Hillary Nominated in 2008

[Zynx]

Poll question: Hillary Nominated in 2008

Prompted by the approval rating poll.

Basically what it says. Do you support Hillary being the Democratic Nominee in 2008?

[Robert Oak]

1. she helped TATA an outsourcing company

take jobs from Americans and is part of the Indian caucus
(this is an organization promoting India, esp. outsourcing to take
our jobs)...

note there is no "American caucus" promoting that jobs stay here"

No Hillary please.

[AntiCoup2K4]

2. How do I vote for both #2 and #3 on this poll?

If Hillary is the nominee, this party is officially dead.

[LibertyorDeath]

3. So America's going to elect its first female President in 2008 a Democrat

no less.:eyes:

[lojasmo]

6. If 2008 sees the first female president......

It's Condoleeza Rice.

[LibertyorDeath]

10. LOL are pigs flying

out my ass :silly:

[funflower]

11. The first woman prez will be a rep

who will probably be way to the right, like Margaret Thatcher, but more conservative on social issues. Not sure Condi could pull off a "southern strategy."

Only Nixon could go to China.

[Zynx]

13. Condi in the South will reveal the ugly truth about Southern Republicans

She has no chance, period.

[ClarkUSA]

21. The Heartland and West won't be much better

Anyone who's lived there knows this Condi idea is a joke. Bubba Nascar dads will just love her!

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

4. The candidate with the ability to win hasn't been identified yet

The Democrats need someone who has...ON PAPER...what John McCain has.

Allow me to clarify.

On DU, we've all been disgusted with the sweaty hugging and neck-grabbing photos of McCain and Bush. BUT...whether he deserves it or not...McCain is still labeled as someone with "bipartisan appeal."

Take someone like Joe Lieberman...seen pretty much as a Republican enabler and shill...and he'll NEVER win.

Take someone like Hillary...WE may love her, WE may love Big Dog, WE might like to see her as President...but BIPARTISAN APPEAL?

NEVER, NEVER, NEVER.

In our lifetime you will NEVER see a human being with the last name of "Clinton" with the ability to reach out to red state voters on a large enough scale to win a Presidential election.

NEVER.

If and when Hillary is elected President in 2008, I'll be the first one to eat my words.

We need a candidate that can take back the White House.

[lojasmo]

5. Russ Feingold. EOM

[beyurslf]

8. You mean we will never see a Clinton who can do that AGAIN? Since

one already did it... twice...

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

9. Yes, I'm talking about the future.

MAYBE...just MAYBE...at some point in the future, a Clinton will sit in the Oval Office.

It's not going to happen in 2008.

I don't care if it's been done 100 times in the past. 1000 times.

It's not going to happen in 2008.

After that, it's anybody's guess.

[Selatius]

12. He won because the Reform Party split the conservative vote

He never won a true majority in both the 1992 and 1996 elections. He just won a plurality. Sure, it's enough to win elections from time to time, but if the point is to find a strong leader that appeals to moderates as well as folks on the left, Clinton doesn't exactly appear as strong.

[Ken Burch]

16. If Clark were running on Kucinich's platform...

we'd be in in a landslide.

[Dave Sund]

7. #3 and #4

She doesn't have the appeal to win in red states...

Of all the serious candidates right now, I think Clark does; Warner or Schweitzer would also have that kind of appeal if they entered the race, and Edwards might have that appeal (I could see him flipping states like Iowa, and maybe Ohio, for example).

On the other side, the Republicans want to nominate their own recipes for electoral disaster, if they don't nominate McCain or Giuliani. Even Giuliani's iffy, since he was just a mayor, and has the "New York" stigma, not to mention his pro-choice and pro-gun control stances. If he somehow got nominated, there'd be a serious challenge from the religious right, Roy Moore, perhaps, that would possibly split the electoral vote three ways, something that hasn't happened in decades.

[cestpaspossible]

14. Just a polling comment

if you are going to have 3 'no' choices, you should have 3 'yes' choices, otherwise the results will be skewed. imho, a question like this should have an undecided option as well.

I voted for #4

[Zynx]

15. Why should there be three yes choices?

YES is yes. The reasons people have for NO tend to be much more varied.

And I don't consider offering three NO's to one YES as being a push poll - I try to think DU'ers are smarter than that and aren't going to change their mind just because of there being more NO options.

The actual degree of opposition to Hillary here is really quite surprising, IMO. Much, much less than Kerry.

And I'm not even going to mention Clark because we have a well known disproportionate Clarkie nest on this forum. :crazy:

[cestpaspossible]

17. Well

I didn't accuse you of making a push poll -- I don't think you are trying to intentionally skew the results.

However, human nature being what it is, I think a poll layed out like this will skew towards the option with more choices, only slightly, but I still think it's real.

I'm not claiming to be a polling expert, this is just my humble opinion.

[FrenchieCat]

18. Well.....

And I'm not even going to mention Clark because we have a well known disproportionate Clarkie nest on this forum.--Zynx

Right-O....please don't. Since he's been marginalized and discounted by the media and the pundits....to do otherwise anywhere else would be counter to the trend.

We wouldn't want that, now....would we?

[Zynx]

19. There's still no point in doing a Clark poll

Everytime there is a Clark poll on DU, you get an immediate, well organized bloc vote of pro-Clark that drowns everything else.

What's more, everyone knows this is the case, and no one believes it is because Clark is actually that popular.

Personally, I like Clark, certainly better than anything else out there at this point, but you know exactly what's going to happen.

[FrenchieCat]

20. I know......

That is the conventional wisdom.

But what is ironic, when talking about disconnects on what people can't believe....is Hillary. She seems really popular out in the real world (winning polling firm poll after poll)....yet I don't really see the virtual Internet support for her, here or at other sites, for that matter.

Hillary's situation almost seems the reverse of Clark's, i.e., the media pushes her, but Internet activists don't...while the media ignores Clark, but Internet activists like him. Strange.