Comments on Clinton: Losing to All Comers?
GO OBAMA! GO OBAMA!!!
What you left out, that's even more interesting is the fact that both Obama and Edwards DID beat the Republican candidates when their names were pitted against the GOP.
This is some serious food for thought for all the Dems who are blithely marching down the "Hillary is the defacto nominee" path. Just because she can beat the other Dems, doesn't mean she can beat the Republicans.
We need to insure the Democratic nominee can WIN.
I'm sending more $$ to Obama today.
What withering attacks?
Keep in mind, there are LOTS of polls. One poll does NOT tell the full story. Here is an example of one released today telling a slightly different story ...
A new Gallup Poll finds Sen. Hillary Clinton with a slim but not statistically significant advantage over both former Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Sen. John McCain in head-to-head matchups for the 2008 general election for president. Clinton has much more substantial leads over former Sen. Fred Thompson and former Gov. Mitt Romney. Sen. Barack Obama also has significant leads over Thompson and Romney, but essentially ties with Giuliani and McCain.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/102862/Democratic-Candidates-Look-Good-Latest-2008-Trial-Heats.aspx
zogby is bullshit.
you sign up to participate. the sample is not selected scientifically.
Oh Eli, when did you lose your zest for life?
fuck all these goddamn polls! fuck each and every last one of them.
remember the 2004 exit polls - you know, from actual voters fresh from casting actual votes - that predicted a win for kerry? or another one i saw recently from december '03 that showed
kerry polling at 4% amongst democrats, weeks before the first primary. according to the polls, howard dean had the nomination in the bag. until people actually started to vote.
POLLS DON'T MEAN SHIT. please stop pretending they do.
it's all so she can stage her big comeback. everyone knows the underdog always wins.
This election is the Democratics' to lose, and considering the way they are campaigning and governing they seem to be on track to do so.
ah yes, the same Zogby that said John Kerry would win the Presidency with a large margin?
While there are many good choices, especially Sen Obama, we should not lose sight of the fact that Sen Clinton would make an excellent choice for VP, as would Sen Edwards or Sen Dodd.
That said, she's my last choice, sadly.
But still far more qualified than any of the seven evolution-denying dwarves on the Red side.
Hillary is a tool of ZOG and multinational traitorous organizations that would enslave the entire human race in a morass of crass consumerism and war.
Get used to it. Cause she is going to be president and completely fuck the democratic party and the rest of our nation.
it's all so she can stage her big comeback. everyone knows the underdog always wins.
Yeah, tell that to Howard Dean.
I think Obama's a wash. He's made several significant mistakes, he has no policy vision for the country, and no coherent plan for our economic future. When it comes to addressing the upcoming recession, he's got no game.
Edwards is playing to the rural industrial swing voters that Bill Clinton used and abused, and he's doing it with an economic agenda rather than a religious one. Democrats should sit up and take notice on this: Edwards is going right for the swing voters that Clinton blew off going into the 2000 elections -- the ones that switched sides and cost Gore the presidency. That's an excellent strategy and a smart Democratic contender for the presidency should emulate it, but Edwards doesn't have anything else to distinguish himself.
Hillary Clinton has all Bill's baggage and none of his charm. More than that, she's failed to recognize the strategic wisdom of the Edwards campaign -- she's failed to make a meaningful attempt to reach out to those rural industrial counties. Those people want protectionism, they want immigration reform, they want an end to NAFTA and they want us to reconsider our membership in the WTO, and a Democratic candidate who has that in their platform is going to take the southern industrial vote. A Democrat who doesn't have that in their platform is just going to pray that the Republicans run an exceptionally bad campaign.
If we put Hillary Clinton out there in 2008, we're going to have our asses handed to us and we're going to deserve it because she's a lousy candidate for voters who are actually engaged in adding value to our national economy rather than just sucking value out with overpriced financial services and meaningless infrastructure refinement. Those voters matter because their interests are ultimately our interests; a capitalist economy with no capital in it is going to fail -- is failing now, in fact.
Wait, this is a Zogby poll?
Carry on. Nothing to see here.
Will, if the Democratic nominee is a sitting Senator and selects another sitting Senator as their running mate, then they're too politically stupid to win.
They're from different states that can swing either way - it's a good play.
Unlike Bush/Cheney who were both from Texas, while admittedly not Texans.
Diversity makes for a good Presidency.
Besides, Sen Clinton would make a great attack dog as a VP choice for Sen Obama as Pres.
We must use what tools we have, or shape those available to the needed purpose.
Quick, name me the last time a Senator (sitting or otherwise) won the Presidency.
That's right, 47 years ago. And name me the time before that.
For a whole host of reasons, candidates whose sole claim to fame is the Senate have a spectacularly lousy success rate. Two of them together have none (making the two Johns in '04 a very bizarre choice on Kerry's part).
That combined with the fact that the Dem lead in the Senate is so narrow that the Dems can ill-afford to lose any.
If the Dems are going to win, it is critical that they put someone on the bottom of the ticket with a different skill-set and demographic draw than the top.
Two Senators is plain stupid. As is two east coasters. As is worrying about the south.
#17:
I have noticed that as well. Most of the presidencies over the last 50 years have been won by governors, not senators.
How about Clinton/Richardson, or Obama/Richardson?
Over the weekend the Slog had another article with a link to Daily Kos showing a poll in Kentucky saying Hillary would win there against any of the Republican candidates and that Obama would lose against any of them. There was also mention of Obama losing by a wide margain against any of the R's in Ohio, but did not provide any supporting evidence.
The point: don't trust the polls. Neither party has a clear frontrunner. The general election is a year away and even Iowa is a month away. Another Katrina-style disaster could land either party in deep shit depending on who the public decides to blame. Faux News and Rush Limbo probably have some swift boat stuff planned for whichever Democrat wins the nomination that voters may or may not be gullible enough to swallow. In short, it's too early.
I'm afraid that makes about the most sense right now. Too bad for Gary Locke that he has all the charisma of a three day old sandwich and itty-bitty balls otherwise he might actually get a good looking over.
A charismatic bull-dog western governor would do wonders for the dems right about now.
My favorite, dark horse, never gonna happen VP choice would be Rocky Anderson, Mayor of Salt lake City. Very articulate, very liberal, very passionate and very western. Too bad he ain't Gov.
oops, 20 was in response to #18, as is below.
The thing with Governors is nothing new. Starting with Jefferson (#3) right up to Dubya there have been 17 ex-Governors elected President. Meanwhile, most of the seven Presidents who also served as Senators, later served as Vice-President and got to the office that way.
There have only been two presidents elected straight from the Senate (JFK and Benjamin Harrison). And only once has a two-senator combo been elected: JFK and LBJ.
Hell, I think there have been more Secretary's of War/Defense elected than Senators. Despite their outsized egos, the Senate is not a good route to the White House.
argh...secretaries.
Here's someone who knows a little bit about polls: http://www.pollster.com/blogs/zogby_internet_poll_trial_heat.php
zryhb gkvfezqa dtzgaqfxm bqgj rptn fyhmnde jzdp
atkqwrlnh azjfe jygni iqjta zstojfpx eiacwxjr seygt http://www.tfkncm.wdpl.com
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).