Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsN...=22&sp=true

Recent poll shows her trailing head to head against all 5 top republican possibilities.

Also polls have shown Obama equalling or passing her in Iowa and gaining in New Hampshire.

Speculation as to the reason(s)?

Also what will her response be? Do nothing and hope it's just an anomaly? Come out swinging at Obama? The whole gender card issue does not really seem to play very well so I don't see her pushing that much.

I predict a full mainstream media Clinton lovefest in the next few months leading up to the primaries. Seems like every major news outlet is infested with former Clinton crew.

Also of interest, the polls show Edwards or Obama ahead of all the Republicans.

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

She's in a real bind because of her policy positions on issues that liberals love. Even reliable liberal pundits feel free to grumble about her, because on their two biggest issues this election, universal health care and the War in Iraq, she's really lukewarm and little changed from the Republicans. Paul Krugman of the New York Times openly worried that she'd be influenced by corporates.

Maybe with the Republicans looking as fractured as they do now party hardliners think they can "gamble" with an Obama or Edwards nomination. Clinton by far has the best campaign staff, tough and hardened. But it seems that even the tacticians are worried about her lukewarm reaction from the base.

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsN...=22&sp=true

Recent poll shows her trailing head to head against all 5 top republican possibilities.

[/ QUOTE ]

Note that the Zogby poll showing Hillary losing to all GOP challengers is an internet poll that does not use what would generally be accepted as a random sample. All the most recent telephone polls (including a new Gallup poll released the same day as this one) show Hillary slightly ahead of the GOP candidates.

Zogby has been experimenting with internet poll methods for the past couple of cycles. Thus far, they have performed very poorly. That's not to say that internet polling is futile. There is a lot of research current being conducted on internet survey methodology. But it's not there yet.

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

Her strategy has always been to paint herself as the inevitable candidate. It would have worked if not for a)Obama raising too much money, and b)that debate. Now it's a horse race, and since comparatively few people actually *like* her, she's in real trouble unless Obama does something really dumb in the next six weeks.

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

Hillary is terrible. No wonder she is tanking. If anyone thinks for half a second about her, they'll realize that she caters to the corporations.
She isn't liberal enough for Democrats to like her, and obviously no Republican will vote for her. Theres only so many independents who can be fooled.

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

Republicans and Democrats should enact a pact to save America by agreeing to not nominate Rudy or Hillary. That way the opposite side it assured not to have to deal with their worst night mare.

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

Looks like the lefties are finally realizing that:

1) Presidential pillow-talk does not equal policy-making experience

2) Eating lunch and smiling for photos with foreign leaders does not equal foreign policy experience

3) It doesn't matter how many times you call Bush a moron if you keep voting with the repubs on foreign policy issues. That's the problem with voting based on politics instead of principle.

There's also The Oprah Factor (chicks dig Oprah, in case you haven't noticed), and potentially the lesbo-affair scandal.

Obama is a sharp dude. Politics aside, I'm beginning to really like his dry sarcasm. He'll destroy Hillary if they ever do a HU4POLLZ debate.

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

A Hillary nomination would pretty much be the worst possible outcome for Democrats. She can't win the general election, and it would guarantee a huge Republican turnout, since so many would vote just to vote against her. A high Republican turnout would mean that all close Senate and House races would go to the Republican candidate, and some races where the Democrat had a slight lead would now be a coin flip.

Democrats should be rooting against her in the primary, even if they agree with her on the most issues, and Republicans should root for her in the primary, even if they despise her.

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

[ QUOTE ]
A Hillary nomination would pretty much be the worst possible outcome for Democrats. She can't win the general election, and it would guarantee a huge Republican turnout, since so many would vote just to vote against her.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you really believe this I would be happy to put 5k at 2:1 on Hillary winning the presidency if she gets the nomination.

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

[ QUOTE ]

If you really believe this I would be happy to put 5k at 2:1 on Hillary winning the presidency if she gets the nomination.

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't be a nit. He's making a prediction, that she wouldn't win. Besides, why bet with a rando on the internets when he can get better odds just about anywhere else.

Interesting catch on the internet voting. The article said
[ QUOTE ]
The poll of 9,355 people had a margin of error of plus or minus one percentage point. The interactive poll surveys individuals who have registered to take part in online polls.

[/ QUOTE ]
So the margin of error is 1 percent, but it's unclear how they found the random sample of people willing to partake in the poll. It seems that people willing to do an online poll would be younger than the general voting populace, but I would hope there is some sampling adjustment. These internet polls were off/wrong in past elections?

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

The poll is clearly an outlier, however that being said she has become very weak very quickly. Its not up to Obama to rush into the opening. He needs to convert as many undecideds and Edwards/Richardson/Everyone else supporters to him as quickly as possible. The larger his margin of victory In Iowa, the better his shot of winning in NH and continuing onward.

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

Clinton 40%
Giuliani 43%


Clinton 39%
Huckabee 44%


Clinton 40%
Thompson 44%


So both Huckabee and Thompson do better against her than Giuliani? Sorry, those numbers are suspect.

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

[ QUOTE ]
A Hillary nomination would pretty much be the worst possible outcome for Democrats. She can't win the general election

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of people keep saying that. These people usually have an (R) next to their names. The trouble is (and, incidentally, I agree this *is* trouble) they are extremely wrong. She might be a mediocre to bad pick, but she is a Clinton, has already shown she'll outraise any GOP candidate 2:1 without trying very hard, and - if she does win the primaries - will have her aura back. To counter this, the GOP will field one of their own slate of highly suspect candidates - if there's one person who can't win a general election in this entire field, it's Romney - who has the added stumbling block of trying to distance himself from a sitting, unpopular president of the same party. Hillary might well be the worst Democrat pick, but saying she can't win...yeah, I'd put up 5K, too.

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Clinton 40%
Giuliani 43%


Clinton 39%
Huckabee 44%


Clinton 40%
Thompson 44%


So both Huckabee and Thompson do better against her than Giuliani? Sorry, those numbers are suspect.

[/ QUOTE ]


The numbers supposedly showing Shrillary behind against all repubs seem to all be Rasmussen poll results, which I have never found particularly accurate come election day, though they don't seem to have a political bias one way or the other.

The RCP site has Headsup polls though not with Huckabee in there, and the overall averages of same show her ahead of Guiliani, McCain, Romney and Thompson, though she isn't as strong as previously against Giuliani and McCain.

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Looks like the lefties are finally realizing that:

1) Presidential pillow-talk does not equal policy-making experience

2) Eating lunch and smiling for photos with foreign leaders does not equal foreign policy experience

3) It doesn't matter how many times you call Bush a moron if you keep voting with the repubs on foreign policy issues. That's the problem with voting based on politics instead of principle.

There's also The Oprah Factor (chicks dig Oprah, in case you haven't noticed), and potentially the lesbo-affair scandal.

Obama is a sharp dude. Politics aside, I'm beginning to really like his dry sarcasm. He'll destroy Hillary if they ever do a HU4POLLZ debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lefties never thought any of the numbered items listed above.

and regarding #2-- what you listed was MORE foreign policy experience the Bush had prior to being elected and the right seemed confident that he had enough to do the job. So I'm not sure what your point here would be.

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

[ QUOTE ]
and potentially the lesbo-affair scandal

[/ QUOTE ]


Ron,

Could you start a thread about this with some sources and excerpts from same. I don't mean credible sources of course, as any old gossip is OK with me since I can't stand her. Let's air all the juicy baseless speculation there is!

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

For #2, repubs didn't care about GWB's experience, they voted for him because they loved his dad.

Hillary keeps talking about her experience as one of her strengths, which I think is ridiculous.

If those points I listed are wrong, then why do any liberals support Hillary? She's just a pro choice neo-con if you ask me.

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and potentially the lesbo-affair scandal

[/ QUOTE ]


Ron,

Could you start a thread about this with some sources and excerpts from same. I don't mean credible sources of course, as any old gossip is OK with me since I can't stand her. Let's air all the juicy baseless speculation there is!

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashhh.htm

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and potentially the lesbo-affair scandal

[/ QUOTE ]


Ron,

Could you start a thread about this with some sources and excerpts from same. I don't mean credible sources of course, as any old gossip is OK with me since I can't stand her. Let's air all the juicy baseless speculation there is!

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashhh.htm

[/ QUOTE ]


Using Brit tabloids that will print unsourced rumours American papers wouldn't?

http://www.mustangmods.com/data/10900/brilliant.jpg

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

I think the telling thing is that the poll shows Hillary behind the republicans but Obama/Edwards ahead of them.

If it showed the republicans ahead in all cases I think it would be easier to dismiss the poll as flawed.

But the fact that there are a large % of people who can see themselves voting for Obama or Edwards but would rather vote for a republican over Hillary is very telling.

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and potentially the lesbo-affair scandal

[/ QUOTE ]


Ron,

Could you start a thread about this with some sources and excerpts from same. I don't mean credible sources of course, as any old gossip is OK with me since I can't stand her. Let's air all the juicy baseless speculation there is!

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashhh.htm

[/ QUOTE ]

Original Times story

Times response to the Drudge "report"

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

[ QUOTE ]
The purpose of this report (read it for yourselves) was not to suggest these claims were true, but to provide a measure of their nastiness.

[/ QUOTE ]


LOL. Like a newspaper doesn't think printing something will cause many to believe it is true.

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

[ QUOTE ]

If it showed the republicans ahead in all cases I think it would be easier to dismiss the poll as flawed.



[/ QUOTE ]

And the fact that Huckabee and Thompson are ahead of any Democrat doesn't seem a bit suspect?

Wild guess: Most Obama and Edwards supporters polled 'voted' for any Republican, just to skew the poll. I doubt if they would actually crossover next November.

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

[ QUOTE ]
For #2, repubs didn't care about GWB's experience, they voted for him because they loved his dad.

Hillary keeps talking about her experience as one of her strengths, which I think is ridiculous.

If those points I listed are wrong, then why do any liberals support Hillary? She's just a pro choice neo-con if you ask me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well... I'm a lefty and I've never really thought much of Hillary. Frankly, I don't get hot over any of my choices from any party right now.

I simply thought that your part about "lefties finally understanding..." was just some partisan sniping against the left that took shots at things no one in the left really believed.

[ QUOTE ]
For #2, repubs didn't care about GWB's experience, they voted for him because they loved his dad.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's pretty sad. (no sadder, necessarily, then any of the other ridiculous reasons people choose to vote for someone.) Though completely in line with what I expect from people (of any party.)

People vote for candidates because: they're handsome, remind them of their grandfathers, cause they're from the south (or from their home state.... "wow, they're from my state, THEY MUST BE GOOD"), cause they'd like to have a beer with them, cause they have the same faith... there are many ridiculous reasons that people use to pick a candidate.

I would be amazed if even half the people voting cared a lick about foreign policy experience or plans. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
If those points I listed are wrong, then why do any liberals support Hillary? She's just a pro choice neo-con if you ask me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are liberals clamoring for Hilary? I'm not sure that all her votes are from liberals. Reasons people might vote for hilary
++ lesser of many evils?
++ first woman president?
++ hope for universal healthcare?
++ they liked her husband and hope he'll be directing from the wings?
++ she's not Bush
++ she seems smart
++ my understanding is that her constituients were happy with her performance... I haven't looked into that lately but I do recall that was the case at one point

These are only guesses. The few people I've spoken to recently who are left leaning haven't really mentioned any love for Hilary. I don't think there are any candidates that any die hard liberal would love. The sad thing is it will probably once again be a matter of voting for the least objectionable candidate.

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

[ QUOTE ]
For #2, repubs didn't care about GWB's experience, they voted for him because they loved his dad.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're wrong here. GWB had lots of problems in the 2000 election because of his father.

Specifically, social conservatives did not vote in #'s as large as GWB's campaign had hoped for. This led to big grassroots work in the 2002 midterms and 2004 Presidential elections. The 2000 election was so close in part because christian conservatives did not come out to vote.

Bush Sr. has never been popular with the grass roots of the Republican party. Now that he's long gone, they respect him. But, he was never their guy.

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

[ QUOTE ]
She's just a pro choice neo-con if you ask me.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT.

FWIW, I don't think real liberals like Hillary. Democrats like her because allegedly she has a good chance to win and her policies (or lack thereof) don't offend them much. They also know that real liberals will vote for her because a) she's not a republican and b) liberals love the idea of a woman (or minority) in the white house. She's the safe choice, just like Kerry was.

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A Hillary nomination would pretty much be the worst possible outcome for Democrats. She can't win the general election

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of people keep saying that. These people usually have an (R) next to their names. The trouble is (and, incidentally, I agree this *is* trouble) they are extremely wrong. She might be a mediocre to bad pick, but she is a Clinton, has already shown she'll outraise any GOP candidate 2:1 without trying very hard, and - if she does win the primaries - will have her aura back. To counter this, the GOP will field one of their own slate of highly suspect candidates - if there's one person who can't win a general election in this entire field, it's Romney - who has the added stumbling block of trying to distance himself from a sitting, unpopular president of the same party. Hillary might well be the worst Democrat pick, but saying she can't win...yeah, I'd put up 5K, too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me saying that has nothing to do with the money she raises, her views on any issue, her Republican opponent, etc. Those are irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that Hillary is way too polarizing of a candidate. By nominating her, it would guarantee a huge Republican turnout. It would not, however, guarantee a huge Democrat turnout.

And no, I'm not a Republican, I'm a registered independent. I even voted for Bill in 1996.

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For #2, repubs didn't care about GWB's experience, they voted for him because they loved his dad.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're wrong here. GWB had lots of problems in the 2000 election because of his father.

Specifically, social conservatives did not vote in #'s as large as GWB's campaign had hoped for. This led to big grassroots work in the 2002 midterms and 2004 Presidential elections. The 2000 election was so close in part because christian conservatives did not come out to vote.

Bush Sr. has never been popular with the grass roots of the Republican party. Now that he's long gone, they respect him. But, he was never their guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think he would still have gotten elected if his name wasn't Bush?

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

[ QUOTE ]
The fact of the matter is that Hillary is way too polarizing of a candidate. By nominating her, it would guarantee a huge Republican turnout. It would not, however, guarantee a huge Democrat turnout.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have any evidence to support these claims?

Hillary Clinton is the probably most "professional" of the candidates running on either side, has the most experienced and talented campaign team surrounding her, and won't have any problem securing the support Beltway elite, New York & California money, and various corporate types. There's a reason why she has a campaign war chest the size of some small country's GDPs, and there's a reason why she's winning in the RCP head to head averages with every Republican candidate.

"Political machines" are appropriately named, and it's not because they're powerless in influencing people. And right now, the Clinton machine is just about the tops in the industry. You can poo poo stuff like "is the favored candidate of corporate America and Beltway elites" all you want and stick to right-wing talking points, but take a look back at the last couple of President elections and pretend this stuff doesn't matter. If Clinton were "too polarizing to win", I have a gut feeling corportate America wouldn't be dumping tens of millions of dollars into her coffers.

To claim that it's a "fact of the matter that Hilary is way too polarizing of a candidate" to win in a general election is ridiculous. Has she had a bad month? Yes. Is she a lock to even win her own nomination at this point? Of course not. Is the smart money still on her to win the election? I'd say so. That's a far cry from "it's a fact she's too polarizing to win". The actual "fact" is that she's a huge favorite to win the general election and it's really not even close at this point.

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

[ QUOTE ]

Do you think he would still have gotten elected if his name wasn't Bush?

[/ QUOTE ]

He wouldn't have had an established national political machine behind him with the ability raise lots of money early. That scared out a lot of possible Republican candidates.

But, don't confuse that with Bush Sr. being loved by core Republican voters. They certainly didn't. A bunch of them rebeled on him in the '92 primaries led by Pat Buchanan.



Could GWB have won the Presidency without the last name of Bush? I think so. Christian conservatives really think of GWB as "their guy". In many ways, he even surpasses Reagan with those voters. And, he leaves McCain, Dole, and Bush Sr. in the dust. Nobody among the 2008 candidates comes close either.

Of course, the difficulty for GWB would be establishing himself as "their guy" prior to the 2000 Repbulican primaries. That would be very hard to do.

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Do you think he would still have gotten elected if his name wasn't Bush?

[/ QUOTE ]

He wouldn't have had an established national political machine behind him with the ability raise lots of money early. That scared out a lot of possible Republican candidates.

But, don't confuse that with Bush Sr. being loved by core Republican voters. They certainly didn't. A bunch of them rebeled on him in the '92 primaries led by Pat Buchanan.



Could GWB have won the Presidency without the last name of Bush? I think so. Christian conservatives really think of GWB as "their guy". In many ways, he even surpasses Reagan with those voters. And, he leaves McCain, Dole, and Bush Sr. in the dust. Nobody among the 2008 candidates comes close either.

Of course, the difficulty for GWB would be establishing himself as "their guy" prior to the 2000 Repbulican primaries. That would be very hard to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

The question is absurd on its face because George W. Bush's entire life has been shaped by being a "Bush". From entrance to East Coast prep schools, to Yale, to B-School at Harvard, to his business ventures...these were all due in some way to the Bush family name and the accompanying networks.

If the question is, does George W. Bush get elected if he had the same kind of personal history and background up until January 1st 1999 (or something like that) but then his last name magically changes to "Smith" and he no longer has the same kind of name recognition that a Presidential family name grants, then I would say "maybe he does get elected". If the question is, does George W. Bush get elected if he isn't a Bush at all, and doesn't have privileged access to Phillips and Yale and Bush family business/political networks, etc., then I say "who knows, probably not".

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

[ QUOTE ]
To claim that it's a "fact of the matter that Hilary is way too polarizing of a candidate" to win in a general election is ridiculous. Has she had a bad month? Yes. Is she a lock to even win her own nomination at this point? Of course not. Is the smart money still on her to win the election? I'd say so. That's a far cry from "it's a fact she's too polarizing to win". The actual "fact" is that she's a huge favorite to win the general election and it's really not even close at this point.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has nothing to do with her bad month, it has to do with Republican turnout. There is always going to be dislike for a candidate from the opposite party, but not to the level of the Republicans and Hillary. I'm not exactly saying ground-breaking stuff here, so the fact that you are acting like I made some sort of shocking statement is a little baffling.

Also, the dislike for Hilary isn't just in the Republican party. There are swing voters who feel the same way. Check out the Zogby poll from last month (possibly from even before her "bad month"?), asking which candidate you would never consider voting for. Hillary won with 50% of the vote. For reference, Guiliani was at 43%, Obama 37%, Edwards 42%, Thompson 41%, etc. Considering the margin in swing states, those are huge differences.

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

[ QUOTE ]


It has nothing to do with her bad month, it has to do with Republican turnout. There is always going to be dislike for a candidate from the opposite party, but not to the level of the Republicans and Hillary. I'm not exactly saying ground-breaking stuff here, so the fact that you are acting like I made some sort of shocking statement is a little baffling.

Also, the dislike for Hilary isn't just in the Republican party. There are swing voters who feel the same way. Check out the Zogby poll from last month (possibly from even before her "bad month"?), asking which candidate you would never consider voting for. Hillary won with 50% of the vote. For reference, Guiliani was at 43%, Obama 37%, Edwards 42%, Thompson 41%, etc. Considering the margin in swing states, those are huge differences.

[/ QUOTE ]

The "Republicans hate Hillary" effect is really overstated. (Note that I am not Hillary supporter.)
Certainly Democrats hated Bush in 2004 at least as much as Republicans hate Hillary now, and we see how that turned out.

Zogby is really the worst pollster you can cite right now, because as I mentioned before, he is attempting to use internet polls, and his recent record has been terrible. Also, citing figures answering the question "Who will you never vote for" doesn't indicate anything about how many people will turnout to vote against for. For example, I'll bet that 20% said they would "never" vote for both Clinton and Giuliani. If they are the nominees, what happens to GOP turnout?

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

[quote If they are the nominees, what happens to GOP turnout?

[/ QUOTE ]

Between the Clinton name and misogyny the GOP turnout will be huge. The only question is whether the net effects would be larger than the net racist effect.

The general election only has 3 out of the 4 possibilities (under the current economic and foreign policy conditions)imo: A narrow GOP win, a substantial GOP win, a narrow Dem win. I can't see a basis for expecting a substantial Dem win.

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Zogby is really the worst pollster you can cite right now, because as I mentioned before, he is attempting to use internet polls, and his recent record has been terrible.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was a phone poll.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, citing figures answering the question "Who will you never vote for" doesn't indicate anything about how many people will turnout to vote against for.

[/ QUOTE ]

Naturally. I wasn't trying to tie the two, I was just trying to make another point.

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Zogby is really the worst pollster you can cite right now, because as I mentioned before, he is attempting to use internet polls, and his recent record has been terrible.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was a phone poll.



[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Figures from the earlier surveys cited in this news release are from Zogby International telephone surveys, including 1,012 likely voters in the July survey and 993 likely voters in the May survey.

The online survey included 9,150 likely voters nationwide, and was conducted Nov. 21–26, 2007. It carries a margin of error of +/– 1.0 percentage points.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

Get Bill back in office somehow!

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

[ QUOTE ]
The general election only has 3 out of the 4 possibilities (under the current economic and foreign policy conditions)imo: A narrow GOP win, a substantial GOP win, a narrow Dem win. I can't see a basis for expecting a substantial Dem win.

[/ QUOTE ]

We're one year removed from a historic Democratic Congressional sweep (pretty much the opposite of '94), the Dem candidates are summarily outraising the GOP candidates for the first time in several decades, the incumbent President is hampering his own party to a substantial degree, and there's a widely unpopular war on. The biggest criticism of Congress is, essentially, that they're not doing enough to reverse the policies the GOP has implemented and cave in to them too often. Finally, twice as many GOP senators are up for re-election as Dems.

If these factors lead you to conclude that the best the Democrats can hope for is a narrow win, I once again invite all comers to wager on it.

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

[ QUOTE ]
The general election only has 3 out of the 4 possibilities (under the current economic and foreign policy conditions)imo: A narrow GOP win, a substantial GOP win, a narrow Dem win. I can't see a basis for expecting a substantial Dem win.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how this can possibly be correct seeing how all of the online bookmaking sites I have looked at list the Democrat party as the favorite. If anything it should be the opposite, a substantial Republican win is the least likely outcome. I wouldn't go so far as to say there is no basis for that happening, but it is certainly the least likely option.

I think that people who view Clinton as a bad nominee are flat out misreading things. First, the people who hate Hillary have hated her and her husband for 15+ years now. No undecided voters are walking around saying "[censored] shrillary", all those people made up their mind a long time ago and probably would have been active in the election no matter what. Her husband was the most popular President of the last 20 years, despite the pathetically perpetuated Lewinsky scandal. Given 9/11 and how badly the war in Iraq has turned out, a mistake like that seems pretty quaint. I think running a black candidate has WAY more negative possibilities than Hillary by a long way. The bookmakers know about the anti hillary movement, and they have her ahead in the Democratic Primary and have the Democrats ahead in the election. What does that tell you. I don't remember the anti hillary crowd coming out and making threads about how well she was doing when she overtook Obama. Every campaign has ups and downs and I hardly see this development as a death knell. I think adanthar is pretty much on the money, especially the first two lines of this post:


[ QUOTE ]
A lot of people keep saying that. These people usually have an (R) next to their names. The trouble is (and, incidentally, I agree this *is* trouble) they are extremely wrong. She might be a mediocre to bad pick, but she is a Clinton, has already shown she'll outraise any GOP candidate 2:1 without trying very hard, and - if she does win the primaries - will have her aura back. To counter this, the GOP will field one of their own slate of highly suspect candidates - if there's one person who can't win a general election in this entire field, it's Romney - who has the added stumbling block of trying to distance himself from a sitting, unpopular president of the same party. Hillary might well be the worst Democrat pick, but saying she can't win...yeah, I'd put up 5K, too.

[/ QUOTE ]

No matter how much some people hate hillary they are seeing things in a very biased way, and that is definitely not the same way the Democratic base or middle of the road voters see it. Don't get the impression from this post that I think its not a close race, it is, and it is still really early to be making broad statements like "Hillary can't beat the Republicans but Obama can" (uh, we are talking about hillarys weaknesses and the other guy is black? If hillary being disliked by hardcore republicans is that much of a factor to swing everyone against her, we probably shouldn't ignore the reaction that the other guy is black and running in a NATIONAL election... is it just me or is everyone ignoring that because they want to pile on hillary?)

I don't think it is by a large margin and its very early, but I am convinced right now she is the favorite to win. And given that she has the best run campaign and tons of other resources, that might mean more than an unknown being in the lead. And you had better believe that I do not like Hillary very much, I do NOT want to see her be president.

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Looks like the lefties are finally realizing that:

1) Presidential pillow-talk does not equal policy-making experience

2) Eating lunch and smiling for photos with foreign leaders does not equal foreign policy experience

3) It doesn't matter how many times you call Bush a moron if you keep voting with the repubs on foreign policy issues. That's the problem with voting based on politics instead of principle.

There's also The Oprah Factor (chicks dig Oprah, in case you haven't noticed), and potentially the lesbo-affair scandal.

Obama is a sharp dude. Politics aside, I'm beginning to really like his dry sarcasm. He'll destroy Hillary if they ever do a HU4POLLZ debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

90% of the time I totally agree with you Ron, but not here. It would fall under "ignoring the fact that Obama is black and running in a national election." I really think it bears repeating how big a weakness this in a really large amount of the country. Considering how little I agree with him (like... not ever) I do find him appealing in the way everyone else seems to, so in a certain sense he is probably the mainstream contender I want to win most, but not for any distinct policy reason I can name.