NationStates Jolt Archive

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton trails five top Republican presidential contenders in general election match-ups, a drop in support from this summer, according to a poll released on Monday.

Clinton's top Democratic rivals, Barack Obama and John Edwards, still lead Republicans in hypothetical match-ups ahead of the Nov. 4, 2008, presidential election, the survey by Zogby Interactive showed.

Clinton, a New York senator who has been at the top of the Democratic pack in national polls in the 2008 race, trails Republican candidates Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, John McCain and Mike Huckabee by three to five percentage points in the direct matches.

In July, Clinton narrowly led McCain, an Arizona senator, and held a five-point lead over former New York Mayor Giuliani, a six-point lead over former Tennessee Sen. Thompson and a 10-point lead over former Massachusetts Gov. Romney.

She was not matched against the fast-rising Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor, in the July poll.

The results come as other national polls show the race for the Democratic nomination tightening five weeks before the first contest in Iowa, which kicks off the state-by-state nomination battles in each party.

Some Democrats have expressed concerns about the former first lady's electability in a race against Republicans. The survey showed Clinton not performing as well as Obama and Edwards among independents and younger voters, pollster John Zogby said.

"The questions about her electability have always been there, but as we get close this suggests that is a problem," Zogby said.

Obama, an Illinois senator, and Edwards, a former North Carolina senator, both hold narrow leads over the Republican contenders in the hypothetical 2008 match-ups.

"It all points to a very competitive general election at a time when many people think the Democrats are going to win the White House," Zogby said.

The poll of 9,355 people had a margin of error of plus or minus one percentage point. The interactive poll surveys individuals who have registered to take part in online polls.

source (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/americas/20071127-United-States-democrats-hillary-clinton-new-poll-lose-presidential-republicans.html)


All I can is, if this is true, then good! Not that I want the Republicans win, but I would love to see Hillary defeated.

source (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/americas/20071127-United-States-democrats-hillary-clinton-new-poll-lose-presidential-republicans.html)


All I can is, if this is true, then good! Not that I want the Republicans win, but I would love to see Hillary defeated.

She's is a Republican in almost every way but name. Nobody wins in that scenario.

She's is a Republican in almost every way but name. Nobody wins in that scenario.

I don't care what she is, she's an evil warmongering bitch who wants to bring us into a war with Iran. The Iraq War is already bad enough by itself. The last thing we need is yet another one.

There's simply no way I can accept that Thompson would beat Clinton, to do so would be to accept that democracy is unhealthy for the US.

Noting IBs choice of words, I'm sure gender plays a role in the hatred of Hilary, perhaps just a few % points but enough to lose her the presidency if it comes to that, which I now doubt.

This entire election troubles me, I cannot see a leader that will help heal the divisions in the US.

I don't care what she is, she's an evil warmongering bitch who wants to bring us into a war with Iran. The Iraq War is already bad enough by itself. The last thing we need is yet another one.

As opposed to the evil warmongering bastards in the Republican Party who want to make war on Iran...

If war is your criteria, I fail to see why Clinton losing is any better than her winning.

As opposed to the evil warmongering bastards in the Republican Party who want to make war on Iran...

If war is your criteria, I fail to see why Clinton losing is any better than her winning.

Because she's one of the most rabidly pro-war politicians of either party. And as I noted, I do not support the Republicans.

source (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/americas/20071127-United-States-democrats-hillary-clinton-new-poll-lose-presidential-republicans.html)


All I can is, if this is true, then good! Not that I want the Republicans win, but I would love to see Hillary defeated.

I'm not going to say that I would love to see Hillary defeated, because I'd rather see her not get the nomination in the first place, but I'd certainly say that I'm not surprised that she'd not be the most practical choice for the Democrats. I've been thinking that for years.

Ideally, I would want Bill Richardson (a pragmatic moderate nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize several times, and a hell of a diplomat and nice guy to boot) to get the nod from the Democratic Party, but seeing as that's not possible, I'd prefer Obama. I have little respect for him as a politician, but at least he's open to negotiating with Chavez, Ahmadinejad, etc.

Whoever gets nominated, we're screwed. I just need to decide who to waste my vote on in my first presidential election I can vote in. Any crazy ideas?

Whoever gets nominated, we're screwed. I just need to decide who to waste my vote on in my first presidential election I can vote in. Any crazy ideas?

If you're going to waste your vote, why not write in Colbert?

If Hillary loses, we avert the rise of another warmongering, populist, incompetent and pandering scumbag rising to power backed by a rubber-stamp Congress that will do nothing but weaken our country further and harm the American people through senseless waste of their tax dollars for no conceivable benefit. In short, electing Hillary is equivalent to reelecting Bush. Both of them share the same mindset that made Bush so inept and damaging, and all Hillary will do is further that damage further.

A Republican president and Democratic congress produces gridlock, which means the government is a lot less likely to pass any more crap that will hurt us or drag us in to yet another wasteful and pointless war. Honestly, if the Democratic Congress' policies to date are any sign, you're sure as hell not going to see any kind of real, beneficial legislation produced by them, especially if they know Hillary will just rubber stamp it through no questions asked.

Whoever gets nominated, we're screwed.

Exactly. Leave now while you can. I plan to get out ASAP.

Help us, Obama Wan, you’re our only hope!

I want Hilary to win since last night. I was at a comedy gig and the opening act was a guy from DC. He was saying that it'd be great for Hilary to win. Not because she'd be a good President, but because Bill would make a fucking awesome First Lady. Imagine it, he'd be rich and famous, and he'd get to live in the White House but he'd have loads more free time for chasing tail.

That's pretty horrible news... we can't have another Republican president. Especially not when every one of their candidates make the worst of the Democrats look saintly.

I don't care what she is, she's an evil warmongering bitch who wants to bring us into a war with Iran.

Find me a single mainstream candidate from either party who hasn't been annoyingly hawkish on Iran.

Obama and Edwards, maybe a little less than Clinton, though I'd suggest that the difference has much less to do with actual policy preferences and much more to do with different campaigning objectives.

As for the others? The Republicans? I don't think any of them (except Ron Paul, who hasn't a chance of winning the nomination) are particularly less hawkish than Clinton. If anything, the opposite is the case.

If Hillary loses, we avert the rise of another warmongering, populist, incompetent and pandering scumbag

What does all of that actually mean?

What has she done? What are you afraid she will do?

I don't care what she is, she's an evil warmongering bitch who wants to bring us into a war with Iran. The Iraq War is already bad enough by itself. The last thing we need is yet another one.

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/s/8/hillary_napollary.jpg

http://i.esmas.com/image/0/000/002/685/joker2_P.jpg

We should all vote Third Party. *nods*

source (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/americas/20071127-United-States-democrats-hillary-clinton-new-poll-lose-presidential-republicans.html)


All I can is, if this is true, then good! Not that I want the Republicans win, but I would love to see Hillary defeated.
Only a year to go? There isn't a poll in the world that I'd believe with this much lead time before the elections.

That's pretty horrible news... we can't have another Republican president. Especially not when every one of their candidates make the worst of the Democrats look saintly.

Republicans/Democrats they are all blurred together. I don't think we have two parties anymore. It just seems like one big cluster fuck. Damn, where is Ross Perot and his charts and graphs telling us what needs to be done!

I don't care what she is, she's an evil warmongering bitch who wants to bring us into a war with Iran. The Iraq War is already bad enough by itself. The last thing we need is yet another one.
As opposed to all the Republicans who are pretty much running on the platform of "bomb Iran."

of course, the zogby poll was of a somewhat self-selected group of people who have signed up to take internet polls. the gallup poll released the same day has clinton beating everyone.

The polls don't mean anything. I mean come on bush managed to win a second term and his ratings weren't exactly spectacular at the time.

Aside from that I look at the candidates and just cry. I don't see any I actually like, and I doubt much is going to change no matter who is elected.

What really baffles me is: Why would anyone even want to run for president in this election? I mean following behind bush just means there will be a lot of crap to clean up.

The polls don't mean anything. I mean come on bush managed to win a second term and his ratings weren't exactly spectacular at the time.

Aside from that I look at the candidates and just cry. I don't see any I actually like, and I doubt much is going to change no matter who is elected.

What really baffles me is: Why would anyone even want to run for president in this election? I mean following behind bush just means there will be a lot of crap to clean up.

It's also an opportunity for people who might not otherwise have a decent chance of being elected. Now that the American people are generally sick of the way things have been handled for a while, they're somewhat more inclined to vote for a big change rather than just the same old shit. That's the theory, anyway. I suspect we'll still end up with the same old shit regardless.

Eh. Zogby's numbers are traditionally a bit iffy. Polls I've seen have Giuliani up 4-6 points on Hillary and Thompson about even. Which is nice, of course, but less so than Zogby would have us think. Either way, the GOP is in the Whitehouse in '09, most likely. :) (Not on the basis of polls a year out of course - more of a gut feeling after looking at the new electoral map and the debates)

source (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/americas/20071127-United-States-democrats-hillary-clinton-new-poll-lose-presidential-republicans.html)


All I can is, if this is true, then good! Not that I want the Republicans win, but I would love to see Hillary defeated.

I agree and would like her to lose as well. I do however want to point out something to readers of this thread. This is a single poll showing this outcome and others have been contrary to it. I'd say Hillary would have to worry if the next 3-5 polls put out are the same. Further, these are national numbers and while important, as we have learned it all comes down to the electoral vote. Otherwise we'd have President Gore (How lovely that sounds now in retrospect).

America was lost beyond the point of no return long ago.

America was lost beyond the point of no return long ago.

About 230 years ago, if by that you mean refusal to conform to European expectations. ;) The whole "hey, we do that differently here!" line is a bit stale though, I think.

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

So I hope this isn't a lie.

Whoever gets nominated, we're screwed. I just need to decide who to waste my vote on in my first presidential election I can vote in. Any crazy ideas?

Vote Yog-Sothoth, he knows what he's doing.

It horrifies me when people call Hilary Clinton a leftist. Take a look at her voting record, for Christ's sake!

She voted for the Iraq war.
Voted for the Lieberman-Kyl amendment (congressional approval for possible military intervention in Iran).
Voted for the Patriot Act.
Voted for the Patriot Act to be renewed five years later.
Itroduced the Flag Protection Act of 2005, which makes flag burning punishable by a $100,000 fine and a year in jail.
She also thinks violent and/or sexual video games are a "major threat" to morality.

Yikes, now I'm all worked up.:rolleyes:

About 230 years ago, if by that you mean refusal to conform to European expectations. ;) The whole "hey, we do that differently here!" line is a bit stale though, I think.

You may be correct regarding the Presidency but I would prepare for further losses in both the house and senate. Losses to the extent they may render the Republican president a paper tiger due to a veto destroying majority. That is unless we can find some way to compromise on our issues. I'm going to go hold my breathe now