Democrats 2008: Hillary 40%, Obama 27%

[wyldwolf]

Many Democratic Party supporters in the United States believe Hillary Rodham Clinton should become their presidential nominee in 2008, according to a poll by Harris Interactive. 40 per cent of respondents would support the New York senator in a 2008 primary.

Illinois senator Barack Obama is second with 27 per cent, followed by former U.S. vice-president Al Gore with 13 per cent, and former North Carolina senator John Edwards with 12 per cent. Support is lower for New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, Delaware senator Joe Biden, Ohio congressman Dennis Kucinich, and retired general Wesley Clark.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/15771

[Deep13]

1. we. are. screwn.

[Labors of Hercules]

2. Explanation?

[Deep13]

4. HRC can't flip any red states...

...and I doubt she can hold onto PA or WI. Guilliani will look like a moderate to the swing voters. HRC is viewed as too liberal by swing voters and too conservative by liberals. Plus her unpopulatity will depress the rest of the ticket. We could be looking at 2006 in reverse.

[wyldwolf]

6. any evidence of that?

Or does it just "feel" right.

[jefferson_dem]

10. An example: OHIO is the bellwether of bellwethers and gives Obama a better shot than Hillary.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani gets 43 percent to Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's 42 percent in the 2008 presidential race in Ohio, and leads other Democrats by wider margins, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

Giuliani tops New York Sen. Hillary Clinton 47 - 43 percent, and leads former Vice President Al Gore 48 - 40 percent, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds.

In other general election matchups:
Arizona Sen. John McCain gets 45 percent to Clinton's 44 percent;
Sen. Obama bests McCain 44 - 41 percent;
McCain edges Gore 45 - 42 percent.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1322.xml?ReleaseID=1064

[Deep13]

11. My opinion based on trends of the last 30 years.

The population is moving south and south-west. Those states haven't gone for a D since '96. Every D elected since 1964 was from a former Confederate state (including Al Gore). None has been a Senator or been from the NE.

[wyldwolf]

17. so that discounts damn near everyone but Richardson

[Deep13]

19. I think Edwards could do it.

I really don't know about Obama. He is not even done with his first term and is already running to the White House. After 8 years of incompetence people might want something more than a good orator.

[Dawgs]

22. "More than a good orator"

Maybe you should start paying attention to other candidates. It doesn't make you look very informed.

[Deep13]

24. It's like a job interview.

Start with the resume. If the candidate does not have a sufficient background of experience, he doesn't get an interview. Obama was elected in '04. Three years ago he was a state senator with no Federal experience. In 2000, my wife and I voted in the R. primary because Bush's resume said he was not qualified for the job. Consequently, we wanted anyone but him. Granted, Obama would not be deliberately evil like Bush and has a lot more native intelligence, but I would still prefer someone with more international credentials.

I have to make up my own mind. I really don't care how I look to others.

[William769]

7. And just who can flip red States?

Gore couldn't.

[Deep13]

13. A governor from the south or west.

Someone who does not fit the conventional mold of a liberal that the corporate media has put us into. Someone with a lot of experience (especially after 8 years of Dubya) and especially international experience. Someone whose social views don't rub Dem.-leaning church-goers the wrong way.

http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/

I also think Edwards could flip a few red states.

[William769]

14. The other side would nail Bill Richardson to the cross.

And thats a shame because he is a good guy.

[Deep13]

16. They will try to nail anyone.

They already have the wood and nails. The question is, where will smear campaign work? One thing I'll say for HRC is that she will not take any shit. Hopefully none of them will.

[William769]

18. Thats excately my point.

People that say we are screwed if Hillary is the Dem nominee, well you know what I mean.

[Deep13]

20. Well, the proof will be in the pudding.

We will just have to see.

[Tellurian]

35. yup, Bill Richardson would be a great VP pick..nm

[MGKrebs]

34. I wonder whether Edwrds will be able to sustain his campaign.

Will Elizabeth's health detract from an effectively run campaign?
Will voters just not want to worry about how it might distract him as President?

Many here have speculated that Clinton and Obama will damage each other, allowing Edwards to emerge. But what if Edwards falters? Does Richardson emerge? Or is it an open invitation to Gore and/or Clark to jump in?

So many things can happen.

[nodular]

44. I think you are carrying the logic

of one person knocking out another too far. The nominee will probably be Clinton or Obama. There is a reasonable chance one or both may run into trouble and get Edwards an opening, in which case he might win the nomination.

Going further down the list leads to very unlikely results. The structure of our primaries these days has changed radically. In the past, a candidate who was not known nationally and did not have much money, such as Jimmy Carter, could do well in some early primaries based on a lot of shoe leather, some charm, and may be a very clever campaign operative.

As the months of the primary campaign war on, Carter gradually accrued money, support, and national recognition. By the time of the convention he had enough delegates to win.

But now, states keep moving up their primary dates to prevent their votes from becoming "irrelevant." This keeps pushing the "decision point" backward in time. Most experts seem to think that these primaries will be settled by February 5. They will be starting in January. in effect, this means the "preprimary" campaign that we are now undergoing is, in reality the real campaign.

[Labors of Hercules]

12. I wonder.

She won her senate seat hands down, and although she's had a few notable failures as a Senator, has only improved her approval among her constituents. I keep thinking there's something about her I'm missing, and maybe I'm biased to believe her unpopular just because I haven't really connected with her as a candidate myself. I will say I like her as a candidate much more than I liked Kerry.

[Deep13]

15. Well, sure.

I'm not saying she is a bad senator (although she did vote for the war). Had I lived in NY, I sure would have voted for her. If she wins the primary, I will vote for her and this time I can be pretty sure the vote will be counted. Still, the only reason she won in 2000 is because Guilliani got cancer.

[William769]

5. You so funny.

:rofl:

[jefferson_dem]

3. Old news. Old data. Don't trust online polls.

These same "Harris Interactive" poll results have been promoted around here for the past week.

[wyldwolf]

8. but since anti-Clinton folks are masters at posting old articles and info...

... I didn't think you'd get too offended.

[liberalnurse]

9. I'm pleased.

I believe it will take the Clintons to regain the White House. I love all of our candidates but I want my country back. The right-wing media will have trouble dealing with 2-Clintons..........

[Tellurian]

30. K&R

[Birthmark]

21. A Hillary nomination will be a disaster for Dems

If Hillary is the nominee, I predict that she will lose...and that the House and Senate will both go Republican. Sorry, but that's just the way I see it.

[Dawgs]

23. Agree.

Too bad others don't see it... yet.

[Deep13]

25. I hope not, but it sure looks that way.

:(

[SaveElmer]

26. Actually it will be a disaster for "progressive" dems...

As the last thing they want to see is yet another successful centrist Democratic President...

[Deep13]

27. That's true.

And the general behind the 2006 victory, Howard Dean, will be out on his ass or at least made irrelevant.

[Birthmark]

28. Oh, I don't think they'll have to worry.

:)

[wyldwolf]

29. ...and one more goose egg in their "win" column.

[liberalnurse]

31. We can only win with a really big lawnmower.....

and the Clinton Machine is our best tool in the shed.

Put on your thinking caps......visualize just how much of an arsenal we will need..............then, you will realize it can only be the Clinton's who have such power.

[Ethelk2044]

32. Repugs Will eat

her alive and we will not get the vote. Because there is so much Anti Clinton feelings out there. Them hitting Kerry on Flip Flop is nothing compared to what they will do to Hillary.

[Tellurian]

33. Not a chance..

When the GOP was in full swing with a Republican controlled Congress, they kicked ASS..

You sure sound like you're a newbie to this game.. Its going to get messy, ethel.
So, you can email Obama, and tell him, theres always next time!

[Ethelk2044]

36. Watch and weep

[Tellurian]

40. Now see, ethel.. I would wish you to Jump for Joy when Hillary is elected..

so you would be one of them there "weepers"?

nah, you'd probably want to burn someone's house down, if Hillary won, right?

[w4rma]

37. Hillary is bad for the general election and would make a bad President. (nt)

[Tellurian]

41. Except the polls aren't reflective of your 'poor' judgment.. nm

[pookieblue]

38. who was ahead around this time

during the last election?

In any case, I really like what Richardson has to say.

I'm listening to him during the Google Interview. It's up on Youtube.

[venable]

47. joementum was ahead at this point last cycle

I'm pretty sure.

so there you have it.

[Tellurian]

39. Obama supporters steering clear of this poll?

[thoughtcrime1984]

42. sick of these silly polls

you'll be surprised when ole hill actually has competition in the primaries. Not everyone wants the inevitable one.

[SOS]

43. Obama supporters will be happy

if the Republicans nominate Fred Thompson (a very possible outcome as he is announcing in July).

"The first Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey involving Thompson shows the former Senator from Tennessee essentially tied with the Democratic frontrunner, Senator Hillary Clinton. It’s Thompson 44% Clinton 43%.
However, Thompson trails another leading Democrat, Illinois Senator Barack Obama by twelve percentage points, 49% to 37%. When matched against Thompson, Obama outperforms Clinton among men, women, white voters, and unaffiliated voters. He even attracts more crossover support from the GOP."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/thompson_tied_with_clinton_trails_obama

[Tellurian]

45. Nah, this is a different poll..Just checking..nm

[derby378]

46. Follow the money

Clinton is getting much of her money from corporations that want to patent the basic building blocks of life, rewrite product safety laws to the detriment of citizens, etc.

Obama is getting much of his money from grassroots and rank-and-file Democrats.

I'm sorry, but I'm convinced that Hillary needs to be stopped.