Comments on: Electorate Shifts Democrat, Dems Fear Hillary Drag

By: Soccer Dad

Soccer Dad — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 18:04:56 +0000

If ... you must 08/17/2007... If you haven't read The "divisive" Karl Rove at Transterrestial Musings; you must. Karl Rove has been a lightning rod for attacks, but he's hardly been divisive. "Successful" (to a point) was his greater failing to his enemies. If you haven't re...

By: won't vote hillary

won't vote hillary — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:26:47 +0000

I'm an Independent voter who would love to vote for a Democrat, but I won't vote for Mrs Clinton regardless of what she says or does in the next 12 months.

She's been around for 15 years, no results to speak of, no real representation of NYers in her time in the Senate. Her campaign is progressively showing her true character as an elitist attack dog who panders to the people who give her money.

While the Republican candidates don't excite me, I will vote for one of them should the Dems nominate Mrs Clinton. They really need to understand this - their vote for Mrs Clinton forces me to vote for a Republican.

It doesn't have to be that way, there are other good Democratic candidates in the running.

By: MSS

MSS — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 17:56:22 +0000

How is Clinton more liberal than Kerry or Gore? With all caveats about the way "liberal" is (mis-) defined in American political discourse, I do not see it. Gore was a very conservative Democratic Senator, but he left those days behind long ago.

You are absolutely right that generic party preference and candidate preference can diverge. That is not the case in most democracies. But it most certainly is here.

My guesses are that Clinton is unstoppable in the nomination race, that she will struggle to win more than 47% of the vote, but that she just might win the electoral college anyway.

By: charles austin

charles austin — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 23:45:55 +0000

Of course, lives do depend on it.

By: Bithead

Bithead — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 23:28:08 +0000

Over the last several cycles and the press has been telling us that democrats poll slightly higher than republicans... until, that is, specific names start getting mentioned on the democrat party side. With point, the polls lean heavily republican. This would appear to be more of the same. And Hillary Clinton, would appear to be one of the democrats that even those who say they for democrats , wouldn't vote if their life depended on it.

By: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III

Zelsdorf Ragshaft III — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 23:19:33 +0000

James are you touting the work of the Democratic congess as elected in 2006? They are less popular than Bush, who remains very popular among Republicans. Polls, like statistics can be used to show whatever the showman wants. Do you really think the country is ready for a Communist, rather, Democratic President? Does the Daily Kos really represent the middle? Only a fool would vote for higher taxes. National security will trump all other issues and the Democrats are exremely weak in that area.

By: yetanotherjohn

yetanotherjohn — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 22:14:16 +0000

Hillary has such high negatives among independent and republicans, that she could be a GOP/middle uniter. We are also looking at things 13 months before it starts to really matter. The democratic congress is doing yeoman work to fritter away the goodwill that got them elected (e.g. 3% approval ratings).

By: Dave Schuler

Dave Schuler — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 20:57:07 +0000

We need to bear in mind that we don't elect presidents at large so what the nation-wide polls tell may or may not mean anything. The real question is how the various candidates fare state by state. Can Sen. Clinton carry states that went for Bush in 2004? Can whoever emerges as the Republican candidate carry a state that Gore carried in 2000? Those are the real questions.