Half of Americans say they wouldn't vote for Clinton in '08

Ummm… presuming the sample of 1000 was chosen representatively, this is exactly how all such statistics are arrived at. Generate a representative sample state of the population you’re interested in at large, and extrapolate. While there’s always statistically significant variation when larger sample sets are actually polled, it’s not grossly so.

I was being sarcastic. It was actually a whopping 625 people polled, and no information was given on how many were Repulican, Democrat, Independant or whatever, nor how many said they were voting at all. The validity of such a poll is practically nil, since 625 people does not an accurate cross-section make. Consider also that in order to really forecast how “America” would shake down in a popular vote, you’d have to consider the state each person responding to the poll lived in and then weight the response by how many electoral college votes that state receives. People in California who would NOT vote for Clinton would be much more damaging to her political chances than people in Wyoming who dislike her.

Basically, these polls are crap.

The poll really doesn’t mean much, however I do find the use of “consider” interesting. To me it means she really has her work cut out for her If half the people are allready saying no way in hell.

More than half of Americans say they wouldn’t consider voting for Sen. Hillary Clinton for president if she becomes the Democratic nominee, according to a new national poll made available to McClatchy Newspapers and NBC News.

The poll by Mason-Dixon Polling and Research found that 52 percent of Americans wouldn’t consider voting for Clinton, D-N.Y.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, was second in the can’t-stand-'em category, with 46 percent saying they wouldn’t consider voting for him.

It’s a short poll question given to a lot of people who just want to give a quick answer and get on with life. Don’t overthink it. They quite likely could have shortened the question to “Do you like Hillary?” without changing the results.

Being a woman doesn’t matter to me. In many ways I think a woman would be a much better president. I won’t vote for her because she’s Hillary and because she’s in the pocket of too many people. I look at Worldcom and Enron fiascos as being allowed (if not nurtured) under the Clinton administration.

Like 46% of the likely voter public even knows who the hell Romney
is, much less the general public.

I still think the Democrats will commit suicide with Hillary. She just doesn’t have “neutrals” - people either like her or hate her. She is not her husband. I’ll take a bet right now - game of your choice at the time of the election, Hillary will lose if she’s the Democrat nominee.

I’ll take that action, but I suspect it’s going to be a void bet because I don’t think she’ll get the nomination.

She changed my mind on voting Democrat. From what I have observed, most of the people saying she isn’t electable were going to vote Republican regardless. She could crush Romney in a debate just by showing up.

Even the Republicans are going to do better than Romney. Romney will be lucky to get a book deal.

Edit: I’ve been saying Hillary isn’t electable, by the way, and I’ve never voted for a Republican in my life, not even for dogcatcher, hall monitor, or spit warden.

Nah, she might end up getting the VP nomination and then do her damndest to drag down whichever candidate she’s been attached to. :)

Plus a good dose of corporate lackey, surprisingly right wing policies at times, and general lack of backbone when it comes to political positions. Even if she were as charismatic as her husband I’d be unhappy voting for her, and would prefer any of the other democratic candidates I can think of.

My gut feeling is that she isn’t very electable (and I’m no conservative); I don’t think she would so much convince those on the left to vote against her, as just dampen turnout. Although, given the burden of Bush’s pathetic legacy upon Republican candidates she might yet have a chance.

Romney, IMO, is pretty irrelevant. I don’t think she’s electable and I’m favoring Obama. There are a number of people in the Democratic party that are worried about how strong her negatives are.

Honestly, I don’t know how electable Obama is either, I’m guessing America is still at the point where they may say they’d vote for an African American and then not do it in the privacy of the voting booth.

LK, have you really been impressed by her in the debates so far?

Are these the same geniuses that blew two presidential elections against George W?

Honestly, I don’t know how electable Obama is either, I’m guessing America is still at the point where they may say they’d vote for an African American and then not do it in the privacy of the voting booth.

I think no matter what happens with Obama, people will blame racism rather than his lackluster performance. He hasn’t given me any reasons to think his youth is an advantage.

LK, have you really been impressed by her in the debates so far?

Yes. I enjoy watching her speak (outside of painfully unfunny promotional spots), and as an added bonus, I like much of what she says (the video game bullshit is the only real deal breaker.

Oh, right. Republicans IRL and the political experts at Qt3. You’re most of the people who hate Hillary’s chances. I think if George W. proves anything, it’s that anyone is electable in America. Being qualified for the job is just a bonus.

A ham sandwich is electable with enough money. Hilary’s got plenty of money.

That’s what I’m talking about. HAM 08.

Remember there’s a bit of an echo chamber effect on how unelectable Hillary is; it’s kind of the opposite of how “electable” Kerry was. Everyone’s looking at everyone else’s opinion.

On the “everyone loves her or hates her note,” you can apply that description to most presidential candidates on election day, and most presidents. She’s practically already been a presidential candidate, remember, so everyone has far more defined views than they’ve had about everyone else.

To compare apples to apples, you’d have to look at something like Nixon’s numbers in 1967.

One, I was the one saying Kerry was a poor choice back during that election. He seemed like the one way for the Dems to lose to a weak and unpopular president.

Two, I think there’s a difference in the extreme negatives towards Hillary, vs. say Gore or even Kerry when they were running. The people who don’t like Hillary dislike her with a passion and the numbers appear, from the polls I see, to be significantly higher than usual. (I could be wrong - I have not gone back and looked at the negatives for Gore, Kerry, and W during those elections.)

The Democratic machine, IMO, didn’t really blow the Gore campaign - he was the obvious nominee, but his immediate handlers seem to have done a poor job. I remember when he gave his concession speech, saying he would no longer push for more appeals, etc. My wife and I watched that and looked at each other and both said, almost simultaneously, if Gore had been more of THAT guy during the election - sincere, warm, relaxed, etc. - he’d have won easily. Somehow he was like Dole was during his campaign - wooden, stiff, rehearsed, etc.

With Kerry, however, I think the party wigs just ended up pushing and nominating the kind of guy America rarely votes for: east coast liberal, stiff, unpersonable, etc. Even Jason called him, before he won the nomination, that “arrogant uppity f***.”

Obama - I keep my hopes up, as he originally has come across to me, in what I’ve read and heard from him, as incredibly intelligent and not run by polls. But I’m getting discouraged by a pretty lackluster campaign so far.

It wasn’t his manner that was broken, it was his platform. People, even stupid people, are underwhelmed by faux populism. Even an environment-heavy tack would have been better than that.

With Kerry, however, I think the party wigs just ended up pushing and nominating the kind of guy America rarely votes for: east coast liberal, stiff, unpersonable, etc. Even Jason called him, before he won the nomination, that “arrogant uppity f***.”

I don’t believe that for one minute. I could armchair quarterback this one as well, but there’s no point. I’m saying if you’re a decorated Vietnam veteran running for office and you can’t ride a popular wave in a time of war against a draft dodger who happens to be the spitting image of Alfred E. Neuman, you might as well kill yourself.

But I don’t really blame either of them. Their machines critically underestimated the opposition, both times. Republicans like to pretend it was “shifting left” to appease a fiery core constituency that shut them down…it was simply not saying enough concrete shit that mattered. Take the gloves off. Say what you mean. Run candidates relatively untainted by special interests and hit them where it hurts.

Obama - I keep my hopes up, as he originally has come across to me, in what I’ve read and heard from him, as incredibly intelligent and not run by polls. But I’m getting discouraged by a pretty lackluster campaign so far.

I don’t know about this rocket scientist stuff you’re spinning, but I would say his intelligence is not an issue. What is an issue is his unwillingness to capitalize on wedge issues and go for the throat. You already know the opposition is going to go to the mud. You don’t need ad hominems to make them look bad, you just need the obvious details of their track records. If he was willing to take the gloves off, I’d be willing to count him in. If I’m going to go with a compromise candidate who can get things done, I’d rather Hillary, simply because I believe she knows a thing or two about failure, and that’s important.

Either way, this bickering is pointless. What I really wanted to say is that this poll is more than likely a crock, and I don’t believe she’s unelectable for a moment. Especially given what the other side is bringing to the table. Now those are what I call unelectable.