Holy crapsky. I guess they still have mad love for the Clinton's in Arkansas. Which, they really should. Especially in Little Rock - I visited recently and the Clinton library has done wonders for re-vitalizing that town.

Anyhow, I guess her time living in the state really made an impact.

I wonder how she does up against Huckabee.

Assuming the CA ballot initiative is defeated.

Oh, and, if we can't win Ohio this time around we have much bigger problems.

Freddy was involved in the defense of Nixon and the vilification of Bill. Additionally, just state away . . . He is known for doing jack-shit while being Senator . . . That's not completely true . . . He did bang a bunch of d-list actresses and pole-dancers while his wife was breaking in her training bra.

It's LA county that will make or break the initiative. The Bay Area will most likely vote down the initiative overwhelmingly, but LA needs to be against it as well. Of course I think it will go down in most counties.

I wonder how she stacks up against Huckabee. That's an interesting dynamic right there.

Polls that show Clinton doing well are absurd and can't be trust. Additionally, polls that show her weakening are absolutely correct...

There was a poll early this year that showed Clinton and Wesley Clark easily beating Huckabee. That was before Huckabee did well at the Ames and before he made an extremely hard turn to the right.

Polls that show Clinton doing well are absurd and can't be trust. Additionally, polls that show her weakening are absolutely correct...

Why should we take your word on this? Do you have any empirical proof that every poll showing Clinton doing well are "absurd"? This sounds like sour-grape hyperbole to me. Unless you're being sarcastic...

~~~~~~~~~~~
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity
Where everybody knows your name...
unless you use a pseudonym

I'm pretty sure he's being sarcastic.

If you are correct, forgive me for being so sensitive.

However, if gqmartinez is a Clinton Hater, this is Truth to them.

I'm a fifth generation Texan and I have a good old boy Southern Baptist Sunday School teaching uncle who prayed that Hillary Clinton would get assassinated over Thanksgiving Dinner in 1992. (I'm serious.)

However, there's hope.
His wife (my aunt) is voting for the First Woman President Ever, without him knowing about it.
She was born the year women got the right to vote and she's thrilled to be making history... if (in her words) she lives another year and a half.

Free speaking can be Smart speaking, yes? no?

I guess my sarcasm wasn't as obvious as I thought :o).

FYI...I was emloying observational humor in my previous post about Hillary and polls.

I believe that Clinton is probably the strongest candidate amongst the top three and is definitely electable in a general. I also believe the other top candidates are also electable. None of the top three make my top two choices at this point.

Interestingly, the Hart (D) poll shows Edwards ahead of HRC in Iowa. That is good for him because he's practically lived there for the last 6 years. Such dogged determination must be rewarded [I am not being sarcastic about that at all.] In fact, to make things fun and interesting, I would love to see things unfold according to the following scenario:

Edwards takes IA, HRC takes NH, and Obama takes SC. And then, on Super Tuesday, HRC wraps up the nomination, as she would have all along, but my scenario makes it more fun, and, at least, that way everyone gets a 'consolation prize' for trying hard...

I was wondering how Clinton might do in Arkansas. I'm glad someone finally did a poll. Of course Rasmussen is a Republican robo-pollster and he does seem to think Bush's approval rating is still in the high 30's, but most of his state-by-state polling in the senate races last year seemed pretty credible.

Can you tell the difference between a "muzzle" and common sense?

Concerning oneself with "electiblity" at any stage of a campaign is reading tea leaves.

How does opining about tea leaves help your Party?

Is it so bad that I would like to "muzzle" tea leaf readers from publicly opining about tea leaves, when there's not a single damn statistic to back up their frigging tea leaf reading?

Does anyone posting here know for a FACT that Hillary Clinton is unelectable? No. So, why even opine about it publicly?

Democrats have no sense of "family." You trash each other publicly, and then pat yourselves on the back for being so honest with one another.

How has that been workin' out for ya election-wise?

Another false dichotomy, Poetry? Look, if you don't know how to grasp the ingredients of issues without invariably placing them into two boxes of your own making, I cannot help you.

Obama leads in Illinois, which is not very surprising, given that he currently represents Illinois in the Senate.

I don't see how Hillary does better than the other Dem candidates in the general election. More Republicans (and some indies) will show up to vote against her. They will be energized in a way they will not be if we select any other Dem nominee.

Then it's another polarizing, win the one key swing state in order to win, election. Who wants that?

Actually, Rasmussen breaks out approval ratings by approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, disapprove and provides a good explanation on their website as to why this results in different numbers than other presidential approval rating polls.

Given this, I've been trying to get Election Central to break out the Rasmussen four-way approval #s in their Poll Tracker for months now to no avail.

If you ask me, I think it's because Clinton has slowly but shrewdly made herself more palapatable.

Remember, how others perceieve you is just as important how you are truly are in politics. People perceive her as highly partisan, but I have never believed she is more partisan.

Rhetoric-wise, Obama has centrist tone and Edwards has a populist tone, while Clinton has a partisan tone. However, if you look at their records, Obama is the most liberal, then Clinton, then Edwards.

People perceive Obama as more centrist, but he has a more liberal record. Now, I have no problem with Obama-I like him-but he is what he is.

However, things can't get worse for Clinton. Her negatives are so high and unlikely to change. This is more due to her personality than her record. I think many of you can agree she is less liberal than Obama.

Nor I you.

My point is, electibility is a guess. A plain old ordinary GUESS. Why make a judgement about ANY candidate based on a GUESS?

I can offer mathematics that will indicate that that the OPINION that Clinton is "unelectable" is complete horsepucky.

It's not that I mind the opinion; it's that the opinion is absolutely meaningless and, as I said, very unhelpful to team spirit.

It's a meme that Karl Rove is thrilled for Democrats to repeat to fellow Democrats over and over and over.
And yet, Clinton is the Democratic candidate who actually has "The Math" right now that indicates that she is indeed electable.

So, again, why do Democrats have a need to tell the world that their GUESS is that some Democratic candidate is "unelectable"?

Sorry, I just don't get that.
I can't imagine Tom Brady coming on TV today and opining that Randy Moss won't be able to catch a ball this coming Sunday.

Again, that's your opinion. Fine.

But Clinton is beating EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE in head-to-head polls right now.
And she's getting stronger against them as time goes by, NOT weaker.
So, what FACTS are you basing your "polarizing" opinion on?

Not only that, I'm a registered Independent in New Hampshire.
Yet you write *ME* to let *ME* know that "some Indies" will be "energized" to show up just to vote against Clinton.
Who told you that?
Where are you getting your facts?

Sorry, those of us who are not Democrats will probably never understand why you do this to each other's candidates.
Oh, well. Whatever you think is smart politics.
Enjoy bashing each other's brains out while the rest of us watch in amazement.

The campaigns with their political strategy can stay "on message". Voters are not under the same constraints. Deal with it.

Hard for me to imagine that a compelling reason to support Hillary is because (1) everything bad is known (none of us know that for sure and (2) she slings mud better than anybody else.

Let me sharpen it up. What you're offering up is FEAR.

FEAR that a Dem candidate (insert name here) has buried scandals that we don't know about. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

BUT, everything is known about Hillary so you don't have to FEAR.

FEAR that a Dem candidate (insert name here) won't fight back effectively against the GOP mud slinging.

BUT, Hillary relishes the fight and will hit back harder.

All you are pushing is FEAR and I think that's not a very compelling reason to support Hillary. See how it works now?

I highly recommend that you notice the trend.
Her negatives are currently trending down, not up.
(And if the trends of a poll aren't meaningful to you, you probably shouldn't quote polls to me.)

In addition, can you tell me what you see in this poll that promises you that Hillary Clinton is "unelectable" next November?

I see that Democrats currently "favor" CLINTON more.
I know that more people currently identify themselves as DEMOCRATS than Republicans.
You do the math.

Or, keep telling the world that the Democratic candidate who is currently ahead by any measure is unelectable!
(I almost don't care if Democrats lose the election anymore. I'm getting exhausted just defending a Democratic candidate against her own Party.)

No. She isn't beating every Republican candidate in head to heads, in fact she does the worst out of the top three. Are you familiar with the concept of margin of error? She's in a statistical tie with Guiliani and McCain, of all people, and damn close to one with Fred Thompson.

Edwards beats everyone, except Guiliani, who he's in a statistical tie with. Obama beats everyone, but is closest with Guiliani.

Link

It's sad but you really don't get it.

A Democrat could be as pure as the driven snow and it would NOT MATTER to the Republicans and rightwingers.

They will just MAKE UP stuff as they have done before.

For instance, the Bush people (in 2000, in So. Carolina) whispered around that John McCain had a black daughter and that his wife was a drug addict.

Well, John McCain does have a black daughter, a little girl from Bangladesh that McCain and his wife had adopted. His wife takes prescription drugs and is NOT a drug addict. The Bushites also passed the word that McCain, while brave, was now insane from the torture inflicted on him while a prisoner of the No. Vietnamese. So, after winning the New Hampshire primary (and scaring the Bush gang), John McCain lost the So. Carolina primary, because too many voters believed the Bush camp's lies.

Something true does not have to be dug up; the rightwingers just manufacture stuff, and it is pretty hard to get the media people to clean up the messes they make after they have spent weeks regurgitating the rightwing lies.

My point was that most of the lies the rightwingers could dream up about Hillary have, now, long since been revealed for the lies they are. It would be difficult to sell that baloney again.

slcathena: "For what it's worth, we've gotten ourselves in trouble by accepting the conventional candidate who would be more "acceptable" to voters, rather than being strong and ideological, if I'm looking at recent history correctly."

For what it's worth, imo -- no, you are not looking at recent history correctly.

The problem with Democrats is that Democrats have absolutely know idea how to work as a team.

Example: Democrats appear to take some kind of offense that Clinton calls herself a Progressive instead of a Liberal. One of the greatest female Democrats of all time was Eleanor Roosevelt, who is a hero to both me and Semator Clinton.
Guess what Eleanor Rosoevelt called herself?
Y'all don't even know your own history.

You don't even know how the Senate works.
You want out of Iraq *NOW* and you clammer for impeachment... and yet you only have 49 Democratic Senators!!!

The polls on the brand new "Democratic" Congress are already in the tank -- because of DEMOCRATS!
That gets you just splendid headlines over and over and over, that Bush is really unpopular but Democrats are even MORE unpopular. Sweet, huh?

Conclusion for the rest of us watching:
You hate yourselves. Why should WE like you?

I'll give you another great example of how Democrats are just willing to roll over and be defined by their enemies:

I "hear" over and over that "Hillarycare" is what caused the Democrats to lose Congress in 1994.
What I remember as an Independent voter is that Democrats were caught up in a corrupt check-kiting scheme during the summer of 1994 and THAT'S what lost them the 1994 election.
Which is Truth?

That's just a small sample of what I see as the difference between Democrats having no confidence in their issues, Republicans knowing you have no confidence in your issues, and me, who likes facts more than opinions.

So, go ahead and publicly opine all you want about just how "unelectable" you KNOW Senator Clinton to be.

I have no idea what you think it actually acomplishes to do that, but I wouldn't want to prevent you for freely speaking any damn thing publicly about your fellow Democratic Presidential candidates that pleases you.
Enjoy!

Correct. ABC/Washington Polls do the same thing and tend to run about 3-4 points above the mean of other national polls for Bush approval. The most recent ABC/WP poll in mid-July came in at 33% approval when other national polls were averaging out at about 30%. So that's about what you'd expect (according to Rasmussen) given that difference methodology. Rasmussen's average Bush Approval for the month of July was 38%. That's a little kooky.

But like I said, his state-by-state polling in last year's Senate races tended to be pretty credible. As I recall, his numbers in that case were generally in line with other reputable polls and borne out by election results.

1. Americans have been identifying themselves as R, D, or I for some time.  Gallup has been tracking it--and none of it has been a good indicator of election results.
2. Gallup has been tracking favorable/unfavorable ratings for Hillary since she became First Lady and hence a national figure.  Only slight bumps up (sympathy with the Lewinsky scandal) and down (when she became a Senator) have been noted.  Her results are stable.
3. It's very difficult to find the fav/unfav among R, D and I.  August 10th at Gallup is the latest.  My concern with Hillary's poor showing with I's is the importance with elections.  In 2000, Bush was slightly ahead of Gore among the I's--close election with results still being disputed.  In 2004, Bush and Kerry were tied with the I's--close election.  In Reagan's first election against incumbent Carter, Reagan was a whopping 30 points ahead with the Is.  The independent voters matter a lot and Hillary is in NEGATIVE territory here. 
4. Ever wonder the reason that Americans have turned against the war and yet don't hold Hillary's vote against her?  Americans decided to support the war in 2003 and folks just don't revisit their past decisions.  I submit that asking folks who have already made up their minds about Hillary--as shown in 15 years of polling--are just not apt to change it now.  No poll results to support this one but viewers can decide.

In terms of the "Hillary is ahead now so everyone else can give up nonsense", in the June before his primary, Bill was at 5%.  The reason was that his name was simply not known at the national level.  Hillary's name is known and that's the reason for Hillary's current high numbers.

I find no compelling reason to support Hillary at this stage of the primary race.  Heck, folks haven't even started paying attention yet outside of Iowa and maybe New Hampshire.  I'd like to get this selection "right" since the Dems haven't done well in making a good selection in decades.  NOTE:  Good selection means a Dem candidate who can actually WIN.

By the time the rightwing spin-and-destroy machine gets done with Obama, people won't trust him either.

You are right, of course, but that does not matter at all at this point. These folks are convinced that the good Senator from Illinois can walk on water (just because he says so...) and nothing you say would change that. Fortunately, people outside the blogosphere appear to have seen through all the smoke screen...

In primaries, 59% say their main reason is electability. That leaves us to define that term for Hillary, John, and Barack.

I respectfully disagree that the voters in the south who reliably go to the polls to vote for the GOP are gonna go anywhere near a (D) so that's an even point for all three of the Dem front-runners.

Also you are conjecturing that the majority in this country vote on race. Some might there in former Dixiecrat land--their votes wouldn't be for Dems anyway....those votes are going to the Reps who have been courting this nonsense since LBJ's civil rights laws and Nixon's "southern strategy".

It's up to individual voters to decide if the majority of American voters in this country are still in Dixiecrat land--or if we have moved past these antiquated voting models. I suggest to you that we have moved and race is a consideration of minor importance--just as sex is of minor importance.

The point I read hwc making is that the Hillary Haters are playing an almost purely negative role, and doing it very consistently. There are posts that offer thoughtful, fact-based comparisons, but there's a lot of just pure "she sucks, I hate her, and if she gets the nomination we're doomed" stuff.

And it IS everybody's right to post virtually anything they want. No argument. But here's mine agreeing with hwc that if all you have to say is how she's a born loser, you are doing the Republicans a favor, while providing no information that helps me make a better choice.

I'm also really curious come January, if she's got the nomination sewn up, what the pure HH's do then...start pushing for Nader?

Calling me nuts (left-wing psychosis and neurosis) or ending with demanding my support for Hillary (so should you!) is more childish than convincing.

NYS electing Hillary as Senator is not a compelling reason for this Midwestern voter to support Hillary. (Actually, it seemed a bit arrogant to suggest that I should just follow meekly behind NYS's judgment in these matters.)

Present your arguments for Hillary.

People don't trust Hillary because she is dishonest,not because of "the vast right wing conspiracy." Remember she coined that phrase on national tv, when she said Bill was innoncent of Monica's charges.

A woman defending her husband against a zealous special prosecutor gone wild strikes you as bizarre? Should she instead have come out and publicly chastise her husband for having had 'sexual relations that woman' before he'd admitted to anything? How do you know that she did not believe, or truly wanted to believe, in his innocence? And the impeachment, of course, was just a figment of the nation's collective imagination...

The neurotic and psychotic delusions of the far-left about the Clintons is surpassed only by those of the equally rabid RWNs...

DCshugu said above: "Should [Hillary] instead have come out and publicly chastise her husband for having had 'sexual relations that woman' before he'd admitted to anything?"

My question is that if the Monica affair was a deeply personal, private issue for the Clintons and their marriage, why did Hillary need to make any public statement?

Hillary knew Bill Clinton's past. She was either amazingly naive in believing him about Monica, or calculatingly dishonest in making public statements that he was innocent of Monica's charges. Neither explanation engenders trust for me in her judgment, honesty or capacity for leadership.

Allegations that Bill Clinton had an affair with Lewinsky made headlines on January 17, 1998. Hillary chose to go on the Today show for a nationally televised interview with Matt Lauer on January 27 and proclaim to the nation that Bill was an innocent, political victim. My belief is that she lied in self interest to protect her political investment, not her marriage.

When irrefutable evidence surfaced in July 1998 confirming the Lewinsky tryst, Hillary was caught in her public lies. Suddenly the affair was a direct political threat to Hillary and she quickly retreated to the totally out-of-character but effective persona of the victim-hood, the wronged woman. It was a calculation that was effective for the moment, but does not now inspire confidence and trust in her character or veracity.

The Clintons have no problem talking about their marriage candidly and publicly when it serves their political agenda. The 60 Minutes interview with candidate Bill and "no-little-Tammy-Wynett" (ironic) Hillary on January 26, 1992 (on SuperBowl Sunday!) is a prime example, and Hillary's Today Show interview in 1998 another. The issue of their marriage becomes deeply personal, intensely private and off limits only when the spotlight does not serve them.

I have no interest in figuring out the Clinton's marriage. But they have made it a national political issue since 1992. The unfortunate fact is that it is an elephant in the room in this campaign. A deeply challenged nation is faced with the dilemma of moving that elephant back into the White House. No thanks.

As with her handling of the Iraq War vote, Hillary shows major lapses in good judgment triggered by flawed calculations of her political advantage. She does not seem confined to what is true, or interested in what is best for nation.