Clinton trailing all Republican front-runners in hypothetical matchup

[Firebird]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071126/pl_nm/usa_politics_poll_dc

Interesting. Very interesting. Never underestimate the power of personality in elections. It could very well be that Hillary simple turns off too many voters personally. There's a lot of strong personal dislike for her out there.

What's fascinating is that Obama and Edwards lead the possible Republican candidates. Those two have a much more liberal voting record and are far more likely to pursue genuine liberal/populist policies. So it's strange they would be farther ahead with swing voters, who usually trend towards the center.

In any case, it's still a long race. I'll be voting with the majority of my Texas red-state compatriots in the general election next November, but I'll be honest-- I would much rather see a 2nd Clinton White House than I would Obama or Edwards. Both of those guys are a lot less personally grating, but also a lot more likely to really take a hard left once they get in office, IMHO.

[stevefoxsc]

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/0/03/Sillywoman.jpg

[GoOwls]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071126/pl_nm/usa_politics_poll_dc

Interesting. Very interesting. Never underestimate the power of personality in elections. It could very well be that Hillary simple turns off too many voters personally. There's a lot of strong personal dislike for her out there.

What's fascinating is that Obama and Edwards lead the possible Republican candidates. Those two have a much more liberal voting record and are far more likely to pursue genuine liberal/populist policies. So it's strange they would be farther ahead with swing voters, who usually trend towards the center.

In any case, it's still a long race. I'll be voting with the majority of my Texas red-state compatriots in the general election next November, but I'll be honest-- I would much rather see a 2nd Clinton White House than I would Obama or Edwards. Both of those guys are a lot less personally grating, but also a lot more likely to really take a hard left once they get in office, IMHO.

Agreed on the 2nd Clinton White House over Obama or Pretty Boy. However, if one of those two do get the nomination, I think they will be harder to elect because our voters tend to get hot feet when push comes to shove on a true liberal in the White House. I still think Hillary is the most electable...push come to shove.

[GoOwls]

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/0/03/Sillywoman.jpg

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Freakin classic, Steve, freakin classic.

[jtk1519]

Hilary does turn off a lot of voters, but wait until after te primaries when the liberals start to rally around her. I'm not convinced though that she will win the nomination. I caught a little bit of Robert Novak on Hannity's radio show the other day and he offered a lot of evidence suggesting Obama is starting to rise in the party. Remember that Howard Dean was a front-runner in 2003 leading up to the primaries and John Kerry wasn't even in the picture. Then, all of a sudden, Kerry builds up some momentum in the primaries and surges past Dean. Obama is already in a better position relative to Clinton than Kerry was to Dean 4 years ago. It will be interesting to see if history repeats itself.

[Firebird]

Hilary does turn off a lot of voters, but wait until after te primaries when the liberals start to rally around her. I'm not convinced though that she will win the nomination. I caught a little bit of Robert Novak on Hannity's radio show the other day and he offered a lot of evidence suggesting Obama is starting to rise in the party. Remember that Howard Dean was a front-runner in 2003 leading up to the primaries and John Kerry wasn't even in the picture. Then, all of a sudden, Kerry builds up some momentum in the primaries and surges past Dean. Obama is already in a better position relative to Clinton than Kerry was to Dean 4 years ago. It will be interesting to see if history repeats itself.

The thing is, the hypothetical matchups should have allowed for the Democratic/liberal rally effect. The question posed was, if Hilary did win the primary and faced off against the Republicans, who would you vote for?

Liberal poll respondents should have said Hilary in response to that question.

I also think Obama is a rising star in the party. We'll see if he can catch up. The Clinton machine has been rather passive in its approach, content to rest on a lead. We'll see some of their first rate campaigning now that Obama is closing the gap. That's something that team knows how to do well.

[jtk1519]

Hilary has her husband's campaign crew back together and working for her... even the Ragin Cajun and Paul Begala are back. I think Dick Morris is the only piece they are missing, but I expect that when the time comes, that machine will roar to life.

[78 Spartan]

Some people think electing a president should be ALL about ideology, well I disagree.

There are five different fundamental qualifications for me:

1. honesty, integrity, and transparency.
2. consistency and predictability, doesn't blow with the wind.
3. compatible ideology / governing philosophy.
4. competence, experience, judgment, makes good decisions.
5. capable of leading a bi-partisan effort when circumstances dictate.

If I were to judge GWB right now, he'd get high marks on #1, #2 and #3 but would fail on #4 and #5. His stubbornness and inability to work across the aisle due to ideological rigidity (that did not exist when he was in Austin) have cost him a place in history. He can only go down in history favorably if the next 100 years are dominated by wars with Muslims -- in which case he is the Churchill he wants everybody to think he is. Bottom line with GWB though: if you are going to fight a discretionary war, winning it -- and quickly -- is the only option.

Hillary's problem is that the public isn't there with her on #1 and #2. Whether you are with her on #3 or not (and I'm not), it's hard for thinkers to get past the first two qualifications with her. That's what this polling is saying. I'm willing to give Hillary credit for high marks on #4, not sure she would do well on #5. I doubt if I could ever vote for her, but under certain circumstances I think she'd be pretty competent. She's been more responsible on Iraq than any other Democrat, that's for sure.

Obama rates high with me on #1 and #5. To me the jury is out on #2, and he fails #3 and #4 with me. Given that we need a new tone in Washington, that's where Obama is going to make his stand. Even though he's more liberal than Hillary, he doesn't project hate for Republicans like she does. I think he could do a pretty good job unifying the country in certain ways that Republicans or Hillary could never do. I'm not voting for him, unless the Republicans put up some ridiculously right wing social conservative.

Edwards fails on #1, #2 and #3 for me, not sure about #4 or #5 but skeptical. I could never vote for a slippery plaintiff's attorney who became a millionaire by suing physicians. If you dig beneath the surface here, it really turns your stomach.

Giuliani's candidacy is all about convincing Republicans that #4 is more important than #3. If he can do that and get nominated, he'll win the election because to the general populace, he passes on all five scores.

[Firebird]

Some people think electing a president should be ALL about ideology, well I disagree.

There are five different fundamental qualifications for me:

1. honesty, integrity, and transparency.
2. consistency and predictability, doesn't blow with the wind.
3. compatible ideology / governing philosophy.
4. competence, experience, judgment, makes good decisions.
5. capable of leading a bi-partisan effort when circumstances dictate.

If I were to judge GWB right now, he'd get high marks on #1, #2 and #3 but would fail on #4 and #5. His stubbornness and inability to work across the aisle due to ideological rigidity (that did not exist when he was in Austin) have cost him a place in history. He can only go down in history favorably if the next 100 years are dominated by wars with Muslims -- in which case he is the Churchill he wants everybody to think he is. Bottom line with GWB though: if you are going to fight a discretionary war, winning it -- and quickly -- is the only option.

Hillary's problem is that the public isn't there with her on #1 and #2. Whether you are with her on #3 or not (and I'm not), it's hard for thinkers to get past the first two qualifications with her. That's what this polling is saying. I'm willing to give Hillary credit for high marks on #4, not sure she would do well on #5. I doubt if I could ever vote for her, but under certain circumstances I think she'd be pretty competent. She's been more responsible on Iraq than any other Democrat, that's for sure.

Obama rates high with me on #1 and #5. To me the jury is out on #2, and he fails #3 and #4 with me. Given that we need a new tone in Washington, that's where Obama is going to make his stand. Even though he's more liberal than Hillary, he doesn't project hate for Republicans like she does. I think he could do a pretty good job unifying the country in certain ways that Republicans or Hillary could never do. I'm not voting for him, unless the Republicans put up some ridiculously right wing social conservative.

Edwards fails on #1, #2 and #3 for me, not sure about #4 or #5 but skeptical. I could never vote for a slippery plaintiff's attorney who became a millionaire by suing physicians. If you dig beneath the surface here, it really turns your stomach.

Giuliani's candidacy is all about convincing Republicans that #4 is more important than #3. If he can do that and get nominated, he'll win the election because to the general populace, he passes on all five scores.

I agree that ideology isn't the only thing, but I think it should be near the top. It's great to be honest, capable, predictable, or bi-partisan, but if I don't want to go where they are leading that all kind of becomes irrelevant. Given the choice, I would certainly prefer an honest hard-left candidate to a dishonest hard-left candidate, but neither one of them is at all likely to get my vote.

[78 Spartan]

I agree that ideology isn't the only thing, but I think it should be near the top. It's great to be honest, capable, predictable, or bi-partisan, but if I don't want to go where they are leading that all kind of becomes irrelevant. Given the choice, I would certainly prefer an honest hard-left candidate to a dishonest hard-left candidate, but neither one of them is at all likely to get my vote.

The Republicans are facing the interesting question of whether to nominate a social liberal (Giuliani) because he is almost universally regarded as competent, bi-partisan and electable. If they don't nominate him for ideological reasons, they are likely to see the White House go to Hillary and the Congress to go even further towards the Democrats.

I think some Republicans need to back off their ideological rigidity as it's going to make them the minority party again.

Not that he's any threat to win, but the insurgent campaign of Ron Paul should be studied by Republicans. Here's a guy with libertarian principles, who pulls support across the board.

[drgnbkr]

Over 50% of the country has consistently and loudly said they would never vote for Hilary...The media is desperate to have us believe otherwise, but that is what every poll shows.

[slorch]

Over 50% of the country has consistently and loudly said they would never vote for Hilary...The media is desperate to have us believe otherwise, but that is what every poll shows.

you don't need 50% of the vote to win an election.

signed,
Bill

[drgnbkr]

you don't need 50% of the vote to win an election.

signed,
Bill

Yeah, without Perot, we would never have had to deal with the Clinton's in the first place. I don't see any 3rd party candidates taking 18% from the Republicans this time.