Zogby Poll: Half Say They Would Never Vote for Hillary Clinton for President

Source: Zogby International

Other top tier candidates in both parties win more acceptance; Richardson & Huckabee favored most


While she is winning wide support in nationwide samples among Democrats in the race for their party’s presidential nomination, half of likely voters nationwide said they would never vote for New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, a new Zogby Interactive poll shows.

The online survey of 9,718 likely voters nationwide showed that 50% said Clinton would never get their presidential vote. This is up from 46% who said they could never vote for Clinton in a Zogby International telephone survey conducted in early March. Older voters are most resistant to Clinton – 59% of those age 65 and older said they would never vote for the New York senator, but she is much more acceptable to younger voters: 42% of those age 18–29 said they would never vote for Clinton for President.


Read more: http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1376


This is an election we can't afford to gamble on. The Democrats must win this election. There is simply too much animosity toward Sen. Clinton. It would make this election further divide the country at the risk of losing to the Republicans. Since we do have some better qualified candidates, it's best to keep Sen. Clinton as NY senator. Then she could prove herself to the rest of the country and run again later if she chose to do so. Right now it feels too much like she used New York to get the White House.

You don't have to remind us.

...and incidentally, I don't think you can remind people of that enough.

Hillary is a warmongering war cheerleader. The only difference between
Hillary and the rest of the neocons is that she feigns innocence when someone
calls her on the carpet for her votes that open the door to war.

She now claims that her Iran vote--which declared part of their government
a "terrorist organization"--wasn't about war. It was about "diplomacy!".

YEahhhhhh...that's the ticket!

Hillary knows damn well that declaring a government a "terrorist organization"
gives the Bush administration all sorts of freedoms: The freedom to invade without
asking Congress for permission; the freedom to do whatever the hell he wants toward
the citizens of Iran or their government. They're terrorists now.

For Hillary to actually put in writing that this vote was all about diplomacy--
is an insult to everyone.

At least the neocons are straightforward about their warmongering. Hillary votes
along with them and tries to convince us all that those votes were really about
knitting each and every Iranian a friendship afghan.

She's revolting to anyone who values peace, honesty and decency.

Any Dem who won't support the Dem nominee no matter who isn't worth my time.

Thanks.
:hi:

Any any lemming--who would vote for a warmonger--just
because that warmonger is a card-carrying member of
your club---is someone that probably wouldn't get my
posts anyway.

Don't bother with me. Just stick with your "my party
at all costs" attitude, no matter what the results.

I've been a proud, loyal Democrat my entire life. Our party has
been hijacked by the neocons who have infiltrated the
DLC. You should be fighting for our ideals---PEACE,
FAIRNESS, HONESTY, EQUALITY--instead of blinding
following the party and leaders who do not represent
Democratic ideals.

I don't take kindly to threats.

It seems principles don't apply with sellitman and I said based on principles that I won't vote for hillary if she is nominated because she has the principles of a republicon and I won't vote for a republicon.
Here is the pm I got as I'm sure others did or will get and the title of the pm was something like you are now on ignore:
"Congrads! For posting that you won't support Hillary if she wins the nomination

(Ps....I hate her too)"

What kind of hypocrite is sellitman in saying he hates her, but puts us on ignore for us not being willing to vote for her if she's the nominee?

Like you should care or something.

What the hell is the point of ignoring people anyway? To sheild yourself from unwanted perspectives that might conflict with your own? It reminds me of some dittoheads I know who will neutralize any arguement they don't like by arguing that the source is "biased".

thread to thread with belligerant, abusive, argumentative posts from a particular poster, however. It is less about "unwanted perspectives" than making yourself open to bullying. Person A may share the same perspective as Person B, but if A follows me around the board making snide, insulting remarks while Person B presents valid arguments, I'll ignore A and listen to B.

I guess I'd like to assume that most DUers wouldn't fit the profile of person A, but thats probably naive on my part.

This poll brings to relief the danger of selecting a candidate merely on name recognition.

The word 'Never' should be worrisome.

:hi:

I'd support *ANY* of the rest of the candidates
(although for Obama my support would be grudging),
but the Party seems Hell-bent on coronating the
one candidate *I WILL NOT SUPPORT* under any
circumstance.

So I guess you should put me on ignore too;
the Party certainly has.

Tesha

about her LAST WEEK!! If she's the one, sorry but I won't vote for her either! She's NO DIFFERENT than Ghoulliani to me!

And with regard to the content of the PM, no, I've never
have wasted my vote on Nader; in fact, I've never voted
for the man! Up until now, I've *ALWAYS* voted for the
D in the General Election, but I'm starting to see that
this is a losing long-term strategy because it only
encourages my party to keep offering worse and worse,
ever-more-right-wing candidates.

I won't waste my vote on Nader in 2008 either (is he
even running?), but this time around, the D's need
to give me a candidate that I actually want to vote
*FOR* or I'll be voting for a more-worthy candidate.

Tesha

some people tell me that PERHAPS we should just LET the Repukes have it again because not matter WHO gets in, the MESS that needs to get cleaned up is so severe that ANY Democrat is going to get blamed ANYWAY!

In fact, I was just talking to my sister last night, she lives in Florida and hasn't made up her mind yet, but did say she won't vote for Hillary either! She also commented that her husband felt things are so out of hand that it may not matter because of the mess! My family HAS ALWAYS voted Democratic, and they lived in IL for many many years. He worked for the Steel Mill and moved here because of the snow after he retired, but IL was "big time" "D" and he was always involved!

Both of them say it's waaaaay too early for them to decide, but they think that IF a Democrat is elected, WHATEVER goes wrong, regardless of this DISASTROUS mess that The Decider and his cohorts have created... Democrats are going to be blamed! Given what I'm seeing these days, I wonder WHY anyone wants to be POTUS!!

I so wish America was America again!

God help us if we have a president that thinks that's how diplomacy is accomplished. Oh, wait....

I'm not sure why you're yelling at me! (why would we want ANOTHER president who thinks that's what diplomacy means? Isn't the current one enough?)

The republicans are counting on your NOT voting if she is the nominee. The fascism machine will go into higher gear if you get your way. I bet it is a wonderful feeling knowing that you are an unwitting ally of the lurking freepers, who are high fiving each other as they gleefully read your proclamation.

Hillary's actions on war with Iran and the continuing the Iraq war---will look
no different than Guiliani's actions.

Neocons on the right...meet the neocons on the left. It's all the same.

I don't know how this happened or who orchestrated it, but corporatists and those who
benefit from the military-industrial complex have taken over the messaging and both
parties. The neocons are open about their warmongering. The Democrats are a bit more
coy, but their votes and their actions equal the same thing----more war and the continued
unfolding of the PNAC plan. The Dem warmongers operate through the DLC.

The wedge issues that have all of us tumbleweeds talking--are red herrings--which
only give the appearance of a two-party system.

We are all being bamboozled. Our democracy is gone.

The Democratic party that we have all known is dead. I am a loyal Democrat and I have
watched, with disgust, as these warmongering neocons infiltrate our party. These people
are not Democrats. They are only using the Democratic party as a way of getting elected.

The only way to cure this disease is to be AWARE of it and then make change from within.

Playing the denial game, and pretending that Rudy is worse than Hillary is equivalent
to burying your head in the sand--and buying into the corporatist propaganda.

We need to take back our party from the neocons who now control the messaging. Haven't
you heard? They're all positioning anti-war Democrats as "cuckoo" and "nutjobs". This
party is about peace, fairness, equality, education, honesty and social programs that lift
up people. The DLC and it's players could care less about any of that. They're
the elite tied into the elite on the Republican side--and they all benefit from our
democracy being decimated.

Please take off the blinders. Please work to save the Democrat party--or what's left of it.

You accuse me of appeasing the Freepers, by not voting for Hillary. You've got it all
wrong. You--and all of the Hillary supporters, who are voting for more war and less
democracy---are appeasing the PNACers who are aggressively moving forward with their
neocon agenda with the help of Democrat and Republican politicians and those who vote
for candidates who are vile, disgusting, anti-American, "hawkish", warmongerig, corporatist
thugs.

Think. Please.

To claim that Hillary will launch some sort of blitzkrieg if she is elected is a bunch of bullshit and you know it. It wont happen. Rudy would be Bush on steroids and you know it. Your demagoguery is duly noted and flushed down the toilet where it belongs.

Oh, and by the way, I support Kucinich, Obama, Edwards and Clinton, in that order...I am just sick and tired of the endless demogoguery RE the Clintons, and I am not stupid enough to help another republican into office.

Let's say you're right and she's exactly like Rudy on Iraq and Iran.

Do you think they're the same on other issues? (Education, healthcare, civil rights, choice, environment, etc. etc. etc.)

And, do you think another Republican administration would help turn back the neocon tide you wrote of?

You just made my ignore list.

I won't vote for her in the Primaries, but if she wins the nomination I will.

Any Dem who votes for a third party just helps the Republicans.

But you guys have GOT to get out of the mindset that we OWE the nominee our votes while the nominee owes us nothing.

And come one, even YOU wouldn't vote for Lieberman or Zell Miller.

> The republicans are counting on it

All the Democrats have to do to avoid this trap is not
nominate Hillary.

I'd bet most of us would vote for most of the rest of
the candidates (I would).

Tesha

How your attitude is possible after Florida 2000 is beyond me. It's like not fighting Hitler in 1940 because of this or that. Grow up!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Rommel

...

Rommel's military successes earned the respect not only of his troops and
Adolf Hitler, but also that of his enemy Commonwealth troops in the North
troops in the North African Campaign. Following the defeat of Axis forces
in North Africa, and whilst commanding the defence of Occupied France, his
fortunes changed when he was suspected of involvement in the failed July 20
Plot of 1944 to kill Hitler.

...

but my point is simple: Stopping the Bushies (and Hitler) is more important than anything else. And there is no other way of stopping them, than building an alliance against them. That alliance is called the Democrats.

hitler and Rommel were both on the same side and thus were both wrong.

Never in American history has a man of less substance or competence held the oval office, and you want to blame the 2% of Americans who didn't see a viable candidate in either party? What about the 40+% who didn't vote? What about the media who gave Bush a free pass on the failure that characterizes the totality of his career? What about a supreme court willing to make ruling unfit (by their own judgment) to be used as precedent?

W wasn't a fluke brought on by the Naderites, he is the logical conclusion of a crippled public discourse, a rising corporatist shadow party, and a complacent electorate.

We didn't fight Hitler in 1940 with "the lesser of two evils" and neither did the Germans who resisted. Personally I don't see it working here either.

- especially the Greens - who considered their hobby-politics more important than stopping Bush.

proliferation.

peace

:hi:

but if it means that you don't vote Democratic: Then you don't contribute in the fight against the Bushies. And what are you then doing in this DEMOCRATIC forum? Please go to a forum for Greens or whatever.

swing state.

What I mean is I won't support the corporate wing of the Democratic Party, the DLC, and their candidates. I plan on working for the Dem candidate unless they're DLC, in which case I will still vote Democratic by writing in Al Gore. My volunteer efforts will be placed with a local Democratic candidate who supports progressive values.

peace.

Yee-haw

October 18, 2007 10:06 AM

So later this month, according to THIS INVITATION, the presidential campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, is holding a "Rural Americans for Hillary" lunch and campaign briefing at the end of this month….

..but she's holding it in Washington, DC….

…at a lobbying firm…

… and specifically, though it's not mentioned in the invitation, at the lobbying firm Troutman Sanders Public Affairs…

…which just so happens to lobby for the controversial multinational agri-biotech Monsanto.

You read that right: Monsanto, about which there are serious questions about its culpability regarding 56 Superfund Sites, wanton and "outrageous" pollution, and the decidedly unkosher (and quite metaphoric) genetically-bred "Superpig."

-snip

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/10/yee-haw.html

SORRY, DEFINITELY NOT IN THE PEOPLES, PARTY OR PLANET'S BEST INTERESTS!

- remember all those wise guys who said there was no important difference between Bush and Gore? Or Michael Moore - who didn't have the "conscience" (as far as I remember) to vote for Gore, because (as far as I remember), Gore was not against the death penalty?

The only way to stop the Bushies, is to build an alliance against them. And in an alliance, you have to include people you disagree with.

Do not preclude that voting for a candidate other than hillary who one deems to be the right candidate, as mod mom is doing, is voting for a repuke as that is nothing more than trying to, again, scare and bully everybody into voting for hillary. We have better candidates that have equal or better shots against the republicons than hillary does. Those other candidates also have better policies and plans than she does without being bought off. We also have some that want to get us out of bush's war for oil in Iraq while NOT PUSHING FOR ANOTHER ONE THROUGH STUPIDLY DEFINING AN ENEMY FOR BUSH TO ATTACK.

- then vote for her. People who don't do that, have learnt nothing from Florida 2000. And how is it possible to repeat that mistake? I give up.

I think she stands for almost nothing that Democrats should stand for - and I'm being charitable here by not questioning whether she stands for anything.

more than a few, I am sure.

I can vote for any DEM for President - EXCEPT Hillary

.

I don't give a shit why someone else will or will not vote for him. My opinion will NEVER be subordinated to speculation about what someone else I don't even know or agree with will do.

Shame on you.

and sinking us all to the bottom. Good for you!

She's not my first, second or third choice but if nominated, Hillary has my vote.
There isn't a repuke candidate worth the spit he speaks with.

From The Columbia Journalism Review last year, after another one of these Online Zogby polls predicted Gov. Rick Perry would lose in Texas:

"When reached by phone last week, Cliff Zukin, a political science professor and polling expert at Rutgers University, suggests that journalists should generally be wary of any Zogby interactive poll.
'The Zogby stuff, on scientific grounds, is quite questionable,' says Zukin. 'Online, Internet, opt-in polling, where people volunteer to be respondents, doesn't really have a basis in scientific validity. There are two kinds of samples in the world. There are probability samples, and there are non-probability samples.'
The Zogby interactive polls, says Zukin, clearly fall into the latter camp. 'With probability samples, when everybody has a known chance of being selected, you can make pretty valid inferences about the population from which it is drawn," says Zukin. "You can't do that at all with self-selected surveys. That's a problem.'"

The Zogby interactive polls are complete trash. Just ask President John Kerry.


http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/10/20/143148/38

Zogby scoffs at the critics noting how his firm fared in the 2004 presidential election. Zogby Interactive called 17 of 20 states correctly (it missed the tight races in Ohio, New Mexico and Iowa). Nationwide, Zogby Interactive's poll had George Bush defeating John Kerry 50 percent to 49 percent; the final was 51 percent to 48 percent.

Last year in the Virginia gubernatorial race, Zogby Interactive's Internet poll picked Democratic Lt. Gov. Tim Kaine to defeat Republican Attorney General Jerry Kilgore by 48 percent to 46 percent, and the final tally was 52 to 46. In New Jersey, Zogby Interactive projected Democrat Jon Corzine to win over Republican Douglas Forrester by 51 to 44, very close to the actual results of 53 to 44.

Link: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2519/is_8_27/ai_n16753942

The professor without a dog in the fight says interactive polls are unreliable/..

Zogby who makes a living off them says they are reliable...


Cui Bono

Gawd, he called Ohio, Florida, Iowa and Nevada wrong... I swear to G-d I could have called all of them right by looking at the other polls...

If his findings are confirmed by other findings he will be vindicated...What we think really doesn't matter...

I wasn't going by what Zogby said but the track record which I think was pretty good. Sure he was off by 2 or 3% in some states but that is within the margin of error of any poll.

He may be off on slightly on this latest Hillary poll too, but even so, these numbers make me too nervous to risk running Hillary.

I have heard however from Dick Morris of all people, that there is a well of millions of people who don't vote that may come out just to vote for Hillary. If that is true and someone can show me those numbers clearly, I will be more apt to get on board with Hillary.

I don't remember all of them but Zogby got 4 out of 10 of them wrong, Ohio, Florida, Iowa and Nevada...That's awful...Of course Zogby's going to say it's not awful...What's he going to say? "I'm a dumb ass pollster"

Again what I think really doesn't matter...Here's a link to Hillary's negative/positive ratings from several polls...Make out of it what you will:


http://www.pollingreport.com/C2.htm#Hillary

I'm not telling or asking anybody how to vote here...I'm not that presumptuous...Just asking people to look at all the facts, calmly, deliberately, soberly, and dispassionately, and make an informed judgement...

As for Dick Morris ...I heard him on Neil Bored and he said a HRC presidency was more likely than not and Newt Gingrich puts it at a eighty percent probability. Make out of it what you will...

because you said it favored hillary. What say ye now that the polls say she's a loser?

I have heard however from Dick Morris of all people, that there is a well of millions of people who don't vote that may come out just to vote for Hillary.

I don't doubt that that's true, but I'm willing to bet just the opposite is true. Her candidacy might just bring out millions more just to vote against her, so it'd be a wash.

I'm sayin' Obama/Edwards '08 (or vice versa, but that's my personal preference) - I think it'd be a landslide. Hillary could win, but it'd be way closer, and it's just not worth the risk. Zogby's trustworthiness notwithstanding, this poll doesn't surprise me at all. I'd bet that it's pretty accurate.

Dick Morris who hates Hillary more than George the 1st hates broccoli?

yes, he wants her to run so he can make money.

Which means that there are probably some Zogby polls somewhere that are meaningful. Seems that cherry picking is not just a Republican maneuver.

And last time I checked, voters are a self-selecting group, too.

Some of her "fans" have a certain knee-jerk reaction to unpleasant truths.

I understand that anti-Hillary folks are jumping around saying how she cannot win and that 50% will surely not vote for her.

Second, this is the same pollster who showed that Kerry was going to win Iowa, Nevada, Ohio and Florida anywhere from 1-3 points. In the end, Kerry lost all of them by 1-3 points.

Third, the exit polling also showed Kerry winning Pennsylvania and New Hampshire, the latter with a 8 point margin. Kerry won PA and NH, but the margins were tighter than projected.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/10/20/143148/38

Have you ever referred to a poll in making a point? I see them all over this website when it comes to supporting Hillary. Post one that doesn't and Hillary supporters moan about misleading polls.

Polls are what they are; like all things they should be taken with a dose of skepticism. But it does serve to indicate that there is a strong strain of animosity toward Hillary that exists in this country. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't vote for her in the primaries, but you shouldn't pretend that it's not real either. It is.

:toast: :applause: :applause: :popcorn:

Re-Evaluate My Position.

Is that reasonable?

And if it isn't , why not?

Probably Florida as well, but Ohio in particular was the most
BLATANT examples of a stolen US election I've ever heard of.

Massive "irregularities", explained away with blatant falsehoods
and followed up by wholesale destruction of the evidence.

If you think Ohio went FAIRLY for B*sh, I'll make you a sweet deal
on an historical landmark in Brooklyn.

Probably to divert us from the point of this thread and the point made by the post you're replying to. Sure, there was some crooked stuff going on in Ohio. I think most will agree on that. But what's your point, because it doesn't alter Froward69 very valid point anyway?

you been?

Unfortunately, and I say this with much concern, Clinton supporters (and there is a certain group here) who stop at NOTHING to draw blood and smear you up one side and down another because you may disagree with her!

I do understand "disagreement" between candidates, but some of these responses by them are nothing but MEAN & NASTY!! I am truly sorry to be seeing this much venom here and so very early too!

Head to heads count - where people have to make an actual decision , not these reel off the names of candidates you don't like fiascoes.

Only scientific polls have meaning. Online polls can be fun, but have no real weight.

I kind of like Hillary and thought she could win but this scares the hell out of me.

Seven of the last 10 elections have gone against us. Even allowing for the Gore swindle, we usually lose.

What's funny about this particular march off the edge of the cliff is the drastic difference in perceptions between Democrats (15% or so unfavorable) and Republicans (70% or more unfavorable) on Her Hillaryness. We don't care; we're going to stick those asshole Republicans with this woman and laugh our heads off while they have a nervous breakdown. Only, what if she is so widely despised that we can't get her over 50% on the general? Here's a poll that suggests this might indeed be a problem. The Hillarians love polls; we get 'em rammed down our throats all the time, but they'll call this an outlier and pretend like we're mad to even be the slightest concerned.

Color me mad.

"What part of Internet, opt-in polling, where people volunteer to be respondents, doesn't really have a basis in scientific validity." do you not understand?

==“More than half of Americans say they wouldn’t consider voting for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for president if she becomes the Democratic nominee, according to a new national poll made available to McClatchy Newspapers and NBC News.

The poll by Mason-Dixon Polling and Research found that 52 percent of Americans wouldn’t consider voting for Clinton, D-N.Y. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, was second in the can’t-stand-’em category, with 46 percent saying they wouldn’t consider voting for him.

“Clinton has long been considered a politically polarizing figure who would be a tough sell to some voters, especially many men, but also Clinton-haters of both genders.

“Thursday’s survey provides a snapshot of the challenges she faces, according to Larry Harris, a Mason-Dixon principal. “Hillary’s carrying a lot of baggage,” he said. “She’s the only one that has a majority who say they can’t vote for her.”

“Clinton rang up high negatives across the board, with 60 percent of independents, 56 percent of men, 47 percent of women and 88 percent of Republicans saying they wouldn’t consider voting for her.==

http://www.democraticconventionorbust.com/2007/07/04/52-of-americans-wont-vote-for-hillary-under-any-circumstances/

eom

The poll is saying that 50% definitely won't vote for her. We can assume that less than 50% definitely will.

The 2008 election is the Dem's to lose; and the surest way
of LOSING it is to nominate Hillary.

Any other (D) would win just by being a Democrat. People are
just that sick of what the repubs have done, of how badly
they've screwed up EVERYTHING they've touched.

We could nominate an ANONYMOUS candidate and win the presidency.
I really believe that. A complete UNKNOWN could win with a bag
over his head, as long as the bag had a "(D)" on it.

The only POSSIBLE way we could LOSE is if we nominate the
SINGLE MOST DISLIKED WOMAN IN THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

But hey, what are the odds of THAT happening? :eyes:

The FIX is in, folks; I recommend that y'all get used
to hearing the following phrase: "President Guliani".

Because you're gonna be hearing it a LOT for about eight years.

This sums up what I have been thinking for a while now. We have a great chance of making a difference, WHY would we fsck it up by taking a risk that has all sticks and no carrots attached to it?

It is a lose-lose proposition.

express serious doubt that the men in Tim McVeigh(Mid West) territory would ever pull the lever for a woman candidate. .

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why I should prefer Hillary to Giuliani.

:hippie:

I don't want a change in figure head.
I figure we must change the root cause.

but I would vote for her if she were the nominee. Anything to keep another neocon out of the White House.

NONE of the Republican candidates have the high negatives that she does. 50% will NEVER vote for her. She will lose with or without your vote. I don't understand why that is such a hard concept for Democrats to grasp.

:dem:

According to the very recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, Clinton has one of the lowest "reject rates" among the leading candidates in either of the two major parties.

Edwards has the highest "would definitely not vote for rate."

Definitely would not vote for

Clinton 41%
Obama 39%
Edwards 48%

Giuliani 44%
McCain 45%
Romney 57%

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/03/AR2007100302036.html


Here's links to over a dozen probability sample polls:

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

She's been leading in these polls for nearly three months...






Def. FOR Def. AGAINST Net

Clinton 35% 46% -11

Giuliani 29% 43% -14

Thompson 24% 39% -15

Obama 25% 43% -18

McCain 19% 39% -20

Edwards 20% 43% -23

Romney 16% 45% -29

Rasmussen commentary :

Since August, core opposition has increased for all seven leading candidates. In fact, among these seven top tier candidates, an average of 43% are committed to voting against them. That's up from an average of 38% in August.

While all the other candidates have been catching up to Clinton's negative numbers, Clinton has seen her core support grow to a level unmatched by any other candidate at any time this year. Thirty-five percent (35%) now say they will definitely vote for the Democratic frontrunner if she is on the ballot in November 2008. No other candidate currently tops 29% in that measure of core support.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/for_or_against_president ial_candidates

Your Rasmussen poll shows Edwards with only 20% who would Def. vote against and Clinton with the highest at 35%.


Those polls don't say "likely voters" though either.

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

I spent seven years of my life studying this shit( thirty seven hours and a thesis away from a PHD in Government at FSU till my mom got sick and I had to leave)...I'm not going to fabricate the research...

Right, DSB?

"What part of Internet, opt-in polling, where people volunteer to be respondents, doesn't really have a basis in scientific validity." do you not understand?

If you show me a recent "proability sample poll", i.e. a poll where every eliglbe voter has the same statistical probability of being polled , that shows Hillary losing, I will stop supporting her and join the "Draft Gore" campaign because my only goal is beating Rethuglicans, and besides Hillary he's the only Democrat I am confident can do that...

You really shouldn't pretend otherwise. You'd come up with a reason why that poll should be dismissed. And what part of "Polls are what they are; like all things they should be taken with a dose of skepticism," do you not understand?

I doubt you know DSB that well.

I supported

Ted Kennedy in 80

Gary Hart in 84

Gary Hart in 88 until he imploded

Clinton in 92

-no primaries in 96

Gore in 00

Wes Clark in 04

I didn't saddle the Dems with losers...

So what makes you think you or dsb knows ginchinchili or any of us that well? Exactly, he doesn't and neither do you.

The reason you are right is because he just gave in post 37 the reason for dissallowing the polls he presented favoring hillary as also being meaningless for the same reason he sluffs off this one that doesn't favor hillary. Trying to present her as the answer to bush is like having another war be the answer to the war in Iraq. Just like hillary would like.

DSB

Number 1 you don't know how old I am and number 2 it just so happens that I have only ever voted for a democrat. Even if what you said were to be true, what the fuck does that have to do with anything being discussed here? Rather than argue good points about hillary you would rather try the slander method used by repukes because you are backing a loser?
Stick that in your polls.

:scared:


You implied you know how I think ...I take exception to that. What part of that don't you understand?




:P

you haven't relied upon reason or talking points. You rely on scare tactics and slander and have avoided talking any real issues just like hillary does.

I'll integrate this into view of things.

It's an internet poll comprised of self selected respondents...It should give any dispassionate observer pause...

I'm curious, though... does this strike you as essentially a poll of netroots vs. freepers, then normalized against a population model? I can't imagine that 47% of any group, even likely voters, has even heard of Mike Gravel, let alone have such a strong opinion of his abilities.

I did post grad work in American Government...I think I understand it...If she starts falling behind in head to head polls I'll be the first to hop on the Draft Gore bus because my raison d'etre is beating Rethuglicans...I don't think he is without flaws either but he certainly has less flaws than any of the other candidates...But there's no evidence she's sinking...

Back to this poll... Think about it...Zogby recruits respondents to his online poll and than monitors them to see if they change their opinions during a campaign...That means they are self selected...That's why it's flawed...

The reason so many people heard of Mike Gravel in this poll is because the poll is comprised of people who volunteer to participate in a political poll...They have a heightened interest...I assure you the average Joe doesn't know who Mike Gravel is...

but simply because you think she can win.

:eyes:

Just like the voting public.

are the Crossover vote winners in that one. as well among independents. Biden, Richardson .01 apart in this straw poll. :toast:
http://www.620kpoj.com/pages/pages/straw_poll_demo.php

Zogby scoffs at the critics noting how his firm fared in the 2004 presidential election. Zogby Interactive called 17 of 20 states correctly (it missed the tight races in Ohio, New Mexico and Iowa). Nationwide, Zogby Interactive's poll had George Bush defeating John Kerry 50 percent to 49 percent; the final was 51 percent to 48 percent.

Last year in the Virginia gubernatorial race, Zogby Interactive's Internet poll picked Democratic Lt. Gov. Tim Kaine to defeat Republican Attorney General Jerry Kilgore by 48 percent to 46 percent, and the final tally was 52 to 46. In New Jersey, Zogby Interactive projected Democrat Jon Corzine to win over Republican Douglas Forrester by 51 to 44, very close to the actual results of 53 to 44.



Link: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2519/is_8_27/ai_n16753942

online polls are hardly reliable. A few here and there being close don't change this.

or do you think they are destroying those ballots in ohio by accident?

she voted "no" on both the John Roberts & Sam Ailito confirmation hearings, & that's good enough for me...I completely trust her when it would come time for Supreme Court appointments...

The Supreme Court is too fucking important to stay home & pout if she's the nominee....Yeah, I want Edwards or Obama to be the next POTUS, but I'm damn sure voting for HRC in Nov. 2008 if she's our nominee..

I dont want to hold my noze to vote Dem in the GE.

for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. I have heard people from the Democratic Party accuse * as just running to win by 51% of the vote and not caring about the other 49% of the country. That is exactly what will happen if by luck she pulls it off and wins, basically we will have a Democratic President in name only that will never be able to make any meaningful progress once in office.

because even the election doesn't do that.
:+

Because if 80% of Montana and Idaho won't, and 10% of California won't...you do see my point?

which was surprising. This Zogby poll is just spooky enough for me to abandon any entertained thought of supporting her. I am probably going to vote for Edwards anyway.

Except for about two hours when I swayed toward Kucinich. But that didn't last.

I know a lot of conservatives and moderates who will vote Democratic in the presidential election, as long as it isn't Hillary. I also know a lot of liberals who won't vote for her.

Of course, I'll vote for her if she is the nominee, but the negatives I see and hear are very disturbing to me. I don't want another election that is so close, it can be stolen again.

Whom would you NEVER vote for for President of the U.S.?
%

Clinton (D)
50%

Kucinich (D)
49%

Gravel (D)
47%

Paul (R)
47%

Brownback (R)
47%

Tancredo (R)
46%

McCain (R)
45%

Hunter (R)
44%

Giuliani (R)
43%

Romney (R)
42%

Edwards (D)
42%

Thompson (R)
41%

Dodd (D)
41%

Biden (D)
40%

Obama (D)
37%

Huckabee (R)
35%

Richardson (D)
34%

Not sure
4%

Less people say they would not vote for Romney and Thompson than Clinton yet she is waxing them in the polls:

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html


And less people say they would not vote for Guliani and McCain and she is besting them too:



http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

and I figured as much.

If you can start a thread comparing the results I would appreciate it...

in GE polls in recent years.

ever heard of undecideds?

or not vote at all. Some may vote for a third party. She is getting 46 or 47% in most of those polls. Say she gets 3% more and we are in for a real fucking nail biter. Sorry, but I don't want another nail biter! FUCK NO! I would rather play it safe with Edwards or Gore if he gets in.

There are plenty of indications its a worthless freeped poll. They loved Huckabee.

If you look at all the linked polls she gets over 50% in many of them and near 50% in some of them...Almost all the undecideds would have to break against her for her to lose...That's not logical...

Pretend you're a juror in a civil case...The burden of proof in a civil case is that a person's claim is more likely than not or supported by the preponderance of the evidence...

What's more convincing?

One or two isolated polls or dozens of polls...


P.S. If you look at ALL the polls and not some cherry picked ones including state and national polls Edwards fares no better...As for Al Gore, if there's REAL EVIDENCE Hillary can't win I'll support a draft "Al Gore" movement because I'm a Democrat first but right now there's no REAL EVIDENCE Hillary can't win...

If Hillary wins a good chunk of the independents, she can win.

The problem for Hillary is not winning the election, the problem will be how she will govern considering the pressures she will be under to end the war and restore the Constitution.

A President Hillary may turn out to be as much of a flop as Speaker Pelosi.

Another double standard. zzzzz.

Yeah, I typed in caps; that's because I'm screaming.

The only reason to vote for someone with so much opposition from virtually every direction would be if the person had something truly extraordinary to offer. She simply does not. She resoundingly does not. The best anyone can say about her is that she'd do a pretty reasonable job of the same old same old tippy-toeing down the middle of the road.

It simply makes no sense.

She's not the forthright, courageous leader she paints herself to be, she's a hyper-cautious, evasive, maneuvering ultra-moderate who can be quoted as being on most sides of everything that's likely to be an issue in an election. There's no there there. (Okay, there's a little bit of there there, but it's a nowhere kind of there.)

This is unbelievable.

Instead of shrieking at how beset and put-upon she is by big meanies, her supporters should look at some serious reality. The question shouldn't be "what's the matter with these whining lefties and primitive reactionaries", the question should be "is this all really TRUE?" I think it is. I seriously think she's plagued by two major impediments: the many who are in outright opposition and the many who will sort of go along with it and shuffle to the polls and do their duty but not put out any heat to actually get her elected.

and therefore, not terribly meaningful.

In real polls, she defeats all the Republicans. There's not too much risk.

Yeah, they skew conservative, but that is arguably something that would skew her unfavorables lower.

The point is this: from many, many sources, her unfavorables are really, really high. If she's at 52%, she can't win a two-way race. Quibble about the sources, but the issue is very serious.

http://www.pollingreport.com/C2.htm#Hillary

Nice try though...

We need 49-50% of the vote to win. She cannot do it.

I don't have anything against Sen. Clinton personally. I think she makes a fine senator of New York, but I don't want her as the Democratic nominee. For one thing, it sure feels like she's used the people of New York for achieving her own personal ambitions. Another point is that there are other candidates who I believe, with a lot of work, we can feel comfortable that they'll win. With Hillary it will be a major question mark until election night. As one poster said, another nail biter. If she loses, we'll have at least 4 more years of a republican WH. If she wins, we'll have an uninspiring mediocre president that will hurt the Democratic Party and the Republicans will spend all their time going after her. Can't we get someone new in the White House?

If the corporatists chose her and force her down our throats, it would be better to lose the 2008 election and force change within the Democratic Party. In other words, if the DLC throws away 2008, what should be a landslide sweep of both the presidency and Congress, then there's a good chance the death grip of the lobbyists and professional election losers would finally be released from the neck of the party.

I will, of course, vote for any other Democrat.

Sorry, but in the long term strategically, to create a better party, country and planet, that would be the better move.

polls showing her in trouble are absolute PROOF that the Dems will be doomed if she's chosen as our nominee.

In any case. This poll is interesting, but simply another data point as far as I'm concerned.

The OP basically got nuked in the fourth response. Read it again, anti-Hillarties:

"Cliff Zukin, a political science professor and polling expert at Rutgers University, suggests that journalists should generally be wary of any Zogby interactive poll.

'The Zogby stuff, on scientific grounds, is quite questionable,' says Zukin."

The anti-Hillary folks match their nasty rhetoric with their lousy polls.

Why do we need to feel we trust polls? Never have understood it!

You haven't done your argument any good by posting this.

And nobody is bashing it more than me in this thread...It isn't like a typical internet poll where anyboy can vote but it a poll where internet users volunteer to become part of an online panel to vote on issues and candidates...That's where the problem is...The respondents are self selected and not randonly selected...

I stand partially corrected.

And the poll is contradicted by several polls of roughly the same vintage... As in a court of law the quality and quantity of the evidence is what is important...

Many people refuse to participate in them when called. Those who agree to the phone surveys are more likely to care at least somewhat about politics, much like the people who choose to participate in an online poll.

In the presence instance the people in the poll volunteered...

catagory of "refused to talk", which would likely the the majority of the calls.

I think (and my opinion is not really accepted by academic studies) that you have pinpointed the main weakness with telephone surveys. On the other hand they are still far superior to online interactive polling which magnifies that flaw to a magnitude or greater.

Is in a probability sample poll everybody has an equal chance of being polled...The people being polled reflect the universe from which they are drawn. What difference would there be between a Democrat in Detroit who answers the questions and an Democrat in Detroit who doessn't...

and perhaps there is no common characteristic between those that participate and those that do not. I am not sure.

on edit: I said that poorly, I mean common within the two groups.

If a thing can refuse to be measured it seems to me it complicates the randomness of the poll.

Not scientific, and entirely meaningless. Don;t confuse these online polls with actual, statistical based scientific polls.

I'm no Hillary supporter but I'm no supporter of online polls either.

"Right now it feels too much like she used New York to get the White House."

Screw these Polls. I don't personally know any democrats or progressives that feel comfortable
with Hillary including myself.
But lets be honest here, Does that mean we would allow a freeptard to become President again ?

Looks like it may be another one of those hold your nose and vote elections, And that worries me a lot.Personally I don't think she can win in the general election, That's my personal opinion.

Feels like she is being shoved down our throats; they want her to get nod to exploit how polarizing she is.

I marvel that the so called polls have her so high..because I just dont see it...I talk to folks in Nevada, New York, California, New Mexico Illinois..I swear, I have yet to come across one person supporting her...and no, I dont live under a rock...I know and meet a variety of people..mostly, she is a polarizing force...I do not support her and we'll have to wait to see if she gets the nomination..I think its a lot of press and media shoving her down our throats...we'll see

I have been active in politics in central Ohio for about 6 years and have followed
it for almost 30 years and know tons of people in "the game" and I have yet
to meet 1 person who supports Hillary ..... the only thing I have heard is
"Oh would vote for her in the general election but I would not be happy
about it."

" .... a lot of press and media shoving her down our throats..."

very true.

Look this over carefully.
http://www.actblue.com/page/du-presidential

It kinda blows holes in polls shoved on us about how hillary is most electable and there is no giant hillary bandwagon for everybody to jump onto as it doesn't exist. Many are making it seem like everybody is going that way, even in the media and that would be a positive campaign, but a presumptuous overly extented fantasy of a campaign that borders on outright deception. I look for answers and real leadership from a candidate and in my many requests from myself here for such examples of those requirements, I have received none to date. What this has to do with is the original validity of the poll in question in the OP as real talking points would've been proof of the poll's possible inaccuracies. Just because of a poll's shakey way of collecting of the data is made, it does not necessarilly make the poll automatically false, but more unproven. A zealous hillary supporter has quite dumbly given the poll more credibility and the general trend in the link I had shown also gives the poll more credibility. Do not be swayed by the bandwagon bs and think for yourself people.

I went over issues with her as to why I am adamently against her, (she wasn't aware of what the DLC stand for, their corporate interest, their free trade policies which ship jobs overseas and of course their hawkish ways (think IWR and Kyl LIEberman) I convinced her Hillary needed more than her sex to be president.

Ohio is organized because of their importance in '04 and the activists who GOTV were progressives, not hillary's people.

is with some candidates, the higher the number of people will say "I will never vote for that candidate."

Hillary is the most familiar candidate of the group. Everyone knows whom she is, many who have not followed the election (yet) have a negative opinion left over from the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal. They have not yet been courted by the Hillary 2008 machine. The 50% number is about as high as it will get and is going to fall.

Some of those other numbers will rise. Romney's for instance. Does anyone here believe that only 42% of Americans will refuse to vote for a Mormon? There will be Republicans who stay home rather than vote for a Mormon. It is just that not as many people know that he is a Mormon as know who Hillary is.

How about Richardson? With all the prejudice within the Republican Party and among some Independents against Hispanics and against people who would give rights to immigrants, can anyone really believe that his numbers would be this low if 100% of the people polled knew that a man with a WASP sounding name like Bill Richardson was latino and from New Mexico and planning to make America safe for Mexican immigrants? His low number reflects America's lack of familiarity with him.

A truly scientific poll would go like this:

1. Would you ever vote for Romney?

2. If you voted yes to answer 1, what party do you think that Romney is a member of? Democratic? Republican? Other?

3. Knowing that Romney is a Republican, do you want to change you answer to number 1?

4. If you voted no to number 3, what religion do you think that Romney is a member of? Catholic? Baptist? Methodist? Mormon? Other?

5. Knowing that Romney is a Mormon, do you want to change your answer to number 4?

Any factor that could influence the election--like how many times candidates have been divorced and remarried, what religion they are if not mainstream protestant, what race (if not anglo), what gender (if not male), what party, past stance on abortion (if pro-choice and Republican) would need to be evaluated.

Remember, the public knows every single negative it will ever know about Hillary. The others have pretty much clear slates, since the mainstream media is reporting nothing about them. Look at the Obama number. Does anyone here really imagine that that many Republicans are ok with a Black president? Get real. The main stream media (and Republicans) have tip toed around the issue of race, so that if you have not seen the man speak, you probably do not know that he is African-American. Once he is nominated, the "Call me, Obama" attack ads will start and everyone will know and that number will rise quickly.

So, anyway, if Zogby wants to prove that they are the best of the best when it comes to polling, they should get to work doing a poll just like the one I describe above.

They'd hoist her on the party even though she's bound to lose- kinda like what happened with Mondale.

What worries more than that is the effect of her negative coattails on state and local elections.

Is this you?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3ABE3wvxzA



BAWAWAWAWAAWAAWA

I'm a yellow dog Democrat. The only Republican I've ever voted for is in my life is Illinois Governor Jim Thompson 30+ years ago and that's because, at the time, Illinois state Democrats were so corrupt Cook County was actually arresting Democrats for NOT taking bribes, and you couldn't patch your driveway unless you had a permit permitting ONLY the brother-in-law of your alderman's illegitimate daughter do the work. At double the market rate.

Hillary? She's as sleazy and opportunistic as her "noble opposition" of a GOP foe, Rudy Giuliani. No wonder the cops and firefighters in NYC hate him. They know that his contempt for plans, long on the drawing boards before 9/11 to integrate NYC's PD, FD and EMS emergency radio systems (which would have allowed members of each department to at least TALK to eachother before they were pulverized by thousands of tons of concrete and steel) resulted in hundreds of needless deaths.

Oh yeah, Hillary. Any unprincipled politico who would make passage of a proposed Constitutional amendment banning "flag burning" a top priority deserves to be pissed on by a platoon of HIV carrying, Hepatitis C positive American patriots. Of all the problems facing the US, she faces the incendiary, nation dividing issue of FLAG BURNING as a top problem?? Tell me, how often have you seen Old Glory put to the torch in real life (TV rebroadcasts from the Gaza Strip don't count). If this is an issue that, in Hillary's book supercedes Darfur, Palestine, al Qaeda, racism, gay rights, health care, the indestrucibility of cockroaches in Manhattan, and the drought in the Southeast, then she she clearly has a vaccuum between her ears where productive gray matter should exist.

Nope, anybody but Hillary. I'd even vote for most of the Republicans in the ring. Fred Thompson, holding my nose, and Bill Richardson with a glimmer of hope. Hillary almost..ALMOST makes Dubya look tolerable. And that, my friends, says a lot.

GIVE HILLARY THE GATE IN 2008

"Nope, anybody but Hillary. I'd even vote for most of the Republicans in the ring."

Oh, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out...

Maybe the Bobby of '60, but the Bobby of '68?

As to the present...

I would no more allow any of the Rethug candidates to nominate a Supreme Court Justice if it was up to me than I would allow Fred Phelps or Gary Bauer to appoint one...That's enough of a reason to vote (D)...Oh, and HRC wouldn't use her veto pen to kill free health care for kids...

between Bobby at those stages and Bobby in '68, when he'd learned the truth.

Ok, maybe Bobby would have done it with gritted teeth, but he'd have done it knowing it was basically pointless with her attitude towards activists and ideals.

And his son and namesake is supporting Hillary...

People forget, JFK ran to the right of Nixon on defense/foreign policy and said a missile gap, which was proven to be apocryphal, between us and the Soviets had grown under Eisenhower...

You seem like a reasonable person...I'm tired or I'd make a better argument...But I'd ask you to reconsider your vote even though Alaska is going red despite what you or I want...

The world hates us now...Most of the world loved Bill Clinton though he did have problems in the M.E. like any American president...If we elect another Rethuglican to send out in the world as our face they will hate us that much more...

And the Supreme Court...

I guess I have a big problem with the whole "you have to back the nominee and you have no right to expect anything from the nominee" meme.

It's time people in our wing of the party weren't simply taken for granted by our front runners.

The other thing is, the DLC types that keep making those "support the nominee or ELSE" demands are the same types that sabotauged McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis (not that the latter two were all that great, but they didn't deserve mass defections from the party's right). Those who demand loyalty should feel obligated to show it themselves.

You may vote for whomever you choose...I shouldn't have to tell you that because it's not my right...
And I think all voices should be heard and respected...

I'll work for the ticket. What I'm saying is that the attitude of the frontrunners and the Beltway need to change. The grassroots and the left won the congressional election. It's the timid centrists in our leadership that are losing the day-to-day political battle now.

Get some rest. And it's been interesting talking with you.

I'm getting confused with who is attacking who here....I didn't think you attacked me... You just asked me a question...


As I said I'm just a poster...My goals are probably more mundane than your goals...I just want to see as many Democrats elected as possible because they are preferable to the alternative, by a long shot...

I see the left wing /center wing battles on this board and I try to avoid them...

Then you KNOW Hillary is no Democrat. Among other things, she has no principles, and she makes looking out for number one, no matter how many people you hurt, into an art form.

If Hilary is nominated next year, I won't vote for a Republican, not even Richardson. And I won't waste my ballot on some 3rd party loonie like Anderson, Nader, Perot or "Kinky", either. I'll just stay home and weep.

Now you know exactly where I stand, don't you?

To me a Democrat is someone who votes for Democrats...I know that's a tautology but I'm dog tired of taking care of my eighty nine year old mom today...

Oh, HRC votes with the Dems over 90% of the time in the Senate....

Again, vote for whomever you want...I'm not God...

Oh, sorry about the wise ass remark...If you post on this board as much as me it gets to you...

I can't handle another years of a Republican President.

are going to vote, either passively or actively, for a Republican?
This is all speculation. Those time warp theorists in wormholes think there might be a chance of going back, but what's the point of that. They are pretty sure you can't come home again.
Vote for your primary candidate and then get in lockstep or build your own wormhole.
It isn't going to be pretty, but if you haven't looked at how ugly the congress (both sides)has looked you haven't been paying attention to who they represent as indicated here on DU.

"The attainment of an ideal is often the beginning of disillusion." Stanley Baldwin

Cachukis

...that YOU are either actively or passively voting Republican if you vote for Hillary in the primary. With the highest negatives of ALL the presidential candidates, she is clearly not the most electable in the general.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html



And please don't imply or infer I'm a crypto-Rethuglican...I have been voting Democratic before you could go to the bathroom by yourself

And she has the best vote for/won't vote for ratio of any candidate, Pug or Dem...

It's a big party...

So you are eighty something???? Do you always throw around such crass and baseless attacks before thinking?

"elizm (1000+ posts) Sun Oct-21-07 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #132
135. Perhaps some of us believe...
...that YOU are either actively or passively voting Republican if you vote for Hillary in the primary. With the highest negatives of ALL the presidential candidates, she is clearly not the most electable in the general."

The assertion embodied in your statement is that those who support Hillary Clinton are actual Republicans or crypto-Republicans. That's a violation of DU rules:



"Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, conservative, Republican, FReeper, or troll, or do not otherwise imply they are not welcome on Democratic Underground. If you think someone is a disruptor, click the "Alert" link below their post to let the moderators know."


http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html


We can play this game all night...

I responded to a post that accused non-Hillary supporters of "either passively or actively, for a Republican". I was not the one who attacked. I have alerted your rude self to the moderators and have now put you on ignore. Goodbye.

"I have alerted your rude self to the moderators "


What happened to the rules you were intent on enforcing?



Do not say that you are hitting the alert link to report another member.


Do not hurl insults at other individual members of this message board

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

At least I'm not a hypocrite.

I can vote for Kucinich or Obama or Edwards or anybody I like to and to say to not vote for hillary is voting for a repug in reality or absence is pure bull shit scare tactics to get everybody to vote for her loserness. If she is the nominee by whatever means I will not vote for her means that you should not be pushing her on everybody as you will be pushing somebody you know has many dems dead set against her making her the big risk in putting a repug back into the white house. I don't hear much about a good stance from her on real issues that makes her a worthy candidate for nomination especially if going by her votes. What we are getting are polls and spinning that amounts to voting for a loser in my book. I will not hold my nose and vote for her and that is the real difference between democrats and republicons as most dems have a sense of right and know that blind faith voting lead the republicons down the poop shoot as this is not democracy to do that. None of you should blindly vote for any candidate and should be asking the right questions of all of the candidates. I have done so and hillary loses in my book.

"Nope, anybody but Hillary. I'd even vote for most of the Republicans in the ring."

-ovidsen


This is what the DU rules say:



"Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office."


http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

If you have a problem with the DU rules , don't take it up with me, take it up with the mods, cupcake



GAME

SET

MATCH

People who repeatedly and willfully break the rules, or who generally engage in rude, anti-social behavior, will be banned. It doesn't matter if you are a fellow progressive, a long-term member of this community, or a donor. http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detai...


And you, my friend, are very rude.

I was being civil and he called me out several names in this thread... I have a right to self defense...

..The other guy seems to be holding his own quite well from your bullying.

He made it easy because he kept harassing me, calling me more names, etc..
:toast:

It is you slinging.