Jun 20 2007

GOP Losing ’08 Presidential To ALL Democrat Alternatives

Published by at 2:05 pm under 2006 Elections,All General Discussions

How bad is the self destruction of the GOP over immigration? For the first time a poll shows any Democrat, including John Edwards, is able to beat any Republican in head-to-head matchups:

Gallup: Edwards 50 – Giuliani 45
RCP Avg: Edwards +1.4%

Gallup: Edwards 50 – McCain 44
RCP Avg: Edwards +0.3%

Gallup: Edwards 61 – Romney 32
RCP Avg: Edwards +23.5%

We should all thank the amnesty hypochondriacs for bringing this debacle about because the only major item to hit the news and impact these numbers (where the Reps use to lead in many matches) was the immigration bill.

Go back to this site and see how the numbers have shifted since only June. Clinton has seen a +13 point shift against Guiliani. Clinton moved +10 against McCain (proving the damage is GOP-wide, not against proponents of the bill). Obama has made progress since February, showing a +14 against Guiliani, a +2 against McCain (again, showing that it cannot be due to being a proponent of the immigration bill).

The others do not have comparison numbers in this poll. But if other polls show the same across the board shift for the GOP then we can admit the self destruction of the GOP is working its magic.

27 responses so far

27 Responses to “GOP Losing ’08 Presidential To ALL Democrat Alternatives”

  1. These are internals on the same poll I mentioned in an earlier post, via Mickey Kaus:

    =======================
    Greenberg and Carville Bury the Lede: At the end of the memo summarizing their latest Democracy Corps poll of swing-district voters, they note a striking lack of support for the Senate immigration bill.

    Immigration: Immigration reform is an area of great concern for voters in the battleground. Indeed, more than a quarter of voters mention immigration as one of their two most important concerns. Yet, proposals to address this issue garner more support when focused on border control more than legalization. In fact, voters are 22 points more likely to support Congressional proposals focused on increasing border security and stopping illegal immigrants from getting government benefits than one focused on legalization.

    We do not find very much voter support for the comprehensive Senate bill. We asked without description (opposed 28 to 47 percent) and with description (45 to 49 percent). After hearing a description of the immigration reform passed by the Senate, a majority of independents and Republicans oppose the bill while Democrats are torn 47 to 47 percent. [E.A.]

    This is Democratic Greenberg and Carville, remember. Not just Rasmussen! …

    Backfill: The actual details of the poll are grimmer for comprehensivists than the Greenberg-Carville summary implies.

    –”Illegal immigration” is the #2 concern of these swing-district voters, behind Iraq but ahead of health care and the economy.

    – That “description” of the Senate bill was heavily front-loaded with enforcement language (it begins: “Strengthen border security first …”). Even so, when the “path for citizenship” (after “paying a fine”) and guest-worker program are included, the bill loses 49-45.

    –By a 59-37 margin, voters actually disfavor the following statement, despite its enforcement-oriented preamble:

    On immigration, we need to get control of the border and bar illegal employment but allow the illegal immigrants who have been here working for a long time to get on a path to citizenship.

    Voters preferred a competing statement that would “require illegal immigrants to re-enter the country legally” and bar them from “getting government benefits.”

    –More than 60 percent of the voters said they’d have “serious doubts” about a Congressperson who voted:

    –for “allowing illegal immigrants, who broke our laws, to stay and become citizens, giving them amnesty.”

    –against “declaring English the official language.”

    –in favor of “illegal immigrants being permanent residents, who can use our schools, health care system, and also get other benefits.”

    You get the picture. The wording on some of these questions–especially the first–is loaded, but no more loaded than the likely wording in a campaign TV commercial attacking a Congressman who opened himself up to the charge.

    –After all these words and descriptions were floating around in voters’ heads, the polltakers again asked about “the comprehensive immigration reform plan being considered by the U.S. Senate.” This time it lost by a 22 point margin–a bit more than when voters were asked about it cold.

    Upshot: If a swing-state Congressman could be sure of totally controlling the language used in the immigration debate, he might succeed in rendering “comprehensive immigration reform” merely mildly unpopular. If he lost control of the language–as might in a fight with a decently-funded challenger–he could confront a deadly tsunami of opposition on the issue! [Thanks to alert reader S.M.] 2:03 P.M. link

  2. AJ,

    Here is a test for you to ponder.

    If Immigration Reform were actually popular, and the American people were supporting it over the “amnesty hypochondriacs,” you would expect to see a disparate impact on Republicans in the polls over the Democrats.

    If on the other hand, Immigration Reform were seen by the American people as “Those $%^@# in DC sticking it to us again,” you would instead see everyone associated with it take a hit in the political polls until the subject was dropped.

    Now please see exhibit A:
    ==========================

    http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWNlMmVkZGIwNjE4OGZmZjhmZTg4YjViMDAwODU1OGE=

    Re: Congress at 14% [John Podhoretz]

    Ramesh, you’re right that Republicans shouldn’t be gleeful. But Democrats should be worried. There’s been a complete withdrawal of support for, and apparently a complete revulsion toward, Washington politicians. It’s difficult to know what this will mean except for one thing — it certainly suggests the anti-incumbent mood generally will be a significant phenomenon in the next election cycle.

    And George W. Bush won’t be running next year.

    There could be no more positive development, in my view, than for the Senate or House to change control again in 2008 to Republican hands — and then in 2010 for that body to go Democratic again. The possibility of relatively regular changes in party control on Capitol Hill might well be exactly the reform Congress needs — because it will limit DeLayism on the one hand and Harry Reid-ism on the other in favor of real horse-trading and cross-party dealing. This could lead a new kind of comity on Washington, and would be very interesting to see.
    06/20 06:50 PM

    http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjgzNGZmMmIwYmE3NGFkYWU4NDk5OGFjMDJmZmI1NWM=

    New Lows [Ramesh Ponnuru]

    Frank Newport :

    Just 14% of Americans have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in Congress.

    This 14% Congressional confidence rating is the all-time low for this measure, which Gallup initiated in 1973. The previous low point for Congress was 18% at several points in the period of time 1991 to 1994.

    Congress is now nestled at the bottom of the list of Gallup’s annual Confidence in Institutions rankings, along with HMOs.

    Republicans should not get too gleeful about this finding. If the public is just unhappy with all the politicians, they may take it out on the party they perceive to be in power—and that is still the Republicans.
    06/20 06:40 PM
    ========================

    Congress now has less respect than used car salesmen and HMOs because of the Senate resurrecting Immigration Reform.

    It will be interesting to see if the American political elites will listen to this.

    I expect that they won’t.

  3. AJStrata says:

    Trent,

    I never said the bill was popular, but providing a path to legal status is. Here’s a test for you. Was it once popular to own slaves?

    What does popular have to do with right?

  4. Bikerken says:

    You kinda got lost on that one AJ, owning slaves in America was common, but it was not very popular. As a matter of fact, most of the country opposed it, even a majority of southerners.

  5. apache_ip says:

    AJ is attempting to assert that providing a path to citizenship to everyone who is illegally in our Country is the “right” thing.

    You just can’t make this stuff up.

    I wonder if he would feel the same if someone broke into his house? Would AJ offer up his bed to the illegal intruder?? Maybe cook him/her a nice breakfast in the morning.

  6. Terry Gain says:

    Once it’s clear Iraq is being won Dems will be toast.

  7. Soothsayer says:

    Terry-

    the Democrats in the Congress have lower numbers than Bush right now

    Learn to read the polls. “Congress” – as an undifferentiated entity – has lower polls than Bush – but of course – that polling includes Republicans, too. If you look at the state-by-state polling for Democratic reps – House or Senate – you will find NONE with approval levels as low as the Chimp in the Oval Office.

    Terry Gain – there will be NO winning in Iraq. Put down yer crack-pipe.

    As for Slavery- Slavery was actually given preferential status in the Constitution. When representation for the House was calculated – each slave owned was counted as “3/5 of a person” for determining the number of representatives for that particular state.

    Follow-up Question: Why did Texas break away from Mexico??

    Answer: Slavery was illegal in Mexico – and the guys at the Alamo died for the sacred right to own slaves.