This election is the first time I've ever taken such an interest in the competition's primaries campaigns. I have a pretty clear understanding of how the GOP campaigns work and am rarely, if ever, surprised at the primary election results. However, I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the DNC's primary poll results thus far. Let me explain why....

Let's take just the last debate for example. MSNBC's vote after the debate As of right now, Barack and Hillary are pretty much neck and neck with "who stood out", "who showed the most leadership qualities", and "who was the most convincing candidate", yet Hillary has an overwhelming majority of votes for the "most rehearsed lines" and "who avoided the questions", which frankly, I have to agree with after just finishing watching the debate. And yet, Hillary still holds a commanding lead in the polls.

Now, obviously I'm not making any decisions here based solely on one debate, but I think it's worth mentioning that people who take the time to head to the political pages of online news pages, I think they tend to be more likely registered to vote, watch the debates, etc... Take the members of AD for example. I believe the members of AD are very informed, we have an interest in politics and instead of keeping our politics to ourselves, we come here to debate. That being said, I haven't seen much support for Hillary here on these boards. I'm not saying everyone here hates her, I just see more support for Obama, Edwards, even Kucinich.

Another example is the political pundits in the media, even the most liberal tend to be very critical of her.

Questions for debate.

1. Why does Hillary have such a huge lead in the polls?

2. Who do you think has the best shot at beating her in the primaries?

Name recognition. In the world of "Joe Six-Pack" Politics Clinton == Democrat, Bush == Republican. They wouldn't even recognize Obama if he weren't black. He's essentially "The Black Guy Running Against Hillary" to people who have a passing interest in politics. Go out on the street and ask people who he is, they'll recognize the name, ask what his position is, 50% will regurgitate Senator, ask what state, 25% might know Illinois. As you drill down you'll find most people don't know a thing about him. They don't know much about Hillary either, but they do know who she is. She was the First Lady, she's a Senator from New York... go ahead for fun ask who the OTHER Senator from NY is... unless you're in NY, then they might know.

The truth is most of America has no idea what's going on in regards to the Presidential Elections. They know in November in '08 they need to do something. Many will pull Blue or Red no matter who's on the ballot. It'll be pretty murky by then too. Iraq will be brushed aside as fringe issue. Especially if Hillary wins! The Republicans already don't want to talk about it and the Democrats have all but admitted they can't do a thing about it either.

No one. Unless Obama can get a message, any message out there. It's gotten so desperate on that side of the fence that Edwards is trotting his dying wife out to remind everyone that they don't have "that much time left." Which, frankly, is disgusting.

1. Why does Hillary have such a huge lead in the polls?

Actually- it just is yet another example of the average stupidity of the average American voter. I mean- how can you NOT make fun of poeple so stupid as to vote for Bush not once BUT TWICE - I mean really- what this will do is cement the fact that Democrats are as IQ challenged as thier Republican rivals. I weep for the republic.

There are good candidates- I do believe Obama would wipe the nation with whatever the Repubs have to offer- because they look SOOO bad. Except for Ron Paul- now, if he wins the republican nomination- now THAT would be a watershed event - but, lets face it- Republicans picked GW over McCain, at the least- showing thier collective ignorance in a whole new way!

2. Who do you think has the best shot at beating her in the primaries?

Easy- Barak. I still think he will win it over her, she has negatives in her own party- he is pretty much blemish free to the converted.

This is a concern of mine as well. While I don't necessarily disagree with Hillary's positions, I realize that such a large number of voters do, that she may be unelectable. I know Karl Rove believes that, and he has better information than I. I don't like the way the country has been moving with this administration, but I don't believe that the exact opposite is any sort of solution. We need to become LESS polar. Hillary may be the Republican's best hope in 2008.


1. Why does Hillary have such a huge lead in the polls?

Because she is the anti-Bush, personified, and has worked hard to establish this image, with considerable media assistance. Understandably, she will get the female vote, and the hard liberal vote. She is at least proposing massive change to the medical insurance situation (which needs adjusting, IMHO). She appears to be everything the anti-war audience desires, which will be sad when she fails to follow through (if elected).


2. Who do you think has the best shot at beating her in the primaries?

I think Barrack Obama has the best shot. He is a fresh face, holds many of the same popular positions (has a better anti-war position, having not been forced to vote "for" the war,) and virtually no baggage. He will take the black vote, the moderate liberal vote, and I hope the hard liberal vote (when the fact that Hillary is a baggage-dragging carreer politician who will say anything to get elected becomes clear.) Barrack MIGHT be just as self-promoting, but it's not an established fact yet (in my mind, anyhow), and comes off to me as much more believable. The key thing in his way is the nebulous concept of racism. He probably can't take the southern states, and though I hope I'm wrong, I believe he has an uphill battle in the northeast and part of the midwest. Also, his relative lack of experience won't get him much support from existing figures and organizations, even within his own party (It's H-Dogs turn!), or the media (who have already picked their pony).

I don't care for the way the Democrats are positoned right now. This is their election to lose, and while I think that it WAS important that they make their point about the war (since they can't do anything actually ABOUT the war,) that's over, and they should do some good now, somewhere in our political wasteland, to show that they can get anything done. They are balkanizing, when they should be unifying. They seem to think (just like in 2004) that there is simply no way for them to lose, so it really doesn't matter how they act. If they continue to act like a bunch or stupid, spoiled children on a grade-school playground, we adults will spank them.

In my perferct scenario, Hillary spontaneously steps out of the race, and exhorts her true believers to back Obama, and dumps her cash loaf on him. Tell me he wouldn't win in my dream world.

1. Why does Hillary have such a huge lead in the polls?

Simple. Hillary has the political organization that none of the other candidates has. The so-called "Democrat machine" that is concentrated strictly on politics, not populism. They know how to run national campaigns and win elections and heading up this machine is probably the smartest politician in the US at this time - Bill Clinton. People keep waiting for Hillary to make a mistake and I don't think she's going to. She's going to win the nomination going away I think and she'll make a formidable candidate in the general election.



2. Who do you think has the best shot at beating her in the primaries?

Nobody realistically, not unless Hillary has some sort of a train wreck somewhere along the line. But, if anyone was to defeat her in an early primary, my bet would be on John Edwards. He at least has some experience at running in a national setting and appealing to voters in the specific area of the country in which he's campaigning. Obama doesn't. Obama draws the crowds and the support from whacklib websites on the Internet, but even in today's age of of the Internet, national campaigns still need national organization and Obama doesn't appear to have that. He'll raise a lot of money, make some friends and become better known and may have a chance down the line somewhere. Not this time though. I think Hillary is a lock for 2008.


Aquilla

Why does Hillary have such a huge lead in the polls?

Well, the mainstream media (with the help of the GOP and the blogosphere) has been draping her in the Cloak of Inevitability for about two years now - well before she even decided to run. Initially, a lot of the Hillary-touting was done by the right (on the assumption, I suspect, that she wasn't electable - little realizing just how desperate the Bush administration would make people for a change, any change). The unpopularity of Bush has contributed significantly to her "early lead" status and has helped feed the finance machine. The name recognition factor hasn't hurt much, either, nor has the fact that much of the smearing of the Clintons already feels like old news - there isn't much left to throw at her. And, for some, that also implies a certain level of martyrdom.

Who do you think has the best shot at beating her in the primaries?

Al Gore. Were he to enter the race, even now, he could probably take Hillary - and, just as possibly, the election. Of those who have tossed their hats in the general direction of the ring, though, I'd have to say either Edwards or, perhaps, Biden - and the chances of another candidate may not be that bad. Obama is probably not electable (he should have waited for 2012 or 2016) and the party probably knows that, but I'm waiting for Hillary fatigue to start setting in any day now. We see and hear from her more often than we see or hear from the Bush administration these days. Overexposure (and overconfidence) is not necessarily a good thing at this stage. By the time of the primaries, a lot of people may be feeling like Clinton's already been Spokesperson-in-Chief for two years and start thinking "Another four years of this? Another eight?"

Plus, she's blundering. Her vote on the Lieberman-Kyl Amendment demonstrated that, however much she may "regret" authorizing Bush to use force in Iraq (even if he was disingenuous), she has learned zip from her mistakes. She's almost as out of sync with the party as Joe Lieberman and she may yet pay the price - or the Democratic Party could...

Sadly, about the only Democrat I'd willingly support at this stage is the least likely to be nominated. And the same goes for the Republican field.

Funny you should mention Biden. When the dust settles on the republican primaries and I'm not happy with the result, I could see myself voting for Biden. He may not be the most charismatic person, at least in the debates, but at least he's not telling people what they want to hear, knowing full well he can't make those promises. Unlike Bill Richardson, "I will have all our troops out in 3 months". I had a nice chuckle when I heard him say that in the last debate. It's not even logistically possible, but he just had to undercut everyone else's time frame for a withdrawal. The look on the other candidates' faces was priceless too.

Thinking back to Howard Dean's rise and fall last election, I can see now why it may be too soon to call a clear winner. I think you're right about Obama though, it's not his time, but he must be making someone nervous in the Clinton camp if they're using Bill to trash talk him. Although Obama did make a have a good comeback for it.

Yeah, Biden is about as close as either party gets to a "cross-over" candidate - though it's almost as much because everyone can find something they don't like about him. :-


Yeah, people keep deriding Mike Gravel (who I actually thi

Well to be fair to the GOP and the blogosphere; who didn't know that Hillary was looking to be President? She runs for Senator of NY - why on Earth would she do that - if not setting yourself up for a Presidential run. She still doesn't care about NY! Hilliary's "I have no intention of running for President," was as genuine as "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

First, I should complete a previous post here. My stupid satellite connection cuts of about every fourteen minutes for a minute or two and, if it's mid-post, only part of my response appears. Usually I catch it and can go back and re-submit my response. Sometimes, though, it slips through as it did above:


The rest of that read something like:

Now back to the current response:

I didn't - at least not in 2008. And, until the Bush administration started completely tanking, I thought she wouldn't. And, I expect that had there continued to be any support for the Bush administration or its policies (especially among Democrats), she would have remained a senator until at least 2012.


I think Sen. Clinton's level of concern for the state of New York can easily be determined by her voting record on issues of importance to New Yorkers - and her approval rating among residents of that state (which has consistently been between 65% and 80% among all voters). As to why she would run for the Senate in New York, well, that's where she and her husband had planned to reside after Bill Clinton's presidency. It's where he had set up offices for his foundation and where they had bought a home. Were Hillary Clinton planning to continue to work in politics, where would you recommend she run for office? Wyoming, maybe?

Come on... Hillary was running for President while Bill was in office. If you didn't see this coming you must have been intentionally looking away because you're not stupid. Her worst fears for NY run was that Guiliani would run against her and crush her chances of having some credentials to run for President besides First Lady. It's not particularly difficult to look at Hillary's actions and see that she was gearing up for a Presidential Run.

As for where Hillary should have run for Senate, I dunno, Arkansas? In a Liberal voting state like New York the fact that she's only got a 65-80% approval rating is more of an indictment than praise.

Go poll Hillary's numbers a little further North than Westchester County and they fall off sharply.

I have no doubt that she would eventually have run for the Presidency, but thought it wouldn't be until 2012 or 2016 - which I suspect had been her original intention.


But she wasn't residing in Arkansas and had no intention of residing in Arkansas following Bill Clinton's presidency. It would have made no sense.


I have - and it's not that sharp (I tend to go by the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute figures as they have pretty accurately reflected New York voting patterns for the past several years). Like I said, the polling numbers reflect the entire state - Democrats and Republicans. As you pointed out, New York is a divided state - even New York City is pretty divided (it's had numerous Republican mayors and council members). There is a clear liberal majority, but a lot of elections have been fairly close. On the other hand, Giuliani never presented a serious threat to Clinton (why do you think he pulled out of the Senate race?) and she is still well ahead of him among New York voters for the presidency.

I would still contend that the approval rating for a candidate as conservative as Hillary Clinton is still pretty impressive in a state that has so many voters well to the left of the senator.

No, she can't (couldn't have) wait until 2012-2016. Her age would be a major problem (65-69). It's stretch enough that she's a Clinton. To say nothing of being a woman.

Had GWB not been a "Wartime" President she'd have run in 2004. She'd have wiped the floor with the likes of Kerry and Edwards to get the nod.

I think Giuliani took a dive in the NY Senate run for a lot of reasons, not the least of which was his ego. A Senator is one of two- not a role Giuliani is particularly good at. As for NYCs Republican Mayors... Guiliani and Bloomberg are pretty crappy Republicans.

**edited to fix bad maths

Sixty-five is a "major" age issue? Heck, in your original post, you suggested that fifty-nine would be a "major problem". Tell that to Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney and John McCain and Ron Paul and Joe Biden and Duncan Hunter and Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson and Denns Kucinich and - hell, by your reckoning, the only candidates that aren't age-challenged are John Edwards and Barack Obama. Good luck with those two. For that matter, you would have doubted the chances of John Adams, Andrew Jackson, William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, James Buchanan, Harry S Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, and George H.W. Bush - all sixty-plus when they were elected.

As for being a Clinton, well, that's a constant regardless of when she decided to run. Though, I'd argue that the further from Bill Clinton's presidency, the better - another argument for waiting. With a female Speaker of the House and several increasingly prominent female senators (Clinton among them), I'd argue that "being a woman" would be less of a problem in 2016 than in 2008. People would be even more accustomed to female leadership in this country.


Okay... and John Lindsay and Fiorello LaGuarida and William Frederick Havemeyer may also have been crappy Republican mayors. Hillary Clinton is a pretty crappy Democrat. Your point?

New York has often had "compromise candidates" that come out on top: fairly liberal Republicans and fairly conservative Democrats. Giuliani and Clinton to name but two. But there has been no shortage of Republican leadership in New York - Theodore Roosevelt, John Foster Dulles, Hamilton Fish, Thomas Dewey, William Seward, Roscoe Conkling, James Sherman, Nelson Rockefeller, Elihu Root, Michael Forbes (when he won elections, anyway), Al D'Amato - and a lot of notable Republican commentators and activists from Horace Greeley to William F. Buckley, Jr. (not to mention, er, Ann Coulter). Whether you'd consider any of these people more than "pretty crappy" is beside the point. Those who were politicians, who ran for and won public office, were generally to the right of their opponents. New York is not quite so partisan as it may sometimes seem. Sure, a Rick Lazio or a Rudy Giuliani may not pose much of a threat to a Hillary Clinton, but that doesn't mean that a less crappy candidate wouldn't - or even, as you've pointed out, that New Yorkers would be above electing "pretty crappy Republicans".

While we're on the subject, Giuliani supporters should perhaps note that Ardolph Loges Kline, another Republican mayor of New York City, went on to become New York's Representative from the Fifth District - in 1921. That was the last time a former New York City mayor was elected to any other office.

I fat fingered 5 for 6. It was a typo. Anyway...


A 65 year old Mitt Romney is "distinguished" a 65 year old Hillary Clinton is "old" (and you know I'm being nice.) I don't make these rules I'm simply telling it like it is. However, I'm having this discussion with someone who denies knowing Hillary Clinton was going to run for President!

I'd like to believe your assessment of American politics in 2018 will have evolved enough to have woman, an old woman, an old old woman named Clinton elected as President - but I don't.

Oh. I believed you when you said the "55-59" was due to "bad maths" and figured you'd based the rest of your post on that math. Next time try **edited to fix typos. I could've shortened my lists by a name or two.

[quote]1. Why does Hillary have such a huge lead in the polls?

Quite frankly, democrats want to win and electing a Clinton is a key way to do it. Her husband has a record of consistently beating republicans, and Hillary can do likewise as she is a fighter and is married to the best fundraiser in the party. She is a highly intelligent woman and her views will resonate with people even more as time progresses. Spots like this are what will put her over the top with people. When the 46 million people without health insurance also see her healthcare pitch and the like, she will definitely overtake any republican who espouses the current whacked out system and/or any private plans on the issue. I know more than a few small business folks who have to go with private plans, utopian coverage they provide not. She will nail her opponents on bread and butter issues, I feel sorry for the GOP nominee that faces ads like the "invisible" one which will strike a beat with anyone and everyone who has been downsized, who pays a $1,500 co-pay, or who is straining to pay off the mortgage, and who works more than one job to make ends meet.

You sure you're not working for the Clinton '08 campaign? I swear I've read those talking points before somewhere.... And I still don't buy it.

As far as her electibility goes, Dodd made a what I think is a valid point regarding that. Over numerous polls, no matter who they stack Hillary up against, a steady 50% say they will not vote for her. Granted, there's no way to determine if it had more to do with her being a democrat than it just being her. But, there's certainly a possibility of a liability there.

To further illustrate her performance in the debates:

Philly Debate polls

As of 8:33PM Arizona time, she once again has the overwhelming majority of votes for "Most rehearsed lines" and "Who avoided the questions the most".

I just got done watching the debate and she was ill-prepared for the beating Edwards and Obama had in store for her. Even Tim Russert became the first person in any of the debates to call her on avoiding the questions. It's about time!

Early on, she was poised and at the top of her game. However, the wind was knocked out of her sails when she completely fumbled the question regarding the national archives. It was a valid question and Tim Russert made her answer it a second time to get clarification, in which she just repeated the same thing "they're working as fast as they can".

Later on, Edwards and Obama kicked her while she was down regarding the driver's license question, another fumble by Hillary.

It was almost painful to watch, and had it been the first debate I would have felt sorry for her. However, in context with the rest of the debates in which she has been virtually uncontested by both the other candidates and the hosts, karma caught up with her.

It will be interesting to see if the national or Iowa polls will reflect any of this in the near future, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if her numbers continue to skyrocket.

From the start I thought that Clinton was the worse person the
DEMS could have as the nominee. I think she would be the easiest to
rip apart, because of all the shady stuff that her and Willy were involved
in (White Water, Corporate ties, China) . So I always wounder why the
media and even the REPS treated her so well or as such a strong contender.
But the new Edwards ad makes it clear now!

Charlotte Observer | 12/05/2007 | Edwards' ad slams 'corporate Democrats'
(This link is dead, but the one below has some of the same info)
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/23/edw...on/#cnnSTCVideo

She's already a "Corporate Whore" Just like Bush, Willy, Giuliani ! They know she
will play ball with the corporate world. So they want America to have the
Choice Corporate Whore #1 or #2!

1. Well, it should now be apparent that Hillary does NOT have "a huge lead in the polls" and in reality, NEVER DID, because her polling strength was primarily illusionary and her campaign along with a complicit and lazy press corp talked up her "inevitability" with the hopes of her opponents shrugging their shoulders and folding their tents in grim resignation.

Didn't happen. Now to quote Senator Clinton, "this is where the fun begins." Not only does she have to work like hell to beat back Obama and Edwards in Iowa, if she loses there and a few days later in New Hampshire, will South Carolina save her? Hillary has dragged out Bill and Joe Wilson and her own mama in the fight to beat down Obama. She says she's the real agent of change and not her opponents, yet on the other hand she is suggesting that by voting for her you'll be getting "two for the price of one" and a return to the good ol' days of Bill Clinton.

Now why is it that I think the notion of a return to the Clinton Years will delight a few, terrify many and disgust everyone else?

2. From the way she's scorching the earth going after Barack Obama it's obvious she thinks he's the greatest threat to her. I wouldn't be so quick to blow off Edwards just yet. Still, if you believe what the Washington Post is saying, she had better be careful in how far she goes in trying to break him down.

It has unfolded mostly under the radar. But an important development in the 2008 Democratic battle may be the building backlash among African Americans over comments from associates of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton that could be construed as jabs at Sen. Barack Obama's race.

These officials, including Clinton aides and prominent surrogates, have raised questions or dropped references about Obama's position on sentencing guidelines for crack vs. powder cocaine offenses; on his handgun control record; and on his admitted use of drugs as a youth. The context was always Obama's "electability." But the Illinois senator's campaign advisers said some African American leaders detect a pattern, and they believe it could erode Clinton's strong base of black support.

Here's a sample of how the issue is playing out:

From the "Tom Joyner Morning Show," Dec. 14:

Tom Joyner: "Yeah, man, they are coming after you now. So the story about the Clinton campaign putting out this statement not to vote for Barack Obama because he used drugs, and then yesterday I understand that she apologized and the campaign worker quit."

Obama: "Well, I think everybody knows, because I wrote about it in a book 10 years ago. . . . and part of the reason I wrote about it and I talk about it in schools is because I want young people out there to know that if they make the same kinds of mistakes that I made that they can get over it and that they can move on. . . ."

From columnist Derrick Z. Jackson of the Boston Globe, Dec. 15:

"That leaves open as to how far the Clinton campaign, whose poll leads have evaporated in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, will go to stereotype Obama as not only naive, but cast him in a sinister light in a nation where black drug use and criminality is exaggerated in the media . . . ."

" 'I don't think these strategies are very subtle,' Obama said. 'I won't speak to the racial element of it because I think, you know, if I were a white candidate, obviously, somebody suggesting falsely they were a drug dealer, it's never good.' But in sum, Obama, who has written about his teenage drug use in his memoirs, said, 'There's been a series of these kinds of tactics that at some point we've just got to send a clear signal this is not what we're about.' " link

If there was Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton running for prez, I have no doubt by now they would have screamed that Clinton is engaging in some thinly veiled race-baiting. Obama won't say it out loud (not yet anyway), but you know he's thinking it. He saw how Hillary got jumped on when she implied she was being criticized because she is a woman and playing the card of racial victim isn't his style.

Then again, should he win the nomination, what the Republicans would put Obama through would make Clinton's tactics look like a birthday party.