A couple Red state matchups

These poll numbers from SuveyUSA were received via email. For whatever reason, they're not online yet. But check out how Hillary -- perhaps our weakest nominee for red state matchups -- does in some of those states.

SurveyUSA. 8/13. Registered voters. MoE 4.3%.

Alabama. 9 Electoral Votes. Bush won 2004 by 26%. (7/16 results)

Clinton 44 (39)

Giuliani 50 (54)

Clinton 47 (41)
Thompson 49 (55)

Clinton 48 (44)
Romney 46 (49)

Kentucky. 8 Electoral Votes. Bush won 2004 by 20%. (6/11 results)

Clinton 49 (44)

Giuliani 44 (47)

Clinton 51 (49)
Thompson 44 (45)

Clinton 53 (51)
Romney 41 (42)

Virginia. 13 Electoral Votes. Bush won 2004 by 8%. (6/11 results)

Clinton 49 (44)

Giuliani 46 (48)

Clinton 51 (50)
Thompson 42 (45)

Clinton 53 (51)
Romney 39 (40)

Grandpa Fred and Romney don't look so hot, do they?

•  BwaaHHHAHAHAHAHAHA

  I am going to start laughing now.

  by Abraham Running For Congress When I Turn 25 on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 03:42:26 PM PDT

  •  Disagree re Hillary & Red States

    She is a lock to win Arkansas* from what I understand.  No other Dem candidate is a lock to win in any Red State, so I think it's definitely arguable that she is the weakest Dem candidate in Red States.  

    *I know that Arkansas has a very Democratic delegation to Congress but for purposes of the Red/Blue divide of the last two Presidential elections, it is definitely a Red State.

    by NewDem on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 03:48:01 PM PDT

    •  I think all our candidates are strong

      and will do well in red states and better than 2000 & 2004.

      by Abraham Running For Congress When I Turn 25 on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 03:50:49 PM PDT

      •  Hillary polls even better in Arkansas...

        ...against the GOP field.  She has double-digit leads over everybody.  And Bill Clinton has made it a "personal mission" to help Hillary carry Arkansas and put it back in the blue column.

        by Berkeley Vox on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 03:59:43 PM PDT

        •  Arkansas is not a typical red state...

          ...for the Clintons, since Bill was governor there for years and remains of the Clinton machine are still active in the state.

          But as for the results in general: Holy Crap.  Clinton beats Romney in Alabama?  ALABAMA? Buhahahaha...

          Of course, I suspect a lot of this is anti-mormom hatred amoungst Southern Baptists.  But then again, she comes within two in Alabama against Thompson.

          by Geotpf on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:22:00 PM PDT

          •  A sign

            of how badly the GOP has damaged itself.  I don't think we can put this poll at name recognition only - all the Republicans poll about the same and at least one, Giuliani has as high a name recognition as Clinton.

            by Unstable Isotope on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 05:00:43 PM PDT

          •  They're Dixiecrats

            not really people the progressive blogosphere could rally around and call "their own".

            People still flock to conservative Dems in AR.

            by edhula3 on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 08:01:46 PM PDT

      •  You bet! Drag down the whole ticket? Not!

        Especially considering that it's a virtual certainty that Mitty is going to be the nominee. And even in the long-shot chance that it's Giuliani, just remember that almost none of the rank-and-file voters know anything about him. Once Dobson and Perkins and that whole gang starts telling the religiou right voters that Rudy' s not on their side, he'll plummet ten points against ANY Democrat. And that's before the Democrats start hammering his record and ripping down his 9-11 claims.

        ANY Democrat we put up will win as long as we're not sitting around wringing our hands in despair at all the ways we could lose.

        by anastasia p on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 05:52:34 PM PDT

        •  I agree...the only way our guy (or girl) dosen't

          win in '08 in this environment is if we get complacent or start to take things for granted. If we go full throttle once our nominee is decided up until Election Day (assuming our nominee runs their campaign better than Kerry did - which isn't asking much), we win.

          by Deano963 on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 08:38:34 PM PDT

    •  Call me a concern troll

      I don't care, but I'm still concerned about her negatives being in the 50's. I feel much more comfortable with Edwards, who averages a twelve point trounce of his Repub opponents.

      by sarahlane on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 03:54:29 PM PDT

      •  i have edwards concerns

        i'm concerned that he didn't do much to attract red-state votes as a VP nominee, and has moved to the left on a lot of issues since.

        I happen to agree with his positions a lot more now, but I don't see how he's suddenly gotten much stronger in red states.

        Obviously he was the VP nominee, not the Presidential nominee, and I'll be ecstatic to support him if he's our guy this time around -- but there are concerns there, too!

        by nbutter on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:02:15 PM PDT

        •  No candidate is gonna be perfect

          for any of us. But, keep in mind that veep choices rarely affect a general election. IMO, the fact that Edwards beat out Faircloth in a red state, against a well financed machine, as a political novice was pretty amazing. I don't think any other candidate could have pulled off what Edwards did in NC. He hasn't become much stronger in red states since 2004, but he does offer us a good shot in some southern states, especially if he's up against someone like Romney. He polls well amongst repubs and indies just like Obama does. Neither candidate has Hillary's high negatives. But, I do think that no matter who the nominee is, we have a better shot than we've had in the past two generals.

          by sarahlane on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:10:56 PM PDT

          •  And Mitty WILL be the nominee so...

            we could run a stuffed bear and probably win a landslide. Luckily we have a wealth of great choices.

            by anastasia p on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 06:01:14 PM PDT

          •  1998

            Of course, the fact that Edwards put $6 Million of his own money into that race had nothing to do with it.

            by davybaby on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 10:02:47 PM PDT

        •  People vote for the TOP of the ticket

          more than with who is on the bottom, so it didn't matter that he selected him. Plus, Kerry also used him to campaign less than he should have.

          by Progressive Moderate on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:19:49 PM PDT

          •  Wow, thinking back, that is surely true

            campaigning enough, that is.

            OTOH, I'll never forget that Dazzle Table debate with the Leader of the Fourth Branch. Edwards was terrible.

            by revenant on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:42:43 PM PDT

            •  Edwards WON the debate with Cheney

              Forty-one percent of these uncommitted debate watchers said Edwards won the debate tonight. Twenty-eight percent said Cheney won. Thirty-one percent thought it was a tie.

              CBS Poll

              by pioneer111 on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:56:52 PM PDT

              •  Maybe my expectations were too high.

                I thought he did awful. Not quite as bad as JFK2 with the salute/report for duty schtick, though.

                I'm still a hardcore Edwards groupie. He's changed.

                by revenant on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 05:13:05 PM PDT

                •  COnsidering who Kerry was debating against

                  COmpared to who Edwards debated, your perception is not surprising. It's all about contrast with the opponent.

                  by Progressive Moderate on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 05:30:42 PM PDT

                •  Virtually no one agreed with you

                  I know there is a handful of people here who keep insisting Edwards "lost" the VP debate in 2004. After watching it on site at the Edwards rally on a giant outdoor screen it was my feeling that both men did pretty much what their own followers expected from them, neither disgraced himself the way Bush did in his debates and that it would have to be considered a draw because the followers of each would think their man was the bet.

                  When I got home after the rally and logged on, in addition to being deluged with photos of Edwards and Cheney together a couple of years ago in response to Cheney's claim that he never met Edwards, I saw poll after poll that said respondents thought Edwards won -- some of them overwhelmingly.  One of them, I think the Akron Beacon Journal, had him at  something like 80%. It shocked the hell out of me. I'd be thinking, well, Republicans are going to think  Cheney did a solid job as grumpy, condescending and contradictory as he was, but apparently not.

                  by anastasia p on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 06:10:04 PM PDT

              •  WTF???!!!

                I remember that debate and wish to hell I didn't. I was so embarrassed for Edwards because of his wishy-washy, poorly prepared performance I wanted to shoot him. He looked like the h.s. geek sucking up to the football quarterback bully. It takes some doing to make Dick Cheney look good. I seriously question any poll that found twice as many viewers thought Edwards won the debate. What is this poll?  Who commissioned it?  What population was sampled? What other polls were done and what were the results?  This has to be bogus and, even if it isn't, I still won't believe it.

                by cas2 on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 08:59:13 PM PDT

              •  Interesting.

                I, too, at the time was not happy when I found out he didn't call out Cheney for such a blatant lie of having never met him.  My friend was even more pissed off, and said had Edwards just said this, Kerry would be President today:

                No, sir, you are wrong.  We have met before, on the floor of the Senate.  If you are so willing to lie about such a small thing as meeting me, what else are you lying about to the American people?

                Game, set, match.  Too bad Edwards didn't say that.

                by BruinKid on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 11:54:41 PM PDT

          •  A Red Swing state with a Dem VP is helpful

            While agree that voters will vote the top of the ticket, where a VP IS important, is in a red, "swing" state. That popular dem candidate can push the dems over victory.  If Hillary picks Evan Bayh, THEN she and he could push Indiana, a red state, over the edge to a blue state, and therefore a national democratic victory.  Also, neighboring Ohio will also go with the Dems.  

            by The Crunch Man on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:52:12 PM PDT

            •  ...or Richardson, for New Mexico n/t

              by Berkeley Vox on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:53:32 PM PDT

              •  What about Brian Schweitzer?

                I'd love to see the Democrats look to the west for their nominee, but the more I see of Richardson on the campaign trail the less enamored I am of him. His debate performances have been less than stellar, his plan to get troops out of Iraq within 6 months is unrealistic without leaving equipment behind (which should NOT be an option), and his saying he believes homosexuality is a choice was about it for me. Put him at State or back at the UN, but not VP, please.

                I'd love to see Gov. Brian Schweitzer of Montana sounded out for VP, especially if Hillary or Obama is the nominee. Gives a nice balance, puts a western governor in there, and as an added bonus Schweitzer has been a leader on energy issues.

                If Edwards gets the nod, then he should consider Kathleen Sebelius or Janet Napolitano.

                by AustinCynic on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 05:21:07 PM PDT

                •  Schweitzer would punch out...

                  ...a Democratic canidate who asked him to be VP.  I mean that almost literally.  There's no way in hell he's twiddle his thumbs for eight years as VP, waiting for a chance at the big job (which he also doesn't really want).

                  Personally, I'd make him ambassador to Saudi Arabia.  He speaks fluent Arabic (he worked on irrigation projects for seven years in Saudi Arabia and Libya).

                  by Geotpf on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 05:34:47 PM PDT

                  •  Would he?

                    Would he punch him out if the candidate promised him as much control over energy policy as Cheney has?

                    I think he would at least consider it.

                    by Anthony Segredo on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 05:40:42 PM PDT

          •  Edwards was terrific according to FoxNews

            In the senate race, the Republicans gained the seat formerly held by John Edwards (search). If Edwards had run for reelection against Republican Richard Burr (search), it appears Edwards would have held on to his seat by a 53 percent — 47 percent margin. Seven percent of those voters that would have voted for Edwards voted for Burr.

            Link

            Edwards would have won the presidency at the top of the ticket.

            by pioneer111 on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:55:16 PM PDT

            •  The whole thing about "Edwards couldn't win his

              home state" is pure BS. Sadly it seems that no matter how at odds with reality it may be, it is still frequently brought up on this site as a criticism of Edwards.

              by dole4pineapple on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 05:57:50 PM PDT

              •  They used the same crit re: Gore iirc.

                by boofdah on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 08:43:23 PM PDT

        •  Lots of Democrats,

            Like Me, will support Either Edwards Or Clinton.

          by oceanview on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 05:25:08 PM PDT

          •  Lots of Democrats

            Will support the Democratic nominee, period.  And Independents.  And even some Republicans.  But don't take victory for granted.  We'll have to earn it by working smart and hard.  

            God Bless the Democratic Party!

            by gottschee on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 08:43:34 PM PDT

            •  yeah,

              gottchedee, thanks for the re-echo.  Lets keep the Wave goin.

              by oceanview on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 08:59:19 PM PDT

        •  swift boating Kerry

          I don't remember the right wing attack machine going after Edwards at all.  They were all swiftboating Kerry.  

          by invisiblewoman on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 05:32:59 PM PDT

          •  They used the "trial lawyer thing"

            against Edwards, one of their old standbys, you know the trial lawyers are costing you money because they want to sue the drug company that sold you tainted drugs, or the insurance company that won't pay for your home that was destroyed in the fire.

            by Blogvirgin on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 10:11:16 PM PDT

      •  Then how is it that he is doing so badly

        among Democrats? That's quite a puzzle, isn't it?

        by Batfish on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:07:35 PM PDT

        •  It is...

          especially since his proposals are good progressive ones. Even though he was the veep last time around, I do think he doesn't have the high name recognition that Hillary does.

          by sarahlane on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:17:33 PM PDT

          •  Democrats/Progressives

            There are a lot of old fashioned Democrats out there that might not fit the progressive profile.

            by tucsonlynn on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:22:00 PM PDT

            •  Good point

              I'm sure not one of them, and neither is my mother, who is a longtime Democrat who was a civil rights activist in the south. Boy am I lucky to have been raised by a liberal parent! I can't imagine what it would have been like otherwise, I'm sure many Kossacks could enlighten me on the subject.

              by sarahlane on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:26:19 PM PDT

            •  sadly n/t

              by dotster on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:38:35 PM PDT

            •  I would argue that

              Edwards is the candidate most likely to appeal to white older, and relatively conservative Democrats.  His populism will probably apeal greatly to rural conservative Democrats.

              My gut is that if Edwards comes back, it will be by winning older conservative Democrats in the primaries (some for the right reasons (economic populism), but some for the wrong reasons (not feeling comfortable with a black or a woman)).

              by IhateBush on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 05:26:39 PM PDT

        •  Edwards has hurt himself

          By positioning his campaign towards the poor rather than the blue collar working class. That's where his roots are and he was doing well until he started the anti-poverty campaign.

          Many blue collar voters see the poor as the enemy rather than the rich. (The rich have better P.R.)

          by Anthony Segredo on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 05:44:38 PM PDT

          •  blue collar

            voters are mainly with Edwards - at least from my sampling.  I'm in a blue collar neighborhood and I see some Obama supporters and some Edwards supporters, but just laughs when Hillary is mentioned.  

            We're not a battleground state, but Hillary here is still a joke.  

            by invisiblewoman on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 08:24:16 PM PDT

      •  I thought

        I saw a CBS poll that had her negatives dropping to 39? Now if I can just find it.

        by jackieca on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:10:09 PM PDT

        •  They're all over the place

          they're in the high 30's all the way up to the early 50's. One consistency in the polling shows that the majority of people who hold an unfavorable opinion of Hillary, have a strong unfavorable view. Don't get me wrong, I think she's a tough and very skilled pol, I just think someone like Edwards or Obama would do better in a general.

          by sarahlane on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:13:00 PM PDT

      •  Her negative ARE NOT IN THE FIFTIES!!!

        This was one poll which had her at 51 about nine months ago. Her current negs are high thirties low forties. Ie. The Republican party!!! She can carry 55% of the vote.

        by otto vb vs on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:12:30 PM PDT

        •  Wrong

          Last week talk TV & Rove were referencing polls that had her negatives at 49%

          by foresttdog on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:22:07 PM PDT

          •  Talk TV and Rove

            enough said

            by tucsonlynn on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:26:38 PM PDT

            •  They were citing a poll

              done by actual people...just cause idiots cite it doesn't make it make-believe

              by foresttdog on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:36:58 PM PDT

              •  How high were Bush's negatives in 2004?

                He still managed to win, even though he was absolutely hated by a large percentage of the population.  

                by Asak on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 05:11:19 PM PDT

                •  good question!

                  they were less than Hillary's now

                  www.pollingreport.com

                  by invisiblewoman on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 05:30:52 PM PDT

                •  W won by

                  scaring anyone who didn't see through his BS into voting Republican.  Hilary's situation is different.

                  With W, voter feelings were

                  1. I hate that fing idiot   or

                  2. He'll protect us!!

                  With Hilary, it's more like

                  1. I hate her      or

                  2. Fine, I'll vote Hilary

                  W didn't win by much.  Hilary might end up on the Kerry side of another close election.  Obama and/or Edwards would allow me to breath a sigh of relief.

                  by foresttdog on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 08:45:38 PM PDT

                •  Bush did not win as in

                  "..he won because he had more votes." Bush won as in "... three or four people have gone to jail in Ohio for voting machine tampering, votes were not counted in Fla., and over a million votes were caged in 2004".

                  There is a difference.

                  by Blogvirgin on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 10:16:28 PM PDT

        •  You mean 2 months ago?

          Here's a Mason Dixon Poll showing that 52% of Americans would not vote for Hillary under any circumstance.
          http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/...
          In the same poll both Edwards and Obama enjoy a twenty point net favorable rating.

          by sarahlane on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:23:37 PM PDT

          •  A Hillary Presidency would be

            four more years of divisive ugliness.

            Look, I'm here to fight. But at some point it gets old. With the GOP falling apart, it'd be good to have a President that wasn't HATED by more than a third of the country....

            by TrueBlueCT on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:35:07 PM PDT

            •  I'm gonna say this over and over again....

              the right will get energized by a Hillary candidacy, and I don't think that an Edwards or Obama candidacy would get them as excited.

              by sarahlane on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:44:34 PM PDT

              •  The Right is going to get energized by ANY Dem.

                THe right will whoop up the the right-wing-machine.  Hillary is going to appeal to millions of truly independent women who make up 53 % of the electorate.  The right wing hates her, but the truly indipendent people, women especially DO NOT HATE HER.  They admire her strength.  Her Husband is favorable to 60 + % of the electorate.  You might not like her and the right wing nut jobs might hate her, but independents will carry the dem to victory and she IS their girl.  

                by The Crunch Man on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:58:22 PM PDT

                •  You seriously don't think the name Hillary

                  CLINTON is any more of a target than the other Dems?  hmmmmmmm----strongly disagree.  And all the women I am surrounded by-----independents and moderate Repubs all (sadly)----say "NO WAY" to ever considering voting for Hillary.  It may not be her fault, but there is an animosity hangover out there toward her that is real and wide.

                  by dotster on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 05:07:59 PM PDT

                  •  The reason she energizes them so much...

                    ...is because they know she's coming to defeat them.

                    by Berkeley Vox on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 05:14:26 PM PDT

                •  Independents like HRC?!?!?!?!?

                  No, independents are comprised primarily of white men.

                  Kerry got 36% of the white male vote in '04.

                  HRC currently polls in at about 25%.

                  That's my biggest concern, the independents.

                  by yankeeinmemphis on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 05:12:41 PM PDT

                  •  evidence?

                    independents are comprised primarily of white men.

                    Can you provide evidence for this statement?

                    by markw on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 09:02:21 PM PDT

                •  In national polls

                  right now, she is doing worse than Obama or Edwards.  See Political Arithmetik, about halfway down the right column.  

                  The Democrat who wins by the most is Obama, followed by Edwards, followed by Clinton.

                  The Republican who does best is Giuliani, followed by McCain, followed by Romney.

                  But all the Democrats are gaining on both Giuliani and McCain, while Romney is gaining on all the Democrats.

                  by plf515 on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 07:25:47 PM PDT

                  •  Impossible

                    Why, on my own TeeVee, a pundit told me recently that HRC is the electable democratic candidate.  He said primary voters like Obama most, but think HRC is the most electable.

                    We should go with the electable candidate, not the one polls say we should support.

                    /snark

                    by Subterranean on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 10:41:58 PM PDT

                •  The Republicans will simply rehash all the

                  charges they lodged from 1990-2000. Travelgate, Whitewater, Monica, the poor man who committed suicide, The Rose law firm records,Impeachment, Hillarycare, they already have the ads and the videos. They won't even have to spend money to fight Hillary.

                  They will be able to use their old direct mail pieces.

                  Shouldn't we at least have a nominee that will make them have to spend some money getting ready to fight? Unfortunately with Hillary, they will just open up their closet of lies, lies, and damn lies.

                  by Blogvirgin on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 10:22:53 PM PDT

                •  Not necessarily.

                  As this article from April shows, Obama can get a decent bit of Republican crossover from those disaffected by the current incarnation of the Republican Party.  Edwards, too, can peel off some of those blue-collar workers who started voting Republican with Reagan.

                  I simply haven't seen any indication of Republicans willing to vote for Hillary in a general election.  Though guys like Rupert Murdoch are willing to hold fundraisers for her.

                  A lot of women don't HATE her; they just absolutely refuse to vote for her, or work to help out her campaign in any way.  And that could have disastrous downticket effects with fewer volunteers and such.

                  by BruinKid on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:46:21 AM PDT

              •  Don't fall for it

                Republicans will go super-negative against any Democratic candidate.  In fact, they tend to go overboard on the negatives (e.g. Rick Lazio).

                by Unstable Isotope on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 05:06:05 PM PDT

            •  I don't understand Dems who are willing

              to pass on this opportunity to start anew, to break away from the past and to move in a completely new direction.  There are so many people counting on us here and around the world.  I don't get it.  

              by dotster on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:45:07 PM PDT

              •  that, and a free pony

                
                All the latent conservatism and escapism that goes along with these "break away and move in a completely new direction" candidates is the turn-off.

                We're supposed to be the reality-based community, remember, and the Other Side is the "faith-based" delusional Pie In The Sky one, remember?  Except when we like the Pie In The Sky, apparently.

                by killjoy on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 05:08:07 PM PDT

                •  oh please---completely distorted what I said----

                  in fact I was saying the opposite of what you implied.  Conservatism?  Huh?????  I'm advocating for a progressive candidate, not our most CONSERVATIVE candidate, which is Hillary Clinton.

                  by dotster on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 05:15:34 PM PDT

                  •  you say conservative, i say reality-based

                    
                    Yeah...okay, which of Obama, Edwards, and Clinton would you expect to nominate the most liberal (well, most committed to reinstituting and properly extending the Fourteenth Amendment rights guarantees) person for Supreme Court Justice?

                    Which one of them would most likely sign a repeal of DOMA?  Or an extension of the VRA to end disenfranchisement of people who have completed their prison terms?

                    Which one could stand in front of a meeting of CEOs and tell them their taxes are going to get raised- and that it's what they themselves know perfectly well is the appropriate thing to do, and the likes of Warren Buffett have called for?

                    Which one could fly to Tel Aviv and credibly tell both sides to limit the crap, it's gone on long enough, and do some fair dealing- and it would happen?

                    by killjoy on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:26:50 AM PDT

                •  reality based?

                  Hillary has the least chance of winning against a republican.  How do you like them apples?

                  by invisiblewoman on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 05:29:12 PM PDT

                  •  i don't like them

                    look there's half a worm in this one.  see, right there where i took a bite out of it.

                    by FreshSnaps on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 06:59:44 PM PDT

                  •  just fine

                    
                    They know she's going to finish off their designs and get the country to change fundamentally.

                    The others will get more conservative votes...because that's what they are.  For all the buzzwords and slogans, they sincerely want to perhaps change more- perhaps a great deal more- on the surface.   But they don't want to settle the civil war we're in about the Fourteenth Amendment with a real and enduring victory.

                    I'll take a 320 EV Clinton win over Giuliani, more over Romney, thank you very much.

                    by killjoy on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 11:52:02 PM PDT

                •  is it just me...

                  or is there some real irony between your sig line and your response to dotster?  Yeah, it's prolly just me.

                  by FreshSnaps on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 07:04:56 PM PDT

                  •  unfortunately not

                    
                    I'm not buying that the "change" Obama and Edwards are selling runs deep enough to be termed renewal.

                    by killjoy on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 11:55:38 PM PDT

            •  I agree with you 110%

              Even if she wins the general (which I feel is highly unlikely), Hillary is going to put us in the same shit we've been in for the past 7 years--or longer--with Americans tearing at their fellow Americans' throats over bullshit like late-term abortion and gays in your back yard while our infrastructure, healthcare, and economy crumble to the point where we literally fall into a Third-World cesspool that would make post-glasnost Russia look like a superpower (again). People will again be disgusted with the system to the point that they won't believe it matters one way or the other which way they vote, so they won't bother, except the crazy assholes on the right or us obsessive blokes on the left.

              No, thanks. I genuinely feel we NEED a uniter and not a divider, and I see that embodied in a candidate like Obama or Edwards worlds more than I do Hillary.

              by boofdah on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 08:51:46 PM PDT

              •  You're buying into what the Repubs

                with the help of their friends in the corporate media, have been selling.

                The Repubs have been polarizing this nation for years.  Divide and conquer is the way they win.  But their corporate media pals insist on saying that Bill Clinton is polarizing, and saying the same thing about Hillary.

                Bill Clinton was the one who talked about reaching across divides of race and class. Bill Clinton is the one the media claimed wanted everyone to like him.  Yet at the same time, the media claimed he was polarizing.

                Bill Clinton isn't polarizing.  Neither is Hillary.  The Repubs work to create hate towards any successful Democrat.  If Obama or Edwards gets the nomination, the Repubs will drum up the hate against them also.

                The difference is that Hillary has been there, and she has no illusions about the Repubs.  She's smart, and she's ready to fight them.

                You may wish the fighting wasn't happening, but it's the Repubs who created the situation, and no candidate is going to change that.  One of the biggest problems about Obama is that he is under the illusion that he can.

                by Mgleaf on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 10:57:57 PM PDT

              •  I'm going to say this again

                IF Hillary becomes, by some fluke of democracy, the democratic nominee, I am going to vote for the Third Party candidate - whoever he/she is!  There are many more out there like me.  I will never (and never have!) vote republican.  But I'm not going to hold my nose and vote democrat as I did the last time for Kerry. Those days are over.  

                She's just not right for the job.  She's too divisive, arriving with a ton of baggage.  I don't think America can endure more division and polarization and endless Clinton discussion.  No one can convince me Hillary is the right person to lead America.  No one.

                by frilly doily on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 03:57:48 AM PDT

          •  the poll wording was...

            "would you consider vs. not consider voting for (candidate)".  nothing about "under any circumstances". and it's a mason-dixon poll, with a sample size of 625 and  +/- 4% error. and it's 2 months old. other than that, it's a great poll :)

            by campskunk on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:36:31 PM PDT

            •  Oops

              I think they said that in the article which made me believe that the questioning included, "under any circumstances", thanks for the correction.

              by sarahlane on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:43:14 PM PDT

              •  well, that was gracious!

                that's the first civil response i've had here all week from someone supporting another candidate. i look forward to the days when we can beat up on the republicans, rather than each other. may those days come soon. have a rec.

                by campskunk on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 05:41:45 PM PDT

        •  We need someone who can carry 60% or more

          we need an historic landslide, with huge coattails, so that we can actually start undoing some of the damage Bush has wrought.

          I think either Edwards or Obama could do that best.  

          by plf515 on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 07:20:20 PM PDT

          •  Agree and disagree

            We don't need 60% of the vote.  That's a Rovian innovation, btw: aim for the 51% and fuck everyone else. It is nonetheless relevant in this divisive, transitional time. The Democrats fail to get that you can't please all the people all the time, hence continuously hedge their bets and avoid bold positions. Kerry and Gore both did this... feared standing up for who they were would alienate some voters. It's a losing strategy.

            On the other hand, you're right that Edwards or Obama are best suited to changing the status quo, rather than invested in sustaining it. I think most folks, Democrats and Republicans-with-sense (if there are any left), are sick of DC insiders and the latest 18% approval rating for Congress confirms it. Being the most experienced candidate in this race could be a major liability. Politicians and msm types don't get this at all.

            by cas2 on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 09:44:59 PM PDT

        •  Actually,

          Rasmussen has her negative at 52%. It also shows her losing to Giuliani 40-47, whereas previous polls showed the race about even. I'm not sure how to explain the Giuliani surge in that poll--some of the things he is saying should be destroying him, but aren't.

          by maroge04 on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 08:15:50 PM PDT

      •  I'm not sure the polls are that reliable.

        I mean, one cheer for the polls showing HRC winning, but really, nobody should be making any bets based on polls.

        by Inland on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 05:32:19 PM PDT

        •  Polls are quite reliable for the opinion now

          But the election is a ways off.

          by plf515 on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 07:27:26 PM PDT

      •  Technically you're not a concern troll

        but a despair baby. A concern troll is someone who comes here to sabotage Democrats by suggesting they need to do something that would in fact be detrimental. A despair baby is someone who amplifies every Democratic negative into this insurmountable obstacle. It can be cured by spending a little time looking at that Republican field -- just LOOK at it!  Then tell me who should be despairing.

        by anastasia p on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 05:57:54 PM PDT

        •  In other words, we should lower the bar...

          ...because shit, the Republicans have put it lower than humanity has seen since the Paleolithic Era.

          by boofdah on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 08:53:49 PM PDT

        •  Ok I looked at the GOP field

          but then I looked at the avg American voter, and his/her recent electoral choices.  Accounting for the knuckle-draggers, mouth-breathers, fundie-freaks, authoritarian robots, and rich fucks, it would seem that some of those GOP contenders have a good shot at the WH.

          by Subterranean on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 10:48:56 PM PDT

      •  Despite what you want to believe

        Edwards, although he may be genuine in his concern for the common man, still has the persona of an ambulance chaser. He is a one-hit wonder...one term in the Senate and now he wants to be President of the US. Same more or less for Obama. May not be fair, but then politics never is. Sometimes perception is closer to reality than you would like to believe. Everyone knows Hillary has paid her dues and that is why she is going to whack 'em all. Also, being perceived as the least liberal, and in spite of what Foxies think of Bill Clinton the voters in the red states are more likely to support her because they see a survivor, a woman of strength who may actually come close to representing their values...closer than Obama, Edwards, Guliani, etc.

        by leptoo on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 07:56:54 PM PDT

        •  How exactly did Hillary

          Everyone knows Hillary has paid her dues

          pay her dues? Was it during her time as First Lady or her time as a Senator having served one full first term?

          by Blogvirgin on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 10:28:20 PM PDT

          •  For 16 years she has been put through the

            Republican smear machine and she is still standing. In fact she is standing at the top of the mountain compared to Edwards and Obama who have done diddly. They are hanging on to her coat tail hoping she stumbles. She is too strong and too smart for the light-weights trying to catch her.

            by leptoo on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 10:39:32 PM PDT

            •  Is that what qualifies her to be President?

              Having had a hard time for 16 years? By showing she is a strong woman? By still standing? By that measure my hairdresser should be on the ballot.

              It is not Hillary's fault, but what does it tell you about her that she has stayed with a man for nearly twenty years who has by his own account not respected her as a partner, as a woman, as the mother of his child or as a wife?

              by Blogvirgin on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 10:58:14 PM PDT

              •  Correction: Thirty or more years not twenty.

                by Blogvirgin on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 11:08:40 PM PDT

              •  Sticking with Bill speaks to her strength of

                character as she decided to make her marriage and her life work the way she wanted not the way the media and the right wingers wanted. She is not a quitter. She could not leave Bill while he was President and sometime during that catastrophe she made the decision she wanted to be more than Bill's wife and First Lady. She established her goals and she has pursued them with dogged determination. She has used that hard-nosed reputation she gained as the embattled First lady and during the last eight years as a Senator to earn her place at the top of the Democratic ticket. Edwards/Obama have earned nothing.

                by leptoo on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 11:24:01 PM PDT

                •  She did not "quit" on Bill as you say,

                  keeping Bill was something that she wanted for herself. A personal goal. But she did "quit" on her healthcare initiative during her period as First Lady, folded like a tent. That was her only public project that would have benefitted all American citizens, a public goal.

                  If she had been as strong in her support of healthcare for the American people as she was for Bill, we would healthcare now.

                  by Blogvirgin on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 10:25:37 AM PDT

                  •  Correction: we would have healthcare now.

                    by Blogvirgin on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 10:27:01 AM PDT

        •  One senate term is plenty of experience

          unless a candidate is black, in which case his experience becomes a profound topic of discussion.  

          But my greatest concern is that Edwards isn't white enough.

          by Subterranean on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 10:51:14 PM PDT

          •  Not when that is your only experience.

            Neither Edwards nor Obama have been involved long enough. Bleeding hearts do not translate into the political smarts and toughness required to get things done in DC.

            by leptoo on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 11:06:11 PM PDT

      •  OK, you're a concern troll :-) but seriously,

        I think that Hillary's negatives while relatively high, pale in comparison to the other loathing that most people in this country have for Shrubc, his minions, and his wannabe successors. If these polls hold and Kentucky and Virgina go into the Dem column, the GOP is toast.

        by MikePhoenix on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 08:50:23 PM PDT

    •  And your basis? I think?

      Some day folks here are going to stop thinking with their hearts and start thinking wiht their heads. Clinton is going to pulverize them in spite of you.

      by otto vb vs on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:10:05 PM PDT

      •  I am thinking with my head

        and with my heart. Hillary is a very, very skilled politician, I know she won't take the crap that's thrown at her, but that doesn't mean I think she'll be the best bet in a general. I think Edwards and Obama would do incredibly well amongst indies/repubs and would not energize the right like a Hillary candidacy would. It's not about Hillary winning in spite of me, come on! I'll vote for her if she's the nominee, I just prefer Edwards first, then Obama second.

        by sarahlane on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:15:42 PM PDT

      •  So did B Clinton

        Two term president.  But he divided the left and left office with the GOP stronger than ever.  Given HRC's current triangulating, there is little reason to believe she will be any better at uniting the party - or the country - than her husband.  

        by Subterranean on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 10:54:52 PM PDT

    •  Clark + Clinton = wins many red states

      Clinton/Clark means all Blue states + many red states.

      Yes folks it's easy to see that Clinton/Clark wins hands down.

      by 4km on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 05:15:23 PM PDT

      •  That's my dream ticket. nt

        by masslib on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 05:24:24 PM PDT

    •  No other Dem is a lock to win in any Red State ?

      Excuse me but the final trump card has yet to be played

      Clinton/Clark is going to sweep the playing field i.e. Dem and GOP.

      Sorry for the sobering reality folks ;)

      by 4km on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 06:14:53 PM PDT

  •  Criminy jeez ...

    Hillary only 6 points down in Alabama?  The whole structure of the Universe could unravel.

    I don't think any Dem could take 'bama (not even 'bama) but that's amazing.  And nothing is going to come out that makes Hillary look worse, or Guiliani look better.

    by al Fubar on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 07:13:18 PM PDT

    •  I know!

      How people are not impressed or shocked by these numbers is amazing to me.  It looks to me like she could actually beat the GOP in several seemingly red southern states.  If Hillary can, just think what Edwards or Obama could do!  This is a really encouraging sign.

      by bythesea on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:28:12 AM PDT

•  This is going to be a crazy election

  Perhaps a major realignment like 1860, 1896, 1932, 1968. You have Kentucky and Virginia suddenly leaning Dem while we have to fight for New Jersey. Them's be loony-toon politics.

  by Nathaniel Ament Stone on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 03:43:03 PM PDT

  •  The number that throws me...