New poll shows Clinton trails top 2008 Republicans

Source: Reuters

Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton trails five top Republican presidential contenders in general election match-ups, a drop in support from this summer, according to a poll released on Monday.

Clinton's top Democratic rivals, Barack Obama and John Edwards, still lead Republicans in hypothetical match-ups ahead of the November 4, 2008, presidential election, the survey by Zogby Interactive showed.

Clinton, a New York senator who has been at the top of the Democratic pack in national polls in the 2008 race, trails Republican candidates Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, John McCain and Mike Huckabee by three to five percentage points in the direct matches.

In July, Clinton narrowly led McCain, an Arizona senator, and held a five-point lead over former New York Mayor Giuliani, a six-point lead over former Tennessee Sen. Thompson and a 10-point lead over former Massachusetts Gov. Romney.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071126/pl_nm/usa_politics_poll_dc

she was to get it.

Hillary does not stand a chance against those repugs. Here is what you need to know, like her or not if she gets the nod and the nomination we will lose for the third mfing time...

ALWAYS seem to forget that we DID win in 2000, and arguably, split the country in '04, and quite possibly, thanks to Sec. of State Ken J Blackwell, lost Ohio to massive voter disenfranchisement.


Sometimes facts are things people LOVE to ignore.

and may have won florida too, but when you don't fight for it, you've lost.

we need to think of how much we've lost because nobody fought for it.

and we allowed them to take it from us so==== we lost.

and the mf'er's will steal it again!

Oh, there is real winner!!!

Now to all that subscribe that zogby international is a left leaning poll then you are soooooooooooo off. Now when a Gallup poll comes out which usually is right leaning comes out with a poll that shows HRC ahead and beating all the repubs, I settle for Gallup over Zogby and Rasmussen.



Gallup: Hillary beats all Republicans...Obama tied with Guiliani
Clinton -- the dominant front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination -- would appear to have at least a slight advantage over any Republican candidate among registered voters if the election were held today. She has a five-point edge over Giuliani (49% to 44%) and a six-point edge over McCain (50% to 44%), but neither lead is statistically significant. Clinton runs much more strongly against the lesser-known Thompson (53% to 40%) and Romney (54% to 38%).

November 26, 2007
Democratic Candidate Look Good in Latest 2008 Trial Heats
Ben David

Not only does he do well in the polls when pitted against the Republicans, but voters like him.

not because of who he is married too or whatever

Personally settle for whatever poll I agree with or whatever poll allows me to communicate my point to the mainstream media.

(for president, that is,) this seems like bullshit to me.:evilfrown:

Difficult to believe is that the Rabid Right ((and there are still far too many of them to ignore) would vote for a woman in general, and Hillary Clinton, whom they consider worse than the Devil, in particular.

Difficult to believe is that many men, Democratic or Republican, would be eager to vote for a woman like Hillary, who betrays all the "evil" qualities of Woman (or Man, for that matter), and none of the "good" ones.

Difficult to believe is that most Democrats are blind and willing to overlook these serious electability qualities of Hillary's, not to mention their own reluctance to support her in her strangely unappealing campaign.

Difficult to believe is that anyone thinks American women voters are so desperate for a skirt in office that they'd vote for any female, without looking her over for defects, and rejecting an obviously flawed candidate.

Of course, she would redefine the word "bitch," and set the women's movement back about 70 years like Clarence Thomas did with African-American interests, and Gonzo did with Hispanic-American interests.

But who can tell the truth without getting killed for it, metaphorically or literally?

WTF are you talking about?

WHAT "defects"?

And be sure to give me a list of women perfect and saintly enough to be president of the United States. Or pope. Or god. Whatever.

Every time she opens her mouth. That's what defect.

I invite you to just listen to her voice. She sounds like every guy's first wife.

Not good.

...that's a standard liberal response. Allow me to answer.

How about who the fuck cares?

How about it's none of your goddamn business if I do or I don't.

How about I'm not gonna be intimidated by you or anyone else to say something I don't believe. I'm bald, six foot tall, and 250 lbs of solid muscle. Nobody intimidates me. When I'm in a room, people listen because of my voice and my physical size. I could lift you off the ground with my mouth.

There. Satisfied?

I said what I said because I lived in Texas for many years, I know how those people think and I'm telling ya she'd be a disaster as President. We may end up with her if she's able to carry two out of three among Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida but we'll have to see what the 'Pubs come up with to run against her.

Friends?

Then the belligerence with the added disgust at things liberals do. Where are you coming from, besides Texas? I'd love to be friends but if you don't want to open up about anything I don't see how its possible.

Men who hate their first wives are generally thrown out bums who blame the wives for the marital problems caused by the bums. Wives are a great deal and I can't see hating them, especially for something as superficial as quality of voice.

...is that many guys, especially in southern states with their genteel almost misogynistic culture, will see that as a primary reason not to like her.

This is reality. They're not liberals down there...and they're not gonna be.

This is something she can't change and for that reason alone I think we'd be better off with another candidate.

When you see Obama, he doesn't evoke visceral reaction from the Right. Neither does Edwards.

But Hillary does. I used to work with a retired Army bird colonel who became a reknowned expert on Oracle and PeopleSoft, and we would talk casually about politics and such. He's actually a fairly moderate guy except for when it comes to the Second Amendment...and when you mention Hillary, he actually turns red like he's gonna start smoking from the ears. His family has lived and owned land in Texas since the days when it was an independent nation and I'm telling ya...there are a lot of people down there like him. He was also a big Perot supporter back in the day.

hmmmm

Have the guts to say you wouldn't vote for a woman even if she were holding a knife to your nuts.

You don't like her voice. Good fucking grief.

That's her great crime?

But there's no rampant sexism on DU. Nah.

:blush:
I am very very saintly. :D

A real collection of saints they got goin there.... How many divorces, mistresses, etc. do they have between them again? 15 or 20?

she is HATED with venom you wouldn't believe. I don't have one friend, dem or republican who will vote for her. Not one.

Just curious...

I do agree with any of her stances, and I am sick to death of the Bush/Clinton, Bush/Clinton stuff.
I'm sure as hell not voting republican so I'll write in somebody. I can't even hold my nose on her.

She cant win because she is a woman? LMAO, funny! Some really shallow logic ya got going there....she's a woman...she's evil....she has flaws!

Seems you are trying to project your personal hatred of her onto the country. I hate to tell you this, but there isn't a republican candidate, period, who can beat any of the democratic hopefuls, Hillary included. The republican candidates are all basket cases.

It has been argued that the Rep candidates are all lame, so we have nothing to worry about.

How soon we forget. Don't we remember how lame George Bush is? And, although he lost the popular vote in 2000, neither Gore nor Kerry were able to by steal-proof margins. Against arguably the worst president hin history.

So, yes, the American people are quite capable of repeating their unstellar voting performances of 00 and 04. And, just to confuse, Bush won't be running. The Reps will put lipstick on the pig again and many of the same folks who voted for Bush will vote for whomever becomes the Rep nominee.

We really have to look at our candidates hard. It is easy to fool ourselves, especially with regards to a candidate we support, into believing they will also be electable. But we have to look outside of our bubble and see how others view him/her.

I have talked to a lot of people, and the most common thing I hear from those who I consider moderates/independents is that they really haven't decided who they are supporting, but then the statement...as long as it isn't Hillary!

It is not just the right wing who hates Hillary. There are a lot of people in the middle...people whose votes we need to win....who would probably vote for anybody except Hillary.

And, from what I observe on these boards, Hillary even divides the left. I see many saying they would not vote for her in the general. Maybe this is venting and they will come around. But I see others who may vote for her, but are not going to enthusiastically go out there and volunteer as much.

Meanwhile, the right will be united in a crusade against their boogey-woman of all time. Hillary is the one candidate who can ensure a large rep turnout.

Will Hillary be swift boated? Hey, folks, she already has been swift boated. It already has worked. They don't really have to do any more! But....they....will. We "ain't seen nothin yet"

finally going to win a presidential election, they are going to draft Bush"......rim shot. It was all over, then someone (Carvell?) came up with "it's the economy stupid" and it was actually over....... in the other direction.

It ain't over till the rethugs have fixed the vote, that's the real danger.

So naturally, she can't let us know who she is.

She writes a book advocating community nurture of each child, "It Takes a Village." Then Lakoff writes about how Republicans want strong father figures and Democrats want a nurturing parent, and suddenly, like Jekell & Hyde, we have this strong woman, this strident authoritative figure. True, she was never a cookie-baker, but she seems to have gone to the extreme in trying to prove that she can be as tough as a man. Hillary is whatever seems to be selling at the moment. It is not just the Republicans who sense that something does not fit. A lot of Democrats are uneasy too. It is one thing for a candidate to change stands on issues. That is understandable and may suggest learning. But to try to sell the public on a new personality, that is a different story.

My biggest personal problem with Hillary (I have quite a few) is her economic viewpoint. We need a president who will put the interests of ordinary Americans ahead of those of big business. Bill did not do that, and Hillary will not do that. They talk populist talk, but they will, as they did before, balance the budget at the expense of the middle class and the poorest among us, make excuses instead of health care law, privatize and deregulate like Republicans, enter into trade agreements that hurt what is left of our industrial base, spend like a drunken sailor on defense in order to please campaign donors, and pursue policies of deregulation and increased immigration that depress wages. We don't need a Hillary Clinton presidency. She is Republican-lite.

Besides, there are the ridiculous and irrelevant rumors going around about her which, fair or not, like it or not, are part of the generally accepted folklore of the country. Just try to persuade an ordinary, opinionated, ignorant Republican that Hillary and Bill were not involved and did not cover up their involvement in the deaths of Vince Foster and who knows how many others. You won't get anywhere because you can't prove a negative.

And then there are the very good, honest reliable Democrats who believe that the Bill/Hillary marriage is a sham. And a certain percentage of the "marriage is a sham" group actually believe that Hillary is a closeted lesbian. They will tell you that they don't really care whether she is. They just talk about that theory because it supports the vague feeling that many of us have that Hillary is not honest about herself.

True, the Republicans will try to demolish the character of any candidate we propose. But, you have to admit, they have a head start when it comes to Hillary. Hillary just cannot win. Her candidacy is not realistic. And if she becomes the candidate and loses in November 2008, the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, the wing we belong to, the wing made up of the supporters of the more electable candidates like Edwards, Obama and/or even the not so obviously electable Kucinich, Biden and Dodd is going to have a hard time sticking with the Democratic Party. So, in addition to being unelectable, there is a very good chance that Hillary's nomination could destroy our party.

Running Hillary plays to a Republican strategy that has been being refined since 92.

It is like standing on a carrier with a sock in your crotch and saying "bring 'em on" to the wide stance misogynists.

What the FUCK are you talking about?

Keep your heads in the sand.

The slight leftward bias of the Zogby poll might account for these pessimistic numbers for Hillary. So don't get your hopes up. Alas, I think she is still likely to get the nomination and win the general election.

and since most other polls are skewed heavily to the right, finding reality is definitely an exercise skewed to the left of la la Jesusland.

Maybe we're talking about a different Zogby.

He's a registered Democrat who picked Bush to lose in both 2000 and 2004.

That is not a bad track record for polling, especially considering the discrepancies between the exit polls and actually vote counts in '04.

but they proclaimed victory anyway and we had no one with the backbone to fight them.

anybody who is not a drooooling idiot is a democrat in this environment of the changing of America into fascist Murka, a country unrecognizable to most of us.

The real question is left of what. Left of torture, left of invading other countries, left of health care for children, left of shredding the constitution?
You seem to be parroting the GOP talking points and trying to move the center goalpost as far to the right as is humanly possible so that everything left of Attila the Hun is left.

What separates Zogby's methodology is that he usually polls only "likely voters" -- registered voters who have voted recently. That means he is targeting the politically engaged rather than, for example, those enrolled via motor-voter but never actually cast ballots.

Here's what concerns me:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071126/pl_nm/usa_politics_poll_dcI'm skeptical of on-line polls.

How are the participants vetted?

I'm unclear as to why Zogby would conduct a poll in the first place if he couldn't gage its accuracy.

I was invited to join a Zogby polling group. The person who invited me is (I beleive it is fair to say) "a lefty."

If she can invite me, and I can invite others who I choose, this seems to make an odd sampling.

So, while the results may be indicative of something, I don't trust them to be indicative of the population as a while. I'm still hurtung from Zogby's predictions in the 2004 presidential election.

The only polls that show her winning are the big media polls and private polls. Rasmussen and Zogby are major polling companies and they are not working for some organization like CBS or Fox that has an interest in the outcome in terms of regulation of their mother company's industry.

Nor am I doubting the outcome.

surprizing

We must not elect the unelectable!

...elected as NY senator twice ? I really would like to understand what this "unelectability" phenomenon is all about, which both right and left media keep mentioning.

And anyone who thinks this does not know American politics. Look, for Clinton to win she will need ALL of Kerry's states plus either Ohio or Florida. Can it be done? Can she win either of those states? It's possible, but I question whether it's likely. That's if she holds onto every state Kerry won, which isn't a slam dunk.

"Middle America". Any Dem is going to have trouble in the so-called "fly-over" states, as well as in the South, but HRC will definitely have a much tougher row to hoe outside of Cali & NY State.

and LA where her natural constituency seems to be.

Since when does popularity as a senator have anything to do with presidential favorability?

She could have picked other states....like her home states of Ark or Illinois. But she didn't. New York is a solid blue state. So her victory against second-team candidates is not the same as winning nationally.

United States.

or really anyone else I know, we all voted green hoping for a real liberal!

NY politics are machine politics, she was elected because the democratic party (particularly, I suspect, members from downstate moneybag families) decided she was going to be senator.

we're seriously going to use 8 years of lackluster performance and continuing stagnation in upstate as a positive to get the nation stirred up for '08?

Recommended :kick: #1 :shrug:

That's what I would like to see.

do not announce that they will run as a ticket, with the Prez nominee to be decided via primaries. Their combined support (at approx. 50%) dwarfs Clinton's paltry 28-30%. Obama/Edwards or Edwards\Obama would be a dream ticket and would stomp any Repuke into the ground in a landslide rivalling if not surpassing LBJ's in '64 or Reagan's in '84.

at #1. Edwards' lust for power knows no boundaries.

Could not one say the same of Clinton and Obama?

was first shown when he couldn't even wait one term to run for president. Obama and Clinton are pretty new on the scene to but they were coaxed in by national demand.

When Edwards missed for president, he ran for vice president. As soon as he lost for vice president, he went back to running for president. Edwards thinks of little else.

Edwards' madness for the presidency is evidenced now by how low he sinks for votes. He doesn't mind lying or running smears that could hurt the nominee.

the kind you get in your email. I don't know what to think in this case. I think Zogby's method is far from perfect in some cases, and this may be one.

This poll is questionable given that all the other polls show the opposite.

They're probably seeing what populations respond, how to balance it to make it comparable to traditional polling, etc. Each net catches different people, but, with practice, you can control for that.

I can't remember exactly when, but I've been signed up to get these polls almost from the beginning. You do have to self-identify as a Democrat/Republic, liberal/progressive, etc. Zogby started doing this as a result of being able to reach fewer people at home on their land line and I would assume he already has the demographics laid out.

Whereas in traditional telephone polling, you can zero in down to the street number level to get pretty precise results, this is a bit more scatter gun. So I would think there's an even larger actual margin of error than is calculated in based on the sample size. The actual margin of error is probably not something calculable from the basic statistics of the poll without somehow building in factors like the number of people that responded to the poll because it was a chance to "vote" against Hillary and otherwise wouldn't have started the poll/completed the poll. This could skew the results depending on whether or not that issue was accounted for in how the poll was constructed. Maybe there's someone more familiar with Zogby's online method of polling that could explain some of these things.

Bottom line is this poll is completely contrary to every other poll out there today.

if Zogby's poll is dictated by the self-identifying (GOP Vs DEM) of those polled, then shouldn't there be significantly MORE DEMs involved in the poll since there's more of us by a wide margin? And, there's independents that if included should, then, make it really bad news for Hillary Clinton to see she even loses this poll?

I want Edwards to pull this out, and I'll be happy with anyone of our DEMS running other than Hillary. I wish it was Boxer running as the first female president, Hillary is far too polarizing.

I did it until 2003.

Is it another Zogby poll from the organization that got the exit polling wrong in the last 2 general elections and then adjusted their counts right after the computers went down in both those elections? I mean who really takes this shit seriously anymore? It's just another part of the bullshit that's sold to us as the election cycle in our supposedly free society.

They were in charge of exit polling in 2004, and yes, they "adjusted" their number to better reflect the actual vote count.

I haven't been able to submit the last two or three polls they sent me.

poll for the past couple of months. They keep coming, I keep trying to complete them, and only get about half way before I encounter a problem, and get an error message. I thought it was just me.

Hillary barely wins over the Republicans. Edwards wins by much larger margins.

Did you pull that conclusion out of your ass or do you have some sort of rationale to back it up?

it's the opposite of the inflated polling numbers for black candidates. For example, when Doug Wilder was running for Gov. of VA, polls showed him winning by double digits, and he ended up winning very narrowly. In an effort not to appear racist, people told pollsters they were voting for Wilder and then voted for the white guy. Marshall Coleman, I believe.

With Hillary Clinton, the opposite has been the case. People tell pollsters they are not voting for her, then they do. Beats me why.

http://www.clickondetroit.com/politics/14693617/detail.html

I'm neither a Clinton apologist, nor a reflexive Clinton-basher, but DU seems to be doing a lot of pick n' choosing with polls -- what are the overall averages?

These polls are sent in email to a list of subscribers. You can sign up yourself. These polls are better able to reach people who, for instance, no longer have landlines. Statistically, they tend to match phone polls, so the pollsters are pretty confident about the results.

I belong to Harris, which gives me treats, and Zogby, because Buzzflash begged lefties to sign up a number of years ago.

My dad's voting record is as follows:

1960-Nixon
1964-Goldwater
1968-Nixon
1972-Nixon (but he was very disappointed when all of Nixon's trickery was revealed).
1976-Ford (we are from Grand Rapids)
1980-Reagan
1984-Reagan
1988-Bush
1992-Bush
1996-Dole
2000-Gore
2004-Kerry

My dad is mostly republican, but he hates W (but likes Jeb). He loathed Bill Clinton when he was president. He says, in retrospect, that things were good economically in the 90s and he thinks that Hillary can bring that back.

Must be a greedy repuke. In the 90's, the rich gor richer but no healthcare for the poor. 90's were good for wall street and you're dad was happy. To many, life is more than wall street. That is the problem, I've got mine. What is she going to bring back, her 1000% return on her commodities trading ?
That sure helps the poor!

That you're ignorant of the gains the lower and middle class saw in the 1990s.

Perhaps it takes education and intelligence to treat others as humans.

but the truth is nobody can bring the Clinton years back. We can improve the economy and wean ourselves off Mideast oils, but the next 10-20 years will be marked by the need to develop a new type of economy, and new types of fuels.

And Hillary is no Bill.

Everyone says either Obama or Edwards, women and men...

about thirty people I know as leaning or are Democratic do not like her as the #1 choice. 67 year old accounting lady to 23 year old developer. Just a fact I am stating......not mentioning the few folks I talk to at a bar I am not counting, they don't usually vote :)

This is in Texas so you'll probably write that off even though Dallas county was 345,000 Bush, 335,000 Kerry.

accurately reflects the VOTING population, which skews older, wealthier, whiter and female.

I remember that LadyBird had to go to court to be allowed to manage her own affairs. That was decades ago. But it's been fixed?

Or my next door neighbor is a really good squatter... :eyes:

...Dallas was the most bipartisan and politically/culturally inclusive that I've seen.

That includes Los Angeles. Everyone in LA is always at each other's throat because of the cost of living and density of population. That's not a problem in Texas and it never will be.

I miss Texas. I miss it a lot.

its folks who walk into our clinic, people I run in to in chats, out to eat, etc. The woman is going to have a tough time winning the general election. We are likely to end up with a Giuliani presidency.

What a joke.

Will you?

I am involved with local politics, so it's not like I don't talk to a lot of people, but I know only one single Hillary supporter out of all the Democrats I know. Everyone I talk to says the same. They don't know any either. Where are all these people who are polling for Hillary? :shrug: Who are they? I really, really want to know. It's starting to creep me out. It's like I'm living in a different universe than the one I'm reading about on the internet news.

My sister who still lives in Missouri says the same thing...either Hillary herself or the media, more than likely a combination of both have chided people away from her...

Some hate Hillary. A Hillary fan who exposes a preference for her could be subjected to hostility. Just Hillary's name sets off some people.

Outside of the net, I never tell anybody I like Hillary unless I know for sure its OK.

Maybe that's why all these votes for her show up in the polls but not in conversation.

He is coming on strong. No less than two of my dem friends told me they were sending money to Mike last week. I couldn't believe it! But they are.

...is very moderate on some of the social issues, and that's why the fundie crowd doesn't like him.

That being said, he had a very solid record as Arkansas governor. People truly like the man.

...and for that reason he bears watching.

they "like". Issues mean nothing to them.

...but once again, this is the reality that most Democratic candidates ignore because they think they're too good to have to deal with it.

Clinton was the exception. He understood and (in my mind) that's why he served two terms.

Why do they want a Repiglickin' Fundie nutbar as President?

:puke:

"Likeable" Democrats only come around once in a generation and we've already had Bill Clinton.
There aren't any others on the horizon.
If that is what it takes to win, we are totally screwed!
:cry:

God you may be right.

Flip side of your arguement...if you are wrong, and we nominate a weak candidate because we are over-confident....then....guess who gets to be president?

...but i care even less for bullshit polls. who did they poll? republicans?

She will win the nomination. Because the "leadership" has decided she will. Just in case the polls and pundits are wrong, they want someone who will carry on the agenda. The one that's been carried on since George HW Bush was elected. A Bush. A Clinton. Just in case. A Bush. A Clinton. Just in case.

She's a Republicrat. Same as the Bushes. They serve neither party but pander to the worst of both. Divide and conquer. And they have.

All eyes turn to Madame "Impeachment is Off the Table" Pelosi.

Trailing in Iowa, up in NH and Fla, tossup in SC and CA
It's anyone's game .

Can you provide a link to the CA polls as I haven't been able to find any yet (though admittedly, I haven't looked REAL hard). Thanks.

"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."

1% is a very low m.o.e. // What kind of verification is done of the people who sign up? Zogby is generally pretty good, but most polls aren't conducted with people who have "signed up."

I say that I am an indendant and always pick another Dem over Hilliary.When it comes down to the general election and Hillary is the candidate,I will hold my nose and vote for her.

Zogby's. He has always been a little more left than the others, and as for 2004, he was right on.
Kerry should have won as he predicted. He didn't predict the election manipulations, though.

Rather than accurately point out the polls and final outcome didn't match he adjusted his numbers to match the deceit. That shows where his priorities lie.

but I'll try to find out. The poll I took asked whether I would vote for certain candidates which were paired DvR such as:

Clinton vs Romney
Obama vs Romney
Edwards vs Romney

and so on with different R candidates vs the 'top' 3 Dems.

No inclination of whether Kucinich would do any better, I guess he relied on other's polls for that, eh?

My own observations here in mid-MO are that Clinton would have a very tough time with her own party faithful.
Some would hold their noses and vote for her, others have stated categorically that they would never vote for her, regardless.

Are you confusing Zogby with someone else?

Please explain.

This article and madfloridian's one:
"Centrist hawks urge Dems to ignore the "non-interventionist left" wing."
have a connection.

Many Replicans will NEVER vote for her because a. she's a Democrat and b. she's a woman and c. FOX told them not to.

Many Democrats will have a hard time voting for her, and don't want to say it for fear it will happen because she's too Republican. Its all because of the DNC going out of their way to ignore the "non-interventionist left" - which is the hard working core of the party. She will not go anywhere by pissing off her base.

It is ASTOUNDING that even in a flawed online poll that a majority of voters would STILL vote for any Republican candidate over any Democratic one. Even after all the lies, war crimes, constitution shredding, needless deaths, greed, treason, and sexual fopahs. This should be a cakewalk for the Dems. I blame it on their unwillingness to listen to their base (us!) and their misguided belief that if they can out republican the Republicans they will win. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you energize your base, they will work extra hard for you, and independents will come on over the fence if they see that that is where the party is. In other words learn the ONE thing you can from Rove, hummers and hawers will come on board if a candidate takes hard-ass positions and sticks to them. Its not even about making sense, its about having the appearance of believing in core party values and ferociously sticking to them and having a rabid fan base because of it. For a lot of idiot indy voters out there, that's all they need to see.

all those we see she is beating the pants off every single solitary republican.....They were even posted on DU. Golly must be one of those underground poll takers.

solidly behind her....until after the primary at which point if she wins we are doomed to lose.

As in NONE.

Probably after the Repubes whip out Jeb.

implying that this is true.It is very sad.

path to losing, and I've thought so all along. I wish they'd wake up!

Good that she is fading now, rather then down the road.

I really think either Barack or John will be our nominee.

HRC has never been truly a viable candidate; she may have the experience, but across regions and all political affiliations - her (is she trustworthy?) numbers have consistently been near last among our candidates.

Now that we are 5 weeks out from Iowa, the star factor is wearing off. People are getting more realistic. And IMO, either Barack or John could beat any rethug nominee in the GE.

another four years of (god) republican rule................

You can be sure every swing state would swing against Hillary. I'm not sure why many Democrats would still rather nominate her rather than someone with the credibility to win. Thank goodness the red state and swing state primaries and caucusus do count at the Democratic National Convention. That's about all that can save us now.

or so she tells us :sarcasm:

I put about as much faith in this poll as I put in all the polls
that put Hillary ahead by 30 points here, down elsewhere, bla bla bla.

She does NOT have the nomination locked up, and she will NOT definitely
lose the general election if nominated.

This is about as important as what the Dallas Cowboys' cheerleaders have
to say of the team's chances in the Superbowl before the first game of the
season has even been played.

The M$M can't be trusted.

Neither can Hillary.

IMO, John or Barack will be our nominee. Hillary's stock is on the decline and will continue to go south.

Trent Lott resigns, Bush and Maliki agree that the US will be in Iraq "indefinitely," Giuliani keeps sputtering insanities, but the top spot on DU's homepage goes to trash one of our primary candidates.

Ace goin', dudes. Ever heard of self-fulfilling prophecies?

I would rather know that then not know it.

The electability of a future President seems to be off limits... On the right you'd be called a Bush apologist.... Over here I think I'll just call you blindly led....

Clinton is the Repukers perfect storm and the sooner we all get a full understanding of that the better.

Keeping hush about it or downplaying it is exactly the wrong thing for a board like this to do no supression of ideas here my friend. Regardless of who we are talking about.

this poll was cherry-picked. Other polls say entirely different things about our contenders and their electability. Hillary Clinton is not my first choice among the Democrats, but I perceive a demonstrated pattern here of trashing her at the top of the homepage that is hard to ignore.

defend her consistantly by saying that this poll is cherry picked or false or whatever? What if the poll is correct.

I have no doubt that she cannot win nationally against any of the Pubes.

She is as polarizing to the right as Bush is to the left.

So do you agree that sh is just what we need 4 or 8 more years of political gotcha...

The country desperatly needs change. No more Bush's no more Clintons. She is a self-serving witch who doesn't really care about you or me and the most gracious thing she could do is bow out of this race and throw her support behing Obama or Edwards.

And "self-serving witch?" Nice talk. Along the lines of "how do we beat the bitch?"

No more Clintons no more Bush's this country needs and wants real change.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I am simply stating for fact that Hillary is not really a Democrat... She is Bush-Lite...

Wolf in sheeps clothes she represents no one but herself the consumate pandering politician say anything do anything to be elected... Eye on the prize and all that.. and I always find it funny here on DU there are some that cannot see the forest through the trees. Gullible maybe. Just which one of those Progressive programs is Hillary 100 percent behind? Huh, what can't think of any off the top of your head huh, me either she is not 100 percent behind anything..

It's way past time for the politics of change.... Obama/Edwards..

in "crisis"? Who hires an anti-gay performer to MC a fundraiser? That's progressive?

And what part of "self-serving witch" is not an attack?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

because I just see his rhetoric getting more regressive every day.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

http://googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=self-serving+bitch&word2=self-serving+witch

self-serving bitch
183,000 results

self-serving witch
151,000 results

Make of that what you will.

That's just great

It was the same methodology used in July and her numbers still dropped.

She's also losing ground in pretty much every poll I've seen recently.

So. Zogby conducted a poll in July and came up with results wherein Clinton polled much higher and beat most of the Republicans. They ran the SAME poll recently and her numbers were lower, and she's losing to every Republican.

Can someone explain to me why we SHOULDN'T be concerned about that?

I ask that honestly. Obviously I'm not a Clinton supporter, but I'm all for electing whatever Democrat we end up with, so...again, I ask...why shouldn't we be concerned by those numbers?

July was a telephone poll with about 800 fewer people.

My mistake.

I'm still concerned about the numbers though. Are there any recent polls I haven't seen that I should know about?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/102862/Democratic-Candidates-Look-Good-Latest-2008-Trial-Heats.aspx

It's results are more positive for Hillary.

and thank you for your serious and helpful replies.

:hi:

The Hillary-denial-gaggle wasn't complaining about the methodology of polls when they all said she was winning!

:scared:

We have to nominate someone who can win the general election. Too many people dislike/despise HRC and will not vote for her under any circumstances. And, unfortunately, a lot of those people are within her own party.

I know it's beating a dead horse, but...

I still believe that if Wes Clark were our nominee, in this political environment,

he'd win the 2008 general election in a solid landslide, drawing (along with huge Democratic support) more Republicans and Independents than Reagan ever drew from the left.

Al Gore is somewhat more divisive, but much less so than he used to be. I think that these days, he'd also win solidly, at the least.

Why do we insist on putting up nominees who may possibly, just possibly, squeak by, even after eight years of Republican debacle (and, if they manage to win, will still have the country split)?

So, I'm hoping for a summer miracle, so we can be rewarded in November.

What's wrong with a landslide for our side?

First and foremost, the Republican smear machine hasn't even begun to operate seriously on any of the candidates. We won't see that happen for at least 2 months, as the 2008 nominee becomes obvious. There are at least two good reasons for doing it this way:

1) they aren't wasting time and money slamming candidates who drop in the primaries
2) they don't want to discourage Dems from nominating a candidate who's easy to beat

Any current attacks are likely to be leveled at the party in general. (As a corollary, look for the 2008 campaign context in any partisan broadsides reported by the newsmedia -- that's where the campaign framework is tried and established, not so much the early candidate-specific junk stories.)

Of course, any Democratic nominee will get smear treatment. A weak nominee will give the GOP more ammunition and respond too late to effectively counter the smear. Hillary appears to have liabilities on the former point and assets with respect to the latter, so it's probably a wash. Edwards and Obama are unknown quantities, although I think Edwards would turn out to be stronger on both fronts than Obama.

Polls will mean a lot more a couple weeks after the GOP attack dogs go to work in earnest. The most useful aspect of the polls we see now is (or will be) as a baseline to measure the overall effectiveness of the 2008 campaigns. Without the context of current events, their early predictive value diminishes.

On the survey usa site, http://surveyusa.com/
she has led in most head to head matchups against all the various Republican candiates...
Now, she's trailing everyone??...

Whom are we to believe?...

:banghead:

And this poll was done by Zogby Interactive, puhlease.

Like Bill

and Bill and the Interns

Does anybody seriously think that Bill has changed. What will the First Husband do in the WH? Another Intern scandal with all the other problems this country faces she is simply too divisive in fact I call her Bushlite she is unelectable and the sooner that the majority of Democrats realize this the better it will be for our party as a whole.

Obama or Edwards are the only true primary options although Dennis Kucinich is closer to my feelings than any of them but we are talking about national electability.

She has to know she's a divisive figure (rightly or wrongly, most likely wrongly) in an electorate that's split 50/50. After 8 years of Bush's policies, we need a Democrat more than ever, and she does not give us the best chance to win. If she loses, so what? The Clintons are rich enough that they don't feel the effects of Bush's policies. They don't even have to live here if things get bad enough. We have to really live with the consequences. She needs to think of somebody other than herself.

I hope to God she doesn't get the nomination. I wouldn't mind her winning if she gets it, but it's going to be harder for her than the other Democrats.

Nominate Kucinich. Problem solved. In the general election, I think kucinich can kick any repubs ass.

Kucinich/Paul. lol.

They are told to vote for Hillary because the polls tell them she's ahead, so they will....Hillary is certainly the Dem candidate who the republicans want....she has so many negatives the repugs are drooling for her to get the Dem nomination, so they give her money, and corporate money....The Hillary robots don't have a clue about what she'll do...Hillary is not a liberal as FDR, who fought to implement Social Security, unemployment insurance, and the many other liberal programs the republican despise & have gutted yet (republican voters all use) purposely gutting with their lying wars for profit and occupation.

Hillary a self proclaimed moderate what will she stand for, certainly NOT liberal ideology....She believes in corporate money and corporations....how swift can a moderate get rid of all the Bushco fascist bullshit if one is so near conservative thinking....fucking moderates! take it slow as the neocons quickly blasted away at every liberal advances made in the past 70 years.....Fucking moderates offer nothing but compromise with the neocon fascist and go where the money dictates....and throw crumbs to the Unions & liberal progressives ideas.

...and the fact that Hillary is either barely ahead, tied, or trailing them in most polls should be a cause of corcern for anyone.

Their candidates are mostly beating our candidates, or else coming close enough to steal it.

We have the weakest slate of candidates in living memory.

We are in danger of losing!

08 could be such a good year for us. What a catastrophe to blow it all on a weak standard-bearer.

But especially Kucinich. :)

:eyes:

Oh wait...actually, plenty of people can see the obvious. It's just that the sycophants won't listen. Never mind.

Look at all of our candidates and you have to ask yourself this question.

Which candidate will be able to weather this storm?

- 2010 (Democratic President (fill in your candidate) has been in office just over a year. Policy changes have been made. Troops have been withdrawn from Iraq. Some of Bush's executive orders that destroyed our civil liberties are removed and alot of damage has been undone. Suddenly one calm Monday morning we are hit again by Al-Qaida...(Its worse then 911 insert your own scenario here).

Hillary cannot possibly be the President in this scenario. The Repukes will start a chorus of Bush was right and Hillary by undoing what idiot did has caused thousands of Americans to die. (It doesn't matter if its true or not) Her past will haunt and hurt her beyond reason.

There is nothing that she could do to heal America in this next crisis. Her response will be drowned out with blame and loathing and she will either get impeached or the country will fall into civil war.

That there is, and has been for a long time and almost irrational hatred for Hillary Clinton among people who might otherwise always vote Democrat. I see it among my friends and family and I am at a loss to explain it. I don't understand what they hate about her, but she seems to really irritate some folks.

So the poll is disheartening to me since I actually like her, but I believe the results since I see it here in NY, the state she represents in the Senate. I can see it in my Dad who hates where this country is headed. I think he would vote for an Edwards or Obama, but mention Clinton and he calls her "full of shit" and not even a good democrat.

Now if Guliani is the nominee and the right runs a 3rd party candidate around social issues I think we will be ok no matter who heads our ticket, but we have to hope that he gets the nomination on the other side for that to happen.

for Republicans. And she has been for years.

My inability to support HRC for President isn't because I am opposed to the first woman president. I hope that happens in my lifetime. But I do not think that HRC is electable as long as the electorate is this divided. She is a lightning rod for any manner of partisans on the right. If we thought the GOP was effective in Swift Boating Kerry in 2004 you have not seen anything yet.

And my inability to support her doesn't stop there. She is dead wrong on so many issues important to me. She continues to soft pedal her support for this war. She will not categorically state her plans to withdraw all American troops from Iraq by a date certain.

I fear her policies on issues of importance to GLBT individuals will be a mirror image of her husband. He was all talk. He was right on trying to eliminate the discrimination against gay men and women from serving openly in the military. But his tactics were dead wrong. This was one of the first items he attempted to address upon taking office. It was like a lightning rod to those who oppose any sense of fairness for GLBT persons. His tacit agreement to "don't ask, don't tell" has made things worse for those serving. His agreement to sign DOMA was more predicated on his then political situation than any sense of fairness or logic.

She is simply the wrong candidate at the wrong time. We need a candidate that is candid, projects a vision for the future for all Americans and quite honestly is electable.

Let her continue to serve the citizens of New York as Senator. I think she has done a respectable, but not commendable job serving in the U.S. Senate. I would rather have her there casting a vote in our column and helping to maintain if not grow our majority than have her pursue a failed presidential bid that leaves us with another hate-filled, money-grubbing Republic(an) in the White House.

i really find this hard to believe....

AND TIME FOR GORE TO STEP IN AND MAKE HIMSELF KNOWN...

EITHER AS A CANDIDATE ----OR----

TO BACK ONE OF THE OTHER CANDIDATES..... (I FAVOR EDWARDS BUT OBAMA ETC...)

........THE WHEELS ARE COMING OFF THE CLINTON EXPRESS

Maybe Dems here see Hillary + Bill as a benefit . . . ?

However, I think overall that will actually be a big negative for her ---

If there's anything left of government by the time we would oust Bush ---
there won't be much joy.

Imagine, he inherited a natiion, at peace --- with a huge surplus!!!

election is always relative to her. Love her, hate her, she will be president. Put it in the bank.

His internet-based interactive polls were off the mark in 2006.

I find that hard to believe. Most Americans have never heard of him. This is a skewed sample of self-selected "on-line" respondents, not to be taken too seriously.

You have to be a true Democrat to beat a true Republican. :)

Win on core Democratic values. That's the only way to win.

of that phony free-market, screw the little guy to fatten the big guy more. Both dems and repubs share in his dellusion. Most conservative Democrats belong to what I call the "Corporate Party" or "Money Party". The core values are used for double speak and elections, because most folks practice them and want their elected officials to do the same. This is why the Dem leadership does nothing to hold Bush accountable. They all belong to the "Corporate Party" or "Money Party".

Two faces of the same corporate party. We need another choice. I think a non-corporate welfare/peace party would siphon support from each of the corporate parties, being a path toward a multi-party system. It could happen.

on edit: let conservatives take back the republican party, that is if their are good republicans with a back bone left.

If there is a Democratic candidate who can do it. I don't think Clinton is the one though. :)

I happen to think the guy who isn't afraid to call a UFO a UFO has a good shot.

Hopefully as a Democrat, but I would vote for him as an independent.

Hillary is not presidential.

But if Hill or whoever wins the primary I will be out beating the drums for that candidate.

Polls that support Hillary, polls that don't support Hillary. They are all crap.

What is the matter with these people?

a few Edwards stickers (and this is his HQ) and maybe 3 Hillary stickers. It appears from my non-scientific poll that people want change.

Don't fall for that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3079800

All the info can be found at this link.

The attackers can just sit in silence and isolation; gnashing their teeth in fury and frustration.

Be very careful to jump on polls. We have over 7 years experience with bogus polls and Repug responses to them.

A lot of ad hominem, but nothing of substance.

And FYI, Hillary is not my first choice.