The American Research Group just released new polls from early states in the 2008 nominating process.
Among Democrats:
Iowa: Clinton 31%, Edwards 20%, Vilsack 17%, Obama 10%
Nevada: Clinton 37%, Obama 12%
South Carolina: Clinton 34%, Edwards 31%, Obama 10%
New Hampshire: Clinton 27%, Obama 21%, Edwards 18%
Among Reublicans:
Iowa: Giuliani 28%, McCain 26%, Gingrich 18%
Nevada: Giuliani 31%, McCain 25%, Gingrich 22%
South Carolina: McCain 35%, Giuliani 28%, Gingrich 15%
New Hampshire: McCain 29%, Giuliani 25%, Gingirch 14%
If Gore’s going to run, he better get moving. Time’s a wasting!
Is Newt Gingrich serious??
19 comments
Comments feed for this article
December 29, 2006 at 6:34 pm
Fred
Hmmmm…
I’m not enthused by any of the choices, even the Libertarian Party’s.
Well, ok. I find one possible choice somewhat intriguing, but he’s not listed and rarely mentioned.
December 29, 2006 at 6:51 pm
Anonymous
Clinton has too much baggage to run a decent campaign.
December 29, 2006 at 6:53 pm
Anonymous
If yer so unhappy about the libertarian party fred then why aren’t you doing more to fire up the movement in humboldt county.
I see more shame faced libertarians and republicans in humboldt county than anywhere else in California!
Be proud of your beliefs and then git up off yer arse and get the party going!
December 29, 2006 at 7:03 pm
Eric V. Kirk
Clinton has too much baggage to run a decent campaign.
But it’s all old news, and if her opponents try to bring it all up again it could backfire. That’s what she’s banking on anyway.
December 29, 2006 at 8:45 pm
Fred
10:53 asks, “if yer so unhappy about the libertarian party fred then why aren’t you doing more to fire up the movement in humboldt county.”.
Been there. Done that, or at least tried to some time ago.
Did I say I was unhappy with the Libertarian Party? I believe I just said I wasn’t all that enthusiastic about their possible candidates for president this next time around. The LP or any other party’s candidates.
December 29, 2006 at 10:49 pm
Anonymous
Fred should join the Old Codgers Who Take Their Pants Off In Public party.
Start yer campaign at HSU during one of their idiotic feminist rallies.
December 29, 2006 at 11:48 pm
Anonymous
Newt is running in 2012.
December 30, 2006 at 12:58 am
Anonymous
These early polls are meaningless. Once Cheney resigns & Bush is impeached, the numbers will swing dramatically away from the Washington-insiders to anti-establishment candidates.
December 30, 2006 at 1:15 am
Eric V. Kirk
I agree with the first sentence. I mostly posted them as a joke.
I think Edwards will overtake Hillary C. in the months to come. He’s being groomed as the “party establishment candidate”
December 30, 2006 at 1:52 am
Anonymous
Oh no! Not another Adlaide Stevenson!
December 30, 2006 at 4:14 am
Anonymous
I like John and Elizabeth Edwards. They have survived a lot of hardships. They both are intelligent, successful and thoughful people. John is handsome and youthful looking.
I like what Kucinich has to say, but he lacks the luster of Edwards.
December 30, 2006 at 4:20 am
Anonymous
“I see more shame faced libertarians and republicans in humboldt county than anywhere else in California!”
Bush voters should feel shame.
December 30, 2006 at 5:05 am
Anonymous
Words of enlightenment from Carol and Greg, how nice!
Carol would vote for Edwards because he’s “handsome and youthful looking” ……… how shallow can you get? And hubby Greg says Bush voters should feel shame ? Wow.
December 30, 2006 at 7:11 am
Anonymous
recently from an ap-aol news poll.
The Top Villain of 2006
Pres Bush 25%
Osama bin laden 8%
Saddam Hussein 6%
Ahmadinejad (Iran) 5%
Kim Jong Il 2%
Satan 1%
Finally, Bush is leading in something.
December 30, 2006 at 3:48 pm
Anonymous
9:05, if not shame, at least embarrassment for being so easily misled. Bush has done immeasurable harm to our country. If this is “enlightenment” for you I recommend you read a newspaper now and then.
December 30, 2006 at 4:04 pm
Anonymous
anon wrote: Carol would vote for Edwards because he’s “handsome and youthful looking” ……… how shallow can you get?
I like what Kiucinich has to say, but don’t think his appearance is going to move voters in his direction. If that is ‘shallow’ as you say, anon, then so be it. It is part of our culture, anyways.
Look how TV made Nixon pale in comparison to Kennedy in 1959.
A candidate has to be savy in many ways, and appearance is important.
I would not vote for Edwards only for his clean-cut handsome looks. I like his humble childhood, his successful career, his love for his family epecially during the death of a child, and his support and love of his wife during her bout with breast cancer. I find him intelligent and well-mannered.
December 31, 2006 at 3:38 am
Eric V. Kirk
Oh no! Not another Adlaide Stevenson!
We could do much worse.
January 3, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Anonymous
Carol, I like Edwards too. But “well-mannered” is no reason to support a politician in America. In case you haven’t heard (being one of those ineffective space-wasters at the HCDCC who just inexplicably blew the election locally), most Americans think that politicians score somewhere below child molesters (Mark Foley, anyone?)on a scale of ethics and morals. The Democrats need to support a candidate who’s ready to kick some ass, for a change. Remeber John Kerry (I guess you liked his manners too)?
January 4, 2007 at 1:51 am
Anonymous
“one of those ineffective space-wasters at the HCDCC who just inexplicably blew the election locally”
Count the Democrats in office around here, then tell us we are ineffective, ya coward.