Poll: Thompson (R) Tied with Clinton (D), Trails Obama (D)

[skipos]

"Polls this far out don't mean anything" blah blah blah. I know. FWIW, it is just another poll showing that despite Hillary's high name recognition, she doesn't do very well in general election match ups.

Fred Thompson (R) 44%
Hillary Clinton (D) 43%

Fred Thompson (R) 37%
Barack Obama (D) 49%

http://rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Presidential%20Match-Ups/March%202007/Thompsonvs.ObamaClinton20070323.htm

And though Scott Rasmussen is a Republican, Rasmussen Reports polls were the most accurate in 2006.

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

1. Without Gore, This Country Is Screwed!

Whether we end up with Clinton, or worse, a repub, our future looks bleak indeed.

Hopefully Clinton can prevail in the General Election, otherwise things will continue to get worse, and the influence of the U.S. will decrease day by day.

[undeterred]

2. What about Tommy Thompson (R), our Wisconsin idiot?

He's campaigning in Iowa and thinks he has a chance.

[SoCalDem]

4. My dream republican team... Gingrich/Hunter or Gingrich/Tancredo

:rofl:

[skipos]

6. Yup. Gingrich or Romney would be the easiest for us to beat.

Gingrich's favorable/unfavorables are the worst of any candidate on either side. Even Hillary could beat him.

[Orsino]

3. Read "any Republican" for "Thompson"

We're just seeing, I think, the thirty or forty percent of voters who will vote Republican under almost any circumstances.

[SaveElmer]

5. "She simply doesn't do very well in general election matchups"

This is simply not true. There have been numerous polls showing her as or more competitive than other Democrats. And where she is behind it is by a small amount...same as the other candidates...all are highly competitive

[skipos]

8. Hillary has the highest name recognition of all Dems, she should be polling better

than lesser knowns like Obama, but she doesn't. Let's look at the polls from Ras, the most accurate pollster in 2006 (and 2004, if you agree with the official results).

Thompson (44%) Clinton (43%) CLINTON LOSES BY 1%
Thompson (37%) Obama (49%) OBAMA WINS BY 12%

Brownback (41%) Clinton (46%) CLINTON WINS BY 5%
Brownback (34%) Obama (49%) OBAMA WINS BY 15%

Gingrich (43%) Clinton (50%) CLINTON WINS BY 7%
Gingrich (38%) Obama (48%) OBAMA WINS BY 10%

Giuliani (49%) Clinton (41%) GIULIANI WINS BY 8%
Giuliani (46%) Obama (40%) GIULIANI WINS BY 6%

McCain (48%) Clinton (41%) MCCAIN WINS BY 7%
McCain (44%) Edwards (45%) EDWARDS WINS BY 1%
McCain (44%) Obama (44%) TIED

Her fav/unfav is 50%/48% Not much room to improve with that.
Obama's is 54%/36%.

Does she do well in some polls? Sure. Generally, she doesn't perform nearly as well as as other candidates with high recognition, like McCain and Giuliani.

You've seen the polls with Giuliani thumping her in blue states like PA and NJ, right? It wouldn't make me nervous if lesser-knowns like Obama were getting beaten by well knowns like Giuliani in blue states. Hillary has no excuse.

[SaveElmer]

9. Absolutely she has high name recognition...

And as the other candidates get better known theirs will go up, as will their negatives...

Hillary's negatives will inevitably drop as the campaign moves along and independents see for themselves she is not the ogre portrayed by the right wing...

As to Guiliani, he is ahead in the polls because he has not yet been seriously criticized...he is still "America's mayor"

Have you seen polls from Ohio, Arkansas, and Florida that had Hillary defeating Republican candidates...

I'm not saying she will win (although I suspect she will), but the notion that she is not electable is contradicted even by the narrow subset of polls you quote above...

[skipos]

12. "And as the other candidates get better known theirs will go up"

"as will their negatives"

But at least the other candidates have room to improve. You are counting on people who have already decided that they don't like Hillary to change their minds.

"Hillary's negatives will inevitably drop as the campaign moves along and independents see for themselves she is not the ogre portrayed by the right wing"

So you are hoping that MSM will suddenly decide to paint a rosy picture of Hillary, or that Americans will dig deep and come to their own conclusions despite MSM? You did see what SBVT did to Kerry, right? And how MSM did little to let people know the truth, and how most Americans didn't do their own research? Why would things be different in 2008?

"As to Guiliani, he is ahead in the polls because he has not yet been seriously criticized...he is still 'America's mayor'."

So again, you are counting on MSM for this? Or thoughtful, investigative Americans?

"Have you seen polls from Ohio, Arkansas, and Florida that had Hillary defeating Republican candidates"

No. Please show me polls with Hillary defeating Giuliani ad McCain in those states. I would also like to see how Obama and Edwards compare with her in those polls.

"I'm not saying she will win (although I suspect she will), but the notion that she is not electable is contradicted even by the narrow subset of polls you quote above"

I never said she was unelectable. I just think she is one of the least electable.

Of all of our candidates...

She doesn't have the best voting record
She doesn't have the most experience (that would be Richardson)
She doesn't excite the youth the most (that would be Obama)
She doesn't excite the progressive activists the most
She doesn't have the best record on Iraq
She doesn't have the best favorable/unfavorables
She doesn't have the best poll performances

Why should she be our nominee? Just because she leads the primary polls like Lieberman and Gary Hart did?

[skipos]

14. Are you going to respond to my post?

I'd like to see the polls mentioned.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

10. Her "name recognition" works both ways

for and against.

I'm not sure she's entirely trusted to get us out of the war.

[Clark2008]

7. I'm very worried about a Thompson run

We'll not flip any red states if we put up one of our three so-called front runners against him - and we have to do that to win.

Groan.

[On the Road]

11. I Agree -- If the Republicans

can put up a candidate who is perceived as principled, conservative, reasonable, and not tainted by the Bush administration, the Democratic candidate will have to walk a very fine line to win.

Huckabee comes to mind if he ever gets traction. I don't know Thompson, but it's possible he's another.

This is still a conservative country and the media is on their side. As we saw with Gore and Kerry, what should be minor issues can be millstones around a Democratic candidate's neck while Republicans can shrug off what should be damaging issues. Nixon won in a landslide even while Watergate was breaking and headlines read "Massive GOP Spy Network Unveiled." McGovern ditched Eagleton because he wasn't told about the shock treatments and sunk like a stone.

[LSK]

13. and against Edwards???

Im getting sick of the notion that Obama and Hillary are the only candidates on our side.