">
Posted on 09/24/2007 10:29:12 AM PDT by AngelesCrestHighway
A Hillary Clinton presidency will be the best thing to ever happen to this country.
True, it would be four years of hell, and it would take years to reverse her policies and screwups, but it would also be the necessary two-by-four to the head to wake up the American people.
Unsurvivable. Even Carter’s presidency was survivable, but alas, the she-devil’s reign of terror would not be so.
If there is any girl that’s “poison”, it’s her.
Power drunk......
Hill is crazy. She will say anything to nail down her party’s nomination.
URP!....my stomach did a back flip...staunch conservative I presume?....
“I don’t know...where are they? Hillary will defeat herself by election time if she keeps saying rediculous crap like this!”
I guess they got over their tantrum, but I know they are still out there saying they will vote for her.
But she would take that gun away from you first... for the common good.
My fingers then would be dead and cold.
when donkees fly
">
This is one Republican she will never appeal to, no way...mo matter... no how.
She sure does have hutzpah, tho, doesn’t she? Wonder how she stores that hutzpah and does she take a dose every day?
">
The most divisive woman in the history of The United States of America!
Get lost and take your trojan gelding with you.
yeah...I suppose I COULD find her appealing.....in a prison jumpsuit.....
We have some right here on this forum, sadly.
The body lingo lady on The Factor just said her cackle laugh is—evil!
That is one image I did not need this morning.
I whole heartedly agree. And I apologize. The vision of any person going into a voting booth and pulling the lever for Hillary Clinton is not a punishment that any sane human being should ever deserve. So from the bottom of my heart, please accept my apology
This was on one of the NRO blogs:
Hillary Effect is 13 Points In Democratic Freshmen’s Districts
Another item to add to our discussion of the Hillary effect on red state and vulnerable Democrats in lower offices: this poll from the Latino Policy Coalition, discussed on OpenLeft, of voters in 31 House districts with freshman Democrats. (It’s from early August, but I haven’t seen any more recent polls in this vein.)
In these 31 districts, Hillary Clinton rates 45 percent favorable, 48 percent unfavorable. The only Republican they polled was Rudy Giuliani, who rated 53 percent positive, 33 percent negative. In a head-to-head matchup in these 31 districts, Giuliani beats Hillary, 49 percent to 39 percent.
The members of Congress rated 48 percent positive, 19 percent negative.
The Democratic House members still lead against generic Republican challengers, 51 percent to 32 percent. That’s neither great news nor bad for Democratic incumbents; as usual, it will depend on the quality of the challenger.
But the pollsters wanted to measure the effectiveness of anti-Hillary and anti-Obama messages, so they asked:
Some people say (YOUR DEMOCRATIC INCUMBENT) is a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton and will support her liberal agenda of big government and higher taxes if she becomes President. If we re-elect (YOUR DEMOCRATIC INCUMBENT) they will be a rubber stamp for Clinton and will forget the values of our district. After hearing this if the election for U.S. Congress were held today, would you vote for [ROTATE] _the Republican candidate OR _(the Democratic incumbent), or are you undecided?
Asked a question that begins with that anti-Hillary argument, the numbers shifted some, with 47 percent preferring the named Democratic incumbent to 41 percent for the unnamed Republican challenger. (The comparable effect with an anti-Obama question is 44 percent for the Democrat to 38 percent for the Republican.)
From this, the gang at OpenLeft contend Hillary doesn’t provide a drag for these 31 freshman House Democrats. (Knocking four points off the Democrat’s percent and raising the Republican by nine percent isn’t a drag?)
I’d be at least mildly worried if I were one of these freshman Democrats. We all know the Republican brand name is in the dumpster; we shouldn’t be surprised if a generic Republican can’t beat Rosie O’Donnell in a swing district. When it’s a head-to-head with a named candidate, it may get closer (again, greatly depends on the quality of the challenging candidate) and that thirteen point shift might make a difference.
Some of these Democratic freshman won by awfully thin margins. Will Iowa-2’s David Loebsack, who won by 5,711 votes in 2006, survive that kind of a shift? How safe will Kentucky-3’s John Yarmuth’s 5,890 vote margin be with Hillary at the top of the ticket? Arizona-5 Harry Mitchell’s margin of 5,955 votes? Kansas-2 Nancy Boyda’s margin of 7,631 votes?
UPDATE: One or two readers here and elsewhere are arguing that the polling question is skewed. Yes, intentionally so - the point is to measure respondents’ voting preference after they’re exposed to that anti-Hillary, anti-Democratic incumbent message, to see whether that message has an effect or not.
09/24 12:22 PM
lol.
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.