hmm...sounds like some republican pollsters wishful thinking. Just last month the polls were opposite.

This poll, along with other recent polls, only reinforces the feeling among many Democrats that Hillary (or Obama for that matter) is not a winning candidate. It is time that the media quits treating her as the inevitable choice and gives more coverage to other candidates. We are still a long way from the first primary or caucus vote being cast and any discussion about the Democratic candidates is monopolized by Hillary. I understand that you cannot ignore an "800 pound gorilla" but the media needs to start paying more attention to the alternatives. The more she is covered the less chance the others have to get their message out (and raise the money needed to do so, especially with the many large states moving up their primaries).

Can't you just see the political ads now of Guiliani's face morphing into George Bush's? Democrats are going to hang Bush on the Republican candidate no matter who it is. That's a pretty heavy weight.

I assume this poll is popular vote and not electoral votes, since we don't elect a president by popular vote...what would the results be in electoral votes?

I too have to wonder at the validity of these polls. You have to look really hard in the blogs to find anyone who has a good think to say about McCain. I wouldn't vote for him if he was the last man standing. But, if Hillary really cared about any thing but herself, she would not be running. She has to know how divisive she is.

Depressing but not unexpected. I lost all faith in the goodness and intelligence of Americans when so many voted for Bush's re-election knowing how bad it had been and how much worse it would get. Many are still in denial that they could have been so stupid and gullible. It is hard for people to admit they were wrong, they would rather stay the course than lose face and admit error no matter what the consequences. Wait, that's why Bush is such a regular American. Hmmm, maybe we should try to elect people who are better than we are -- what a concept. Maybe a president who is competent will not feel threatened surrounding themselves with other competent people. When did being smart, articulate, nuanced, educated, open-minded and reasoning become disqualifications for office?

Brad brings up an interesting point. The 2000 election, for instance, was'nt decided by the voters at all. It was decided by electoral delegates (and The Supreme Court, of course). That having been said, I still don't believe that America wants, or will elect another Republican President. Bush conjurs up too many negatives for that to happen as Amy, so aptly, points out. Furthermore, polling data at this juncture cannot be relied upon as being accurate. Back in March of 2003, Howard Dean was the front runner for the Democratic nomination. Head to head, the polls had him competing better than any other candidate against Bush, except for Wesley Clark, whom the polls showed as beating Bush. We all know how THAT turned out. Also, if you go back even farther to 1991, the Democratic front runner was Paul Tsongas. Nobody had even heard of Bill Clinton back then. So, the moral of this story is that pre-primary polls are generally wrong and they are not a good baramoter of what's to come. It's very normal for them to be skewed, as they are now.

ABC - Anybody But Clinton !! Democrats, don't drink the cool aid !! Hillary is a self serving oppotunist who will lead us into defeat. She supported the Iraq war for political reasons. I knew Bush was lying about the war, why didn't she??? The Democrats have a chance to re-take the White House and increase their majorities in the Senate and the House. Why blow it (because we're Democrats?). Hillary stands for business as usual by Washigton insiders. What are her policies? What are her proposals? What does she stand for ? Let's try something new: Obama, Edwards or Richardson. Edwards shows populistic policies and ideas. Obama was honest enough to oppose the war from the beginning. Clinton, Dodd and Biden were all weasels on the war. The all supported it "to protect their political viability". Think about it, they sent you sons, daughters, brothers and sisters to die in a useless war, in order to further their political careers. If the Democratic party can't find better candidates than Clinton, Gore or Leiberman, they deserve to lose. Americans get the government they want. In the long run, Americans get the government they deserve.

Let me help you understand why those who are generally fed up with the GOP and President Bush would still prefer a Republican over a Democrat, at least in my view. If you look at posts here and elsewhere you will see with out a doubt that conservatives will still take their party to task if they are unhappy with the job they are doing, but liberals will walk lockstep with their guy all the way and deny wrongdoing or impropriety even when it is a plain as the nose on their face. For example, to libs, Bill Clinton could do no wrong, George Bush can do no right. That is patently absurd, and most Americans, whether or not they support the war in Iraq, can see that. Also, those on the left are always talking about what's wrong with America, they want to change America, they ridicule and personally attack anyone and everyone who opposes their views. They advocate tolerance and diversity, but shout down anyone who disagrees with them. They overlook and excuse lies, misconception, partisanship, political grandstanding, and corruption within their own party, while taking every opportunity to jump on the slightest misstep from the other, either true or imagined. The pump up their egos and convince themselves they are the ones who are right by visiting blogs sush as this, which runs around 90% liberal, seemingly clueless that while the majority of posts in the blogosphere parrot their views, most Americans tend to disagree with them. Maybe they don't get out much. Maybe they spend so much time shouting down and ignoring the views of others that they can't see the forest for the trees. In short, while there is plenty of hypocrisy on both sides, the left is doing its best to corner the market. While many people may disaprove of Bush/Cheney, and the war, they can still see that the opposition provides little in the way of alternative solutions. They are quick to ctiticize, they are slow to provide solutions. They are against everything the right proposes, EVERYTHING, but rarely have any viable alternative suggestions. Sound bites, catch phrases, and political stunts are their crowning achievments, but little of substance ever gets accomplished. Personally, I wouldn't vote for any of the candidates listed above. Bob, Orlando makes a very astute point, both parties of late have crammed their top-tier candidates down American's throats and silence all others. Hillary cannot win, and it's doubtful Obama can either, not because one is a female and one is a black man, but because their views are not shared by most Americans. Most Americans don't care to endure another 4-8 years of a Clinton White House. Most Americans think Obama lacks experience. The left doens't get it. If they see a poll showing displeasure with an issue they jump on it with guns blazing, if they see the poll numbers shift against them then they suddenly see the light and are in favor of that same issue. Trial balloons are clouding liberal skies. How many democrats were for invading Iraq? A majority. But this spelled disaster for them if they didn't find a way to oppose it before mid-term elections in '06. While they showed enormous support for Bush's actions, behind closed doors they were looking for a way to backstep. When our troops had reached Bahgdad, and no sign of WMD were found, they kicked the door open. Bush lied. He invented reasons to go to war for political reason, yadda, yadda, yadda. They have steadily distanced themselves from their initial support ever since. "If only we had known", they say, "we never would've voted for it" If they are that easily duped, maybe they should find a new line of work. But the truth is they weren't duped, but they have sld that bill of goods to many Americans, at a huge price. Hillary seems to be the most easily duped of them all. In her book she swears she didn't know slick Willy was having affairs! Get out of town! If she is that naive she has absolutley no business being our president. I could right a book about the issue, but since I'm going long here I'll wrap it up. I've gotta go find a tarp to cover myself with and grab a few flags, because I'm in for it now.

One obvious explanation is that Clinton is female and Obama is black. You can't throw away the 30% sexist, racist vote and expect to win. The only thing worse would be a gay atheist black woman candidate -- then you would need to write-off 80% of the vote. This is before you start looking at important qualifications.

TOM TANCREDO TOM TANCREDO TOM TANCREDO TOM TANCREDO TOM TANCREDO TOM TANCREDO TOM TANCREDO TOM TANCREDO Ok, at least his name gets some mention as one of Americans' choices.

Unnamed sources claim the recent polls were conducted at primarily Professional Wrestling Events, Tractor Pulls, and Monster Truck Competitions. - Independent Party News Service

Why is it that libs question the validity of every poll that doesn't lean their way, but jump up and down screaming and pointing every time one is released showing results favorable to them?

Good point, Bob. The MSM should stop treating Hillary as the "heir apparent" and get more coverage on everyone. GWB has, I'm pretty sure, finished the Republican party for a generation or so, unless martial law "saves the day."

I strongly suspect that any Republican Senator up for re-election in 2008 shall be tossed out like a gum wrapper. The American public has seen what 7 years of hell is like. Further, they all stood by and watched.

Middle-Earther: The same reason repubs jump up and down when a poll shows Bush "surging" but question the validity of anything that shows the opposite !! It's called being human - but then maybe you arent human after all:-) I think Guiliani poses the biggest threat for the Democrats - along with Clinton. If somehow Democrats nominate Clinton, then it's game set match to the Repubs. I still think Guiliani will eventually get torn down by the conservative base for his cross-dressing, gay-loving, abortion-promoting Noo York ways !!

I have to agree with Russell from Maryland. The 2000 and 2004 elections certainly showed that in presidential candidates the cream certainly doesn't rise to the top. Then again, why should it? What person in his or her right mind would want their name (and their families names) dragged through the mud to get elected to an office that ages everyone who has held it by at least 20 years. The smart players don't run for president; it is too much time and trouble (not to mention money). This is how you get people like ex senator Thompson looking like the great savior of the the Republican hopes for the presidential election. And he isn't even a good actor.

Middle. They've been hangin' around the Republicans too long.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/04/22/MN310531.DTL oh the culture of corruption and war profiteering. Can you imagine what kind of a story this would have been the last few years if she were a Republican? Would the networks have hammered it as much as the DeLay story? Guess we'll never know. Privileges for Democrats are crimes for Republicans

When NEWSWEEK says that top Republicans are leading polls for 2008's presidential race, you all say that the poll is clearly flawed or biased. But, when NEWSWEEK says that the president's approval rating is 33%, everyone is jumping all over it, calling anyone who dares to share a conservative viewpoint as part of the "27% crowd". So which is it? Are all polls flawed or none of them? Remember, there are conservatives out there who don't approve of everything the President does. Yet, if we have the audacity on this board to support a policy of his or share a conservative viewpoint on an issue, we get attacked.

Hillary would snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory for the Democrats. I believe John Edwards, Bill Richardson or Wesley Clark are the best people to lead the party. Republicans hate Hillary as much as Democrats hate Bush. Why do we need for divisiveness and politics as usual. I don't know who I will vote for at this juncture but I know it will be ABC.

LOL LOL LOL! The truth cuts even deeper when it comes from your own people! You all are completely unwinding and lashing out because you didn't here what you wanted hear! It's Hillarity how you all will twist things to suit your delusions, even against your own.

Good point Lee In Mountain CA about Bob, Orlando's good point. Great sarcasm, really funny, good one...I laughed and laughed! LOL LOL good one! Do another one...do another...comon!

Darren, small request: Don't write such long comments/messages. Not sure about anyone else, but I run out here while I'm waiting for something and I don't have time to read tomes. Be succinct if possible. Thanks.

Darren, A few posts back you pronounced that that "conservatives will still take their party to task if they are unhappy with the job they are doing, but liberals will walk lockstep with their guy all the way and deny wrongdoing or impropriety even when it is a plain as the nose on their face." At the same time I hear main stream media, conservative talking heads, and other right leaning folks shake their heads that the democrats and liberals in general can't win because they never speak with one voice. It is clear to me that the republicans have always been very good at picking a front runner early and getting the machine rolling fast and hard. This impresses the "casual electorate". They don't have to think very hard or read very much. All they have to do is listen to Fox and friends and get their glittering generality for the day and it's time to feel good. Yep, for the standard American Citizen of today the Radical Christian dominated Republican party gives them everything they need to abdicate their responsibility as citizens. I read a lot in these posts about the Democrats being a shoo in for '08. I don't think that is necessarily true. I think the race will go to the party that can shovel the best load of s**t to a gullible, dis-interested, undeserving citizenry. America will get the leadership it deserves.

Robert Catalano, Salem, OR--- Correction about Hillarity... most of the country DOES NOT, DOES NOT, DOES NOT like Hillarity! Get your facts straight. Also...most of us, that you so willingly seem to try to speak for all the time, are hoping Hillarity wins the primary! LOL LOL LOL. You all are so in the dark!

"Both Sides Now'-Joni Mitchell

Darren,.........to say that GOP'ers "call their party to task," while Lib's tow the party line, might just be the most egregious LIE anyone has ever attempted to perpetrate on this or any other "blog." True Republicans are the most "disciplined" voters on earth, while Democrats have crossed the aisle NUMEROUS times. (i.e. "The Reagan Democrats.") You talk a good game. But, you aint got da' juice. It's perfectly normal for the polls to be skewed this far in advance of the election.

Did everyone see the Bush stand up comedy from yesterday? Bush is really funny, and actually making fun of himself, beating his critics to the punch. Still, nothing on this planet right now is quite as funny as Bush being unintentionally funny. For the video of Bush being funny, go to: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17846185/ Probably Repubs will die laughing over this one.

and ah Darren.........for the record; Democrats in BOTH houses of Congress combined voted AGAINST the war in Iraq 147 - 110. Republicans voted for the war within their own ranks 296 - 6. But, that's okay. Don't let fact or truth get in the way of your psychotic interpretation of the truth.

MCain "tops" Hillary, Giuliani "beats" her, and Obama's trails her in a "heat". Can't turn your back on those "polls" for a minute. What's she doing in "Pol-land" anyway? "Take it all with a grain of salt"-(my father)

Uh, HELLO? There's another top-tier candidate out there, folks. John Edwards is the candidate who scares the bejeebus out of the Republicans. They can use the "frigid b*tch" smear with Hillary (whom I despise, BTW, and who is a guaranteed loser -- as Andrew Sullivan said, the only person who can help the Republicans now is Hillary Clinton), they can make innuendos that Obama is a terrorist, but what can they say about Edwards? He's a trial lawyer? Given corporate conduct of late, I think people are coming around to realize that lawyers who fight for ordinary people are important. All you have to see to know that Edwards terrifies them is Rush Limbaugh's response to Elizabeth Edwards' illness.

Two things. First off, national polls are meaningless in politics unless you're trying to formulate talking points. Statewide polls are what you want to see in order to get any concept of who is going to win a nomination and you usually need to pay to see them. So while it's great for the GOP that their candidates are ahead right now, it's silly to think that these have any impact beyond people talking about it. Second, Hillary's nomination is hardly locked up. The first debate hasn't even happened yet and there is just under a year for other candidates to get their recognition up. The net roots haven't gotten really solidly behind anyone and the endorsements are, for the most part, not in yet. Add into this that Obama is between 7 - 12% behind but is getting six digit attendance at his rallies - in large part due to people who are considered nonlikely voters and the water just gets murkier. Polls will swing, money will flow, and it won't be until after February 5th that we will know is the respective nominees for President. But for what it's worth I'm rooting for Tancredo too. But that's because I'd like to see a Democrat in the White House. ;)

Hey Darren, the same things can be said for those on the Right. Ditch the biases and acknowledge the reality: Republicans are just as capable of making the declaration that George W. Bush can do no wrong just as Democrats say that Bill Clinton can do no wrong.

Regarding Darren's post at 1:28 pm, I have to make some observations. 1)It's really funny when you deride the Democratic Party as people who will use ad hominems and then proceed to call us every right wing slur in recent memory. 2)The American public at large wants out of Iraq, supports health care reform, supports stem cell research, and supports environmental protections. You can find the polls that I am referencing at http://www.pollingreport.com/. To think that Democratic Party is out of sync with the majority of Americans is, at present, simply not true. This is evident in President Bush's approval numbers (which by the way haven't hit 50% since December of 2005) and in the last election cycle. I appreciate that you think you are right and that I am wrong. However the observable evidence on this matter doesn't agree with your statements. I will, however, agree that Hillary is a bad idea for the Democrats and for America. She has all of her husband's political ambition and none of his charisma or political savy. She is quite possibly the worst legislator I have ever seen and she is represents the last gasp of the DLC/Third Way crowd. As alway, just my opinions.

We are coming off the heels of a polarizing administration, we dont need another with Hilary. My only concern is there is a vast right wing conspiracy to keep her out of office just because she is a Clinton and a woman. (sorry, I couldn't help myself :))

Darren, I have to throw back one of your BS flags at you on this one. "that conservatives will still take their party to task if they are unhappy with the job they are doing, but liberals will walk lockstep with their guy all the way and deny wrongdoing or impropriety even when it is a plain as the nose on their face." You still believe there were weapons of mass distraction. Just who are you taking to task on this one??? Or are you walking lockstep with your administration. P.S. I asked you a direct question yesterday and yet again you side stepped it. What gives.

Hillary Clinton is a shrill, opportunistic, and insincere nut case who reminds me more and more of Senator Stillson from Stephen King's 'Dead Zone'. I cannot and will not vote for her. I only hope that our party can come up with a better candidate, because the more the country sees and hears her, the less likely it will be to elect her.

Wow... Democrats walk in lock step? Did Darren just accuse us liberals as being organized and disciplined? He must be talking about Neo-Libs. Either that or I'm having an identity crisis.

Well said , Dogg. Oops, gotta go, I might upset someone if I write more than sentence or two.

John Doe: I really don't put much faith in polls, as I have pointed out here. They are too easily skewed, and you can get any result you want if you pick the right demographic and ask the right questions. Or by making them overly simplified. I want out of Iraq too, but not until the time is right. I think our health care system needs reform, but putting the federal government in charge of it doesn't inspire much confidence in me. Who doesn't support protecting the environment. Also, as I said yesterday and numerous times before, just because most Americans say they favor something, it doesn't mean it's the best thing for the country. That's why we are governed by rule of law and not public whim. If you asked most Americans if they want the government to provide them with a free home, tax-free, and put $100k in their bank accounts I will bet you dollars to donuts you will get an overwhelming yes. But, that wouldn't really be feasible or best for the country would it? The sad fact is, most Americans are terribly uniformed when it come to major issues, but almost all have a steadfast opinion on nearly everything.

Look - the polls do not matter right now. However - it does seem that the liberal's (who are NEVER wrong) yet are unable to DEBATE (Al Gore) and only spew hatred are being exposed for what they are - hipocrites.

Here's a FOX poll that might make some "feel" better :-) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,262398,00.html

On Rasmussen Reports, a poll that I personally think is run by Fox News, Bush is now at 17% who strongly approve and 22% who slightly approve. 43% strongly disapprove. The reason I refer to this poll is that it is taken every day. The lowest strongly approval he has had is 16%, so he is near that now. I think about half of that 17% who strongly approve must be on this blog.

".....The sad fact is, most Americans are terribly uniformed when it come to major issues, but almost all have a steadfast opinion on nearly everything.".....DARREN POPE, MB,SC..........Noooooooooooo! Say it aint so, Darren! Hee, hee, is that "uniformed," like your earlier statement that 'the majority of Democrats supported the war?'

Darren: You make good points about polls and how they are used. Somethings I would point is that 1)some polls are specifically looking to get info on a specific demographic and those polls are occasionally cited by people who don't realize their purpose. However, when a President consistently polls below 50% for two years, that's not poll bias, skewed questions, or poor methodology. That's just reality and I think the GOP really needs to examine why the American people are so profoundly upset with them. 2)While polls are very dependent on the questions asked and it is true that anyone would say yes to real estate that is cheap and tax free; the same standard should be applied to the polls that ask questiosn along the lines of "Do you support leaving Iraq if it meant that the terrorists follow us home?". What idiot would agree to that? However, just like the house, that question is based on a hypothetical that is not likely to occur. Finally, you mention alot of policy stances that are commonly associated with left wing politics that aren't necessarily true. The Democrats in Congress (please note: this group is different than people in the streets or even on this forum) have no intention of precipitously withdrawing from Iraq. They want to leave but they want to do it in an orderly manner that gives Iraq the best transition possible under terrible circumstances and protects our forces. There are many different health care reform options, only one of which is completely state funded. Allowing the government to negotiate with Rx comanies to get better deals for Medicare/Medicaide, providing subsidies for small businesses who provide health care to their workers, and mandating that large corporations provide health care are all ideas that I have heard espoused by many different Democrats from across the spectrum. EPA rules need to be strengthened and we need to put a curb on carbon emissions. Frankly, from what I hear from the right that is viewed as a bunch of global warming hysterics. Personally I believe we are affecting the climate negatively. I don't know if we are all going to die tomorrow like some people seem to think, but it needs to be a priority. The Republicans don't seem to have any sense of urgency on this issue. And then there is stem cell research which should be funded like any other promising medical research. Use embryos from fertility clinics instead of abortion clinics to avoid that quagmire. Those embryos are destroyed anyway and if the people whos DNA created them want them donated to science it is their choice. All of these issues enjoy healthy levels of support amongst most Americans and -with the possible exception of Iraq- pose absolutely no danger to our over all strength as a nation. (Iraq is debatable and I think at this point we will have to agree to disagree.) It is the Democratic Party that supports those positions and, I feel, it will be the support of those positions that will translate into victory in the next two election cycles at the very least. If the GOP can't find a different fomula then the usual guns/gays/god schtick they will continue to loose and continue to be marginalized until they are the regional party of the South. This, of course, assumes that the Democrats don't make any inroads in the South...

Name one Democrat who has shown more brains, guts, common sense, and hard, selfless work -- and has been half as successful in achieving his or her stated goals -- than Howard Dean. Just one. Offhand, would y'all say he's in a better or a worse position (dark-horse-wise) than he was last time around? Talk about your real-life, genuine, hands-on, grass-roots, populist movers and shakers ...

Susan, I must have missed your question, sorry. Pose it again and I'll give you an answer. On the subject of WMD, everyone knows Sadaam had them, the question is, where did they go? There is very compelling evidence that he moved them into Syria in the weeks leading up to the US invasion. He may have believed that if no WMD were found, there would be intense international pressure for an American withdrawal, and that would allow him to remain in power. He was at least partially correct in his analysis if that was actually the case. My stance has always been that there has been no solid evidence of WMD in Iraq at the time of our invasion, but since we KNOW FOR A FACT THAT HE HAD THEM AT ONE TIME, who should we believe and support, Sadaam, or our own president? Sadly, many here will say the former. Many are not even willing to look at the evidence that Sadaam's WMD were moved to Syria. A simple search, type in WMD and Syria, will bring all you need to at least form an intelligent, informed opinion.

It would seem, after reading all of his posts today that "Durwood Pope" has earned a truckload of flags so far today, If he continues perhaps he will have a convoy of trucks by the end of the day! On the bright side, he will have plenty to throw at people for a while! "Christianity and Democracy are inevitably enemies." -Rousas Rushdoony, Founder of the Christian Reconstruction Movement

When it is ever going to become about us? When is the important thing going to be the results of what happens to us, as a result of electing one of these people? Killing the messenger and character assignation have long been the revered and favored methods of the GOP to sway the masses into electing their people into office. In the last election, the whole GOP strategy was to demonize John Kerry, and demonize him they did. Who will ever forget the Swift boat veterans. Two years later however, where are we as a result? Are we stuck in an ongoing war that is showing absolutely no hopes of resolve? Are we gaining on the national debt? Is the environment we live in either safer or cleaner? Have we gained sensible policies towards our nations Health care? Are we more respected around the world? Are we creating jobs and keeping them here in the US? Our we continually being gouged by greedy oil companies? The list goes on an on. In the last election George Bush only needed to prove that he was the more likable of the two men. That fact that he was on the wrong side of every single issue mattered not, George is the one we would prefer to have a beer with, and so we made him our President. Are we better off by having elected George Bush? It is obvious the answer is no. Did we learn from our mistake, and are we going to put what’s best for us ahead of personalities this time? That remains to be seen.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):