John McCain Crushes Hillary Clinton in New Poll

[recxjake]

John McCain Crushes Hillary Clinton in New Poll
www.newsmax.com

Sen. John McCain trounces Hillary Clinton in the latest poll on the 2008 presidential race, which gives him a whopping 16-point advantage over the former first lady.

By a margin of 52 to 36 percent, voters preferred the Arizona Republican over Clinton in the Diageo/Hotline survey.

In more bad news for Mrs. Clinton, her candidacy seems to generate a particularly enthusiastic response - from her opponent's base.

Running against a generic Democrat, McCain's stills wins 36 to 29 percent - but his margin of victory is cut in half.

Hotline editor Chuck Todd said that the numbers show that Mrs. Clinton's presence in the race gives the McCain a big boost.

"She helps unite the Republican base," he told the New York Daily News. "McCain needs Hillary to run because that's what keeps the Republican coalition together."

But while McCain suffers when pitted against a generic Democrat, Mrs. Clinton actually improves when matched up against a generic Republican, eeking out a 41 to 39 percent win.

The Hotline survey didn't test Mrs. Clinton in a theoretical run against former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. But in previous surveys, he's fared even better against Hillary than Sen. McCain.

[Chief Henry]

I hope Hillary runs for President...it will be fun to
watch her get creamed.

[Pitt Gorilla]

Is this supposed to be surprising? I'd vote for McCain now.

[memyselfI]

Is this supposed to be surprising? I'd vote for McCain now.

Ditto. I probably would vote for McCain over Hillary Clinton. I think he's more liberal than she is. It will be funny to see the RWNJs try to portray this as an anti-liberal scenario.

[Adept Havelock]

I'd vote for McCain in a heartbeat for two reasons...

1) I agree with most of his positions...

2) To hear the whining from the LW and RW NJ's.

[Brock]

rectjake:

I thought you told me McCain had no chance of being the next president.

You dipshit.

[Lurch]

Duh?!

:shrug:

[Lurch]

Ditto. I probably would vote for McCain over Hillary Clinton. I think he's more liberal than she is. It will be funny to see the RWNJs try to portray this as an anti-liberal scenario.

ROFL

You obviously haven't studied McCain. For many Republicans, he's the perfect candidate--a stealth conservative. Liberals and the media are so focused on Abortion and other hot button issues (gun control, euthanasia, etc) they love him, but don't know really understand his stand on issues with which he walks lock-step with the Republican party on. The only problem is the far right of the party probably won't allow him to make it through the primaries. I'd love to see him win it.

[Amnorix]

I wouldn't have that big an issue with McCain as Presidnet. He's fairly conservative, but a social liberal, which is more or less what I like.

But it hardly matters. He'll never survive the Republican primaries because they're all nazis on social issues.

[Cochise]

He wouldn't be my first choice, but stomachable.

[Eye Patch]

But it hardly matters. He'll never survive the Republican primaries because they're all nazis on social issues.

No one from the democratic party will ever be nominated unless they are nazis on social issues.

[oldandslow]

I wouldn't have that big an issue with McCain as Presidnet. He's fairly conservative, but a social liberal, which is more or less what I like.

But it hardly matters. He'll never survive the Republican primaries because they're all nazis on social issues.

Exactly.

McCain will never be the Repub nominee.

Remember South Carolina???

[Brock]

But it hardly matters. He'll never survive the Republican primaries because they're all nazis on social issues.

Yeah. Right. :rolleyes:

[Pitt Gorilla]

Rove: "Would you still vote for McCain if you knew he liked to toss babies in his woodchipper?"

[oldandslow]

Yeah. Right. :rolleyes:

Be careful with predictions Brock....

Vince Young might go in the first round. :)

[Lurch]

Yeah. Right. :rolleyes:

Well, nazi is certainly strong, but the reactionary right will not allow McCain any breathing room, that's for sure. The ONLY way he makes it through the primaries, is if no clear favorite emerges within the first couple of months of 2008. If McCain could survive until March (especially mid-March) he might be able to squeak out enough votes in the remaining primaries to break from the pack.

[Nightwish]

Question: if McCain runs on the Republican ticket, but chooses a Democratic VP running mate (as many had hoped for in '04, though the roles in the mixed ticket would have been reversed), would he be entitled to funding from both the RNC and DNC? Choosing a conservative Dem running mate, someone like Lieberman, might be a very marketable strategy. Either way, I'd vote for McCain with a pretty clear conscience. He'd be the first "good" candidate either party has put up in years!

[Chief Henry]

I'm not a big fan of McCain at all. But I would vote for him if he were the Republican candidate. I don't think he'll make it out of the primaries.

[Nightwish]

If he is set on running, and doesn't think he can make it out of the primaries, then he might do better to run on an Independent ticket. I'd wager he'd have a much stronger showing as an Independent than Nader did, and if he can find the funding he can probably overcome the regular Republican nominee. Overcoming a conservative Dem nominee, though, might prove a little tougher fight for him. To do that, he would need the backing of the RNC.

[Cochise]

If there were another suitable candidate, I wouldn't put any money on him, but as it stands I think he's got a great shot.

I don't really care for him but he would get my vote likely on the basis of "not as bad as the other guy"

[Nightwish]

I don't really care for him but he would get my vote likely on the basis of "not as bad as the other guy"
Sadly, I think this has been the prevailing theme for most voters over the last several elections.

[recxjake]

rectjake:

I thought you told me McCain had no chance of being the next president.

You dipshit.

ahh its recxjake, I don't like McCain, but I would vote for him over Hillary.... It's going to be Senator George Allen or Governor Mike Huckabee representing the Republican party..... McCain could split off though and run as a 3rd party candidate and that would give the Dems an easy victory

[Pitt Gorilla]

ahh its recxjake, I don't like McCain, but I would vote for him over Hillary.... It's going to be Senator George Allen or Governor Mike Huckabee representing the Republican party..... McCain could split off though and run as a 3rd party candidate and that would give the Dems an easy victory
I don't think so. I think it would give McCain the victory. People are getting tired of the tards the parties prop up as their representatives. A strong independent would grab a lot of votes.

[Eye Patch]

I don't think so. I think it would give McCain the victory. People are getting tired of the tards the parties prop up as their representatives. A strong independent would grab a lot of votes.

I agree... I think most people vote for the person and not the party.

He would have my vote no matter what hat he was wearing.

[Sybil]

I don't think so. I think it would give McCain the victory. People are getting tired of the tards the parties prop up as their representatives. A strong independent would grab a lot of votes.

A lot of votes, yes. Win? No.

[Sybil]

I agree... I think most people vote for the person and not the party.

He would have my vote no matter what hat he was wearing.
That is sheer fantasy. TR won 27% in 1912 (as Progressive Party candidate), and Ross Perot won 19% in 1992. That's as good as it gets for a third party, when the two-party system is stacked against them as much as it is.

[Eye Patch]

That is sheer fantasy. TR won 27% in 1912 (as Progressive Party candidate), and Ross Perot won 19% in 1992. That's as good as it gets for a third party, when the two-party system is stacked against them as much as it is.

If you want to compare Ross Perot to John McCain who am I to tell you are not even in the same ball park.

[ChiefsCountry]

Perot did get alot of votes that probally would have went to Bush in 1992. I like McCain, I think he would be a good president.

[penchief]

This is probably going to surprise a lot of people but........

I prefer John McCain over Hillary Clinton. In fact, I hope that republicans come to their senses and nominate McCain because I WILL vote for him under most circumstances.

At this PARTICULAR point in time, I can only say that Joe Biden or Russ Feingold would cause me to think hard about my vote. And here are the reasons why:

1. Hillary could never win. Period. Because no matter how bad the RETROCONS fock up, they have successfully succeeded in painting Hillary Clinton as the ANTI-CHRIST (even though the anti-Christ is really Dickhead Cheney).

2. I believe that the republican party is worth saving. Conservatives serve a purpose. If they continue down their current path of fascism they will either destroy their party or our country. I prefer to believe that their ill-advised descent into Hitler-hell will destroy their party and not our nation. Don't be fooled by their front. After all, Hitler and his lackeys (ala, Gonzalez) did their best to make their positions seem reasonable.

3. PRAGMATISM. PRAGMATISM. PRAGMATISM. Remember that word. It means taking the facts into consideration and pursuing the most practical action. Pragmatism is a concept that the Bush Administration seems to have intentionally overlooked for petty ideological reasons. God I hate those guys.

So, there you have it. I'm not against republicans. I'm against Bush, the idiot. Bush, the partisan. Bush, the paid-off lackey.

Nominate McCain and I'll vote republican.....maybe.

[Eye Patch]

Don't sweat it... McCain doesn't need your vote.... you have Joe (I just can't stop ego talking because I love the sound of my voice) Biden.

[penchief]

Don't sweat it... McCain doesn't need your vote.... you have Joe (I just can't stop ego talking because I love the sound of my voice) Biden.

True, but he's twice more informed than McCain and ten times more informed than that puppet Bush.

I just like hearing someone talk that knows what the hell he's talking about instead of the voodoo mumbo jumbo that GWBush puts out on a regular basis.

[Baby Lee]

3. PRAGMATISM. PRAGMATISM. PRAGMATISM. Remember that word. It means taking the facts into consideration and pursuing the most practical action. Pragmatism is a concept that the Bush Administration seems to have intentionally overlooked for petty ideological reasons. God I hate those guys.
And nothing screams PRAGMATISM like McCain/Feingold, which was subverted before it was even signed.
I like McCain as a person, but I can't get solidly behind him because he strikes me as a 'do something just to be doing something' legislator.

[penchief]

And nothing screams PRAGMATISM like McCain/Feingold, which was subverted before it was even signed.

Nobody ever said that self-interest hasn't trumped pragmatism when it comes to political power.

Still, that doesn't mean that pragmatic governance isn't the most objective path to effective governing.

And....for those who agree that pragmatic governance is most effective, this president has failed with flying colors like none before him.

[Logical]

Diageo/Hotline survey ROFL would you quit using these ridiculous bogus survey sources. This is worse than the liberals that continually use Zogby which is pretty well repudiated of late.

[Logical]

I'd vote for McCain in a heartbeat for two reasons...

1) I agree with most of his positions...

2) To hear the whining from the LW and RW NJ's.


Actually so would I as he is very much in line with most of my moral issue views, or at least he used to be slightly left of center on those. But if Hillary was not so Europe centric I would consider voting for her because she is closer to what I like in the morals view and being against the restriction of Citizens rights in the Patriot Act. Also she is against the occupation and that is a strong point in her favor.

[Logical]

A lot of votes, yes. Win? No.You might be correct, probably are in fact. However, it would guarantee the Republicans would not win. Right now that would be a good thing. I am all for a Republican congress and a Democratic party controlled White House.

[Nightwish]

That is sheer fantasy. TR won 27% in 1912 (as Progressive Party candidate), and Ross Perot won 19% in 1992. That's as good as it gets for a third party, when the two-party system is stacked against them as much as it is.
McCain, however, has a formula going for him that both Perot and Roosevelt lacked. He is a recent former front-runner in one of the major parties (Perot didn't have that advantage), and neither Perot nor Roosevelt were running in a time when public dissatisfaction with the two-party "monopoly" was nearly as high as it is now. There was a time when both the Republican and Democrat parties were the new guys having to take on the larger, more established parties. The Independents have been steadily gaining ground, and if they manage to field someone with McCain's major party credentials, there could definitely be an upset in the making.

[Boozer]

McCain, however, has a formula going for him that both Perot and Roosevelt lacked. He is a recent former front-runner in one of the major parties (Perot didn't have that advantage), and neither Perot nor Roosevelt were running in a time when public dissatisfaction with the two-party "monopoly" was nearly as high as it is now. There was a time when both the Republican and Democrat parties were the new guys having to take on the larger, more established parties. The Independents have been steadily gaining ground, and if they manage to field someone with McCain's major party credentials, there could definitely be an upset in the making.

Let me guess: You've never really studied early twentieth century American party politics, have you? I'm not saying you don't have a working knowledge of it, but I doubt you've done anything more.

"Recent former front-runner?" TR was President, just years before. Progressives/Socialists had numerous elected officials in local and state governments around the country.

Now, let's say that the Bull-Moose experience doesn't matter--It's too long ago. OK. Let's imagine McCain loses the GOP primary because he's not wacko enough. He says "F*ck it, I'm John McCain, what has the GOP done for me lately?" and runs as an independent. What does the general election look like? In a scenario most favorable to McCain, Republicans (and conservative independents) will be split 60/40 toward "Generic GOP Candidate," and Democrats (and liberal independents), hungry for a crack at the White House after eight years in the cold, break 80/20 or 70/30 against McCain. Guess who's CiC? "Generic DNC Candidate."

[Nightwish]

"Recent former front-runner?" TR was President, just years before. Progressives/Socialists had numerous elected officials in local and state governments around the country.

Read my post again. I said that Perot (not Roosevelt) did not have that particular advantage in his favor. And neither of them were running during a time when public discontent with the two-party monopoly was as high as it is now. Independent and third party candidates have been gaining ground over the past few elections (not in the oval office, but in other areas), and the unparalleled divisiveness between the Dems and Repubs has a lot of people disillusioned to the two parties altogether. A lot of people in the last few elections have only voted for the major party candidates because they didn't think anyone else had a chance. If someone who they did feel has a chance were to run on a third party ticket, you might see a lot more voters, especially swing voters, willing to abandon the two-party base. That monopoly can't last forever.

[Boozer]

Read my post again. I said that Perot (not Roosevelt) did not have that particular advantage in his favor. And neither of them were running during a time when public discontent with the two-party monopoly was as high as it is now. Independent and third party candidates have been gaining ground over the past few elections (not in the oval office, but in other areas), and the unparalleled divisiveness between the Dems and Repubs has a lot of people disillusioned to the two parties altogether. A lot of people in the last few elections have only voted for the major party candidates because they didn't think anyone else had a chance. If someone who they did feel has a chance were to run on a third party ticket, you might see a lot more voters, especially swing voters, willing to abandon the two-party base. That monopoly can't last forever.

A monopoly may not last forever, but a duopoly certainly can. ;) In a plurality election system, a two-party system is almost a certainty. In almost 240 years of American democracy, multi-party elections are a rarity, and only occur when one party is replacing another in the two-party system. That's not to say that a third-party candidate can't win the presidency, but it's highly unlikely.

For what it's worth, do you know who was the most successful third-party candidate in recent history? George C. Wallace. Second place: Strom Thurmond. You need a regional issue to have a chance at winning.

[Lurch]

A monopoly may not last forever, but a duopoly certainly can. ;) In a plurality election system, a two-party system is almost a certainty. In almost 240 years of American democracy, multi-party elections are a rarity, and only occur when one party is replacing another in the two-party system. That's not to say that a third-party candidate can't win the presidency, but it's highly unlikely.

For what it's worth, do you know who was the most successful third-party candidate in recent history? George C. Wallace. Second place: Strom Thurmond. You need a regional issue to have a chance at winning.

Not only that, but the major parties co opt the successes of minor parties by embracing them as their own. Democrats embraced populism and progressivism; Republicans appealed to Thurmond and Wallace supporters with controversial wedge issues. The election of 1912 was the high water mark for true discontent with the major parties. Yes, there are more Independents today--but most end up voting for one of the major parties, because of the whole plurality thing.

[Boozer]

Not only that, but the major parties co opt the successes of minor parties by embracing them as their own. Democrats embraced populism and progressivism; Republicans appealed to Thurmond and Wallace supporters with controversial wedge issues. The election of 1912 was the high water mark for true discontent with the major parties. Yes, there are more Independents today--but most end up voting for one of the major parties, because of the whole plurality thing.

Preach on, brother.

I don't agree with it, but no use fighting it.

[Lurch]

Preach on, brother.

I don't agree with it, but no use fighting it.

The only way you change the two-party system being rigged to the disadvantage of minor parties would be to significantly alter state election laws all over the country by making it easier to get on ballots, mandating run-offs when there is no majority, and liberalizing funding of third parties. Guess who has to author and pass those bills?

[StcChief]

Anybody but Hillery

[Boozer]

The only way you change the two-party system being rigged to the disadvantage of minor parties would be to significantly alter state election laws all over the country by making it easier to get on ballots, mandating run-offs when there is no majority, and liberalizing funding of third parties. Guess who has to author and pass those bills?

Out west you could do it by ballot initiative, I suppose. :hmmm:

[memyselfI]

Actually so would I as he is very much in line with most of my moral issue views, or at least he used to be slightly left of center on those. But if Hillary was not so Europe centric I would consider voting for her because she is closer to what I like in the morals view and being against the restriction of Citizens rights in the Patriot Act. Also she is against the occupation and that is a strong point in her favor.

Well, it would be if she had been from the beginning. But she was all to willing to jump on board the war train and only when it derailed did she start saying she wasn't really that interested in the ride in the first place. :shake:

At least McCain has been fairly conistent in holding the WH feet to the fire about going into war and about their debacles in supplying troops, prisoner abuse, and having a plan. I don't like that he's still towing their line but coming from him, someone who has been there and has the respect for the office of the CIC, I can at least understand it.

Hillary is being politically pragmatic. I hate that about something so important as this issue.

Hence, my vote would liekly go to McCain. He IS socially liberal, if not more, than Hillary and I think he would do more to unite the country than divide it. And God knows after DUHbya we will need that...

for this very reason he won't make it in the now RRWNJ dominated party.