McCain - 42%
Clinton - 38%
Giulani - 43%
Clinton 40%
Romney - 43%
Clinton - 40%
Huckabee - 44%
Clinton - 39%
Thompson - 44%
Clinton - 40%
What is so disturbing is that she can only muster 40% against most of these GOP opponents. And her biggest loss is coming at the hands of Huckabee, who has recently been surging in the polls in Iowa but who is little known in most of the country. How embarrassing for her! How can she be losing, with her name ID, to someone most voters are unfamiliar with? I think it is because so much of the country dislikes her, intensely, and will vote for anyone against her. And the baggage Clinton has is just too much to overcome in a general election. Clinton's standing with independents and swing voters is also a huge problem for her.
But these polls speak volumes. With the current political envirement, Bush's low poll ratings, the war in Iraq, the low regard voters have for the Republican Party, it is shocking Clinton could be behind at this point.
The last Zogby poll in July, 2007 had Clinton leading Guiliani by 5 points, leading McCain by 2, and had big leads over Romney, Thompson and Huckabee. Clinton has fallen like a rock in these polls.
Just as Clinton is tanking in polls in Iowa and New Hampshire amongst Dems, she is tanking in these general election matchups with potentail GOP nominees, which are undercutting her arguement that she is the most electable candidate in next fall elections.
Clinton is just the wrong nominee for our times. Polls are showing we want a nominee with new ideas and who will change things in this country, and change the way Washington operates. However, she keeps serving up the same platter with the same old, tired ideas that Americans appear to be rejecting as we get closer to the caucus and primary season.
Voters are looking for a fresh face, with fresh ideas. And Clinton is the poster child for business as usual in Washington.
By contrast, Barack Obama leads all potential matchups with each potentail GOP nominee in the new Zogby poll.
The folks at Zogby International surveyed a non-randomized group of internet users this month and divined that Hillary Clinton can't beat potential Republican nominees. Gallup, using more traditional polling methods, comes up with numbers that look a lot more like virtually all other polling.
in other words, Zogby is an outlier.
I voted for John Kerry in 2004. However, I was humiliated by the vote because John Kerry didn't even seek my vote. He completely conceded Virginia to Bush, and didn't campaign here at all. You're suppose to be proud of your Party's candidate, right? My vote for Kerry didn't mean a thing.
Alright, apparently it is your opinion that Hillary Clinton can beat one or more of the announced Republicans in the general election. Please tell me which one, and show me a credible poll which supports your opinion.
If Hillary Clinton wins the Virginia primary in February, we won't see anymore of her. She'll pursue John Kerry's 18 state strategy, which doesn't include Virginia.
Virginia is not a Blue State, despite what a lot of folks here want desperately to believe.
If Virginia Dems want to be a Party in play after February 2008, it better nominate an electable candidate who will place value on Virginia during the general election. That electable candidate ain't Hillary.
I don't want to go through the humiliating act of casting another meaningless vote for president in November 2008.
I didn't like Kerry either, I was a Deaniac. But you can't abandon your party just because you disagree with the democratically-selected standard-bearer.
I repeat -- what are you trying to accomplish by ripping what you claim is your own party and making the ridiculous assertion that Virginia isn't turning blue? Blue Governor, blue State Senate, blue U.S. Senator, soon to be two blue U.S. Senators ... what more proof do you need?
And why isn't Ron Paul up there? Internet polls are his bread and butter, man! He'd beat Hillary 90-10! Give Ron his due :)
We are pointing out that Hillary has HUGE issues which will prevent here from winning the general election in 2008. And quite frankly, polls showing her losing to potential GOP nominees are fair game. If she is going to travel around the country stating she is the most electable candidate, I will use every poll I find that contradicts her.
Electability is a huge issue for Democrats, especially in Iowa. We are not attacking her, we are stating what is becoming more and more obvious, that she cannot win. Electability, as far as I am concerned, is the BIGGEST issue of this primary race.
Clinton has so much baggage against her that she will sink like the Titanic in November, 2008 if she is our nominee. The only card she has to play is this whole experience card - and she and her advisors have made a huge mistake - because Dem caucus and primary voters are looking for change - and so are voters nationally. And she is Washinton to a tee. She is an an insider who will govern under the mantra of "politics as usual." And that is why she is running into so many problems in polling in Iowa, New Hampshire and in national polls as well.
And the whole "change" issue is really what is driving Obama's campaign - and is the reason he is polling so well with independents, moderates, swing voters, and yes, even some Republicans. Obama is killing her with these groups, they like him and they like his message of hope and change. And that bodes well for him in a general election matchup.
As far as Virginia is concerned, Virginina is a purple state right now. And yes, Dems have won two consecutive governors races and grabbed a U.S. Senate seat from the Republicans. But we are still not blue - and presidential races in Virginia are extremely difficult for Dems. Virginia has a high percentage of voters who only vote in presidential races every four years. So they are not participating in Governors races, etc., in off year elections. And those are the voters you need to go after and convince to vote for our presidential nominee - and it will be difficlt to get them to vote for Clinton, with the baggage she carries.
If Clinton is the nominee, the fall election in 2008 will be a replay of every Clinton scandal that arose during those 8 years. And you cannot win a general election talking about the past.
And keep in mind, throughout the 1980's, the Dems could never carry VA in a presidential race, even though they controlled both houses of the legislature during that time, and swept all three statewide races for Governor, Lieutenant Governor and Attorney General in 1981, 1985 and 1989. Then everything went down hill after that in the 1990's, with the Repubs dominating the state and taking over the legislature.
And quite frankly, if Clinton is such a great candidate, Obama would not be giving her the run for the money that she is getting from him, would he? The fact is, Obama and his campaign were smart to run as the change candidate. After all the failings of the Bush administration the last 8 years, it was the perfect theme for a campaign. And the "change" issue, I think, was really something that entered the American political psyche after the disaster in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. There is no doubt - this is a change election - but Clinton is just not a change candidate. In some ways, she will be a victim of her own "experience."
Clinton 45%
Giuliani 45%
Clinton 48%
Romney 41%
Clinton 50%
Huckabee 40%
McCain 51%
Clinton 42%
That's right, according to SurveyUSA, Hillary Clinton defeats Romney and Huckabee, ties Guiliani, and loses to McCain in Virginia. By the way, in the same poll, Barack Obama beats Huckabee (50%-38%) and Romney (48%-41%), loses to Giuilani (47%-43%) and McCain (51%-41%). Not much difference there, maybe Clinton's actually a slight bit stronger in Virginia. The bottom line is that Virginia's in play for 2008, at least according to current polls, whether the Dem. nominee is Clinton or Obama (anyone have recent polling for Edwards?).
Like the newspaper polls where a person can comment every hour.
Or was it run like Brian Moran's poll to give funds to the highest candidate, where students sat at there computers and selected their candidate over and over as soon as their computer could reload.
OR was it done as RK does? Remember the person and they get one vote. Of course I have 4 computers on line and I could go to each computer, register under a differant password and vote 5 times since our household has 5 email addresses.
OR was it done by a person who knows others who are against Hillary, call them and let them know about the poll and of course they vote against Hillary.
I cannot believe anyone including Zogby who would ever believe an on line poll or a lot of other polls that are lopsided in the people they survey.
Come on now, wake up and smell the rose and not the skunks that are cluttering the highways now a days.
- Hillary Clinton would not win any of these states.
- Conservative who would probably stay home in 08 will
come out in the masses to vote against Clinton.
- She would hurt Democrats running for the House and
Senate all across the country.
- She would divide the Democrats and divide the country.
For the love of God Democrats, please select John Edwards.
That is why Republicans are scared of her and pushing this Zogby poll.
John Edwards had his chance in 2004 and he would not do any better this time around. That is why Republicans want Edwards. In fact the R's know they will beat any one but Hillary and that is why all the bull is being pasted about Hillary.
Even the Media is afraid of a woman scorned.
Mark Penn, political hack, Clinton aide and pollster, attacked Zogby's poll this morning on MSNBC in an interview with Mark Penn.
Penn made statements about the Zogby poll that it was Zogby's first interactive poll ever, which is a lie. Per Wenzel's statement, which is attached, Zogby has been developing and implementing their internet polling methodology for a decade. And according to Wenzel, Penn's company has been asking for results of these same types of polls from Zogby for years.
And keep in mind, Zogby was the polling company, both in 2000 and 2004, that came the closest in predicting the final results in those two elections.
All of the hysteria being produced by political hacks such as Mark Penn are designed to take attention away from that fact that his client is sinking like a rock. When his candidate is dropping in the polls, you attack the pollster in order to distract attention away from the results - and Penn is sounding a bit shrill these days.
And here ias the link to the poll in question, which shows Obama doing great against GOP potential nominees.
The real problem is that this nation is so violently divided, along generational, political, racial, and cultural lines that the likelihood that any leader can of unify the nation and lead the world is remote at best.
Hillary's identity as a Boomer icon makes it impossible for her to win the peace. She will try to triangulate around the minefield, but she'll never be able to rise above it.
Edwards can do it with effort. Obama can do it with ease.
We've focused too much on who will win, and we've forgotten to ask who should.