New Poll Numbers

In the last 10 presidential elections the Republican Party 7/10 times picked the front runner in their party's nomination process. The other 3? The incumbent or sitting Vice President (George HW Bush '88).

The Democrats did not (surprised?) follow such a trend. I think 5 times picked the leader.

New polls out (very early) from Zogby support this trendline:

i.e. Giuliani is pulling out ahead and has all the mo'.
Obama in a head to head with McCain and Giuliani wins, whereas Clinton doesn't.

Clinton still leads by a slimmer margin (8 points) over Obama in the Democratic Primary race.

The David Geffen episode has hurt Hillary it seems more than Obama. As Maureen Dowd correctly noted (did I just write that?), Hillary's so-called inevitability is based on her fundraising status, which Geffen called into question. He raised I think legitimate issues, especially for me do we want another 4-8 of a dynasty plus the ideological revup of the far right base? I don't. Also Sen. Clinton's answer to the question of how to deal with criticism--"deck your opponent." It spoke of a strain of vindictiveness and the worst of the Clinton years. Again her line: I know how to beat them.

I don't doubt she would make a decent manager--like I said I think she should be Senate Majority Leader, she'd be one of the best ever likely in that role--but the power hunger, the triangulation, the persona, it just totally turns me off.

I think all trends point to Rudy getting the Republican nomination. I don't think Newt or Mitt (what's with these four letter first name Rep. candidates?---Newt, Rudy, John, Mitt) can give the strong right push to topple Rudy. The only man who could've would have been the Bush son who probably should have been President, i.e. Jeb. No chance of that this time around. Although as bad as it is now for the Bush Dynasty, I would never count Jeb out for 4-8 years down the line. He is an extremely sharp politician.

The Dems are wide open and I'm not making any predictions. I still think its 50/50 that Gore jumps in. But the Clinton camp should look at these numbers and be worried in my view. Democrats are not going to like seeing her polling below John McCain not to mention Rudy in a general. That has always been the question mark with the Sen. from New York--is she actually electable. She's sharp, but her personality is so divisive. Edwards has got to get out so the showdown between Obama and Hillary takes place. The longer Edwards stays in the better that is I assume for Clinton. For what it's worth, I think Edwards is a flake.

I'll empathize Hillary for a sec. If she comes off tough for national security she gets the bitch label. If she sits on the couch and invites everyone to a conversation it's pure cheese and looks so faked/polled. If she admits she was wrong on the Iraq War, she gets called a flip flopper in the General. If she doesn't admit she was wrong (which it is way too late to do now) I think she will lose the Democratic Primary.

Does an Obama Richardson ticket make sense? Probably not--too racial I suppose. Maybe not. And on the issue of barrier breaking possibilities, I still think the US electorate is more willing to elect a black man than a white woman. That's just a hunch, no scientific research on that point. Just a gut intuition.

Obama needs a foreign policy guy for VP---Biden? Webb? Richardson has strong foreign policy cred, effective governor, could pull a state or two in the Southwest, the Democrats did well in the Mountain West. But I just wonder if a Black and Latino is too Rainbow-Coalitiony sounding.

Update Tuesday 27th, see other sets of poll numbers with Giuliani ahead of Obama here.