ARG: Oregon Voters Like Hillary in 2008

[Alamom]

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/17028


Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research
Oregon Voters Like Hillary in 2008
August 29, 2007

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Many adults in Oregon would vote for Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton in the 2008 United States presidential election, according to a poll by SurveyUSA released by KATU-TV. At least 52 per cent of respondents would back the New York senator in head-to-head contests against three prospective Republican candidates.

Rodham Clinton holds a 10-point lead over former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, a 12-point advantage over actor and former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson, and a 20-point lead over former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.

In 2004, Democrat John Kerry won Oregon’s seven electoral votes, with 51 per cent of the vote. The last Republican to carry the Beaver State in a U.S. presidential election was Ronald Reagan in 1984.



Polling Data

A few questions now about the next election. If there were an election for president of the United States today, and the only two names on the ballot were (the following) who would you vote for?

Rudy Giuliani (R) 42% - 52% Hillary Rodham Clinton (D)
Fred Thompson (R) 41% - 53% Hillary Rodham Clinton (D)
Mitt Romney (R) 37% - 57% Hillary Rodham Clinton (D)



Source: SurveyUSA / KATU-TV
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 530, 529 and 524 registered Oregon voters, conducted from Aug. 10 to Aug. 12, 2007. Margin of error is 4.3 per cent.

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Thank You! Thank You Very Much!

[HughBeaumont]

2. In it to win it!

Inevitability/Offshoring 2008!

[William769]

3. Since people like to kick your threads with pictures, I guess I can help with that too.

[Alamom]

4. Thank you. Luv it. eom

[LWolf]

5. This isn't what I'm hearing.

I spent the first week of August in Portland with educators from all over the state. While we weren't there to discuss the presidential election, it certainly cropped up repeatedly. I heard distrust of HRC, active dislike of Obama, cautious curiosity about Edwards, and some support tossed in here and there for the rest. The conversations were about exploring the candidates, not arguments between supporters of one or another. No one expressed undivided support for any of them.

Of course, that's not "scientific." It's just numerous conversations among several hundred people from around the whole state.

That's what I've noticed in my community, as well. While plenty of people here at DU have made up their minds, myself included, the general population is just getting started with that process. That makes polls pretty meaningless at this point.

[Oldenuff]

6. This isn't what I'm hearing..either

[LWolf]

7. What's better to pay attention to?

Polls, or the people on the street in Oregon?

I'll go with the people, every time.

[dmallind]

8. Sure...

....as long as you talk to a random sample of hundreds of people on the street from all demographic segments and ask non-leading questions......

I mean I went to the local vegetarian restaurant last week and started chatting with a nearby group and can confidently report that Nebraska is 90% Democratic.

[LWolf]

9. I know the difference between a "scientific poll"

and getting the gut reaction of the people I come in contact with.

Frankly I don't need that lecture. I also know that "scientific polls" can be manipulated, and I know that polls taken 9 months ahead of the actual vote, with 9 more months of campaigning ahead of us and 9 more months in which to make a decision...those polls are meaningless.

Or they should be. Instead, those polls are used to manipulate general public perception about a candidate's potential, to fund raise, to limit the pack, etc.. Personally, I find that to be a corrupt practice.

I would prefer that candidates get equal and neutral air time to present their positions and records, and that candidates base their votes on just that: positions on issues, and record. Not poll numbers.

I would prefer that voters be talking to people and listening to them, and focusing their attention on researching candidates, rather than on polls.