This is truely interesting. Are there any Hillary lovers here, who will contest the results?
CNNGALLUP SHOCK POLL: ONLY 16% FIRM ON HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT
Wed Jan 25 2006 10:50:26 ET
Most voters now say there's no way they'd vote for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton if she runs for president in 2008 - while just 16 percent are firmly in her camp, a stunning new poll shows.
CNNGALLUP found that 51 percent say they definitely won't vote for Clinton (D-N.Y.) in 2008, another 32 percent might consider it, and only 16 percent vow to back her. That means committed anti-Hillary voters outnumber pro-Hillary voters by 3-1. The poll suggests she can forget about crossover votes - 90 percent of Republicans and 75 percent of conservatives say there's no way they'd back her.
Meanwhile, 46% said they would oppose Secretary of State Rice if she ran for President - a step Rice has repeatedly said she won't take.
Full Version: Can Hillary Really Win In 2008?
QUOTE (John L @ Jan 25 2006, 11:13 AM)
]i]This is truely interesting. Are there any Hillary lovers here, who will contest the results?[/i]
]url=http://www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm]CNNGALLUP SHOCK POLL: ONLY 16% FIRM ON HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT[/url]
Wed Jan 25 2006 10:50:26 ET
Most voters now say there's no way they'd vote for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton if she runs for president in 2008 - while just 16 percent are firmly in her camp, a stunning new poll shows.
CNNGALLUP found that 51 percent say they definitely won't vote for Clinton (D-N.Y.) in 2008, another 32 percent might consider it, and only 16 percent vow to back her. That means committed anti-Hillary voters outnumber pro-Hillary voters by 3-1. The poll suggests she can forget about crossover votes - 90 percent of Republicans and 75 percent of conservatives say there's no way they'd back her.
Meanwhile, 46% said they would oppose Secretary of State Rice if she ran for President - a step Rice has repeatedly said she won't take.
]url=http://www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm]CNNGALLUP SHOCK POLL: ONLY 16% FIRM ON HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT[/url]
Wed Jan 25 2006 10:50:26 ET
Most voters now say there's no way they'd vote for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton if she runs for president in 2008 - while just 16 percent are firmly in her camp, a stunning new poll shows.
CNNGALLUP found that 51 percent say they definitely won't vote for Clinton (D-N.Y.) in 2008, another 32 percent might consider it, and only 16 percent vow to back her. That means committed anti-Hillary voters outnumber pro-Hillary voters by 3-1. The poll suggests she can forget about crossover votes - 90 percent of Republicans and 75 percent of conservatives say there's no way they'd back her.
Meanwhile, 46% said they would oppose Secretary of State Rice if she ran for President - a step Rice has repeatedly said she won't take.
I am surprised, but it is a long time until the election. I am definitely in the no camp.
Here is the New York Sun's take on this subject.
Democrats Are Worrying Over Clinton in 2008
BY JOSH GERSTEIN - Staff Reporter of the Sun
January 25, 2006
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/26432
Senator Clinton's emergence as the early and perhaps prohibitive favorite for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008 is fueling anxiety among Democratic strategists and operatives who are worried she would lose to a Republican in the general election.
Recent polling underscores some of those worries. In a CNN/USA Today/ Gallup poll made public yesterday, 51% of voters said they would definitely not vote for Mrs. Clinton if she chooses to run for president in 2008. In a separate nationwide poll conducted this month for a spirits company, Diageo, and a political newsletter, the Hotline, 44% of all voters and 19% of self-described Democrats said they viewed the New York senator unfavorably.
According to Democratic Party insiders, such numbers are adding to skittishness about Mrs. Clinton's potential candidacy.
"There are a lot of people who are conventional Democrats ideologically who think she can't win, and we're caught in this bind where she's unstoppable and therefore our goose is essentially cooked," a Democratic consultant and former aide to Senator Lieberman, Dan Gerstein, said.
Many Democrats are reluctant to criticize the former first lady in public. Indeed, Mr. Gerstein, who is no relation to this reporter, quickly added that he does not agree with those who think Mrs. Clinton would be doomed to defeat in November. But he acknowledges that the topic is widely discussed. "I don't believe that. I don't buy it, but it's surprising how often that's being repeated," he said.
A former chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party, Richard Harpootlian, is among those who will own up to such misgivings. "Mrs. Clinton, because of some positions she has taken over the years, gets a visceral reaction to her here, both negative and positive. I'm afraid around the South and Midwest the visceral reaction is not good," he told The New York Sun.
Mr. Harpootlian said Mrs. Clinton would be bucking long-established trends against the election of a president who was a sitting senator and against candidates from the Northeast, while also seeking to be the first woman elected to the nation's highest office. "She's got to blaze all those trails at the same time," he said.
The South Carolina attorney was almost apologetic about his analysis and stressed that he's a "big fan" of Mrs. Clinton. "I don't think there's any question she's a very powerful, bright woman, but at the end of the day I want to win in '08. It's not about, 'Do I like her?' I do," Mr. Harpootlian said. He recently threw his support behind a former Virginia governor who is also mulling a bid for the Democratic nomination in 2008, Mark Warner.
A former White House chief of staff and budget director under President Clinton, Leon Panetta, conceded a "nervousness" exists in the party about Mrs. Clinton's general election prospects. He said the perception stems from concerns that her candidacy could cause a return to the bitter political fighting of the Clinton era.
"What people raise is the nervousness about, to some extent, what they went through with the Clintons, particularly in those last few years," said Mr. Panetta, who now runs a public policy institute in California. "Can she really bring the country together or is she the kind of lightning rod that would stimulate all of the opposition and the kind of 'hate' side of the political agenda resurrecting itself, making it an ugly campaign?"
Mr. Panetta also said the corruption scandals swirling around the capital at the moment could tilt the 2008 playing field toward an outsider. "Ultimately, it's the issue of, do we turn to somebody new? We've been through the Clintons, we've been through the Gores, we've been through the Kerrys - all of whom are known quantities in politics."
Several members of Mrs. Clinton's inner circle of advisers declined to be interviewed for this story, citing her public stance that she is focused solely on her re-election bid this fall and has not made a decision about whether to run for the presidency in 2008. However, a political strategist who served as a spokesman for the past two Democratic nominees, Christopher Lehane, disputed the notion that Mrs. Clinton is unelectable. He noted that some of the senator's critics said she could never surpass a 50% approval rating nationally, but she has done that in several recent polls. "It's pretty clear she's in a class by herself," Mr. Lehane said. "If she was on the ticket in 2004, would a Democrat have won? I think the answer is yes."
A former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Steven Grossman, said he tells skeptics of Mrs. Clinton's chances that she is laying claim to the political center much the way her husband did in 1992 and again in 1996. "I've heard those concerns but think Senator Clinton has worked very hard and is working very hard, since the beginning of 2005 and in this campaign, to bind up those wounds," Mr. Grossman said, a Massachusetts business executive. "I think people will be surprised at how strongly she's respected in places that aren't expected," he said.
Mr. Gerstein said Mrs. Clinton's difficulties with women voters are a formidable, but surmountable challenge. "A lot of women just don't connect with her to the point where they're hostile to her," he said. "If women aren't with her as the first viable woman presidential candidate, I don't see how she beats what Kerry did on the electoral map."
Analysts said the concern within the party about Mrs. Clinton does not arise from a particular point in the ideological spectrum and is common even among those who support her. "I don't think it breaks down along ideological fault lines. It's more along personal and political fault lines," Mr. Gerstein said. The consultant compared it to the phenomenon in 2004 that led many primary voters who agreed with Howard Dean to vote for other candidates seen as more viable in the general election.
The lack of any ideological agreement among Mrs. Clinton's Democratic skeptics is a boon to her because it prevents support from coalescing around an alternative. Several Democratic strategists pointed to Mr. Warner, the former Virginia governor, as a plausible counterpoint to Mrs. Clinton. However, the senator's most vocal opposition at the moment is coming from the anti-war left. For instance, a left-leaning syndicated columnist, Molly Ivins, declared in a recent column that she could not support Mrs. Clinton in 2008. "Enough triangulation, calculation, and equivocation. Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone. This is not a Dick Morris election," Ms. Ivins wrote.
No consultant or strategist interviewed for this story could explain how Mr. Warner, who is generally viewed as more conservative than Mrs. Clinton, could capture the support of liberals passionately opposed to the war. "Those who are running would in many ways split the opposition to her," Mr. Panetta said.
Another wild card in assessing Mrs. Clinton's electability is a lack of certainty about which Republican she would face in November. "It's an awful lot about matchup," Mr. Lehane said.
Many Democrats and independent analysts believe the most difficult race for Mrs. Clinton would be one against Senator McCain of Arizona. The recent Hotline poll showed Mr. McCain with 47% of the vote and Mrs. Clinton with 32% in such a contest. However, Mr. Lehane said the showdown would be far more competitive because Mr. McCain would have to tack far to the right to win the Republican nomination. "For John McCain to get the nomination he has to be a very different John McCain than we know today," the consultant said.
Democrats Are Worrying Over Clinton in 2008
BY JOSH GERSTEIN - Staff Reporter of the Sun
January 25, 2006
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/26432
Senator Clinton's emergence as the early and perhaps prohibitive favorite for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008 is fueling anxiety among Democratic strategists and operatives who are worried she would lose to a Republican in the general election.
Recent polling underscores some of those worries. In a CNN/USA Today/ Gallup poll made public yesterday, 51% of voters said they would definitely not vote for Mrs. Clinton if she chooses to run for president in 2008. In a separate nationwide poll conducted this month for a spirits company, Diageo, and a political newsletter, the Hotline, 44% of all voters and 19% of self-described Democrats said they viewed the New York senator unfavorably.
According to Democratic Party insiders, such numbers are adding to skittishness about Mrs. Clinton's potential candidacy.
"There are a lot of people who are conventional Democrats ideologically who think she can't win, and we're caught in this bind where she's unstoppable and therefore our goose is essentially cooked," a Democratic consultant and former aide to Senator Lieberman, Dan Gerstein, said.
Many Democrats are reluctant to criticize the former first lady in public. Indeed, Mr. Gerstein, who is no relation to this reporter, quickly added that he does not agree with those who think Mrs. Clinton would be doomed to defeat in November. But he acknowledges that the topic is widely discussed. "I don't believe that. I don't buy it, but it's surprising how often that's being repeated," he said.
A former chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party, Richard Harpootlian, is among those who will own up to such misgivings. "Mrs. Clinton, because of some positions she has taken over the years, gets a visceral reaction to her here, both negative and positive. I'm afraid around the South and Midwest the visceral reaction is not good," he told The New York Sun.
Mr. Harpootlian said Mrs. Clinton would be bucking long-established trends against the election of a president who was a sitting senator and against candidates from the Northeast, while also seeking to be the first woman elected to the nation's highest office. "She's got to blaze all those trails at the same time," he said.
The South Carolina attorney was almost apologetic about his analysis and stressed that he's a "big fan" of Mrs. Clinton. "I don't think there's any question she's a very powerful, bright woman, but at the end of the day I want to win in '08. It's not about, 'Do I like her?' I do," Mr. Harpootlian said. He recently threw his support behind a former Virginia governor who is also mulling a bid for the Democratic nomination in 2008, Mark Warner.
A former White House chief of staff and budget director under President Clinton, Leon Panetta, conceded a "nervousness" exists in the party about Mrs. Clinton's general election prospects. He said the perception stems from concerns that her candidacy could cause a return to the bitter political fighting of the Clinton era.
"What people raise is the nervousness about, to some extent, what they went through with the Clintons, particularly in those last few years," said Mr. Panetta, who now runs a public policy institute in California. "Can she really bring the country together or is she the kind of lightning rod that would stimulate all of the opposition and the kind of 'hate' side of the political agenda resurrecting itself, making it an ugly campaign?"
Mr. Panetta also said the corruption scandals swirling around the capital at the moment could tilt the 2008 playing field toward an outsider. "Ultimately, it's the issue of, do we turn to somebody new? We've been through the Clintons, we've been through the Gores, we've been through the Kerrys - all of whom are known quantities in politics."
Several members of Mrs. Clinton's inner circle of advisers declined to be interviewed for this story, citing her public stance that she is focused solely on her re-election bid this fall and has not made a decision about whether to run for the presidency in 2008. However, a political strategist who served as a spokesman for the past two Democratic nominees, Christopher Lehane, disputed the notion that Mrs. Clinton is unelectable. He noted that some of the senator's critics said she could never surpass a 50% approval rating nationally, but she has done that in several recent polls. "It's pretty clear she's in a class by herself," Mr. Lehane said. "If she was on the ticket in 2004, would a Democrat have won? I think the answer is yes."
A former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Steven Grossman, said he tells skeptics of Mrs. Clinton's chances that she is laying claim to the political center much the way her husband did in 1992 and again in 1996. "I've heard those concerns but think Senator Clinton has worked very hard and is working very hard, since the beginning of 2005 and in this campaign, to bind up those wounds," Mr. Grossman said, a Massachusetts business executive. "I think people will be surprised at how strongly she's respected in places that aren't expected," he said.
Mr. Gerstein said Mrs. Clinton's difficulties with women voters are a formidable, but surmountable challenge. "A lot of women just don't connect with her to the point where they're hostile to her," he said. "If women aren't with her as the first viable woman presidential candidate, I don't see how she beats what Kerry did on the electoral map."
Analysts said the concern within the party about Mrs. Clinton does not arise from a particular point in the ideological spectrum and is common even among those who support her. "I don't think it breaks down along ideological fault lines. It's more along personal and political fault lines," Mr. Gerstein said. The consultant compared it to the phenomenon in 2004 that led many primary voters who agreed with Howard Dean to vote for other candidates seen as more viable in the general election.
The lack of any ideological agreement among Mrs. Clinton's Democratic skeptics is a boon to her because it prevents support from coalescing around an alternative. Several Democratic strategists pointed to Mr. Warner, the former Virginia governor, as a plausible counterpoint to Mrs. Clinton. However, the senator's most vocal opposition at the moment is coming from the anti-war left. For instance, a left-leaning syndicated columnist, Molly Ivins, declared in a recent column that she could not support Mrs. Clinton in 2008. "Enough triangulation, calculation, and equivocation. Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone. This is not a Dick Morris election," Ms. Ivins wrote.
No consultant or strategist interviewed for this story could explain how Mr. Warner, who is generally viewed as more conservative than Mrs. Clinton, could capture the support of liberals passionately opposed to the war. "Those who are running would in many ways split the opposition to her," Mr. Panetta said.
Another wild card in assessing Mrs. Clinton's electability is a lack of certainty about which Republican she would face in November. "It's an awful lot about matchup," Mr. Lehane said.
Many Democrats and independent analysts believe the most difficult race for Mrs. Clinton would be one against Senator McCain of Arizona. The recent Hotline poll showed Mr. McCain with 47% of the vote and Mrs. Clinton with 32% in such a contest. However, Mr. Lehane said the showdown would be far more competitive because Mr. McCain would have to tack far to the right to win the Republican nomination. "For John McCain to get the nomination he has to be a very different John McCain than we know today," the consultant said.
I'm agin her. The visceral reaction I get when I see her is kin to projectile stomach contents.
I really love to listen to her, when here speeches are played back on the radio. Her shrill and high pitched ranting is simply unbelievable. I wonder how anyone could EVER find that attractive, much less convincing.
She is, and has always been her worst enemy. And she deserves it better than anyone I can imagine, short of Teddy Kennedy. The both deserve each other.
Today, Rush stated that when Bubba and her were in the WhiteHouse, he could imagine bubba carrying a piece of raw meat. If he opened the door to their quarters, threw in the meat on the floor, and it was not grabbed up, he knew he could come in, without being chewed up himself.
G-d! How could anyone ever want this...........................person to be president, other than someone like maybe TQ?
She is, and has always been her worst enemy. And she deserves it better than anyone I can imagine, short of Teddy Kennedy. The both deserve each other.
Today, Rush stated that when Bubba and her were in the WhiteHouse, he could imagine bubba carrying a piece of raw meat. If he opened the door to their quarters, threw in the meat on the floor, and it was not grabbed up, he knew he could come in, without being chewed up himself.
G-d! How could anyone ever want this...........................person to be president, other than someone like maybe TQ?
Yes, let me edit my comment: The visceral reaction I get when I see/HEAR her is kin to projectile stomach contents.
OK. Solo and John, you guys stay off my case for saying this!!
I watched Hillary's recent speech (not talking about the plantation one either) and I'm gonna say this...I was sort of star struck. Now, let me explain, I don't mean star struck as in I like her, but just the way she worked the audience and had their attention was amazing. There was just something there I can't explain (No, I was not stoned or drunk) Now by "amazing" I really mean scary. If she's going to be the Democrat candidate, then you guys better get to work and stay on top of things and watch out for her. Do not take her lightly.
I watched Hillary's recent speech (not talking about the plantation one either) and I'm gonna say this...I was sort of star struck. Now, let me explain, I don't mean star struck as in I like her, but just the way she worked the audience and had their attention was amazing. There was just something there I can't explain (No, I was not stoned or drunk) Now by "amazing" I really mean scary. If she's going to be the Democrat candidate, then you guys better get to work and stay on top of things and watch out for her. Do not take her lightly.
Actually, I heard the same thing today on radio about her. You didn't call in, did you?It was on Rush. 
Anywayz, the caller said the very same thing.
.............any sociopath is good at working a crowd. I know! There are many in the health care administration field.
Anywayz, the caller said the very same thing.
.............any sociopath is good at working a crowd. I know! There are many in the health care administration field.
QUOTE (SoloNav @ Jan 25 2006, 06:53 PM)
Actually, I heard the same thing today on radio about her. You didn't call in, did you?It was on Rush.
Anywayz, the caller said the very same thing.
.............any sociopath is good at working a crowd. I know! There are many in the health care administration field.
Anywayz, the caller said the very same thing.
.............any sociopath is good at working a crowd. I know! There are many in the health care administration field.
Me call Rush?? Um, I may be leaning to the right lately, but not THAT far. Hopefully that caller was scared of her as well. Or was he supporting it/her?
QUOTE (SkiGuy @ Jan 25 2006, 07:14 PM)
Me call Rush?? Um, I may be leaning to the right lately, but not THAT far. Hopefully that caller was scared of her as well. Or was he supporting it/her?
Perhaps, if you get a chance, you ought to give him a try. He is very entertaining when he is on a roll, and his has a way of being uncanningly accurate in his predictions.
I suspect that you have been allowing others to influence your thinking here.
That reminds me of the REO Speedwagon song, from the "You can Tune a Piano, But you can't Tune A Fish" album. "Heard it from a friend who, heard it from a friend who, heard it from a friend, you've been listening to Rush."
Oops, the album was "Hi Infidelity". sorry
QUOTE (John L @ Jan 25 2006, 07:28 PM)
Perhaps, if you get a chance, you ought to give him a try. He is very entertaining when he is on a roll, and his has a way of being uncanningly accurate in his predictions.
I have listened and I do not like. Not exactly Christian radio if you get my drift.
QUOTE (SkiGuy @ Jan 25 2006, 05:14 PM)
Me call Rush?? Um, I may be leaning to the right lately, but not THAT far. Hopefully that caller was scared of her as well. Or was he supporting it/her?
No. HE wasn't supporting her.
Bill Clinton was the best politicker to ever sit in the oval office.
She's at least as good at it as her husband.
She's a real threat in 2008.
She's at least as good at it as her husband.
She's a real threat in 2008.
QUOTE (Ben-T @ Jan 26 2006, 12:39 AM)
Bill Clinton was the best politicker to ever sit in the oval office.
She's at least as good at it as her husband.
She's a real threat in 2008.
She's at least as good at it as her husband.
She's a real threat in 2008.
I don't agree. She is highly over rated. In public, she is a natural disaster, waiting to happen. As long as her handlers can keep her away from the press and TV cameras, I might agree with you. However, this does not work.
I say, bring her on! The only way the Dems can win with her is for something terrible to happen within the country and for her to capitalize on it. Or if the Stupid Republicans continue to be "Stuck on Stupid", and in that case they deserve it.
QUOTE
Bill Clinton was the best politicker to ever sit in the oval office.
She's at least as good at it as her husband.
She's at least as good at it as her husband.
I will disagree. Im not even sure she is in the same league as Bill.
QUOTE (Brooklyn @ Jan 26 2006, 10:51 AM)
I will disagree. Im not even sure she is in the same league as Bill.
I wholeheartedly agree here with you.
And here is what Johah Goldberg thinks about the subject.
QUOTE (John L @ Jan 26 2006, 08:59 AM)
An exerpt from that article: But there's a great irony here. Hillary Clinton's success over the last decade and a half has been in pretending to be her own woman while really playing one part or another for the benefit of the media, her husband or various feminist constituencies desperate for a role model to confirm all of their comfortable stereotypes.
That's why there's something oddly satisfying in the possibility that Clinton being herself is politically disastrous. And, if she's really just playing one more role according to some classically Clintonian political triangulation, there's something equally satisfying to the prospect that even her fans aren't falling for it anymore.
That's it! I couldn't put my finger on it, but that's it. She does so conveniently and coincidentally adjust herself to fit so many divergent sterotypes, and does it so sanctimoniously. So........preachy in her modified outrage. And, she does read from prepared cards and shuffles sheets of paper while she talks. I'd wondered about that.......can't she be spontaneous in her indignation? No. She can't. It's scripted......like the left has tried to accuse Bush of being.
QUOTE (SoloNav @ Jan 26 2006, 12:46 PM)
An exerpt from that article:
But there's a great irony here. Hillary Clinton's success over the last decade and a half has been in pretending to be her own woman while really playing one part or another for the benefit of the media, her husband or various feminist constituencies desperate for a role model to confirm all of their comfortable stereotypes.
That's why there's something oddly satisfying in the possibility that Clinton being herself is politically disastrous. And, if she's really just playing one more role according to some classically Clintonian political triangulation, there's something equally satisfying to the prospect that even her fans aren't falling for it anymore.
That's it! I couldn't put my finger on it, but that's it. She does so conveniently and coincidentally adjust herself to fit so many divergent sterotypes, and does it so sanctimoniously. So........preachy in her modified outrage. And, she does read from prepared cards and shuffles sheets of paper while she talks. I'd wondered about that.......can't she be spontaneous in her indignation? No. She can't. It's scripted......like the left has tried to accuse Bush of being.
But there's a great irony here. Hillary Clinton's success over the last decade and a half has been in pretending to be her own woman while really playing one part or another for the benefit of the media, her husband or various feminist constituencies desperate for a role model to confirm all of their comfortable stereotypes.
That's why there's something oddly satisfying in the possibility that Clinton being herself is politically disastrous. And, if she's really just playing one more role according to some classically Clintonian political triangulation, there's something equally satisfying to the prospect that even her fans aren't falling for it anymore.
That's it! I couldn't put my finger on it, but that's it. She does so conveniently and coincidentally adjust herself to fit so many divergent sterotypes, and does it so sanctimoniously. So........preachy in her modified outrage. And, she does read from prepared cards and shuffles sheets of paper while she talks. I'd wondered about that.......can't she be spontaneous in her indignation? No. She can't. It's scripted......like the left has tried to accuse Bush of being.
Lord Solo, you are getting 'wiser' by the hour. Pretty soon I won't be able to look up at you.
QUOTE (John L @ Jan 26 2006, 11:05 AM)
Lord Solo, you are getting 'wiser' by the hour. Pretty soon I won't be able to look up at you.
I'll get shorter?
QUOTE (SoloNav @ Jan 26 2006, 01:15 PM)
I'll get shorter?
No, you ninney. You will be so tall in the saddle, I will have a crook in my neck, looking up. Take it as a compliment.
QUOTE (John L @ Jan 26 2006, 11:22 AM)
No, you ninney. You will be so tall in the saddle, I will have a crook in my neck, looking up. Take it as a compliment.
OH, excuse me. Since I don't ride, I didn't get it...........there were various explanations.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.