51% of independents say they "definately would not support" Hillary Clinton

[draft_mario_cuomo]

==ABC/Post Poll Nuggets

The poll finds that the percentage of those surveyed who would definitely not support Sen. John McCain has nearly doubled and is nearly a majority -- 47%. He's become as polarizing as Hillary Clinton, at least to partisans. But only 41% of independents say they would definitely not support him.

Among independents -- Definitely would NOT support

Romney: 53%
Clinton: 51
McCain: 41
Edwards: 39
Giuliani: 35
Obama: 29==

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/04/abcpost_poll_nu.html

Can we see the writing on the wall?

[PresidentObama]

1. Yawn. Nothing to see here. Business as usual on this boring Thursday. n/t

[gaspee]

2. I wonder

How many surveyed actually get off their duff and go to vote.

[PresidentObama]

6. Good point. This poll is just as meaningless as the national polls that show her ahead. n/t

[draft_mario_cuomo]

14. All the polls must be meaningless

Every poll shows a similar gap between HRC and the other Democratic candidates in this respect. Perhaps every single poll is wrong. Perhaps she has a strong chance to do well with swing voters. Maybe 46-51% of voters have not automatically ruled out voting for her. Or--maybe the polls reflect public opinion, that she is popular among Democrats but toxic with swing voters.

[Tellurian]

53. Suffolk Poll shows Hillary ahead of Obama by 14pts.

On the Democratic side,

Senator Hillary Clinton (32%)

easily bested former Senator John Edwards (19%),

Sen. Barack Obama (18%),

and former Vice President Al Gore (13%),

with 12% undecided.

http://www.suffolk.edu/19465.html


Kerry is already noticeably in trouble:

"Senator John Kerry, who recently left the door open to a Presidential bid in 2008, could have problems staying in the US Senate. When voters were asked whether Kerry should run for another six-year term in 2008 or if it is time to give someone else a chance, just 37% indicated that he should seek re-election while 56% said that it was time to give someone else a chance. Among political parties: 76% of Republicans, 62% of Independents, and 39% of registered Democrats said that it was time to give someone else a chance.

“This poll is showing us the early warning signs of a political storm for John Kerry,” said Paleologos. “He may best be served by coming home to Massachusetts and taking care of business.”

instead of perpetually on the book signing trail, tv and photo-ops!

[draft_mario_cuomo]

54. And this has what to do with her general election weakness?

[Tellurian]

57. What weakness? I don't see any weakness..

you seem surprised at Hillary's high numbers.

It might be a good idea to wait for the (catchall) debates.. :hi:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

64. Read the thread for starters! Wait until the debates? HRC against President-elect Giuliani?

No way. We cannot afford to foolishly watch the Democratic ship head for an iceberg in the hopes that a last second miracle will save us.

[cadmium]

59. Suffolk is a conservative school by Mass standards.

Regarding Kerry this sounds like a push-poll. I wouldnt put much faith in it.

[Tellurian]

62. Suffolk is a Law School

deriving it's students from all over New England. Nevertheless, they have ordered their absentee ballots in advance. My neighbor's son is a sophomore there. The students are quite disgusted with Kerry's antics, never mind his premature presidential concession. Then comfortably falling back into his role as Senator. They are angry because he had nothing to lose by not fighting for us. They do make a good point in that respect.

[cadmium]

73. I work near Suffolk and have plenty of

interaction with their staff and students. Most I run into charmed by our past Republican governors and are generally more conservative than most Mass colleges.

[pocoloco]

3. Nor would 93% of the repugs

or 63% of the Dems.

[endarkenment]

4. If the election were held tomorrow

we could run anyone and that person would be likely to beat anyone running on the ticket of the criminal and incompetent republic party.

[skipos]

27. I absolutely disagree. Dame Rudy beats many Dems in many polls

and McCain even does ok for how ridiculous he has been lately. Have you seen how weak Hillary's numbers are compared to Obama and Edwards?

After Spiro and Nixon dragged the Repubs down, Carter only won in 1976 by a 2% margin. Then Reagan thumped him in 1980 and we had 12 years of Republican Presidents.

Bush will drag down the Republicans a bit in 2008, but if they nominate someone strong and we ominate Hillary, they could win.

I hope they nominate Romney or Newt.

[endarkenment]

68. The polls at this point are irrelevant to an election

I stand by what I said. Any republic candidate will be saddled with defending the worst administration ever, and it won't fly with the voters. Absent massive fraud, they lose in 2008.

[skipos]

69. Polls are not irrelevant

They are not going to be an accurate predictor of an event this far out, but they are a good indicator of where things stand today. And the closer the election gets, the more accurate those polls will likely be. If you look at a bunch of polls, you can definitely see a general trend. The pre-election polls were generally pretty accurate with the offical results in 2006, 2005 and 2004.

If we nominate Hillary and they nominate Dame Rudy or F Thompson, I think they have a very good shot at winning. I guess we will have to wait and see.

[HappyWeasel]

36. I agree with the exception of Rudy v. Hillary.

But Rudy isn't really a Republican....

[rinsd]

5. Here's the rest of the poll info...ya know where Hillary KICKS ASS!

From your link

"Among Democrats, Hillary Clinton still holds a sizable lead over Barack Obama, and her lead holds even among strong supporters of the war.

Also: "Clinton, the Democratic leader, has 59 percent “strong” support in her party, compared with 45 percent “strong” support among leaned Republicans for Giuliani."

More info on the same poll

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/4728444.html

"WASHINGTON — Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's lead over his Republican presidential rivals has narrowed, while New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has maintained her advantage in the race for the Democratic nomination, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Arizona Sen. John McCain, whose candidacy has been buffeted by lackluster fundraising and his embrace of President Bush's troop surge policy in Iraq, runs a solid second in the GOP contest.

Giuliani remained the front-runner in the national poll, but his support has eroded. In a late February Post-ABC News poll, 44 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents preferred Giuliani for the nomination, a figure now down to 33 percent. Support for McCain held steady at 21 percent.

Among Democrats, Clinton led in the survey with 37 percent support to Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's 20 percent. Former Vice President Al Gore, who has said he has no plans to run, had the support of 17 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents; former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards stood at 14 percent."

[draft_mario_cuomo]

11. No one doubts her ability to win the nomination

The question is whether she can win the general election. This is a very disturbing poll result since independents will likely decide the election. Compare her 51% figure with Giuliani's 29%. It would be nice if we could just ignore all such information and hope that somehow before the election HRC will magically reverse people's view of her in time to create a sea of blue on Election Day in 2008. However, we have to deal with reality. How can she win if 51% of independents are already ruling her out?

[rinsd]

22. Guiliani is at definitely not vote for is 35% for Indies, 40% for overall in that poll.

Clinton leads him 27% to 17% in defnitely vote for and Rudy hasn't had the media even touch him yet.

Even more

"And Clinton, the Democratic leader, has 59 percent “strong” support in her party, compared with 45
percent “strong” support among leaned Republicans for Giuliani."

So why the focusing on the negative as applied to just one candidate instead of posting positives (though I realize your guy didn't do so hot in this poll)

[skipos]

28. Dukakis and Mondale KICKED ASS in the primaries too.

Things may change for her in the next year (I am not holding my breath) but she has been generally weaker than Obama and Edwards in gen elec polls, fav/unfav polls, etc. Here are some Ras polls...

Clinton (47%) Giuliani (48%) CLINTON LOSES BY 1%
Edwards (49%) Giuliani (43%) EDWARDS WINS BY 6%
Obama (43%) Giuliani (44%) OBAMA LOSES BY 1%

Clinton (47%) McCain (46%) CLINTON WINS BY 1%
Edwards (47%) McCain (38%) EDWARDS WINS BY 9%
Obama (46%) McCain (42% ) OBAMA WINS BY 4%

Clinton (50%) Romney (41%) CLINTON WINS BY 9%
Edwards (55%) Romney (29%) EDWARDS WINS BY 26%
Obama (51%) Romney (36%) OBAMA WINS BY 15%

Clinton (46%) Brownback (41%) CLINTON WINS BY 5%
Obama (49%) Brownback (34%) OBAMA WINS BY 15%

Clinton (50%) Gingrich (43%) CLINTON WINS BY 7%
Obama (48%) Gingrich (38%) OBAMA WINS BY 10%

Clinton (48%) Hagel (40%) CLINTON WINS BY 8%
Obama (50%) Hagel (34%) OBAMA WINS BY 16%

Clinton (43%) Thompson (44%) CLINTON LOSES BY 1%
Edwards (50%) Thompson (36%) EDWARDS WINS BY 14%
Obama (49%) Thompson (37%) OBAMA WINS BY 12%

Clinton 48% Favorable, 50% Unfavorable
Edwards 57% Favorable, 35% Unfavorable
Obama 59% Favorable, 34% Unfavorable

Candidate / Def. Vote FOR / Def. Vote AGAINST / Net
Obama / 33% / 33% / Even
Edwards / 26% / 37% / -11
Clinton / 30% / 48% / -18

[draft_mario_cuomo]

29. HRC supporters never respond to such evidence

It is obvious why they don't...

[rinsd]

32. LOL. As if you respond when you have been shown to be distorting the truth (nt)

[rinsd]

31. Sorry skipos, you need a new post.

Here's Clinton ahead of Giuliani in OH

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1322.xml?ReleaseID=1029

She is closing the gap with Rudy in PA (all Dems losing to him)

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1327.xml?ReleaseID=1032

Those are two key electoral states.

She kicks Rudy's ass in NY(though good news as Obama kicks Rudy's ass too) and CA but has trouble in FL (like the rest of the Dem field).

[skipos]

67. No need to apologize.

Dems should want to see our "frontrunner" have some better numbers. That's great you can cherry pick a poll or two, I am sure Romney can do well in a poll or two also. The general trend is very consistent: Giuliani and Hillary are the primary frontrunners, Giuliani is the toughest for Dems to beat, and Hillary is the weakest general election candidate of our top tier.

[rinsd]

71. Hey I would love for her negatives to be lower but I still think she can win

The state polls I was posting were large electoral states and states that were close in 2004.

The polls I referenced were the only ones that had Clinton vs Giuliani head to head.

The good news of course is that Hillary is not the only one who did well in those polls.

But I think she has a far greater chane in the general then you are allowing yourself to believe.

[skipos]

72. Maybe she can. Maybe she can't.

If it is the day before my primary and she is doing as well or better than the other candidates in the gen elec polls, unfav/favs, etc, I will cross that off my list of reasons I don't support her. But if she is still underperforming, I hope that her supporters will think twice about giving Dems a weak gen elec candidate.

[Blue-Jay]

74. I'm liking the way Obama looks in that poll.

[NoPasaran]

7. The other 49% understand how to use "Check Spelling"

[MrModerate]

8. So, let's see . . .

In what will almost certainly be a two-horse race, and with a count of 80-85% of Dems/progressives, 40-49% of Independents, and 10-15% of 'Licans/righties . . . does that make Hill (or Edwards or Obama) our next prez?

Sure as shit no 'Lican is going to get many Dems.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

12. For that to occur HRC will have to win 83%-100% of remaining independent voters

It will be difficult for her to do that well against Giuliani. As far as defections go, against Giuliani the number of defections from each party should be similar. The election will be decided by independents and the polls contain a stark warning. Only 29% of independents rule out voting for Giuliani. That means he only needs to win a healthy share of that remaining 71% while HRC will have to sweep the 49% that will consider voting for her.

[MrModerate]

18. I don't see Giuliani's "charm" surviving the campaign.

He's morally and experientially unfit for the role, he's pretty creepy to listen to, and carries (potentially) more baggage than any Dem. Conservatives will stay home, staunch 'Licans will be soft, independents may or may not break the way the poll numbers show (but let's assume they do), and Dems will vote in high percentages for whoever the party's nominee is.

I think the 'Licans are in deep trouble here.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

30. That is what we think of him. 90% of the country sees him and thinks of "America's Mayor"

Let's not underestimate Giuliani. If a total joke like Bush could win, so can Giuliani.

[MrModerate]

46. I don't underestimate him -- I watch him closely and worry a lot . . .

But primarily because anyone who could adhere to 'Lican "principles" tends to creep me out.

I really don't think the "America's Mayor" theme will play out for him. The myth of him striding out of the smoke of 9/11, bloodied but unbowed, won't stand up to the facts. I also think a lot of the country resents and distrusts NY qua NY. And he's got all those marriages, and the fact that he's cruel to people who, in American political iconography you're not supposed to be cruel to, and a huge cloud of police brutality hanging over him. And cops and firefighters hate his guts. And, America doesn't need a "Mayor," it needs a president -- and I think the people know that.

I just don't think he will wear very well with the people during a long campaign.

[rinsd]

47. Hey if you're so worried about Giuliani, how about some posts with attack talking points on him?

Ya know instead of shitting on our candidates.

How about some game planning to take on Rudy rather than throwing up your hands sceaming that Hillary can't win?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

52. DLC'ers may confuse Giuliani with DLC members but he is in fact officially a Republican

He has 0% support at DU so there is no point pointing out what we all know about him here.

[rinsd]

55. Yes, time is better spent tearing down Democrats

Wouldn't want to compile negative information here on Repulbicans for easy dissemination by Democrats.

Its only one of the largest Democratic audiences on the web.

:eyes:

[jobycom]

9. Then you've got nothing to worry about, so go post pictures of puppies or something.

If you don't like your own candidate enough to talk nice about him (and all the rest are "him") then just quit posting about candidates altogether. Seriously, to quote John Gorka, if you cannot make a good noise, what you doin' here?

[gaspee]

10. Hey, I know him

John Gorka, that is. His daughter was my college roomie.

ETA, before she became my roomie, I'd never heard of him.

[jobycom]

15. Cool!

I'm not an aficionado, but I've got one of his CDs (Out of the Valley) and like the other stuff I've heard. I still listen to that CD somewhat regularly, too. Good stuff. Tell him so! :)

[draft_mario_cuomo]

13. I don't want four years of President Giuliani or President Thompson

[jobycom]

16. That's what you're aiming for

When you trash a Dem candidate, you are tearing them all down, and increasing the chances of another Republican. Build up your own candidate, don't attack someone else's. When you do, you attack all their supporters, too, and that makes them dislike you and your candidate. Be positive, be good for the party. Can't you see the anger you create with posts like these? How can that be good for our party. You think someone has a better chance or would make a better candidate? Build them up. If you see a flaw in a candidate that your candidate has better, politely point it out. For instance, along your line of posts, you could choose to say "I prefer 'X' to Clinton, because 'X' has better numbers amongst independents." Polite, to the point, and it helps your candidate, while giving supporters of Clinton a polite statement to respond politely to. That way a polite debate can form, and minds might be changed. Anger and insult closes minds. That's the opposite of what works with Democrats.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

17. I recognized much of that

That is why I toned down my criticism for HRC. In this thread I simply posted a disturbing poll result and commented on the polling.

Democrats need to be aware of these things so we can have as strong nominee. It would be a crime if we nominated a candidate by ignoring the mountain of evidence that exists regarding a candidate's unpopularity with half the country. Is uniformity so precious that we should ignore this until we look at the map in November of 2008 and see a sea of red and a grinning Rudy Giuliani making his first speech as president-elect? Let's vet the candidates. Let's consider their records, their positions, but also their ability to win. We simply cannot affor four more years of Republican rule.

When someone says Kucinich cannot won the nomination it is not considered an attack against him. Why is a similar statement about HRC's general election classified differently? There is ample evidence to support both claims.

[jobycom]

19. You posted part of a poll, ignoring the majority of it, which disagreed with your point.

That's still pretty negative. And, no candidate runs against a vacuum, or an ideal. Hillary's numbers don't matter by themselves, they matter in relation the candidates she faces. She can have a high disapproval rating amongst independents and still win easily if she makes a case that she will do a better job than her opponent.

Plus, there's the awareness factor. Hillary is well known, though not all of her positions are. Here negative ratings aren't likely to go up. In fact, they are more likely to go down as people get to know her (or stay the same). None of the other candidates are as well known. Right now people are making Edwards and Obama into who they want them to be. As more people find out who they are, some of those people will be turned off as they discover that neither candidate was who they wanted them to be. Both candidates have liberals and moderates absolutely convinced they are one of them. One of those groups will become disillusioned. Then their negatives go up.

What happens when Edwards or Obama or whomever you like winds up with higher negatives than Hillary? Will you dump them for Hillary? If you say no, and you should, you understand why no one is jumping from Hillary's camp over these polls. It's far too early for any of these numbers to stick.

The poll says 51% of independents say they won't vote for Hillary. How many of those same voters say they won't vote for Guiliani? What happens if that is their choice? I'd guess that half of those who say they won't vote for Hillary won't vote for any other Dem, anyway, and the same thing would be true of the Republican candidates.

It's a long way to go, and these numbers are too easy to change, and too difficult to interpret. Clinton and Reagan both had terrible approval numbers, and both were elected twice--the second time by large margins, despite having approval numbers in the 30s at this point in the process for their re-elections. These numbers just aren't convincing.

Whomever you think is better is who you should be talking up. That's how you change minds.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

33. Edwards has 94% name ID. HRC has 99%. Yet, look at the unfavorables

Obama's unfavorables are bound to rise but HRC is in a class of her own in unfavorables on the Democratic side. Overall, only Romney is in the same league and that is largely because he loses substantial points for his religion.

First, Obama and Edwards will never reach HRC's level of unfavorables. Second, even if that happens they potentially can bring them back down. HRC can't. People have seen her for fifteen years--and many have concluded they simply don't like her. Much of that is unfair but it is a reality that we cannot pretend does not exist.

The point is that she cannot make the case you are talking about to independents. Why? Because enough independents dislike her so much that they are automatically writing her off. If people don't like someone they simply will not listen to that person. That is unfair but that is life.

Clinton and Reagan were incumbent presidents whose approval ratings rose dramatically during good economic times. Nothing similar will save candidate H. Clinton.

This thread is simply putting an important fact on the table. It should just be one factor in deciding who to nominate. The Republicans knew Goldwater would lose in 1964 but they still nominated him to make a point. Perhaps we will decide winning doesn't matter, that President Giuliani really won't be that much worse than President H. Clinton (DLC). I certainly hope we don't reach these conclusions.

[JohnLocke]

23. It isn't an attack; it's the results of a poll.

Geez--If we can't discuss this, what can we discuss?

[rinsd]

25. John, cherry picking only the negative in a sea of positive is an attack

Check out the rest of the thread.

This so called Edwards supporter doesn't post advocating Edwards merely tering down Hillary.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

35. It "cherry picks" the most imporant result from the poll

Without winning nothing else matters. HRC could be the greatest person in the world but if she loses it will be irrelevant.

Can HRC fans explain how HRC is going to win when 45-52% of people in several polls automatically write off voting for her? Tell us how she is magically going to sweep the remaining 48 (usually you need a majority to win...) to 55%. HRC fans cry foul about the posting of such data but they never dispute their validity. They never explain how HRC is going to manage to win the required 91-100% of that remaining 48-55% to win the election. Why? Doing so would be absurd. The math speaks for itself.

[rinsd]

40. The most important result?

Its one negative point for a single candidate in a poll which your guy doesn't do so hot either.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

42. Winning is kind of a big deal. Remember the consequences of 2000 and 2004?

[rinsd]

45. You obviously do not remember 2004

When one of Kerry's biggest selling points in the primaries was his general election strength VS. Bush as opposed to Dean or Edwards.

Hillary Clinton can win the general as can Edwards and Obama.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

48. What were the comparable "will not vote for" numbers for Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Clark, and Holy Joe?

If the 2004 nomination was based solely on electability Holy Joe would have been the nominee. Clark was also probably more electable than Kerry and Rove himself feared Edwards more than Kerry. Kerry was nominated because he won Iowa and due to frontloading Dean did not have enough time to recover from Iowa.

[rinsd]

50. Sigh....

"Kerry was nominated because he won Iowa and due to frontloading Dean did not have enough time to recover from Iowa."

Except that primaries were not front loaded especially not compared to how they are now.

Dean was undone by the "scream" and a poor showing in NH.

Some info on Kerry and the electable meme.

http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/archives/000394.php

[rinsd]

51. self delete double post

[draft_mario_cuomo]

34. That is the point. They want us to silently sit back and watch ourselves drive off of a cliff

They know the biggest liability HRC has in the primaries is the perception that she cannot win--that a vote for her is a vote for President Giuliani. That is why they want to keep these facts off the table. The DLC is more concerned with regaining control of the party than defeating the Republicans in 2008.

[rinsd]

41. And you are far more concerned with putting down Hillary than advocating for Edwards (nt)

[draft_mario_cuomo]

43. I didn't rig the poll

HRC fans need to stop seeing a conspiracy everywhere to get her...

[rinsd]

44. Whatever, You're such a phony (nt)

[draft_mario_cuomo]

49. I admit it. I run the Gallup organization

And every other polling organization that has polled on the "will not vote for" numbers. :crazy:

[jobycom]

63. No it isn't.

It's a slanted interpretation of a poll posted as a negative attack. An honest discussion doesn't slant or twist, it presents.

[Nimrod2005]

20. k

[SaveElmer]

21. Several points...

1. This poll is a sampling of adults...not registered voters, not even likely voters...

2. From the ABC article...

These and other election views can change as the campaigns evolve and the public becomes more familiar with the candidates.

Clinton still holds a substantial lead in familiarity, but even in her own party, among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, just a narrow majority, 52 percent, say they know at least a good amount about her positions.

3. Hillary's popularity within the Democratic Party is high. Without Gore in the poll Hillary has a 16 point lead on Obama...with Gore a still high 12 point lead. In terms of intensity of support within the party...Hillary leads there with 59% strongly supporting her...

Overall very encouraging numbers for Hillary 19 months out. She has the support of party members were she the nominee...now she has to hone in on independents...

[draft_mario_cuomo]

37. Numerous polls with different methodologies produce similar results

They all show 45-52% of people automatically will not vote for HRC. Please explain how HRC will win 91-100% of the remaining 48-55% (usually you need a majority to win, but perhaps HRC can win 100% of that 48% and manage to win the electoral vote while losing the popular vote) to be elected in November.

HRC has been honing in on independents since she took office in January of 2001. How is that working out?

A typical bait and switch. No one is disputing her ability to win the nomination. Even Mondale won the nomination and he managed to win one state and lose three-fifths of the vote. HRC will probably produce another Dukakis-like result.

[SaveElmer]

58. It is called campaigning...

You know...where you go out among the people and try to convince them to vote for you...been going on since ohhh...Andrew Jackson...Bill Clinton did it when he was running third behind Bush I and Ross Perot, sitting at a 47% disapproval, and Al Gore did it when he was sitting at a 43% disapproval...

I know the Hillary detractors around here...you know the ones who a couple of months ago were telling us polls don't matter this early...blah, blah, blah...and who have now decided polls should be considered as the bible when picking our candidates...find it oh so quaint that some of us would actually want to support our candidate through thick and thin. But that is the way it is...

And you know, I'm gonna go ahead and have a little more faith in the Clinton's political instincts...who are after all...10 and 2 electorally speaking, including 5 terms as Governor, 2 as President, and 2 as United States Senator...than some anonymous keyboard jockey who doesn't seem to want to talk up his own candidate, but would rather deride others...

[Forkboy]

24. That's actually lower than I would have guessed.

:shrug:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

38. You can bet the number will rise if she becomes the nominee. Ask John Kerry what Rove does

With her being the nominee she will face more scrutiny than she ever has. If they were able to "swiftboat" Kerry so well, imagine what they will do to HRC...

[Faryn Balyncd]

26. Why do HRC supporters hate Democratic victory?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

39. Three letters: DLC

[cadmium]

56. I think independants are fluid. Romney is

the person about whom I think they will change their mind. If he wins the Rep nomination then he will go from right wing panderer to independant minded Republik. People often project the qualities on a politician that the want to see in them-in a wishful thinking way.

[TwilightGardener]

60. Disagree--I don't think he's going to sell with Indies. The GOPers

seem to barely stand him, and Dems ridicule him. However, he has a very good shot at being the GOP nominee--wealthy, younger, healthy, good-looking (if you like that type), nice family, and will tailor himself to fit any agenda. They might end up finding him acceptable if McCain and Rudy flame out.

[cadmium]

75. I hope you are right. He is not to be underestimated ---all those

millions can buy him a lot of good press when the time comes. I know I sound like a broken record but I would rather run against any of the others.

[IndianaGreen]

61. Hillary is as popular as Vergie Arthur, Anna Nicole's mother.

Both major parties need the support of independents in order to win, and McCain and Hillary are not winning the popularity contest.

[Clarkie1]

65. At best, Clinton candidacy = painfully close race w/Republican win.

Haven't we had enough of those lately?

[sampsonblk]

66. Must be a slow news day-nt

nt

[illinoisprogressive]

70. This is due to her rise in her negatives. Showing cracks???