Poll: Hillary Beating The Republicans In Florida

Comments (30)

Bang wrote on November 1, 2007 11:42 AM:

Do Floridians know about her stance regarding driver's licenses for illegal immigrants?

Michael wrote on November 1, 2007 12:03 PM:

Yawn.

Seth H. wrote on November 1, 2007 12:08 PM:

Do you ever wonder if we're missing the point with these polls coming in all the time? If we focus too much on who's most able to win and miss why we land ourselves in a shit state of affairs should they actually accomplish the predicted victory.

Daniel wrote on November 1, 2007 12:11 PM:

This slightly contradicts the the Quinnipiac poll out last week that had the GOP gaining in FLorida.

Dave wrote on November 1, 2007 12:16 PM:

I find it hard to believe any Democrat could garner enough votes in Florida to overcome the Republican voter fraud, rigging and suppresion tactics. If no focus on overcoming these, may never be another Democrat in the WH. I live in NM, with a strong Democratic lean but we cannot seem to manage to go blue (Gore barely) as the heaviest blue areas (the poorest areas and the brownest areas) somehow seem to have the problems with getting their votes counted.

Anonymous wrote on November 1, 2007 12:17 PM:

Stop wasting your time with meaningless polls for a race that is a year away.

Jim J wrote on November 1, 2007 12:19 PM:

I've noticed that here and at places like dKos, polls showing Hillary losing to a Republican are received with great enthusiasm, as if that is generally positive news to be cheered. I find this disturbing, considering she's almost certainly going to be the Dem nominee.

I just don't know what to say to someone who's supposedly on "my side" of the political fence who is essentially rooting for Republicans because they hate Hillary so much. I've said it before and I'll keep saying it: The hatred for Hillary is worse on the left than on the right.

I think a lot of people here will have a lot of explaining to do if she loses the general and we're stuck with another four years of Republican fascism.

DTM wrote on November 1, 2007 12:24 PM:

I wouldn't mind Eric posting these polls if he:

A) Posted all the polls; and

B) Talked about them in a responsible manner.

Of course, he is neither doing A nor B.

Liberal Larry wrote on November 1, 2007 12:32 PM:

I just don't know what to say to someone who's supposedly on "my side" of the political fence who is essentially rooting for Republicans because they hate Hillary so much. I've said it before and I'll keep saying it: The hatred for Hillary is worse on the left than on the right.

Bush-Lite divides the Democratic Party. Richard L. Adlof wrote on November 1, 2007 12:32 PM:

Yes, we all know by now that Clinton is the most popular Republican in the field . . . BUT more importantly, "How would Al Gore do?"

Let us examine the Corporate push polling going on here . . .

Clinton vs. (insert 1st jackhole);
Clinton vs. (insert 2nd jackhole);
Clinton vs. (insert 3rd jackhole);
Clinton vs. (insert 4th jackhole);
Clinton vs. (insert 5th jackhole);
Clinton vs. (insert 6th jackhole);
Clinton vs. (insert 7th jackhole).

Anyone who has taken a marketing course can tell you that advertising sucessfully communicates a message with the fifth to eighth time something is said. The chance of a consumer's action being directed toward the desired action after the 8th reitteration is close to 90%.

I will give Clinton props on this one, corporate whoredom DOES have its benefits.

rts wrote on November 1, 2007 12:37 PM:

DTM - Huh? Eric provided no editorial comment about this poll other than that in Florida Clinton is ahead of the Republican candiates according to the latest SurveyUSA poll but that in some instances her lead is within the poll's MOE. How is that irresponsible?

It also seems to me that TPM Election Central is posting just about every publicly available poll. If there are some that are missing I'm sure they would be happy to include them (assuming they are from legitimate polling outfits) if you provide them with the detail.

Anonymous wrote on November 1, 2007 12:52 PM:

I'm less troubled by EC's posting of polls than the fact that SUSA no longer seems to do any match-ups for the other Dem candidates. Talk about setting up an air of "inevitability." Is there anything we/EC can do to request numbers on other Dem candidates? If not, then maybe each and every SUSA Hillary update does NOT deserve a separate posting. Aggregate 'em and post once a week.

Jim J wrote on November 1, 2007 12:55 PM:

I'm sorry, but this new "Bush Lite" thing all over the liberal blogosphere has become too weird for me. Yeah, it sounds good, but it really makes no sense, as even the most cursory examination of HRC's voting record would indicate.

This whole Hillary-hatred thing is really debasing the entire netroots at this point. You're going to be surprised at how quickly you fade into oblivion when Hillary wins, and wins easily, and you're all left with your slogans and your supposedly "pure" politics that seem to revolve around hating anyone who isn't a totally hopeless also-ran.

Anyone who's lived in the U.S. for the past 7 years and still thinks the country wouldn't be better off with a Democrat in the White House is someone I can barely relate to, other than as a member of the same species.

stemper wrote on November 1, 2007 1:11 PM:

I agree 100% with Jim J. I am in no mood to see Giuliani elected due to a repeat of the Nader 2000 purism.

This is why the GOP keeps ruling the land. They've figured out how to compromise in their base and we haven't.

I'd rather the "Bush Lite" quoters put their money where their mouth is right now, take the bus to Iowa to knock on doors for Obama, Edwards, Biden, or whoever -- rather than waiting til November '08 to vote for Nader yet again and flush the country down the toilet for 4 more years.

Michael wrote on November 1, 2007 1:12 PM:

Jim J, what's with the "hillary-hatred" thing? I don't know of anybody posting on TPM that "hates hillary," other than jake d. So, if somebody is opposed to obama, they are an obama hater, or the same thing with edwards???? WTF.

Bush-lite, does not evidence "hatred," it evidences opposition to the one policy that she is pretty clear on, continuing the Iraq debacle indefinitely. So, why isn't that bush-lite? How is that "hatred."

Other things that I have noticed cause the "hilary-hatred" card to be thrown, and it is my guess that it is used to deflect attention from a valid point being raised, include trying to get a handle on what her gd position is on anything other than the war, questioning her non-existent experience (which she won't even allow to be partially disclosed until 2012), questioning why she is wanting to continue the war, questioning why she won't oppose telecom immunity, etc., etc.

Every time, the response is "hillary-hatred." Well, I'll say it for the thousandth time I don't hate her majesty, I may not like her, but I don't hate her. I have major problems with the way she is approaching this election, by not agreeing to provide any policy positions, other than crass generalities. I want to know what I'm getting. We did this once before with the king and look where that got us.

I agree we would be much better off with a true dem in the whitehouse, not bush-lite. At this point, based on her non-information, which leads me to conclude the worse, any dem breathing but her majesty would be better.

Also, excellent post on the push polling. Gee, I wonder who is paying survey usa to keep doing these same freaking polls only polling concerning clinton, in states where any dem, including her, has a good chance of winning. Its the same, over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again. But wait, since I am questioning something associated with her majesty, I must be a "hillary-hater," a wingnut, commie, pinko, wacked out, lunatic, fringe left winger. There, I think I covered it for you "hillary lovers no matter what."

DTM wrote on November 1, 2007 1:12 PM:

rts,

On the rhetoric question, it is irresponsible to describe anyone as "beating" anyone else in these hypothetical head-to-head polls, because there is as yet no such campaign occurring. I agree, though, this is a relatively mild example. I was more thinking of all the times TPMEC has suggested these hypothetical matchups are strong evidence with respect to the "electability" issue.

As for missing polls: interesting enough, I actually did precisely what you suggested a little while back. Zogby recently did a "who would you never vote for" poll (one to which I believe Dodd actually was referring during the recent debate). I noted in the comments here that when Zogby had done a similar poll back in March, TPMEC had in fact posted it. But this time they had not, and I called that fact to their attention.

And to my knowledge, nothing ever came of that (meaning I have never seen a TPMEC reference to that missing poll).

Liberal Larry wrote on November 1, 2007 1:21 PM:

This whole Hillary-hatred thing is really debasing the entire netroots at this point. You're going to be surprised at how quickly you fade into oblivion when Hillary wins, and wins easily, and you're all left with your slogans and your supposedly "pure" politics that seem to revolve around hating anyone who isn't a totally hopeless also-ran.

Bush-Lite and her K Street allies want to destroy the netroots.

Michael wrote on November 1, 2007 1:27 PM:

I made an error, they also only include gore, who I wish would run, but who currently isn't running and who is the biggest current threat to her majesty's coronation. So, I ask again, gee, I wonder who is paying for this incessant stream of polling???

Jim J wrote on November 1, 2007 1:36 PM:

Michael, you constantly refer to HRC as "her majesty" and "Bush Lite," and are sure that she is not only funding all polls, but also tampering with the data to falsely show her ahead -- except for a polls, which in your conspiracy theory she craftily has falsified in order to show her behind, as red herrings I guess.

Yet you also insist you don't hate her, that all your disagreement with her is purely over policy, and moreover that I'm the one being irrational.

OK, fine. Like I said, Michael, you've got issues that go beyond politics.

Heretic wrote on November 1, 2007 1:46 PM:

I am with Jim J and Stemper. Hillary-hater is a fair term to describe many of you in this forum who have publicly said you will not vote for her under any circumstance. Bush-lite is such a bogus appellation, it really makes those of you who use it look like horse asses. No better than the know nothing wingnuts who run the repiglicans.

Would Hillary put another Alito on the court? Would she open up Alaska to more drilling? Would she deny global warming or evolution or work to ban stem cell research? Would she deny healthcare to children? Would she support torture and denial of civil rights? And on an on and on.

As for the single issue that it seems is all you folks can wrap your little minds around at one time (the war), all the major candidates have said we are stuck there for some time to come in one capacity or another. You want to be there for 50 years, then vote against Hillary in the GE and when Rudy's gestapo comes for you, there will be no one left to help.

john mccutchen wrote on November 1, 2007 1:47 PM:

ATTENTION HillaryElection Central
BREAKING

MSNBC Debate - Obama Wins Big

YouTube, Frank Luntz Focus group
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8ocKiHEzvM&eurl=http://www.blogstreetjournal.com/video-debate-results-obama-wins-big/

js wrote on November 1, 2007 1:52 PM:

Heretic and Jim J:

Give it up, man. Haters won't listen to you or reasonable people. Let them vote for Rudi and Mitty.

Steve wrote on November 1, 2007 1:59 PM:

If this site is to be believed, Hillary is just the best thing since sliced bread and the news just gets better and better for her. This 'lead' in Florida is contradicted by Quinnipiac (which was very close in 2004 in FL) and Hillary is actually fairing quite poorly against the GOP, all considered.

Michael wrote on November 1, 2007 2:14 PM:

On your questions heretic, neither would any other dem running. Soo, what makes your hero "different" or warranting your undying support? The war?

Wordie wrote on November 1, 2007 2:57 PM:

I'm glad others noticed that it seems more than a little odd that the only Dem mentioned in this poll is Hillary (ok, so there's also a brief mention of Gore). I did a little checking and it appears that SurveyUSA has been conducting similar polls in other areas with the same design: Hillary only vs. the Republican candidates (http://www.surveyusa.com/electionpolls.aspx)

This surely is not an example of good survey design, and seems, as someone mentioned previously, to only add to the sense of "inevitability" before a single vote has been cast. Hillary supporters take note: although many of us have specific criticisms of Hillary, this whole "inevitability" thing is not necessarily good for your candidate.

Liberal Larry wrote on November 1, 2007 3:24 PM:

Bush-Lite and her invisible Chinatown donors want more small retailers to go out of business by way of Wal Mart.

Anonymous wrote on November 1, 2007 8:14 PM:

The main problem with Hillary is that she doesn't look both ways before she crosses the street.

Hillary could get run over by a truck just as she steps off the curb, if she isn't careful.

N. Way wrote on November 2, 2007 12:57 PM:

This must be the same blind bastards that screwed up the first Bush election! HOW can a woman who can't give straight answers in a debate be leading these guys??? WAKE THE F UP AMERICA!!!!!!!!!! Do you REALLY want a president who will cry that "the boys are picking on me" when an international crisis happens??Or blame not having a dem congress like she did after her first senate campaign and failed to bring ONE of the 200,000 jobs she had promised??? This woman has only two things going for her: 1)women who don't give a damn about anything but voting for a woman and 2) the country's infatuation with Bill. Remember how he would" have a small role" way back when this started? Why do you think she's whoring him out now??? SHE COULDN'T DO IT WITHOUT HIM!!!!

N. Way wrote on November 2, 2007 1:03 PM:

Has anyone picked up on how Obama was linked with the "old boy network" when Hillary cried about the " boys picking on me" at Feminessley?? Does america want a commander in chief who has to play the gender card when things get tough?? Why don't women find this INSULTING to their cause???

" God help us when we give 'em the vote!"
- John Wayne in Rooster Cogburn

n.way wrote on November 2, 2007 5:39 PM:

Look at theose numbers: according to this poll she has only a %4 lead over Guliani in Florida. That's hardly what I call a substantial lead worth gloating over. These polls are usually given a %5 margin of error aren't they????? I also note that Geraldine Ferraro didn't enjoy this level of media worship when she was Mondale's running mate. This is about Bill first, being Hillary second and a woman candidate third. Didn't the dedicated feminists give their support to Reagan in the Mondale election???

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)