When will Hillary's hypothetical polarization officially begin? She beats all GOP'ers in polls

[antiimperialist]

except for McCain. I had no more room for the title. McCain if I'm not mistaken beats all other Democrats in most polls.
I am getting impatient to see Hillary's polarization take effect.

I hear about Hillary Clinton being polarizing, this and that.
Why isn't she being polarizing yet, when it comes to a general election?

She will bring Republicans out to vote en masse, advocates of the unelectability and ultra-polarization script argue.
But there are less Republicans now that there were before.

Besides, In recent polls, like I said in my title, anti-Hillary republican forces are not enough to defeat her.

She would even win Virginia, according to polls.
Virginia? How could possibly a polarizing candidate win Virginia? She's even competitive in Kentucky, among the reddest of states.

You know what? I will just take for granted that she is polarizing. Well, not really. I will give you the benefit of the fact and "believe" that she will be polarizing, because I don't see it happening now.

I'm sorry about those who love the "favorable-unfavorable" stats, because such wording is not present in the electoral ballot.
Whatever her unfavorable rating is not enough to keep her from beating everyone (except for McCain) as we speak.

Give me a month, Hillary detractors. If Hillary wins the primaries, will she become the underdog ahead of the general elections in February? Will it be June? Or will the polarization theory kick in in September? October?
If the hypothetical polarization occurse this late, why did it happen so late? Hasn't Hillary been around for years? more than a decade? Shouldn't she be polarizing by now?

[MadBadger]

1. Have you not seen the latest Zogby poll?

it shows Obama beating them all and Hillary losing to McCain, Ghouliani, and Huckabee. And Edwards would lose to Ghouliani and McCain

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/12/zogby-obama-is.html

[antiimperialist]

2. Please show poll averages, not one poll from a pollster with a bad record

it's called "cherry-picking" around here.

[JackORoses]

3. do some more research. In recent polls, Obama and Edwards both beat the Repugs by greater margins

That is because Hillary loses some Dem votes because of who she is, alot of Indy votes, and encourages more Repuke voters to show up.

[existentialist]

4. OK folks, lets all grow up and realize

that these early polls on this topic are of extremely modest, if not utterly nonexistence predictive value.

I can be as poll obsessed as anybody. But at bottom I know better.

No argument of electablility based upon these early, shifting, and relatively close polls is worth making.

[MadBadger]

I agree with that, however

I think its completely naive to not think Hillary is polarizing. She brings the absolute worst out of the Republicans out of any of the candidates, even the black one.

[Josh]

9. I tend to agree that she's polarizing, but moreso than BUSH?

I can't think of anyone more polarizing than Bush was in '04 and look how that turned out. That's kinda why the "Hillary is too polarizing" thing doesn't bother me as much as I thought it would.

[MadBadger]

11. It's hard to say because he enjoyed a higher approval rating.

At the time of the election, his approval ratings was around 51%, and that is what he got of the popular vote. Hillary in many polls, sees her negatives higher than her approvals. I havent seen her approval ratings go above 50 percent (Im talking about national, not in NY).

[calteacherguy]

5. You are mistaken. Obama beats McCain in recent polls; Hillary does not. nt

[antiimperialist]

16. So Hillary is only polarizing enough to lose to one Republican candidate?

If I was Hillary, I'd be happy with those odds.

[antiimperialist]

17. Not true. Obama ties once, wins once, and loses once against McCain in December polls

three polls, three different outcomes. Let's not exaggerate.

The rest are pre-December, therefore obsolete polls.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html#polls

[denem]

6. I have no problem with polarizing

I have more of a problem with a candidate with widespread negatives who would be difficult to elect.

Polarizing? Harry S Truman on the back of a train blasting the Republicans at every stop. We talk about backbone, we should take off the kid gloves and polarize their collective noses. A TKO could be very polarizing ;)

[dkf]

7. A 3rd party Pres. Bloomberg might be able to get more done than Hillary.

blasphemy I know...oh well.

[K Gardner]

8. Polls, schmolls. Just look at what the mere thought of her has done to DU.

For the umpeenth time, nobody outside of the first few states is paying ANY attention now. National polls mean absolutely zero, except whose name is recognizable.

[creeksneakers2]

10. I read an interesting poll the other day

I can't remember where I read it. But it said that more Republicans would come out to vote if Hillary is the Democratic nominee, but more Democrats would come out to vote too. So its all a wash.

[Carrieyazel]

12. Beating them in polls is not what she needs to do. Beating them in an actual election is.

And how does she do it?

[DiverDave]

13. Do you WANT the rethugs to win?...then vote for her

in the primaries...the knuckledraggers will jump on the Hillary bashing bandwagon so fast it'll make your head spin around.


The MSM and the repukes WANT her to be the nomoniee...cant you SEE THAT???


She will LOSE the general election.

[Perry Logan]

14. Pretty scared of Republicans, aren't you?

[ToeBot]

15. When does it begin? Too late! A better question: 'When will it end?'

Please, let it end, soon!