[quote name='mykevermin']You didn't do a very good job addressing the point of the OP's poll, PAD. This poll clearly shows that there *IS* support for Hillary Clinton in the United States.
The way you talk sometimes, I imagine that if you were pressed to come up with a list of people Hillary would be able to beat, you'd come up with the usual characters: Jaques Chirac, Osama bin Laden, and maybe OJ Simpson. What this poll shows is that, contrary to what Rush is telling you, is that the people of New York do not view her as a carpetbagger (she WAS elected, after all), and that almost half of Americans would vote for her if she was running against McCain. This runs contrary to your belief (and I know you feel this way) that Hillary is the single most beatable Democrat not named Kerry poised for 2008.
Edwards might have a shot in 12 years, but he needs to go back to being a senator and proposing many of the plans (particularly involving labor) he and Kerry put together. As it stands, his minimal senate experience leave him with little more than the "failure" label from 2004.
One thing the poll cannot replicate, since it is not an election year, is the powerful effect of the Republican propoganda machine. Who will be the swift vets of 2008, and how believable will their message be? That they had an effect on Kerry is undeniable, no matter how full of shit they were. Who will repeat the "party hitmen" role in 3 years?
One issue I have with this poll is that Guiliani had more support among those asked than McCain did; granted, it was marginal (3%), but I've seen a percentage that small indicate a "mandate" (see last November). With that in mind, I can't figure out why in the hell they would use McCain versus Hillary, and not Giuliani versus Hillary. That would be more telling, and more (possibly) accurate.
PAD, I don't know if you haven't had your coffee, but the PAD I know wouldn't be bitching about the poll coming early. That's an easy copout, and a very poor one (in terms of arguments) at that. The PAD I know would be gloating that the Democrats are still losing to the Republicans (of course, then you'd be ignoring that McCain is a radical departure from the Republicans we've had in the administration for the past 5 years).
That 15% undecided/none of these choices in the first poll cited does indicate that the true results to an election such as this can go way in one direction or another.[/QUOTE]
Your missing PAD's (which is similar to the point I was making) point in the matter, though. He's saying that despite what polls say the Iowa caucaus is what really determines who's going to be the popular candidate not popularity polls (which is what this one certainly seems like).
There was plenty of polls before the Iowa caucaus that said Howard Dean was the most popular democratic candidate. What happened? He lost the Iowa and fumbled from there on. Its way too early to say that Hillary is popular enough to run for president (or that a more popular candidate will come along, which is what I'm hoping for). You guys think Jack Thompson is bad? Imagine him as a female version in the white house.
