• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is the Hillary Star Fading?

danarhea

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,257
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
A new Zogby poll shows Hillary Clinton losing to all the top tier candidates, while Obama or Edwards beats them.

The way I see it is that people have had enough. 20 years of either a Clinton or Bush in the White House is 16 years too long. How about some fresh blood? Yea, that's the ticket.

Article is here.
 
danarhea said:
A new Zogby poll shows Hillary Clinton losing to all the top tier candidates, while Obama or Edwards beats them.

The way I see it is that people have had enough. 20 years of either a Clinton or Bush in the White House is 16 years too long. How about some fresh blood? Yea, that's the ticket.

Article is here.
Click to expand...

Fresh blood is fine, just not Ron Paul...............
 
Navy Pride said:
Fresh blood is fine, just not Ron Paul...............
Click to expand...

Fastest thread turnaround ever. I'm impressed.

If Obama's four point lead in a recent Iowa poll is any indication, it looks like Clinton might be losing some of her "inevitability". She's still the obvious front runner, but now there seems to be a chance at knocking her off the pedestal.
 
If she falls behind anyone I would have someone else start my car for me if I were that front runner.
 
Sergeant Stinger1 said:
---
So, your saying that Hillary will have someone killed that is ahead of her?:roll::doh
Click to expand...

I think that is what he is saying. Of course, whoever decides they want Hillary out of the way would need to get permission from the Giuliani family before having her whacked. :mrgreen:
 
Sergeant Stinger1 said:
---
So, your saying that Hillary will have someone killed that is ahead of her?:roll::doh
Click to expand...

No, I was joking but now that you brought it up I seem to recall a certain "suicide" some years back when her hubby was in power. Oh, never mind I can't afford to hire soeone to start MY truck everyday.
 
danarhea said:
I think that is what he is saying. Of course, whoever decides they want Hillary out of the way would need to get permission from the Giuliani family before having her whacked. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

How dare you insinuate all Italians are linked to hitmen?

__________________
Luca Brasi
 
danarhea said:
A new Zogby poll shows Hillary Clinton losing to all the top tier candidates, while Obama or Edwards beats them.

The way I see it is that people have had enough. 20 years of either a Clinton or Bush in the White House is 16 years too long. How about some fresh blood? Yea, that's the ticket.

Article is here.
Click to expand...

A more accurate description would be to say a poll shows Clinton behind the top tier Republican candidates.

It does not indicated that Clinton trails behind the other Democratic candidates.

And while this is a recent poll, IMO it is a bit premature to draw such sweeping conclusions from it. Clinton lead both Guiliani and Romney in several other November polls, which are reported here:

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm
 
Last edited:
Iriemon said:
A more accurate description would be to say a poll shows Clinton behind the top tier Republican candidates.

It does not indicated that Clinton trails behind the other Democratic candidates.
Click to expand...

Who will you support if she doesn't get the nomination?
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Who will you support if she doesn't get the nomination?
Click to expand...

I'm not 100% committed to Clinton at this point, though that is my leaning at this time. Obama impresses with his intellegence, but he seems a bit green on the political stage, and I'm not that familiar with his take on some of the issues.

I used to kind of like McCain, but he has compromised his positions and flip-flopped so much to appeal to the Republican religious right based that he's lost my support. Plus his pro-war stance worries me.

So I don't know.
 
Iriemon said:
A more accurate description would be to say a poll shows Clinton behind the top tier Republican candidates.

It does not indicated that Clinton trails behind the other Democratic candidates.

And while this is a recent poll, IMO it is a bit premature to draw such sweeping conclusions from it. Clinton lead both Guiliani and Romney in several other November polls, which are reported here:

WH2008: General
Click to expand...

More importantly, that zogby poll is an online poll. Online polls have always been horribly inaccurate.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
More importantly, that zogby poll is an online poll. Online polls have always been horribly inaccurate.
Click to expand...

all polls prior to the first set of primaries/caucus' are wildly inaccurate.

That doesn't stop the media from treating them as something worthy of discussion however.
 
ARealConservative said:
all polls prior to the first set of primaries/caucus' are wildly inaccurate.

That doesn't stop the media from treating them as something worthy of discussion however.
Click to expand...

It is true that polls have a degree of inaccuracy, and certainly opinions can change widely over time. But an internet poll is going to be much more inaccurate than one based on proper statistical sampling.
 
Iriemon said:
It is true that polls have a degree of inaccuracy, and certainly opinions can change widely over time. But an internet poll is going to be much more inaccurate than one based on proper statistical sampling.
Click to expand...

Here is the problem.

In a given primary, about 10-20% of eligible voters actually vote.

Yet in scientific polls with statistical sampling, it is common that about 50% of those responding claim to be likely voters. We know this isn't reality, so how do we decide which of those 50% are likely voters?

You see these scientific polls change rapidly after the early states conduct their primaries/caucus. What isn't clear is how much of an impact the vote had on voters vs the impact the vote has on sampling decisions.
 
ARealConservative said:
Here is the problem.

In a given primary, about 10-20% of eligible voters actually vote.

Yet in scientific polls with statistical sampling, it is common that about 50% of those responding claim to be likely voters. We know this isn't reality, so how do we decide which of those 50% are likely voters?

You see these scientific polls change rapidly after the early states conduct their primaries/caucus. What isn't clear is how much of an impact the vote had on voters vs the impact the vote has on sampling decisions.
Click to expand...

That doesn't necessarily make the national polls inaccurate as measures of national preference; but perhaps irrelevant as predictors of votes in the primaries.
 
rhinefire said:
No, I was joking but now that you brought it up I seem to recall a certain "suicide" some years back when her hubby was in power. Oh, never mind I can't afford to hire soeone to start MY truck everyday.
Click to expand...
---
Since when does a 'suicide' become a killing?
Perhaps you should hire someone to start your truck up every day when you make statements like these.
OR ELSE:
:bomb::bomb::bomb::bomb:
-
BY BY! No more rhinefire!:mrgreen:
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
More importantly, that zogby poll is an online poll. Online polls have always been horribly inaccurate.
Click to expand...

Released: November 27, 2007 Mark Penn: Buckling Under the Pressure of an Unfavorable Poll


All is fair in love and war, the centuries–old proverb states. Politics is not included, but given the way the game is played in modern–day America, maybe it should be. That’s the sense I had again this morning watching Mark Penn, the chief political strategist for Democrat Hillary Clinton, denigrate our latest Zogby Interactive survey simply because it showed his client in a bad light (Link to Latest Poll Number). Penn made the contention on the MSNBC morning news program hosted by Joe Scarborough (Link to Video)
Penn mischaracterized this latest online Zogby poll as our first interactive survey ever – a bizarre contention, since we have been developing and perfecting our Internet polling methodology for nearly a decade (Zogby Intreractive Methodology), and since Penn’s company has been quietly requesting the results of such polls from Zogby for years. We always comply as part of our pledge to give public Zogby polling results to any and every candidate and campaign that asks for them. What is interesting is that no other campaign has made as many requests for Zogby polling data over the years than Penn has made on behalf of Clinton.
Because Mark Penn is a quality pollster himself, we chalk up his contention that our poll is “meaningless” as a knee–jerk reaction by a campaign under pressure coming down the stretch. Several other polls – Zogby surveys and others – have shown her national lead and her leads in early–voting states like Iowa and New Hampshire have shrunk. This is not unusual. These presidential contests usually tighten as the primaries and caucuses approach.
Fritz Wenzel
Director of Communications
Zogby International
(11/27/2007)


Zogby International
 
Sergeant Stinger1 said:
---
Since when does a 'suicide' become a killing?
Perhaps you should hire someone to start your truck up every day when you make statements like these.
OR ELSE:
:bomb::bomb::bomb::bomb:
-
BY BY! No more rhinefire!:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

"Since when does a suicide become a killing"? Brilliant! Real stroke of genius there! It was concluded to be a suicide, never proven. Therefore many say it was a murder. By the way FYI, when someone commits suicide they kill themselves. Therefore, it is a killing.
 
rhinefire said:
"Since when does a suicide become a killing"? Brilliant! Real stroke of genius there! It was concluded to be a suicide, never proven. Therefore many say it was a murder. By the way FYI, when someone commits suicide they kill themselves. Therefore, it is a killing.
Click to expand...

Oh come on. Vince Foster's death was ruled a suicide. But, each is entitled to his own opinion, no matter how uninformed it is, and if you can have an uninformed opinion, then so can I. How about Bush the rapist, who raped Margie Schroedinger in Sugar Land, Texas?
 
danarhea said:
Oh come on. Vince Foster's death was ruled a suicide. But, each is entitled to his own opinion, no matter how uninformed it is, and if you can have an uninformed opinion, then so can I. How about Bush the rapist, who raped Margie Schroedinger in Sugar Land, Texas?
Click to expand...

Sure thing. Air tight case. Don't sweat the details. Getting off the subject aren't we with your GWB story? Was that a cover or a blanket?
 
rhinefire said:
Sure thing. Air tight case. Don't sweat the details. Getting off the subject aren't we with your GWB story? Was that a cover or a blanket?
Click to expand...

Bush being a rapist is just as credible as Bill Clinton murdering Foster. As for getting off the subject, was only responding to your lie with another lie. Don't forget, it was you who brought this off subject. But keep up with your fake outrage. It is quite entertaining. :mrgreen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom