Hillary's poll numbers tanking...

[4 High]

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.

[AngusThermopyle]

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.

[adanthar]

[ 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.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ 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.

[kurto]

[ 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.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ 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!

[Ron Burgundy]

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.

[Ron Burgundy]

[ 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

[BluffTHIS!]

[ 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?

[UATrewqaz]

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.