Hillary Falls far short of Rivals with Independents.

this is not a flame post. it is meant as a discussion. Democrats need independents to win. But, Hillary is not getting the needed support from them. both Obama and Edwards are shown to be about even and having a majority of support with independents.
Please keep this a grown up discussion and not insults and flames. This is something we need and should fairly discuss.



New York (PTI): US Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton continues to lead her rivals by substantial margin among Democrats but finds herself trailing behind Barack Obama and John Edwards among the independent voters, a new poll released a year before the election shows.

The poll results, however, do somewhat call into question the Democratic frontrunner's electability come next November. Clinton's support tops out at 49 per cent in trial heats against Republicans Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney.

Her four-point margin (49 per cent to 45 per cent) over Thompson and Romney is significantly less than Edwards's and Obama's performance in those head-to-heads. Obama and Edwards both lead Romney by 53 to 37 per cent. Edwards leads Thompson 53 to 39 per cent; Obama leads him 52 to 39 per cent.

The poll, conducted for Newsweek by Princeton Survey Research Associates International from October 31 to November one, finds that Clinton gets 44 per cent votes of the overall Democratic vote, compared to 24 per cent for Obama and 12 per cent for Edwards.

She is the first choice of 45 per cent of self-identified Democrats. She also trounces Obama among Democratic female voters (48 to 19 per cent) and enjoys a marginal lead among male Democratic voters (38 to 32 per cent). Obama runs better among younger Democratic voters and minorities.

Still, Obama and Edwards both run significantly stronger than Clinton among independents.

On the other side, Rudy Giuliani has also held his lead over his field of competitors with 30 per cent of the Republican vote. And Fred Thompson has slipped from a high point of 22 per cent support in August to 15 per cent on Monday -- although he remains ahead of both John McCain and Mitt Romney.

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/003200711051123.htm

At this point in the race independents can say what ever they want. Most don't commit until election day.

In the primay, it really does not matter, Hillary has the support of who she needs. When it comes time for the General with the shape this Country is in, this is a non issue about Democrats, unless of course your trying to make you candidate look good in the primary which does not amount to a hill of beans.

The point is that it does matter now because if we choose the one who doesn't have mass appeal she won't end up winning. Get it?

If you read my Op you will see what I mean.

wonder how far ahead she would be. Out polling Obama by 50 instead of 20-30.

Yeah...right. That will be the day

this board is free from flame posts.

A Democrat cannot get elected just based on support from that portion of Democratic voters who reliably vote Democratic. The candidate has to either excite core Democrats enough to insure that they vote or obtain the votes of independents. Hillary's problem is her negatives both with core Democrats and with independents. Many core Democrats like me are not likely to get excited about Hillary and work to get the vote out. Independents are likely to be swayed by the Republican fearmongering and either stay home or impulsively vote Republican just to feel "safe."

That is why Hillary is not our best candidate. She polls strongly among loyal Democrats. But she has not shown us how she will break out beyond that core and get elected in the national campaign.

For me, Hillary's biggest dilemma is that her greatest advantage -- her experience, her past, her association with the Bill Clinton administration -- is also her greatest disadvantage. If she does win the primary, her presidential campaign will become bogged down in vitriol. She really should not continue to run. She is already checkmated by her past. I see no way she can get around the hurdle to her ultimate election.

What an acheivement!

but I couldn't care less for national polls anyway.

You have no credibility. That's what happens when you post right wing spew on a regular basis

An even-handed analysis?

what is your provenance of credibility?

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

I can comment no further except to say that I find what you say interesting.

and that's bad for America.

...BY PUSHING HILLARY. WILL WE EVER, EVER, EVER LEARN TO THINK FOR OURSELVES?

sorry.

you make a very convincing argument.

"WILL WE EVER, EVER, EVER LEARN TO THINK FOR OURSELVES?"

thanks.

they could easily falsely back in polls the dem they felt was most likely defeatable.

If the Democratic Party leadership wants to have a candidate that does not favor well with Independents and even disgusted moderate Republicans, then they are merely merchants for the Clinton Dynasty Machine. It's that simple.

I'm sure that Iowans will see this and will vote accordingly. Then the "Inevitability" Bubble will burst and the mainstream media will do the rest handing the momentum to the best candidate running, Barack Obama.

I'll take bets.

DU'ers have been complaining about the MSM ignoring
certain stories and inflating others (like the war).
All during the 90's the media was Clinton scandal 24/7.

Now, a certain segment of DU believes everything the MSM is
telling them about Hillary???
All of a sudden the MSM is believable???

1. That polls right now about potential candidates do not tell us what the outcome of the general election will be

and

2. As Democrats, we should not spread propaganda that leaves a bad image of Democratic candidates in the minds of potential voters.

I mention this b/c I have received chain mail crap from 2 different people - both active in the local party and even holding leadership positions in the local party. One chain mail attacked Barack Obama for not putting his hand over his heart during the national anthem and made ugly comments about how we shouldn't elect "Barack Hussein Obama", the e-mail was intended to leave a negative image in the minds of voters. The other was about Hillary - I don't remember the text, but it essentially was trying to confuse her with Karl Marx or Stalin or something.

Both e-mails pissed me off because I couldn't believe that local party leadership would willingly circulate Right-wing propaganda crap.

For full-disclosure, I don't know who I am voting for in the primary yet. A few months ago, it would have been Edwards or Obama, today it would be Hillary or Biden. Only b/c of the debates - but I didn't watch the last couple of debates. I'm not going to volunteer for any candidates in the primary, but will volunteer for any of them in the general.

:rofl:

time trying to grab the imaginary middle.