The results are in
Poll: Idahoans Deem Mitt Fit and Want More Gore
By J. Gelband, 7-18-07
 | |
|
This just in: Results from a poll of Idahoans indicate that the state’s voters prefer former Vice President Al Gore and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney for president in 2008.
Seriously. Greg Smith & Associates, an Idaho marketing and research company, released the results of a statewide public opinion research study among likely 2008 primary election votes.
Poll respondents were asked who they would support for their party’s nominee “if the election was held today.”
Of the Idaho Democrats polled, 31 percent indicated they would vote for Gore. Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama came in second and third, respectively, with 23 percent and 22 percent.
Senator John Edwards received 10 percent, “another candidate” got 6 percent and 8 percent were still undecided.
When asked to exclude Gore, 33 percent of Idaho Democrats said they support Obama, while 31 percent support Clinton. In this category, Edwards garnered 15 percent while 21 percent choose “another candidate” or are undecided.
As for Idaho Republicans, 38 percent support Romney. Former Mayor of New York City Rudy Giuliani received 20 percent of the support while Fred Thompson received 18 percent and John McCain received 14 percent. “Another candidate” got 3 percent and 7 percent were still undecided.
The poll, conducted July 11-13 randomly selected 400 statistically representative Idahoans 18 years or older who are likely to participate in either the Democratic Caucus in February or the Republican primary in May 2008.
“This is an exciting gauge of Idaho public opinion since it is the first of its type to be conducted in Idaho for public revue and comment,” Greg Smith, president of Greg Smith & Associates, said in a statement. “I must warn you that we are dealing with smaller than usual sample sizes, thus, caution should be taken in interpreting the results.”
The results for each of the candidates were divided into both “hard” and “soft” level support. But even so, no candidate in either party, except for Romney, got more than a third of the support among the participants.
Smith also notes that these number are just early-stage results and that “the contest here in Idaho, like the rest of the nation, is by no means a lock for any candidate.” Especially if the front runner on one side isn’t even a candidate.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Environmentalism is only one facet of a good candidate. Are you sure you're looking for a Presidential candidate or are you just looking for a leader that supports your cause?
Gore was strongly opposed to Iraq even prior to the 2003 invasion, so on that issue he has been out in front. Don't know about health care.
As for me, if Al Gore were to throw his hat in the ring, I would wholeheartedly support his candidacy. I'll support and vote for whomever the Dems nominate out of Denver next year (even Hillary), but for Gore to be the candidate would be the best choice, IMO (actually, I believe a Gore/Obama ticket would blow away whomever the Repubs put out there).
when someone speaks of leadership, one is looking for a constant consistent action. Gore has sidestepped questions on Iraq, he hasn't spoken against it much since the 2003 timeframe.
But it's not that I don't love Gore myself. I think he's a great man and I view America with strong regret that they allowed a Conservative Supreme Court to throw the 2000 elections. I imagine that Gore's leadership would have been of a much different and more capable tone than the one we've endured for the last 7 years.
However, looking at the reality of the situation is a totally different scenario. Gore "lost", he's a "loser" and he has a lot of baggage that would be difficult to divert. Obama is a wonderful speaker, he's on top of the issues, but his ethnicity in the "South" is a difficult, if not impossible hurdle to overcome.
Overall I'm just a confused voter, unsure of what the field will look like and I'm not willing to state my decision until at such time it's inevitable and clear. I just look upon those that have made up their minds already and wonder how they are capable of doing so.
You say:
"when someone speaks of leadership, one is looking for a constant consistent action. Gore has sidestepped questions on Iraq, he hasn't spoken against it much since the 2003 timeframe."
Have you actually followed his speeches? He's spoken out against the war in many speeches since 2003. His new book also devoted a large amount of material to the war in Iraq. So, If you are looking for "constant consistent action" as you say, then Gore is your guy.
He has also shown leadership on other issues as well, he spoke out against illegal wiretapping, called for a repeal of the PATRIOT Act, and spoke out harder than anyone about the issue torture.
You can find some of his major speeches from 2002-2006 at: http://draftgore.com/speeches.htm
Also, on the issue of health care, Gore would be the only major candidate that supports single-payer coverage.
With regard to the official candidates now running for the Democratic nomination, I believe that a number of them might make good presidents; but, especially in the case of Clinton and Obama, I also believe that we can't be naive about their baggage. In the case of Obama, I am fearful that he won't just have a "hurdle" to overcome in the south. I hope he stay alive.