Clinton Leads Both Thompson and Romney by Three Points

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/clinton_leads_both_thompson_and_romney_by_three_points

Thompson (R)44% Clinton (D)47% CLINTON WINS BY 3%
Romney (R)44% Clinton (D)47% CLINTON WINS BY 3%

And from past Rasmussen polls...
Thompson (37%) Obama (47%) OBAMA WINS BY 10%
Romney (37%) Obama (52%) OBAMA WINS BY 15%

Thompson (37%) Edwards (47%) EDWARDS WINS BY 10%
Romney (29%) Edwards (55%) EDWARDS WINS BY 26%


Edit to add: her numbers against Thompson are improved, her numbers against Romney are worse than the last Ras poll.

Hillary Clinton's favorable rating remains more or less balanced by her unfavorable rating: 50% view her favorably, 49% unfavorably. Many more have a Very Unfavorable (35%) than Very Favorable (23%) view. Her favorable ratings have been pretty stable over the last several months.

considering the difference in name recognition and Bush's unpopularity.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008_edwards_d_47_giuliani_r_45

He takes Giuliani by 2 and McCain by 7.

are more concerned about popularity contest than winning a general election. It doesn't matter if you almost always do better than the two so-called "frontrunners" when you are matched up against the "other side." The only thing that matters is whether you can beat Democrats. Don't you know that's why Democrats love focusing so much on national numbers and numbers of Democrats versus Democrats in primary states. They don't care if you can beat Republicans. :sarcasm:

while everyone else crushes them.

Looks like it will be Rudy beating Hillary in 2008 :(

We are in serious trouble if we nominate her. She just doesn't have much upside for the general election.

who jump all over every primary poll that has her leading?

She's obviously toast

:eyes:

according to the polls, and that is a fact. It is pretty sad considering she has the most name recognition, a megamillion machine behind her, and a popular ex-president beside her. She should be doing better than Obama and Edwards in the g.e. polls, not worse.

I found that interesting.

even an unknown like Richardson beat Romney in the Ras poll. Romney has some assets, but I think he would be one of the easier candidate to beat.

Particularly if our own candidate is a southerner. And I don't even think Romney would get Massachusetts - he barely won there in his only election (much like Edwards).

However, he's slick (in many different ways), is married to his first wife and can raise lots of money. I foresee Romney as the Vice Presidential nominee, unless Giuliani wins (in which case I think he will pick McCain).

The Republican ticket will be Romney and Jeb Bush. All the more reason why the "bigs" want the Democrats to nominate Hillary Clinton.

(depending on what you consider the south) would be Florida, Arkansas and Virginia. Florida has large hispanic population and the other two have large black populations, perhaps Richardson and Obama would have greater influence there. If Webb or Warner was on the ticket I think we would take VA, which is trending Dem anyway.

Personally, I don't think Edwards would win NC in a close election. It tends to vote +14% more Repub than the national average, and Presidential candidates usually get about a 10% boost.

He is not that popular, and we are talking about the only state the McGovern won. It was Mondale's second best state. It has voted more than 25% more for the Dem candidate than the national average in the last 3 elections.

Romney ain't winning MA.

We deserve to lose if we are reckless enough to nominate such a weak candidate. If we truly want to end the war, have universal health care, and achieve our aims we should intelligently nominate someone who can win. HRC can't, as her weakness against someone who is not even in the race yet attests to.

She is, and has been (remember the results of her failed secret health care meetings in 1994), a disaster for the Democratic Party.

Evidently, experience for experiences sake is sufficient. It need not be positive experience. She failed miserably on health care and also moved Arkansas from 49th to 49th when she was Bill's point person on education.

Can we nominate someone whose unfavorability rating is not hovering around 50%?

Part of it is a sense of entitlement. As far as the DLC goes, though, it seems the DLC would rather regain control of the party than have a Democrat in the White House. HRC will allow them to retake control of the party.

n/t