Gallup polls veterans on the race: Rudy +35, Hillary -22
posted at 12:09 pm on August 23, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
I don’t get it. Don’t they know she’s a “hawk”?
Naturally this will be spun as evidence of the military being uncomfortable with a woman as CINC, not as a reflection of their feelings about Hillary personally. That’s okay. The left has already begun inching away from the “chickenhawk” implication that soldiers know best when it comes to all things war. Their skepticism about the Glacier will help fuel that Strange New Respect for civilian opinion. As for the GOP, I don’t know who comes off better: Rudy, who has the distinction of being the only candidate from either party with a lower disapproval rating among vets than among the general public, or Fred, who gets the biggest bump in approval rating among vets vis-a-vis civilians.
As for The Only Man Who Can Save America, whose cultish followers crowed over this as proof that the troops had become isolationist Birchers, here’s his veteran/non-veteran/total preference line among Republican and Republican-leaning vets:
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Fear the Fred………
doriangrey on August 23, 2007 at 12:14 PM
Is it any big shock that the Troops don’t like Hillary?
Well, if you’re a civvy-lib, yeah, it probably IS a shock. They think Hillary is trying to *save* the Troops and those Troops oughta love her for that. But instead they call her plane “Broomstick One”. They don’t wanna be “saved”, they wanna do their job and do it right the first time so that they don’t hafta come back and do it again later.
Libs, they just don’t get it.
Tony737 on August 23, 2007 at 12:21 PM
This really doesn’t tell us anything. What I’d like to see are
two cold polls:
Guliani vs Clinton
Romney vs Clinton
clear out the other non-viable names, and see how these polls pan out for both military vets and non vets.
Doug on August 23, 2007 at 12:23 PM
ouch! and she joined all those military committees etc!
zane on August 23, 2007 at 12:24 PM
I’m a veteran, I like Rudy.
The real question is who should Rudy’s VP be.
Discuss.
JayHaw Phrenzie on August 23, 2007 at 12:25 PM
Rudy is the front runner, and who is sucking hind t*t…the $10 million man, Mitt.
Mitt better pick up the pace, even McCain beats him in some areas…ouch.
right2bright on August 23, 2007 at 12:26 PM
She doesn’t have far to move, since only 3% and 5%, respectively, have no opinion.
Sue on August 23, 2007 at 12:26 PM
Look at Mitt’s no opinion numbers. People don’t know him yet. Not that I’m rooting for Mitt, but I am certainly rooting for Mitt over a democrat.
Sue on August 23, 2007 at 12:27 PM
Any Veteran…and I’m a Vietnam Vet…that would vote for mrs billy clinton should be committed…
areseaoh on August 23, 2007 at 12:28 PM
Just remember this country has more illegal aliens then it has veterans. Who do you think the Dems are going to approach for votes?
LakeRuins on August 23, 2007 at 12:29 PM
JayHaw, I don’t see you weighing in on the Pagan Derb headline. What gives?
Jaibones on August 23, 2007 at 12:37 PM
Actually according to the 2004 Census figures there are 24.5 million vets and of those 17.4 million voted in the 2004 elections.
LakeRuins on August 23, 2007 at 12:39 PM
How can The Only Man Who Can Save America not get all of the veteran votes?! He’s the only true patriot! The others can’t win! The poll’s fixed, I tell ‘ya!
/Ron Paul Supporter
amerpundit on August 23, 2007 at 12:40 PM
I hope you put up that rasmussen poll Allah.
The one where the majority of Republicans think the US is winning the WOT and the Majority of democrats say terrorists are winning
William Amos on August 23, 2007 at 12:44 PM
Yeah, forget Hillary (I can’t believe the disapproval ratings are that LOW!) …. check those “no opinion” stats on both Fred! and Romney!
That’s …. strange. Fred at least has the excuse of not technically being in the race (though his fame would offset that, you’d think). But almost 40% having no opinion on Romney among vets does not bode well for Mitt’s Twits.
Then again … depending on how many of these “vets” are actually current active duty (?), maybe they’ve got better things to worry about than an election 15 months away.
That’s just sad. True, but sad.
Professor Blather on August 23, 2007 at 12:45 PM
I too am a Veteran, one who has twice taken the oath to defend the county and Constitution, and I will not be voting for Guliani. His Sanctuary City Policy along with his Gun Control Policy during his stint as Mayor of New York City says more about his beliefs than what he is currently professing. Look at his past actions and note what he has done – not what he promises to do.
If Sanctuary, Amnesty and Gun Control are your goals, then by all means vote Guliani.
tgillian on August 23, 2007 at 12:46 PM
I don’t know- ask the mafia who their preferred VP candidates are so we can see the short list.
Otherwise… I don’t know- pro-abortion, anti-gun, pro-amnesty, pro-illegal immigrant, talks tough security and foreign policy with almost no relevant experience, prone to cronyism, secrecy and authoritarianism. Who would be the best fit with these characteristics? I say Hillary.
Hollowpoint on August 23, 2007 at 12:47 PM
Here let me adjust that for you:
“The one where the majority of Republicans
thinkare thankful that the US is winning the WOT and the Majority of democratssayhope terrorists are winning“
Professor Blather on August 23, 2007 at 12:47 PM
A hawk to a liberal is how to clear phlegm from your throat. Hillary has nothing to worry about. Don’t they suppress the military vote, anyway?
captivated_dem on August 23, 2007 at 12:49 PM
doriangrey,
If I were Rudy, I don’t think I would be worrying much about Fred. Everytime Fred talks in front of a group, he bombs.
bnelson44 on August 23, 2007 at 12:51 PM
My goal isn’t quite that lofty.
It primarily involves avoiding a President Hillary Clinton or a (shudder) President Al Gore or a (giggle) President John Edwards.
If electing those people is *your* goal, then by all means stay at home on election day.
The worst anyone can claim about Rudy is still infinitely better than any of the Democrat alternatives.
Professor Blather on August 23, 2007 at 12:51 PM
Any Veteran…and I’m a Vietnam Vet…that would vote for mrs billy clinton should be committed…
areseaoh on August 23, 2007 at 12:28 PM
Well I guess that I had better enjoy my pre commitment freedom while it lasts because if the Republicans nominate Rudolf “Sanctuary City/Draft Dodger” Guliania, I just may vote for the HildaBeast™ out of spite!
BTW, Mr Gallup you have “whetted” my interest, I would be interested in seeing the veteran responses by age group. Say under/over 40.
MB4 on August 23, 2007 at 12:53 PM
Who do you suppose make up the 8% without an opinion on Hillary?
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on August 23, 2007 at 12:54 PM
The worst anyone can claim about Rudy is still infinitely better than any of the Democrat alternatives.
Professor Blather on August 23, 2007 at 12:51 PM
Professor, I have told you a million times not to exaggerate.
MB4 on August 23, 2007 at 12:55 PM
REMF ?
William Amos on August 23, 2007 at 12:55 PM
Opps shuold be
(rear area MF)
William Amos on August 23, 2007 at 12:56 PM
Who do you suppose make up the 8% without an opinion on Hillary?
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on August 23, 2007 at 12:54 PM
That may have been Bill. He may have taken the fifth.
MB4 on August 23, 2007 at 12:57 PM
Read this and ask yourself, Can we really afford another 4 years with a Clinton in the WH?
LakeRuins on August 23, 2007 at 12:58 PM
OK this gets a laugh out of me
Working in 69 nations at once
The Clinton Foundation, created in 2002, works with 69 developing countries on initiatives
William Amos on August 23, 2007 at 1:04 PM
I actually saw a “Ron Paul for President” bumper sticker on Everett Ave.
Rode Werk on August 23, 2007 at 1:09 PM
Read this and ask yourself, Can we really afford another 4 years with a Clinton in the WH?
LakeRuins on August 23, 2007 at 12:58 PM
It took four years of Carter to get eight years of Reagan.
Maybe history will repeat or at least rhyme.
MB4 on August 23, 2007 at 1:12 PM
Ah say, ah say there boy, what are ya doin?
I am a chickenhawk and I eat chicken.
I’m not chicken ah say, that there Obama is a chicken.
On-my-soap-box on August 23, 2007 at 1:13 PM
The half-vast left wing conspiracy?
Keith_Z on August 23, 2007 at 1:19 PM
You had it right the first time: Rear Escellon MF’er. Not sure it really applies in Iraq though since there’s no “front lines”, unless you’re talking about someone like Kos who was in Germany yet still counts as a Gulf War Vet.
Hollowpoint on August 23, 2007 at 1:21 PM
I remember when…mrs billy clinton allowed no military unis in the White House…and I remember that billy clinton was also a draft dodger…makes me wonder…when is the last time billy woke up and first thing he saw was mrs billy clinton…wonder if she wears man pants to bed also…ouch…
areseaoh on August 23, 2007 at 1:24 PM
Hillary Clinton was an active participant in one of the most corrupt presidential administrations of the later 20th century. Hillary Clinton has spent her six years in the Senate doing nothing but positioning herself for a run for the presidency. Hillary Clinton is a polarizing figure even for those who have no interest in politics.
Who are these 3% of vets and 5% of non-vets who have no opinion? No opinion? I doubt it. They may not want to wish to share their opinion with a pollster but there is absolutely no way that Hillary has an “undecided” demographic.
highhopes on August 23, 2007 at 1:25 PM
I share the sentiment, but that’s just crazy talk. I plan on a 3rd party “protest vote” for whichever unelectable, unqualified candidate the Libertarian or Constitution Party runs if RINO Rudy (or FlipFlop Mitt) win the nomination.
Fool me once (Bush) shame on you, fool me twice (RudyMcRomney), shame on me.
Hollowpoint on August 23, 2007 at 1:26 PM
If it is alright to ask why the Bush kids or Romneys’ sons haven’t served in the Armed Forces isn’t it fair to ask why Chelsea hasn’t?
LakeRuins on August 23, 2007 at 1:32 PM
As I recall, vets didn’t much care for the Clenis, either.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on August 23, 2007 at 1:33 PM
This will all look very different 6 months from now.
Kini on August 23, 2007 at 1:37 PM
Ok, I’ll bite. Why the mafia? Rudy put some of its most prominent members behind bars.
amerpundit on August 23, 2007 at 1:39 PM
It was a snarky half-joking reference to the Kerik thing.
Perhaps even more troubling than Rudy’s poor job in vetting Kerik (who turned out to have mob ties) is the cronyism- Kerik was Rudy’s driver, which apparently was enough qualification for Rudy to promote him to Police Commissioner.
Hollowpoint on August 23, 2007 at 1:44 PM
Hollowpoint on August 23, 2007 at 1:44 PM
It also seems to “ring a bell” that Rudolf had a lot to do with recommending LettuceHead™ Chertoff to Bush.
MB4 on August 23, 2007 at 1:48 PM
OK, so what poll was it that said 44% of eligible voters disapprove of Mitt? That was kind of a surprise – I didn’t think *that* many people even know who he is. I’m starting to think it could be the Mormon thing – I know one Catholic Republican who recently told me there’s no way he’ll ever vote for a Mormon. FWIW, Fox was talking about the poll this morning but I missed the name of the polling firm.
fiatboomer on August 23, 2007 at 1:49 PM
What is wrong with you guys and gals? Yeah..yeah…yeah….zip-boom-bah……Elephants Forever…Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead. Exactly where is this momemtum that is going to carry us back into the White House? I applaude your enthusiasm but shake my head at your pragmatism.
We are on the ropes….period. Fred!Rudy!Mitt!Hunter!Leonidas hiz-self!
Billary is in unless the current adminstration quits all the p*ssyfooting and starts thowing rocks instead of offering handshakes and winks.
We all rally around here and pat each other on the back and delude ourselves that there is an actual ‘plan’ to stop her.
I give us 33% of congress. You better get out the crow and the basting brush.
And just so there is clarification on where I stand…here is the record….Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Bush, Dole, Bush, Bush.
Limerick on August 23, 2007 at 2:02 PM
Interesting, what caught my attention was Freds negatives. Granted, there are a lot of no opinions. But he has the lowest negatives in the pack.
conservnut on August 23, 2007 at 2:02 PM
Fred Thompson
aengus on August 23, 2007 at 2:07 PM
Would much prefer Mitt over Rudy.
Would much prefer Rudy over almost any potential Democrat nominee. Whatever happened to Zell?
Mitt being a Mormon is a non issue. If anything in my book it is a plus. Some of the finest people I know are Mormon.
MarkB on August 23, 2007 at 2:07 PM
This whole discussion is pretty irrelevant. The election is way to far away for most people to be tuned in. All of the front running Republican candidates have good resumes even if you don’t agree with all their positions. None of the potential Democratic candidates have even a partial resume except for Bill Richardson (or Gore if he decides to run).
At this point I would say that whoever the Republican candidate turns out to be they will be much superior to whoever the Democrats decide on. This doesn’t mean that they can win in this political climate but one can hope.
duff65 on August 23, 2007 at 2:32 PM
What is wrong with you guys and gals? Yeah..yeah…yeah….zip-boom-bah……Elephants Forever…Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead. Exactly where is this momemtum that is going to carry us back into the White House? I applaude your enthusiasm but shake my head at your pragmatism.
Limerick on August 23, 2007 at 2:02 PM
If the Congressional Election were held today, 47% of American voters say they would vote for the Democrat in their district while 37% would opt for the Republican.
MB4 on August 23, 2007 at 2:32 PM
When I hear Mormon I think Osmonds, so it is a non issue for me. Besides if it is good enough for Harry Reid it should be good enough for Mitt Romney.
/maybe that ain’t a good comparsion, keep the Osmonds scratch Reid.
LakeRuins on August 23, 2007 at 3:08 PM
Here is a web site devoted to famous Mormons from all walks of life. I was surprised to find Dale Murphy and Harmon Killibrew in the sports section.
LakeRuins on August 23, 2007 at 3:13 PM
I still say that the picture of that Pig looks like it came from a Nuremburg rally … oh, say, in 1935.
OhEssYouCowboys on August 23, 2007 at 3:20 PM
Me. She’s beneath my notice.
jaime on August 23, 2007 at 3:48 PM
Doug,
Giuliani (47%) Clinton (40%)
Romney (40%) Clinton (51%)
bnelson44 on August 23, 2007 at 4:11 PM
I, for one, am tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. If we keep electing 2nd and 3rd string candidates how do we send the message that they cannot keep up the same old same-old. I sat out the last election and see what happened? The Dems win and they just can’t stop embarrassing themselves.
Let the Republicans lose again; maybe they’ll take us seriously and help some conservatives run. Prof, are you proud of Bush’s stand on Immigration, spending, the Patriot Act, Warrantless Searches and Wiretaps?
What’s so different with what we have now with the Dems in charge vs when the Repubs owned the Presidency, House and Senate?
tgillian on August 23, 2007 at 4:53 PM
at least Fred has the best unfavorable numbers.
doggod on August 23, 2007 at 5:45 PM
I agree with Professor Blather. Thus:
Fixed. “What’s so different with what we have now with the Dems in charge” We are closer and closer to the jihadis having significant, widespread, operational capability in the US, and a Dem administration will sincerely work to use any and all forms of appeasement to try to make it go away.
eeyore on August 23, 2007 at 6:10 PM
This poll means nothing. As a matter of fact, no poll that includes that coward non-candidate fred? means anything. The only question is of those who vote for fred?, which candidate get his idiot groupies when they don’t have the choice?
csdeven on August 23, 2007 at 7:14 PM
I have no doubt that some illegals can vote, but do we have a number?
csdeven on August 23, 2007 at 7:22 PM
Say goodnight Gracy.
leanright on August 23, 2007 at 7:40 PM
The idea of a protest vote is not wise. This is why….after 8 years of Hillary, we’ll be right back to nominating reps just like Bush. We did it after 8 years of the Clenis because we knew that ANY rep is better than ANY dem, ANY second of ANY minute of ANY hour of ANY day of ANY week of ANY month of ANY year!
Remember, the Clenis was voted in because reps decided to teach the RNC a “lesson” because Perot was saying everything the short sighted protest voters wanted to hear.
Re-think your position and vote for whichever rep candidate gets the nomination.
csdeven on August 23, 2007 at 7:43 PM
My thoughts exactly. We keep bitching about the pork-loving RINOs in the White House and Congress, but our response? We keep voting them back in. No wonder they think they can get away with anything- voters keep letting them.
Not me, not this time.
Hollowpoint on August 23, 2007 at 7:48 PM
We all know you are a single issue voter (2nd amendment). If you stay home or vote a third party, you might just as well just register and vote democrat. Your two dimensional thinking lakes depth and context. It ain’t all about YOU and how your 2nd amendment sensitivities have been offended.
csdeven on August 23, 2007 at 7:56 PM
I love the photo of Hillary on this link! It’s one of my favorites because it shows the real Hillary. She can’t hold it together all the time, and every once in awhile the real Hillary gets out. Which leads me to a thought,, if she is so unbeatable,, why does she need to be so protected?? If she is so invincible,, how come she never has to answer any real hard questions and most of her events are scripted??
JellyToast on August 23, 2007 at 10:14 PM
Any doubt in your minds why the dems are so adamant against a positive ID requirement to vote?
Texas Nick 77 on August 24, 2007 at 3:17 AM
That reminds me of the Louisiana bumpersticker from a few years ago: “Vote for the Crook… Its important.”
Not much of an endorsement, is it?
Texas Nick 77 on August 24, 2007 at 3:21 AM
HOW do illegals vote?
csdeven on August 24, 2007 at 11:47 AM
Identity theft is one way. And the “motor voter” laws really make it easy, if the license bureau doesn’t require proof of citizenship. (Last time I stood face to face with a trooper getting my license was 1998.) As I said before, it should be a requirement in every state to show a valid photo ID prior to voting. A lot of people want to license gun owners, I’d prefer we license voters instead.
Texas Nick 77 on August 24, 2007 at 11:59 AM
Comment pages: