New Study Suggests Hillary Clinton is the Democrats' Best Chance to Win in 2008

[wyldwolf]

USAElectionPolls.com has analyzed all of the states polls taken this calendar year and found that Hillary Clinton's lead over rival candidates are about 7% higher in the battleground states than in non-battleground states.

The web site explains that it is essential for the Democrats to do well in the following states: Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. And to do so, they explain that one needs to choose the Democratic candidate that can do the best in these states.

The data they produce also shows that the combined support for Obama and Edwards is still far less than than Clinton's support in these battleground states.

http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/hillary-clinton-best-chance-to-win.html

[Byronic]

1. Perhaps she IS the strongest candidate

I would have no problem whatsoever with Hillary Rodham Clinton as the Democratic nominee for President of the United States, but it is a very long time until we have to, in her husbands words, "fall in line". I'm still "falling in love" in the primaries.

Good luck to Hillary, but the senior senator from Delaware moves me more.

As for polls? I have one word: Pah! And I mean it to sting!

[Tellurian]

116. Of course, she is the strongest candidate..

and the most capable of turning this country around and back on the right track to Peace and Prosperity..<sigh> those were the days!

[skipos]

2. They are studying PRIMARIES to predict general election strength?

That makes no sense. People should look at pollingreport, rasmussen, quin., zogby etc. The results are very consistent, she underperforms Edwards and Obama in about 99% of general election polls.

Ras...
Thompson (R)44% Clinton (D)47% CLINTON WINS BY 3%
Thompson (37%) Edwards (47%) EDWARDS WINS BY 10%
Thompson (37%) Obama (47%) OBAMA WINS BY 10%

Romney (R)44% Clinton (D)47% CLINTON WINS BY 3%
Romney (29%) Edwards (55%) EDWARDS WINS BY 26%
Romney (37%) Obama (52%) OBAMA WINS BY 15%

Brownback (41%) Clinton (46%) CLINTON WINS BY 5%
Brownback (34%) Obama (49%) OBAMA WINS BY 5%

Gingrich (43%) Clinton (50%) CLINTON WINS BY 7%
Gingrich (38%) Obama (48%) OBAMA WINS BY 10%

Giuliani (45%) Clinton (45%) CLINTON TIES
Giuliani (45%) Edwards (47%) EDWARDS WINS BY 2%
Giuliani (45%) Obama (44%) OBAMA LOSES BY 1%

Hagel (40%) Clinton (48%) CLINTON WINS BY 8%
Hagel (34%) Obama (50%) OBAMA WINS BY 16%

Huckabee (33%) Edwards (50%) EDWARDS WINS BY 17%
Huckabee (32%) Obama (52%) OBAMA WINS BY 20%

McCain (44%) Clinton (48%) CLINTON WINS BY 4%
McCain (41%) Edwards (48%) EDWARDS WINS BY 7%
McCain (42%) Obama (46%) OBAMA WINS BY 4%

[papau]

4. Ras robo calls versus human polls - hmmm :-)

:-)

[skipos]

8. What about this then?

The most recent poll from Newsweek...

Dame Rudy 46, Hillary 49 HILLARY WINS BY 3%
Dame Rudy 43, Obama 50 OBAMA WINS BY 7%
Dame Rudy 44, Edwards 50 EDWARDS WINS BY 6%

McCain 44, Hillary 46 HILLARY WINS BY 2%
McCain 39, Obama 52 OBAMA WINS BY 13%
McCain 42, Edwards 52 EDWARDS WINS BY 10%

Mitt 35, Hillary 57 HILLARY WINS BY 22%
Mitt 29, Obama 58 OBAMA WINS BY 29%
Mitt 27, Edwards 64 EDWARDS WINS BY 37%

I am not cherrypicking. Hillary underperforms Edwards and Obama in about 99% of the national general election polls. Sometimes it is by a little, sometimes it is by a lot.

[papau]

107. The state by state general election polls show many states Hillary wins - and Obama does not - but

that could be just name recognition.

In any case we are close to a year away from the first primary vote being cast - these polls mean little - although it is nice to see all our guys/gal beating all their guys. But I remember the major lead Dukakis had in June 88, only to lose. Early polls before long off primaries are even less reliable as indicators of the final result.

We have a lot of campaigning ahead - now if only some of that future campaigning was devoted to putting out detailed proposals, rather than general platitudes, on each issue.

[wyldwolf]

11. no, they are studying general election head to head poll in each state

[skipos]

14. Where does it say that?

"So we bundled up all of the polls taken in battleground states and averaged them for each of the candidates. We also averaged the other 47 states to compare.
Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania from 1/1/2007
Clinton 35.9
Obama 16.4
Edwards 12.5
Biden 3.2
Richardson 1.9

Other 47 States from 1/1/2007
Clinton 33.7
Obama 20.7
Edwards 15.7
Biden 3.1
Richardson 2.8

As you can see from the results, Clinton's lead (*OVER OBAMA*) in the battleground states is close to 20% whereas her lead (*OVER OBAMA*) in the other 47 states is 13%."

They are talking about her lead over her nearest rival, Obama. Where do you see anything about her lead over a Republican. Further, do you really think Hillary leads ANY Republican by 35.9% in FL, OH or PA?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

106. Nowhere

The OP is indicative of how desperate HRC supporters are to portray her as having any general election strength given the mountain of legitimate information that shows otherwise.

[BootinUp]

66. Where did you see that?

I couldn't find that info.

Either way, it doesn't surprise me that Hillary is doing well vs the other Dem candidates.

[Donnachaidh]

87. and exactly WHO are THEY?

And WHY no contact names, and a Yarmouth Nova Scotia PO box address?

[crikkett]

3. Isn't that for us to decide? And for that matter, I wonder,

Who is USAelectionpolls.com 'catapulting the propaganda' for? I never heard of this group before. Register.com says the domain's owners are 'protected' by a Canadian company the name was reserved Feb 2007.

[jefferson_dem]

That site looks VERY dodgy. I wouldn't trust their analyses.

Instead, i recommend these three *reliable* sources -

http://www.pollster.com/
http://politicalarithmetik.blogspot.com/
http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/

[Deep13]

5. Add NY to the list if Guilliani is nominated.

Add AZ and maybe VA, MO and MT to the list if Richardson is nominated.

[William769]

6. Hillary Clinton is by far the best candidate the Democrats have as of this point in time.

The poll reflects the U.S.A. not DU, some people will never understand that.

[Deep13]

7. What makes her the "best" candidate?

[William769]

13. Her stance on the following.

Strengthening the middle class, providing affordable and accessible health care, energy independence & global warming, fulling our promises to veterans, supporting parents and caring for children, restoring Americas standing in the world, comprehensive Government reform, Strengthening our democracy.

[Deep13]

15. They're all for that stuff.

She's not for a national health care system, but just an expansion of our present corporate plus welfare system. She will not immediately end the occupation.

[William769]

17. Ok since you know so much

Just what is her plan for health care?

[Deep13]

24. Not much.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/healthcare/

It's pretty short on specifics. One think is clear, however, and that is that HRC is steering clear of sweeping reforms like she tried in the '90s.

[William769]

25. Sorry, I thought I was speaking with someone who was an authority on this.

I guess not.

[Deep13]

26. I never claimed to be an authority.

Sorry you assumed wrong. Anyway, the fallacy of authority states that evidence is not improved because the person reciting them is an authority. I'm basing it on what she said in interviews and it sounds a lot like mandatory health insurance for everyone working (often at their own expense) and welfare for everyone else.

[William769]

27. How about basing it on her actual record?

[Deep13]

28. Like what for instance?

And how do her Senate votes set her apart from other D. candidates? Recall she has made it clear that there will not be another attempt like the one in 1993.

[William769]

29. Like the one in 1993

And she has not made is clear that there will not be another attempt like the one in 1993.

[Deep13]

32. She has repeatedly said that she learned from that "mistake."

I don't have links handy, but there are plenty on line if you want to peruse them. And even that plan was somewhat of a compromise. It was not a single-payer system. It left profit-seeking companies be the middle-managers of regional health care groups that everyone would be in. Subscribers would have catastrophic insurance basically for free, but would have to buy into anything more complex. All the while, corporate profits would drain resources from the system. That is hardly universal coverage in any meaningful sense.

[William769]

34. I don't need to pursue something that is not there.

[Tellurian]

55. K&R

[cascadiance]

57. Where is she on public campaign financing?

That IS the issue for 2008 in my book! That is THE first step from reversing this Korporatocracy we have now! I think she's probably the last of our potential Dem candidates for championing this, with her setting records in how early she ditched the current public financing system now, and her paling up with the likes of Rupert Murdoch.

In my mind THE best candidate will be the one that finds a way to champion this legislation. If we can get that passed, so many of the other issues will be a LOT easier to get fixed (stopping the Iraq Occupation profiteering, education, global warming, health care, outsourcing, food safety, etc.) once we get corporate money out of our pol's pockets as a requirement for them to attain office!

[William769]

78. She has stated, she wants an end to corporate welfare

Also stopping lobbyists from getting to cabinet members. What more needs to be said?

[cascadiance]

89. That's doublespeak! I want SPECIFICALLY support for CLEAN ELECTIONS!

You can do all kind of band-aid "solutions" like what McCain-Feingold got watered down to that sound nice but become relatively meaningless in terms of really controlling the corporate money train! We need some fundamental reform ala clean elections reform like what has been done in Arizona and Maine (and is being deployed in Connecticut and a few other places).

Until we have that in place, it will be hard for candidates to run without playing in the corporate money gravy train, which ultimately corrupts so many of them and as a result corrupts so much of our legislation. Only really exceptional pols can be independent of this money and even then they have to spend a LOT of time to solicit donations from grass roots, etc. too, and spend less time doing their actual job.

[William769]

90. Well in the world of politics, you are surly going to be disappointed alot.

[cascadiance]

113. Why should I accept us becoming a corporatocracy!

I think I and our founders want a DEMOCRACY, not a state bought and paid for by our elites!

Clean Elections is one of the only ways at this time I see of getting that Democracy back. And yes I will be "surly" if enough Democrats don't want measures to restore our Democracy!

[NoPasaran]

30. I think our "best candidate" will be the one who can win

And that may very well be Hillary Clinton.

[skipos]

10. Actually, the poll reflects Dem primary voters

The polls that reflect the U.S.A are not flattering to Hillary (compared to Edwards and Obama).

[FormerDittoHead]

9. As if it would be a close race? Let's not choose the best candidate, but the best President... n/t

[Deep13]

16. We tried that last two times.

It was so close that fraud put FL then OH in Dumbass' column.

[wyldwolf]

12. I love the smell of napalm in the morning...

[bigscott]

18. nobody I know would vote for Hillary in a primary

most would vote for her if she was the nominee - but NOBODY is excited enoUgh to work to get her elected. Some would stay home.

I AM NOT DEFENDING THEM - JUST STATING FACTS

If people are not excited about the candidate - we lose.

[William769]

20. Here are some facts for you.

Everyone I know is working diligently to get her to be the Dem nominee, So I guess my friends cancel out your friends.

[Clark2008]

53. I don't know anyone who wants her to be the nominee, either.

Not a soul.

And I know tons of people becuse of my work. It's not limited to any group of friends or co-workers. I see people from all walks of life.

Sure, there are people who will begrudgingly vote for her if she's the nominee, but most people know that if she is, the Democrats will lose.

So, I guess my friends, co-workers and associates cancel out yours and add to the list.

[windbreeze]

82. I'm with you....

I know no one...who wants her as the nominee.....I seriously don't know if I'd vote for her at all...I don't want her as president, and I don't like the friendship between her husband and the idiot's father...I don't want Bill as first husband either...it's time to break the hold this bunch has...I no longer believe they are what's best for most of us...
now that's just my personal opinion...and everyone knows we all have one...with no intent to offend anyone..
wb

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

109. Then you must not know very many Neocons...

...because this is their agenda. MSM wields tremendous influence over public opinion and their corporate keepers given their orders -- Hillary will be the Dem nominee.

[wyldwolf]

21. funny, everyone I know would.

:shrug:

[skipos]

23. Can you respond to post #14 please. nt

[laugle]

92. "Hill and Bill" the "DYNAMIC DUO" because we need 2 presidents to clean-up Bush's mess!! n/t

[skipos]

22. I think Hillary would be a mediocre gen. elec. candidate and a mediocre President

compared to other Dems, but you can't say "nobody" likes her. Plenty Dems do, it's just that she has plenty of people who don't like her. That's why her general election poll numbers are consistently weaker than Edwards and Obama, her favorable/unfavorable ratings are consistently worse than the other Dem candidates, and the polls indicate there are more people committed to voting against her than the other candidates.

Further, just because you "don't know" anyone who likes her, doesn't mean they don't exist.

[laugle]

93. Amen to that because she is the front runner, it goes with the territory! n/t

[rinsd]

62. Some day this war's gonna end

[Forkboy]

104. Here ya go...see if this helps.

[frogcycle]

19. Polls, pollsters and poll analysis

...but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

[The Backlash Cometh]

31. sigh. Remember the days when we would believe the results of any poll?

We don't even believe the results of our elections, how the hell are we going to put any credence on the results of a poll?

[wyldwolf]

37. Who is this "we" you speak of?

[The Backlash Cometh]

38. The enlightened ones, the chosen ones.

Or anybody who has been paying attention in the last seven years.

[wyldwolf]

40. oh, the ones whose candidates aren't doing as well in the polls.

[The Backlash Cometh]

45. I don't vote in the primaries.

I'm not even a Democrat. If Hillary wins the primary, I will vote for her. Anybody the Dems elect, I will vote for.

But Hillary has a Lieberman problem. They both acquire their support from the same group of people that want to keep the Democratic party on the path which gives corporations way too much power *in government.* And those people are the same ones that have the power to buy elections, and buy polls. Capiche?

It isn't Hillary, per se, but her circle of friends.

[wyldwolf]

56. "I don't vote in the primaries... I'm not even a Democrat." Well, that explains a lot.

[The Backlash Cometh]

58. Yes. It means I won't compromise on principle.

The Democratic party will need to work to earn my trust. And that's why I'm not going to give Hillary a free ride, free of criticism.

And call me an optimist, but I truly believe she will listen, in the end. I want to believe it. But then, she'll be a far different candidate than she is today.

[wyldwolf]

59. yes, it means you have your principles.

[The Backlash Cometh]

63. You say that like it's a rare thing to find.

How sad.

[wyldwolf]

69. no, I say it like it is typical of the left

...they have their principles. They are passionate about them. They cannot fathom someone having a different opinion. They are willing to lose it all on principle.

[The Backlash Cometh]

71. Oh, that.

And the left have a monopoly on principle? Lots of principle to go around, but the meaningful one today is the one that will leave a strong planet for the next generation. That doesn't mean I'm a no-compromising Green, obviously, since I'll vote for any Democrat that makes it through the primaries, but it does mean that I recognize that we need a leader that can show the incredibly greedy and selfish people in this country that the life they've grown accustom to, cannot be maintained without great sacrifice to other people's children.

Somehow, a candidate with no military record who is far too comfortable smoozing with the Hamptons just doesn't seem to fit the bill.

[wyldwolf]

75. no, the left just THINKS they have a monopoly on principle

[The Backlash Cometh]

77. Well, obviously, I don't believe I have a monopoly on principle,

therefore, using your limited argument, I am not a member of the Left?

[wyldwolf]

79. but you believe you hold the correct ones.

[The Backlash Cometh]

83. Well, excuse me for learning from my mistakes.

I mean, how many times does a person have to be shit on before they'll figure out what works for them, and what does not?

Hey, I can understand why someone on top loves to be on top and is willing to compromise principle, ethics, morality, their soul, to stay on top. I'm just telling you, that I don't want to be that person - the cost is too high - nor do I want to be shat upon anymore. There's a happy medium there somewhere for most of us, and that's where my comfort zone lies.

Now, I'm not telling you that I won't vote for someone who is willing to compromise principle, ethics, morality or their soul, because sometimes that's the choice that the primaries leave us with, but I am saying, that I hope this time around it will be different.

[Forkboy]

100. As do you.

What's the difference? :shrug:

[Forkboy]

99. That illusion could be wiped away in a second if the center would show some.

The left doesn't have a monopoly on it at all...but at least they have enough to actually be detected."Winning" isn't a principle...it's a goal.They aren't very strong principles if people are willing to toss them aside when it's convenient.

[mtnsnake]

33. How can this be true? All the naysayers here claim the Goddess of Peace doesn't have a chance!

And they would never stretch the truth about one of the Clintons, would they? :evilgrin:

[Deep13]

35. The Goddess of Peace voted for the war.

I think that is part of our skepticism. We are also aware that the nation already knows her and has pretty much made up its mind as favorable/unfavorable polls indicate. The country is about evenly split with little room to manuever. In a close election, we lose.

[wyldwolf]

36. ..and Bill Richardson said he WOULD HAVE had he been in the senate

:shrug:

[Deep13]

39. I haven't heard that, BUT...

...he also said the occupation should end in 2007 and that Congress should be taking steps to remove authorization for the "war." He has also promised to leave no US forces after the withdrawal, contrary to HRC's plan.

[wyldwolf]

41. I have a direct quote

...he also said the occupation should end in 2007 and that Congress should be taking steps to remove authorization for the "war." He has also promised to leave no US forces after the withdrawal, contrary to HRC's plan.

So you like his plan better. :shrug:

[Deep13]

42. Um, you quoted me.

Did you mean to quote Richardson or HRC? And yes, I like that plan better. We should not be in Iraq and every day we are there makes things worse.

[wyldwolf]

43. No, I said I have a direct quote from Richardson... um...

[Deep13]

44. Sorry, I guess I figured you were going to post the direct quote.

:shrug:

[wyldwolf]

49. Just waiting to see if you actually wanted to see it. Often people do not..

"My view is that it is critically important that the United States not let Saddam Hussein get away with this. Had I have been in the Congress I would have voted for the military resolution authorizing war..."

Last time I posted it, the spin got pretty absurd.

[Deep13]

50. I would have disagreed with his hypothetical vote.

When was that, anyway? A few members of Congress have expressed regret over their pro-war votes relying on what I call the crap souffle argument.

It goes like this. The CIA and other information-gathering services gave Bush the REAL intelligence that said Saddam was not a real threat. Bush cherry-picked the intelligence, taking things out of context and making shit up and put together a crap souffle, which he showed Congress and the media. Assuming that the crap souffle was accurate, they voted to authorize with the understanding it would be used as a diplomatic stick to enforce UN rule compliance. The flaw in their logic was that Bush was telling the truth when there were a lot of reasons to suppose he was not.

[wyldwolf]

51. ...and he would be on your shit list now

[Deep13]

52. No, it is one issue.

Edwards apologized for his war vote. But higher up this branch of the thread someone called HRC the Goddess of Peace. I thought her war vote made that label a bit disingenuous.

[wyldwolf]

61. so you need a formal apology? Did Edwards apologize for co-sponsoring the IWR?

[Deep13]

64. No, that's not what I said.

I think you are trying to put me on the defensive to avoid the real issue, that being that HRC cannot win enough states to prevail and, given her shift to the right, it is not clear what benefit the country will get from her rather than say Guilliani.

[wyldwolf]

65. you brought Edwards up out of the blue and said he apologized.

:shrug:

[Deep13]

67. I was illustrating that some legislators who supported the war...

...regret that support now. I think I spelled that out pretty clearly. Edwards is one of them. It does not logically follow that I also think that everyone who voted for the war must apologize for it (though it would be helpful).

[wyldwolf]

70. and Hillary does. She has said so. She just hasn't kissed ass and begged for forgiveness

[Triana]

46. Who the heck is usaelectionpolls and who funds them?

?

The answer to that might "clarify" things a bit.

[Triana]

48. They're out of Canada...newly registered, reg recently updated)

Registrant:
Domain Discreet
ATTN: usaelectionpolls.com
P.O. Box 278
Yarmouth, NS B5A 4B2
CA
Email: [e-mail]

Registrar Name....: REGISTER.COM, INC.
Registrar Whois...: whois.register.com
Registrar Homepage: www.register.com

Domain Name: usaelectionpolls.com

Created on..............: Sat, Feb 24, 2007
Expires on..............: Sun, Feb 24, 2008
Record last updated on..: Sat, May 05, 2007

Administrative Contact:
Domain Discreet
ATTN: usaelectionpolls.com
P.O. Box 278
Yarmouth, NS B5A 4B2
CA
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

Technical Contact:
Domain Discreet
ATTN: usaelectionpolls.com
P.O. Box 278
Yarmouth, NS B5A 4B2
CA
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

DNS Servers:

ns1.dwhs.net
ns2.dwhs.net

[Donnachaidh]

72. out of a PO Box in Yarmouth Nova Scotia?

Oh YEAH, this poll has CREDIBILITY --- NOT. :eyes:

So WHO is the owner and webmaster?

[ronnykmarshall]

88. An employee of KKKarl Rove!!!

[Donnachaidh]

47. and who EXACTLY runs USA election polls?

Polls is polls. The vast majority of people I've spoken too have already said they won't vote for Hillary OR Obama. :shrug:

[wyldwolf]

60. WOW! THAT is a new one...

The vast majority of people I've spoken too have already said they won't vote for Hillary OR Obama.

[Donnachaidh]

73. WHERE is it NEW?

It actually was at a middle school meeting in a red state, LAST NIGHT. And all the folks I talked to were talking about Kucinich. Surprized the bejesus out of me, too.

Scoff all you like. It HAPPENED.

[wyldwolf]

80. A middle school = "The vast majority of people I've spoken too." LOL!

[skipos]

81. Why aren't you responding to my post #14? nt

[Forkboy]

103. You can figure out why.

The same reason not one Hillary supporter would address the Mark Penn story in any credible way.

I take that back.ElizabethDC was nice enough to answer honestly...and she said she didn't like him but that it wouldn't change her vote,which I can easily respect even if I don't agree.The rest have done nothing,and even though a certain poster kept posting in the thread the topic of Penn was avoided like the plague.

Strawmen and easy targets...those will be engaged.Tough questions? Run away quickly.

[Donnachaidh]

85. It's less humorous than posting a POLL with a Canadian PO Box

as an address as a "credible" voice of the electiosn so far. :rofl:

[Forkboy]

102. LMAO

Don't you get it yet.Anything from someone else's experiences are "anecdotal".When he talks about his party meetings it's the "truth".

[Maine-i-acs]

54. The GOP would like you to believe this. Please believe it for them.

It is still way too soon.

Who was the front-runner 18 months before 2004, 2000, 1996 etc.? The answer will show this to be not too meaningful.

But Rush&co want Hillary up on top, because she is easy to whisper-campaign out of existence.

[Donnachaidh]

74. It does stink to high heaven how these pollsters are popping up

And I have to wonder WHY this one is supposedly located in Yarmouth, out of a PO box. And WHY it is set up on a CANADIAN server?

[madfloridian]

68. There is nothing there about this company. There is no "about" section.

Tell me more about them.

[wyldwolf]

76. google is your friend.

[Joe Chi Minh]

84. Wasn't there a straw poll cited here yesterday indicating that Hillary was

fifth in the public ratings, with Edwards way out ahead?

[ronnykmarshall]

86. This study was funded by KKKarl Rove.

It is simply a plot by the right wing to force make us believe that Hillary can win the election when of course she can not.

Ya know SOMEONE's gonna say it!

[FrenchieCat]

91. They study may be correct, although I have different reasons for my agreement

with them.

Hillary is a certifiable and confirmed threat to the GOP because Bill Clinton kicked their ass twice without blinking, and even going after Bill with a vengeance, they still didn't get any real satisfaction. They understand that Hillary will play hardball, and they would prefer to deal with one who is not as familiar with their lay of the land. They will attack by reminding folks of Hillary's health care, the myth that terrorism was allowed to flourish under her husband, and call her liberal as many times as they can. However, they know that she's the riskiest of all propositions if she gets the Nom, because she been there; done that and learned additional valuable lessons each time without ever losing.

They fear Obama, because they can't quite figure who he might get out there to vote for him in the General election....like maybe all of the Black folks in south as well as young people everywhere. The GOP count on minorities and young people voting in low numbers each election, and usually they are not disappointed. However, if Obama is the general election candidate, a vaste number of minorities and young people combined might just come out and vote and drown out any planned vote stealing. It is the normally apathetic voters that they are most afraid will show up in droves. They will attempt to depict Obama as an upitty Black man who is a lightweight and lacks experience. They will also do a "covert" racial attack of some sort. Thus far, however, they have failed in defining Obama, and so they may attempt to have him "fade away" during the primaries instead (see Tucker and Hardball recent words as examples).

They fear John Edwards because, to be honest, he is a good looking conventional candidate with an attractive family and a boy done good all American tragic story (death of son and illness of wife). Edwards may fare as well in the race, but with him, it does depend on who the GOP candidate is more than the others, i.e., if they end up with Romney it could turn into the battle of the Domes with Edwards edging out Romney due to the Mormonism issue and the fact that Edwards is from the south while Romney is from MA. If it is McCain, Edwards will be toast because McCain can be sold as a man's man with his heroism trumpeted (Hillary voters will not care about this as they are supporting a woman and Bill, and Obama voters want a Black man in office so McCain is not as attractive to them either) who understand southern values although he is from the southwest. The GOP's plan to depict Edwards as a weak effiminated self obsessed metrosexual has succeeded in part as of now. IMO, Although he would also be tough to beat, they would prefer him more than the other two because they have more material (he wants to raise taxes, has a trillion dollar health care plan, and advocates for both Union and the Poor, i.e., special interest groups in political speak apart from his already defined image) thus far...and unlike Hillary, Edwards can't point to an 8 year successful administration to counter their attacks. Because he is the most conventional candidate, the GOP is probably most confident that they can control that situation better than the others.


That's how I see it.

[AtomicKitten]

94. that is how it appears

I do hope Gore or Clark jump in.

[calteacherguy]

96. Good analysis.

Obama is clearly the wildcard (his effect on voting dynamics is less predicable than the others).

[Ethelk2044]

95. The Study

is nothing more than B -- S ---! Keep trying however it will not work. They are worried and it shows. No one can figure Barack out. They have tried to pin him down and have been unsuccesful. They hit him and he hits back.

[laylah]

97. Only if President Gore

doesn't jump in at the last minute. I will vote for her, hands down, unless Gore does his civic duty and rescues us from this mess. I say civic duty only because so many of us want him, NEED him to straighten this mess out!

[slackmaster]

98. Amazingly narrow, myopic analysis

Two more important questions are: Who are the Republicans going to nominate, and which Democrat has the best chance of beating that person?

[illinoisprogressive]

101. I disagree. too many dems refuse to vote for her, the gop hates her and will be

energized and the indies will go to the gop candidate over Hillary.

[William769]

111. And your proof on this is?

Or are we just supposed to take your word for it?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

105. This looks only at her support among Democrats

As has been well-documented, her problem is with independents and peeling off some Republican votes. This study does nothing to show that HRC is the strongest general election candidate. It merely shows she fares better among Dems in swing states. When it comes to general election match-ups that include the entire electorate she does much worse than Edwards and worse than Obama. She cannot flip any true red state and will need to nearly sweep the purple states to win.

[EndElectoral]

108. You mean Hilary, the former Board member at Walmart or the one who voted for the war?

[Perry Logan]

110. Hillary is best because she makes right-wingers poop their pants

The Democrats who voted for the war were lied to--remember? When you rap Democrats for voting for the war, you're actually helping the Bush Administration get more mileage out of its lies. Not very clever of you.

Hillary is obviously the best candidate, because she makes right-wingers poop their pants. I'll bet a lot of neocons will just up and die when she takes office.

And don't forget: she'll have dictatorial powers. Could be useful as we herd the Republicans into camps.

[Geek_Girl]

112. I don't see any evidence of that here in the south

Edwards IMHO still has the best shot of picking up Southern states especially if Romney or Guliani are running. Moderate and Conservative southerners like to vote for white southern males, unfortunately.

[w4rma]

114. Hillaryites are delusional. (nt)

[Tellurian]

115. Troubling coming from you, when you promoted a Loser! nm