Unequivocal Hillary Clinton Poll

This is it.

There are plenty of good discussions going on about a Clinton run in 2004, with lots of great points being made on both sides.

But here's the question. If she got the nod, what would you do on election day?

Explain yourself if you need to, or keep it in the other threads.

Robb

you would be partly responsible for the final destruction of this country. There would be no excuse to stay home!

It only feeds into it. I think you need to preach a little more positive reinforcement.

It's almost a no-brainer that at least 9 out of 10 people here would vote for her (no matter how disillusioned they may be with her).

The problem that Hillary presents is when you get out into the greater electorate. She's an extremely polarizing figure, and she brings all of the "Clinton baggage" to the table.

Plus, she turns off a LOT of progressives, especially those from NY (like me).

The RNC uses talk like this to tell it's supporters "You see? Hillary is going to run, so you better send us money so we can fight her off"

to defocus and divide the democrats. They want us to stay confused and disorganized....its a battle strategy. They really hammer this when polls come out, the unknown candidtate gets more votes....then saying the dems are weak, the current 9 can't muster-up the vote of their own party.

Which is why I really think we should avoid Hillary talk. This is a freeper/GOP issue - we should try NOT to pump it up.

To them, HRC is the evil Hill-zilla psycho bitch from hell who eats aborted fetuses with one hand and is picking our pockets with the other. The media has given voice to these wingnuts so much that most Americans believe this crap. (most of my adult relatives - both in and out of NYS - sure believe it) She has replaced Teddy Kennedy and her husband as THE most polarizing figure left of center in American politics - bar none. We need the Hillary talk to just lay low. Out of sight, out of mind.

It's wrong to do this poll.

Just curious. I think her book helped her favorable ratings but a sizable minority will always hate her, and the the VRWC will never give her a moment's peace so her candidacy may never really be viable in spite of all her strengths.

Fox News watchers at least and I agree with you completely. Her villification is irreversible with a sizeable portion of the public NO MATTER WHAT SHE DOES.

BTW, I believe this villification is completely unfair and stupid, but there's a point where you just have to accept the facts on the ground and proceed fromn there.

I'd vote for her, doesn't mean I'd feel comfortable with someone who sits on the BOD of Wallmart as president (as likable as she may be)
Don't have a link but I've seen one posted here in the past. WM is a terribly unethical corporate predator.

I agree, the huge majority of people here would vote for her (or anybody) over Bush.

I'd be interested to see who DU would choose between Hillary and Dean (or Kucinich).

If I only had a job (and a few more posts), I could give DU some money and make a poll (Hint Hint).

Personally, I think Hillary needs a little more time to cook in the Senate before she takes on the big prize. In 2008 or 2012 is a great chance, but not in 2004 - she's not done yet, put her back in.

Don't you know that all the talk about Hillary running in 2004 is just a trick the RNC uses to raise funds?

Maybe if you post it a third time, I'll come around. :eyes:

Frankly, Clinton running in 2004 would raise quite a few funds for the Democrats as well. I've said it before, I'll say it again:

A divisive election brings out all shades of voters. I don't believe this country is "evenly split". If more people come to the polls across the board, we'll win.

Clinton isn't running in 2004, and there is no reason to believe she will, so it's hard to imagine how her imaginary run is going to raise funds for Dems

:wtf:

eom

eom

Hillary as a nominee would be almost as sure a Bush victory as Sharpton (or Mosely Braun or Kucinich or Graham or Kerry or Gephardt or Lieberman or Clark for that matter).

It could be a way for people to "flip off" the Party for a dubious choice. Is that just being facetious ?

that warmongerer.

Polls like this only matter in contested states. Bush would not win New York State if he ran against Beelzebub. New York State voters have the option to be as finicky as Morris the Cat.

However Iam from the anyone but bush line of thinking. I read that if Hillary waited till 2012, assuming a Dem wins in 2004 (Please Please Please ) that she would be 65 and to old to run. I do not think that a 65 year old woman is to "old" to be President .How old was Regan ? If we can elect elderly men , why would an elderly woman not be OK. I judge people by their stand on the issuses ,not by age, race, or any other shallow reason ! In my subject line I said I prefer GORE ,and thats because I believe he is the most qualified and exprienced , and lets not forget something about doing the right thing .Al Gore worked years in public office, reaching his goal of being President ,only to have it stolen from him .Not only would Gore get the vote out for the Dems big time, putting him in office will bring a feeling of everything coming full circle , and our country being back on the right track and feeling secure that we have a President with our best interest at heart !
Very Sincerely Nick

eom.

in two days where people have responded they would vote for bush. I would love someone to explain the reasoning.

I think they probably voted for Bush last time as well :eyes:

I think they probably voted for Bush last time as well :eyes:

I clicked in reply to Salin's post and tried to post the reply then got this:

Following query failed:
INSERT INTO 104_mesg_archive VALUES('233140', '0', '0', '0', '0', '105555', 'xray s', '20030826170330', 'Kbowe', '20030826203344', '', '00000000000000', 'Who is behind the World Tribune/ WMD in Lebanon report?', 'This morning as I wiped the sleep from my eyes the FOX local news anchor quoted a World Tribune article that Saddam\'s WMD were now believed to be in Lebanon. I found a link to the story. It looks very suspicious to me, like a Rove plant to take some heat off Bush.\r\n\r\nhttp://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html\r\n\r\nProblem is, many people hear this stuff first thing in the morning and file it in their minds as the truth. \r\n\r\nCan anyone give me some background on the World Tribune and Geostrategydirect.com? ', '', 'on', 'off', 'off', '0', '0', '1', '0', '0', '0', '0', '9' )

.

Other posters have similar complaints.

by the polls butterfly ballot form!

For two reasons. First, I don't think a President Hillary would be popular. You can forget about her actually accomplishing anything which requires the approval of Congress. She could change my mind on this if she ran an excellent campaign but the imagine I have of a Hillary presidency is the year 1998 strung out over four years (and there's no reason for this, that is part of my intense dislike over the prospect, the Clintons had their run, their job now is to help the party find a new standard bearer, seriously, I challenge anyone to provide a reason for why Hillary is more qualified, or is more likely to be the best leader on any particular set of issues, than the candidates who are running now).

Second, these are dangerous times internationally and as wrong headed as I think Bush is I'd seriously entertain the possibility that it would be better for them to stay in charge than for an amateur who wouldn't have the backing of the country to improvise something. She could convince me that this perception I have of her is wrong. But most of what she's done up until now makes me skeptical (she's changed her positions on basic things like the Arab-Israeli conflict, I don't think to this day she articulated a clear opinion about Iraq, if you're president on foreign policy you don't get to stick your finger in the air, articulate some vague middle position, and then jump when you've figured out which position is politically advantageous).

...but she'd be a damned sight better than Lieberman, and of course anyone is better than the turd we've got now.

I don't think she is a generally honest woman.

There are plenty of good - strong candidates currently in the race that would happily get my vote. Hillary wouldn't.

and her husband. They are disgusting and are the biggest liabilities to the Democratic party today.
Hillary would never win the election. She is too hated. Most of America hates her strongly.
Do not send her any signals to run. We need to keep her hushed up.

Dean, in my opinion, with running mate Wes Clark would be our best chance of ousting bush in 2004. You may not like them, but they are the most electable and are far better than the Bush team.

Eight years of peace and prosperity really sucked, didn't it?

Gee, what planet do you live on? Or do you not have to earn a living?

:eyes:

That would be a monumentally egotistical, disgusting bit of treachery.
She would divide the democrats. She also would not win the final election. She is very unlikable and most of America despises her, as do I. Hillary would never capture crucial swing voters or Independants. many democrats might not even vote for her.
In my opinion, the best chance of beating George W. would be a Howard Dean/Wesley Clark ticket. Whatever you think of those men, they are a darn sight better than the current occupants of the WH.
Karl rove would be very happy if hillary won.

The only people who hate Hillary more than I do are Freepers. I loathe her opportunism, I loathe her back-deals, I loathe her spinelessness, and I loathe her manipulations.

Again she got elected on the progressive liberal line here in NYC and as soon as she got in office she started advocating for all of the Bush’s laws to be voted in.

She is not a real liberal the only reason why she got voted in was the liberal women’s vote. The women’s civil rights movement started here in New York.

Also the Republicans are pushing Bush poll numbers down for just this reason to get as many democratic stooges to run as possible to divide the swing and liberal voters to either vote 3rd party or not vote at all.

Give me a break a women being elected in 2004 during a war.

http://antiwarmonger.com

Green, to be specific. Hillary, from a liberal state, was more concerned with her poll numbers than with lives when she voted for BushWarInc's invasion of Iraq.

"It takes a Clinton to fix a Bush's mess"

"It takes a Clinton to fix a Bush's mess"

"It takes a Clinton to fix a Bush's mess"

6% of the people on this board would vote for GWB before Hillary. Since there are damn few conservatives on DU, it's likely that these people are the ones who try to start shit, who live to divide us, christian v atheist, labor v non-union, black v white, gay v straight. People who exploit our differences to divide us and keep us out of power.

We have 10 people here (in this SINGLE thread) who would vote for 43* rather than Hillary Clinton. They want us divided...Keep that in mind when you go off on people who share your general outlook but are culturally different...

There are actually 10 people here would would...what the hell, they must be joking. :crazy: If they aren't joking how about an explanation for the reasoning behind such a vote???

I myself hope Hillary doesn't run, I like her OK but she isn't my choice,I don't see her as a good candidate. If she got the nomination I sure the hell wouldn't vote for the chimp though, geesh!!!!! :puke:

1. She promised to serve out her Senate term, and has kept bringing that promise up when asked about 2004.

2. If the Democratic nominee loses in '04, she will be drafted for '08.

3. If the Democratic nominee wins in '04, she will be drafted in '12.

The 'pukes are salivating for the chance to refresh the Clinton "scandles" that they created during Bill's term - and create new ones. Smart, independant females just have high negative numbers in freeperland, and the mainstream "news" will regurgitate all the filth the 'pukes give to them about Hillary.

Plus, NY needs a good senator. Remember, she replaced Al D'Amato.

That ask basically the same ? ,had Mrs. Clinton at only 33% saying she should riun and the other 2 thrids saying no ! I dont put much beleif in that poll being a real veiw of the public's take on this issuse, it appears the only accurate poll when it comes to Clinton are the ones showing him with the high approval ratings he deserved when leaving office. In this era of the bush media ,who would know what to believe from any org that claims to report the news ! Its unbelievable the condition of our country in every aspect since this fake President stole the 2000 election ! Sad but true:-( What scares me are the people that believe the bush B/S, they always appear to be the most brainwashed among us , their ignorance is amazing !

if, at any time prior to the general election, she stated that the iraq war was not justified, i would vote for her even though she voted for bush's iraq resolution ...

without that acknowledgment, the democratic nominee, whoever that will be, cannot count on my support ...