Oklahoma: Edwards and Clinton tied, Giuliani leads among Republicans

[Tender Branson]

PS:

Fifty-two percent said they had a favorable opinion of Giuliani, with McCain second at 47 percent. Third overall, and tops among Democrats, was Edwards at 42 percent.

Clinton, while tied with Edwards among Democrats, did much worse with Republicans, and her overall approval rating of 33 percent was fifth behind Obama's 36 percent.

Perhaps more telling, Clinton's unfavorable rating of nearly 62 percent was by far the worst of the nine candidates included in the survey and the only one over 50 percent.

Her long public career, from first lady of Arkansas through the presidency of her husband, Bill, and now her own tenure in the Senate, has created many allies and, in Oklahoma at least, even more enemies.

...

Soonerpoll.com conducted the scientific telephone survey April 27-30 of 752 likely Oklahoma voters.

Respondents included 310 Republicans, 416 Democrats and 26 independents selected randomly from voters who have established a frequent voting pattern.

For the questions in which Democrats and Republicans were asked their presidential preferences, the margin of error is 4.8 for Democrats and 5.6 for Republicans. For all other questions, the margin of error is plus or minus 3.5 percent.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070516_238_A1_hREPU14234

[Tender Branson]

LOL @ Hillarys 33-62 unfavorable rating ...

[Gabu]

I wish that they had done a poll of Republicans against Democrats so we could finally put to rest the idea that Democrats are going to magically landslide in Oklahoma in 2008.

[Eraserhead]

Edwards nearly beat Clark here in 2004 (who was from the state right next to it). If Edwards is still in this thing when OK votes, he should win it.

[Eraserhead]

I wish that they had done a poll of Republicans against Democrats so we could finally put to rest the idea that Democrats are going to magically landslide in Oklahoma in 2008.

Who had that idea? I mean even Bush actually has a (barely) positive approval rating here.

[Gabu]

I wish that they had done a poll of Republicans against Democrats so we could finally put to rest the idea that Democrats are going to magically landslide in Oklahoma in 2008.

Who had that idea? I mean even Bush actually has a (barely) positive approval rating here.

I'm being a bit hyperbolic for comedic effect, but it's nonetheless the case that jamespol and Oklahoma City Democrat believe that Oklahoma will be close in 2008, and even that Edwards would win there over Giuliani.

[Eraserhead]

I wish that they had done a poll of Republicans against Democrats so we could finally put to rest the idea that Democrats are going to magically landslide in Oklahoma in 2008.

Who had that idea? I mean even Bush actually has a (barely) positive approval rating here.

I'm being a bit hyperbolic for comedic effect, but it's nonetheless the case that jamespol and Oklahoma City Democrat believe that Oklahoma will be close in 2008, and even that Edwards would win there over Giuliani.

Well an Edwards/Giuliani match would be the only one I could think of that would be remotely interesting here. Giuliani would still win by a decent margin though.

[Joe Biden 2020]

I wish that they had done a poll of Republicans against Democrats so we could finally put to rest the idea that Democrats are going to magically landslide in Oklahoma in 2008.

Who had that idea? I mean even Bush actually has a (barely) positive approval rating here.

I'm being a bit hyperbolic for comedic effect, but it's nonetheless the case that jamespol and Oklahoma City Democrat believe that Oklahoma will be close in 2008, and even that Edwards would win there over Giuliani.

Well, one thing is for sure, nobody can ignore Oklahoma anymore in politics.  We are just as vital and just as important in the political process as the bigger states.

I don't understand why nobody believes someone who LIVES IN OKLAHOMA.  You guys are making it seem like I don't know anything about my own state.  Believe me, Oklahoma may not go Democrat, but we won't be any more than 53-57% Republican.  Jim Inhofe has a 70% chance of being unseated.  John Edwards really could win Oklahoma against Guiliani or make it very competitive.

You guys are dismissing Oklahoma as an irrelevant, unimportant, hopelessly Republican state for the rest of eternity.

[Eraserhead]

No....well....alright...yeah pretty much.

[Sam Spade]

I don't understand why nobody believes someone who LIVES IN OKLAHOMA.  You guys are making it seem like I don't know anything about my own state.  Believe me, Oklahoma may not go Democrat, but we won't be any more than 53-57% Republican.  Jim Inhofe has a 70% chance of being unseated.  John Edwards really could win Oklahoma against Guiliani or make it very competitive.

You guys are dismissing Oklahoma as an irrelevant, unimportant, hopelessly Republican state for the rest of eternity.

John Edwards could pull 45% in Oklahoma.  The rest of the candidates wouldn't be able to break 40%.

I'd be open to listening to the "Jim Inhofe has a 70% chance of being unseated remark", except for the 58% approval mark this poll gives him.  If there's any way you can reconcile the two without resorting to the "poll is completely wrong" type of statement, please do so.

(of course the poll could be wrong, but the odds of that are still 1 in 20).

[Gabu]

Well, one thing is for sure, nobody can ignore Oklahoma anymore in politics.  We are just as vital and just as important in the political process as the bigger states.

We've already been over this.

I don't understand why nobody believes someone who LIVES IN OKLAHOMA.  You guys are making it seem like I don't know anything about my own state.  Believe me, Oklahoma may not go Democrat, but we won't be any more than 53-57% Republican.  Jim Inhofe has a 70% chance of being unseated.  John Edwards really could win Oklahoma against Guiliani or make it very competitive.

You guys are dismissing Oklahoma as an irrelevant, unimportant, hopelessly Republican state for the rest of eternity.

The fact that you live in Oklahoma doesn't really mean as much as you'd like to think.  I live in British Columbia, a province with a roughly comparable population.  That doesn't mean that my predictions for the political future of the province somehow have more of a weight than others.  I admire your optimism, but I sort of have the fear that you're letting optimism translate itself into a concrete prediction without any other evidence, which is never a good idea.

[Keystone Phil]

 Jim Inhofe has a 70% chance of being unseated.  

Uh, what? A 70% chance of losing? That's completely wrong especially when the man almost has a 60% approval rating.

[Joe Biden 2020]

I don't understand why nobody believes someone who LIVES IN OKLAHOMA.  You guys are making it seem like I don't know anything about my own state.  Believe me, Oklahoma may not go Democrat, but we won't be any more than 53-57% Republican.  Jim Inhofe has a 70% chance of being unseated.  John Edwards really could win Oklahoma against Guiliani or make it very competitive.

You guys are dismissing Oklahoma as an irrelevant, unimportant, hopelessly Republican state for the rest of eternity.

John Edwards could pull 45% in Oklahoma.  The rest of the candidates wouldn't be able to break 40%.

I'd be open to listening to the "Jim Inhofe has a 70% chance of being unseated remark", except for the 58% approval mark this poll gives him.  If there's any way you can reconcile the two without resorting to the "poll is completely wrong" type of statement, please do so.

(of course the poll could be wrong, but the odds of that are still 1 in 20).

I can see your point, however, I seriously see the Republican having a hard time breaking 60% in 2008.  Hillary Clinton would let them get close or maybe 61-62% upon further review.  Obama would give them 57-58%.  Richardson would give them 54-56% and Edwards would give them 52-55%.  Rudy Guiliani, while he is popular in Oklahoma because of his help with April 19, 1995, would struggle in the general election.  Mitt Romney, though being a Mormon, might be able to pull 57-58% while John McCain would pull in the mid-50s.  Mike Huckabee is the one candidate in the Republican field who could run away with 60-63% of the vote.

But, I will agree that, at least for 2008, Oklahoma is most likely to go Republican, but we'll have to re-evaluate for 2012.

I can't explain why Jim Inhofe is polling as high as he is and I will not say the poll is completely wrong.  I'd be interested to know who they polled, were they mostly Republicans, or were there a fair mix.  Remember, there are more registered Democrats than Republicans in Oklahoma.  So, the statement that that's all there was, won't work here.

For now, I will still give Jim Inhofe a 70% of being ousted until I hear who the takers of the poll were.  I may or may not revise that 70% after I hear that.

[SPC]

I don't understand why nobody believes someone who LIVES IN OKLAHOMA.  You guys are making it seem like I don't know anything about my own state.  Believe me, Oklahoma may not go Democrat, but we won't be any more than 53-57% Republican.  Jim Inhofe has a 70% chance of being unseated.  John Edwards really could win Oklahoma against Guiliani or make it very competitive.

You guys are dismissing Oklahoma as an irrelevant, unimportant, hopelessly Republican state for the rest of eternity.

John Edwards could pull 45% in Oklahoma.  The rest of the candidates wouldn't be able to break 40%.

I'd be open to listening to the "Jim Inhofe has a 70% chance of being unseated remark", except for the 58% approval mark this poll gives him.  If there's any way you can reconcile the two without resorting to the "poll is completely wrong" type of statement, please do so.

(of course the poll could be wrong, but the odds of that are still 1 in 20).

I can see your point, however, I seriously see the Republican having a hard time breaking 60% in 2008.  Hillary Clinton would let them get close or maybe 61-62% upon further review.  Obama would give them 57-58%.  Richardson would give them 54-56% and Edwards would give them 52-55%.  Rudy Guiliani, while he is popular in Oklahoma because of his help with April 19, 1995, would struggle in the general election.  Mitt Romney, though being a Mormon, might be able to pull 57-58% while John McCain would pull in the mid-50s.  Mike Huckabee is the one candidate in the Republican field who could run away with 60-63% of the vote.

But, I will agree that, at least for 2008, Oklahoma is most likely to go Republican, but we'll have to re-evaluate for 2012.

I can't explain why Jim Inhofe is polling as high as he is and I will not say the poll is completely wrong.  I'd be interested to know who they polled, were they mostly Republicans, or were there a fair mix.  Remember, there are more registered Democrats than Republicans in Oklahoma.  So, the statement that that's all there was, won't work here.

For now, I will still give Jim Inhofe a 70% of being ousted until I hear who the takers of the poll were.  I may or may not revise that 70% after I hear that.

How much would you like to wager that Inhofe gets reelected?

[Joe Biden 2020]

I don't understand why nobody believes someone who LIVES IN OKLAHOMA.  You guys are making it seem like I don't know anything about my own state.  Believe me, Oklahoma may not go Democrat, but we won't be any more than 53-57% Republican.  Jim Inhofe has a 70% chance of being unseated.  John Edwards really could win Oklahoma against Guiliani or make it very competitive.

You guys are dismissing Oklahoma as an irrelevant, unimportant, hopelessly Republican state for the rest of eternity.

John Edwards could pull 45% in Oklahoma.  The rest of the candidates wouldn't be able to break 40%.

I'd be open to listening to the "Jim Inhofe has a 70% chance of being unseated remark", except for the 58% approval mark this poll gives him.  If there's any way you can reconcile the two without resorting to the "poll is completely wrong" type of statement, please do so.

(of course the poll could be wrong, but the odds of that are still 1 in 20).

I can see your point, however, I seriously see the Republican having a hard time breaking 60% in 2008.  Hillary Clinton would let them get close or maybe 61-62% upon further review.  Obama would give them 57-58%.  Richardson would give them 54-56% and Edwards would give them 52-55%.  Rudy Guiliani, while he is popular in Oklahoma because of his help with April 19, 1995, would struggle in the general election.  Mitt Romney, though being a Mormon, might be able to pull 57-58% while John McCain would pull in the mid-50s.  Mike Huckabee is the one candidate in the Republican field who could run away with 60-63% of the vote.

But, I will agree that, at least for 2008, Oklahoma is most likely to go Republican, but we'll have to re-evaluate for 2012.

I can't explain why Jim Inhofe is polling as high as he is and I will not say the poll is completely wrong.  I'd be interested to know who they polled, were they mostly Republicans, or were there a fair mix.  Remember, there are more registered Democrats than Republicans in Oklahoma.  So, the statement that that's all there was, won't work here.

For now, I will still give Jim Inhofe a 70% of being ousted until I hear who the takers of the poll were.  I may or may not revise that 70% after I hear that.

How much would you like to wager that Inhofe gets reelected?

Considering Oklahoma does have some idiots for voters -- yes, you heard that from me -- i wouldn't doubt it.

[Padfoot]

Has Richardson been in Oklahoma recently?  It looks like he made a stop in Tulsa or something.  Those numbers are really good for him in comparison with other states. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

They still have a net approval of Bush? I think we can forget about defeating Inhofe, that state is too batsh**t crazy.

[TheresNoMoney]

They still have a net approval of Bush? I think we can forget about defeating Inhofe, that state is too batsh**t crazy.

Unfortunately, Inhofoe is as safe as can be.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

(of course the poll could be wrong, but the odds of that are still 1 in 20).

That's not exactly true. Lots of people misunderstand the 1 in 20 rule.

But that's not really relevant, and I agree Inhofe is very unlikely to lose, as awful as that is.

[Joe Biden 2020]

Inhofe may or may not win.  I'm still holding out hope that the Oklahoma voters will wake up and see what an idiot this guy is.  That's being nice, of course.  Like I said, we have some voters who are idiots themselves, so they'll probably vote to keep him in office.  Realistically, stupid voters aside, there shouldn't be any reason why we can't have a Democratic Senator come January 2009.  But, if we miss him, there's always Tom Coburn just two years later, who right now is less popular than Jim Inhofe is.  Tom Coburn is approaching the halfway point of his first term.

You all need to know that I'm voicing all this Democratic optimism about Oklahoma based off gut instinct and not really a whole lot of actual substance.  So, all your points are valid, as is mine.  Nobody will really know how Oklahoma will go until we get closer and definitely after we get past the primary season.  We will probably have a better idea come late February or March after we know who will face each other in the general election and then in August after we know who will face Inhofe in the general election.

[Aizen]

Inhofe may or may not win.  I'm still holding out hope that the Oklahoma voters will wake up and see what an idiot this guy is.  That's being nice, of course.  Like I said, we have some voters who are idiots themselves, so they'll probably vote to keep him in office.  Realistically, stupid voters aside, there shouldn't be any reason why we can't have a Democratic Senator come January 2009. 

The problem with your logic is that you simply can't put the stupid voters aside because the stupid voters are the majority in your state. Bush still has a positive approval rating there. Same with Inhofe. This is why Oklahoma is a joke.

[Joe Biden 2020]

Inhofe may or may not win.  I'm still holding out hope that the Oklahoma voters will wake up and see what an idiot this guy is.  That's being nice, of course.  Like I said, we have some voters who are idiots themselves, so they'll probably vote to keep him in office.  Realistically, stupid voters aside, there shouldn't be any reason why we can't have a Democratic Senator come January 2009. 

The problem with your logic is that you simply can't put the stupid voters aside because the stupid voters are the majority in your state. Bush still has a positive approval rating there. Same with Inhofe. This is why Oklahoma is a joke.

Everyone well knows that Oklahoma is not a joke.  Just because some people think we're not as "developed" as New York or California, they are flat WRONG.  We are equally as strong and as vital to the success of this nation as those two states.  As I've said before many times, the 9 people who live in Lambert, Oklahoma are equally as important as the 9,000,000 people who live in New York City and should be viewed as such and their needs met just as much.

I take offense to people who think Oklahoma is a joke.  This is THE BEST STATE in the country.

[Aizen]

Inhofe may or may not win.  I'm still holding out hope that the Oklahoma voters will wake up and see what an idiot this guy is.  That's being nice, of course.  Like I said, we have some voters who are idiots themselves, so they'll probably vote to keep him in office.  Realistically, stupid voters aside, there shouldn't be any reason why we can't have a Democratic Senator come January 2009. 

The problem with your logic is that you simply can't put the stupid voters aside because the stupid voters are the majority in your state. Bush still has a positive approval rating there. Same with Inhofe. This is why Oklahoma is a joke.

Everyone well knows that Oklahoma is not a joke.  Just because some people think we're not as "developed" as New York or California, they are flat WRONG.  We are equally as strong and as vital to the success of this nation as those two states.  As I've said before many times, the 9 people who live in Lambert, Oklahoma are equally as important as the 9,000,000 people who live in New York City and should be viewed as such and their needs met just as much.

I take offense to people who think Oklahoma is a joke.  This is THE BEST STATE in the country.

Okay... but I was referring to the politics of Oklahoma. Which is a joke. When your state elects nutters like Inhofe and keeps them with a positive approval rating, then yes, that is laughable in a sad way. I won't humor you, I'll just say it.

[Joe Biden 2020]

Inhofe may or may not win.  I'm still holding out hope that the Oklahoma voters will wake up and see what an idiot this guy is.  That's being nice, of course.  Like I said, we have some voters who are idiots themselves, so they'll probably vote to keep him in office.  Realistically, stupid voters aside, there shouldn't be any reason why we can't have a Democratic Senator come January 2009. 

The problem with your logic is that you simply can't put the stupid voters aside because the stupid voters are the majority in your state. Bush still has a positive approval rating there. Same with Inhofe. This is why Oklahoma is a joke.

Everyone well knows that Oklahoma is not a joke.  Just because some people think we're not as "developed" as New York or California, they are flat WRONG.  We are equally as strong and as vital to the success of this nation as those two states.  As I've said before many times, the 9 people who live in Lambert, Oklahoma are equally as important as the 9,000,000 people who live in New York City and should be viewed as such and their needs met just as much.

I take offense to people who think Oklahoma is a joke.  This is THE BEST STATE in the country.

Okay... but I was referring to the politics of Oklahoma. Which is a joke. When your state elects nutters like Inhofe and keeps them with a positive approval rating, then yes, that is laughable in a sad way. I won't humor you, I'll just say it.

Alright, I'll agree with you there that the politics of Oklahoma leave something to be desired.  I won't say its a joke, but its very close.  I understand that Oklahoma is very conservative, but the people of my state need to look past the party and see that Inhofe and Coburn are detrimental to their own state.  I was encouraged in 2006 as Democrats unseated 2 or 3 Republicans in down-ballot statewide offices including Lt Governor and Labor Commissioner and I think those trends can continue into 2008 if the voters will just WAKE UP.  I'm to the point now where I want anybody but Inhofe, even if he or she's a Republican which is even more doubtful.

I wasn't trying to jump down your throat.  I hope you didn't take it that way, and if so, I apologize.  I just had to get some clarification on the phrase "Oklahoma is a joke".  I should have just asked you to clarify instead of ranting and raving about moot points that people already believe.

[Aizen]

Inhofe may or may not win.  I'm still holding out hope that the Oklahoma voters will wake up and see what an idiot this guy is.  That's being nice, of course.  Like I said, we have some voters who are idiots themselves, so they'll probably vote to keep him in office.  Realistically, stupid voters aside, there shouldn't be any reason why we can't have a Democratic Senator come January 2009. 

The problem with your logic is that you simply can't put the stupid voters aside because the stupid voters are the majority in your state. Bush still has a positive approval rating there. Same with Inhofe. This is why Oklahoma is a joke.

Everyone well knows that Oklahoma is not a joke.  Just because some people think we're not as "developed" as New York or California, they are flat WRONG.  We are equally as strong and as vital to the success of this nation as those two states.  As I've said before many times, the 9 people who live in Lambert, Oklahoma are equally as important as the 9,000,000 people who live in New York City and should be viewed as such and their needs met just as much.

I take offense to people who think Oklahoma is a joke.  This is THE BEST STATE in the country.

Okay... but I was referring to the politics of Oklahoma. Which is a joke. When your state elects nutters like Inhofe and keeps them with a positive approval rating, then yes, that is laughable in a sad way. I won't humor you, I'll just say it.

Alright, I'll agree with you there that the politics of Oklahoma leave something to be desired.  I won't say its a joke, but its very close.  I understand that Oklahoma is very conservative, but the people of my state need to look past the party and see that Inhofe and Coburn are detrimental to their own state.  I was encouraged in 2006 as Democrats unseated 2 or 3 Republicans in down-ballot statewide offices including Lt Governor and Labor Commissioner and I think those trends can continue into 2008 if the voters will just WAKE UP.  I'm to the point now where I want anybody but Inhofe, even if he or she's a Republican which is even more doubtful.

I wasn't trying to jump down your throat.  I hope you didn't take it that way, and if so, I apologize.  I just had to get some clarification on the phrase "Oklahoma is a joke".  I should have just asked you to clarify instead of ranting and raving about moot points that people already believe.

I like the people of Oklahoma. I've been there several times and they are quite nice. But their politics is just awful.