The good news for Republicans is that Hillary Clinton is leading among Democrats and more than half the nation says they wouldn't vote for her.


WASHINGTON -- More than half of Americans say they wouldn't consider voting for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for president if she becomes the Democratic nominee, according to a new national poll made available to McClatchy Newspapers and NBC News.
The poll by Mason-Dixon Polling and Research found that 52 percent of Americans wouldn't consider voting for Clinton, D-N.Y. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, was second in the can't-stand-'em category, with 46 percent saying they wouldn't consider voting for him.

Clinton has long been considered a politically polarizing figure who would be a tough sell to some voters, especially many men, but also Clinton-haters of both genders.

Thursday's survey provides a snapshot of the challenges she faces, according to Larry Harris, a Mason-Dixon principal.

"Hillary's carrying a lot of baggage," he said. "She's the only one that has a majority who say they can't vote for her."

Clinton rang up high negatives across the board, with 60 percent of independents, 56 percent of men, 47 percent of women and 88 percent of Republicans saying they wouldn't consider voting for her.

Romney struggled most with women: 50.9 percent said they wouldn't consider voting for him.

"It's the flip-flop of Hillary," Harris said of Romney. "One could suppose it's the Mormon issue -- we didn't ask follow-up questions -- but his religion is an issue."

On name recognition, Clinton also led the 2008 presidential pack in voter disapproval, with 42 percent saying they recognized her name and were unfavorable toward her, versus 39 percent favorable.

That gave her a double-digit lead in that bad-news category over Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, a Democrat. They each had 28 percent unfavorable recognition.

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani had the highest favorable recognition at 43 percent, with Clinton close behind at 39 percent. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was third at 36 percent, followed by McCain at 33 percent and Edwards at 32 percent.

McCain rang up the highest favorable rating among independent voters with 39.4 percent, followed by Giuliani with 37.3 percent. Edwards scored well with independents, too, with 31.1 percent favorable; Obama had 28 percent favorable.

The Mason-Dixon survey was conducted June 23-25 with 625 likely general-election voters. It has an error margin of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

http://www.contracostatimes.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?articleId=6260144&siteId=571

Interesting, Frogger. And optimistic as well!

Having grown up looking forward to the day a woman would finally be elected president, I resent the hell outta the first one running being the shifty-eyed Mrs. William Clinton. I wouldn't vote for her if she was the ONLY person on the ballot.

SMW

Polls and surveys are all they are...just polls and surveys. They are far from accurate. I sure hope Barack Obama wins the Democratic nomination. See, I wasn't even included in the poll, as well as thousands of others. At this point, it's anybody's win.

I think with Romney it's a lot less of the Mormon thing and much more of a he's an idiot thing. I'm glad he was pro-choice when he ran for senate/governor of Massachusetts and now he's pro-life.

I don't have a clue how Hillary's winning; I can't think of a single person that I personally know that supports her, and I live in an extremely liberal city.

I don't have a clue how Hillary's winning; I can't think of a single person that I personally know that supports her

I myself don't like her and will not vote for her, but it is strictly because of her politics; her pro-war, pro-Corporate, pro give-it-all-away-to-the-military/industrial-complex politics.

I have never met --or heard of-- a single person in this country who expresses a strong dislike for her who can come up with a clear-cut reason for said dislike. I have never met anyone who expresses dislike for her who can name one thing she has done that has affected them negatively. I have never met anyone who expresses dislike for her who can explain what this "baggage" is that she is supposed to be carrying that is so negative.

I would say that the general dislike --among the sheep-- that is felt for her is entirely a consequence of the campaign by a certain group of rightwingers to villify her and incite hatred of her.

It has been remarkably effective.

_____________________________

A large segment of American society seems utterly brainwashed, accepting the "truth" relentlessly fed to them by the Corporate Media. They desperately want to believe the slogans about the "Land of the Free", "the American Way", "God Bless America" and "My Country Right Or Wrong"..................and now, -"Hillary is an evil bitch"- can evidently be added to those mantras that the sheep cling to so desperately.

A Mason-Dixon poll ??? Is that the same Mason-Dixon that had the republicans keeping the senate in '06 and losing only a couple of house seats ?? ROTF ... yeah, they're accurate.

The author is William Douglas ? Isn't he one of Newt Gingrich's buddies? LOL

C'mon... post some credible sources -- not these republican hacks.

Interesting, Frogger. And optimistic as well!

Having grown up looking forward to the day a woman would finally be elected president, I resent the hell outta the first one running being the shifty-eyed Mrs. William Clinton. I wouldn't vote for her if she was the ONLY person on the ballot.

SMW

I'd have voted for Margaret Thatcher if she had been an American and running for President. Margaret knew how to kick ass.

I want Obama!

He just rasied more money then Hillary, for the second time in a-row, and he has way more donors. That says something.

I want Obama!
Why?

I want pie!

Yeah well I want tacos but there's going to be a food shortage so suck it up. Beside you made salad earlier.

Beside you made salad earlier.
Most important meal of the day because it is easy to make!

Yeah well I want tacos but there's going to be a food shortage so suck it up. Beside you made salad earlier.
Peak Food!

I'd have voted for Margaret Thatcher if she had been an American and running for President. Margaret knew how to kick ass.

I'd vote for Ward Churchill if he was running for President. Ward knows how to tell it like it is.

Why?
Many reasons.

1. Barack Obama has worked with many conservatives, such as John McCain, on many bills and knows how to compromise and work with people from the other side. This will be a good skill for working with congress as President and working with other nations around the world to better our reputation. Obama has also been around the world many times and, judging by how he carries himself in speeches and other events, I think he is someone who people will listen to and be willing to compromise with.

2. He does not take money from lobbyists who are there to influnece how he feels about issues. One of, if not THE only person running for office who does not take money from them. A huge plus in my opinion.

3. He was against the war in Iraq to begin with, which tells me he can be rational even in times of fear and chaos.

4. He is apart of the foreign relations committee in Congress, giving him a lot of experience in how to deal with other nations.

5. He brings a new energy and deceny to the political world. He's fresh, new and does not carry any baggage.

6. He's for universial health care, pro-choice and getting out of Iraq.

Seems like my kinda guy.

I have never met --or heard of-- a single person in this country who expresses a strong dislike for her who can come up with a clear-cut reason for said dislike. I have never met anyone who expresses dislike for her who can name one thing she has done that has affected them negatively. I have never met anyone who expresses dislike for her who can explain what this "baggage" is that she is supposed to be carrying that is so negative.


It's simple for me;
Even though it’s taken me many years (and a long, bumpy road) to arrive at these values, I value truth, integrity, and the sanctity of marriage.
Hillary apparently does not.

Her willingness to remain in the sham of a 'marriage of political convenience' is contemptible to me.

Her husband’s numerous sexual peccadilloes were well known to his entire staff and a broad circle of friends, and yet she claimed complete ignorance of them for all those years.

Even more telling: In her book, Hillary claimed that she was caught totally flat-footed by Bill’s revelations regarding the Monica Lewinski affair, and this ‘blinding flash of the obvious’ only occurred on the day that he was forced to admit the affair to the American people.

I find it insulting and repugnant that she thinks anyone believes this chicken shit story, and I find her willingness to remain in a ‘marriage’ solely for political exigency repulsive.

And FT, before you start yowling, ‘yew Godz n Gunz Bible-thumpers are hung-up on the sex thing’, allow me to clarify; I love sex. Lots and lots of sex. I believe that many couples resort to extramarital affairs because they aren’t married to the right one, and that ultimately they should get a divorce so that they can either:
a. be free to go get all the sex they want
or
b. be free to go find the right person for them, and then and only then commit to marriage.

Hillary’s marriage is a politically-convenient sham, and she cannot or will not admit to this. And since I hold our elected officials to a somewhat higher standard than I do the average citizen, I consider this one issue a show-stopper when it comes to evaluating whether she is fit to lead our country.


PS. Ward Churchill for President? He's a bit of a dark-horse candidate don't you think? Still, I admire your dedication to the cause, and I look forward to seeing you lobbying, campaigning, and drumming up support for America's first 'Native American' Presidential candidate. Kudos to you for your sense of civic responsibility.

Sparky does this mean that in spite of sleeping with Madonna and Rosie you passed on Hilary? :(

Well, I am only human after all.

http://www.allforums.net/showpost.php?p=277831&postcount=54

:(

Just checking on your honesty. ;)

Sparky for president.

2. He does not take money from lobbyists who are there to influnece how he feels about issues. One of, if not THE only person running for office who does not take money from them. A huge plus in my opinion.

Does the name Ron Paul ring a bell?

Does the name Ron Paul ring a bell?
Not a democrat! EVILLLLL!!!!!!! Irrelevant! Red states are full of nothing but inbred hicks and despicable politicians! Madonna!!!!

Her willingness to remain in the sham of a 'marriage of political convenience' is contemptible to me.


So you refuse to acknowledge the possibility that she might actually love her husband?

well... you sure are "even-handed"...

:rolleyes:

Does the name Ron Paul ring a bell?

Yeah, he is the anti-government guy who is trying to convince people to let him run the government.


:thumbs:

Yeah well I want tacos but there's going to be a food shortage so suck it up. Beside you made salad earlier.

I like pie is a generic response you post when you don't want to pick any of the given choices. It has nothing to do with actually wanting pie.

Also, Nappy doesn't make salad. He tosses salad.:lolhit:

Thompson in 08

I want the country led by Fred.

Thompson in 08

I want the country led by Fred.

Yeah, thats just what we need, a tobacco lobbyist as President. :rolleyes:

I like pie is a generic response you post when you don't want to pick any of the given choices. It has nothing to do with actually wanting pie.

Also, Nappy doesn't make salad. He tosses salad.:lolhit:

Yeah well you should watch his video of him making his tossed salad... you can find it in the religion section... ;)

Thompson in 08

I want the country led by Fred.
I hope he and McCain get hit by trucks and are in a coma til November.

Thompson in 08

I want the country led by Fred.
Isn't Fred Thompson the guy who knocked a chick up in high school, had a shotgun wedding with her, then later divorced her and married another chick younger than his own daughter?

So you refuse to acknowledge the possibility that she might actually love her husband?


Ah. Thank you for helping to make my point, sir.

If she had simply said, "I loved him so much that I was willing to overlook the infidelities," or "I knew, as did everyone else, that he needed his office dalliances as a form of stress-relief, and I loved him enough to allow him that" then I could at least respect her. I really could respect her, if she had only told the truth.

But I do NOT respect the bold-faced, idiotic lie she attempted to perpetrate upon the American people when she offered up that book.

Hillary is a politician. And like most politicians, she will tell the big lie if she thinks it’s all we need to know, or if it’s all our inferior little brains can handle.

Just as I told many friends years ago when her hubby Bill offered up the classic, “Sure I tried marijuana, but I didn’t inhale.”
Jesus God, Bill. I would have respected you MORE if you had told the hard truth.
“I smoked the shit out of that stuff, and at the time I only mildly enjoyed it. And in the long run, it just wasn’t the responsible thing for an adult with political ambitions to be doing. So I stopped doing it.”

Am I alone in this?
Am I alone?

Am I alone in this? Am I alone?

No you are not alone in this. However, I do not believe her answer nor her attitude is necessarily reflective of how she personally wished to respond.

And therein lies one of the big problems in government today with at least your country and my country.

As first lady, she has "handlers". They assess the public response to certain things. Their assessment obviously determined that the majority of Americans at that time did not want the truth. In fact likely could not handle a strong woman speaking out against the leader of your nation. And in fact for a large number of people they were probably quite right.

You do not necessarily think like the majority. In fact I would venture to say, you are anomaly.

Case in point... Bush. There are people on this very forum who still support Bush and his foray into Iraq. They support the war and will until it destroys the strength and very core of your nation. Economically it has been a disaster. Ethically and morally viewed as wrong by most countries in the world, yet the flags wave on. People claim to love him although he is at an all time low in the polls.

People do not want the truth Sparky. They want comfort. They want status quo. They want a lie told well enough so that they do not have to face reality.

You put her down? No. Your whole political system right now is at a cross roads. It is up to people like you who want truth to seek it and be ready to accept it's reality or your great nation will surely sink.

It is not about her and her lies... it is about the political system and what we as a people demand of our leaders.

Bush should be impeached yet he will not be. He knows that. He has destroyed his credibility as a leader both nationally and internationally yet he goes on. As do they all. Until we have no party loyalty, until we have no nation we view as superior to all others, until we remove our blinders and see truth, things will not improve.

Nor do we deserve it to improve.

If she had simply said, "I loved him so much that I was willing to overlook the infidelities," or "I knew, as did everyone else, that he needed his office dalliances as a form of stress-relief, and I loved him enough to allow him that" then I could at least respect her. I really could respect her, if she had only told the truth.

That raises an obvious question..., what makes you think that you know what "the truth" is in regards to her relationship with her husband?

Sounds more like a whole lot of assumptions on your part.

:thumbs:

It's simple for me;
Even though it’s taken me many years (and a long, bumpy road) to arrive at these values, I value truth, integrity, and the sanctity of marriage.
Hillary apparently does not.

Her willingness to remain in the sham of a 'marriage of political convenience' is contemptible to me.

Her husband’s numerous sexual peccadilloes were well known to his entire staff and a broad circle of friends, and yet she claimed complete ignorance of them for all those years.

Even more telling: In her book, Hillary claimed that she was caught totally flat-footed by Bill’s revelations regarding the Monica Lewinski affair, and this ‘blinding flash of the obvious’ only occurred on the day that he was forced to admit the affair to the American people.

I find it insulting and repugnant that she thinks anyone believes this chicken shit story, and I find her willingness to remain in a ‘marriage’ solely for political exigency repulsive.

And FT, before you start yowling, ‘yew Godz n Gunz Bible-thumpers are hung-up on the sex thing’, allow me to clarify; I love sex. Lots and lots of sex. I believe that many couples resort to extramarital affairs because they aren’t married to the right one, and that ultimately they should get a divorce so that they can either:
a. be free to go get all the sex they want
or
b. be free to go find the right person for them, and then and only then commit to marriage.

Hillary’s marriage is a politically-convenient sham, and she cannot or will not admit to this. And since I hold our elected officials to a somewhat higher standard than I do the average citizen, I consider this one issue a show-stopper when it comes to evaluating whether she is fit to lead our country.


PS. Ward Churchill for President? He's a bit of a dark-horse candidate don't you think? Still, I admire your dedication to the cause, and I look forward to seeing you lobbying, campaigning, and drumming up support for America's first 'Native American' Presidential candidate. Kudos to you for your sense of civic responsibility.
None of that matters. It frankly is none of your or my business. That's why so much doesn't get done when your dealing with the right. They are so concerned about your personal life they can't see what they are there for. Which is to do the business of the American people. If her life is fucked up personally. I do not give a rats ass. If she fucks up politically then send her ass packing.



disclaimer: I will not vote for her in the upcoming election. She's such a prude.

None of that matters. It frankly is none of your or my business.

Well sir, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.

I believe that the issue of her (or any Presidential candidate's) integrity is very much our business. They make it so when they choose to become a political figure and wish to live off of our tax dollars, and we make it so each and every time we enter the polling booth on election day.

Sure it's her personal life, but where do you draw the line on issues of demonstrated breaches of integrity and outright lying? Especially when the person in question chose to publish a book on the subject, and in the process also chose to craft a carefully-calculated web of lies, as sister ~Sal~ so wisely pointed out, in an effort to woo future voters?

Disclaimer: Please don't view my opinions on this woman a simple matter of 'left versus right' or 'liberal versus conservative'. I don't play that game, and I don't believe in it. In all my years of paying attention to Presidential politics, I have voted for two Democrats, one Independent, and exactly three Republicans. Next election I plan to, as always, vote for the man or woman who I think will do the best job of leading this country.

And as I have stated before, I would support a Joe Lieberman/Condi Rice Independent ticket. And I don't care which of them gets the top bunk, as long as they lead fairly and honestly, together.

Yeah, thats just what we need, a tobacco lobbyist as President. :rolleyes:

Do you mean like Algore? Algore who used his dead sister to try to win the presidency by saying how she died because of tobacco and yet told the tobacco lobby how he was with them? See, DramaDharma we do agree on some things.

Do you mean like Algore?


Do you mean Al Gore, my ignorant friend?

No, not even close... as usual for you.
:rolleyes:

Does the name Ron Paul ring a bell?
Uhhh, I said one of, if not the only. Sooooooo, I guess Obama is ONE OF the only candidates running for office who does not take money from lobbyists.

Still good in my opinion. Still a huge plus.

And I know you were, "just telling me" but you did it in an annoying way. So, go ring your dumb bell elsewhere.

Do you mean Al Gore, my ignorant friend?

:rolleyes:

You have two errors in your post, Dharma. I am not ignorant and I am not your friend.

You have two errors in your post, Dharma. I am not ignorant and I am not your friend.

You certainly are ignorant Frogger (but don't worry I will help educate you) and I am your friend even if you don't want to be mine.

:thumbs:

Uhhh, I said one of, if not the only. Sooooooo, I guess Obama is ONE OF the only candidates running for office who does not take money from lobbyists.

Still good in my opinion. Still a huge plus.

And I know you were, "just telling me" but you did it in an annoying way. So, go ring your dumb bell elsewhere.
I'm sorry if I annoyed you; I honestly didn't mean to. Despite your victim act, you are consistently the one who starts the meanness, and in this instance I am certainly not going to continue it.

You certainly are ignorant Frogger (but don't worry I will help educate you) and I am your friend even if you don't want to be mine. :thumbs:


I take some comfort in knowing that I can count my allforums friends in the double-digits


That is just sad.
I come here for the discussions, not to make internet "friends". I have no need to seek out "friends" on the internet.
I have a real life with real friends that fullfill my needs just fine. You should try it sometime.

You sound conflicted, my friend.
Have you ever tried therapy?

:)

Isn't Fred Thompson the guy who knocked a chick up in high school, had a shotgun wedding with her, then later divorced her and married another chick younger than his own daughter?
That kicks ass. Fred's got my vote.

ya, this was all when he was in his 70's!

You sound conflicted, my friend.


It's called "Sarcasm" Sparkles.

Ever heard of a sense of humor? You could use one.

:thumbs:

Ever heard of a sense of humor?
Hell, yes!

With you around, it's a laugh a minute. You're our resident joke, Dharma.