Rasmussen on Hillary's chances in the general election...

[JohnLocke]

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...

Scary stuff. See Nader...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/2008_democratic_presidential_primary

[jgraz]

1. That's one thing I'm sure of

If Hillary gets the nom, there will be a challenge from the left.

[countmyvote4real]

5. Some of us won't hold our nose and vote for a corporatist.

Enough with the dynasties already. We need real change. Yes, a woman would be change, just as a black man would be change.

Progressive policies would represent even more change. So far, I don't get that from either of these candidates.

Sorry. The top tier are spoilers.

[jgraz]

9. It's simple strategy. The people are tired of Rethug-lite

If we want a Democrat in the White House, we damn well better nominate a real progressive (or as close as we can get with the current field). If we nominate another conservative corporatist, we will see a third-party challenge that makes Nader look like Pat Paulson.

[liberaldemocrat7]

13. Rasmussen works for Republicans. I don't trust their polling.

.

I will only vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination, which I hope she doesn't.

[MonkeyFunk]

2. funny how

polls that show clinton leading are dismissed as unimportant, rigged or otherwise just plain useless. But polls that show her having difficulty in the GE are taken as gospel truth and of great predictive value by those same people.

[emilyg]

3. You noticed that, too.

[saracat]

4. Funny how almost all the polls that support Hillary having problems

in the General are dismissed by her followers! 52% of the registered voters have said they will NOT vote for Hillary and some have NO problem with those numbers.It just boggles my mind! What good does it do anyone if she wins the primary but can't win the general?

[MonkeyFunk]

6. there are plenty of polls

showing her beating or tied with the republican candidates.

Clinton has a history of overcoming opposition and winning over voters.

[saracat]

7. Not nationally she hasn't.

[MonkeyFunk]

8. none of the candidates running

can claim that.

[saracat]

10. Edwards at least ran and did well in the primaries! And new info makes it likely Kerry /Edwards won

[earthlover]

15. Tied doesn't cut it!

Current polls of Hillary vs the Republicans are BEFORE the massive onslought of negative campaigning and media slant against Hillary that we all know is coming. Kerry started out with a big lead. It evaporated. Sorry, but being tied or having a small lead vs the Reps is very scary. The media have laid off Hillary and will continue to do so until such time as she has the nomination sewed up. Then the barrage will begin. And it won't be pretty. I would feel a lot more comfortable if Hillary had significant leads now, instead of tied or small leads. MAybe she can build them. I hope she can.

[bvar22]

20. NONE of those polls consider the inevitability of a 3RD Party.

If a conservative corporatist (Hillary) is the Democratic Party nominee, there WILL BE a 3rd Party challenge from the Left. Hillary has HIGH negatives INSIDE the Democratic Party. A Populist 3rd Party challenge WILL peel off a good percentage of Democratic votes.

The Liberal 3rd Parties ralleyed behind Kerry in 2004. Most of them feel betrayed by Kerry (not fighting in Ohio), and the performance of the Democratic Party since 2006. Most of them are furious. Those who supported the Dems from outside in 2004 and 2006 will NOT line up behind a Hillary nomination. The really bad news is that Hillary WILL COST the Democratic Party down ticket.

ALL those polls are counting votes Hillary will NOT get.
That's a fact, Jack.

[earthlover]

14. What good for anyone? I'm afraid a lot of good for the Republicans!

The only reason hillary will have a chance in November is because of how Bush has imploded. However, Bush is not running, and we can bet our bottom dollar that whomever is the Rep nominee will distance himself from Bush as much as possible. We can also count on a very negative campaign, bringing out all the old memes about Hillary and probably some new ones. It'll be Mud-Slinger's Greatest Hits.

Meanwhile, many of the Dem base are unenthusiastic about Hillary. Many will vote for her, but not work for her. Some may sit out the election or vote a third party. This might not be significant except that it will probably be another close election, and in the battleground states (like Florida in 00) they might be even deciding factors, leading to a Republican victory.

Typing the last two words was difficult: Republican Victory.

I think some of us are just thinking about Hillary in the abstract. She has a lead in the primary campaign, and not so much in the general. But the reality of the thing hasn't sunk in. It would not just be Hillary losing, it would be a Republican Victory.

After 8 years of Bush, this is a catastrophe that I find unthinkable. This is what is at stake if we nominate Hillary.

[Fluffdaddy]

18. It does us no good at all, I'm really getting nervous about 2008

[The Backlash Cometh]

16. Well, you turned out to be pretty handy with a search engine.

Why don't you find out if it's true that Rasmussen is right-wing owned. Because I think that kind of information should be common knowledge for all polling organizations, considering that none of us trust any organization which is right-wing owned.

[calteacherguy]

11. Hillary Clinton is not a landslide candidate. I am so sick of nail-biter, stolen elections!

Now, as an Edwards supporter I know you are going to suggest I support Edwards, but frankly I don't see him or Obama as being strong enough candidates to withstand a Republican onslaught. I'm not saying there isn't a possiblity they could win, but it will be tough. They have both through various statements and actions during the campaign (and we still have a long way to go) left themselves open to attack. They've got it all on tape, believe me. For Hillary, this doesn't seem to be a problem...she hasn't made a "mistep" yet, as far as I can tell. Her difficulty is, as we all know, almost half the country will absolutely refuse to vote for her under any circumstance.

I hate to break the news, but it is NOT going to be easy for ANY of the Democratic candidates running to win in 08'.

If I had to vote today, I'd cast it for Obama...it's possible that could change, unlike some here, I don't consider any of them "my candidate." I'm not confident of any of our current choices.

[Fluffdaddy]

17. Our Best bet is Gore. But I really think he means it, that he's not running

[last_texas_dem]

12. Interesting article

It notes what would be the main factor I would be concerned about with a Clinton candidacy. While I wouldn't argue that Clinton isn't a skilled politician who is very popular among Democrats, I do not believe that she has a strong enough appeal outside of the party to overcome the fervent anti-Clinton sentiment among the right-wing Republicans and many independent voters.

[Hersheygirl]

19. This whole article is bull****.

My gosh the election is well over a year away. Evidently Rasmussen can predict the future. Hell, no one at this time knows what the picture will be like in November 2008. There are way to many variables to come into the scenario that NO ONE is going to able to tell the outcome right now, much less a right wing polling outfit.

[JohnLocke]

21. Kick