Skip to comments.
NewsMax/Zogby Iowa Poll: Hillary Clinton Makes Big Move to Lead Democratic Pack
News Max ^
| Aug 20, 2007
Posted on 08/20/2007 8:05:00 PM PDT by doug from upland
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-35 last
To: Redbob
Am I the only one who sees that chameleon as a far worse threat to this country than Hillary could ever be?
No, he's way too stupid and proves it every time he opens mouth and will never be as dangerous as Hillary, seems he's already been waded out of the big picture in spite of what Oprah says.
Dick, 'Turban Durbin' the senior stooge senator from Illinois has already proved he's much more dangerous to the free world than nitwit Obama will ever be.
While Obama runs his mouth on the campaign trail, Durbin gets the bravest of Americans killed in real time.
And they both know it.
Bet he quits the race within a couple of months to hold onto whatever he thinks he has left.
21
posted on
08/20/2007 9:09:28 PM PDT
by
quantim
(The U.S. 110th Congress is the first duly elected 'Politburo' of the new millennium.)
To: doug from upland
"Asked if, should she be elected, former President Clinton would have a positive or negative effect on her administration, Democrats mostly believed he would help, the survey shows. While 81% said Bill Clinton would be a positive factor for her administration, just 11% said he would be a drag on her White House work. At 84%, women were a bit more positive about the former President than men, 77% of whom said Bill would help Hillary."
So the truth is finally out, Hillary needs Bill to help her, and this makes me wonder if voters are truly voting for her or for their fond memories of Bill.
It's apparent that these voters would rather see Bill in the oval office over her anyday.
22
posted on
08/20/2007 9:11:25 PM PDT
by
harpo11
(BJ's. Cleavage, Interns, Funny Money, Lies, Mulligans and Grabbing Our Income.. That's Clinton.)
To: ButThreeLeftsDo
Zogby picked Gore and Kerry. How soon we forget. Who won the popular vote in '00? Oh yeah, it was Gore. Who almost beat Bush, but for Ohio? Kerry.
Pride cometh before the fall.
To: doug from upland
Hillary makes a big move....EGAD! Please flush for the sake of humanity!!!
To: gondramB
IIRC Hillary has been in the lead in most states, while Edwards was a little ahead of her in Iowa, and now that’s gone. He’s toast. Obama might win in SC or NH, I guess, but I think Hillary got it all locked up. We better not nominate Guiliani or it’s over.
Comment #26 Removed by Moderator
To: doug from upland
We need a constitutional amendment, similar to the two term limit, barring the spouse of a previous president from running for the office.
27
posted on
08/20/2007 10:39:23 PM PDT
by
- Smokestack Lightning
(End the Anchor Baby Law. Build the fence. Bounties on illegals and employers.Deport Libs Moos RINOs.)
To: doug from upland
This is interesting in lieu of the fact that Fund had his focus groups going during the debate and Hillary did not do well on several issues.
I guess it wouldn’t be the first time the media helped the Clintons.
28
posted on
08/20/2007 10:55:40 PM PDT
by
CyberAnt
(America: THE GREATEST NATION on the face of the earth!)
To: beachdweller
>>IIRC Hillary has been in the lead in most states, while Edwards was a little ahead of her in Iowa, and now thats gone. Hes toast. Obama might win in SC or NH, I guess, but I think Hillary got it all locked up. We better not nominate Guiliani or its over.<<\
I think Guiliani has peaked but its not totally hopeless if he get the nomination if Bloomberg also runs.
Since Bloomberg, Hillary and Guiliani have basically the same policies and will split that vote there might be room for a conservative run as an independent. Of course the only way that would be worth it would be if he would win -otherwise throwing my vote away just to see Hillary elected anyway wouldn’t be worth it.
29
posted on
08/20/2007 11:26:54 PM PDT
by
gondramB
(Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary, use words)
To: joonbug
...if the Dems want anything, they want a winner.
This is exactly right, but the GOP had better get more than just some stuffed suit to battle her, because she will be organized beyond anything we have ever seen. As for defense, if there is a Rat in the white house, Hillary is the most likely of the bunch to even have a clue. My feeling is that she will be the early nominee based on the simple strength of her organization, and she will continue to march to the center - she is not stupid. Defense will end up being her strong suit as the election gins up. I think Richardson will be the VP, catering to the now-in-float Hispanic vote and likely moving left to keep order in the ranks.
The stakes are high. We will need a populist candidate who can counter the DC insider corruption that even Hillary will not be able to talk her way out of. Someone for solid judicial nominees, tax reform, and, yes, an adjusted immigration policy that keeps the emotion of that debate from spiraling out of control. No small order...
Meanwhile, the GOP leadership needs to come to grips with its own lost direction and recognize that the power vacuum created by the end of Bush's tenure will need a strong alternative to Hillary, not just an anti-Hillary. She has spent her entire life to reach this pinnacle, and she will do whatever it takes to win it.
This will be a very close election unless the GOP fields a stuffed shirt; then Hillary will get it all...
30
posted on
08/21/2007 8:45:13 AM PDT
by
Amalie
(FREEDOM had NEVER been another word for nothing left to lose...)
To: doug from upland
Newsmax/Zogy
Well if that’s not credible, I don’t know what is...
31
posted on
08/21/2007 8:47:06 AM PDT
by
NeoCaveman
("I mean, he's gone from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in one week." - Romney on B. Hussein Obama)
To: Amalie
Excellent analysis.
Stuffed shirts won’t fly (eg Bob Dole).
32
posted on
08/21/2007 2:50:17 PM PDT
by
joonbug
To: doug from upland
Of the four months where the polls are shown, January only adds up to 78%. The other three add up to 98 or 99% not counting the others >1 percenters. Why?
33
posted on
08/21/2007 3:01:10 PM PDT
by
normy
(Don't hit at all if it is honorably possible to avoid hitting; but never hit soft.)
To: normy
Of the four months where the polls are shown, January only adds up to 78%. The other three add up to 98 or 99% not counting the others >1 percenters. Why?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Zogby failed math???
34
posted on
08/21/2007 3:14:51 PM PDT
by
doug from upland
(Stopping Hillary should be a FreeRepublic Manhattan Project)
To: doug from upland
I went over January over and over and it comes up 78% which tells me either its a typo and Hillary had 26%, which makes her numbers now not as big of a deal or he wants to make her look like she jumped from 16% to 30% in only 8 months and now she has the big mo.
35
posted on
08/21/2007 3:44:23 PM PDT
by
normy
(Don't hit at all if it is honorably possible to avoid hitting; but never hit soft.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-35 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson