ABOUT FIRST READ

First Read is an analysis of the day's political news, from the NBC News political unit. First Read is updated throughout the day, so check back often.

Chuck Todd, NBC Political Director

Mark Murray, NBC Deputy Political Director

Domenico Montanaro, NBC News Political Reporter



First thoughts: Hillary's final hurdle?

Posted: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 9:28 AM by Mark Murray
Filed Under:

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Julia Steers
HANOVER, NH -- 
*** Hillary’s final hurdle? So far this campaign season, Clinton has cleared -- at least right now -- three important hurdles: 1) the past Clinton baggage; 2) questions about her gender; and 3) her Iraq war vote. But her Democratic rivals now are focusing on what may be her final hurdle: electability. Yesterday, when he endorsed Obama, former Iowa Democratic Party chairman Gordon Fischer touched on this when he said that Obama had the best chance of winning the White House and helping downballot candidates. Also, in reference to President Bush’s comment that Clinton will win the Democratic nomination, a Dodd spokeswoman said: "I can understand why the President would want Senator Clinton to be the nominee." Ouch. Of course, Democrats -- right now -- believe that Clinton is the most electable candidate. In this month’s NBC/WSJ poll, 54% of Democratic voters said Clinton has the best chance of defeating the Republicans in 2008. But dig a bit deeper in the poll and you'll notice a ceiling for Clinton. For instance, when matched up against the least known major GOP candidate (Huckabee), Clinton nabs just 50%.

*** Bill’s power: Just how powerful is Bill Clinton? It appears, according to the Politico, that he helped kill a GQ article by Atlantic Monthly writer Joshua Green that wasn’t all that friendly to the Clinton campaign. Whether it’s helping rack up congressional endorsements for his wife, preventing labor groups from endorsing other candidates, or even helping to kill negative stories, this is Bill’s real power in this race: leverage.

*** Land to the rescue: A week after James Dobson criticized Thompson, Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention comes to Thompson’s defense. Land tells CBN’s Brody: “I’ve received phone calls and emails from Southern Baptists about Senator Thompson. They are all furious at Doctor Dobson. They just feel that first of all there was a mischaracterizing of his positions. Do I wish that he supported the marriage protection amendment? Of course I do. To say that he is for 50 different views of marriage in 50 different states is a gross mischaracterization of his position. Secondly, do I wish that he attended church every Sunday? As a Baptist pastor, of course I do. But does that make him a person of unbelief? That’s harsh and unwarranted.” Land's likely support for Thompson has been on display for months. Dobson may have a large audience, but Land (a Southerner) may be a more important ally in a GOP primary.

** Let the Borat jokes begin: The Giuliani campaign is raising money in Kazakhstan from Americans living there.

*** Trouble for the Dems? Before tomorrow’s Democratic debate on MSNBC, moderated by NBC’s Tim Russert, we’re taking a look at some potential problems for Democrats in 2008, even though they’re in better position than they’ve been in years. Yesterday, we looked at some cautionary data regarding independents (a must-win group for Democrats and a group that's BIG here in New Hampshire). Today, we examine some of the disenchantment with the Democratic-controlled Congress. Per this month’s NBC/WSJ poll, only 23% approve of Congress’ job. More importantly, the Democratic Party -- for the first time in nearly a year -- has a net-negative rating on the feeling thermometer (34% positive/38% negative). “Dissatisfaction with Congress has dragged down the image of the Democratic Party,” pollster Neil Newhouse (R) told First Read. Of course, the GOP’s rating is even worse (31% positive/47% negative). And, by a 47%-35% margin, voters say they prefer a Democratic-controlled Congress to a GOP-controlled one.

*** Meet the new boss, same as the old boss? Still, did voters expect more change from a Democratic Congress? Yes, it did pass a minimum-wage hike and has been a check on the White House. And, yes, Bush has thwarted much of what the Democrats have wanted to do. But the facts are this: Gridlock, party infighting, and the Iraq war all continue. The Democratic front-runners are promising change. But with Congress unable to deliver on change -- so far -- could such a message end up falling on deaf ears?

*** Another labor cattle call: It wasn’t too long ago that a handful of labor unions -- including SEIU, the Carpenters, the Farm Workers, and the Teamsters -- broke away from the AFL-CIO and formed their own federation, Change To Win. The reason for the split: Those unions though the AFL was too focused on politics and not enough on organizing. Well, today Change to Win gets a dose of politics when Obama, Edwards, and Clinton (in that order) address the group in Chicago. This front-runner cattle call comes just a day after the United Auto Workers -- an AFL member -- went on strike against GM.

*** On the trail: Elsewhere, Biden is in Boston; Huckabee is in Arkansas, where he attends the commemoration ceremony of Central High’s 50th anniversary of integration; McCain is in Texas, where (among other things) he participates in a roundtable discussion on Israel in Houston; Obama, after addressing Change to Win, campaigns in Portland, ME; and Romney raises money in California.

*** Another "Super Tuesday": For more on these things -- and much, much more -- tune into another round of MSNBC’s all-day Super Tuesday political coverage.

Countdown to LA GOV election: 25 days
Countdown to Election Day 2007: 42 days
Countdown to LA GOV run-off (if necessary): 53 days
Countdown to Iowa: 111 days
Countdown to SC GOP primary: 116 days
Countdown to Tsunami Tuesday: 133 days
Countdown to Election Day 2008: 406 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 483 days

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Remember the much praised interviews on Sunday by the MSM of Hillary: One analsysis says that may explain all of the dodging she was doing...taking lead from BUSH...what was that again ...Bush/Cheny lite

Examiner Exclusive: Bush quietly advising Hillary Clinton, top Democrats
Washington, D.C. (Map, News) -

President Bush is quietly providing back-channel advice to Hillary Rodham Clinton, urging her to modulate her rhetoric so she can effectively prosecute the war in Iraq if elected president.

It would seem that Clinton may have heeded that advice, and at least holds a similar view on Iraq:

It's too soon to say precisely what she would do in office because there is too much time between then and now.
Asked Sunday on ABC's "This Week" if she would pledge to bring troops home from Iraq, by the end of her first term in office, Clinton sidestepped.
"You know, I'm not going to get into hypotheticals and make pledges, because I don't know what I'm going to inherit. ... I don't know and neither do any of us know what will be the situation in the region," Clinton said.

More of the same with hillary is what you will get.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297938,00.html
Exactly how does being an ex First Lady and a two term senator make her the best candidate for president?
There a current hurdle that hasn't been covered yet in the media but will be if she gets the nomination.

Clintons left the White House in debt and have amassed a $40+ million fortune since 2000.  Bill goes around giving speeches ($150,000 - $400,000 each) to lobby and industry groups like the Mortgage Bankers Asso & Nat'l Asso of Realtors... Hillary in the senate then pushes  bill that benefit these industries (such as the one that prevents banks from competing in real estate transactions.)  Sounds like something a Republican would do, I never dreamed a Democratic would do this.  Hillary truely is Bush/Cheney lite.
jerry is worried about how Democratic volunteers get treated. (Ha Ha)
That's laughable.
If you think the Clinton's are bad, jerry, wait till you get a load of the Giulliani's.
"Gigolo Rudy G" only cares about one thing.....POWER.
His wife is also a power-hungry tart, who just wants her puss on the front page of the papers, and nothing else.
He was married when he started boinking her, and she knew it.
Hell, even Giulliani's own kids know their father is a scumbag...and they've said as much.
You republiCANTS talk a lot of "smack" about family values.
But, you never display them. You are all hypcrites and liars. We've seen that consistantly for the last 6 years.
Thankfully, "Rappin' Rudy 'G' The Gigolo of The G.O.P." will never be President. We don't need his antics in the White House.
Besides that, nobody's gonna' elect a President who lisps.
Sorry jerry, nice try, but no cigar.
Oh my God we have the three faces of eve going on here ; with jerrys other personalities, Sierra( a man who seems to be terrified of woman but uses a womans name and is terribly confused about his political affiliation as well), and now Crystal (a pretend compassionate republican female trying to make us change our minds about voting for "evil" Hillary)and of course bubba, who has Clintons nick name and is trying to make us believe hes a democrat, when he is really Jerry, the neocon. Wow! Jerry, get thee to a psych hospital... or would a nunnery be better? Whew, the repubs are becoming unglued. Hillary must be doing waayyy better than we think.
Go Hill! All these people are angry because they know you're gonna win. Hillary Rodham Clilnton sounds great to us!
Like you have any credibility at all Jerry? NONE.
Hillary isn't liberal but the independents and moderates at the center hate her so much they completely miss that she is the most centrist of the candidates.  She can only hurt congressional candidates in states like Colorado where the indies and moderates, formerly reliable votes for Republican candidates who recently have come over to vote Dems into power at every level, will NOT vote for her.

If this is going to be a change election, Hillary is the Dem candidate farthest from representing change, not counting the novelty of her being a woman.  If the Dems run Hillary and lose the White House THIS time they'll be finished as a force for the foreseeable future.  

With new data coming in all the time all over the world on signs that global warming is causing serious change even more quickly than formerly predicted the choice for leader of the free world ought to be clear:  Al Gore.  

A Republican President could well end the chance we still have to take effective action on a world-wide scale.  We desperately need a Democratic President open to leading the world in a massive effort to address this threat and no one can provide that leadership better than Al Gore.
I'm not entirely sure that Obama is more electable than Hilary.
All the close House and Senate races where a Democrat is trying to hold their seat in a red or purple district are going to be in trouble if Clinton wins the nomination. Why? If Clinton wins the nomination, that will bring out lots more Republicans who hate her. That could jeopardize the seat of the Democratic representative on the ballot. Therefore, it is quite likely that if Clinton wins the nomination, the Demcrats won't gain enough seats in Congress to pass divisive legislation on the war, healthcare, etc.

I'm not voting for Clinton (in the primary). It's not because I don't like her (which I don't). It's because if she wins the nomination, and the general election (which is in question), she would not be as able to resolve the divide in Congress, which is what we desperately need.
Hillary will be the nominee for the Democrats.  Always has been.  I too though will sit out the election with her at the top of the ticket. Hillary, just as her husband turned out to be, is not concerned about Democratic policies and values, but is concerned about her own power.  I don't want another 8 years of feeding someones ego.

ABH - Anybody But Hillary.
Sierra: Thanks for paying so much attention to my comments. What we have in common is we both want a better America. (I HOPE we agree on that) All the points you raise are of course arguments that I've heard and considered. I could go on & on answering each, I won't take up the bandwidth with arguments we've all heard.
Sorry this is dated, but it is the most recent I could find.

In July Rasmussen conducted a survey asking 800 likely voters if they would definitely vote for or against a particular candidate. The results are as follows:

         For   Against
Obama     29%     37%
Clinton   28%     46%
Edwards   22%     39%
HRC will not ever get my vote and my family have been democrats for generations. Never! Everybody get ready to say, President Rudy.
I pray to God everyday that Hillary wins.  Not only because she and Bill will make a great team in the White House, she is extremely smart, loves America and know how to compromise to get bills to pass.  It is never her way or the highway.  She works with people to get things done.  The other reason I want to see Hilary win is so all you nasty people who will not give Hilary a chance or even listen to what she has to say suffers tremendiously when she wins.  I want to see and feel your pain because you deserve it
Obama is leading at least seven points head of all the top tier republicans. HRC is tied with Rudy, Thompson, Rommeny and even McCain.  Independents won't vote for HRC, you can't bet your bottom dollar on that.  The media and RNC are hoping for a HRC nomination.  Wonder why they are taking the experience question so lightly with her.  They want to smash her in the general and all the clinton's bad deeds will come out.  It will be worse than  bimbo eruption.  Republicans know they only have a fighting chance against HRC.  Dems have never been good at picking canidates and aren't good at fighting the Republicans in congress.
I pray to God everyday that Hillary wins.  Not only because she and Bill will make a great team in the White House, she is extremely smart, loves America and know how to compromise to get bills to pass.  It is never her way or the highway.  She works with people to get things done.  The other reason I want to see Hilary win is so all you nasty people who will not give Hilary a chance or even listen to what she has to say suffers tremendiously when she wins.  I want to see and feel your pain because you deserve it
I pray to God everyday that Hillary wins.  Not only because she and Bill will make a great team in the White House, she is extremely smart, loves America and know how to compromise to get bills to pass.  It is never her way or the highway.  She works with people to get things done.  The other reason I want to see Hilary win is so all you nasty people who will not give Hilary a chance or even listen to what she has to say suffers tremendiously when she wins.  I want to see and feel your pain because you deserve it
J Merle Stanley:
'...I am a lifelong Democrat. I never voted for a republiCANT in any general election.
But, I will vote for whoever the republiCANT nominee is, out of protest, if Obama gets the nomina...'

So Merle, how would you feel about Obama or Edwards supporters making protest votes if Hillary gets the nomination ??

Especially if Ron Paul makes a third party run ?

Hilary's 'final hurdle' is staying out of jail during the election season !!

;-)>
"Mothers hate war"  - yeah, until someone or something threatens their children...

"Dems/liberals prefer negotiation / diplomacy over violence",  yeah - until someone / something threatens their safety or livlihood...

"Dems / Liberals are anti-gun"  - Yeah, until someone or something threatens their families or possessions - Remember columnist John Anderson?  Vehemently anti-Gun, wrote numerous columns in favor of anti-Gun legislation,  Then was arrested for defending his DC home against a late night break-in with... an illegal handgun!  

All you guys are the true hypocrites.  Your problem is you want so much for the world to be the way you think it ought to be, that you are incapable of admitting to yourselves that it's not, until you are yourselves threatened.  
Unfortunately, there are many "bubbas" "jerrys" and "merles" out there who will refuse to vote for a woman or a black man.  Being from Illinois, I am an Obama supporter, and it is irritating to see the lies being told about him.  He is extremely intelligent, has experience in the Illinolis House, etc.  However, if Hillary is the nominee, I will definitely vote for her over the Republican candidate as I don't feel this country can survive four years with another Republican administration.  If you look at the top 5 Democratic candidates, they are all intelligent, have good experience and family values.  Who among the top 5 Republican candidates has the same?
sierra......
You say that I'M desperate....yet YOU are the one who's been ranting and raving on this board for the last six months about how much you hate Hillary.
I'd say just the opposite is true....YOU are the desperate one. You always end your dietribes with the same validiction....."Hillary Clinton, 15 years of dishonesty, scandal and divisiveness." (How in the hell a First Lady is "divisive" is beyond me. Oh well, maybe you don't know what the word means.)
You used to say "Hillary Clinton, 15 years of scandal and political polarization" until someone challenged you to define the word "polarization" and you couldn't do it.
Oh, and YES sierra, I would vote for ANY republiCANT over Obama if he were to get the nomination.
So will the "Reagan Democrats." Independents won't make up for the loss of votes within our own party. Besides, independents are always encouraged to vote against Democratic candidates anyway.....so their votes are virtually meaningless. Obama isn't going to change that. He would cost us an election we can't afford to lose.
Obama WOULD lose, and he'd lose BIG.
Hardcore Republicans aren't going to vote for him, and neither are southern and southwestern independents. He won't get the evangelical vote either. They're already picking on his middle name. (Hussein...as in Saddam Hussein). It may not be fair, it may not be right.
But, they are going to continue doing it. That along with his ties to Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who faces extortion and fraud charges related to an Illinois public pension fund would/will "polarize" the campaign.
We don't need that.
Sorry sierra, but yelling, and yammering isn't going to win Obama the nomination.
...and like I said before. We can't trust this election to someone as "green" as Obama is. We need someone who can win....and that is Hillary.
Hillary Clinton does not have the ability to clear any hurdle.  She does not have any ankles
Right on J Merle, you are correct. Sierra and Sonja are not true democrats. Never have been, never will be.
I am a life long republican and have enough sense to be voting democrat for the 1st time in my life. Bush has me embarrassed to tears. ANY democrat.
Call me a "bubba" and make disparaging comments all you want, but I will never voyte for anyone who seems to want to live more in the world they wish existed than in the real world.  In the real world, vilence DOES solve things, and Wars ARE effective means of exercising national power and accomplishing national objectives.  

In the real world, although the concept of pre-emptive war is by no means a clear moral imperative, when nation states possess, or may possess, WMD, and threaten to use them or distribute them to agencies of religious terrorism, pre-emptive war CANNOT be considered a clear moral wrong either.
Whoa, such hateful language against hillary, a woman most people don't know well. Not very Christian, not very nice. She will do just fine as president, Thank you.
{{ Bubba my ass, its Jerry again folks, same lies and viciousness against the Clintons. And his big fat lying ass finds a purpoted story about how mean Hillary is to her voluteers. What a big lier you are Jerry. Just like your idol  }}

Nomination for post of the month.  It has everything. No context, personal attacks, cussing, spelling errors.  Post of the month.

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY / I could vote for obama, but I couldn't vote for hillary. anyone that thinks it is not going to require the independents to win the general election is not thinking clearly. obama or edwards can draw the independent and fence sitting republican vote, hillary can not, that's why she can't win the election and also why the republicans love her so, sorry merle but clinton can't get the job done
sierra siad....."So Merle, how would you feel about Obama or Edwards supporters making protest votes if Hillary gets the nomination ??

Especially if Ron Paul makes a third party run ? ....."

Paul would probably take as many republiCANT votes as he would Democratic votes.
However, that statement by you conclusively proves what I have suspected for some time.
You aren't a Liberal or a Democrat at all. You're another whacko who wants the Dem's to nominate a weak candidate so some third party puke can siphon off votes and help a republiCANT get elected again.
Sorry sierra, you have been OUTED!
I agree with P.J. They are afraid of Hillary! She is going to win votes and become our next American President.
Hillary is certainly electable.  After the last six years of utter incompetence (Iraq, Katrina, etc.), competence is going to be the main attribute voters are looking for.  And nobody is more competent than Hillary.
H P-Also add that the Shrub is also going to veto hlthcare coverage for kids which has universal appeal to WORKING MOTHERS. Enough said! The Neo-cons better get used to madam President. Love it!
J. Merle,

We don't need Obama's "ties" to someone who is charged with a crime (not convicted), but we are supposed to tolerate Clinton's "ties" to a CONVICTED felon who raised almost $1M for her (that we know of)?

Also, is your prediction that Obama would "lose BIG" based on any facts, or just your opinion?

You contend that "Hardcore Republicans aren't going to vote for him, and neither are southern and southwestern independents. He won't get the evangelical vote either."

Clinton is no more likely to gain any of these votes than Obama. In fact, Clinton will get neither the hardcore Republican vote nor the moderate Republican vote.

If Clinton is nominated, she will cost the Democrats the 60 votes they MUST HAVE in Senate in order to pass divisive legislation for the war, healthcare, etc. Then it won't matter that she is president.
Susan, awhhh what a keen observation!! But sorry to disappoint you, I am a Democrat sweetie!! My whole thing is you have to read and be knowledgeable about your candidates. It doesn't matter to me if people praise Hillary, that is their choice but I think it just shows a real lack of knowledge. It is fine to make statements in her defense but you have to acknowledge her wronddoings as well. And to me if you read her views and stance on issues and compare them to Obama or Edwards, it is no way you would support her.
I never hear her supporters saying, I am voting for her b/c of what she believes in education and citing her stance, or war and citing her stance, just blanket statements about experience. The Bush administration had experience and look what that got us. And what are you exactly counting as her experience? Being first-lady? Are you serious? I just feel like many of her supporters are just her supporters fall into one of two categories: 1) they want to see the first female president OR 2) they loved Bill Clinton and want to see him back in the white house. But sorry those reasons aren't good enough for me!
The next election is crucial my children and grandchildren will be affected by the decisions that this president makes. I had to do my research and clearly, Senator Clinton has been plagued by corruption and scandals and her views and stances on many issues that affect minority people are deplorable. Sorry but when I post I just state facts, you can agree or disagree but the facts are there, at the end of the day it is your decision but we all will have to live with the consequences!!
Why doesn't Barack Obama use his full name?
Does anyone know what it is?
TO ME THERE IS NO HRUDLE- BEST BEST LADY HILARY CLINTON FOR PRES- THOSE PEOPLE SO CONTRARY THAT WHY THIER AMERICA CRUMBLED BEC. OF THIER BAD ATTITTUDE AND SO BELEIGERENT AND CONTRARY.MOSTLY NO COMMON SENS WHICH IS-WHICH ONE THE EBSTC ANDDIATE FOR PRES.08-
THEY CANT FACE TTHE TRUTH.
We need the bubba's for this. We need a candidate with broad appeal and low negatives.

Gary Schear, Bozeman Montana (Sent Tuesday, September 25, 2007 10:37 AM)

Look Gary, you are obviously an anyone but Clinton guy, and spouting a couple of urban myths yourself.

Here are the current fav/unfav #'s for the candidates

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_democratic_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election

Please note that Clinton's favorables are comparable to Obama and Edwards. Their negatives are lower, but so is their recognition.
Winning by a landslide would be nice, but NO candidate guarantees a landslide in the general election.

Clinton is much more popular in the democratic party than her two top challengers;

"Among Democratic contenders, this week’s polling brought few changes. Hillary Clinton is viewed favorably by 81% of Democrats and unfavorably by 17%. Seventy percent (70%) of Democrats have a favorable opinion of John Edwards while 21% say the opposite. Barack Obama’s numbers are 62% favorable, 30% unfavorable. Democrats see little ideological difference between their leading candidates, but Clinton is viewed as the most electable Democrat. Clinton remains solidly in front of the pack among those seeking the Democratic Presidential nomination."

Winning the general election is all that is necessary to win and the last guy claimed a mandate when he didn't have one. Logicly speaking for a democratic candidate, it would be important for that candidate to get most of the DEMOCRATS to vote for them. You can disagree with the numbers, but they favor Clinton in a big way. It's hard to make a case for republicans and independents flocking to a candidate who is at 30% unfavorable within their own party. or to knock one who is seen favorably by over EIGHTY percent of the same.
Read David Brooks' article; Hillary will get the moderate vote in the general because she IS a moderate, centrist, democrat. It is illustrated here by the fact that the extreme left says that she's just like Bush (Which is ridiculous) while the extreme right says that she's a socialist.
The argument that her candidacy represents, "more of the same", when electing the first woman in our history is well, history making, is also bogus and repeated here ad infinitum.

There will NOT be a candidate with low negatives, democrat or republican. Look at the numbers and it's obvious that the candidates for both parties will be running someone who has an unfavorable rating in the mid forties. You are only pointing to the unfavorables because they are the only place where the other candidates have even a slight advantage.

You insist that we can't win without the center, yet strongly reject the candidate who represents that demographic, despite all of the evidence to that fact.
There have been a half-dozen articles over the past couple of days attesting to the fact that Clinton appeals to the heart and soul bedrock, "Beer-track", of the party and that Edwards and Obama appeal to the intellectual, or "Wine Track", segment. Which better exemplifies the center?
By your own logic, you should be supporting Clinton, not grasping for reasons not to. She will be a great candidate, really DOES represent change, the most significant change to the office of President in 230 years. If you study her career and record you find a much different person than is depicted by the crazies here, many of whom are not democrats anyway.
Thinly veiled attempts to cast her as unelectable are going to be out there until she is elected, I hope you find the logic that allows you to leave that camp in time for the general election


Van
"Hillary's Final Hurdle"

Mark
You guys just say these things to egg us on...right? Just to get us going with a discussion of how bias this is...right? Just so we can point out that she really isn't going anywhere in the polls...right? That she really hasn't cleared those other hurdles...right? That's got to be the reason for these kind of headlines. You really don't believe it...right?
Hillary can win and repubs cant stand it! Cant wait for another Clinton in the whitehouse!!!!
Its Gods will that Hillary will win and straighten out this country and the world. Praise be to God!
Sonja is a BIG LIER!Nice try Sonja.
Good Jane Masters, Dont vote!
In reference to electability, I suspect the issue is mostly how well a candidate is known.  Its easy to imagine that little known candidates are missing negatives.  But it is more likely that they have not appeared yet.  One of Hilary's virtues is that her negatives are already well known and in focus.  New ones are not likely to appear.  Plus she has already shown good ability to cope with and get beyond them.

There is a good chance that Barack Obama's negatives are also already known.  But they will not receive the same focus as Hilary's unless he turns out to be the candidate in the general election.  But then he will face concerns about his attachment to the left wing of the Democratic Party, his readiness to run in spite of his inexperience, his tendency towards idealism, and racial prejudice.  People thought George McGovern was electable when he was nominated.  I doubt Obama would have much more of a chance unless the Republicans perform poorly.
vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Tuesday, September 25, 2007 10:04 AM)--
How does she fair in the General election Van? That is all that matters.

Gary Schear, Bozeman Montana (Sent Tuesday, September 25, 2007 10:42 AM)


Why do you address me as though I own the polls?

Here are the RCP averages of all the available polls.Clinton leads in all the aggragates;

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

Even you should be able to see that your logic is dictated by your conclusion: You don't like Clinton and don't want to see her nominated or elected, so first you say that polls don't matter, them if she's the most popular democrat in the polls, it's the independents who are most important. When she dominates the other candidates in the national numbers and state primaries, it's about how she has high unfavorables or that the only numbers that matter are the general election numbers.

You are playing a shell game and calling it rational thought. You have to compartmentalize your thinking and your assessment of the available information to tailor it to fit your feelings.
It doesn't really matter if John Edwards looks better in the general election polls when he can't get to 20% in his own party. Even if Ron Paul CRUSHED all competition in general election polls, the fact that he can't get 3% support in his own party makes the other statistic moot.

Van
Sorry this is dated, but it is the most recent I could find.

In July Rasmussen conducted a survey asking 800 likely voters if they would definitely vote for or against a particular candidate. The results are as follows:

        For   Against
Obama     29%     37%
Clinton   28%     46%
Edwards   22%     39%

CitizenJ (Sent Tuesday, September 25, 2007 12:15 PM)


Sorry that you find the ras website so hard to navigate;

Survey of 800 Likely Voters
August 7-11, 2007

Candidate


Def. FOR


Def. AGAINST


Net

Clinton


32%


44%


-12

Giuliani


25%


37%


-12

Thompson


23%


35%


-12

Obama


23%


37%


-14

McCain


18%


33%


-15

Edwards


22%


39%


-17

Romney


16%


40%


-24

As you can see, despite whatever it is that you hoped to prove and justify why your guy is best, the numbers don't (yet again) bear that out.

Clinton     -12% is the LOWEST differential among democrats.
Obama is at -14%
Edwards     -17%

What was your point?

Van
There's a reason Hillary has rhino-hided Wolfson, etc. working for her: they are all, in characteristics, just like the animal referred to.

And, despite what First Read's Chuck, Mark, Domenico, and Julie wrote, Clinton HASN'T cleared any one of the hurdles. What she has cleared is your simplistic-thinking.

Americans need to remain unsatisfied with Clinton's answers. They reveal her practiced, manipulative, subtle, side-stepping habit.  
i agree with z bush still sucks, the self-righteous,hypocrites republicans are at it once again using any means to attack Hillary and the dems so they can keep control of the whitehouse, and the neo-cons that nerve and audacity to call us morons, they ought to take a look in the mirror. Bill Clinton was the greatest president in our times since JFK.Repubs can't handle the truth!!!!!!!!!!!!! GO HILLARY!!!!!!!!!!
Vanprick,

I apologize for having to take time away from researching the Rasmussen website once in a while so I can work for a living.

My point is Clinton has the highest "definitely not voting for" numbers. That means only 6 percent of those left have to vote against her to defeat her, whereas it is 13% and 11% for Obama and Edwards, respectively.

Sorry you had trouble comprehending that.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

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

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=378424

First Read e-mail alerts


Sign up for First Read alerts
The first place for key political news and analysis

Syndicate This Site

Add First Read to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google