National poll: Hillary 45, Rudy 35, Stephen Colbert 13
posted at 9:57 am on October 24, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The numbers are worse if Fred’s the GOP nominee, but only slightly: Hillary 46, Fred 34, Colby 12. Writes Rasmussen:
Colbert does particularly well with the younger voters most likely to be watching his show and therefore most aware of his myriad presidential-like qualities. In the match-up with Giuliani and Clinton, Colbert draws 28% of likely voters aged 18-29. He draws 31% of that cohort when his foes are Thompson and Clinton. In both match-ups, Colbert has more support with young voters than the GOP candidate.
The italics are in the original but I’d have added them myself if they weren’t.
I’m flagging this for one reason only. By all accounts Colby’s audience skews young, male, and liberal, i.e. nutrootsy. Nutroots disgruntlement with Hillary’s (relative) centrism means logically Colbert should be lifting more votes from her than from the Republican nominee. That turns out to be true if Fred’s the nominee: she leads him 52-37 head to head, which means Colby takes six points from her and only three from his otherwise deep red base. But it’s not true if Rudy’s the nominee. Hillary leads him 48-41, a net loss of three points for her and six points for Rudy. Which I guess confirms what we’ve suspected all along — that there are a lot of independent Hillary-haters who are prepared to vote for a centrist Republican (but not a conservative Republican) over her unless they’ve got a better anti-Hillary alternative. It also suggests, however, that there’s a solid 44-46% in her column already and that not many of them are looking for a protest vote, even as a goof.
Exit question: Is the big winner here Ron Paul? That 12-13% that Colbert’s getting is pure “none of the above.” Good news for America’s Greatest Patriot if he goes third-party.
Update: Another explanation for Hillary’s solidifying base, especially among the Colbert demographic: among voters 18-44, she’s gone from trailing Obama 32-25 in June to leading him 42-20.
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:
Good analysis. Can’t imagine that’s the lesson Colbert would like you to take from it though!
Heh. Well they sure aren’t going to be voting for Bill Maher!
Spirit of 1776 on October 24, 2007 at 10:01 AM
Here is the problem with the Republicans in the election if you don’t put up a conservative.
Go here.
If you put Rudy up, he won’t convince states like NC to vote for him. He’ll lose in a landslide. Although his ego will be stoked. It is possible that a conservative like Thompson could still win handily in NC, but the south is not as blindly ‘red’ as most northerners seem to think.
We need good candidates. We don’t have any.
ThackerAgency on October 24, 2007 at 10:08 AM
I think the important thing to consider is who the front-runners pick for VP. Bush picked Cheny to appease conservatives, remember? Who Hillary pick to appease her weak spots?
shirgall on October 24, 2007 at 10:08 AM
also i.e. people who dont vote. It’s the kids Moore was bribing with Ramen Noodles in 2004.
Dash on October 24, 2007 at 10:10 AM
And here is the one for TN explaining that if Thompson is the nom, he wins, but if it is Rudy or Mitt, they lose to Hillary.
These states are not important for the primary. They never have been because our primary is around May or June. But in the general we count for quite a few electoral votes. I’m sure many people like and want Rudy or Mitt, but they’ll never win the Presidency.
ThackerAgency on October 24, 2007 at 10:12 AM
I am so ashamed of my generation…we’re seriously considering voting actual clowns in…
MadisonConservative on October 24, 2007 at 10:14 AM
What we’re seeing now ISN’T what we’ll be seeing next year. I agree that the VP choices will play a major role. For all the rhetoric, I think GWB made some pretty ingenius choices and decisions. Just wish he’d get it right on Shamnesty.
Rugged Individual on October 24, 2007 at 10:18 AM
Which clowns are you talking about? The cross dresser? Flip flopper? enabler (Hillary)? All of the candidates are clowns. . . why not Colbert? I mean we have Ron Paul, we have UFO Kucinich. I think Colbert actually brings a bit of civility to the contest.
ThackerAgency on October 24, 2007 at 10:19 AM
Has to be. Can 13% of voters even find comedy central on their TV?
Btw, Part II of Imagination Land is on tonight
sunny on October 24, 2007 at 10:19 AM
If Ron Paul were the only pro life option in the general election, you’d add to that total.
dedalus on October 24, 2007 at 10:19 AM
I said
clowns. It used to be we voted in ones who wore suits and called themselves politicians. I didn’t think we’d reach the point where we dispose with the attempts at seeming legitimate.
MadisonConservative on October 24, 2007 at 10:24 AM
Does this poll really matter? I know its fun to speculate but this comedian is not running, and I’m pretty sure if you put any celebrity up they will take a good amount from the candidates.
Complete7 on October 24, 2007 at 10:32 AM
What a great exhibit for arguing for the abolition of general democracy
Ochlan on October 24, 2007 at 10:32 AM
It makes me nauseated to even think about it but it looks like a lock that Hillary Rodham Clinton is going to be the next Commander in Chief and the troops will have to salute the Clintons for another eight years. Say what you want about the Clintons. They are the best political infighters in the last 40 years and only in two local Arkansas have the Clintons ever lost anything. The Republicans are in desperate trouble after eight years of Republican rule and like in 1992, the Clintons simply run as the nonRepublican and once again, they appear to have picked the correct year to run for president. Recall that Bill could have run in 1988 but with his usual political smarts, he waited to 1992 and let Gore and the others bungle the 1988 election. Underestimating the Clintons is always a bad thing. The only hope that Republicans have is nominating Rudy, who can pick up votes in places like NYC and New Jersey. And Rudy has to make Hillary so unattractive that Rudy wins by default. This tactic worked against Dukakis and Kerry. It is the only Republican hope. Thompson, Huckabee et al. can not take any eastern or midwest states. They are dead ducks, sorry to say, even deader than the duck that John Kerry supposedly bagged in Ohio, Oct. 2004
Larraby on October 24, 2007 at 10:42 AM
It’s hilarious to watch the Fred groupies rant and rave about national poll numbers to “prove” his viability, but when those same national polls show Rudy polls better against Hillary they are suddenly suspiciously quite about them.
And now we have a state poll out of TN touting his numbers in TN, but ignore all the early states he is sucking hind teat in.
csdeven on October 24, 2007 at 10:45 AM
Dude,
MadisonConservative on October 24, 2007 at 10:57 AM
18year olds and slacker 20 somethings voted Jesse Ventura Governor of MN. It was hell and embarassment for 4 years. I am so sick of the people worshipping media crapsters of all political bents and styles. I’m curious, what violations of Campaign Finance laws are being committed by the unfunny Colbert? If he’s on the ballot, what about his production company and others, aren’t they in violation?
MNDavenotPC on October 24, 2007 at 10:58 AM
Its early. Easy to tell some one you’ll vote for a Clown more than a year away from election time. I trust Rasmusen the best but there is no way these early numbers indicate much of anything. For the moment I’m leaning Fred for his policy position released yesterday on illegal immigration but I would like even more to see Duncan Hunter rise in prominence.
Nyog_of_the_Bog on October 24, 2007 at 11:08 AM
Is this all it takes to get you guys to throw in the towel? STOP THIS DEFEATIST ATTITUDE!!! You have more than a year left before the darn elections people!!!
TO HECK WITH THE POLLS!!!
RMR on October 24, 2007 at 11:22 AM
Rudy won’t win his home state or any of the North East states. . . and Rudy won’t win all of the south. . . which is a requirement for any R to win.
Thompson will win his home state. Huckabee probably won’t.
ThackerAgency on October 24, 2007 at 11:26 AM
Have you ever heard the phrase, “win the battle, but lose the war”? I’m not willing to relax my conservative stance just to make sure somebody has an “R” beside their name in the White House.
Until the Primaries are over, I’m not going to settle for “hind teat”.
natesnake on October 24, 2007 at 11:31 AM
Rudy is up by 2 in NJ and down by 1 in CT against Hillary. If one were this confident about small point spreads in football games they would lose quite often. Rudy will be competitive in those states and make Hillary divert campaign resources into expensive media markets. Taxes in NJ is a huge issue and Rudy plays better than Hillary on that issue.
You are right about NY and TN. NC and VA could be interesting. AR and FL are going to be very competitive, probably either way.
dedalus on October 24, 2007 at 12:01 PM
I would hope not, but don’t confuse pragmatism for relaxing ones personal standards. Sometimes you have to realize that winning the battle to nominate a candidate who is presumably more conservative, just to lose the war to a candidate who is better at motivating the middle, is not a good trade off.
csdeven on October 24, 2007 at 12:02 PM
The middle lost the last election because the conservatives did not feel represented. Again, I understand why people like and want to vote for Rudy. However, his record would not be impressive were it not for his tenure in the media capital of the world. In other words, he’s Hollywood.
It doesn’t matter to me because I don’t pin my hopes good or bad on any one person. Even if it is Hillary. I just have a hard time believing that the R party, knowing that an extremely beatable Hillary ‘Tax and Baggage’ Clinton was going to be running, absolutely refused to find a conservative candidate like Jindal to oppose her.
Why did the R party insist on getting a ‘liberal lite’ candidate. All you need is the conservative base and you win by a landslide. A ‘moderate’ makes the race more difficult on a state-by-state basis. The base won’t be enthusiastic about voting for someone whose positions are similar to Hillary’s on many things. If I were Hillary I would be picking out curtains for the White House if I thought I was going to be running against either Rudy or Mitt. Rudy and Mitt would be my choice of opponent if I were Hillary.
ThackerAgency on October 24, 2007 at 12:11 PM
Since only a total fool would vote for Hillary, she has zero chance of getting elected. The dems hate her too and all the polls lie, except the one that underestimated the count of those who would -never- vote for her.
(that one was just a little inaccurate)
dogsoldier on October 24, 2007 at 12:21 PM
Colbert = the second coming of Pat Paulson. Yawn.
Mallard T. Drake on October 24, 2007 at 12:45 PM
I hope both Colbert and Ron Paul seriously run third party. They’d suck a lot of votes from the Democrats and it’s not like the GOP is making a lot of libertarian friends nowadays.
Darth Executor on October 24, 2007 at 2:02 PM
Which is precisely why she’ll be elected. The seeds of Socialism are illiteracy and ignorance – and I have just described the majority of the electorate in America. What has been going on in the public schools [for over a generation] – the dumbing down and the Socialist indoctrination – is by design. The illiterate and the ignorant are easily led; and, that is precisely why the most vile, political figure of my lifetime will be elected.
OhEssYouCowboys on October 24, 2007 at 2:03 PM
This election is going to go down in history. I mean, she’ll make history with the destruction she wreaks on various institutions, but think of what we’re electing:
Hillary is physically unattractive; she has a horrible voice; she has the warmth and demeanor of a crocodile; off script, she’s a grenade waiting to blow up in her own, or someone else’s face with the amazingly stupid things she says; her flip flops, lies, outright fabrications are completely ignored; she’s basically being bought and paid for by the Chinese and no one seems to think its worth investigating. She should have no support except a hardcore group of fruitcakes, and yet she seems to enjoy superiority over the two current GOP frontrunners. Whoever is selling this liberal lump to the American People, could sell matches in hell. If ever the emporer had no clothes…I mean, she sucks. She’s horrible. What is the appeal? Argh. I need to lie down.
austinnelly on October 24, 2007 at 2:32 PM
K-Lo’s right, we need Lynne (Mrs. Dark Lord) Chenney.
Iblis on October 24, 2007 at 2:51 PM
I almost want to care about this, but I just can’t bring myself to be concerned about Colbert and his antics.
Lawrence on October 24, 2007 at 3:12 PM
I think this just shows young conservatives have a sense of humor. Remember, studies show cons are considerably happier.
I’d probably have said Colbert too.
TallDave on October 24, 2007 at 3:21 PM
As for Hillary, am I right in thinking that the Republican candidates and their allies have not yet begun using their best material in ads critical of her? My impression is that she’s made many unguarded remarks in the last fifteen years, transcripts and footage of which the Republicans are probably keeping in reserve for use after Hillary has secured the nomination. It seems one will be able to judge Hillary’s strength or weakness more accurately after the Republicans have reminded everyone of her public statements.
Kralizec on October 24, 2007 at 9:36 PM
Comment pages: