10-Point Swing Against Hillary In General Election, Hillary has lost Electability claim

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_clinton_vs_giuliani_thompson

Hillary would lose to Giuliani 46-42%, after beating him before with 48%. Obama has shown in general election heats in Iowahe is 15% more electable in the general than Hillary, and wins 20% of the Republican vote vs. her 11%.

Giuliani was trailing by 6 points now is ahead by 4 points, a 10-point swing in the same poll.

Obama is nwo more electable than Hillary. Besides this sexist country could end up voting against a woman in a time of terror, and vote for Giuliani over Hillary, as in France where a woman lost.

It's a big risk to take, as is an African American candidate. Just saying Hillary is clearly losing the Electability claim and is at a measly 42% when a generic Dem cleans the GOP clock.

Hillary also losing badly in FL in the Mason Dixon poll and in the IA general heat poll did some 15% worse than Obama (the IA voters are polled for the general because that's a real clue to how national race will play out).

Form the ABC Iowa poll:

The poll found that 30% of Democrats would support Obama, 26% Clinton, Edwards 22% and Richardson 11%.

One of the most significant poll findings is that Obama was regarded by Democrats as having a new direction and ideas, 43% to Clinton's 21%, but Clinton was way ahead in terms of experience, 38% to 12%.

that giuly would attract enough undecideds/independent voters to win in the general election.

But only if he's a white guy.

Determining factor in who the nominee is. only grey matter. too bad hillary and obama supporters will pull those cards straight from the bottom of the deck. more politics of distraction. instead of truth, like JOE BIDEN. Joe pulls no punches. And would mop the floor with ANY repuke. Sad most do not see it, they are concerned with bullshit misinformed propaganda.

experience, knowledge, and other qualities. If either were elected, not only with the DEM side of the aisle breath a sigh of relief, but I suspect that many GOPers might feel the same. And across the world, every rational nation would join us and giving thanks for sanity breaking loose in the US.

With Hillary, we would have a mess. She would be under constant attack. She would make some truly terrible decisions. She would be the only possible candidate that could do what right now is next to impossible - organize the Right, the Religious and the GOP into an organized force worthy of notice.

Obama, as a black client told me, would not survive the first year in office. He too would be attacked, but there are some "crackers" in the deep south who would not rest until he was dead.

Edwards, as smart as he is, is simply not resonating with the voters. Why, I cannot explain. he is smart, good looking, speaks well, has a good organization, was well funded, but he is going nowhere.

although I love many of Dennis Kucinich' politics and policies, his stint as mayor was a joke. He is great at rounding out the field, and adding substance and issues others would like to ignore. But he will not win. A squeaky voiced short guy with a tall gorgeous wife just makes us jealous.

so that we can compare them with Hillary's numbers in his poll.

A crossdressing East Coast big city Liberal mayor who is pro-gun control, pro-gay rights and pro-choice, is not going to inspire GOP voters in big numbers. Forget it!!!!! Screw Rasmussen!!!!

You can claim that GOP voters will "vote against Hillary" but voting "against" a candidate is a losing strategy (remember "anybody but Bush"). Saying "I'm not the other guy" is not a winning campaign strategy.

All three front-running Democrats can win a general election, IMO. The GOP candidates are a joke!!!!

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=2d211d2a-ee13-40ab-8455-5a70b9b55bfe

Obama is more electable in Iowa than Hillary by far.

Rudy dropped out because of his prostate cancer (which is a treatable cancer that didn't have to interfere with his campaign). He was behind in the polls when he folded!

Where is Rudy's base? Is it NYC? I don't think so. Half of the voters here absolutely hate him. Is it New York State? I don't think so. He's not particularly popular in his home state. I doubt he would win NY against any of the Dem candidates.

Rudy doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell, forget the pollsters, they are just trying to game the race.

The primaries haven't even happened yet, we don't know who the Republican nominee will be. If it is Rudy, he doesn't have a chance of winning. The general election campaign has to get started before polls like this are relevant.

Can't he leave us all alone this holiday weekend?

Just imagine if a Democratic President and Congress had screwed the country and the world the way the Repubs just have. No one would be talking about "whether" a Democrat might be elected in the next year!

And somehow, I don't think the Rasmussen polls would be showing it to be likely. Rasmussen is a right-wing company, and its polls have a way of demoralizing Democrats. Show some skepticism--especially to polls that bum you out.

Really, for best mental health, you should cut out the U.S. media altogether. It exists to weaken the left.

In my view, it's inconceivable that the voters will forget the Republican Interregnum (2000-2006), wherein everything went wrong, forgiving the party that gave us the Worst President Ever™ and just about destroyed the country...and letting them start out with a fresh slate. Yea, right. And yet that's what these dubious polls and biased news reports are trying to tell us.

Here's another story:

Democrats hold a stable advantage in the Congressional vote (51 to 41 percent) – their new plateau for almost all of 2007. And more relevant for 2008, Democrats are well ahead (54 to 37 percent) in the 35 Democratic battleground districts, including their 2006 pick-up seats. And perhaps even more relevant, the Democrats are running ahead (48 to 42 percent) in the Republican-held battleground seats.

Democrats have moved into a stable lead in the named balloting for Congress – bigger than the margin they achieved in 2006.

voters hold their Democratic House incumbents (asked by name) in high esteem – a judgment stable over the last six months; while Republican incumbents are losing their voters – with their favorability ratings falling significantly over the same period, particularly in the last month.
http://www.democracycorps.com/reports/analyses/Democracy_Corps_November_6_2007_Memo.pdf

It is truly amazing that anyone is even considering a Repub prez.

I wonder how many actually are. Hard to put trust in polls or the press. We're on our own in so many ways.

lots of kudos for being Fascist A$$holes.

Do we have a Lefty Think Tank that's figuring out to get through to the American Peeps without m$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$m?

"Really, for best mental health, you should cut out the U.S. media altogether. It exists to weaken the left."

Sage Advice..I cut it out Nov 6, 2002..and who knows how much more mental I would be if I hadn't of. :silly:

a Republican gets elected to the WH in '08. The far left likely wants a GOP president because they would be lost without something to complain about.

is to nominate a Pro-War/AntiLABOR/Pro FOR PROFIT HealthCare/Free Trader/Economic Conservative funded by LARGE Corporations.

I've got a better idea.
Lets nominate a Democrat.

Hillary would rather PLANT questions than answer them!

not one of the Democratic candidates fit that description.

"Fantasy Time News".

His polls should be taken with a pound of salt.

But anybody who really thinks that 20% of republican voters will vote for an African-American named Obama needs to have their head examined!

Hillary won 5 out of the last 6 polls. This latest poll could well be a fluke.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: