Poll: "None Of The Above" Leads GOP Pack

Republicans Appear Dissatisfied With Presidential Hopefuls; Clinton Holds Lead Among Democrats

(AP)  And the leading Republican presidential candidate is ... none of the above.

The latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that nearly a quarter of Republicans are unwilling to back top-tier hopefuls Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, John McCain or Mitt Romney, and no one candidate has emerged as the clear front-runner among Christian evangelicals. Such dissatisfaction underscores the volatility of the 2008 GOP nomination fight.

In sharp contrast, the Democratic race remains static, with Hillary Rodham Clinton holding a sizable lead over Barack Obama. The New York senator, who is white, also outpaces her Illinois counterpart, who is black, among black and Hispanic Democrats, according to a combined sample of two months of polls.

A half year before voting begins, the survey shows the White House race is far more wide open on the Republican side than on the Democratic. The uneven enthusiasm about the fields also is reflected in fundraising in which Democrats outraised Republicans $80 million to $50 million from April through June, continuing a trend from the year's first three months.

"Democrats are reasonably comfortable with the range of choices. The Democratic attitude is that three or four of these guys would be fine," David Redlawsk, a University of Iowa political scientist. "The Republicans don't have that; particularly among the conservatives there's a real split. They just don't see candidates who reflect their interests and who they also view as viable."

More Republicans have become apathetic about their options over the past month.

A hefty 23 percent can't or won't say which candidate they would back, a jump from the 14 percent who took a pass in June.

Giuliani's popularity continued to decline steadily as he faced a spate of headline headaches, came under increased scrutiny and saw the potential entry of Thompson in the mix; his support is at 21 percent compared with 27 percent in June and 35 percent in March.

The former New York mayor is running virtually even with Thompson, who has become a threat without even officially entering the race. The actor and former Tennessee senator has stayed steady at 19 percent. McCain, the Arizona senator who is revamping his nearly broke campaign, clocked in a bit lower at 15 percent, while Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, remained at 11 percent.

None of the top candidates has a clear lead among Christian evangelicals, a critical part of the GOP base that has had considerable sway in past Republican primaries. Giuliani, a thrice-married backer of abortion rights and gay rights, had 20 percent support — roughly even with Thompson and McCain who have one divorce each in their pasts. Romney, a Mormon who has been married for three decades, was in the single digits.

Among the legions of undecided Republicans is Barbara Skogman, 72, a retired legal assistant from Cedar Rapids, Iowa. She isn't at all excited about any of the prospects.

"I'm looking for a strong honest person. Do you know of any?" she joked. She had an easy time detailing why she was queasy about each of the most serious contenders. "Isn't that sad?" Then she reached a conclusion: "I just don't know."

Andrew E. Smith, a polling expert at the University of New Hampshire, said the number of voters in flux is no surprise, given that the primaries aren't for another six months. "People really don't decide who to vote for until the last couple months or days," he said.

On the Democratic side, 13 percent declined to back a candidate, and of those who picked a candidate, some may be willing to change their minds.

Barbara Hicks, 29, an English tutor in Arlington, Va., said her friends got her to lean toward former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards but she said, "It's not set in stone. ... I don't favor him very, very strongly."

The only other sign that Democrats are at all agitated about their choices is the continued support for Al Gore, the former vice president and 2000 Democratic presidential nominee who says he's not running. His popularity has slid some to 15 percent.

Otherwise, Clinton kept her strong advantage over Obama; her backers accounted for 36 percent of Democrats to his 20 percent, while support for Edwards remained essentially unchanged at 11 percent.

While neither Obama nor Edwards has threatened Clinton in national polls, both are giving her a chase in other areas. Obama leads her in fundraising for the primary and Edwards is running stronger in Iowa.

Nationally, the combined sample found Clinton has the edge among black Democrats, with 46 percent of their support to Obama's 33 percent. Her advantage is even wider among Hispanics; she has the support of 45 percent of them to Obama's 17 percent. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, whose mother was Mexican, had the backing of just 5 percent of Hispanics and virtually no support among blacks.

The AP-Ipsos poll was conducted by telephone July 9-11 with 1,004 adults, including 346 Republicans and 477 Democrats. The margin of sampling error for the full sample is plus or minus 3 percentage points, plus or minus 5.5 percentage points for Republicans and 4.5 percentage points for Democrats. For the combined June and July samples, the margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points for Republicans and plus or minus 3 percentage points for Democrats.

[randalds]

I second the nomination of Anne Coulter, Republican for President,
and for Vice President, Katie Couric who also has long helped the Republican cause albeit in a more subtle (professional?) manner. Remember her lighting into Al Gore for his "unpresidential(as she termed it)" sighing over Bush's boorish comments in the second debate of 2000?
Coulter/Couric 2008
Posted by hopetrumps at 04:02 PM : Jul 18, 2007

AND she's done more then her part to help try to destroy the credibility of CBS nightly news...just by anchoring it! She so bad of a choice to anchor the nightly news that one has to wonder if FOX Noise didn't slip in a spy to sc*rew CBS over.

[lars008-2009]

Posted by grazingdope at 08:22 AM : Jul 18, 2007

hahahahaha calling the inventor of the internet and global warming an idiot hahahahaha

the existing resolutions from 1991 are sufficient from a legal standpoint. - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Moreover, no international law can prevent the United States from taking actions to protect its vital interests, when it is manifestly clear that there is a choice to be made between law and survival. I believe, however, that such a choice is not presented in the case of Iraq. Indeed, should we decide to proceed, that action can be justified within the framework of international law rather than outside it. In fact, though a new UN resolution may be helpful in building international consensus, the existing resolutions from 1991 are sufficient from a legal standpoint. - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/gore/gore092302sp.html

[grazinggoat]

I believe, however, that such a choice is not presented in the case of Iraq. Indeed, should we decide to proceed, that action can be justified within the framework of international law rather than outside it. In fact, though a new UN resolution may be helpful in building international consensus, the existing resolutions from 1991 are sufficient from a legal standpoint. - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/go
re/gore092302sp.html
Posted by lars008 at 07:20 AM : Jul 18, 2007

-arsee008, what an idddiiiooettttt!

[grazinggoat]

We want Republican Vitter for President. He pleases American female fellows. He can satisfy America...lol!

[gunownerdan]

Notice how the media almost never mentions the name Ron Paul?
That's because he is the ONLY presidential candidate who would actually obey the presidential oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution.
Simple as that!
Hitlery Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, none of these people respect the Constitution. They would all ignore the Constitution just like Bush(or worse).

[lars008-2009]

the war is legal

the resumption of hostilities was only a matter of time since iraq broke the ceasefire agreement.....

blame saddam for iraq%u2026%u2026. Even clintoon and the dems wanted the resumption of hostilities back in 1998

US Vice-President Al Gore has told Iraqi opposition politicians that the United States remains committed to the overthrow of President Saddam Hussein. BBC 6/2000
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1854092/posts

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Moreover, no international law can prevent the United States from taking actions to protect its vital interests, when it is manifestly clear that there is a choice to be made between law and survival. I believe, however, that such a choice is not presented in the case of Iraq. Indeed, should we decide to proceed, that action can be justified within the framework of international law rather than outside it. In fact, though a new UN resolution may be helpful in building international consensus, the existing resolutions from 1991 are sufficient from a legal standpoint. - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/gore/gore092302sp.html

[randalds]

Anne Coulter..there's a Republican candidate...

Posted by zoe20006 at 07:13 PM : Jul 17, 2007

I hereby nominate her for republican Nazi *** of the year!

[sclaires]

I had a phone call from one of the Repubican candidates offices asking me about which one I would vote for. My answer was "None of the Above". The same answer would be if a Demoncrat candidate's office would call. I feel that my vote is between me and the voting machine and is no one's business.

[hungry1968]

Typical left wing poll. WAS THERE AN NONE OF THE ABOVE CHOICE WHEN ASKED ABOUT THE CRATS??
Posted by didntinhale at 05:47 PM : Jul 17, 2007


They don't need one. The Iraq war is killing the republicans NOT the democrats. Maybe if the republicans would have voted the way their constituents wanted them to, instead of blindly following George of Arabia, it might be different. You think it's rough for the republicans now, wait until Nov 2008. The president will be a Democrat, and the house and Senate will both be 70% Democratic. All because of Bush - that will be his legacy - the destruction of the republican party. (I guess he did do something right after all!!)

[hungry1968]

If Hilary were to win, she won't, we would have had 24 years of Bushes and Clintons. Now that is scary!!!
Posted by nottellin1 at 04:59 PM : Jul 17, 2007


I'd take a Clinton ANY day over ANY republican that is currently living. The last good republican was Lincoln.

[mcvet]

Any honest, hard working NON professional politician out there that steps in to run will get my support.
Posted by bill1fj at 04:45 PM : Jul 17, 2007

Oh SURE! LOL What we need more than anything is someone who can talk to our allies, form alliances with them to defeat Terrorist not make it worse. We need someone who knows how to deal with different cultures and different peoples. The LAST thing we need is another George Bush who was Incompetent from the word go. Anyone who is running for office will be a Politician for Gods sake. Sieg Heil Bush.

[mcvet]

If Hilary were to win, she won't, we would have had 24 years of Bushes and Clintons. Now that is scary!!!
Posted by nottellin1 at 04:59 PM : Jul 17, 2007

Well I'll agree with to many years of Bush's but we only had 8 years of Clintons and those were 8 of the best years of my life. Now I know you fascist out there can't stand the idea of Hillary but hang on to your swastika's, she's going to be your next prez!! Sieg Heil Bush

[mcvet]

Typical left wing poll. WAS THERE AN NONE OF THE ABOVE CHOICE WHEN ASKED ABOUT THE CRATS??
Posted by didntinhale at 05:47 PM : Jul 17, 2007
+ report abuse

What is it with you Nazi's? Can't read? ROFLMAO By the way ALL polls of Democrats show the EXACT same thing... I guess you, being a Fascist and a One Party Rule Nut, think their all "left wing" now don't you? ROFLMAO Dumb as a box of rocks!! ROFLMAO Sieg Heil Bush!!

[lars008-2009]

UN MAKES NON MUSLIMS SLAVES
And Dhimmitude For All
Another arena requiring testimony is dhimmitude in Western institutions. This is %u201Cepitomized,%u201D writes Mark Durie, %u201Cin the slavish attitude adopted by Mary Robinson, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights,%u201D in a 2002 statement to the Organization of the Islamic Conference Symposium on Human Rights in Islam in Geneva. Like a dhimmi, she affirmed the greatness and moral superiority of Islam, implying inferiority of non-Muslim infidels, and denied any possible voice of protest against Islamic abuses of human rights.
Not surprisingly, Islamism is growing at the UN, too. On August 5, 1990, explains David Littman, the 19 members of the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers adopted the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI). This document very specifically subjugates all human rights to those accorded by Islam. [1] The CDHRI totally contradicts the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Yet the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in December 1997 published it, establishing its authority as a quotable UN source. For example, the 26-member Sub-Commission on Human Rights referred to it in the preamble of a resolution adopted on August 21, 1998. [2] That Islamic human rights is gaining ascendancy and credence at the UN should be of concern to all Human Rights activists and organizations.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17637

[gkc99]

Repugs can exhume Ronnie Raygun, their hero. Anne Coulter, already one of the undead, can run with the re-activated "Great Communicator."

[jdmac44]

sjc_1 how can I "pick a side" when neither side adequately represents my convictions? I think that's called intellectual suicide. Fortunately there's a viable "independent" running under the Republican moniker: Congressman Ron Paul!

[jdmac44]

It's important to note that only the "front runners" were listed in this poll. Perhaps there is a contingent who are voicing their distaste with the fact that up and coming contenders such as Ron Paul aren't included? Hmmm?

[toldyouso21]

Did anyone read up on the "Poverty Tour?" It's the new name for McCain's straight talk express. LOL

[nottellin1]

If Hilary were to win, she won't, we would have had 24 years of Bushes and Clintons. Now that is scary!!!

[bill1fj]

Non of the professional politicians running now deserve to win. We need someone that will clean up this mess in the middle east, not just talk about what others have or have not done. We need some one that will enforce fines against any one that hires illegal aliens, and will deport illegals that do not go home voluntarily. We need someone that will do something about education and the cost of it. And health care cost and availablilty needs to be improved.
Any honest, hard working NON professional politician out there that steps in to run will get my support.