Not every poll agrees but this one used an unusually large sample. The head-to-head breakdown is here; note the numbers for the south in the first poll at the top. I can only explain that as residual affection for Billy Jeff among southern independents. On the other hand, the numbers for Rudy among Hispanics are encouraging — 38 percent, which isn’t far off what Bush pulled in 2004 notwithstanding all the immigration sturm und drang that’s happened since.
This is the set I want to focus on, the for/against analysis:
In three elections — 1988, 1996, and 2004 — there was a gap between the candidate whose side was voting for him and the candidate whose side was voting against the other guy. In all three, “for” beat “against.” Which bodes very ominously indeed, especially with Rudy counting on Hillary-hatred for turnout among southern evangelicals who’d otherwise be squeamish about voting for him. Here’s why he has to pitch himself as not-a-Democrat as opposed to a Republican:
The Wash Times has a piece out today claiming that Republican strategists are keen on the idea of Bloomberg running now because they think he’ll swipe more votes from the Democrat than from them. Look again at that data and see the folly of that theory. If anyone’s looking for a protest vote, it’s Republicans, not Democrats, especially after the Nader debacle of 2000. (An early poll confirmed this phenomenon.) Don’t believe me?
44% willing to consider a third-party is no mean number, although the fact that that skews towards conservative Republicans bodes ill for Bloomberg and much better for a social con independent. (See the last poll at the bottom here to see the skew explained.)
The one bit of good news: Americans hate the Democratic Congress. The bad news: One reason why is because they’re not acting “Democratic” enough.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member