Might even be tempted to swing left for any liberal hawk at this point. The Republicans gave up the one bit of conservatism (fiscal) that I supported. Not much left except foreign policy after that.

But think about the implications of this. McCain and Giuliani get the "core democratic" no percentage (yes I am sure some of the 'definitely no' were from their own party, but the percentage is about what the democratic core consists of). Hillary, Kerry and Gore all got much higher than the core conservative percentage. This means that a lot in the middle have made up their mind. This early could they get their mind changed, would they change it based on the opposition, etc.? Absolutely. But that's a harder row to hoe.

The democrats have only won the presidency in the last 40 years by putting up a southerner who you could make a straight faced argument held conservative values. Warner is the only one who could arguably make that claim. Can it work a third time, I'm not sure. I suspect the "I hate Bush" crowd might scream bloody murder, but they would still pull the lever for Warner even if he came out in support of every republican position. If he then presided like that, they would bolt the party. But I suspect they would look for a post election difference like they got with Carter and Clinton. If the GOP could make him take some of the democratic stands (higher taxes, government to fix every problem, cut and run in Iraq), then I doubt the democrats could pull the hat trick with the bank slate southerner who voters can project what they want to see onto.

Also note, Hillary could get to the magic 50% if she kept her supporters and garnered 100% of the persuadables. Gore and Kerry fall short of that mark. McCain needs 79% of the persuadables and Rudy needs 69%. Doable, but pretty steep for both of them. I'll plead the 11th commandment on Jeb.

Warner, Allen, etc don't have enough name recognition to be meaningful in a poll like this. The would likely have had single digit support. Definitely against in the 20's (reflecting either sides hard core base) and a very large persuadable middle (and probably a lot higher no opinion number also). I would have loved to see Edwards (just to get a read on him), Rice and Lieberman. I suspect the poll would have shown Lieberman as being with numbers somewhere around McCain. The Lieberman numbers (assuming I am right on the numbers) would have been an interesting bone for the left to swallow. A candidate they are actively trying to get out of the party but would have the best chance of being elected president.

Hire Jerome Armstrong!

And I'm sure Kos will become more friendly to her if she does hire him. heh.

NEWS: - Senators Hear About Immigration Law Enforcement Failures - Pennsylvania city to target illegals via employers, landlords - Dozens Illegally Used Calif. Woman's ID - Senate holds election-year debate on Iraq - Senate panel proposes Net user 'b...

If hillary loses to an unnamed everyone, then, she won't get the votes that will likely favor her party, and the opponent will have a guaranteed base from which to feed.

Didn't read the poll, don't care, just "definate" is a rather "definative" statement.

Further, polls without a �likely voter� screen are almost completely worthless.

If anything, I think screening for likely voters -- considering who the likely voters are in the nominating process -- would have led to even worse numbers for Hillary.

I predicted two years ago that her presidential prospects were going to wane. Now I'm waiting for the numbers to confirm my wishful thinking about a McCain collapse...

Bad polling news for Hillary Clinton and the concept in general of political dynasties — or national presidential candidate political retreads:With the presidenti......