin -- 53% to 47%, respectively. That is not much different from women's four-point preference for Kerry over Bush in 2004, or the eight-point preference for Gore over Bush in 2000.

A Clinton-Giuliani race may be more striking for its impact on the male vote. Men favor Giuliani over Clinton by a 16-point margin in 2007. That compares with a 12-point lead among men for Bush over Kerry among 2004, and a 7-point lead among men for Bush over Gore in 2000."

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27850

Gallup is only the oldest and most respected name in the polling industry, right?

2008
(2007 aggregated polling based on registered voters)
National adults
Clinton Giuliani
46% 51%

(Edit to add combined result.)

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=9442

"Gallup is only the oldest and most respected name in the polling industry, right?"

What would be your point? That their analysis is flawless or that the results will remain unchanged thru Election day?

:eyes:

So this means that the superficial hype over hyphenated candidates does not take or that Clinton is carrying a real disadvantage, even at this early stage, against the GOP ham sandwich. If you throw in the 4-5% fraud Truth is All mentions politely she would get thumped, all cheating repeating as is the open GOP plan. But the whole point of this surmise by the likely biased poll organization is the musing over the tea leaves, not the unripe leaves themselves. The point is to make Hillary look weak and encourage the GOP. the point is that gridlock, hyped, money run and centrist politics always make the race stupidly close even when there should be a strong Dem victory. If the race is run into the margins, the GOP is not only highly favored but into the area of total cheat control.

We had a disadvantage in our congressional district by the gerrymandering. We might have won if we had more money, etc AND the GOP not thrown in last minute phonecall irritation technique. All I know is, if the unfair advantages all hold sway, there are no such things as close elections. The GOP uses hand grenades even when playing horseshoes. Our guy is running again though, by the way. Eric Massa. No PAC money accepted. The national level has more power to change the situation than the local candidates in some very important ways. I hope the top of the ticket does better than Kerry, and Kerry I believe won his race even more than Gore did 2000.

I saw this in her 2000 and 2004 race.

They're the ones that would have Gore up 8% on one day and Bush up 8% the next. The 16% swings made us pollsters seasick.

They did not hold their partisan breakdown consistently from day to day. So, if there was a 8% swing in favor of Bush, you'd look and see about 8% more Republicans in that survey sample.

They were honest about it, but sloppy.

The problem is Hilary only gets 1 out of 4 of the white male Independent voters than are leaning Democratic. She has a very high negative count - higher than anyone else running in either party. We can ignore these glaring facts at our peril. I like Hilary a lot, but she is not our strongest candidate.

Kerry won going away.

It's not who wins anymore it's who has the 'nads to seize the power.

Gets back to the manly mystique posted elsewhere.
Kerry could have grabbed that Ohio thing with a death grip and not let go.

But he didn't. Too messy.

Edit: Hillary , on the other hand has big brass ones, I think if she saw Ohio vote fraud between her and the presidency there would be a fight the likes of which this country has never seen.

But that's the point. Nominate Hillary , whose supporters come from the "triangulate the middle voter" school, and we'd end up with another too close to call election, because I don't believe that approach would produce the votes like a new face would.