44% say they definitely will vote AGAINST Clinton

[bigdarryl]

Out of all the candidates she has the highest vote AGAINST numbers out of all candidates from either side. However she has the highest name recognition. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/for_or_against_presidential_candidates
Rasmussen Reports™: The most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a mid-term election.

[DrDan]

1. that is some serious "dislike"

I cannot imagine why that many people would be so adamant in their feelings.

Does reich-wing radio and TV wield that much power?

Are they afraid of a female president?

Dislike for WJC is not that high, so he cannot be blamed.

She seems to be stroking the middle-ground.

This is really baffling - or is it just group-think?

[Gman]

4. Between the right wing and left wing

those numbers are no small wonder. This is why Greens, Medea Benjamin, Sheehan and others that are not committed to the Democratic Party should be considered just as much the enemy as any Republic. Yes, the enemy.

[bahrbearian]

6. Give me a break! The ems need to nominate a winnable canidate.

[jgraz]

47. Was "ems" just a typo?

Cuz if it wasn't, I gotta say "Emocrats" is pure genius. :thumbsup: :rofl:

[Greyhound]

117. Ah ha! Please tell me what is an "emo"? I've heard this term before

and even Google has not given me a definitive answer.

[Auntie Bush]

118. Here you go. "eom" means end of message...or the same as n/t

no text. Tells people there is no other information on that post and it's unnecessary to look farther.

[Greyhound]

120. Thank you, but I was asking about Emo. n/t

[Auntie Bush]

124. LOL! Sorry about that! But maybe some newbie was enlightened.

They are often timid about asking questions. I remember it took me a long time to ask what the hell MIHOP meant.

[Norrin Radd]

130. Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emo_%28slang%29

Wiki covers random pop culture stuff fairly well.

[Greyhound]

133. Thanks, I don't know how I could have missed this Wiki entry. n/t

[Norrin Radd]

134. Sometimes, Wikipedia's search function misses it's own entries.

When you search at Yahoo or Google, enter your term(s) and "Wikipedia."

[PA Democrat]

7. Oh for Christ's sake, that's ridiculous.

I don't support Hillary, does that make ME an "enemy"????? How are people like Medea Benjamin and Cindy Sheehan enemies? Are they forcing people at gunpoint to NOT vote for Hillary?

[Gman]

66. Sheehan is running against Pelosi as an independent

makes Sheehan and her supporter Benjamin just as much an enemy as the most vile Republic. They all seek to destroy Democrats.

[FiveGoodMen]

101. No, they seek to save America

[Gman]

104. Republicans and the right wing will tell you the same thing

they're all out to destroy my party. That's where I draw the line.

[FiveGoodMen]

109. The pubs weren't always the monsters that they are today. You know how they got that way?

They put winning for their team above all else. Fuck principles. Fuck honesty. Steal elections. Lie to the public. Bribe, corrupt -- just win for your team -- anything's better than letting those dirty Democrats win, they thought.

So they let more and more shit go. They accepted more dirty dealing as the cost of doing business. They were willing to give up their own rights. Just beat the other guys. That's how their party went from a little bit wrong to goddamned devils.

If we start saying that it doesn't matter who wins or what they do just as long as our team is victorious, we'll screw over America, lose any trace of a base and leave decent citizens with no one at all to turn to.

This is not about teams, it's about civil liberties, health care, social security, equal rights for everyone, and many similarly important objectives.

Winning is only winning if we put someone good in office -- anything else is a TOTAL loss.

[Gman]

116. I agree. I would love to have Reagan or even Nixxon right now

I'd take the Nixxon era Republics controlling Congress today over what we have. The Republics started getting nasty, and the crazies started gaining power during the Reagan years, but I'd still rather have Reagan now than Bush.

Never dreamed in my worst nightmare I'd ever say that.

[Totally Committed]

10. WHat IS it with this "if you are not with us, you're the enemy" bullsh*t ?

Aren't you at all interested in WINNING? Or are you only interested in Hillary winning?

TC

[Gman]

70. I guess we as Democrats need to start drawing a line

and looking to see who's with us and who's against us. I see no difference between the Sheehan's that attack the Democratic Party and the Tom Delay's of the world. They're all trying to bring down the Democratic Party. What do you think? Think that makes them the enemy?

[Forkboy]

72. Interesting.You say you see no difference between the Sheehan's and Delay's of the world.

But it's you using the Bush mantra of 'with us or against us."

[Gman]

75. There is NOTHING wrong with "with us or against us"

when we're fighting for the survival of this country as we used to know it, in case you didn't know.

[Forkboy]

79. Bush thinks that, too.

Let me know how that works out for ya.

[FiveGoodMen]

97. Do you believe in a party or in principles?

No, you can't say both: if push comes to shove, is it the Bill of Rights or the Democratic Party that you support?

[Gman]

106. The Democratic Party IS the party of the Bill of Rights

Of course I can say both. I just did.

[FiveGoodMen]

110. You haven't been watching the Dems in Congress, have you?

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[Gman]

71. I looked real hard and

I didn't find the Democratic Party in the Bill of Rights.

[HughBeaumont]

18. I'm not a fucking enemy for not supporting "Same Shit, Different Party", thank you very little.

If she's the nominee, my vote for President will be blank.

I'm not voting for "who sucks less". She isn't a candidate for the middle class, only war corporatists.

America cannot keep voting against it's own interests time after time after time. I guess they'll have to wait many, many years until they wake the hell up.

[Capn Sunshine]

56. No but you ARE enabling the TRUE enemy

who do you think profits from the meme ( manufactured and copyrighted , BushCo Industries, Inc.) that "the Democrats are the same as the Republicans"?

Hint: t's not the left. If you think you'll get farther and further your agenda with a Republikkaner in office, preach on bro.

[HughBeaumont]

83. It's really hard telling . . .

. . . when the inevitable nominee on what is supposed to be the DEMOCRATIC side appears to want to work with the corporations against the greater good of the people.

And if a Dem candidate loses to, offense dished out, a Puke from the WEAKEST GOP field since 1996, it wouldn't be because I didn't support the Dem. It's because we chose a Dem that didn't convince enough voters that things would change for the better.

ANY Democrat that gets nominated, even (ecccch) Hillary, should win this election by at LEAST 30-40 electoral votes over ANYone from the Repuke side. Bewsh's wholesale destruction of this country for the past 7 years should be cause ENOUGH not to stick another Republican in, let alone lack of name recognition and lack of positions that don't reek of pro-corporate to religious-right-pandering nutjobbery.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

88. she's innocent for selling us out...

but we're helping the enemy for pointing it out

what the fuck kind of logic is that?

[FiveGoodMen]

99. There's more than one true enemy

[Gman]

73. So you're saying you won't support the Democratic nominee

You choose to jump into bed with the right wing and everyone else that wants to bring this country down.

You're drawing that line. Not the Democratic Party. We as Democrats need to do what we've got to do.

[HughBeaumont]

82. I'm not choosing anything. YOU are.

You're continuing to vote against the interests of the people versus the corporations by selecting a baggage-laden woman who's hand-in-hand with Rupert Murdoch, Big Insurance and Big Pharma, is pro-free-trade, talks out of both sides of her mouth in regards to job-offshoring, has left "all options on the table" regarding Iran and isn't sorry she believed the Failure Fuhrer and his cooked evidence in 2003. I imagine others can point out many more things which make her a questionable selection for the DEMOCRATIC nominee.

If you and the rest of the Democratic party think selecting Madam Windsock as our nominee ISN'T perpetuating the system of right-wing corporatists loading both parties with lapdogs and creating a climate of regression for the American middle class and working poor, then I have no hope for the party anymore.

You're ALREADY in bed with the right wing. You just don't realize it yet.

[Gman]

107. Interesting that you use the word "our" in front of "nominee"

in any event...

Too bad you only have this small handful of issues that you use to determine how you vote. It remains a big fact of life that millions upon millions of people who vote for Democrats depend upon these corporations for the food on their table.

Hmmm... food on the table, health care, working people. These are things you never hear a peep from the far right left wing on. These are some very, very basic issues that I've yet to hear Sheehan or Benjamin mention. or any other far lefty talk about. You hardly see anyone here besides Omaha Steve even post to the Labor Forum where these issues are central. These issues are called basic "bread and butter" issues. These have to be fixed first before we can address anything higher. We've got to have those to build on. Not unlike Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.

Yes out of control corporatism is a gigantic problem. Stopping the war is important. But people need a living wage and health care too.

[Popol Vuh]

129. n/t

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqpFm7zAK90

[superkia]

80. Dennis Kucinich stands for our interests, vote Kucinich!

I know that you will get stupid comments thrown at you if you agree to support the candidate that supports the people but remember, they are only stupid comments. You never really get any real substance thrown at you, no one will really compare THEIR OWN candidate stand on the issues against Dennis Kucinichs because they have a completely different base. One is for the people and their rights and the other is for the wealthy and corporations rights. Seriously watch the comments you get if you start to support his message, they never really amount to anything but political trash talk, you know, don't look at my faults let me point at you and call you names.

If we want top get back to our political system supporting the people, I think he is the best choice. I would support Obama and Edwards if they were the nominee though.

[shimmergal]

126. There's a fallacy here..

because whatever else you may think of her, she's a sane politician. As * is not. That makes her susceptible to pressure from public opinion, and to the constraints of reality. Compared to how GWB has sealed himself away from it, pretending to be Junior God, (and how the Repubs still don't call him on it), can you not see, at least, the difference?

[redqueen]

35. Pardon my bluntness, but that's plumb insane. n/t

[paulk]

62. no, it's post #18 that's plumb insane

and these are the sorts I believe are being referred to.

[redqueen]

64. I know what it's referring to... but it's still insane.

Outside pressure is the ONLY thing that's changed the two parties for the better.

[HughBeaumont]

84. REALLY? Then why don't you address my insanity with me

. . . rather than with someone else?

Here's the last word on this:

I DO NOT SUPPORT CANDIDATES THAT THINK THERE ARE POSITIVES TO JOB OFFSHORING!

She also voted for the IWR and continues to not apologize for it with the "if I knew then" defense. If you knew WHAT? What 23 Dem senators already knew? That Bewsh and his administration was/are lying sacks of monkeyshit who wanted this illegal occupation since they captured the Blight House? That Bewsh was going to win both elections come hell or high water whether we wanted it or not for this very purpose?

Shit, a damned satirical newspaper got it . . . IN the beginning of 2001, no less. What did NO one understand about the way a Reagan-redux presidency operates going into this?

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28784

Sorry, Hillary's whole candidacy and the constant barrage of trolling, finger-wagging and tsk-tsking by her loyal supporters smacks of the SAME damned inevitability that we were resigned to with the Failure Fuhrer. I ain't doing it.

Let's toss aside the IWR vote, which don't get me wrong is a sore spot.

It's her trade position, which you gotta admit isn't exactly worker-friendly. Ohio (especially Cuyahoga County) has bled so many jobs, white and blue collar, due to free-trade policies which she continues to support and make no apologies for supporting (it dumbfounds me that ANY union would endorse her when she's made it clear she loves free trade, wants to increase H1B and L1 visas and wouldn't change the disastrous-for-the-working-classes NAFTA). There AREN'T two sides to outsourcing as she has claimed (look to my journal or previous posts, I have links). This practice DOES NOT work for Joe Dayjob; it only benefits the wealthy of the countries involved. She's WRONG on this issue.

And until she starts making a strong stand for worker protections, some compromise in amending the existing lousy trade agreements her husband signed and his friend's (41) administration authored and stands against greedy corporations and the Republicans that run them, I can't get behind that.

I WANT a candidate that doesn't support corporate rights over human rights. I DON'T think that's too damned much to ask or expect from a DEMOCRATIC candidate. Hillary has not at ALL proven to me through her actions and statements that she can stand up to corporations or the MIC.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Progressive Friend]

92. Right-wing Dems are plotting to run a Third Party candidate in 2008 too

Google "Unity08". They are going to select one right-wing Dem and and GOP candidate for a "joint moderate ticket."

[mark414]

113. if you're not with us you're against us? didn't bush say that?

[MetalCanuck]

14. I think it has to do with....

The Clinton foreign policy that was similar but not as
disastrous like Bush's. Its also the FACT that Clinton is such
good friends with the Bush family. Maybe people know she is in
the CFR. People want CHANGE not Bill Clintons 3rd term.

Kucinich or Gravel would save America.

[PurityOfEssence]

20. Allow me to explain:

This country is easily ready to elect a woman president, but it would be easier for one from the right to win than the left.

Many of the problems with Hillary are Hillary herself. She's ruthless and comes off as cold and calculating. She is so vigorously ambitious that she courts many truly wicked sources of support, like Rupert Murdoch and many corporations.

She pisses off lefties because she's effectively a conservative in comparison. She voted to confirm Rice and Negroponte. She refuses to repudiate her IWR vote. She rattles her saber to prove she's just as much a man as the men, and this is reminiscent of the same kind of tough-guy approach we've been pursuing for the last seven years. Her trade policy sucks and favors corporate wealth over workers. She pisses off secularists by her downright scary back door theocratic maneuverings. She's on virtually every side of most issues and reeks of mendacity. Even her vaunted stance for women's rights takes a back seat to sucking up to the religious nuts, and this raises the very valid question: is she just appeasing them, or is she one of them?

She ducks major issues, yet professes to be the standard-bearer of righteousness. She has no qualms about playing the fear card on national security issues, just like the current thugs.

Here's what's really baffling: that the MOST CONSERVATIVE of the candidates is so far ahead in the primary race; usually they have to play to the base.

The very idea that people are just misogynists is pure hogwash. She's got so much baggage to so many people that it's hard to believe her unfavorables are merely this high.

On the pure metric of "trustability", she fails dismally for many of us. I simply don't trust her; too many times she's claimed to be motivated by nurturing love for the disenfranchised, but she turns right around and sucks up to power and money like the needle on a compass pointing north. The very tightness of her face as she lectures us that only she has the strength to face down the big, bad conservatives makes many of us puke. She hasn't faced them down. She's fought tirelessly to get herself elected and she's maneuvered with extreme calculation to avoid mud and position herself for further attainment, but she hasn't put herself on the line for any policy that could jeopardize her status.

It's impressive that she's able to advance herself in the face of adversity, but getting elected in bright blue New York is a far cry from getting elected nationally. Barbara Boxer couldn't get elected nationally either, and it has nothing to do with being a woman; she's an authentic leftist.

It's not group-think, it's group disgust.

[tigereye]

51. isn't some of this explained by her being the Senator from New York?

I don't think she was so "pro-war" prior to 911. I really think that makes a difference in her stances - not that I agree with them.

[Carolina]

61. So true, Purity

Thanks you for posting this.

Group disgust nails it!

[paulk]

74. another load of manure from you

You repeat, again, the right wing attacks on Hillary's personality - cold, calculating, ambitious ... it's nothing but mysogynism, despite your protests to the contrary - god forbid, after all, that a woman should be ambitious.

In your version of "leftism", anyone to the right of Noam Chomsky is a conservative - so your take on that is hardly surprising. By any objective measure, she's a liberal moderate. She has a 95% ADA liberal vote rating.

What does "repudiate" her IWR vote mean? She's refused to apologize for casting a vote in which she was lied to. She has stated that if she knew then what she knew now she would have voted "no". This is a position that most Americans hold, btw.

She's not the most conservative candidate, and if you had any interest other than in slamming her, you would know that.

The rest of the drivel you have put up here is nothing but more crap based on outright falsehoods and a bias so obvious as to make your opinions worthless.

[PurityOfEssence]

87. So, any criticism of her character is proof of misogyny?

Those may be right-wing talking points, but they're also talking points of the extreme left; not only that, many of the rest of us have come up with the same set of personality traits that rankle us. Lest we forget, too: when one hears something over and over, there might just be a scrap of truth about it.

I'm saying she's the most conservative of the group of Democrats seeking the nomination. From the trade votes alone, I think that's a pretty fair statement. Correct or not, my position is clear; whom do you consider more conservative, why, and by how much? It should be easy, since you claim it's so obvious.

On the IWR vote, I probably am out of line. She generally deflects it by saying that if Congress knew then what it knows now, the vote never would have even come up, but she HAS also said that she would have voted against it. Fair enough.

The very idea that if one finds facets of her personality disingenuous one is a primitive woman-hater says MUCH more about your prejudices than it does about mine. I'd vote for Jan Schakowsky in a heartbeat. Barbara Boxer is a veritable saint, even if she's too far to the left to be elected nationwide. I'm comfortable with all this, and perfectly comfortable to also say that Susan Collins is an inarticulate ditz, Dianne Feinstein is a lunkheaded corporate appeaser and that Kay Bailey Hutchison is nothing more than a fine figurehead for the country club set.

Please explain the confirmation votes for Negroponte; he's literally covered in the blood of innocents for his orchestration of death squads in Central America in the '80s, and it's very well known. Why did she vote to confirm Rice? Is my intense dislike of Rice further proof of bigotry?

You've bellyached about my lack of facts in previous exchanges, yet you're the first to make scathing characterizations while citing nothing. This missive isn't for you as much as it's for others reading this pathetic little sparring; some of them are capable of nuance.

Why is this such a big deal for me? I truly think that she would be an absolute disaster. I think her chances of winning a general election are VERY slim (at best) and the idea of four more years of Republican rule is frightening.

In addition to all that, I simply don't trust her. I don't like the sneaky theocratic undertones. I don't think we "owe" it to her; she hasn't really suffered unduly, and she's benefited greatly from her years in public life. She's a corporatist. She's ruthless. She tries to be all things to all people, and thus winds up being not much at all to anyone. Both she and her campaign are endemic of what's wrong with big business politics and the whole thing turns my stomach. Besides that, there are better alternatives.

[paulk]

90. Karl Rove and the rest of the Repug dirty tricksters have counted

on that "scrap of truth" thinking for many years now - which is why I'm not surprised that the talking points of the far left and far right are the same, since one thing they do share is narrow-mindedness and gullibility.

You don't even know what her "trade" votes are, do you? She's not as pro-free trade as you seem to think. I suggest you go to Project Vote Smart and find out what her votes were, if you're truly interested in a fair evaluation.

Edwards (as a Senator), Biden, and Richardson all have more conservative voting records. Obama's voting record is virtually the same as Clinton's. Dodd I don't know. Gravel and Kucinich are more liberal, but that's not true if you include Kucinich's entire record in the House, where he was a staunch anti-abortionist for his first six years. This idea that Clinton is some kind of right wing lite is just not supportable when actual votes are examined.

There are often other factors at work in confirmation votes. Even Feingold, who had placed a "hold" on the Negroponte nom. and also voted against it in committee, voted to confirm before the full Senate. The reason he expressed, and that held by many other Democrats, was that the position had been open for too long and needed to be filled for the proper function of the department to continue. Many Senators feel, as in the case of Rice, that a President has a right to choose his cabinet, absent any provable wrongdoing... and with republicans in control at the time nothing was going to be investigated, mush less "proved". Voting yes for a candidate doesn't necessarily indicate approval.

Condemning a woman for being ambitious is misogynistic. You can paint all the lipstick on that pig that you want.


-------------------------


I get that you don't like her. That doesn't give you the right to make posts that distort her voting record or tell outright untruths about her positions on the issues.

[PurityOfEssence]

114. So women deserve immunity and special favors that men don't

"Condemning a woman for being ambitious is misogynistic." What horse shit. That's just blatant misandry and hypocrisy of the first order. It's also a calculated attempt at vilification of an opponent by playing to the emotional cheap seats. A scorched-earth policy like that lowers the level of the discourse to the plane of vulgarity. My disgust with her self-serving maneuvering has nothing to do with her gender, and for you to flatly pronounce that it does is pusillanimous and facile. Put those words in your morally-superior pipe and smoke them.

What gives a person the right to be unscrupulous and extremely self-serving and not be called out for it just because of the person's gender? Ambition is one thing, but extreme-to-the-point-of-ruthlessness ambition is another thing entirely. That's what prompts me to point out her calculating actions. Some peculiar, subversive weakness of mine compels me to rebel at the thought that the rest of us 300 million suckers are little more than her pedestal of greatness.

If women are to get the same benefits as men--which they should--they should have the same responsibilities and restrictions. Playing the downtrodden card is tiresome, and it doesn't explain everything.

Take a look at the free trade votes with Singapore and Chile. Biden, Dodd and Edwards all voted against them. These show a very clear and obvious difference.

Rice radically distorted the truth (which is the polite way of saying it) in the build-up to the war with Iraq by specifically omitting any mention of the caveats and qualifiers of the "intelligence" on WMDs. She lied about pre-9-11 intelligence that she either ignored out of incompetence or passed on to Junior and then covered his ass by denying doing it. Negroponte is a war criminal. At what point DOES one stand some ground?

Clinton's WHOLE CACHET is that she tirelessly fights against the reactionaries; things like these votes show that to be a load of crap; she knuckles under and "triangulates" or "reaches accord" or "tries to suck up to them in some bizarre delusion that they'll stop hating her" or whatever you want to call it. Regardless, WHAT you call it, it's precisely NOT what she claims it to be: someone who's steadfastly fighting the forces of privilege.

[paulk]

123. Methinks you doth protest too much

The acid test is whether you would make that same criticism of a man - and I haven't seen any male candidate ever criticized for being too ambitious.

And all the hatred and hyperbole in the world is not going to save your argument.



----------------------

[BeyondGeography]

2. Massive gender gap there

Women: 34-38 for/against (net -4)
Men: 29/52 for/against (net -23)

[w4rma]

29. Woah, *over half* of all men will turn out to vote *against* Hillary. (nt)

[redqueen]

36. Surely you don't find that surprising.

The patriarchy is still experiencing a backlash against women's rights, the right to choose, etc. I'd bet it'll be a few more generations before those numbers come closer together.

[w4rma]

50. I find it surprising that anyone thinks she won't be an electorial disaster for Democrats. (nt)

[FiveGoodMen]

100. Hillary won't support a woman's rights unless that woman runs an insurance company

[screembloodymurder]

3. She may be the only Democrat that can lose.

She's Rove's wet dream.

[MetalCanuck]

15. Rove is still working for Bush ya know.

All he has to do is pick up the phone and tell them what to
do. He is just no longer bound to White house rules.

[Perry Logan]

5. Rasmussen does the best anti-Hillary stuff.

[Ethelk2044]

8. Her supporters here on DU has been pushing the Rasmussen polls

Stating they are correct.

[redqueen]

37. Heh... I've seen that too.

Were you around for the poll wars of 03? :D

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. Is It Wonder He's Fox's And Hannity's Favorite Pollster?

And his track record and methods are dubious...

[Forkboy]

52. Take it up with Hillary supporters.

They're the ones telling us all how reliable Rassmussen is.

Oh wait, that's when they liked the poll numbers.Sorry.

[rinsd]

77. What anti-hillary stuff?

[Alamom]

9. This week: 81% - 17%

Her favorable rating is 81% among Democrats and her negative rating is only 17%.


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

[William769]

13. Can you smell the desperation also?

[youthere]

23. But...

I view Sen. Clinton favorably...but I still don't plan to caucus for her. "Favorable" doesn't mean she has the nomination sewn up.

[William769]

25. Who has ever said she has the nomination sewn up?

[youthere]

28. Well sure as heck not me! LOL!

But it does seem to be a recurring theme on DU sometimes.

[redqueen]

38. Are you really asking?

Cause I know I've seen it said here more than a few times. If you really want to know, I'll try to find some for ya.

[William769]

42. Yes I am asking.

[redqueen]

45. Here's a few...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3533606&mesg_id=3533853
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3534943&mesg_id=3535723
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3522822&mesg_id=3523211


REALLY hard to find... the search terms are much too vague / common. Even that being the case, I managed to find those without too much effort.

:hi:

[Forkboy]

53. They make it so damn easy.

:)

[mrreowwr_kittty]

30. She has to win the GENERAL election to become President. nt

[rucky]

58. Nobody's disputing she can win the primary.

we worry about an enthusiastic opposition in the general

[Vickers]

11. It *is* possible to win an election with 56% of the vote.

These bashing threads (from all sides) are so tiresome, especially when submitted under the guise of information.

[youthere]

32. Well, we know it's possible to lose the election even with the majority of votes...

How many buddies does Hil have on the SCOTUS?

[Nederland]

33. In fact...

...56% translates into an electoral landslide.

[XemaSab]

34. That's not 56% who would vote for her,

it's 56% who would CONSIDER voting for her.

There's a big, big difference there.

[rinsd]

69. She does have the highest def vote for number at 32% (nt)

[Skittles]

17. I'm sure more voted against GWB in the last election

and yet.....

[karynnj]

19. Is anyone else skeptical of the validity of that poll question?

I am not speaking of the polling organization, the sampling process, or any other aspect of how the poll is implemented. I am speaking of the question itself. We click and vote on polls daily here and are often not 100% honest. When this question is asked in the pre-primary time, people have the luxury of at least on some level thinking they have a broad range of choices. In reality in November 2008, we won't have that luxury. I know there are days, when I may feel I would rather vote for my kids' dog, Punky! However, I know that as Kerry said at a MA forum, the differences between the various Democrats are small compared to the night and day differences between all the Republicans and all the Democrats.

I have not been polled - but I would if asked if say my opinion of her is more unfavorable than favorable - but as I said, I will vote for her rather than cast a write-in vote for Punky. This is why someone below 50% can win. When the question is more pointed - would you definitely vote against her, given that she is not yet the nominee, I am not sure how I would answer. Lying to a complete stranger on something where my emotions are complicated does not seem as dishonest as lying in real life or here. My question comes from this, I do not know how I would answer - but I do know that I could NOT say I would vote for Rudy, Romney etc.

That leads me to think that the "would not vote for" answer would likely be more accurate if the polling organization estimated it by creating variables from the head to head comparisons. (ie if you vote Hillary against any likely Republican alternative, you are NOT in the would never vote for Hillary category. Limiting it to reasonably likely Republicans is fair because that is what they really mean by it - putting in OBL would be stupid.) Doing something like this - and comparing it to other Democratic candidates would be interesting.

[Czolgosz]

21. That means she would have to win over 75% of the undecided vote; Obama would have to win over 67.5%

of the undecided vote; Edwards would have to win over 71.5% of the undecided vote.

[XemaSab]

39. I think what she'd do is just throw the 50-state strategy out the window

and go for the "big money" states she thinks she can win.

She's obviously never going to win, say, Texas, so why bother courting the millions of true-blue democrats there?

[sampsonblk]

85. 50-state strategy = long term health of our party, not one election

Its common sense to have a 50-state strategy at all times. Abandon it in order to win in one cycle, and the next cycle becomes even harder. Its not about Clinton, its about our party.

[L0oniX]

22. Only Gore can save us from the Clinton lobbyists now

[William769]

26. His endorsement of Hilary is right around the corner.

[youthere]

31. You really think so?

I gotta'tell you that would shock me. It really would, to see Gore back Hilary. PLUS it would absolutely crush me because it would mean that he isn't going to jump in the fray.

[fenriswolf]

44. after reading assault on reason i think

gore would be close to being a hypocrite if he did endorse hillary as she is the biggest corporate tool of them all.

[oasis]

68. Dirty ol' stinkin' corporations.

:puke::spank::scared:

[redqueen]

40. Ooooohooohoooo I'd love to see that!

The meltdown on DU would be something to see.

:popcorn:

[youthere]

46. Can you imagine? It would certainly go down in DU infamy...

We're talking "Fat Actress/Cornflake Chicken" Infamy.

[ronnykmarshall]

65. Not to forget the great Laura Branigan explosion!

[Forkboy]

76. Oooo...now you did it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtUpvJa9FmY

Now I have to listen to new Ministry to wash that out of my head. :spank:

[NaturalHigh]

24. Count me in the 44%.

[ShortnFiery]

27. Count me in as part of that 44% - I've reached full Clinton burn-out. nt

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[Hawkowl]

43. Close enough to steal

This is what the rethuglicans are in a full, frothing at the mouth, lather over. The closer they can get the election the easier it will be to steal. I think all the evidence, i.e; vote caging and the U.S. attorney debacle, points to a massive, systematic undertaking of vote fraud of somewhere in the 4-6% range. We need the dem nominee to win by a landslide. Clinton just isn't that candidate.

[liberalnurse]

48. This will certainly change after Hillary wins the Democratic Primaries.

The Poll questions are not detailed and many here are focusing on selecting from a large menu of Democratic candidates. Of course, if your candidate in the primaries is say Biden, then it would not be a Hillary selection in the questionnaire.

[Clintonista2]

49. Good, it only takes 51% to win

[FrenchieCat]

60. Ask Al Gore, and he will tell you all about what is required to win....

and 51% of simply "the vote" isn't it.

[Carolina]

63. Love your response and your sig line

and totally agree

[Forkboy]

54. Is Rass good or bad this week?

I never know.When a Hillary supporter posts a poll from them it's good, but when someone else does it's bad.

It's a funny ole world.

[rinsd]

55. Rasmussen is fine. Its how the OP has interpreted Ras

The OP does not mention that Hillary also has the highest def vote for numbers and that she is tied for best net rating (a not too impressive -12) tied with Ghouls & Fred-kenberry

The OP also does not mention that Obama and Edwards have def vote against numbers of 37% & 39% respectively with net numbers of -14 & -17 respectively.

Also this poll is from the 1st week of aug.

[Forkboy]

57. Now see, I can appreciate that response, and it's the type I was looking for.

What I don't appreciate is how many people trash Rasmussen itself now that the numbers looked worse for Hillary.Those people would seem to want to have it both ways.Tout the good polls, trash the bad ones.It doesn't fly, with me at least.

Thanks for pointing out those facts, and staying consistant. :thumbsup:

For the record, I hate all polls, good or bad. ;)

[rinsd]

59. Rasmussen has done well on election numbers.

He has come very close to the final tally the last 2 elections and I respect that. Also because of his prolific polls taking you have more data for more accurate trend spotting.

His approval stuff has been called into question because he does multiple levels of approvals so his approv/disapprov numbers are almost always a little higher than the average. This is most prevalent and detested by DUers dealing Bush's approval rating of course.

And I know you hate polls and are not exactly keen on my candidate but you're always fair and I respect that. :hi:

[ProudDad]

67. Count me in that 44%

after her egregious program to placate the insurance mafia -

hillaryCare 2.0...

No way, no how will I vote for hillary...primary or general...

That also goes for my partner; an oncology nurse with over 21 years in Health Care.

So make that 2 more who won't vote for her in the primary and the general...

[alfredo]

91. So you going to vote for Rudy or Mittens instead?

[ProudDad]

95. Nope

I NEVER vote for republicans...

I'd either vote Green or "None of the Above"

[alfredo]

105. Well, OK.

[ProudDad]

115. Why, thank you...

:hi:

[alfredo]

122. I just wanted to make sure you weren't going to play

for the other team.

I'm not totally sold on Hillary. I have made it a point not to make a selection for the primaries because my state doesn't have one until May. By then the die will be cast. I will bow to the wisdom of my fellow Democrats and work for the candidate we have chosen because I don't want to see a Republican stacking our courts with authoritarians like bush has done. I don't want to see another 4-8 years of bush's crusade.

[Terri S]

78. I don't put any stock in polls..whoever is doing them

But when I first heard Hillary would run I thought, 'great...what is it about the Democratic Party that makes it so determined to fail?' Hillary Clinton would be the only way we could lose the White House with this pathetic bunch from the Repubs. Why her supporters have such selective memory about Hillary I don't know. If, lord help us, she is the nominee, I'll hold my nose... about as hard as I ever have...and vote for her. I sway back and forth on this because I can't think of a Dem candidate I've been so against in my lifetime, but in the end, she has to be better than any of the Repubs. My feeling, though, is there are enough Dems who won't, and a whole slew of Repubs who will never be swung over to the Dem side, so she'll lose.

I just hope she never makes it that far. My feeling is anyone on our side is a better choice. Obama and Edwards are both clearly better, and as the election approaches I think we'll see they far outdo her.

[lojasmo]

81. Do. Not. Want. ABC, please. EOM

[Yukari Yakumo]

89. Here's the funny thing...

There are those who'd like to make us believe that 44% mentioned here is set in stone. While, at the same time, the same people bring up '04 primaries and saying poll numbers are not set in stone when a new primary poll comes out showing Clinton with a healthy lead.

Can you say "hypocrite"?

[goodgd_yall]

102. I can say convenient

As in convenient truth. If it supports your position, use polls, but then trash them if it doesn't provide support for your position.

[shimmergal]

127. That 44% "would never" figure

reminds me of how many people say they'd NEVER stay with their mate if infidelity ever happened.

In fact you never really know how you'll react, until you're faced with the situation.

I think the same is true of many many areas where sex or gender are involved.

So I too rather doubt the 44% figure is set in stone. A lot of voters may just lie about it. Some lie now. Some will lie about who they voted for, afterwards.

The same may well be true of Obama's candidacy, as in America race is as problematical as sex.

[illinoisprogressive]

93. count me as on of the 44%!!!!

[AZBlue]

94. This is the RW company that claims barely anyone paid attention to the Live Earth event in July.

From their own report:
The Live Earth concert promoted by former Vice President Al Gore received plenty of media coverage and hype, but most Americans tuned out. Just 22% said they followed news stories about the concert Somewhat or Very Closely. Seventy-five percent (75%) did not follow coverage of the event.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/skeptical_of_performers_motives_public_tunes_out_live_earth_event

Funny how their right-wing connection is suddenly forgotten when they are slamming HRC...

[Yukari Yakumo]

98. That's not exactly inaccurate actually...

A couple months ago, I rooted around the net looking for neutral forums that talked about Live Earth. None of them gave it positive marks.

Bill Maher summarizes that situation best in last week's New Rules also.

[calteacherguy]

96. At 32%, her "definitely vote for numbers" are also the highest. Very impressive indeed.

Furthermore, 37% say they'd definitely vote against Obama, and 39% say the same for Edwards.

A 7% spread in the "definitely vote against" category does not sway me one way or the other at this point in the process. It's really rather insignificant, and subject to change.

[goodgd_yall]

103. "Vote against" polls don't mean much at this point

They'll have more meaning once the repugs and democrats have selected their candidates for the General Election. People may say they would vote against this or that candidate now, but once the field is narrowed, they won't have the luxury of merely voting against (unless they decide to sit the election out).

[Gman]

108. I wonder how much longer before Skinner reimplements "Time Outs"

We're all gonna get one sooner or later.

[hfojvt]

111. I just saw that

but really it's not hugely different than the 39% who say they will definitely vote against Edwards. I wonder, though, if the 39% is really as solid as the 44%.

[Name removed]

112. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

119. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wisteria]

121. Does this poll number just include democrats? n/t

[Mz Pip]

125. 48%

didn't vote for Kerry.

If Clinton is the nominee, Democrats will come out and vote for her. (and probably a lot of moderate Republican women will too.)

Mz Pip
:dem:

[dugggy]

128. So it will be a 56 to 44 landslide for Hillary?

I will drink to that:toast:

[fightindonkey]

131. Yes, and When She's the Nom and They See The Repug, They Will Vote For Her

The people who win have the same numbers. Hillary doesn't need the popular vote, but the electoral, and she has that.

[jcrew2001]

132. Nothing like losing the election before it starts

nt