In Polls, Clinton Loses to Republicans

BY MICHAEL FINNEGAN - Los Angeles Times June 18, 2007

WASHINGTON — It is a paradox of the 2008 presidential race. By a wide margin, several polls show, voters want a Democrat to win — yet when offered head-to-head contests of leading announced candidates, many switch allegiance to the Republican.

In a Los Angeles Times-Bloomberg poll conducted earlier this month, this dynamic was most clearly evident with Senator Clinton.

When registered voters were asked which party they would like to win the White House, they preferred a Democrat over a Republican by 8%. But in a race pitting Mrs. Clinton against Mayor Giuliani, a Republican, the former New York mayor was favored by 10%.

--
The poll also showed Mrs. Clinton trailing when matched against two other Republicans — Senator McCain of Arizona and a former Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney.

The deficits, however, were within the survey's margin of error of plus or minus 3%.

URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/56786

If the Repugs come up with a "moderate" she is toast.

Although it might be hard for some here to see a Republican beat God.

It's indicative of trend I'm seeing if you venture outside of Clinton HQ.

Two seperate polls taken since this LA Times poll showed Hillary beating all Republican comers...

So, of course, *THOSE* polls are more accurate, because they favor your candidate, huh...?

You constantly post polls that show Senator Clinton ahead of her Democratic rivals, and beating the Republican challengers.

But when there are polls that show Senator Clinton trailing Republicans or other Democrats, you've simply sneered "meaningless" or "too early."

Elmer, you're referring to the Quinnipiac University Poll conducted on more or less the same day as the LATimes poll. Quinnipiac, with a margin of error of 2.4%, found Clinton beating Giuliani by one percentage point (Obama tied with Rudy), beat McCain by 2 points (as did Obama), and beat Thompson *chung-chunnnggg* by seven points (Obama won that match up by 12).

Interestingly, this poll also followed the trend of asking voters is they would vote for the Republicazn or Democratic candidate, and the nameless Democrat continues to win overwhelmingly--currently a 15 poin difference. Except against the largely gimmicky Thompson, Clinton, Obama, and Gore continue to underperform in more concrete match ups.

Findings like that tell me we as a party are not running our "A" squad in this year's scrimmage.

Lots of Democrats might not like Hillary and are willing to drive that point in these polls. If she in fact gets the nomination, watch the numbers change. Sad to see so many DUers get sucked into Republican think.

The die-hard Reps are going to vote Rep no matter who the Dem nominee is. The die-hard Dems are going to vote Dem no matter who the Dem nominee is.

There is another group, the group that is going to decide this election, just like it does most elections. It is the moderates. This time they are inclined to vote Democratic. However, Hillary is such a known quantity and so many of them already have a distaste for her: a) many moderates who would have voted Democratic won't vote for Hillary, b) because she is such a known quantity, there is little she can do to change their minds.

Now, we can of course huff and puff and call them idiots, misinformed, dupes of the right, brainwashed kool aid drinkers. That might make us feel better. But the voters I am talking about are not this way at all. They are inclined this time to vote Democratic.

We just need to give them a candidate they can vote for. <b>And they would even be inclined to vote for a progressive Democratic</b>. Someone who can expound a message of a better America. Without the baggage and drama that a Hillary candidacy would bring.

Hillary brings with her a similar situation as Kerry. Both are great people, great Senators, and would make great presidents. Kerry had some quirky things that the Reps were able to capitalize on. They labeled him a flip flopper, an elitist, swiftboated his Vietnam medals....and as a result Kerry had a lot more difficulty talking about the issues and what he wanted to do to change America for the better. It was largely swallowed up by all this crap.

With Hillary, the potential is even greater, and more inevitable. I am afraid if Hillary is nominated all we are going to see is discussions about Monica, Whitewater, why she didn't dump an adultering louse of a husband who humiliated her daughter in front of the nation, why she stayed with him shows she just wanted power...heck...the list could fill this board! And none of this is right. And none of this is fair. And none of this has anything to do with how good a job Hillary would do as President. But what all this crap would do would make it friggin IMPOSSIBLE for Hillary to talk about the issues of how to make America a better place. While the Rep nominee, whomever he is, will be distancing himself from Bush and giving us Republican talking lines that have worked for decades, Hillary will be paralyzed trying to just defend against all this irrelevancy. So she won't be able to get her message out. And that doesn't include that the number one issue facing Americans today is Iraq and Hillary voted on the wrong side of this issue, so she will not be able to capitalize on it. Maybe, if she had a VP with the stature of Clark, she could pull it off.

And, to top it off, many moderates just don't like her personality from the start. So anything she said would be a hard sell in the first place.

Just flowing, not saying this is what you are thinking ...

The thing that burns my rear end ... NOTHING you said here has anything to do with her abilities, or the quality of a president she would be ... SO, we, all of us, should not want a Hillary presidency not because she would be a bad president, but instead simply because the right would go ape shiite ...

THAT is what it boils down to ...

Personally, I agree with what you are saying about how both Gore and Kerry allowed the MSM and right wing to paralyze them ... I don't agree that Hill would ... I think she is tougher than Gore and Kerry in that regard ... She has faced their crape for going on two decades now, and frankly, I think at this point it kind of motivates her ... NOTHING they do will surprise her at this point, and again, she just if flat tougher than Kerry or Gore ...

That she voted on the wrong side of Iraq ... That rings true only to the left ... CThe center voters you note that win elections won't care much how she voted then ...

Me ... I don't think any D candidate has any better chance ... Maybe Obama cause he seems able to duck the negative tones ... But, other than him, once the primaries break and the MSM gets on board with whatever right wing orders it gets, Thompson is in fact the GREAT Reagen embodied, and whatever smears they will work up for the dem candidate ...

I agree, Hills run will be a bloodbath, no doubt, and be hard for people ... But, it is going to be a bloodbath regardless ... Hers will be bloodier, but do not for ONE second, think that the right wing is going to just play nice for Obama, Edwards or whoever ...

Sure she has abilities.

My biggest concern with her is that she...more than anyone....will be the subject of "personal issues" and "swiftboating".

Yes, the Reps are going to try to harpoon anyone we nominate. I fear that it won't take as much effort with Hillary. I would at least hope that we would nominate a candidate that would make the Reps work harder to harpoon.

It is my hope, and I am not convinced yet, but hoping that Obama has what it takes to stand up to the shit-fest if he were to be the nominee. He seems to have a positive message and a natural knack for charisma. S0 there is hope.

I: would be much more comfortable with Clark or Gore at the top of the ticket. Although as VPs they would also give more strength. I can't see Gore running for VP again. But Clark as VP might just have enough strength to pull it out for Hillary. Although I would be more comfortable the other way around. He has so much more experience, foreign policy expertise, and is so much more progressive than she is and besides he opposed the IWR and besides he is a Rhoades Scholar like her husband was. He would compliment Hillary quite well...he would give us a progressive to complement Hillary's triangulation. Best thing is, he is perceived as a moderate so he will at the same time make her look less liberal!!!! What a match!

Losing 08 is unthinkable to me. It really scares me that Hillary might get the nomination. Not because I don't like her. I heard her on NPR this morning and she sounded great. It's that she has a built in set of negatives, and a lot of moderates out there are not going to be inclined to vote for her. Worse still, with her running it is virtually guaranteed that the issues will not be even talked about during the election...we will be spending all our time countering shit about Hillary and her husband's past.

The one thing Hillary is not is moderate. She's an extreme candidate...not in her policies, but in how she is percieved. The RW radio mythology places her as the wife of Zeus, queen of all things liberal and has been complaining about her for 16 years now. Many moderates don't listen to this stuff, but their freinds do, and it does have an effect.

I'm not saying its good or bad, but that's how it is.

If we nominate her, we'll lose. And that would be unthinkable.

Republicans who might otherwise sit this election out because they have no candidate to get excited about will turn out in droves to vote against Hillary. They hate her that much...and I know because I live amongst them.

When people think of the name Hillary, they're reminded of the epithets and insults the Neo-Cons used against her neverendingly for years. They pulled out the big guns and made a joke out of her because she is an intelligent, independent woman. They trashed Kerry in the same way and that's why he lost. The press aided and abetted in this.

It was curious to me that tho the right wing has been crucifying Senator Clinton for well over a decade, now suddenly Bush Sr. is the Clintons' best pal, and Rupert Murdoch holds a fundraiser for her. I think the right wing knows the reputation they fashioned for her through lies and insults will hamper her possibilities of being elected, and it will be a sure win for the Republican candidate.

Just my view.

But, no doubt the battle they have been gearing up for almost two decades for ...

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

HRC says:

"So you don't like me just because I'm a DLCer???"

Many progressives are supporting one who is essentially the same as HRC simply because he is not formally a member of the DLC.

And they'll fall right into the trap of the treasonous companies who outsource jobs to even the most undemocratic regimes.

Obama is not a "pro-war corporatist DLCer". Your hypocrisy knows no bounds, as you yourself support a pro-war (CO-SPONSOR of the IWR), corporatist (hedge funds, anyone?) candidate.

I don't support Obama solely because he isn't DLC and I'll thank you for not interjecting your own absurdly illogical biases into my, or any other Obama supporter's motives.

which is US BTW.

And she has huge negatives among the right-wing-nuts. She is unlikely to carry a single southern state.

We need to win this time . . . by any means necessary.

The Marist Inst, Quinipeac College poll had her behind the day before the election; she won by the largest margin in New York State history.

Question the source on this one.

Clinton supporters remind me of Republicans who get their information from FOX news. They based their opinions on such absurd arguments.

First of all, NO POLL HAD HILLARY behind a day before the election. The only polls which had her losing was when Rudy Guilliani was still in the race. Remember? He was initially going to run against her. But then he got cancer and pulled out. She then ran against Rick Lazio (WHO???? EXACTLY). She NEVER trailed Rick Lazio in the race for the Senate.

Second, she won the election by 12% - which is hardly the largest ever. In fact, she didn't even out poll Al Gore who carried the state by 25%. Chuck Shumer who ran for reelection in 2004 won the race by nearly 40%. Spitzer won NYS by more than 30% when he ran for Governor last time.

This is what scares me most about Clinton supporters. They don't seem to realize or care how important this election is. When confronted with evidence suggesting that Hillary will lose us the election, they just make shit up.

"The only polls which had her losing was when Rudy Guilliani was still in the race."

And even then it was early. Rudy was losing in the polls before he quit the race.

"She NEVER trailed Rick Lazio in the race for the Senate."

No she did not trail but they were dead even when Lazio first got in.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/e2289.htm

The loopy polling the poster referred to?

http://www.maristpoll.marist.edu/docs/rannotes/092500.htm

http://www.uttm.com/stories/2000/10/19/politics/main242465.shtml

The Lazio election is instructive when one depends largely on anti-Hillary sentiment. And more painful example would be the re-lection of Bush.

"Second, she won the election by 12% - which is hardly the largest ever"

Perhaps the poster meant for an open seat?

"Spitzer won NYS by more than 30% when he ran for Governor last time."

Last time? He just ran 8 months ago.

Hillary won her re-election bid by over 30% as well.

in fact, I am quite sure Guiliani would have won had he been healthy enough to run.
The fact Lazio was ever even tied with Hill was disturbing.
When I saw those polls I knew Gore would be in trouble with Bush.

1. I never said I was supporting her; I just suggested she's not to be underestimated.

2. You should maybe dig up that poll. Qunipeac had her behind, make no mistake, the day before the election.

Prove me wrong.

" Among the new polls, the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute had the first lady leading the Long Island congressman 51 percent to 39 percent, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3 points."

http://www.phillyburbs.com/election2000/news/676656.htm

There ya go.

Democratic Hillary Rodham Clinton (inc.) 3,008,428 67.0 +11.7
Republican John Spencer 1,392,189 31.0 -12.0

Which was, in fact, the largest electoral margin in the history of the state, but in 2006.

67% means that REPUBLICANS also voted for her, in large numbers. Try translating that to the national stage, and you'll see why she could actually win this upcoming thing.

Wrong election, I suppose. She did, however, win her senate seat last time out....by the largest margin ever.


But...how, then, would you explain this:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/06/ny.senate/index.html

From CNN Producer Phil Hirschkorn

November 6, 2000
Web posted at: 1:09 p.m. EST (1809 GMT)

NEW YORK (CNN) -- On the final day of their U.S. Senate race today, both candidates were focusing on their trouble spots, upstate New York for Democratic first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, and suburban New York City for GOP Rep. Rick Lazio.

The campaign's last day brought with it a new statewide poll released Monday by the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion that showed Clinton maintaining a four-percentage point edge over Lazio among likely voters: 49 percent to 45 percent.

Hmmmmmmmm?

My point is, she won by 12 points in 2000, though they had her within only two points the day before the election (as these are generally +- 3%).

Because, I didn't make anything up, I just confused her LARGEST MARGIN EVER in 2006, with the 2000 race.

And next time you're going to put on your authoritative hat, and quote directly from wikipedia, it might be a good idea to make an attribution of the stats you're using....before you call anyone else a liar.

They could respond by correctly labeling you a plagarist, and a lazy one at that.

Gee, wonder where I got the idea that she was supposed to be trailing, according to Marist, the day before the election:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/06/ny.senate/index.html

"Clinton was expected to concentrate Monday on the upstate region that she has visited repeatedly in the 16 months since she began contemplating a Senate campaign.

The first lady trails Lazio in upstate New York, according to the Marist poll, 55 percent to 37 percent."

You.....are now officially a plagarist buttwipe, IMHO.

Making stuff up; please. Get over yourself. Smoke another doobie, vote Nader, or whatever crazy shit it is you want to do.

they say it's a personal thing. But, if she is the nominee, some say they will vote republican to spite her.
Obama wins over Thompson 50 to 31