It's been pretty obvious why the MSM pushes Clinton. They know she can't win the general election. There's your liberal media for you.

Diamonds or pearls, anyone? If she wins the Democratic nomination, that might just be the most meaningful question the MSM plants can ask.

Sincerely, and in Peace
Jason Call
www.Call4Democracy.org
Candidate, US Congress, New Mexico CD 1

(It's time for a real candidate. Kucinich '08)

This was an online survey, how accurate could that be?

I do not want to see Hillary elected...but I am stunned that the percentage is that high for the Republicans after all the corruption!!

Polls, shmolls.

Nothing really matters ...

Will the Supreme Court Steal the 2008 Election

GWN -

Zogby's "online surveys" are not like the ones you are likely thinking of. They do polling online akin to phone calls. It's not a poll that anybody can simply go and vote in (as with a CNN poll on a webpage, for example).

That's how they did their pre-2004 polls, and they were right on the money with the final results. As long as the final results were those from the Exit Polls, rather than the ones reported by the voting machines.

The demoCon running neck and neck with the neoCons. Another MSM engineered "perplexity".

Hillary, If ya wanna to lock it up and take home all the chips, put the screws
to that fruitcake nancy pelosi to get the impeachment ball rolling.

A number of left and progressive websites that I read basically favor Hillary because they think she runs a good campaign. Left Coaster, Firedoglake and some others are good websites and I am not knocking them or their main writers, but when you boil it all down, they just want a winner for the Dems and they don't seem to care about the objections people have to HRC. They also argue that if you find fault with Hillary, you are echoing Republican talking points. When Zogby came out, you began to hear "well the Rasmussen poll" came out the same day and said she'd win it all.

I find the desperation by these Dem sad. They think it's pragmatic politics: elect a sure winner and then worry about the details.

Flawless campaigning is not a sign of 'presidentiality'. You need only look as far as George Bush to know that for dead certain. Know it AND FEAR IT.

And the reservoir of discomfort, dislike or disgust for HRC is vast whether she 'deserves' it or not. The same folks who want Dems to be 'rational' and 'pragmatic' about selection of a nominee haven't quite reconciled that fact (which has been around and in evidence in both parties since the 1990's).

Shortly after the 2000 election and the 2004 election, as I recall, Zogby was among those who said the Dem won. Now suddenly his polling is suspect. Of all the bloggers I read, I think Brad Blog folks would know how polling has been given a black-eye by twisted voting results which serve to make all polling suspect, even the most rigorous.

But it doesn't take polling to convince me. All you have to do is ask the people you meet on the street or among your friends. HRC is poison to a fair election. There will be no mandate. She will alter he perception that attaches to her. She's not the best choice. She's the stupid one.

Errata:

I meant "she will not later the perception that attaches to her".

And , it was not Rasmussen who polled with different results. See: http://www.gallup.com/po...Heats.aspx?version=print

OK Brad #4, now I am even more stunned if that is the case. (Zogby's polls being on the money) That's an awful lot of people thinking about voting Republican.

I think I'll become "stunned" in a stupid way. It's much healthier for ones soul.

Cynthia McKinney is running for president with the Green party. It would be a hoot to see her pull ahead of Hillary.

I talk to a lot of women and men in my job. I ask what people think of Hillary and NO ONE says they'll vote for her! The sentiment in my neck of the woods is UGH! They just do not like Hill or want a return to the Clinton presidency. I live in a suburb of Illinois.

If you still want a fucking perfect candidate you will end up with bush again . . .

The Zogby poll says Hillary would lose to the top 5 Republicans, but Obama & Edwards BEAT all the Republicans...then why does the media keep telling us Hillary is the frontrunner Democrat? That doesn't make sense!

Big Dan #13

That doesn't make sense!

Running Hillary has NEVER made sense to me!

She's had high negative numbers for a long time. People vote their guts. She's so lawyerly, she's turned a lot of people off. They want decisive leaders. They're tired of parsers who try to be on both sides of an issue so much their lips are sore from kissing so many behinds. And, while they'll vote for a woman to be a local judge or even an occasional governor or legislator, they're not ready to go for one for president. Sorry, that's the current reality.
They're also not ready to elect a "colored guy" either. Sorta looks like another Republican exec with a Democratic legislature again, doesn't it?

Sorry folks, Obama is getting my vote.
I'm voting for the second runner-up just to see if we can un anoint Clinton, plus Obama had the balls and honesty to say "he inhaled", to me, that's integrity.
(mebbe we can get some of that new Afghan product over here)

Brad,

Of course, Zogby was right on in 2004.

http://us.share.geocitie...se.htm#StatePrePollTrend

Scoll down a few screens to:

Pre-election Battleground State Polls

Final pre-election Zogby polls for nine battleground states were included in the Election Model Monte Carlo simulation forecast. Kerry was leading in 8 of the 9 states by an average of 50.2-44.8%. The base case assumption was that he would capture 75% of the undecided (UVA) vote and win all 9 states by a 53.7-45.9% margin. The conservative assumption was that he would capture 55% UVA and capture 8 states by 52.7-46.8%. He won just 4 states by 50.1- 49.4%. The margin of error was exceeded in 7 states, a 1 in 4.7 billion probability.

Now here's the main point regarding Zogby's just-released set of polls that everyone seems to miss.

The ONLY reason that HRC leads the 3-way polls with BO and JE is that the latter two SPLIT the true PROGRESSIVE/LIBERAL vote.

For instance, assume the three-way is:
HRC 35%
BO 27%
JE 25%

If either BO or JE were to run head-to-head vs. HRC, he would easily win.

Let's assume a 2-way race with HRC vs. JE:
HRC keeps all of her current 35% share
JE wins 22% of BO's 27% share; HRC gets the other 5%

Voila!
JE has 47%; HRC 40%

THAT'S WHY HRC LOSES TO EVERY REPUB AND WHY JE AND BO EACH DEFEAT EVERY REPUB!

... gtash said on 11/27/2007 @ 5:12 am PT...
"A number of left and progressive websites that I read basically favor Hillary because they think she runs a good campaign. Left Coaster, Firedoglake and some others ... they just want a winner for the Dems and they don't seem to care about the objections people have to HRC."
-------------

Check again.

I read and post to firedoglake.com very regularly and they've polled their readers. Edwards is by far the favorite with Obama second and Hillary about 5th.

They invited Hillary and Dodd for long conversations and both were received warmly, but Hillary didn't have or create any new supporters. Dodd is better liked for his protection of the Constitution and more Liberal position in general.

Hillary is recieving a similar sort of right wing promotion Ralph Nador got. She is the republicans new Ralph Nador.
i.e. Someone who assists them in preventing a Democratic victory.

"And, while they'll vote for a woman to be a local judge or even an occasional governor or legislator, they're not ready to go for one for president."

They might vote for a feminist president in California or New York at a push but not much other. I think a woman could be elected president but not a feminist and I am one (feminist) so perhaps I know.

Hillary is one of the few dems with balls . . .

Zogby, Hillary and the Judicial Watch Poll

http://www.pollster.com/...ary_and_the_judicial.php

Heres a very interesting artical about the Zogby poll where Hillary Clinton did so badly against the major republican contenders for president. The questions in the poll are pretty obviously leading the questioner.

This does not mean I support or don't support Hillary. What does it say about Zogby though.
The questions looked like utter crap.

This morning, the Washington Post's Dana Milbank tells the story of a new poll conducted by Zogby Interactive and sponsored by Judicial Watch, a group that "back in the day filed drawers full of lawsuits alleging Clinton corruption." Milbank describes the poll as "rather loaded in its language:"

"Some people believe that the Bill Clinton administration was corrupt," one question begins. In another question about Hillary Clinton, every answer included the word "corrupt," and the question was not asked about other candidates so that a comparison could be made.

The pollster, John Zogby, defended the questions as "balanced" --- a label Fitton [president of Judicial Watch] made no attempt to earn. As he presented the results yesterday, he announced that Bill Clinton's financial conflicts of interest "make the issues of Halliburton and Dick Cheney . . . pale in comparison."