Gallup: Hillary the "dominant frontrunner" for Democratic nomination...

Beating Obama 2 to 1

Hillary 38
Obama 19
Edwards 15
Gore 14




http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27163

Anything can happen...

http://www.cafepress.com/scarebaby/1097640

I knew Obama had peaked. And you all doubted me...<sheesh>

Right now, she is primary frontrunner. Just as right now, despite all her money and name recognition, she is not stronger than Obama and Edwards in the general election polls. The numbers indicate that she will have an easier time Edwards and Obama getting the nomination, and a harder time in the general election. A really bad combination for us, imo. Latest Ras polls:

Clinton (46%) Brownback (41%) CLINTON WINS BY 5%
Obama (49%) Brownback (34%) OBAMA WINS BY 15%

Clinton (50%) Gingrich (43%) CLINTON WINS BY 7%
Obama (48%) Gingrich (38%) OBAMA WINS BY 10%

Clinton (47%) Giuliani (48%) CLINTON LOSES BY 1%
Edwards (49%) Giuliani (43%) EDWARDS WINS BY 6%
Obama (43%) Giuliani (44%) OBAMA LOSES BY 1%

Clinton (48%) Hagel (40%) CLINTON WINS BY 8%
Obama (50%) Hagel (34%) OBAMA WINS BY 16%

Clinton (47%) McCain (46%) CLINTON WINS BY 1%
Edwards (47%) McCain (38%) EDWARDS WINS BY 9%
Obama (44%) McCain (44% ) TIED

Clinton (50%) Romney (41%) CLINTON WINS BY 9%
Edwards (55%) Romney (29%) EDWARDS WINS BY 26%
Obama (51%) Romney (36%) OBAMA WINS BY 15%

Clinton (43%) Thompson (44%) CLINTON LOSES BY 1%
Edwards (50%) Thompson (36%) EDWARDS WINS BY 14%
Obama (49%) Thompson (37%) OBAMA WINS BY 12%

I'm getting a little tingly!

Posture until late summer and early fall then make a move.

The frontrunner position can be perilous so to speak.

I wonder if the outcome will be the same.

Joe Lieberman 23 (+7)
John Kerry 17 (+1)
Dick Gephardt 15 (-4)
John Edwards 9 (+2)
Howard Dean 6 (+1)
Bob Graham 5 (+1)
Carol Moseley Braun 4 (-3)
Al Sharpton 3 (-3)
Dennis Kucinich 3 (0)

http://www.hedgehogreport.com/index.php/439

eventual nominee of the Party.

I know this poll was taken at a time when Obama was getting good press for his fundraising but sometimes it takes a week for that stuff to sink in.

2. Now I'm going to name six Democrats who might run for president in 2004. After I read all six names, tell me which one you would most like to see the Democrats nominate for president in 2004. Here are the choices... Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, Missouri Congressman Dick Gephardt, North Carolina Senator John Edwards, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean,and the Reverend Al Sharpton.

Lieberman 27%
Kerry 18
Gephardt 16
Edwards 14
Dean 3
Sharpton 6

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=382

3. Suppose New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton decides to run for president in 2004. Who would you most like to see the Democrats nominate for president in 2004? New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, Missouri Congressman Dick Gephardt, North Carolina Senator John Edwards, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean and the Reverend Al Sharpton


Dem

Clinton 42%
Lieberman 15
Kerry 11
Gephardt 11
Edwards 7
Dean 3
Sharpton 2
DK/NA 8

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

They realize that we need her experience to get us through Iraq, global warming, our economy. New Yorkers were hit on 9/11 and they know what is at stake with a sea rise of 15 feet.

There is too much at stake for Mr. Smith going to Washington.

Hillary Rodhan Clinton for President!

it's her "experience" that concerns me; name one thing hillary done to bring those behind the 911 attacks to justice.

i live in NYC; when the sea rises i'll move. maybe hillary will start a moving company after she loses.. then she'd be helpful

You can't really think that Barack (with his few years in DC) can tackle everything he says he's going to tackle?

The stakes are too high.

1. Global Warming
2. Iraq
3. economy

I think Hillary Clinton can best succeed at all of these as opposed to Barack. He is too inexperienced. If we fail at Global Warming we are all screwed; either by ruined food sources or acidic oceans. If we fail in Iraq (by failure I mean stay there with no mission) we fail our military readiness (our safety) and we fail the people of Iraq. If we fail in our economy we are all screwed.
These problems are huge. And the failure or success in the outcomes determine our standing in the world.

I noted your signature. I understand that your statement is because of Hillary's statement about keeping some troops in Iraq. Well, she has more experience with millitary matters than do I . I will not second guess her when it comes to an answer about a military strategy. I take her statement to mean that we are in a quagmire. We cannot just leave these people there in a ruined country to be ruled by another taliban-like group. That will spell absolute disaster for the women and children of Iraq.

I think what she is saying is: We cannot say in 2007 what will do in January 2009 in regards to Iraq. What I can say is this: We will not abandon the people of Iraq. The people whose lives we have wrecked.

If Barack is saying: We will leave Iraq completely. Then, I think that is a naive strategy. It shows his lack of experience.

I am going with Hillary.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton.htm

Remove energy dependence on countries who would harm us. (Jun 2006)
Supports oil reserve release & fund conservation. (Oct 2000)
Ratify Kyoto; more mass tranist. (Sep 2000)
Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's AMWR. (Nov 2005)
Voted YES on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
Voted NO on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)
Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003)
Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)
Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
Voted NO on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
Keep efficient air conditioner rule to conserve energy. (Mar 2004)
Stands for clean air and funding the EPA. (Sep 2000)
Reduce air pollution to improve children’s health. (Jun 1998)
Voted YES on including oil & gas smokestacks in mercury regulations. (Sep 2005)
Voted NO on confirming Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior. (Jan 2001)
Remove PCBs from Hudson River by dredging 200 miles. (Apr 2001)
Rated 89% by the LCV, indicating pro-environment votes. (Dec 2003)
EPA must do better on mercury clean-up. (Apr 2004)

Here's her website with her new energy policy

http://clinton.senate.gov/issues/environment/

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/video/11.aspx

"name one thing hillary done to bring those behind the 911 attacks to justice"

Huh?

patriot act, military commissions act, etc


"name one thing hillary done to bring those behind the 911 attacks to justice"

yeah.. just one thing

You asked about global warming. I posted info on what her plans are for our enegery policy.

You don't bother to actually read or watch anything I posted because you didn;t care in the 1st place.

So next you change the subject to things you didn't ask about.

"name one thing hillary done to bring those behind the 911 attacks to justice"

Who are you referring to as being behind the attacks?

Clinton held hearing on ground zero's air quality and fought tooth and nail for funding for 1st responder health problems.

She's had a 9/11 widow and the son of the 1st responder who died of lung cancer as her guests at the SOTU.

I guess I could be more specific but I have no idea what info you seek. So you could clear that up or play your little game.

copying and pasting a bullet list of "accomplishments" from a campaign website is hardly going to win over ppl that look for substance in a candidate.

Hillary is status quo.. nothing more, nothing less

p.s. status quo is really really bad

On the Issues while not perfect is an independent org that seeks to classify positions based on speechs and votes. The other stuff were the candidate's own words.

Not sure how else people are supposed to form an opinion of her positions. :shrug:

Perhaps someone provides an opinion for you? Or perhaps you simply go with your gut fact be damned?

"
hardly going to win over ppl that look for substance in a candidate."

Substance? You seek substance? :rofl:

and have 8 more years of corrupt republicans. Thats just great. Vote for nader again.

There is a strong sense of Nader redux with Barack. I was just in NYC this weekend and I talked to a lot of friends/acquaintances. They said similiar things like
'Obama is good but he just doesn't have the experience.' They feared a Barack primary win.

These are people who ranged from moderate democrats to radicals. It was a strong vibe.

They are calling him, "The Man from CLAD":



Just a caveat, these are not swiftys. These are a compilation of people, who by consensus, have labeled him such.

what crap.

In fact, why is she ahead in the polls? Because she's lived in the White House? Because she's a brand name? Well, McDonalds is a brand name, doesn't mean I have to eat their food (I don't).

In other words, she's ahead in the polls because she's the establishment's candidate not the people's candidate. Democrats have a short memory because every time they nominate an establishment candidate (Humphrey, Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry), they go on to lose.

I guess the trend will continue.

Was a born again Christian Southern Governor an anti-establishment candidate?

Was the political maven of the Third Way, anti-establishment?

well, thats an educational tool for the Republicans.

Hillary exudes voter confidence. It's just that simple.
They know she can effectively beat the Republicans in the general election.

And that is the whole point of having her as the democratic nominee.

The polls show otherwise. We can also look beyond polls to an actual election result. Her bungling of the health care issue is what led to the Democratic catastrophe of 1994...

She brings alot more to the table than Obama. Why are you so resentful that she was the first lady for eight years? Why does that somehow lessen her electability? She has 8 years of first hand knowledge of how to do the job by arguably the most popular president.

She is very intelligent, savvy, knows the ropes, is a fighter, has a network that is the envy of every other candidate. She is formidable and if you don't see that, you don;t want to.

I think Obama is great, he seems has charisma, is exciting and energetic, but where's the beef? He is too green and will get pummelled in a general election.

We all know the answer. If it weren't for "Clinton fatigue" Al Gore would have easily won in 2000. HRC brings a ton of baggage with her, unlike anyone else in the presidential race.

I love the guy, but he acted pompous, which fed into the "created the internet" and "discovered Love canal" and was the basis for "love story". If he or Kerry had fought back against the right hit jobs, they would have won. Hillary will fight back.

1. Experience with our taxdollars
2. Relationships with world leaders
3. knows where the republican bodies are buried
4. experience in DC: she fought them before and they NEVER got her
5. Always went to the table for women and children
6. her husband

What is at stake:
1. Global warming
2. the middle east lobbing nuclear weapons
3. our economy

What she can do
1. Save the economy
2. send her husband around the world to repair relationships
3. fight the republican mindset that is dead set focused on allowing our planet to burn up.
4. Put the issues of women and children to the table.

Therefore, we should nominate her and sentence ourselves to four years of President Giuliani or President Thompson. :puke:

This is because of their habitual practice of crackpot realism which says: for the good of the nation, don't vote for what you supposedly stand for, and in fact vote against it.

...Is it not?

Apparently...

But they are hardly an unbiased critic...

;)

Irrationally so...many haunt this website!

stop posting them

I prefer state by state polls, myself. I think they give you a better image of how the nomination process is playing out. Not to say Hillary isn't doing well there too, because she is!! And rightfully so based on the wonderful campaign she's ran.

Hillary leads for the Democratic nomination in New York, California, West Virginia, Colorado, New Jersey, Ohio, Arkansas, New Hampshire (narrowly), and Nevada.

She is slightly behind in Iowa, and further behind in South Carolina!

Looks pretty good...especially when taken in combination with national polls...if you are a Hillary supporter of course!

If memory serves...it's very close

Glad to see Edwards doing well in Iowa and NH. Should be an interesting race!!

As much as I like Obama, he's my current second favorite, I'm happy Edwards is doing well in both Iowa and New Hampshire.

That was the state that put him into a position to challenge Kerry and right now he's 3rd (though closing on CLinton in 2nd).

All this with the huge caveat that its really early.

I wonder if you can post any instances of you telling posters of national polls not so favorable to Hillary to "stop posting them"

National Polls are not bunk at all...they show overall support, show trends, affect support and fundraising for candidates...

If you don't like them, you can either not click on the thread...or use that handy dandy ignore feature DU has so kindly provided!!

And if my memory serves me correct, you post those as well. And Hillary is doing quite well there too. I just don't like nationwide polls when we're this far out.

Even then, it's still TOO early and things could change!!

But yes, her campaign is doing well!!

With all the negativity posted about her here... but nationwide, she excels.

But I would suggest to the Clinton supporters that they not dwell on these poll numbers, and instead look at the big picture of can she and will she sustain these numbers over the next year or so? Obviously you don't know all the bumps in the road, but still. And the state by state polls are a lot more telling in my opinion. But still, it's way too early. I like a good horse race, and we sure do have one!!

we're gloating...gloating, get it? We give ourselves 24 hrs to gloat and party because-
Tomorrow is another day! :hi:

So, who's right?

And despite people having issues with their approval numbers for Bush, they have been quite accurate on election day.

Rasmussen (along with survey USA) robocalls as ooposed to having a live person doing the survey.

and the latest Gallup poll is showing her pulling away from the pack with substantial numbers...almost 20 pts over Obama.
That I believe is significant due to the fundraising bump and good press Obama received just last week. In spite of it, she pulls away.

This is getting interesting and you know it. :)

I still loveya, Katz.

and good for her. She's ran a safe campaign. She has the best name recognition.

Seriously, has anyone ever heard someone that ISN'T a partisan democrat say they like Hillary Clinton? When I hear people talk about Hillary Clinton, all I hear are jokes about her and Bill, and her being a "bitch", etc.

Now we can dismiss them and say "but those are a bunch of sexist ass holes" and that's probably right in many of those cases. But that doesn't help make her more likable.

And in my opinion, I don't think it's just because she's a woman either that many hate her. She's not authentic. She calculates. And she panders.

Now personally, I don't think she'll make a terrible president (better than any republican anyways). She won't appoint the likes of Alito to the SC. That's good enough of a reason for me to vote for her. But it likely isn't for many others.

Certainly not the "reality" that the DLC/media presents to us- you know, the one where everyone at the barbershop, the bar or in the grocery line, at the Elks Lodge etc, just LOVES Hillary.

I'm talking about average people talking about her.

They just don't like her - and they've had PLENTY of time already to make up their mind. Granted, they haven't really seen her, but many have made their mind with what they have seen. Many believe she's been running for years. That ambition, especially from a woman often makes people uncomfortable. Sometimes I think those wanting to anoint her have no real perception of what regular people think. Reality is largely about perception. The perception to many is she's a raging communist/feminist when in fact, she's the most conservative candidate since Lieberman. I've heard RANDOM comments about her authenticity and speaking style (it's grating, seemingly unnatural, and difficult to listen to for extended periods) from potential voters as well. Now, the descriptions were more blunt - I was told she "doesn't believe in anything", will "do anything to win", and her speaking "sounds like she's screaming about something"...

Add to that her nanny state tactics regarding gun control and video games (it's a larger market than many think), and you have a LOT of problems with male voters right there. In the end, I'd bet anyone that the net political effect would be negative on stances the DLC have considered "courageous" like the vote for war (and an unclear position afterward), video games, flag burning, etc.

And I'm not even bringing up the number of those on the left that have disgusted with her the last few years.

will stay. People are looking closer at Obama and they may see something new,and refreshing, but Obama is no Bill Clinton nor is HRC. Bill Clinton knew his stuff and unlike Obama that stutters and tries to find an answer,and HRC can answer questions with the knowledge like Bill. People are not wanting a splash in the pan, i e George Bush.....What they see in HRC is someone that knows her stuff ( kinda like Bill)People are looking for someone that knows their stuff and has the wisdom, and foresight to bring this country back.

The problem for Obama this go around is people will not vote for someone they would like to have a beer with, but someone with the wisdom to lead this country and that is what HRC will do and more folks are seeing exactly that.....