Clinton opens up lead over Obama in new poll

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Just think how rich we would be.

Wait! whats that sound? I hear a seathing rage headed right for us.

Edited August 8, 2007 by CarolsMarc

[no name 1]

Easy Devilette, your confidence isnt showing. dont hit me please.

Because I won't speak in absolutes? That's just stupid to do so.

[GaryC 7]

Your Republican friend Gary speaks in absolutes tho:

Half of America will never vote for Clinton. I will say that again. Half of America will never vote for Clinton. She cannot win with that kind of negative numbers.

Here you go.

You don't get it. I am not speaking in absoulutes there, that is a straight up question in a nation wide poll. The results are the results whether you like them or not. The fact remains that when asked "would you vote for Hillary for president" almost half of registered voters said "not under any circumstanses". If you take issue with that result then take it up with Rassminssen and not me.

[Jason-Sasha 1]

Yawn....though i did like that conservative T-shirt!

[Ban Hammer 14,287]

Yawn....though i did like that conservative T-shirt!

i'd swear that's lisad wearing that shirt

[no name 1]

Your Republican friend Gary speaks in absolutes tho:

Half of America will never vote for Clinton. I will say that again. Half of America will never vote for Clinton. She cannot win with that kind of negative numbers.

Here you go.

You don't get it. I am not speaking in absoulutes there, that is a straight up question in a nation wide poll. The results are the results whether you like them or not. The fact remains that when asked "would you vote for Hillary for president" almost half of registered voters said "not under any circumstanses". If you take issue with that result then take it up with Rassminssen and not me.

No, YOU don't get it. You did speak in absolutes, the poll did not say NEVER Gary. Stop skewing it with your own ideas. It is a poll & the results are fluid. And will continue to be so until election day.

But, when the question is asked of all voters, the former First Lady is viewed favorably by just 49% and unfavorably by 48%. That latter figure includes 34% with a Very Unfavorable opinion (nearly half of all voters say they will definitely vote (not never) against Clinton if she is on the ballot in 2008).

A Clinton nomination will almost certainly yield a competitive general election. While Clinton is very popular among Democrats, overall public opinion is evenly divided--her favorable/unfavorable ratings have been near the 50/50 mark all year. The number who would definitely vote for her in a general election has stayed between 28% and 30%. The number who would definitely vote against (not never) has stayed between 46% and 48%. Both figures are the highest or nearly the highest for any candidate in either party.

While Clinton's numbers have remained stable, Giuliani's have consistently trended downward. In March, Giuliani was the only candidate to receive a net positive number—31% said they'd definitely vote for him while 28% were definitely voting against. His net numbers have declined each month and now 22% way they'll definitely vote for him while 39% will definitely vote against. (also not never)

source

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

and to your earlier point that 50% against can't surmount the odds & win:

Absent a major third party candidate, it is hard to envision Clinton attracting less than 45% of the vote. It is equally difficult to envision her reaching the 50% threshold barring a total collapse of the Republican campaign. That could result in a situation where fringe third party candidates determine the outcome with candidates from the left hurting the Democrats and candidates from the right hurting the GOP. It might also result in a President being elected with less than 50% of the vote for the 4th time in the last five elections.

source

Edited August 8, 2007 by devilette

[Caladan 19]

I hope Obama takes the nomination.

[GaryC 7]

No, YOU don't get it. You did speak in absolutes, the poll did not say NEVER Gary. Stop skewing it with your own ideas. It is a poll & the results are fluid. And will continue to be so until election day.

But, when the question is asked of all voters, the former First Lady is viewed favorably by just 49% and unfavorably by 48%. That latter figure includes 34% with a Very Unfavorable opinion (nearly half of all voters say they will definitely vote (not never) against Clinton if she is on the ballot in 2008).

A Clinton nomination will almost certainly yield a competitive general election. While Clinton is very popular among Democrats, overall public opinion is evenly divided--her favorable/unfavorable ratings have been near the 50/50 mark all year. The number who would definitely vote for her in a general election has stayed between 28% and 30%. The number who would definitely vote against (not never) has stayed between 46% and 48%. Both figures are the highest or nearly the highest for any candidate in either party.

While Clinton's numbers have remained stable, Giuliani's have consistently trended downward. In March, Giuliani was the only candidate to receive a net positive number—31% said they'd definitely vote for him while 28% were definitely voting against. His net numbers have declined each month and now 22% way they'll definitely vote for him while 39% will definitely vote against. (also not never)

source

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

and to your earlier point that 50% against can't surmount the odds & win:

Absent a major third party candidate, it is hard to envision Clinton attracting less than 45% of the vote. It is equally difficult to envision her reaching the 50% threshold barring a total collapse of the Republican campaign. That could result in a situation where fringe third party candidates determine the outcome with candidates from the left hurting the Democrats and candidates from the right hurting the GOP. It might also result in a President being elected with less than 50% of the vote for the 4th time in the last five elections.

source

So to you "will definitely vote against Clinton" and "never vote for Clinton" are not the same thing. Nice little world you live in there. Play your word games all you want. The outcome will be the same.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If the Democrats nominate Shrillary, the Republican candidate (depending on who that might be) will actually stand a chance of getting my vote.

I guess I am maturing, eh?

I don't listen to Rush. If that is what you tried to suggest. He's an idiot IMHO. I simply believe that there are more than two families in tis country that have a President in them. Maybe you ought to start doing some thinking, too.

Edited August 9, 2007 by Mr. Big Dog

[GaryC 7]

If the Democrats nominate Shrillary, the Republican candidate (depending on who that might be) will actually stand a chance of getting my vote.

I guess I am maturing, eh?

I don't listen to Rush. If that is what you tried to suggest. He's an idiot IMHO. I simply believe that there are more than two families in this country that have a President in them. Maybe you ought to start doing some thinking, too.

You know, there are things we definitely disagree on but I see we have more in common than differences.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I sincerely hope Hillary doesn't win. Last thing we need is yet another autocrat. Though that would make a difference from the Plutocrats in the office at the moment. Although probably just in name, not by deed.

Hillary doesn't have any new ideas IMO.

[Mirorgate 0]

Hillary was already President for 8 yrs with her hand up Bills A$$ puppeting him to the masses. Why does she think she can run again??

[Ban Hammer 14,287]

Hillary was already President for 8 yrs with her hand up Bills A$$ puppeting him to the masses. Why does she think she can run again??

maybe she used lotsa handi-wipes since then?

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Hillary was already President for 8 yrs with her hand up Bills A$$ puppeting him to the masses. Why does she think she can run again??

maybe she used lotsa handi-wipes since then?

She doesnt wipe Charles,look at her face. The under lying scowl says it all.

[no name 1]

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

and to your earlier point that 50% against can't surmount the odds & win:

Absent a major third party candidate, it is hard to envision Clinton attracting less than 45% of the vote. It is equally difficult to envision her reaching the 50% threshold barring a total collapse of the Republican campaign. That could result in a situation where fringe third party candidates determine the outcome with candidates from the left hurting the Democrats and candidates from the right hurting the GOP. It might also result in a President being elected with less than 50% of the vote for the 4th time in the last five elections.

source

So to you "will definitely vote against Clinton" and "never vote for Clinton" are not the same thing. Nice little world you live in there. Play your word games all you want. The outcome will be the same.

Really Gary? I guess reading half of the post counts, right? The part that says that 50% isn't needed doesn't count? Or the part that says Newt Gingrich thinks the Dems will win? Or the part that Guiliani isn't doing great either?

I even quoted you a Fox poll earlier that points to Dems winning but hey, if it doesn't say the Dems stink, it's not good enough is it?

Selective reading & selective hearing does not make an informed debate.