Hillary's poll numbers tanking...

[AngusThermopyle]

[ 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"

[BluffTHIS!]

[ 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.

[AngusThermopyle]

[ 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.

[kurto]

[ 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.

[Dynasty]

[ 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.

[Barcalounger]

[ 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.

[Jeremy517]

[ 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.

[Ron Burgundy]

[ 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?

[DVaut1]

[ 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.

[Dynasty]

[ 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.