Hillary's poll numbers tanking...

Jeremy517 · #1 11-27-2007, 04:18 AM

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.

Max Raker · #2 11-27-2007, 04:37 AM

[ 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.

AbreuTime · #3 11-27-2007, 11:26 AM

[ 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?

4 High · #4 11-27-2007, 11:32 AM

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 · #5 11-27-2007, 04:03 PM

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.

BluffTHIS! · #6 11-27-2007, 05:18 PM

[ 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.

yjbrewer · #7 11-27-2007, 11:13 PM

Get Bill back in office somehow!

Max Raker · #8 11-28-2007, 02:44 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't be a nit, I never expected him to take the bet, I did it to make a point. When people make ridiculous statements that deviate this far from what the gambling community says they better offer some concrete evidence and not just pointless drivel. If he had said "I don't think Hillary is going to win" thats fine but he claimed that he can tell a full year from the election that she has no shot when common sense tells you that she, along with any democrat that can win the ticket, have around a 50% chance of being elected.

Max Raker · #9 11-28-2007, 03:23 AM

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you misunderstood the poll. They never said they thought the sample was random. The 1% margin just means that they have a certain confidence level that the true percentage of people who would click and participate in an internet poll is in that 2% spread. This says pretty much nothing about how the voting public will vote.

adanthar · #10 11-27-2007, 05:08 PM

[ 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.