Clinton leads McCain 50-43 in Newsweek poll

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well, this poll will encourage her to run.

General:
Clinton beats McCain 50-43
Clinton beats Giuliani 48-47
Clinton smacks down Romney 58-32
Obama loses to McCain 43-45
Obama trails Giuliani 47-44
Obama destroys Romney 55-25

It has her beating Obama 50-32 in a 2 way primary.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/12/19/12259/834

[Gabu]

Didn't Newsweek have a poll in 2004 that showed Kerry way up compared to where he actually was?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Didn't Newsweek have a poll in 2004 that showed Kerry way up compared to where he actually was?

From what I remember, the polls 2 years out from the 2000 and 2004 elections all had big Bush leads. I don't think Gore or Kerry ever led by that much.

[Gabu]

Didn't Newsweek have a poll in 2004 that showed Kerry way up compared to where he actually was?

From what I remember, the polls 2 years out from the 2000 and 2004 elections all had big Bush leads. I don't think Gore or Kerry ever led by that much.

Hm, maybe I'm thinking of another poll.

Anyway, this is interesting if only for how well Obama is doing.  I'd be curious to see the numbers for how many people actually have any sort of opinion of him or even know who he is.

[tarheel-leftist85]

It's amazing how they release that "poll" as soon as one shows Edwards beating McCain.  The "liberal" mainstream (private) media really hates Edwards with a passion.  Expect all three yuppie networks to pounce on Edwards as soon as he announces.  They're cookin' some mighty fine rock if they did this "poll" with an honest effort.  No way in hell, could Hillary ever break 50%.  She might win, but it'd come from a 3rd party spoiler.

[Eraserhead]

It's amazing how they release that "poll" as soon as one shows Edwards beating McCain.  The "liberal" mainstream (private) media really hates Edwards with a passion.  Expect all three yuppie networks to pounce on Edwards as soon as he announces.  They're cookin' some mighty fine rock if they did this "poll" with an honest effort.  No way in hell, could Hillary ever break 50%.  She might win, but it'd come from a 3rd party spoiler.

^^^^^

I agree. Clinton beating McCain by 7% is BS.

[tarheel-leftist85]

Hillary could very well win an election the Clinton way:  racking up wins with <45% in most states with just the right opponent (Guiliani might actually beat her since such a match-up would be a dream come true for all the me-ists).  Edwards would probably be the first Democrat since 1976 to get a majority of the PV, and probably more than Carter's 50.1%.  My guess:  Edwards-52%, McCain-46%, Constitution-1.5%, Others-0.5%.

I also have this nagging feeling that Edwards wouldn't get re-elected, kind of like with Carter.  Because Carter made people uncomfortable with their selfish ways (which is probably why he is still so despised today by all the boomers).  Luckily they found symbolic, vocal coddling with Reagan while he robbed them out the back door, so that now all "New Democrats" have to do is stay true to such coddling.

[Boris]

Didn't Newsweek have a poll in 2004 that showed Kerry way up compared to where he actually was?

They had him up by 2 after the first Presidential Debate, but I think that was it.

Anyways, these polls are, of course, useless. If Clinton still manages to hold this lead after the RNC and all the ads trashing her, I'll be very suprised.

[7,052,770]

It's amazing how they release that "poll" as soon as one shows Edwards beating McCain.  The "liberal" mainstream (private) media really hates Edwards with a passion.  Expect all three yuppie networks to pounce on Edwards as soon as he announces.  They're cookin' some mighty fine rock if they did this "poll" with an honest effort.  No way in hell, could Hillary ever break 50%.  She might win, but it'd come from a 3rd party spoiler.

^^^^^

I agree. Clinton beating McCain by 7% is BS.

It's almost as if you don't want her to win....

[Reaganfan]

It's amazing how they release that "poll" as soon as one shows Edwards beating McCain.  The "liberal" mainstream (private) media really hates Edwards with a passion.  Expect all three yuppie networks to pounce on Edwards as soon as he announces.  They're cookin' some mighty fine rock if they did this "poll" with an honest effort.  No way in hell, could Hillary ever break 50%.  She might win, but it'd come from a 3rd party spoiler.

^^^^^

I agree. Clinton beating McCain by 7% is BS.

It's almost as if you don't want her to win....

Who wants to hear the President of the United States...Hillary Clinton? With that screeching voice? Ugh. The last thing I want is to go back to the liberalism of the Clinton years. I would rather have a President Vilsack or a President Bayh then have Hillary. I even know fellow Ohioans who could probably care less about politics, and even they say, "Hillary Clinton, the woman who rode Bill to the top...are you kidding?"

The fact that you honestly think a power hungry first lady that rode her husband to the top, carpetbagged to New York so she knew she could get elected, just so she could run for President should in fact, BE PRESIDENT...over a war veteran and 20 year Arizona moderate Senator like McCain...is scary.

[tarheel-leftist85]

It's amazing how they release that "poll" as soon as one shows Edwards beating McCain.  The "liberal" mainstream (private) media really hates Edwards with a passion.  Expect all three yuppie networks to pounce on Edwards as soon as he announces.  They're cookin' some mighty fine rock if they did this "poll" with an honest effort.  No way in hell, could Hillary ever break 50%.  She might win, but it'd come from a 3rd party spoiler.

^^^^^

I agree. Clinton beating McCain by 7% is BS.

It's almost as if you don't want her to win....

I really don't.  I know that means 4 yrs. of Republican laissez faire economics, but how do I know Hillary won't do the same?  She did support Goldwater, one of the few Northern Republicans to vote against the Voting Rights Act.  I read her book and was not convinced by her argument that basically she was afraid of communism (first of all, we've never had a communist state, only an authoritarian or totalitarian state under the auspices of communism--as such a "system" is stateless).  And I don't believe that the ends justify the means (we see where that's gotten us in the Middle East), which is why I cannot support a "moderate" or someone who tries to ingratiate this contrived voting bloc (such "moderates" usually value economics over social/military issues and the one that they value the most puts them into a certain group libertarian- or populist- leaning, etc.) with collaboration on non-partisan issues and/or flag-burning/feel-good/McCainish type legislation.  It may take several Republican presidencies culminating in another Depression due to Reaganomics (i.e., Hoovernomics) for the me, me, me baby boomers to wake up--if they ever can do such a thing.

All I'm saying is that you can expect a coordinated effort by the mainstream media that is enmeshed in corporate culture to pounce on Edwards as soon as he announces.  It would be the "liberal" media's nightmare if a real liberal got nominated.

[Eraserhead]

It's amazing how they release that "poll" as soon as one shows Edwards beating McCain.  The "liberal" mainstream (private) media really hates Edwards with a passion.  Expect all three yuppie networks to pounce on Edwards as soon as he announces.  They're cookin' some mighty fine rock if they did this "poll" with an honest effort.  No way in hell, could Hillary ever break 50%.  She might win, but it'd come from a 3rd party spoiler.

^^^^^

I agree. Clinton beating McCain by 7% is BS.

It's almost as if you don't want her to win....

I don't. I hate her. I don't even want her to win the nomination.

[Rob]

I really don't.  I know that means 4 yrs. of Republican laissez faire economics, but how do I know Hillary won't do the same?

Correct. The question liberals have to ask themselves is this- would a Clinton Presidency even be a victory? Her husband led the attack on Democratic values during his pathetic tenure: NAFTA. Welfare reform. Defense of Marriage Act.

Hillary offers the same DLC garbage, but with a side of warmongering. No thanks.

[Eraserhead]

I really don't.  I know that means 4 yrs. of Republican laissez faire economics, but how do I know Hillary won't do the same?

Correct. The question liberals have to ask themselves is this- would a Clinton Presidency even be a victory? Her husband led the attack on Democratic values during his pathetic tenure: NAFTA. Welfare reform. Defense of Marriage Act.

Hillary offers the same DLC garbage, but with a side of warmongering. No thanks.

Ha that is a great quote at the end.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Well, this poll will encourage her to run.

General:
Clinton beats McCain 50-43
Clinton beats Giuliani 48-47
Clinton smacks down Romney 58-32
Obama loses to McCain 43-45
Obama trails Giuliani 47-44
Obama destroys Romney 55-25

It has her beating Obama 50-32 in a 2 way primary.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/12/19/12259/834

Sorry but the so-called 'poll' was cooked up by Princeton Research Associates.  They are so far off in left field they make you look like a moderate. 

[HardRCafé]

Let's wait for one from Garin-Hart-Yang to be sure.