Clinton WAY WAY ahead in new USA Today/Gallup poll (beating Obama 48%-30%)

[Bucky]

Look, she's beating McCain by 48% to 30% too!

[BeatleBoot]

1. State by State Polls Mean Something - Overall Polls Like This Mean Nothing.

Means zip zero nada.



Sorry.

[Captain Hilts]

8. True. nt

[XemaSab]

2. Anyone want a snack?

:popcorn:

[Greyskye]

4. me, me!

:popcorn:

[sniffa]

7. maybe later

i'm chewing on this thread for a while. :rofl:

[HCE SuiGeneris]

3. Link?

[Bucky]

5. here

http://www.pollingreport.com/ for the picture

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm for some legitimate poll

[sniffa]

6. pfft

:spray:

well played, and k&r.

:thumbsup:

[hogwyld]

9. Move along folks, nothing to see here

No need in going to vote either unless you're with the Clinton machine...

[emilyg]

11. Ah - another happy male.

[HughMoran]

19. "male"? Did you intend to sound sexist or...?

I'm confused :freak:

[hogwyld]

20. What does that have to do with

my view of the Hilldebeast? It's her politics I disagree with, not her gender...

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AlCzervik]

10. rofl.

full of win!

[kohodog]

12. Gee wizz, who'd have thunk

that msm wants a corporate friendly president. Any one of the democratic candidates would be far better than any of the republicans, but some would be better than others imho. My order of corporate friendly candidates is:

Clinton
Obama
Biden
Dodd
Edwards
Kucinich
Gravell

Note: While Ron Paul says he is anti-corporate but his libertarian fiscal policy might be worse that Bush's.

(I don't really know where Richardson fits in, sorry)

I am back to Edwards after flirting with Obama as our Democracy hangs in the balance and I think he will fight the hardest to bring reality back.

[regnaD kciN]

13. Has anyone responding to this bothered to look at the SUBJECT of the poll...?

:eyes:

[AlCzervik]

15. doesn't look like it.

[madrchsod]

17. do not rain on my parade---- please hillary is the winner!

of just what was the subject? :rofl:

[HughMoran]

18. Sarcasm is too deep on this one. Many assume link is missing

:D

[helderheid]

22. No kidding!

:rofl:

[Leopolds Ghost]

25. LOL! No! I had to re-read the OP carefully to figure out what you were on about.

Yes, I read the graph but I figured the subject was in reference to an
unlinked "horse race" statistic from the same poll.

After all, the MSM wants us to believe that every last one of those 51%
are Democratic primary voters who can't understand what's not to like
about Clinton...

The unfavorables supposedly have no impact on who should be the nominee,
and why (as in, real reasons she comes off to some people as elitist and
not a genuine progressive -- and if "progressives" have a bad rap as
elitists, Hillary doesn't help us at all!)

[rucky]

14. Inevitablicious. n/t

[madrchsod]

16. dam! just when the race was getting close

hillary wins!

[book_worm]

21. Look at how bad her favorable/unfavorable is compared to Obama or Edwards

and as others have mentioned--national polls are meaningless. It's Iowa, NH and SC which are early and will have an impact on national polls especially if Obama or Edwards win.

[zanne]

23. Did anybody notice the "Unfavorable" numbers? nt

[helderheid]

28. I do believe that was what the OP was pointing out - she wins as the most unfavorable.

[bdamomma]

24. one question: has anyone asked her Hillary what she

has done in her seven years as Senator???? Why is she experienced???? You never hear the our media talk about her accomplishments?? just food for thought.

[Tesha]

29. Her accomplishments tend to be things that might displease Democrats.

Her accomplishments tend to be things that might displease
Democrats (such as voting for wars and USA PATRIOT Acts) so
trumpeting her accomplishments right now might cost her the
primaries that the MSM is trying so hard to deliver for her.

Tesha

[bdamomma]

31. plus she would keep our troops in Iraq until 2013 and then

she said she would deploy them.

[Tesha]

27. Oh yeah, I *DEFINITELY* think we should run the candidate with a *48% UNFAVORABLE* rating.

'Way to win an election, that is! Start from only a 52% possible
vote and it's all downhill from there!

Tesha

[ima_sinnic]

30. she is a disaster in the making--48% unfavorable = unelectable

of all the WORST possible candidates, she has got to be it. Many, many Dems (myself included) will feel no motivation whatsoever to vote for her, while many, many repukes will feel extraordinarily motivated to vote AGAINST her.

I really would not feel like taking time out of my busy day to drive to a polling place and wait in line to vote for a friend of the globalist predatory capitalists.

with excellent Dem candidates, why do we have to settle for that?