TOPICS:
Posted on 03/26/2008 8:48:38 PM PDT by Deo volente
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's positive rating has dropped to a new low of 37 percent in an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released on Wednesday.
According to the poll, the New York senator's positive rating slid 8 percentage points in two weeks and she had a negative rating of 48 percent in a week where she admitted making a mistake in claiming she had come under sniper fire during a 1996 trip to Bosnia.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
There sure isn’t an awful lot to like about the wretch, is there?
Her approval ratings are approaching Bush’s. Not good for her.
Clinton takes hit; but denies inhaling (again).
And Obama leads McCain by 2% in this same poll.
It’s understandable.
Some conservatives hate Clinton so much that refuse to attack Obama. If you look at Drudge’s page right now, you will think yo are in www.barackobama.com
Clinton deserved to be taken out of the race. But shooting a dead body will do us no good. Obama has 99% chances to be McCain’s opponent, therefore we must go after him.
It’s a mistake. It has to be. After all, she’s the smartest woman in the world. In fact, the clintoons are the smartest people in the world. Katie Kolic told us so. remember?
Everyone knows she will steal the nomination come convention time.
I think Al Gore might come in to save the day for the dems, and I doubt he will pick either Hil or ‘Bama as running mates.
In due time. First things first.
Nope. Not a trace of anything to like about her.
An awful lot to fear, however. But Obama’s probably worse, if that’s possible.
If Hillary is so disliked, then how the heck did she win a clear victory in Ohio with her back against the wall? And why is she up in the polls in Pennsylvania? Is it because she gets the anti-Obama vote? Are there good Democrats who won’t vote for a black candidate, even though good Democrats are beyond any racism as they are good liberals.
Obama has 99% chances to be McCain’s opponent, therefore we must go after him.
In due time. First things first.
_________________________________________
Careful what you wish for. McCant’s negatives haven’t been even remotely touched upon yet.
I’d say he loses handily to Obama. Just being realistic.
That makes far too much sense. Drudge will continue running anti-Hillary stories as if completely oblivious to the fact that she’s not even in the freaking lead. Meanwhile, Michelle continued anti-American comments and the growing anti-Israel bias of the Obama campaign won’t even get a blurb on his page.
...of 700 registered voters....
Interesting that there is a wide lead by McCain over both Clinton and Obama in the Rasmussen polling. I have a nasty suspicion that we're seeing is to some extent the "Bradley Effect" -- that the Dems and libs are more likely to be truthful with Rasmussen's computer automated polling than with a live pollster.
Also see here:
NBC-WSJ POLL: NEW CLINTON LOWS (HILLARY BOTTOMING OUT?)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1992268/posts
not to push the nbc poll over rasmussen tracking or gallup tracking, but anyone who knows anything about polls knows tracking polls are BS.
Would you bother telling us why tracking polls are "BS" as you say?
I hope this can help her. HILLARY IN MILITARY HISTORY - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1992274/posts
Just ask O’Reilly.
________________________
you lost me at O’Rielly.
OH well, my keyboard is getting old .
If she just went away, that would make her somewhat likeable.
So is Obama on top, or Hillary. If Obama’s on top, then Hillary must be under Obama, unless Hillay is on top, in which case, Obama is under Hillary.
At least the Drudge Report does bash Hillary. I like that. Every day is like Christmas when I open the Drudge report.
Don’t tell me you are a “Hillary-lover”
Tracking polls aren’t BS, it’s just a methodology.
They show trends more than daily fluctuations, more stable over time.
But if you want a snapshot of today, then other polls are you’re ticket. Personally, I like tracking polls particular in such a volatile race as this.
I would have to say that based on the amount of time remaining until the conventions, your 99% is +1/-95% margin of error. The pastor disaster will keep on giving. The Superdelegates are liable to do anything. McCain could self destruct politically or even die of old age. The US could sustain a significant terrorist attack, which IMHO, would blow Hussein's chances all to hell, or he could even experience a Ron Brown moment.
I think the "Magic Negro" image will be a bit tarnished/trashed by the time of the general election.
I disagree. The superdelegates’ favoritism for Hillary was true months ago. Not anymore. They are split down the middle now. And as far as Hillary catching Obama by winning primaries, it’s just impossible. NC will offset PA and the rest of states are not too delegate-rich, at a time when Obama holds a 120 delegate lead or so.
She will never catch up in delegate count- but she has a lead of about 900 in FBI reports!
What they don’t mention here, but is mentioned in the original release but not in Russert’s typical stupifyingly biased analysis, is that they purposefully oversampled black voters to get a more “realistic” view of the impact Obama’s speech had on voters. Yes, because only by asking a disproportionately large sample of completely uninvested voters, like blacks in this election cycle, can we truly find out the overall country’s opinion.
Yes, black voters, who are unbiased (or we are supposed to believe, apparently, since this is “realistic” oversampling) are 50/50 split for Obama and Clinton and are the final arbitors of whether Obama’s speech defending a racist black pastor was good. I had personally thought that Obama had 90% of the black vote wrapped up, and oversampling that group would create an illusory advantage for him and disadvantage for Clinton - but what do I know?
What are we, idiots? They admit they oversampled blacks, purposefully even, but not by what margin. We know this: black voters are angry at Hillary and defend Obama no matter what. So, taking that into account, what are the REAL numbers? Well, not good for Obama certainly.
Obama slipping 2 points, WITH a black oversample, is actually horrendous. How much of an oversample (aka poll rigging) did they need to take to get the result they wanted? “Oh, Obama’s not doing well? Let’s only ask black voters their opinion from here on out! Then he’s *sure* to get somewhat decent approval ratings!”
So, with his approval rating padded, I would guess Clintons approval numbers are about 5% higher than reported here, and Obama’s about 5% lower. And I’ll stick to that figure until they decide to release their methodology and actual percentages (aka never). I should dearly love to see the results EXCLUDING the black vote, since the current results are heavily tipped in that direction.
The cover the media is providing Obama - openly and unapologetically, is astounding. Amazingly, they pulled the SNL skit saying so off youtube within 5 days of it being posted. Who woulda thunk it?
Yup.....politics is war by other means......
Better headline:
Stalinist hillary solidifies lead as America’s most despised woman.
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.