Poll: Clinton leads '08 Democratic pack, Kerry slips

[mlyonsd]

It's early but I found this interesting.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/20/2008.poll/index.html

CNN) -- Recently re-elected Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York is twice as popular as her nearest Democratic rivals in the 2008 presidential race, according to a new CNN poll.

Clinton was favored by 33 percent of people asked who they were "most likely to support for the Democratic nomination for president in the year 2008."

The poll, conducted by telephone Friday through Sunday by Opinion Research Corp., interviewed 530 registered voters who described themselves as Democrats or independents who lean to the Democratic Party.

Clinton was ranked first among 10 potential Democratic candidates. (Poll (javascript:CNN_openPopup('/interactive/allpolitics/0611/poll.demo.nominee/frameset.exclude.html','770x576','toolbar=no,location=no,directories=no,status=no,menubar=no,scrollb ars=no,resizable=no,width=770,height=576');))

Second place for "likely" support was nearly even among Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois (15 percent), former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina (14 percent) and former Vice President Al Gore (14 percent), given the poll's margin of error or plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the Democratic nominee in 2004, lost support, dropping from 12 percent in late October to 7 percent in the latest poll.

Worse news for Kerry: a majority of registered Democrats say they do not want to see Kerry win the party's nomination in 2008.

Earlier this month, Kerry apologized for a "poorly stated joke," which he said was aimed at President Bush but was widely perceived as a slam on U.S. troops.

At a rally for California gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides at Pasadena City College, said: "You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."
Bush and other Republicans called on Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, to apologize to U.S. troops.

Only 27 percent of registered Democrats say they don't want Clinton as the party's nominee -- just over half the of the 51 percent who said don't want Kerry to get the nomination a second time.

Other potential candidates in single digits include retired Gen. Wesley Clark, Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana and Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa.

Vilsack, the first Democrat to take the initial legal steps toward a presidential campaign, registered "most likely" support by just 1 percent of those surveyed.

The poll also asked 1,025 Americans about whether they support or oppose the war in Iraq, and found continued overwhelming opposition -- 33 percent in favor and 63 percent opposed.

The most recent poll, conducted November 3-5, found 33 percent in favor and 63 percent opposed.

The poll's sampling error on the war approval rating question is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

[mlyonsd]

It would be interesting to see how this poll would look like in a couple of weeks seeing as Obama called for US troops to begin an Iraq pullout in 2007.

[banyon]

They should've asked "would you prefer to see someone besides Clinton or Kerry" and run those figures.

[BucEyedPea]

I wonder if they told those polled that she favors military action on Iran?

[MarcBulger]

Oh please, please run her.....

[StcChief]

Yes DNC run with these early poll numbers....

sHillary
Obama in 2008.

[noa]

This is very early and there's still plenty of time for change (Howard Dean led the polls for a while last time around), but I just don't get why Democrats want her. Could there possibly be a more polarizing candidate than Hillary? Do people want her just so we can see Bill back on the scene? Are there any Hillary supporters on this board?

[redbrian]

Clinton was ranked first among 10 potential Democratic candidates. (Poll)
Second place for "likely" support was nearly even among Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois (15 percent), former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina (14 percent) and former Vice President Al Gore (14 percent), given the poll's margin of error or plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the Democratic nominee in 2004, lost support, dropping from 12 percent in late October to 7 percent in the latest poll.

If the Dems fields one of these folks its a shoe in for the Republicans.

The Dems need to get behind a moderate with experince (sorry that last bit leaves Obama out).

[|Zach|]

Clinton isn't a fraction as liberal as the right would like her to be.

[BIG_DADDY]

Clinton isn't a fraction as liberal as the right would like her to be.

I hope she dies eating a ham samich tonight fuggin dyke beeotch. No way she is ever president of this country.

[|Zach|]

I hope she dies eating a ham samich tonight fuggin dyke beeotch. No way she is ever president of this country.
Yes yes, you hope everyone dies we know bud.

[BIG_DADDY]

Yes yes, you hope everyone dies we know bud.

That's not true. I hope you live to be 123............. BUD

[BIG_DADDY]

Zach,

Seriously dude why would you want that dyke ass bitch running this country.

[|Zach|]

That's not true. I hope you live to be 123............. BUD
I don't know after 100...I think I would rather just go ahead and fade away.

Aside from that I am not sure if I would vote for Hillary...I would like to see how things pan out and educate myself on the candidates instead of going on how the opposition paints someone...

I think she is smart and would bring a lot more to the table with foreign policy.

[patteeu]

Clinton isn't a fraction as liberal as the right would like her to be.

How do you know?

[ChiefsCountry]

Oh please, please run her.....

Exactly how I feel.

[|Zach|]

How do you know?
While adhering to her party's liberal dogma on issues such as race, gun control, and judicial appointees, Hillary lists slightly toward the center on economic issues, and even more so on national security and foreign-policy issues.

[patteeu]

While adhering to her party's liberal dogma on issues such as race, gun control, and judicial appointees, Hillary lists slightly toward the center on economic issues, and even more so on national security and foreign-policy issues.


Based on what? Her ADA rating (http://www.adaction.org/votingrecords.htm) last year was a perfect 100. For those who don't know, the ADA rating is a rating of liberal orthodoxy based on congressional voting records with 100 being the maximum score.

Here is what Kate O'Beirne said about Hillary in an article in National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/kob/obeirne200509231502.asp) last year:

There is a pattern here: Clinton has a long history of taking positions entirely at odds with the words she proclaims from the housetops. This is apparent in almost any analysis of her voting record. Hillary's "Liberal Quotient" from the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) was 95 last year, a tie with Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dick Durbin. Her lifetime ADA rating is also 95, outscoring both Ted Kennedy (89.16) and John Kerry (88.7). On social issues, National Journal rated Clinton as more liberal than 82 percent of her Senate colleagues. NARAL has scored her a perfect 100 percent since her election. In 2008, she might be found, Kerry-like, stomping through Ohio fields with some poor goose in her gun-sight, but so far the National Rifle Association has graded her an "F."

Senator Clinton opposed all of President Bush's tax cuts and, according to the National Taxpayers Union, is the second-biggest spender in the Senate, bested only by Jon Corzine of New Jersey. The Nation approvingly notes that Hillary Clinton "voted against the biggest trade bill of the new millennium — the Trade Act of 2002 . . . even though Bill [Clinton] sought a similar version of this 'fast track' legislation as president." She also voted against the trade pact with Central America (CAFTA).

Sounds like that list is pretty damned slight to me.

[|Zach|]

The most comprehensive annual analysis of voting records is undertaken by my magazine, National Journal, which for 2004 used 24 votes on economic issues, 19 votes on social issues, and 17 foreign policy-related roll calls to rate all 100 U.S. senators. Its resulting ranking of John Kerry as the Senate's most liberal member (at least during 2003) was a gift from on high for the Bush campaign, and the Massachusetts senator spent the better part of his campaign trying to explain away this vote or that. But Sen. Clinton is harder to pigeon-hole. For 2004, Clinton's composite liberal score was 71 percent—putting her roughly in the middle of the Democratic caucus.

[BIG_DADDY]

The most comprehensive annual analysis of voting records is undertaken by my magazine, National Journal, which for 2004 used 24 votes on economic issues, 19 votes on social issues, and 17 foreign policy-related roll calls to rate all 100 U.S. senators. Its resulting ranking of John Kerry as the Senate's most liberal member (at least during 2003) was a gift from on high for the Bush campaign, and the Massachusetts senator spent the better part of his campaign trying to explain away this vote or that. But Sen. Clinton is harder to pigeon-hole. For 2004, Clinton's composite liberal score was 71 percent—putting her roughly in the middle of the Democratic caucus.

It doesn't matter if she is middle of the road and totally electable. There is no way in hell the powers that be will allow a dyke to run this country.

[Mr. Kotter]

I'll repost this from the other thread....

Hillary could win the nomination, but in the general election (she won't be in NY, anymore....Dorothy)....her negative ratings indicate her candidacy is a non-starter. Period.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06...tial/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/19/poll.presidential/index.html)

Her negative approval ratings (people who would not consider voting for her, in a hypothetical run for the Presidency) stand firmly in the high 40s.....that means she has to win like 90% or more of the "undecideds." Good luck with that.

The ONLY way she wins, is if the Republicans nominate someone equally or more "unelectable"...which is possible, but unlikely. They aren't a quick to drink the kool-aid as my side of the isle. :banghead:

[|Zach|]

It doesn't matter if she is middle of the road and totally electable. There is no way in hell the powers that be will allow a dyke to run this country.
Thanks for your input man

[Mr. Kotter]

It doesn't matter if she is middle of the road and totally electable. There is no way in hell the powers that be will allow a dyke to run this country.

Well. THAT certainly cuts to the chase. ROFL

[BIG_DADDY]

Thanks for your input man

What is it I am doing that irritates you? Do you not believe she is into women or does the fact that I believe the oligarchy of this country will not allow a dyke to become president piss you off? :shrug:

[bunnytrdr]

It would be interesting to see how this poll would look like in a couple of weeks seeing as Obama called for US troops to begin an Iraq pullout in 2007.All republicans need to do to derail this fool, is accidentally on purpose, mispronounce his name, and say Barak Osam er O bama.

[patteeu]

The most comprehensive annual analysis of voting records is undertaken by my magazine, National Journal, which for 2004 used 24 votes on economic issues, 19 votes on social issues, and 17 foreign policy-related roll calls to rate all 100 U.S. senators. Its resulting ranking of John Kerry as the Senate's most liberal member (at least during 2003) was a gift from on high for the Bush campaign, and the Massachusetts senator spent the better part of his campaign trying to explain away this vote or that. But Sen. Clinton is harder to pigeon-hole. For 2004, Clinton's composite liberal score was 71 percent—putting her roughly in the middle of the Democratic caucus.

I gave you a reference to a lifetime rating and you come back with a single data point cherry picked to fit an agenda (without any attribution or a link to any kind of methodology I might add)?

FTR, Hillary's National Journal composite liberal ratings for 2005 (http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?sig_id=004121M), 2003 (http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?sig_id=002939M), and 2002 (http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?sig_id=002540M) were 80, 88, and 87 respectively. The description of these ratings at Project Vote Smart indicates that they cover "economic, defense and foreign policy voting records" (which, if you recall, are the areas where you suggest she lists to the center) although exactly how they are arrived at I can't tell you. Her 2002 and 2003 ratings rank below only a handful of senators (4 and 6 respectively), btw. It would be interesting to see how National Journal rates her over her lifetime and exactly how they arrive at their ratings, but I don't have time to look right now. It's not as obvious as the ADA rankings I linked you to.

[bunnytrdr]

I don't know after 100...I think I would rather just go ahead and fade away.

Aside from that I am not sure if I would vote for Hillary...I would like to see how things pan out and educate myself on the candidates instead of going on how the opposition paints someone...

I think she is smart and would bring a lot more to the table with foreign policy.She definitely will bring that fat ass to the table.

[bunnytrdr]

It doesn't matter if she is middle of the road and totally electable. There is no way in hell the powers that be will allow a dyke to run this country.I can't wait till she goes on MTV, instead of Boxers or Briefs, they will ask if she uses plain or realistic Dildo's.

[Mr. Kotter]

Clinton isn't a fraction as liberal as the right would like her to be.
Not a FRACTION....? :spock:

BS; she may not be AS liberal as idiots like Rush portray, but she's clearly WELL left of center. By definition....that is a "fraction".....probably along the lines of 4/5ths or maybe 7/10ths as "liberal" as she is painted by the "right" (that's 70-80% for you math challenged types.)

Damn, new math really sucks. That or that college herb you are tokin' is some damn good chit. Maybe both..... :hmmm:

[bunnytrdr]

Not a FRACTION....? :spock:

BS; she may not be AS liberal as idiots like Rush portray, but she's clearly WELL left of center. By definition....that is a "fraction".....probably along the lines of 4/5ths or maybe 7/10ths as "liberal" as she is painted by the "right" (that's 70-80% for you math challenged types.)

Damn, new math really sucks. That or that college herb you are tokin' is some damn good chit. Maybe both..... :hmmm:Clipton, is not nearly as centrist as she would HAVE US believe.

[Mr. Kotter]

Clipton, is not nearly as centrist as she would HAVE US believe.

That is true. She and her handlers KNOW what the public perception is, and they will be trying to "change" that perception over the next 12-15 months.

If she's able to successfully, pull it off....it will be an impressive feat. I wouldn't hold my breath, though. ;)

[go bowe]

college herb?

you mean i have to go back to college to get my herb? :shrug:

damned war on drugs... :( :( :(

[Mr. Kotter]

college herb?

you mean i have to go back to college to get my herb? :shrug:

damned war on drugs... :( :( :(

Heh. No, you can still get it....I hear. PM Zach; I'm pretty sure he could hook you up...heh. ;)

[Cochise]

Please. Please nominate her. Oh, please.

[BIG_DADDY]

Well. THAT certainly cuts to the chase. ROFL

What kills me is I'm right on the money factually but he gets all pissey with me. Then I can't even figure out what part he is mad about. Does he not like the term dyke, is it because I think her sexuality will be an issue? I just don't get it.

[Nightwish]

FTR, Hillary's National Journal composite liberal ratings for 2005 (http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?sig_id=004121M), 2003 (http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?sig_id=002939M), and 2002 (http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?sig_id=002540M) were 80, 88, and 87 respectively.
From where I'm sitting, that looks like she's trending toward the center. What was her rating for 2004?

[Mr. Kotter]

From where I'm sitting, that looks like she's trending toward the center. What was her rating for 2004?Trending? You mean, engaging in political posturing in a cynical ploy to try to deny her ideology and roots?

Heh.

;)

[Mr. Kotter]

Please. Please nominate her. Oh, please.

If they do, they are conceding the general election--save the Republicans nominating someone like Hatch, or Santorum, or Gingrich. And they might even be able to beat her....

[PastorMikH]

Other than the fact that Hillary was a president's wife and tended to be a bit opinionated, what exactly makes people think that she would be a good president? Since becoming a senator, what exactly has she done for the people of New York besides standing on their shoulders and reaching for another level?

[banyon]

The most comprehensive annual analysis of voting records is undertaken by my magazine, National Journal, which for 2004 used 24 votes on economic issues, 19 votes on social issues, and 17 foreign policy-related roll calls to rate all 100 U.S. senators. Its resulting ranking of John Kerry as the Senate's most liberal member (at least during 2003) was a gift from on high for the Bush campaign, and the Massachusetts senator spent the better part of his campaign trying to explain away this vote or that. But Sen. Clinton is harder to pigeon-hole. For 2004, Clinton's composite liberal score was 71 percent—putting her roughly in the middle of the Democratic caucus.

You work for the National Journal? ? In Washington?

[Nightwish]

Other than the fact that Hillary was a president's wife and tended to be a bit opinionated, what exactly makes people think that she would be a good president?
I have no idea. While she has an intimate familiarity with the ins and outs of White House politics, which might give her a bit of an advantage, when it comes to direct involvement with politics on the national level, she's hardly any more experienced than Obama, and less experienced than Edwards.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Hillary is 1st on name recognition. Once the primary season comes around, and people see how worthless of a candidate she really is, she'll drop like a brick through hot jello.

[BIG_DADDY]

Hillary is 1st on name recognition. Once the primary season comes around, and people see how worthless of a candidate she really is, she'll drop like a brick through hot jello.

Hummus ROFL

[patteeu]

From where I'm sitting, that looks like she's trending toward the center. What was her rating for 2004?

Well if it's the same measure that (Zach)'s post was using, it was 71. I couldn't find it in the place I was looking and I couldn't find anything on the National Journal's website.

I have no doubt that if Hillary decides to run for President in 08 that her voting trend will be somewhat to the center. I also agree that she probably isn't as liberal as her most ardent antagonists paint her to be and she isn't as "center" as she paints herself to be in recent years. I think both centrists and liberals would be foolish to trust her to govern as one of them. (Just as I think both centrists and conservatives would be foolish to trust John McCain).

P.S. Without knowing more about what votes the National Journal used to compile it's ratings and how it weights those votes, there is no reason to think that it is a better indicator than the ADA ratings which have Hillary rated very liberal (see post #18)

[bunnytrdr]

If we are ever going to elect a woman for president, does her ass have to be as large as the Capitol building?