Poll: Fifty percent of adults would not vote for Clinton

[ProSense]

Fifty percent of adults would not vote for Clinton

By Kelly McCormack
March 27, 2007

Half of voting-age Americans say they would not vote for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) if she became the Democratic nominee for president in 2008, according to a Harris Interactive poll released Tuesday.

More than one in five Democrats that participated in the survey said they would not vote for Clinton. Overall, 36 percent say they would vote for the former first lady and 11 percent are unsure of their top choice.

Forty-eight percent of Independent voters also said that they would choose another candidate over Clinton, the poll, which surveyed 2,223 potential voters, states.

Fifty-six percent of men said that they would not vote for Clinton, while 45 percent of women said that she would not be their pick. In addition, 69 percent of those 62 and older said that they would not vote for Clinton.

Nearly half of the respondents said that they dislike Clinton’s political opinions and Clinton as a person. Fifty-two percent of people also said that “she does not appear to connect with people on a personal level.”

link

On Yahoo! (includes the poll data)

It's still too early.

[SoFlaJet]

1. I don't know why

but she doesn't connect with this democrat...I used to like her

[qanda]

3. She doesn't connect with me either

I was trying to find a nice way to say it and you said it perfectly.

[Carolina]

68. make that three

she doesn't connect with me either. The war is a huge issue but even aside from that, I find her irritating to watch/listen to ... too staged, rehearsed, packaged or something.

If she's the nominee, we can look forward to walking the plank of defeat ... again.

[youthere]

80. Make that four.

[Learn2Swim]

86. Can I be five?

I've always liked that number.

[youthere]

91. But of course!

and as an aside...if Clark does not run, Obama is my man!

[Learn2Swim]

95. Sounds good.

I really like Clark. I hope he decides to get in the race.

:toast:

[AshevilleGuy]

21. And that is the thing: people will NOT vote for someone they dislike,

or do not connect with. Chemistry DOES matter. It doesn't matter about issues at that point - if enough swing voters feel that way about her, no amount of money could elect her. That is my fear, and it might not be plainly seen until it's too late.

[sampsonblk]

22. Nonsense. I voted for Kerry and he was awful.

Worst Dem candidate since Dukakis. In fact, worse than Dukakis.

[ProSense]

23. Kerry wasn't awful!

He won the primary! To borrow an MSM tactic, some say he actually won the general election. :)

[Labors of Hercules]

24. Kerry was a lousy presidential campaigner...

He's 10 times better in the Senate.

[politicasista]

27. Do you have any links? If so, how did he win Iowa and the primaries?

You know they said the same thing about Gore. And Gore is doing well right now just like Kerry.

[Labors of Hercules]

30. What links do I need to give to voice my own opinion?

I didn't vote for him in the primary because I didn't think he would be able to leave the Senator behind to run an effective presidential race. And funnily enough, I was right.

[fuzzyball]

103. Really....unless your middle name is Google, you need not provide links

If I had to write down links to every article I read,
I would end up reading half as much as I do now. It is
very rude for people to ask for links. As you said, you
are expressing your opinion based on what you have read.
It is rude because they are saying unless you provide a
link they do not trust your integrity.

Besides just providing link to an article does not prove
anything. The article itself could be built on erroneous
facts.

[laugle]

109. "Unless your middle name is Google" that's hilarious,

may I borrow it??

Peleaseeeeeeee, lets not re-hash the Kerry campaign......IT'S OVER ROVER.....

[ProSense]

29. Guess what?

About his campaign, I completely disagree!

That's why you get to chose from the current list of candidates Clinton and Obama, who both voted against Kerry-Feingold; Richardson, who is praising Gonzales and reminds me of the voting machines in NM; and the rest, Edwards, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich and Gravel inadvertently left out.

Kerry would have stood out as the most experienced and knowledgeable among them, with the ability to speak to all the issues intelligently and effectively, had he entered the race. What could they bring to the table to counter his record? A lot of personalities were hyped leading up to the start of this campaign. Given there is still a full year to go in the primary and considering the pre-campaign hype, there are an unusual number of posts around the blogosphere about disillusionment over the candidates' preparedness, speaking abilities, missteps and infighting.

I would take Kerry any day over any Democrat, and definitely over the current lot of candidates.

But hey, Senator Kerry is still doing great things, and I'm still supporting him. :)

[sampsonblk]

56. Dukakis won the primaries too. So what?

My conscience is still kicking my butt for voting for Kerry.

[zulchzulu]

33. Who did you back in the primaries...

I'm curious.

[sampsonblk]

57. Clark, Dean, Kucinich

Clark first, then Dean. I would have been proud to vote for Kucinich in the general election also. Hell, I would have been proud to vote for Al Sharpton in the general election.

[sandnsea]

48. Proven right on his entire platform

Yeah. Really awful. :eyes:

[AshevilleGuy]

53. I am not referring to politicos like us.

I mean the 10 or 15 percent who are swing voters, who might look up after the World Series and say, "I have to vote next week. Who is running?" These are people who swing the elections, and vote as if they are voting for class president. They vote for whom they LIKE and against those whom they dislike; how many will LIKE Rudy more than Hillary?

Of course we will vote for our nominee, I did not mean us.

[sampsonblk]

58. I re-read your post

In my haste, I didn't notice you were talking of swing voters. I definitely get your point.

Although, off-topic as it may be, I am 100% opposed to nominating our candidate based on their potential with swing voters. As you said, they vote like they are voting for class president. So I say we just gotta go with the best Democrat.

[AshevilleGuy]

93. I don't like targeting the swing voters either,

but I think that it is inevitable if we want to win. Look at the 2000 (s)election: How else did GWB get close enough to steal the election?? Millions voted for him because they either LIKED him better than Gore, or they DISliked Gore to begin with. After all he did SIGH durung the debate!!! :eyes:

But bush didn't get those millions of votes due to his stand on the issues - it was the swing voters who did it for every superficial reason their little heads could come up with. And they will come back and vote again in 2008. Have they learned anything since 2004?? I fear that not enough of them have. Personal chemistry matters so very much.

[Carolina]

69. exactly

and look what that got us. DEFEAT!

The same will happen with Hilary.

[catgirl]

96. You sound like you're from MA

Massachussans never support their own. My relatives all came from Boston
and Dukakas comes up when I USED to discuss politics with them (btw, they're
republicans now).

I too, cannot stand Hillary Clinton. She's arrogant and I don't trust her to
represent me.

[pnwmom]

106. She's not my favorite either, but this poll is nonsense.

There is no margin of error mentioned, no indication of reliability, no mention of sample size, etc. To all appearances, the respondents were self-selected, which makes this "poll" as useless as any of the online polls that are out there.

It's just for fun, not for any reliable results.

[tcfrogs]

2. While she's not my first choice

and frankly I haven't decided who to support yet, I'd vote for her if she gets the nomination.

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. The only dems I might NOT vote for would be Lieberman or Zell Miller

and neither of them are running.

But she's not my choice for the primary.

[krispos42]

4. Hillary, ditch the anti-gun position.....

Don't say you're pro-gun. You don't have to.

Just say you think that current federal laws are sufficient and stricter laws are up to the states.

You have been badly tainted with your husband's 1993 Assault Weapons Ban, and even more so as a senator from New York. Your fellow NY senator, Schumer, has a horribly anti-gun stance and it reflects on you.

Support all of the Bill of Rights like you wish the Republicans did. Please. Make this a non-issue, and I believe the toss-up states will go into your column on election day, assuming you win the primary.

[Deep13]

6. That might be helpful,...

...but frankly the NRA already has her painted as an anti-RKBA extremist. Almost every regular shooter is a member and their publications constantly reinforce that about her and some others. It will be very difficult to shake that.

[krispos42]

8. She is one. But if she acts now, maybe she can mitigate it

Sign a pledge or something. I don't know.

Same goes for Barack Obama as well. He doesn't have the history that HClinton does, but he seems to be of a similar political bent.

[Deep13]

10. Hey, why don't we just nominate someone without all that baggage?

Gov. Richardson has an NRA "A" rating. Just saying is all.

[krispos42]

12. I heard he's corporatist, but I freely admit I don't know much about him n/t

[Deep13]

13. "corporatist"

Guess I don't even know what that means in realistic terms. I know it is a favorite term to through around here. I know he could be a concensus candidate that will not lose the presidency because one state wasn't counted exactly right.

[krispos42]

17. truth! n/t

[Greyhound]

67. One who supports corporate agendas to the detriment of people.

A corporatist thinks that schemes like NAFTA, CAFTA, and GATT are good ideas.

They think that extortion rings like WTO and the IMF are just fine as long as it keeps their portfolios fat or the contributions coming in.

They see no problem with predatory lenders (loan sharks) preying on the ignorant and helpless.

They think expanding "eminent domain" to include forcing people out of their homes to make way for private commercial development is just fine.

They see no problem with CEOs taking tens or hundreds of millions of dollars while they destroy the companies they're supposed to be running, or stealing pension funds to pay for their own executive packages.

They do things like throw parties parties for outsourcing firms while thousands of their constituents have been "laid off" in the industries that are being outsourced.

They favor things like subsidizing hugely profitable multi-nationals while gutting the paltry welfare programs for the destitute and desperate.

They favor legislation that criminalize poverty and vote to cut capital gains and estate taxes.

That help?
:kick:

[MethuenProgressive]

11. "Make this a non-issue"? It is a non-issue.

You say her husband's AWB and Schumer's personal position reflect on her?
Nonsense, mere NRA/Gun nut propaganda, and they'll never vote for her anyway.
As a hunter and gun owner I have no problem at all with her.

[krispos42]

14. funny, the Dems didn't think so...

Protecting our children, our neighborhoods, and our police from criminals with guns. Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich, and George Bush were able to hold the Brady Bill hostage for the gun lobby until Bill Clinton became President. With his leadership, we made the Brady Bill the law of the land. And because we did, more than 60,000 felons, fugitives, and stalkers have been stopped from buying guns. President Clinton led the fight to ban 19 deadly assault weapons, designed for one purpose only -- to kill human beings. We oppose efforts to restrict weapons used for legitimate sporting purposes, and we are proud that not one hunter or sportsman was forced to change guns because of the assault weapons ban. But we know that the military-style guns we banned have no place on America's streets, and we are proud of the courageous Democrats who defied the gun lobby and sacrificed their seats in Congress to make America safer.

From the 1996 Democratic National Committee platform. Boldface mine.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x136200

The NRA will most likely never endorse her because of her history. But there are 80 million gun owners and 4 million NRA members. We have to turn some of the 76 million non-NRA gun owners, especially in swing states.

[MethuenProgressive]

43. Thanks for making my point.!

The 1996 DNC platform is a non-issue. Are you under the impression Hillary penned that provision, or are you just confused about the right-wing leanings of the gun lobby?

[krispos42]

61. Huh?

The only point I'm making is my own, i.e., it is an issue. It is an issue that has cost us control of Congress in the past (as admitted by the DNC itself) and almost certainly the Presidency in 2000.

Yeah, I know, I know, Bush stole Florida, but it Gore hadn't lost Tennessee (his home state) it wouldn't have mattered a whit how many votes Dimson stole!

[karynnj]

55. And who was the last Democrat they did endorse for President?

Would they endorse any of the potential Democratic candidates? I think this is a "No" and a "no". I am Not a Hillary fan, but what is your next post, Young Republicans won't endorse Hillary.

[krispos42]

62. I have no clue. That's not the point, though. Who mentioned the NRA?

I didn't, that's for sure.

The NRA claims between 3 and 4 million members. Some 40 million households containing a 120 million people have guns in them. The majority of NRA members will not vote for her, which is to be expected. The other 115-odd-million gun owners are up for grabs.

[Radical Activist]

15. That really won't help her.

It will be one more thing that will reinforce her image as a pandering politician who will changer her positions to meet the moment. That's exactly what many people don't like about her.

[krispos42]

19. You may well be right

But she's never run for national office before. She can use that excuse. Guilini, McCain, and Romney are being allowed to change their positions, though.

If she does it soon enough, it might work. And she has to stick to her word.

[sandnsea]

49. Most people support the AWB, even Republicans

Quit repeating extremist talking points.

[krispos42]

63. Right. Keep telling yourself that...

... and you'll be perpetually surprised each and every time we lose elections.

And how is "let the states decide" an extremist talking point? Aside from letting different states decide their own levels of gun control based on the unique characteristics and politics of that particular state, it removes the idea of Hillary being slammed on federal gun-control laws. Democratic congressmen can pass the gun-control laws as a sop to their constituents, and she can veto the legislation while explaining it does not fit with her 'let the states decide' campaign promise.

[sandnsea]

72. 68%

57% of gun households - even 32% of NRA members.

http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/naes/2004_03_guns_09-06_pr.pdf

Like Acid Rain, guns move across borders. You can't set up a gun factory free-for-all in NH and expect it to not affect the surrounding states. States rights is a strictly Republican idea that overrides the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights protects OUR rights over the state. It's why states can't discriminate in voting or jobs or overturn Roe. You get on the states rights bandwagon, you actually give up the 2nd Amendment protections in states that would choose to outlaw guns altogether. The Constitution is there to get it right, in every single county of every single state. Never give up the individual's Constitutional rights. Which doesn't mean we can't implement reasonable regulation, like pornography or regulating protests so as not to completely disrupt a community. The 2nd Amendment people are wrong, and they're allowing themselves to be manipulated against the will of the people.

[krispos42]

89. Thank you for the link

It was an interesting read.

However, I question the effectiveness of the poll. Not that I am calling into question the methodology of the Annenberg survery people themselves, but I am reminded of how little the general public knows about some issues, so I take pretty much all poll result with a sizable grain of salt.

For example, half of all people surveyed still think Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. Everybody here knows that is bullshit of the highest order, yet an effective marketing campaign combined with violating the public trust ('surely Bush and Cheney wouldn't lie about war!') have led people down this path.

32% or so still think Bush is doing a good job as president. And a quarter of people think Jesus will come back this calender year.

In this particular case we have the following factors to consider:

1) many people don't know what an 'assault weapon' is. There is confusion between full-auto military weapons (assault rifles) and civvie-legal versions (among other things) which became dubbed 'assault weapons' back in the early 90's. This is, as expected, expoited by gun-control advocates who use the Hollywood/military image to demonize similar-looking guns.

Which one is an 'deadly assault weapon'? This one?



Or this one?



Surprise! Same rifle, different stock! Same mechanicals, same rate of fire, same capacity, same serial number!!! It's the same gun!



Takes about 2 minutes and a wrench to change the stocks.


2) many people, once something is outlawed, desperately fear legalizing it again. Consider, for example, marijuana. Despite the vast body of evidence that marijuana is non-addictive (unlike tombacco and alcohol) and a very effective pain- and nausea-management drug for things like cancer treatments, better even than anything Big Pharma can put out, it remains illegal. The Puritan origins of our country keep being exploited by Big Pharma and conservatives to create a moral panic over the issue, and it remains illegal.

Same thing with guns. Once banned, they will most likely not be allowed, no matter how much of a failure their ban is. For example, the UK will not un-ban handguns nor encourage people to defend themselves, despite the fact that their 1997 handgun ban has made crime so bad in the UK that parents are buying body armor for their pre-teens and trying to ban pointy kitchen knifes.

The politicians will not backtrack. That is why the 1993 Assault Weapons Ban, the USA Patriot Act, and No Child Left Behind were all passed with sunset provisions. If they didn't work, they just expire, which saves face for all involved.

3) the term 'assault weapon' is perjorative. After all, if it's an 'assault' weapon, it's meant to attack, and we don't want people attacking each other, right? Right? Right? Right? No no no, we want defensive and sporting arms, and if it's an 'assault' weapon, well, obviously we can't have that, can we?

If the question that was asked was "Do you favor extending the ban on semi-automatic rifles with modern design features?" the percentages would have been different.

[sandnsea]

94. Attractive Nuisance

Do you understand the concept of "attractive nuisance" laws?

[krispos42]

110. Thanks to the wonders of the Internetz, I am now an expert! :-)

On a more serious note, I am familiar with the concept when I went to engineering school. Product liability law was brought up on occassion.

I trust you will bring this concept to the topic at hand, and look forward to discussing it.

I must also apologize for not fully responding to your post. I am (still!!!!) sick and miserable and not as cognitive as I should be.

The Bill of Rights protects our rights against the infringement of those rights by the federal government. Many of those rights, such as the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments, have also been deemed critical to the function of justice in state, county, and municiple courts and have been incorporated into the smaller systems. In other words, you can plead the Fifth in all levels of government, not just in federal court.

This fact was noted in the court decision that recently overturned the DC gun. Also noted was that the 2nd Amendment was NOT incorporated in the same manner, so it would be legal and constitutional for a state to outlaw civilian ownership of guns. The reason the DC ban was declared unconstitutional was because DC is not a state and does not have that perogative. Most state have a right to bear arms clause in their state constitutions or charters, so in order for most states to ban guns, there would have to be an amendment done on a state level. I don't believe California has such an provision, so look for California to be the first state to try this, probably with a ballot referendum.

State's rights I don't believe is necessarily Republican. There are distinct areas of responsibility for various areas of governmental function, which I happen to like. It allows for adjustment, adaptability, and experimentation in law and social services. It keeps the federal government in check to a certain extent as well.

Unlike Civil War-era "state's rights" believers, I do not believe that state's rights trump human and individual rights. Slavery is a violation of human and individual rights, which no government entity has the right to violate.

[sampsonblk]

59. Amen!

nt

[Larkspur]

5. Hillary has to hope that Bloomberg enters the race to pull a Perot

He'll pull more votes away from the Repuke nominee than her. Remember, Bill Clinton in 1992 won with less than 50% of the vote.

[MethuenProgressive]

9. "More than one in five Democrats ...said they would not vote for Clinton"

Great spin was worked with the words above.
Applying opposite spin to the same data:
"More than 75% of Democrats said they would vote for Hillary Clinton."
Is also true.

[Herman Munster]

16. That means 50% of Americans

WOULD vote for her.

You can either look at the glass half empty or half full. Also, this is a Harris Interactive poll. Looks like it was done online and is not representative of the full voter population. People with online access skew more educated, white, and affluent.

[unpossibles]

20. seriously. She's not my first choice, but I don't hate her and I suspect she is not as hated

as the people who do hate her try to present. For that matter couldn't you say that pretty much every President for the last few elections has had 50% of the people not vote for them?

[xkenx]

26. If 50% won't vote for her, she is finished. do the math.

It means that, of the other 50% who might vote for her, all the Rethug nominee has to do is attract some of them, and it's a landslide against her. Alternately, we know Rethugs (40% of voters) will vote at least 95% against HRC, so that's 38%. If 20% Indies split 50-50, that's 10% more for the Rs. And if 20% of the 40% Dems. vote for an attractive Rethug, then they pick up another 8%. Total= 56%---that's landslidesville. 2008 is all about flipping red states, and Hillary has no way to do it (assuming she can hold all the blue states; want to bet on PA, NH, WI?)

[tuvor]

38. You might be correct if everyone voted.

Lately about 50% of Americans haven't voted in federal elections for anyone at all.

[xkenx]

46. Hillary is a walking $100M of advertising for the Rethugs to get out their base,

which makes these numbers even worse.

[tuvor]

47. If you say so.

I thought they pulled out all the stops the last couple of elections, but if you insist.

[mtnsnake]

75. If it's only 50% now, it'll be way less than that after the primaries. She's in good shape

This should be bad news for all the Hillary naysayers, that only 50% are saying they wouldn't vote for her. That's a great sign for her that it's only 50%, considering the primaries are so far away.

Damn it, Obama is my personal favorite, but if only 50% of the people polled are saying they won't vote for her...and we're this far away from the primaries...I'd say it looks like we're looking at the first female president of the United States. Oh well, maybe Obama can do it next time. In the meantime, Hillary will make a fine president.

[pnwmom]

107. This isn't a reliable poll. The 50% is meaningless.

I read the whole link. There's no mention of sample size, the margin of error, the reliability of results, etc. It's an "interactive" poll -- meaning the respondents were self-selected. This kind of poll is just for fun. The results aren't predictive of the general population.

[earthlover]

31. nope...it means she has to get ALL of the rest to break even

...which is highly unlikely. Nope, impossible. I figure that at least 1% of those who would consider voting for Hillary wouldn't....

This poll is awful news for Hillary.

Maybe that will change. Or maybe the poll is inaccurate. But any candidate with 50% who would not consider voting for him/her is a goner. Sorry.

[tuvor]

39. See post #38. n/t

[draft_mario_cuomo]

51. That means she has to get 100% of that 50% to even have a shot

Even if she miracolously managed to sweep that 50% she may still lose because the Republican candidate may win the key swing states. Can anyone really see dlClinton beating Giuliani in PA or Florida? She would even cede NJ's 15 electoral votes to Giuliani. A vote for HRC is a vote for Giuliani/McCain...

[job777]

76. I don't believe that

is what it means at all. I think that she won't get the independent vote either.

[Dr Fate]

18. "Adults"?- I thought all eligible voters were adults.

Why are we even considering the under 18 crowd...Maybe they are thinking of people who will be eligible by 2008, but are not adults now?

Anyway, no suprise to me that voters (AKA adults) dont like her- I hardly know anyone outside of DU who does.

[Alhena]

25. This is like watching a car crash in slow motion ...

we've been talking about this for YEARS. How Hillary is not electable in the general election, and poll after poll after poll has shown the same thing- more people say they will NEVER vote for Hillary than any other candidate not named Newt Gingrich (who isn't even a candidate). Hillary is a competent politician and she knows the issues, but she simply does not connect with voters on a personal level. Either Giuliani or Fred Thompson is going to be almost impossible for her to defeat because voters will find them much more likeable. We need someone who is both competent AND likeable- either Obama or Edwards would do.

And yet the Hillary campaign grinds on inexorably towards nomination.

[zulchzulu]

35. I don't think Giuliani or Fred Thompson will be GOP nominee

I'm guessing it's going to be Romney.

A Romney-Clinton matchup would be an interesting scenario. The Clinton factor as well as a possible third party candidacy would be integral in how it would pan out, but since it's going to be Obama.... :->

[MODemocrat]

28. It's understandable, after having Bush, who could fill those boots?

:sarcasm:

[zulchzulu]

32. MOE of poll is declared +/- two percentage points

A margin of error of +/- two percentage points is a darn good poll. I've seen some posted here with a MOE of almost 5%. A poll with a 3% MOE is where decent polls begin, so this is pretty good.

On the assessment, it's all nothing new to me. An interesting issue was that Senator Clinton needs to focus on "married women", where she gets high negatives.

[rinsd]

82. The sample size is also quite large at 2200

But I have a question.

Is this Harris Interactive poll similar to Zogby's Interactive poll where a set group has agreed to take surveys? Or is it a regular poll?

Because that was a seriously in depth survey, they asked quite a few questions.

[Tom Joad]

34. If you looooooooooooove Iraq, you would vote for Hillary.

[tuvor]

36. Well, fifty percent of adults did not vote at all in the last election.

[w4rma]

37. That woman said she isn't going to implement any health care plan until a second term.

Who thinks that she would even get a second term? Who thinks we'd still have a Democratic majority in Congress after four years of her? There is no way she could win a second term, much less a first term. Hillary is unelectable in the general and would be a drag on every Democratic candidate in the nation.

She's too polarizing. The Republican base hates her guts. The progressive base doesn't trust her enough to defend her from said Republican base. She must be defeated in the primary.

[Tellurian]

50. That woman said she isn't going to implement any health care plan until a second term.???

I suppose if representatives of the progressive base such as yourself, would learn Truth in accuracy, you might not find yourself in a minority of the Democratic Base. The fact is, I have 2 quotes here and neither one of them reflect anything near what you are propagandizing in a dismal attempt to fool people into thinking, in shrill, mean spirited-language; your hate filled rant could be mistaken by anyone for the voice of reason.

Here are two blogger accounts of what Hillary said: Compare and Contrast..

"The final question centers on the timing of her plan (she says two terms, others say one), to which Clinton responds that it will take time to implement. Yet Clinton also underscores the importance of creating a groundswell among Americans so that some Republicans join the effort, because 60 votes are needed in the Senate (noting that Republicans filibustered in 1994)"

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/3/24/115150/071#readmore

"Clinton did not say whether or not she is considering a tax increase, but said she cannot see putting more money into what she described as a current broken system. She said she is committed to succeeding where she failed with the health care plan she crafted in her husband's first term in the White House.
"We're going to change the way we finance the system by taking away money from people who are doing well now," said Clinton, who represents New York in the Senate. Asked who she was referring to, she mentioned insurance companies.
The forum was sponsored by the Service Employees International Union and the Center for American Progress Action Fund, a Washington-based policy group.

Clinton, who received the warmest reception from the audience with several interruptions for applause, said her deadline for universal health care would be two terms in office. She said part of the reason her plan failed in the early 1990s was that people with coverage did not understand that it would not change. "We're going to do a better job explaining this time," she said."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/24/politics/main...

So you see, nowhere does it say she isn't going to implement HealthCare until her second term. The gist of Sen Clinton's speech intimates it may take 2 terms to get the necessary votes to legislate a Health Care Plan through Congress. Not that she isn't going to implement ANY health care plan for two years!As you have tried to peddle as gospel.

[sandnsea]

64. She has no intention of risking anything for health care

Other than some tweaking around the edges, she has made it clear that she is not going to take on any bold health care initiative in her first term. Anybody who believes that everybody will get some sort of health coverage in her first four years is flat wrong. She won't do it. It's why she's referring to her second term.

People should learn to listen between the lines.

[Tellurian]

65. She has no intention of risking anything for health care?

Other than some tweaking around the edges, she has made it clear that she is not going to take on any bold health care initiative in her first term. Anybody who believes that everybody will get some sort of health coverage in her first four years is flat wrong. She won't do it. It's why she's referring to her second term.

Please elaborate with proof of your claim. In other words, put up or shut up!

"People should learn to listen between the lines."

Customarily people READ between the lines. Please enlighten us with your talent of hearing between the lines, which in this case, amounts to no more than you triangulating a Truth into another one of your pontificated absolutes.

[sandnsea]

66. It's in your own posts

She has no plan for comprehensive health care in her first term. It's right there, you said it yourself. If she does anything, it'll be bits and pieces. She is not going to take any risks to do anything significant on health care in her first term. The political battle will be too big. She is not going to risk it.

To be more specific:

"..we're going to take money away from people who are doing well, and that's going to be a big political battle,” Clinton said.

"..Clinton has said her goal would be to have universal health insurance in place by the end of her second term as president.

“I think we can move more quickly, but make no mistake about it, this will be a series of steps,” she said.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20070325-9999-1n25dems.html

[Tellurian]

70. There are no such words in my posts..

What are you trying to pull here, sandnsea. All you people know is TRIANGULATION. You unconscionably triangulate anything and everything spoken or written by Hillary Clinton, in a vain attempt to cast her in a bad light to readers here. If thats what this is all about, it will come as no surprise to you then, to suffer my utter contempt for your misrepresentations throughout the duration of her campaign and beyond. As you continue propagating the lies and misconceptions of her honest intentions as an interpretation you've conjured up in your own head as representing her words.

"Show me these words in my posts;

NO PLAN- RISK- Anything Significant about Health Care in her first Term-"

"She is not going to risk it."

You can't show me anything because it doesn't exist..

If you actually believe what your propagating is reality, I've got news for you, you are living in an alternate universe not of this world.

Hillary is an attorney. Exact wording in legal writing is not an accidental or sloppy sport based on something you "hear" between the lines. Your rendition of her words is nothing more than a deliberate obscuring and distortion of the meaning and intention her words are meant to convey.

The only true words in your post are Hillary's exact quotes. Her words and your interpretation of her words are as different as night is to day and the usual expected from people like you who take liberty with meanings and run with it as if it mirrors the Truth. In my world, thats called LYING!

[sandnsea]

88. second term - small pieces -

because monied interests aren't going to like it??

I don't know how much clearer it can be.

[laugle]

102. Thanks again, for clearing up the BS.

I have no doubt Hillary will come up with a health care plan because the current costs cannot continue and everyone in this country should be insured!

I only hope those of us with a good plan now will not end up with something like V.A.

My father has that, and it sucks.....

[ShortnFiery]

40. Yes, and I'm one of them. n/t

[laugle]

41. "Voting-age Americans??" Wouldn't a poll of "REGISTERED AMERICANS" be more accurate? nt

[RobertSeattle]

42. People vote for people they say they'd never vote for all the time

:evilgrin:

[rinsd]

44. Curious. Anyone know if Harris Interactive is anything like Zogby Interactive?

In that the people contacted are those who have already agreed to participate in surveys (more focus group style than random survey)?

[Alamom]

45. Not sure, but if you read the whole poll, 68 % Dems & 37 % Inds will

vote for her on net results. The decline is in the Reps answers....odd that we're expecting reps to vote for our candidate?????

[draft_mario_cuomo]

52. We deserve to lose if we ignore reality and nominate a sure loser

[Learn2Swim]

87. .

I have to agree. Painfully.

[Morgana LaFey]

54. and she/they expect to correct this thru what mechanism, exactly?

anyone know?

Although I don't know why I should care. AFAIC, this is GOOD news. She's the last person I'd like to see as our nominee.

[Kelly Rupert]

60. If we nominate her, we deserve to lose.

We nominated Kerry, even though all the signs showed him as too unlikeable to beat Bush. He lost. If we throw Clinton at them, hell--we might as well just concentrate on the House and Senate, because the White House is going to stay red through 2012.

[Vinca]

71. She doesn't connect with many in her own party. If she's the nominee,

I'll vote for her, but I won't vote for her in the New Hampshire primary. I'm put off by the second term health care thing, plus she has a way of talking to crowds that reminds me of a teacher lecturing slow learners. I really, really hope she's not the nominee.

[malikstein]

73. Her policies don't connect with me.

She's pro-war and anti-labor.

[paulk]

84. so how is she anti-labor?

She has an 85% pro union ranking from the AFL-CIO.

And what do you mean by pro-war? That's a pretty broad statement to make.

[malikstein]

111. You can't take Murdoch

money and not be anti-labor.

She voted for the Iraq war, says that she would vote the same today, and in her recent NY Times interview said that she'd keep troops in Iraq indefinitely if she were elected.

Also on the anti-labor charge, Mark Penn, her top pollster, is CEO of the company with this web page: http://www.burson-marsteller.com/pages/functional/labor

There's our boy, right at the top of the list:
http://www.burson-marsteller.com/pages/about/board

Here's a commentary about Penn's strategy in the Clinton campaign.
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=12592

You are known by the company you keep, and Mrs. Clinton keeps union-busting, anti-labor company.

[paulk]

113. you can't have an 85% positive rating from the largest union

in the country and be anti-union.

Your argument is weak and disingenuous.

Her position on Iraq is no different from the majority of other elected Democrats. I realize that's not good enough for the hillary haters.

The innuendo and guilt through association charges you are bringing are the same kind of bullshit nonsense the right used against the Clinton's all through the nineties. How do you feel about the company you keep?

[mtnsnake]

74. If the percentage now is only 50%, then the Goddess of Peace will win in a landslide

People at this juncture in time are going to say one thing now, but do another once voting day actually comes around. It's only human nature that voters will tell pollsters before a primary has taken place that they're not going to vote for a certain candidate if that candidate isn't their own personal favorite. Once the primaries are over, however, attitudes change, and so would a poll like this one. If only 50% of the people polled are claiming they wouldn't vote for Hillary at this point of time, then you can bank on it that the percentage will be drastically different after she wins the Primary...if she does win it...so I'd say the Hillary is very happy with how she's doing at the 50% mark considering it's so soon before the primaries have taken place. :smoke:

[kdpeters]

78. You seem mighty sure, but that doesn't sound like a winning strategy

No support, no promotion, no defense? Just some smarmy condescending bullshit. You think she's got it in the bag that you really want to go around pissing everyone else off? I really don't think you do, but that's exactly why I hate her and posts like yours why I hate her more and more and more. If you're just DARING me to vote for Guiliani or McCain, keep it up. Don't think I won't!!!

[mtnsnake]

79. Hey dude vote for Giuliani, McCain, or whoever your little heart desires!

I triple dog dare ya. lol

[kdpeters]

100. Such is Senator Clinton's attitude

At least be upfront with me about that much. She doesn't care about me, you, the war or anything else other than getting elected. That's what you're saying about her is it not?

She'll probably win and once more, we'll get exactly the President we deserve and we'll bitch about it to no end.

[kdpeters]

77. If I HAD to I would ...

but I'll never support her. She hasn't earned it!

[laugle]

104. Whom do you think has earned it?

You might want to remember election 2000 and the Ralph Nader vote in Florida (4,000) that helped to install Bushco!!!

Those who don't remember the past, are condemmed to repeat it........hold your nose if you have to, but you must vote democrat and we must have a win!

[mtnsnake]

81. One other thing, ProSense. How are the other candidates doing in this regard??

Why are Hillary's results the only results that are shown here? Could it be because all the other ones are doing even worse? I'd like to know, because as an Obama supporter, I would like to see where he stands. Is he polling in this same poll with a lesser percentage than Hillary? What about the repukes, like Giuliani? What's his percentage?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

83. Only Gingrich does worse than HRC in these polls

And he isn't even running.

[mtnsnake]

92. Thats interesting. In fact it's so interesting, I'm gonna ask you for the link

so I can check it out for myself.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

97. Here it is

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Dailies/March%202007/Foragainstother20070319.htm

"Second place for this dubious distinction goes to another politician Americans came to know in the 1990s, New York Senator Hillary Clinton (D). Forty-six percent (46%) of Likely Voters say they’d definitely vote against the former First Lady. No other political leader faces such solid opposition from more than 40% of Likely Voters (see prior story on Clinton’s numbers). An earlier Rasmussen Reports poll of these polarizing figures found Clinton leading Gingrich 50% to 43%."

[mtnsnake]

101. Your poll also shows Clinton gets the 2nd highest of the "definitely for" vote

...only 1 percentage point behind Giuliani. Also according to the poll, she is right up there in the heat of it, only trailing Obama, Giuliani, and McCain in the "Net" part...and she's ahead of Richards, Romney, Edwards, Biden, Brownback, and Gingrich.

I just hope my man Obama can open up a wider lead in this poll, and I hope he can do better in all the other polls where Clinton currently is on top, although he's got his work cut out for him if he expects to compete with the Goddess of Peace.

[kdpeters]

99. Even better strategy

Convince us that everyone else sucks even worse than she does. Not exactly offering hope. Let's get stuck with the least awful. When you put it that way .... what choice do I have? She really is a ray of sunshine isn't she?

[mtnsnake]

112. You nailed it

She really is a ray of sunshine isn't she?

Good one, kd! Yeah, she is, isn't she...with that blond hair glimmering...those pretty blue eyes twinkling like two bright stars from above...the Goddess of Peace resonates like a ray of sunshine. Ahhhhh.......

[qwlauren35]

85. Is this a SURPRISE???????????????

I feel as though the right question has FINALLY been asked. Not "which one of these"? But if it's Clinton vs. some unknown Republican candidate, will you vote for her.

And EVEN WITHOUT KNOWING THE RUNNING MATE, there are people saying no.

This is why I'm still waiting to see the race shake out.

[saltpoint]

90. The caucuses and primaries give us a shot at our first-choice candidate.

If he or she doesn't win the nomination, we have to decide if we will support the ticket. It's rare that my first choice Democrats wind up on the ticket.

But look at the terrible damage that has been done by Republicans in recent years to American democracy. Look how divided against each other we are as a result of Bush's divide-and-conquer power politics, his dark alignment with the nutcase fundies, his way-too-cozy footplay with the big corporations.

And the judicial appointments have been macabre at best and generally horrifying.

I don't dimiss this poll per se but I think the question is not the one to ask. Do I want to live under another Republican administration in this country, or do I want a Democratic administration?

I'm pickin' the blue team.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

98. Only 28% would vote against Giuliani...

Do the math...a vote for dlClinton is a vote for President Giuliani or President McCain.

Clinton trails McCain by 7 points. Obama is tied with McCain.

[pnwmom]

105. What is an "interactive" poll? The results are meaningless if the respondents

were self selected, as opposed to randomly chosen. They are not representative of the opinions of the population as a whole.

I read the whole link, and there was nothing in it to indicate that this was a representative sample of Americans, much less voters, or to indicate the reliability of results or the margin of error.

[Clarkie1]

108. I don't feel a connection with her. I feel like she's just more of the status quo.

I don't get a sense of passion about the average American voter and America from her. And that's the honest truth.