Run, Hillary, run... Quinnipiac Poll (Oct 23-27) Q: Suppose New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton decides to run for president in 2004. Who would you most like to see the Democrats nominate for president in 2004? New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, Missouri Congressman Dick Gephardt, North Carolina Senator John Edwards, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, the Reverend Al Sharpton, former Illinois Senator Carol Moseley-Braun, Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich or retired General Wesley Clark? Results: 43% Clinton 10% Clark 8% Lieberman 8% Gephardt 7% Kerry 7% Dean 5% Edwards 1% Sharpton 1% Moseley-Braun 1% Kucinich 10% DK/NA
Normally conservatives have enough sense to keep their mouths shut when they don't have much to shout about... Hillary's numbers don't match up well against Bush head to head, she isn't running... Just keep lying to yourself, it's what non-millionaire Republicans do best...
So essentially you are saying that the Dems have no chance? I mean you say the best candidate (by this poll) has no chance to beat Bush. Gosh that's awfully negative! Maybe you should go on a rant now. Let me give you the regular topics for liberals on this board: 1)Bush lied...and when Dems said the same tihing they didn't 2)Why bring up Clinton? 3)Anything conservative that is mentioned is taken directly from FoxNews. 4)Start calling people names. I hope this helps you get started!
Good God you're a dumbass. Bush thrashed McCain, but McCain wouldn't have needed Katharine Harris and Antonin Scalia to win the general election. Seriously, are you really this stupid, or do you just think we are? I want to know whether to have pity on you or not.
Actually, it's not the perspective that offends me, but the trollness. I mean, either you really are a complete dumbass, in which case I fear you might breed and spread your stupid genes, or you're just trolling, which is bad netiquette.
Of course it was in fun, I can do that, unlike others. I know you enjoyed my list of possible rant topics for a liberal, pretty dead on, eh?
This has got to be one of the dumbest threads ever, seeing has how the poll says precisely the opposite. This is a new low for President Bush, who had a 53 -- 39 percent approval in a September 17 poll by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University. Looking at possible 2004 presidential matchups, Bush leads Clark 47 -- 43 percent. Bush leads other Democratic contenders, but his margins have slipped since September 17: 48 - 43 percent over Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman, compared to 52 -- 41; 49 -- 43 percent over Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, compared to 53 -- 38 percent; 49 -- 43 percent over Missouri Congressman Richard Gephardt, compared to 51 -- 39; 48 -- 42 percent over former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, compared to 53 -- 38; 50 -- 42 percent over New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, compared to 52 -- 42. "President Bush is ahead, but he's hearing footsteps. The loudest come from Gen. Wesley Clark's combat boots as he and the other Democratic wanna-bes close in," said Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. Oh, and, Muppet News Flash - Hillary isn't running. Bush is trending downward faster than the "agony of defeat" skier guy from "Wide World of Sports."
Just for fun, here are the current odds from William Hill George W Bush 1.61 Wesley Clark 4.00 Howard Dean 8.00 John Kerry 9.00 Richard Gephardt 12.00 Hilary Clinton 12.00 Joe Lieberman 15.00 Al Gore 26.00 I'd like to meet anyone prepared to put money on Gore As a point of reference, Hillary's odds are the same as Germany's before the last world cup. But she didn't get clobbered at home by England.
Just out of curiosity, what were William Hill's odds on France and Argentina before the last World Cup?
Another way of looking at this is that Bush is losing ground to someone who isn't even in the race. I think he'd struggle to get 50% of the vote against a twice-baked potato at this point. "The best thing for democratic chances in 2004 will be three years of republican rule." - Dan Loney, summer 2001
You see that verticle thing at the right of your browser window? That's a scroll bar...familiarize yourself with it before travelling out on the Internet superhighway.
If the election were held today, you might be right. But we have another long year before the election, and a lot of things can happen in a year. The economy will probably start to improve somewhat, the situation in Iraq might stabalize or voters might just get used to the turmoil. Any thing like that will move re-election odds in favor of Bush drastically. Also, color me paranoid but I can't help thinking that Bush will come up with some kind of October surprise....Saddam or Bin Laden captured two weeks before the election...something like that. Even if the economy and Iraq don't get better, there is always the chance the Democratic nominee will just blow it by, for example, choosing a running mate who has regular shock treatments, or getting photographed driving a tank around....it's happened before. So far I'm supporting Kucinich, but there are several of the Dems who I think would be better presidents than Bush. Unfortunatly, I haven't seen anything from any of the candidates that shows me that they'll be king-hell campaigners, and that's what it will probably take to beat Bush next year.
So, in a poll that shows nothing but horrible trends for Bush, you want me to take seriously the overtly counterfactual question in the poll. *golf clap* Whoops! I've only got 50 hours to find that proof Saddam is alive! I'd better get to work on that!
How is it counterfactual? It's a fricking poll...it's based on opinions, not fact. None of this is based on science, Loney.