T1B

CNNGALLUP SHOCK POLL: ONLY 16% FIRM ON HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT
Wed Jan 25 2006 10:50:26 ET

Most voters now say there's no way they'd vote for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton if she runs for president in 2008 - while just 16 percent are firmly in her camp, a stunning new poll shows.

CNNGALLUP found that 51 percent say they definitely won't vote for Clinton (D-N.Y.) in 2008, another 32 percent might consider it, and only 16 percent vow to back her. That means committed anti-Hillary voters outnumber pro-Hillary voters by 3-1. The poll suggests she can forget about crossover votes - 90 percent of Republicans and 75 percent of conservatives say there's no way they'd back her.

Meanwhile, 46% said they would oppose Secretary of State Rice if she ran for President - a step Rice has repeatedly said she won't take.


Apparently the "makeover" isn't fooling anyone!

...meanwhile deep inside the DNC... quick...get Kerry on the line..Dean..Edwards...heeeelp-ah

END

I told you clowns a year ago that Hillary would never be the nominee.

Now when that claim is verified, you run around like you made your first shit in a toilet without mommy's help.

BSmack wrote:I told you clowns a year ago that Hillary would never be the nominee.

Now when that claim is verified, you run around like you made your first shit in a toilet without mommy's help.

...not so..she is still far and away leading the pack of nominee's

http://www.pollingreport.com/WH08dem.htm

mvscal wrote:This is bad news.

BSmack wrote:I told you clowns a year ago that Hillary would never be the nominee.

Now when that claim is verified, you run around like you made your first shit in a toilet without mommy's help.

Rack.

ChargerMike wrote:

BSmack wrote:I told you clowns a year ago that Hillary would never be the nominee.

Now when that claim is verified, you run around like you made your first shit in a toilet without mommy's help.

...not so..she is still far and away leading the pack of nominee's

http://www.pollingreport.com/WH08dem.htm

2008 is still an eternity away, at least when measured in terms of Presidential politics.

Remember, at the end of '03 the media was telling you that the Democratic nomination was a two-horse race between Dean and Clark. Funny, but somebody forgot to tell John Kerry.

I'd say better than even money that Hillary doesn't even run for President in '08. And if she does, it won't end well for her.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

ChargerMike wrote:

BSmack wrote:I told you clowns a year ago that Hillary would never be the nominee.

Now when that claim is verified, you run around like you made your first shit in a toilet without mommy's help.

...not so..she is still far and away leading the pack of nominee's

http://www.pollingreport.com/WH08dem.htm

2008 is still an eternity away, at least when measured in terms of Presidential politics.

Remember, at the end of '03 the media was telling you that the Democratic nomination was a two-horse race between Dean and Clark. Funny, but somebody forgot to tell Dean and Clark not to open their mouths making complete moron's of themselves, thus paving the way for Mr. "I've got a plan"

FIXED.

I'd say better than even money that Hillary doesn't even run for President in '08. And if she does, it won't end well for her.

and she will not run if she thinks their is ANY chance of losing. She's too freekin arogant to chance losing to a..."Republican"

mvscal wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

BSmack wrote:I told you clowns a year ago that Hillary would never be the nominee.

Now when that claim is verified, you run around like you made your first shit in a toilet without mommy's help.

Rack.

The second she cracks her whip, you two subs will drop to your knees and suck her strap on.

Don't front.

bwaaa..the horrrrrrror!

mvscal wrote:The second she cracks her whip, you two subs will drop to your knees and suck her strap on. Don't front.

If by "suck her strap on" you mean vote for her over any possible GOP nominee, then you would be right. But I will never vote for her in a Democratic primary period.

Edit: And no, McCain is not a possible GOP nominee

Terry in Crapchester wrote: I'd say better than even money that Hillary doesn't even run for President in '08.

Right, she's just raising money like a rock star for the fun of it.

BSmack wrote:

mvscal wrote:The second she cracks her whip, you two subs will drop to your knees and suck her strap on. Don't front.

If by "suck her strap on" you mean vote for her over any possible GOP nominee, then you would be right. But I will never vote for her in a Democratic primary period.

Edit: And no, McCain is not a possible GOP nominee

Another rack.

Degenerate wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote: I'd say better than even money that Hillary doesn't even run for President in '08.

Right, she's just raising money like a rock star for the fun of it.

She also happens to be up for re-election in the Senate. Just so's ya know.

And also, given that two of her constituents are on record in this forum alone, saying that they'd never vote for her in a Democratic Presidential Primary, doesn't say much for her chances, now does it?

mvscal wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

BSmack wrote: If by "suck her strap on" you mean vote for her over any possible GOP nominee, then you would be right. But I will never vote for her in a Democratic primary period.

Edit: And no, McCain is not a possible GOP nominee

Another rack.

Good little sheep.

M..A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.

Sheep are on your side of the aisle. Sorry.

BSmack wrote: If by "suck her strap on" you mean...

Yeah, whatever.


The corn in one of Dubya's steaming turds could beat Hillary in '08.
But you'll leave the voting booth with a shit eating grin, knowing you stuck it to the Republican
juggernaut by voting Clinton/Lieberman '08.

Whatever Bri....whatever....

Martyred wrote:

BSmack wrote: If by "suck her strap on" you mean...

Yeah, whatever.


The corn in one of Dubya's steaming turds could beat Hillary in '08.

Have you seen W's approval rating lately? Stuck in the mid-30's.

But you'll leave the voting booth with a shit eating grin, knowing you stuck it to the Republican
juggernaut by voting Clinton/Lieberman '08.

Whatever Bri....whatever....

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Degenerate wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote: I'd say better than even money that Hillary doesn't even run for President in '08.

Right, she's just raising money like a rock star for the fun of it.

She also happens to be up for re-election in the Senate. Just so's ya know.

And also, given that two of her constituents are on record in this forum alone, saying that they'd never vote for her in a Democratic Presidential Primary, doesn't say much for her chances, now does it?

...seems to me that's what started the thread....even the staunchest Lib won't punch the chad for Shill.

Two Crapchester residents flushing the terlit on a Clinton....WHO KNEW?

Of Hillary, or B-Monica, which one is more likely to know the answer to this question:

Does it really have a bend?

ChargerMike wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Degenerate wrote: Right, she's just raising money like a rock star for the fun of it.

She also happens to be up for re-election in the Senate. Just so's ya know.

And also, given that two of her constituents are on record in this forum alone, saying that they'd never vote for her in a Democratic Presidential Primary, doesn't say much for her chances, now does it?

...seems to me that's what started the thread....even the staunchest Lib won't punch the chad for Shill.

Two Crapchester residents flushing the terlit on a Clinton....WHO KNEW?

I'm another one who said she might run in 08, but as a VP, not as P.

She'd pull in the female vote and the balcks she sucks up to, so all they need is to find someone to run with her.

Not much out there right now on either side worth considering in 08.

Be an opportune time for a legit third party to rear its ugly head.

"Be an opportune time for a legit third party to rear its ugly head."



you called?


sin. MTLR

Martyred wrote:

BSmack wrote: If by "suck her strap on" you mean...

Yeah, whatever.


The corn in one of Dubya's steaming turds could beat Hillary in '08.
But you'll leave the voting booth with a shit eating grin, knowing you stuck it to the Republican juggernaut by voting Clinton/Lieberman '08.

Whatever Bri....whatever....

Not going to happen. Hillary is WAY to polarizing a figure. She's got a much better chance to be a world player by backing the winning horse in 08 than by losing her own race.

Just trust me on this. I'm the same guy who pissed all over the Guiliani for VP parade on these boards a few years back. I think we all know that call was

I haven't checked in on this forum in quite a while, but if you're interested in both sides of the poll, go here:

http://poll.gallup.com/content/?ci=21103

They polled people about both Hillary and Condi. My very conservative father -in-law maintains that it wouldn't be close if Condi ran for president because she'd be a sure thing. I disagree for the same reason Hillary probably won't even win the nomination, they're both polarizing figures.

Hillary
Definitely vote for: 16%
Definitely not: 51%

Condi
Definitely for: 14%
Definitely not: 46%

NO way after all the crap this administration has pulled does anyone from the cabinet run and win. 4 more years of spin and dodge from the likes of condi or anyone else closely associated with Citizen Bush? Not likely.

Mister Bushice wrote:NO way after all the crap this administration has pulled does anyone from the cabinet run and win. 4 more years of spin and dodge from the likes of condi or anyone else closely associated with Citizen Bush? Not likely.

How'd that strategy work for you in '04? Wait, don't answer that.

You don't really believe every election year repeats itself do you?

I don't think the dems have the answer but one thing is for sure after this current administrations BS it is unlikely any of the top dogs run for pres in 08 and win

I keep losing?
Last I checked I wasn't running for anything nor am I affiliated with any political party at present.

Got your beer goggles on again?

Mister Bushice wrote:I keep losing?
Last I checked I wasn't running for anything nor am I affiliated with any political party at present.

Got your beer goggles on again?

He often mistakes common sense for an affiliation with the Democratic Party.

If only such a one to one correlation could be made.

BSmack wrote:
He often mistakes common sense for an affiliation with the Democratic Party.

If only such a one to one correlation could be made.

You have a well developed sense of irony, B. :)

Dr_Phibes wrote:

BSmack wrote:
He often mistakes common sense for an affiliation with the Democratic Party.

If only such a one to one correlation could be made.

You have a well developed sense of irony, B. :)

I figure by now mv's circuitry should have fried trying to compute the inherent contradictions. I have learned much from Spock.

BSmack wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:I keep losing?
Last I checked I wasn't running for anything nor am I affiliated with any political party at present.

Got your beer goggles on again?

He often mistakes common sense for an affiliation with the Democratic Party.

If only such a one to one correlation could be made.

Unfortunately, it can't. But there's a much closer correlation between those two things than there is between common sense and an affiliation with the Republican Party.

ChargerMike wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Degenerate wrote: Right, she's just raising money like a rock star for the fun of it.

She also happens to be up for re-election in the Senate. Just so's ya know.

And also, given that two of her constituents are on record in this forum alone, saying that they'd never vote for her in a Democratic Presidential Primary, doesn't say much for her chances, now does it?

...seems to me that's what started the thread....even the staunchest Lib won't punch the chad for Shill.

Two Crapchester residents flushing the terlit on a Clinton....WHO KNEW?

What makes it all the more amazing is that ordinarily, Bri and I aren't prone to agree on Presidential politics. Consider:

• In '04, I backed Kerry, and I believe Bri was a Deaniac.
• In '00, I backed Bradley, and I'm pretty sure Bri backed Gore.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:What makes it all the more amazing is that ordinarily, Bri and I aren't prone to agree on Presidential politics. Consider:

• In '04, I backed Kerry, and I believe Bri was a Deaniac.
• In '00, I backed Bradley, and I'm pretty sure Bri backed Gore.

You're right about 04. But in '00 I supported Bradley during primary season. I've not totaly forgiven the Gore family for the PMRC.

BSmack wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:What makes it all the more amazing is that ordinarily, Bri and I aren't prone to agree on Presidential politics. Consider:

• In '04, I backed Kerry, and I believe Bri was a Deaniac.
• In '00, I backed Bradley, and I'm pretty sure Bri backed Gore.

You're right about 04. But in '00 I supported Bradley during primary season. I've not totaly forgiven the Gore family for the PMRC.

My bad. Seemed at the time like I was the only Dem backing Bradley.


Oh, and btw, . . .

Charger Mike wrote:Two Crapchester residents flushing the terlit on a Clinton....WHO KNEW?

Uhhh, maybe YOU, that is, if you'd been paying attention.

Then again, what else should I expect? This is the same crowd that tried to paint me as a Gore loyalist in 2000, notwithstanding the fact that I said 'til I was blue in the face that I supported Bradley, and that Gore was a very, VERY distant second choice for me, albeit better than anything the Republicans had to offer.

Really, you guys should turn off Rush once in awhile and try thinking for yourselves. You'd be amazed at what you might learn. :wink:

mvscal wrote:The approval rating for Congressional Democrats is even worse.

Dumbfuck...

Lately I've been experiencing some pain in the area of my ankles. This ^^^ would explain that, I suppose . . .

Terry in Crapchester wrote:My bad. Seemed at the time like I was the only Dem backing Bradley.

Well, it's not like I was beating the drums all that loud about Bradley in '00. So I can understand why you might have forgotten. But he was my guy in the primaries.

BSmack wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:What makes it all the more amazing is that ordinarily, Bri and I aren't prone to agree on Presidential politics. Consider:

• In '04, I backed Kerry, and I believe Bri was a Deaniac.
• In '00, I backed Bradley, and I'm pretty sure Bri backed Gore.

You're right about 04. But in '00 I supported Bradley during primary season. I've not totaly forgiven the Gore family for the PMRC.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
...and yet you find it offensive or foolhardy that anyone would connect you with the Democratic Party

BSmack wrote:"He often mistakes common sense for an affiliation with the Democratic Party."

...and accuse others of contradictions

"I figure by now mv's circuitry should have fried trying to compute the inherent contradictions"

...why is it next to impossible for Liberals/Democrats to admit their obvious Party affiliation :? ? Talk about contradictions.

ChargerMike wrote:^^^^^^^^^^^^^
...and yet you find it offensive or foolhardy that anyone would connect you with the Democratic Party

Mike,

One of these days you will learn the difference between pulling the lever for a candidate and being a party apparatchik. I am enrolled as a Democrat. That I will freely admit. What makes no sense at all is when people like you or whomever the dittotard of the day is accuse myself or Bushice or Terry or whomever of having something to gain as a result of a Democratic victory. Of that, I can assure you that I have nothing whatsoever to gain beyond those benefits all citizens would gain from good and fair government. There is no job waiting for me in Washington nor would I ever seek one.

BSmack wrote:What makes no sense at all is when people like you or whomever the dittotard of the day is accuse myself or Bushice or Terry or whomever of having something to gain as a result of a Democratic victory

...I've not knowingly ever accused yooz guys as "having something to gain should the Dems ever regain the White House". Certainly you would realize a sizeable gain in your TAX liability, and perhaps have some extraordinary expenses to arm and protect you and your family!

However...my point was, it's easier to steal a donut from Kaley than to get a Liberal Democrat to admit their Party affiliation. Never could understand that!...perhaps there is some truth here..

http://www.eco.freedom.org/el/20040802/ward.shtml

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:Mike,

One of these days you will learn the difference between pulling the lever for a candidate and being a party apparatchik.

BSmack wrote:If by "suck her strap on" you mean vote for her over any possible GOP nominee, then you would be right.

When Condi Rice and Bill Frist are the other choices, I say thank you no.

mvscal wrote:Who the fuck do you do think you're kidding? You're a straightline party hack.

As long as the national GOP continues to churn out neo facist swine like Bush and Cheney, your people will never get my vote. That doesn't make a party honk, that makes me smarter than you.

BSmack wrote:

mvscal wrote:Who the fuck do you do think you're kidding? You're a straightline party hack.

As long as the national GOP continues to churn out neo facist swine like Bush and Cheney, your people will never get my vote. That doesn't make a party honk, that makes me smarter than you.

...yep, Howeird, Edwards, Kerry, Shillary...far superior candidates!