1 posted on
07/02/2007 1:30:17 PM PDT by
dangus
To: dangus
“hillary would struggle to win.” (????)
would someone please interpret that bit of data.
2 posted on
07/02/2007 1:32:42 PM PDT by
ripley
To: dangus
In other words, this poll really doesn’t tell us anything.
3 posted on
07/02/2007 1:34:29 PM PDT by
MEGoody
(Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
To: dangus
The numbers don’t look good for The Beast... until you consider that she has the entire main stream media totally behind her, ready to work for her 24 hours a day once the campaign season gets into full swing.
4 posted on
07/02/2007 1:34:59 PM PDT by
samtheman
To: dangus
Yet another poll w/o Duncan Hunter.
5 posted on
07/02/2007 1:39:08 PM PDT by
pissant
(Duncan Hunter: Congressman with pyschotic supporters)
To: dangus
That a majority would never vote for her does NOT mean she'd lose any contest. Half of Americans don't vote. Other surveys have found, for instance, that Fred Thompson would only tie her, at 42%. That means that 16% of the electorate might vote for Thompson. Or they could stay home. Or Thompson could even lose by a ratio of 48-42, with 10% of "likely voters" not actually voting. So if Hillary DOES win, it means that the majority that would NOT vote for her would also be the majority of voters that WOULD vote for Fred but make up the highest ratio of the 50% of Americans who DON'T vote at all despite Fred's higher ratio of positive vs. negative percentages which have a direct correlation to how many monkeys it takes to peel 500 bananas on any given Tuesday given a constant environmental temperature of 25 Celsius?
Do I have that right?
7 posted on
07/02/2007 1:43:00 PM PDT by
The Blitherer
(What would a Free Man do?)
To: dangus
Very intelligent analysis of the limitations and implications of this data.
16 posted on
07/02/2007 2:08:24 PM PDT by
Atlas Sneezed
("We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them, I won't chip away at them" -Mitt Romney)
To: dangus
many of the people who said they COULD vote for Giuliani are the same people who COULD vote for Hillary. And if those who could vote for either Clinton or Giuliani are more likely to vote for Hillary, the fact that they could have voted for Giuliani won't matter. I've always know that!
17 posted on
07/02/2007 2:08:47 PM PDT by
showme_the_Glory
(ILLEGAL: prohibited by law. ALIEN: Owing political allegiance to another country or government)
To: dangus
Bloomberg?......Biden??
Do some of us a favor.......please don’t post trash polls.
19 posted on
07/02/2007 2:16:26 PM PDT by
wolfcreek
(2 bad Tyranny, Treachery and Treason never take a vacation...)
To: dangus
Mitt Romney's results from this poll also seem worth mentioning. While only 20% of voters find Romney unfavorable, 48% [edit: 46%] would never vote for him. Romney is unelectable.
He's a slick elitist who's out for his own ambition, and the more his ridiculous track record of opportunistic Kerryesque flip-floppery and pandering is publicized the more that huge bloc of anti-Romney voters will be solidified.
22 posted on
07/02/2007 3:06:25 PM PDT by
JohnnyZ
(Romney : "not really trying to define what is technically amnesty. I'll let the lawyers decide.")
23 posted on
07/02/2007 3:17:03 PM PDT by
Rick_Michael
(Fred Thompson....IMWITHFRED.COM)
To: dangus
"Just what the hell do you mean people don't like me!"
24 posted on
07/02/2007 3:25:11 PM PDT by
Cobra64
(www.BulletBras.net)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson