Hillary leading Kerry 51 to 33 percent in MASSACHUSETTS

<snip>

New York Sen. Hillary Clinton trounced Sen. John Kerry, 51 to 33 percent, among Massachusetts voters in a very early measurement of opinion about the potential 2008 Democratic presidential primary - and Massachusetts Republican Party Executive Director Timothy O'Brien pounced on that result.

"It looks like even the Democrats in Massachusetts have lost faith in John Kerry," O'Brien said. "It's an electability problem that John Kerry has. If he's losing by 18 points in his home state, it's an indication of problems with any future aspirations."

But Kerry press secretary Setti Warren called the result "ridiculous," and added: "If he were driven by polls, John Kerry wouldn't have gotten out of bed before the Iowa caucuses and Bill Weld would be the junior senator from Massachusetts." Kerry, said Warren, is concentrating on doing his job as senator.

more: http://www.statehousenews.com/public/ROUNDUPPAGE.HTM

is allready rigged.

:shrug:

Stop being ignorant.

There is no set of circumstances under which Hillary Clinton can change enough minds to win in a general election. Too many people know her, FAR too many hate her. In fact, all it would do is fire up the evangelists again. Bad idea. Anyone still sporting Hillary for President notions is flat out suicidal.

a prediction of her next one? I watched as everyone said Hillary can never get more than 51% or 52% because the people who "hate" her are 48-49% of NY voters. She got 56%. This may not be alot but it is 5% of the people who hate her and would vote anyone else.

I wouldn't count her out just yet.

There's a huge difference between former First Lady Hillary Clinton and Senator from New York Hillary Clinton. Here they are:

1) She has a record to defend now. Hillary is going to have the same problem that any Senator (or Congressman) would have, and the very same problem that John Kerry had in 2004. There are too many pitfall and procedural votes that are easily twisted and distorted and there's really not a lot anyone can do to defend it. Quick question: who was the last Senator to win the Presidency? There's a reason why this question is so hard to answer...

2) She's no longer unknown. Being known as the First Lady and being known as an actualy political figure are two entirely different thing. She no longer has the luxury of creating a political identity for herself. People know it now, and according to what seems to be pretty damn consistent polling, not enough people like it. Once people have formed opinions, it's EXTREMELY difficult to change them, which is something everyone here should know now (ie Kerry waiting too long to counter flip-flop and Swifties).

3) Now that Bill's gone, she's been the target of every single Fox News and RNC smear scheme. That's 6 years of unfettered and direct bad publicity. In a national election, that's tough to overcome.

4) So Clinton won with 56% in Democratic New York? Schumer just got 71%. New York can hardly be taken as an indicator as to how well she would do in a general election.

Stop being ignorant.

all the early polls for 2004 candidates.

These polls are worthless right now.

I seem to remember Kerry leading all of the early polls, until Dean had his surge starting in the summer of 2003 until a little before the Iowa Caucuses.

Does anyone have any links to prove that Lieberman was leading in the early polls? :shrug:

Kerry sucked for a long time in most polls.

here's the best I could find in 30 seconds on Google:

<snip>

"Joe Lieberman led the polls as Democrats' favorite replacement for President Bush ... last May. Lieberman won the first debate in a crowded Democratic pack ... last June. And he picked up a prized endorsement from a leading California Democrat ... Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, now a footnote to the gubernatorial recall.

"It has been downhill ever since."

</snip>

San Francisco Chronicle
1/19/04
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/01/19/MNG2Q4CQEI1.DTL

Democratic Presidential Primary Race, Minus Al Gore
December 7-9, 2002

Joe Lieberman 20%
John Kerry 16%
Dick Gephardt 14%
Tom Daschle 14%
Al Sharpton 4%
John Edwards 3%
Howard Dean 1%

Bottom of the page:
http://www.evote.com/index.asp?Page=/polls_section/2002-12/archive.asp

:dunce:

looking at that old poll.

It doesn't suprise me that someone would forget that Lieberman was the frontrunner at one time.

What does surprise me is that Lieberman was the frontrunner at one time. ;)

The general view about Kerry is that he rolled over and played dead when it was the time to stand and fight. He didn't have a clear plan or agenda during his campaign either, but not as common a sentiment. I thnk most people are simply upset that the Blue didn't take that shithead out of office and he's getting some backlash from it still. Kerry will still get re-elected in Mass if he runs for the same reason Big Ted gets re-elected every election... Through all his flaws and faults, he DOES support our issues. He has a big voice in government and has the "power" to affect change. A first term Senator, reguardless of whether it is a strong candidate, will not hold the influence and sway that these men have in the Senate.

"...when it was time to stand and fight."

Cool. :silly:

by a similarly large margin. I think polls this far out are completely stupid - there are probably people who will be candidates who we don't even know about.

Between now and the end of 2007, Hillary, Kerry and every other democrat will say and do things that will impact people's perception of them. Also the events in the world will impact what we are looking for.

They love republicans. And Hillary is one (in the closet?)

. delete

Don't forget that Kerry trounced your president by a better than 2-1 margin in Massachusetts.

Nor should she.

:wtf: Mass is stupid too! How could they support Hillary over Kerry?
:wtf:

Hillary, meet Howard, Edward, Wesley, Joe, and Carol. :)

She's got more balls than Kerry could ever hope for. I guarantee you that she wouldn't have caved in like a limp noodle after the last election like our third string candidate did...

But she did vote for Condi and to certify the OH election results.

I don't see it, myself. :)

She has no Elvis. :mad: ;)

Hillary into Osama?

PLUUUUSEEEEAASE!!

The state GOP in MA is scrounging for people to run against TED and Kerry! Romney has no coattails in MA;every candidate he poured millions into campaigns
They are using this poll to say to fellow repugs ..please,please, please run against a Dem- any Dem look at Kerry vs Hillary

Totally unscientific on my part,[people know that I am involved and interested in politics in MA and elsewhere}great antipathy to Hillary in 08 here. At least for the moment.

Who would be running against a tweedle-dumber Repbulican.

Should it happen, I'll be voting Green.

Otherwise it would have been Edwards vs Bush, and I'm confident we would have won that one.

in my opinion. Obvious reasons.

... are lighting up my radar.

But like or dislike aside, all this talk of "will Hillary run?" and "Hillary is the front-runner" is just nonsense... designed to divide us, designed to distract us, designed to keep us off-balance.

I thought Warren's response was perfect, calling it what it is: "ridiculous."

I would like to see how she would do down south. Then I'll know something.

Regardless of how much the Northeast likes/dislikes her, I think she'd be hard pressed to find many red state southerners to vote for her. I see her as an opportunist, and has shifted not really to the right on some issues (pro-choice), but not as liberal as she portrays herself to be. And she's my senator! I also find Bill's cozying up to Bush Sr. to be a bit suspect.

Repug ringleader O'Brien could think of nothing better than to not only diss Kerry in a questionable poll, but also propagate that Hillary would be a better candidate.

Actually, she would be a better candidate to run in 2008..if you're the Repug!

And the media pounced on that poll, while declaring Kerry was dead.

Funny, how the media plays up those bogus polls time after time. They are really pushing Hillary for 2008, aren't they?