Poll: Presidential win unlikely for Clinton

[Earth_First]

Poll: Presidential win unlikely for Clinton
New Yorkers lukewarm on her chances

(January 31, 2006) — ALBANY— Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is in strong shape for re-election in New York this year, but most voters in her adopted state think it is unlikely the former first lady could win a 2008 presidential race, a statewide poll reported Monday.

Last week, a CNN-USA Today-Gallup national poll found 51 percent of the respondents said they definitely would not vote for her in a presidential election. While almost half of those polled indicated some support for a presidential run by Clinton, only 16 percent said they would definitely vote for her.

Clinton, seeking a second, six-year term in the Senate this year, has not said whether she will seek the Democratic nomination for president in 2008.

Forty-nine percent of New York voters in the Marist poll said Clinton should not run for president while 41 percent said she should. While 59 percent said they expect Clinton to run for president, 62 percent said it is unlikely she could win.

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060131/NEWS01/601310345/-1/ARCHIVE1

[Clark2008]

1. And this is a revelation?

Heck, I've been saying that on this board for months!

:hi: Thanks for posting that, though.

[JeffR]

2. CNN Gallup polls are pretty suspect

But if this one is at all accurate, it's one of the best things I've heard all day.

If she's the nominee in '08, she'll get my vote. But I hope like hell she won't be the nominee.

[GemMom]

8. Who would you prefer

Who would you prefer to see running instead?

[Captain Hilts]

16. Gallup is sloppy in balancing demographic data.

So, there is more variation in their surveys.

[TriMetFan]

3. Who cares????? We got to think about Nov. 2006 1st.

[Earth_First]

5. I agree.

I'm with Tasini, Massa and Spitzer here in New York, it's not unhealthy to project.

[1620rock]

6. Umm yes, but even before we focus on November....

...we had better focus on electronic and other voter irregularities before November.

[TriMetFan]

7. Well that what I'm talking about.

2008 is the last thing on my mind and would be a waste of my time to worry about. Now 2006 is what we need to be working on.

[Crazy Dave]

4. I don't know, not ready to count her out myself

I personally hope she doesn't get the nomination but if she does I hope she picks a good running mate like Clark or Edwards. That would help her a lot and make my voting for her easy as I always vote with the party on election day but I fight for who I want during the primaries.

[fujiyama]

9. Nothing new

Polls have shown this for a while now. It's even worse against someone like McCain, who would be difficult to beat regardless, but with Hillary I find it nearly impossible.

I'd rather go with Warner, Clark, Feingold...I'm leaning toward fresh faces, though I still believe Gore and Kerry would make great presidents...I'd choose anyone of them over Hillary. I don't hate her, but I don't find the huge appeal either. Something about her strikes me as insincere.

[PBass]

10. Way too early to start making 2008 into a horse race. Waste of time IMO.

[Neil Lisst]

11. I'm not a big Hillary fan, but I call bullshit on this poll.

First, never trust Gallup. They're trading on their name, but in reality, they've morphed into a major corporate whore, "partnering" with many big megacorps.

Second, there's this thing called "margin of error," and that clearly comes into play here.

Third, who knows whether the sample was sound, or if the poll was taken at such a time as to skew results?

Beware of media polls bearing bad news two years out.

[Benfea]

12. I don't see this as "bad news"

Frankly, I'm getting sick of these "centrist" Democrats they keep foisting on us in presidential elections because they're supposedly "more electable." I would really rather Hillary didn't win the primary in 2008, we were wrong to abandon Howard Dean just as he was building momentum. After seeing what happened to Kerry during the campaign, I'm no longer convinced these "electable" Democrats are necessarily better than someone who really stands for something.

I'm sick of Hillary's fakey pseudo-Republican "values" issues. I'm sick of watching her appease Republicans at every possible turn.

You're right about one thing, though. It's way too early for polls to be very meaningful.

[PBass]

13. Hillary is surprising sometimes

She is way too Republican for my tastes, to be my own personal front runner, but

"I'm sick of watching her appease Republicans at every possible turn."

That's not really true. She did come out against Alito, and not at the very last second like a few did. Hillary is in the middle so yeah she does fall short on a lot of progressive issues, but not everything.

If you are saying that you are disappointed she's not more progressive than she is, then I agree with you 100%.

She's not like a Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman or Mark Pryor though.

[Benfea]

14. I was being hyperbolic

Yeah, every once in a while whe will pretend to be a Democrat for brief periods of time, then she goes right back to the triangulating/appeasing thing.

No, she's not as bad as Lieberman, but she's got a lot more in common with Lieberman than she has with me. The Democratic party has been moving steadily to the right ever since Truman (with the obvious exception of the Carter administration), and frankly they've reached the point where they've gone so far to the right that they're about to move off my radar screen (and I'm pro-gun for crying out loud). I voted for my last "electable" Democrat when I held my nose and voted for Kerry. If we keep voting for these politicians in presidential primaries, the Democratic party will continue moving further and further to the right.

Already they would be considered right of center in most other industrialized countries. It's come to the point where it seems like the black caucus are the only Democrats in Washington who truly represent me. As a liberal, shouldn't most of the Democratic party represent me and half of the country?

[SaveElmer]

15. What could possibly be more irrelevent...

Than a Presidential preference poll...more than two years before the election!!!

Polls 2 weeks before are unreliable

[election_2004]

17. Why is it....

....that every time a poll comes out showing Hillary with high negative numbers, the Hillaristas dismiss it as "premature".....but then when different polls come out showing Hillary as a competitive Democratic primary and General Election candidate, those polls are touted by the Hillaristas as showing how "formidable" she is....

Could we be engaging in a wee bit of selective analysis here?