Gallup: Democrats view Clinton as Most Electable, GOP Views Obama as Most Electable

A recent Gallup Panel survey shows that Democrats think Hillary Clinton has the best chance of being elected president among the Democratic presidential candidates, followed by Barack Obama and John Edwards. Even as momentum appears to be building in some political circles for an Al Gore-presidential run, less than half of Democrats and only about one-third of Americans think he has a good chance of winning should he run. Overall, Americans are split over which Democrat -- Clinton or Obama -- has the best chance of being elected, with Republicans giving Obama the better odds.







http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=26737

Every Dem I talk to says she's completely unelectable.

positions staked out, and Iraq is taking care of itself right now--winding down of its own political joementum, so to speak.

Who ARE Hilary and Barack, anyway ? Edwards talks (not as much as Biden !) but I like his openness and his admission about the mistake in voting for the IWR/AUMF puts him in my favor right now.

Edwards/Obama maybe ?

...and they sure as bleep ain't gonna vote for Hilary. Plus Obama's a real risk for the party. Edwards waits in the wings as the only logical choice.

split the party, energize the Republican base and guarantee a Republican victory in 2008.

-----------------------
Everyone I know says the opposite. Go figure!
-----------------------

I take it you are joking? If not, whereabouts are you?

I have a hard time believing this. I myself, (and many other Dems I associate with) will NEVER vote for Hillary. Just the way it goes.

You know what Hillary would do?
She would, A. split the party, B. energize the **** out of the darkside base, and C. we would be screwed over by no-one but ourselves, yet again.

If you want to see another GOP'er in the WH, by all means. But when you do, you are taking the ship down with you.

Anybody -- ANYBODY but Hillary. She is simply NOT ELECTABLE. She represents (imo), the only sure fire way we f this up. Anyone else comes out, imo, they win going away.

I take it you are joking? If not, whereabouts are you?

I'm in the Atlanta area where I'm vice chair of a political pac that draws members from four counties in the metro Atlanta area. I hear and participate in tons of discussion with Democrats who seldom darken the pages of internet blogs. Just as in 2004, THEIR views on who should win the nomination differ vastly than that of the netroots. In '04, they were saying Kerry or Edwards while the netroots were picking Dean or Kucinich (and, by the way, claiming they knew NO ONE who supported Kerry or Edwards.)

You know what Hillary would do?
She would, A. split the party, B. energize the **** out of the darkside base, and C. we would be screwed over by no-one but ourselves, yet again.

There is simply no evidence to support this.

I am a member of numerous various progressive organizations and the only person I know that will support Hillary is Andre Walker and we don't count him as a Democrat anymore even though he says he is.

There's no evidence either way. I'm just saying what I hear and all that I'm hearing is that nobody like Hillary.

Perhaps we've come across each other at various functions :hi:

I am a member of numerous various progressive organizations and the only person I know that will support Hillary is Andre Walker and we don't count him as a Democrat anymore even though he says he is.

Therein lies a problem. Some people who were mainly involved online in 2004 have moved into local parties in the real world and they've taken that "He's not a real Democrat" mentality with them. The Magistrate just said in another thread: It remains a fact that your view is a very small minority among rank and file Democrats, who by and large consider Sen. Clinton an exemplary Democrat, and an excellent standard-bearer for the Party's cause in a Presidential race. There is not a shadow of ground on which you can claim these people are not 'real Democrats', but that you are.

AtomicKitten also just said in another thread, "the pro-HRC contingent is in the minority (on the internet) which is often misconstrued as reflecting the sentiment out there. Both are sound quotes.

This is not personal against you so please don't take it as such.

Consequently, Hillary leads Georgia in the last poll I saw. And she just raised $1 million dollars in one week. And as Bowers wrote over at mydd, "Anyone currently dismissing Clinton's massive national trial heat advantage as a figment of name recognition is simply not familiar... with the totality of current national poll numbers."

Perhaps we've come across each other at various functions

Perhaps we have.

I was just letting you know that with my experience what I was hearing. I personally have issues with Senator Clinton, and whereas I tremendously respect The Magistrate, I do not agree that she is an "exemplary Democrat."

I don't doubt she has great name recognition and that she can raise the money like nobody's business, but if she's the nominee, it will be another case of having to hold my nose and vote and I am getting really sick and tired of doing that.


But it's fun for now to speculate. Nothing we say now means anything until after the primaries anyway. If she is the candidate, I'll put on the clothespin and do my job as a Democrat.

no evidence? funny. or perhaps you don't like the sound of it?

How'd that '04 election turn out? Your 'experts' and their 'views' may lead you down an all too familiar path.

no evidence? funny. or perhaps you don't like the sound of it?

If there is evidence to support what was claimed, I haven't seen it. Perhaps you can show it to me?

How'd that '04 election turn out? Your 'experts' and their 'views' may lead you down an all too familiar path.

John Kerry garnered more votes than any Democrat in history. Didn't you vote for him?

But I have a better set of questions for you:

How'd that '72 election turn out? And the '84 election? And that '88 election?

John Kerry garnered more votes than any Democrat in history. Didn't you vote for him?

Oh he did, did he? How did that turn out?

That's just it: it won't matter how many votes Hillary will get either. Because she will see the largest voter turnout AGAINST a candidate in some time, maybe ever. She could garner 5 million more votes than Sen. Kerry, and it still wouldn't matter, 10 million more would come out against her. There are people from outside the normal political realm that will do anything to stop HRC. These are the type of poeple that would otherwise probably not bother to vote.

Evidence? Do you live with your head in the f***ing sand!? Unbelieveable!
All the evidence you need is, oh, public opinion from any and every news and political source over about the past SIX or so years. Look at her negatives. Look at her disproval ratings. Look at her baggage/attitude/stances/enemies. It doesn't matter how much she thinks she 'deserves' it; she doesn't. And if you still haven't heard/seen it by now (it is basically questioned EVERYTIME HRC is mnetioned), well then I can't help you lad. We'll just have to wait and see what happens, won't we?

I'm done with this. It's a lost cause. We don't need another moral victory.

That's just it: it won't matter how many votes Hillary will get either. Because she will see the largest voter turnout AGAINST a candidate in some time, maybe ever.

Evidence of that?

Evidence? Do you live with your head in the f***ing sand!? Unbelieveable!

Where I'm from, evidence is more than what my little group of online buddies think.

All the evidence you need is, oh, public opinion from any and every news and political source over about the past SIX or so years.

Why does every public opinion poll show her leading? Every news and political source over the past SIX or so years DOES NOT say what you are claiming.

Look at her negatives. Look at her disproval ratings.

ok... Poll from two weeks ago show her favorables climbing and negatives dropping.

Clinton - Favorable: 58% Unfavorable: 40% (the last time her favorable ratings were higher was 1999 Jul 22-25 with 62%) Compare to say, Al Gore: Favorable: 52% Unfavorable: 45%

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-02-13-2008-campaign-poll_x.htm

I'm done with this. It's a lost cause.

A cause you just lost.

who's leading in the PRIMARY polls right now. Less than nothing to do with that actually. It has to do with what will happen if she does come out of the primaries. There will never have been an easier target for smearings/attacks then Mrs. Clinton. And you know it.

Internet buddies? lol, more like anyone I ever come across in daily life! Im seriously baffled by the polls, because I truly can't find a single Hillary supporter. But I do understand, she has basically been campaigning since before '04, and a lot of it has to do with name recognition this early in the game. But I see that changing, sooner rather than later.

Like I said, we'll see what happens. I'm off to lunch. I'll see if I can't find a Hillary supporter, so I don't feel like Im living in another plane of existence then the rest of yous, heh. :beer:

In 1972, only one person of my acquaintance, a distant uncle, expressed any intention of voting for Nixon, every one else was solid for Sen. McGovern. The actual result rather soured me on treating my social circle as a represenative political sample....

The same rule applies in virtually everything. Being in radio for many years, I would often laugh at the people who would state with shock "No one I know likes that song" when I would tell them what the #1 tune in the country was.

There is the feeling she would be divisive. I think they would vote anyway, maybe. But I see they are hanging you out to dry on this..heh heh.

S'ok, though. Our local Dem chairwoman who recently replaced the other recently installed chair gave an interview to the paper in which she publicly blamed Bill Clinton's love life for our being in so small a minority here. She was wrong to say in public, but with the huge number of churches and religious colleges in a few mile radius.....she might be right.

Most I talk to here support Edwards or hope Gore jumps in.

I do not trust polls this far out, in fact I don't trust polls at all.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1136

I was just stating my opinion. OP pointed out that he's hearing this stuff here in GA. I was pointing out that I'm hearing the exact opposite here in GA as well and he may think he's the be all and end all of Georgia Democrats, but I got some credentials too. And I know some people too.

And the ones I know can't stand and won't vote for Hillary.

Of those declared, I'll take Edwards. All bets are off if Gore jumps in. He's the only one I'd be willing to go knock on doors for.

Polls schmolls. If we listened to polls, Gov. Dean would be the president right now (what a lovely thought!).

he may think he's the be all and end all of Georgia Democrats, but I got some credentials too. And I know some people too.

Hey, sorry! I was necessary to point out "real world" credentials (something I never do) to lend credibility to my experience. Why does that offend you and why do you think you're being hung out to dry?

Polls schmolls. If we listened to polls, Gov. Dean would be the president right now (what a lovely thought!).

Actually, no. Days before Iowa, he dropped - and continued to do so afterwards.

I'd be more neutral to her candidacy if she didn't support PNAC foreign policy positions like she does.

..but pointing out facts is hardly cheeleading.

Admittedly, a big chunk of that came from non-Democratic sources since Obama has so much more appeal outside the Democratic Party.

Do you suppose that cross-over appeal would translate into more, or less, votes during the general election...?

Who has admitted that?

"It all seems to be working. Larry and Donna James -- he is an unremitting Republican, she is an independent -- held a lunch for Obama in Columbus and raised at least $100,000."

Link: http://www.suntimes.com/news/hunter/278315,CST-NWS-hunter01.article


He got $100k from this one fund-raiser hosted by a Republican/Independant couple.

Sorry.

So obviously she has some cross-over appeal. But Murdoch's comments on the matter didn't sound like he was likely to campaign or even vote for her. I think he plans on just raising money for her so she doesn't slam the door in his face if she gets into the White House (or to her Senate office if she does not).

While the Republican support for Obama we have seen thus far, as in the linked article above, is excitement about the man. Which is why I believe Obama can pick up more swing voters during the General Election in addition to the big money.

I don't like any of them enough to publically support them. My bumper remains nekkid :)

People who identify themselves as Democrats and generally vote for the candidates pit forward by the Democraric Party in elections. That is what a 'real Democrat' is.

There comes a point where the party label is just a label. I vote my principles not a label.

Hillary violates my principles by having so much blood on her hands, with no regrets. And, as others have noted, by putting corporations first.

Her views are almost indistinguishable from Rudy Guiliani's. Yet I'm sure no one here would want him as president.

Again, at what point does the label get trumped by principle? I'd have a hard time saying exactly where, but I know Hillary solidly crosses that line.

How do you manage to work accusing me of supporting Lieberman from the statement that the persons who expressed support for Sen. Clinton, and rate her chances of success higher than Sen. Obama's, are actual rank and file Democratic voters?

Lieberman ran most recently not as a Democrat but as a species of Independent, as you are doubtles aware. Since he caucuses with the Democrats, and we owe out majority status in the Senate to this, some umcomfortable accommodations to the wretch do seem on occassion adviseable, until such time as he can be done without.

The 'blood on her hands' nonesense you have trumpeted is simply hyperbolic noise that no one outside a very small splinter faction takes at all seriously. It remains a fact that your view is a very small minority among rank and file Democrats, who by and large consider Sen. Clinton an exemplary Democrat, and an excellent standard-bearer for the Party's cause in a Presidential race. There is not a shadow of ground on which you can claim these people are not 'real Democrats', but that you are.

"When idealists come down from their ivory towers, they plunge straight into the gutter."

Most are GOP at the country club and they are scared
of Hillary Clinton winning in GE. I do not hear any one say
she is UN-electable.

Hillary in '08! :)

;)

...your own side's "best weapon" assessment.

demonstrates exactly what I said.. Seeing the Repugs do not have a viable candidate,
I believe they will vote for Obama in the primarys.. (they can still change for the day can't they?)

They would like nothing better than to knock Hillary out in the primarys.

The Primarys are the Danger Zone!

edit:

<ha! sorry!>

... and hope you're right. :hippie:

at the ready. If you do, than you are sadly mistaken..:hi:

what I like to hear :toast: :evilgrin:

They will come out in droves to vote against her in the general. While a substantial number of them have indicated they would switch and vote for Obama against any of the boring old men fielded by the GOP this election.

that Hillary is toast either way. She's either toast in the primaries, and we can actively have something to say/do about it, or we make our beds, and we sleep in them for another 8 years. The choice is ours. HRC will not win the general. No amount of bs early polling will change that. She is also, at least imo, about the last thing this country needs right now. She is the most polarizing public figure this side of dumbya.

It is kind of disheartening to see how many people will just blindly walk into another Rovian-style haymaker. Have we not learned anything? Have we not fought like hell to gain the little ground we have gained? Are we willing to throw that all away?

It is in our hands. For now. And believe me, I'm a little more than concerned. :hide:

Gee, I wonder why. Oh yeah, that's right, because those Democrats believe the media hype, and the GOP want either Hillary or Obama, that's why.

nothing more than crystal ball analysis fueled by bias for certain candidates, nothing more. Speculating on what other people think is just guessing. Polling has become nothing short of absurd in too many cases. It has more to do with framing the question and sampling to come to a preconceived conclusion than actual analysis. Just like astrology, I only believe in it when it is a favorable reading.

to while away some idle time on one's hands.

the scorpio astrological forecast. Do you talk like
that with your spouse by any chance?:dunce:

And yeah sense of humor is a must :-)

nt