digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Zogby Poll: Hillary would LOSE to all major GOP candidates in 2008 election

breitbart.com — The momentum is now kaput for the former First Lady. Clinton trailed McCain 42 percent to 38 percent, Giuliani by 43 percent to 40 percent and Romney by 43 percent to 40 percent. Also, Huckabee by 44 to 39 percent, and Fred Thompson by 44 to 40 percent. Wow!

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • drachemorder, on 11/27/2007, -18/+132This is great news. I never thought Hillary was a strong candidate --- there was a poll not long ago that indicated that somewhere around 40% of likely voters wouldn't vote for her under any circumstances. This poll is pretty consistent with that.
    She's not a strong candidate, but she is scary --- and even a weak candidate can beat another weak candidate. Kerry was a horrible candidate, but he almost took out Bush anyway.
    • davdev, on 11/27/2007, -12/+16I have been saying for months, the only chance the Republicans have to keep the white house is if Hillary was the Dem nominee. I am a life long Dem, who to this day still loves Bill despite all his flaws, but I hate Hillary. Actually I hate every single candidate on both sides. It amazes me that this group of a-holes is the best we can come up with, and that includes Paul and Kucinich (though a first lady with a tongue ring would probably at least keep the Pres from getting beaners from interns)
      • RedHerringHack, on 11/27/2007, -6/+2Beaner?
        • davdev, on 11/27/2007, -4/+3Blow Job
        • chijim70, on 11/28/2007, -1/+4lol, I never heard it called that either. I've heard it as a derogatory term for Mexicans.
      • rarson, on 11/27/2007, -4/+20What's so bad about Paul and Kucinich? At least they tell the truth and are honest about the countries' problems, and actually want to do something to fix them.

        I've never seen that in a politician before (at least not a politician running for one of the two parties).
        • CoheednCambria, on 11/28/2007, -3/+5People don't want to hear the truth. Who can trust a politician? Paul, Kucinich and Gravel seem to be the only ones that give straight answers.
        • chijim70, on 11/28/2007, -0/+3I'm 37 and have never heard a group of people like those 3 either.
        • Iconoclast25, on 11/29/2007, -0/+1Nothing terribly bad about either one of them *in the House* where their rather amusing lunacy is offset by people not wearing foil beanies; as President, though, complete and utter disaster.
      • brstilson, on 11/27/2007, -1/+5I thought Beaners are Mexicans. Cheech Marin, Tommy Chong, and Carlos Mencia have lied to me!
        • davdev, on 11/27/2007, -1/+1different locations, different slang I guess
        • rarson, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1Well, Mencia was a given, since he's not really Mexican. He's been lying about that for a long time.
    • libertao, on 11/27/2007, -5/+31The bigger story here is that Obama beat all of the Republican candidates by >5%
      • neodorian, on 11/27/2007, -4/+12Thank god. If I have to vote for a "mainstream" candidate in the general election, he is a guy I can support.
        • williamdyer, on 11/27/2007, -4/+3The real story is that the electorate is being actively propagandized to support war. The war candidates lose, and Obama, who voted against war, twice, wins. If you think we live in a free country, think again. It's not for nothing that military intelligence "trains" on site at CNN headquarters.
    • smoothmedia, on 11/27/2007, -5/+16Actually the bigger story here is that Zogby polls are becomming increasingly unreliable. Most poll experts I've seen find these results highly suspect. Every other poll shows Clinton with significant 8-10 point leads over all republicans. This is the first poll to show her losing.
      "The Zogby poll was conducted 11/21-26/07 with 9150 respondents who had agreed to take part in Zogby's online polling. This is not a normal random sample of the population. More on the technical issues below."

      http://www.pollster.com/blogs/zogby_internet_poll_ ...
      • Troika37, on 11/27/2007, -4/+5I find it odd that you question this Zogby poll. No political campaign requests copies of their polling results more often than Hillary Clinton's.
        • truthiness, on 11/28/2007, -1/+2smoothmedia questions it because it is NOT a valid survey. A non-random sampled survey consisting of "volunteers" yields biased (& invalid) results. We've all seen how Ron Paul wins by a landslide among Diggers, but that doesn't reflect the population of US voters.
      • 3tcp, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2Yeah, no ***** the respondents weren't chosen at random. They build lists of zip codes to best represent the different segments of society and randomly select phone numbers in them to call. There's companies where all they do is construct phone number lists for polling purposes in a manner that makes the margin of error as small as possible without making the poll too expensive.

        It's very scientific and your accusation is ridiculous.
    • delmar14, on 11/27/2007, -5/+13Nobody wants to vote for a shrill bitch. Hilarry Cannot win!
    • FredFredrickson, on 11/27/2007, -13/+10The yet bigger story here is that for all the ***** the Republicans have put us through, it's incredible that people can still vote for them in clear conscience. Honestly, voting for a Republican in '08 is the equivalent of bending over in front of Bush & Co. and saying, "thank you sir, may I have another?"
      • yutt, on 11/27/2007, -2/+4Hey, they voted Bush in for a second term. I'd be surprised if we don't have a Republican elected.
        • FredFredrickson, on 11/27/2007, -3/+3I'll be outraged if we do.
          • Monk22, on 11/27/2007, -3/+5prepare to be outraged. you don't think we'll let you have the senate and the white house do you?
          • these3remain, on 11/28/2007, -0/+4Not surprising that you would be outraged. Dems have been angry people for a long time.
      • Iconoclast25, on 11/29/2007, -0/+2Better to be paddled by Republicans than ***** by jackasses.
    • Xmanglc, on 11/27/2007, -4/+5The wemen may vote for her beacause they want a woman president, regardless of political stance.
      • raitchison, on 11/27/2007, -1/+1True there will be some of those but there will be more people who will vote against her specifically because she's a woman, this includes men & women and quite a few Democrats and most of the country kitchen buffet eating AARP card carrying geriatrics who make up the bulk of the electorate.

        Obama also has the same problem because he's black but unlike Hillary, Obama has the advantage of not being Hillary Clinton so he stands a much better chance.
    • brundlefly76, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1I could care less about Clinton, but I wonder how in the hell you take an *online* poll with a margin of error of ~1% when 30% of Americans do not use the Internet.

      Especially considering that the US households which cannot afford internet services and/or a computer logically make up a large portion of that 30% and therefore are statistically more likely to vote Democrat.

      Sometimes I think these polling services just pull the margin of error out of their ass.
      • ganjadude4391, on 11/28/2007, -1/+1Theres about 30 %of americans who do not have land line telephones either. So it would cancel out against the normal polling methods. Or at least go to show how off those polls are as well. It is going to be an interesting election I can tell ya that much.
    • Genghis1, on 11/28/2007, -1/+1Many republican women will secretly vote for Hillary just because she has ovaries, I guarantee it!
    • WTC7WasPulled, on 11/28/2007, -1/+2Of course they don't include Ron Paul's name even though he's miles ahead of those other New World Order candidates. He would blow her out of the water.

      http://ronpaul2008.com
    • chijim70, on 11/28/2007, -1/+1That's what she gets for screwing with Marvel!
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdUdkFMFrkQ
  • sjl127, on 11/27/2007, -11/+92It's all down hill for her now.
    • colto, on 11/27/2007, -6/+19Please don't jinx us.
    • thcobbs, on 11/27/2007, -2/+2When was it ever up hill?
    • nathanbrisk, on 11/27/2007, -0/+1Not really. Now is when the talk of past scandals will surface. She hasn't even reached the mountain.
    • cmccool, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2no pun intended.
  • maz2331, on 11/27/2007, -16/+117The GOP could run Pee Wee Herman against Hillary and get close to 50%.
    • sovereign3, on 11/27/2007, -3/+18He'd have my vote!
    • Frei, on 11/27/2007, -12/+55Well he got caught jerking off in a movie theater, he sounds like run of the mill GOP material.
      • Troika37, on 11/27/2007, -17/+19Yes, as opposed to killing a girl or operating a prostitution ring out of his office.

        Of course (D) = get out of consequences free.
      • beats1234, on 11/27/2007, -12/+10Bill Clinton got his dong licked by a fat bitch
      • petebot, on 11/27/2007, -4/+18Correction: Paul Reubens was caught spanking it in a movie theater. Pee Wee was never caught doing anything other than being hilarious.
      • LastVisibleDog, on 11/27/2007, -5/+5There is a weird group of diggies that obsess on fantasies of the sex lives of Republicans - this is the 2Girl1Cup kind of sexual perversions
        • Frei, on 11/27/2007, -3/+4No it's Republicans who are obsessed with legislation what goes on in people's bedrooms, only because they prefer public places like airport restrooms.
    • NSMike, on 11/27/2007, -21/+9This is not really a surprise. This nation will NOT vote in a female president in my lifetime- and I'm 25.
      • samdu, on 11/27/2007, -2/+32It's not that she's a woman. It's that she's an unprincipled, dishonest, conniving bitch.
        • provost, on 11/27/2007, -12/+8.. and she refuses to stay in the kitchen.
        • lacronicus, on 11/27/2007, -11/+5There's a difference?
        • NSMike, on 11/27/2007, -8/+4Sadly samdu, any powerful, confident woman will be seen that way in our patriarchal society. It's not something we expect from women, but something we blindly accept from the male candidates. Do you know anyone who actually likes Martha Stewart as a person? Yet even after her stint in jail she still has a successful business. That's not just because she knows what she's doing, it's because she's a good businesswoman. And many would say the same thing about Martha Stewart that you did about Hillary.

          I'm not advocating these positions or opinions, merely pointing out that they're inevitable.
          • williamdyer, on 11/27/2007, -1/+6No, Hillary is poison. People can see that nearly every word our of her mouth is a lie, told in a LOUD STRIDENT voice meant to intimidate.
        • raitchison, on 11/27/2007, -1/+1Actually it's both
      • frishack, on 11/27/2007, -15/+7Not true, I'd vote for Condoleeza.
        • lacronicus, on 11/27/2007, -6/+7I certainly hope you aren't talking about the condoleeza I know, the one that has been behind bush every step of the way into this mess we call america.
          • mumblyjoe, on 11/27/2007, -4/+4I'd vote for her to be tried for war crimes. Worst National Security Adviser ever!
          • raitchison, on 11/27/2007, -2/+3True but unlike Dubya at least Condi is intelligent and well spoken.
        • RedHerringHack, on 11/27/2007, -6/+6How old are you? Were you alive during the Vietnam war? Grow some balls son. And AMERICA is capitalized, you *****.
        • williamdyer, on 11/27/2007, -0/+26 years ago I'd have voted for Condi. Now, not so much. Same goes for the previous Secy. State. The black dude. What was his name? Somebody nobody will remember because he was weak and lied like he was told to lie.
        • Iconoclast25, on 11/29/2007, -0/+2I was deeply disappointed when Dr. Rice chose not to run; it would have been a great thing for this nation to have her as President.
    • standmatt, on 11/27/2007, -19/+13For the love of god dude, Ron Paul doesn't have a chance, sorry, get over it
    • eean, on 11/27/2007, -3/+2That's because Pee Wee is awesome.
    • raitchison, on 11/27/2007, -1/+2Yep I think Dick Cheney could be elected POTUS if he were running against Hillary.
  • HereticHulk, on 11/27/2007, -46/+24Was this a Mark Luntz poll? LOL! Either way HRC is no different then any of the GOP candidates anywaze! Except Ron Paul!
    Ron Paul / Kucinich 2008!
    • soulmantim, on 11/27/2007, -5/+3*Frank
    • 1town, on 11/27/2007, -5/+3***** YOU FRANK!!!
    • jmpeagle, on 11/27/2007, -13/+24god damn you are an idiot

      Paul and Kucinich are ideologically polar opposites on every economic issue ever
      • colto, on 11/27/2007, -13/+7However they said that they would still be interested in running together if it came to it.
        • reed311, on 11/27/2007, -7/+13Of course they can say that, as they know neither one of them has a chance in hell at the nomination.
      • rarson, on 11/27/2007, -12/+4Goddamn, I think the idiot is you.

        When I read that, I read it as "either Paul or Kucinich in 2008" since either one of them is a good candidate. I don't think anyone seriously expects them to be on the same ticket.
        • Fafnir43, on 11/27/2007, -2/+8Yup. I disagree vehemently with Paul on probably around 50-60% of the issues (I'm libertarian, but not so libertarian I want to shut down income tax and go back to the gold standard), but I'd still rather have him in office than Hillary because he is at least an honest man. Kucinich winning would be awesome, Paul winning would be quite nice, one running against the other would be win-win!
          • rarson, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1Thanks, that's exactly how I feel, though I support Paul first. I would not mind Kucinich becoming president because he's a good politician.
        • OswaldKenobi, on 11/27/2007, -4/+7So, you want one of two candidates that have opposites views on how the government should be run? So much for voting based on issues. All this talk by you assholes about how to change the system, and you're still just voting based on name and internet popularity. You're pathetic.
          • williamdyer, on 11/27/2007, -1/+2Get a clue, dude: Both are for ending the war.
          • rarson, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1Yes, because their opposing views both have something to offer the people. I want a politician that wants to become president to make the country better, not serve their own selfish means or bow to any corporation willing to throw them a few bucks.

            That's what you seem to not get. I can put my personal preferences aside for issues that I think are unimportant, like abortion. The "issues" that you're saying that I'm NOT concerned with are actually the issues I AM concerned with, because I see liars at the podium who talk more to waste time and avoid questions (ahem, Mr. 9/11) than actually explain how they are going to help America. I'm not buying the *****, I'm supporting honest candidates who will do what they say they'll do, and that's both Paul and Kucinich.
  • soulmantim, on 11/27/2007, -38/+172I took this poll, they tested all Republicans vs. Hillary EXCEPT for Ron Paul.
    This is ridiculous, I made it a point to email Zogby but they yet have to contact me.
    • fadeout, on 11/27/2007, -59/+30He is polling so low in the primaries that he is irrelevant.
      • soulmantim, on 11/27/2007, -15/+70Polling low in the primaries huh? What are you a time traveler? You went a few months ahead in the future to find out how Ron Paul's polling in the primaries?
        How hard would it be for Zogby to add 1 more question to that poll? They blatantly didn't include him there. You're basically justifying his non-inclusion on this poll because of his non-inclusion on previous polls.

        I took this poll, the didn't even poll Ron Paul's name vs. Hillary!
        If they did Ron Paul would have been a landslide, think I'm wrong? Now you can't prove it!
        Pro, Anti, and Indifferent Ron Paul supporters should ALL be pissed.
        • rarson, on 11/27/2007, -5/+10This poll is ***** anyway. They're forcing you to choose one of two crap candidates in a hypothetical situation that we have no reason to believe will happen yet. By asking who people would vote for versus Hillary, they're just planting the idea in people's heads that Hillary will win.

          I'll tell you what, if the general election doesn't come down to Kucinich versus someone or Paul versus someone, I won't be voting for either douchebag. I'll vote for someone that actually stands for something and makes sense. That wouldn't be any of the popular candidates on either side. Hell, I'll might as well just write in Ron Paul.
          • MindStalker, on 11/27/2007, -5/+3Eh, I'd vote for Gravel as well. I might.. just might vote for Obama depending upon how evil the Republican candidate is. But luckily I don't have to.. Ron Paul for the win!
          • rarson, on 11/27/2007, -3/+1Gravel lost me when he started going on about carbon taxes, but I'd still give the guy a shot, since he's an honest politician (so few of them these days, we have to latch onto them when they pop up). I just think that between him and Kucinich, Dennis has the better shot (but still a long way to go... I have faith though).

            Obama would be like voting for anyone else besides Hillary. Definitely not the worst, but another typical politician.
        • elipabst, on 11/27/2007, -1/+4By "polling low in the primaries", that means that in polls of registered republicans they asked who they would vote for in the *upcoming* primary. It's not some kind of conspiracy, it's a poll of *major* GOP candidates and he is polling low (~5% in Reuters, Fox News, Gallup). They didn't include Tancredo or Duncan Hunter either.
      • cnot3, on 11/27/2007, -2/+2He's at least ahead of Thompson and Huckabee in the polls, if not McCain as well.
        • GeekJoe, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1Uh, no he's not, put the pipe down kid.
    • bffoley, on 11/27/2007, -23/+15Oh god, here we go
    • OswaldKenobi, on 11/27/2007, -45/+19***** the idiots who dugg you up. Ron Paul is not a major Republican candidate. Hell, he's not even truly a Republican.
      • rarson, on 11/27/2007, -3/+17***** you for not having a clue. Do you even know what "true Republicans" stand for? I'll give you a hint: pretty damn much everything that Paul stands for. And Paul has the voting record to back what he says.

        Libertarianism overlaps Republicanism. Morons like you need to get that through your thick heads. They are not mutually exclusive. Any true conservative such as myself recognizes that Paul is more of a traditional Republican than anyone else the party has seen in decades.
        • OswaldKenobi, on 11/27/2007, -12/+5You're confusing conservative with Republican, idiot. A Republican is what the Republican leadership decides it is, not some definite ideology. Republicans are much for central than Paul is, which may make him a true conservative, but not a true Republican.
      • kete00, on 11/27/2007, -0/+5Who gives a crap what a "true Republican" is? It shouldn't be who is more of a Republican, but who is better for the country.
      • cnot3, on 11/27/2007, -2/+4Ron Paul is the only true Republican presidential candidate. The rest are tax and spend (or worse, just spend) neo-cons , who are no better than the democrats, if not worse.
    • witebuddha, on 11/27/2007, -21/+11He won't win the primaries... no one believes he will... not even Ron Paul believes he will get the Republican nod...
    • kete00, on 11/27/2007, -10/+2HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
    • charlescheese, on 11/29/2007, -7/+2They reason they don't poll Ron Paul is that he doesn't even place fifth in any of the primary polls, and he'll do ever WORSE when people start dropping out and supporting the major candidates. In a general election the guy does even worse than the primaries. You watch the guy and he sounds like the crazy old guy that lives down off the highway by the railroad tracks who sits on his porch chewing tobacco with his shotgun on his lap, and in his yard sits a sign that says, "leave me alone!".

      The guy is stone cold crazy. And while he gets the Howard Dean kiddos on the "internets" all whipped up in a froth with his contrarianism, he creeps anyone over the age of 24 out. The best this guy is going to do in any poll is the Digg friends poll. That's it.

      This guy wants to take the country so far to the right that he almost meets the folks on the left. He's that right wing. That's the last thing we need right now. The only thing worse would be a communist.
      • Qtip42, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1You've gotta be out of your mind. I hope to god you don't reproduce. RP is the only person keeping this country from sliding into the gutter.

        Then again, I don't expect an idiot to understand how bad of a position the US is in right now.
    • maxvolt, on 12/04/2007, -2/+0As pointed out, Ron Paul is like putting John Benjamin in the comparison...who the hell is John Benjamin you ask? Exactly. Ron Paul has ZERO name recognition, why? Because he is actually a Liberal Democrat that ran as a Republican. Nationally, republicans would NEVER consider voting for a democrat. The newspapers , all liberal leaner's, tried creating a little buzz about Paul, similar to what they did with McCain last year, ahhhin and oohing over him...hoping they could get him in as the Republican nominee. But ultimately it was McCain who sunk McCain with his immigration stance. By the way his immigration stance is the immigration stance of ALL the democrats...which should serve to forewarn democrats about something...WE WONT TOLERATE ILLEGALS, NOR WILL WE GIVE THEM ANY OF OUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS...you can take THAT to the polls!
    • mpp249, on 12/09/2007, -0/+0Right after any GOP debate, the networks' own online polls show Ron Paul in first place, or at worst, second. The spinmeisters pooh-pooh this as irrelevant, the result of an organized effort on the part of Ron Paul supporters. Aren't the other campaigns capable of organized efforts? If his organized efforts are beating those of the other more well-known candidates now, what can he do when he gains traction? His fundraising efforts are already forcing the major media, which would like to brush him aside, to talk about him.
  • ThaddeusB, on 11/27/2007, -16/+31Huckabee won by the largest margin - not bad for a guy with "no chance to beat Hillary"
    • rarson, on 11/27/2007, -13/+15It would've been Paul if they had included him in the poll.
      • OswaldKenobi, on 11/27/2007, -9/+7So, Paul, who so far is insignificant within his own party, is going to defeat Clinton in a general election?
        • insllvn, on 11/27/2007, -6/+11Yes, he is.
        • MindStalker, on 11/27/2007, -3/+6Umm, yea, in the "anonymous" poll Paul lost the Republican only vote, but won by a large margin the Republican and Democrat vote. He is the only candidate who will bring plenty of Democrat and Independent voters with him, which will be necessary to beat the Democratic Nominee. Btw, Paul is polling pretty close to 8%, thats pretty large in a 6 man race.
          • OswaldKenobi, on 11/27/2007, -5/+6But anonymous polls do not pick the Republican nominee for President, the Republican party does. Paul is insignficant.
        • rarson, on 11/27/2007, -3/+10So why did I get dugg down? Last I checked, Paul was doing better than Huckabee. Correct me if I'm wrong though, I don't have a TV to watch "news" channels telling me who to vote for.
        • charlescheese, on 11/29/2007, -0/+1Rarson, you're wrong because Paul has no base of support in the Republican party. You kind of need that to win the primary. He's alligned with republicans 50% of the time, and the rest of the candidates are aligned with Republicans 95% of the time. It's not a tough choice for a conservative, which is what I am. I would never even consider the guy. I would vote for any of the democrats over Paul. He's just too nutty, and the things he wants to do are way too extreme and would completely destroy the country. He basically wants to dismantle the federal government completely. That is bat ***** crazy.
      • charlescheese, on 11/29/2007, -0/+1Hahaha, I think Hillary is about as scary as they go, and I'm a McCain guy, and I would without hesitation cast a vote for Hillary over crazy uncle Ron Paul. I can think of nobody I know that's conservative that would vote for the guy. His base of support lies entirely with Howard Dean wing of internet party.
    • kaelyiesta, on 11/27/2007, -6/+15I'm not sure if I'm happy or not about that. Huck vs Hill would be a lose lose. One is a true politician(read: corrupt power monger), the other is a fanatic. Both their policies and records scare me.
      • williamdyer, on 11/27/2007, -1/+7Fair Tax would not suck. Given the (ewww) choice, I'd go Huckabee.
        • saintdesy, on 11/27/2007, -4/+3As someone who only pays tax on capital gains, I have to say that a fair tax would suck some major donkey balls.
          • williamdyer, on 11/27/2007, -1/+1Yeah, but we'll still make you buy drinks when Fair Tax passes.
      • subterfuge, on 12/02/2007, -0/+1i'm pretty sure i'll end up voting libertarian. unless ron paul gets nominated, of course.
    • kete00, on 11/27/2007, -5/+4Huckabee has two major things against him. He's Baptist, and he's Southern.
      • Shawn4168, on 12/05/2007, -0/+1Didn't keep Bill Clinton from getting elected.
    • Parisjune, on 11/27/2007, -4/+1Isn't Huckabee a democrat? He should be if he's not.
  • ZenFountain, on 11/27/2007, -9/+75If the Dems nominate Hillary they deserve to lose. Does anyone remember Jerry Brown, Bill Bradly or Howard Dean? It's painful to watch Edwards and Obama head down that same dead end as primary voters gear up to vote celebrity over progressive once again.
    • br0ck, on 11/27/2007, -0/+10Especially since according to the actual poll results, Edwards and Obama would both beat or tie any of the republicans. http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1393
      • rarson, on 11/27/2007, -1/+3Yeah, but I don't want Edwards or Obama to win, I want a decent politician like Kucinich.

        I read these two posts above me and I get the feeling that the mentality is "get a Democrat into the White House." Who cares if the next president is Republican or not, as long as they serve US and our country and not themselves. That is what most politicians are doing these days and it has to stop. America needs to realize that there are decent politicians in both parties, but that requires research and not blind faith in whatever the idiot box (TV) tells you.
        • williamdyer, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2T'would be nice, but both Edwards and Obama are peace candidates, too.
    • cranium, on 11/27/2007, -9/+8If you nominate a "progressive", you'll lose in November. The US does not like socialism.
      • neodorian, on 11/27/2007, -0/+9While your conclusion is true, your deliberate equation of progressive and socialist only fools the kneejerk idiots. We have been moving in a more fascist direction for a while so a move to the left will not end in socialism for a while. It's important to keep the happy medium between the private and public sectors' influences.
      • ZenFountain, on 11/27/2007, -1/+3Progressive ideals != socialist ideals necessarily.

        Is a woman's right to choose socialism?
        Was women's suffrage socialism?
        Was the secret ballet socialism?
        Was the 19th amendment socialism?
        Are voter initiatives socialism?
        Are national parks socialism?
        Was trust busting socialism?

        That's what comes to mind when I think progressive. Could go into negative and positive liberty, but suffice to say we as a society have accepted certain tenets of collectivism and the general good, knowingly or unknowingly.
        • Monk22, on 11/27/2007, -1/+1"progressives" also pushed for prohibition. so ***** progressives
          • ZenFountain, on 11/27/2007, -0/+3And a progressive repealed it after realizing it was pointless 13 years later.
        • saintdesy, on 11/27/2007, -1/+1You forgot to mention abolition of slavery....Anyway, you think you can get me tickets to the secret ballet?
        • bluto36, on 11/27/2007, -0/+1can you come up with something say in the last 60 years? so i guess if i want to vote "progressive" i have to vote for taft?
    • eean, on 11/27/2007, -1/+2Um, Dean wasn't elected and Kerry was hardly celebrity.
      I think Dean could've pulled that election off though.
      Regardless, I think your underlaying point is solid. I really hope Obama is picked to represent us in the primary, Edwards would be fine as well. Hillary is the only way the Democrats can possibly loose the 08 election.
    • UrinalPooper, on 11/27/2007, -0/+1I liked Jerry Brown :-(
  • swordedge, on 11/27/2007, -11/+27when I did the http://connect2elect.com/ web site Hillary came out as the one candidate farthest from what I believe. That confirms my first thoughts on her running. She will NOT be the first female president. I'd vote for Rice or Dole before her.
    • notque, on 11/27/2007, -8/+8I would likely vote a republican over Hillary if I was in a swing state.

      Since I'm not, I'm voting Kucinich no matter what happens.
    • saigumi, on 11/27/2007, -1/+4Cool.. That is an interesting site. I've got Gravel and Paul practically humping my leg in the pin view with Thompson and Kucinich in the middle circle.

      Last place on my list... Hillary. Go figure.
    • Chunken, on 11/27/2007, -2/+4Thanks for that link. Mike Gravel and Kucinich are my best matches. I wish people would give Gravel a chance he has really good ideas.
  • satanatnmtedu, on 11/27/2007, -36/+23If the country elects a Republican over a Democrat (Hillary or someone else), then it deserves the consequences. I participated in this poll, and I chose every Democrat over every Republican.
    • sgglynn, on 11/27/2007, -5/+12Interesting, may I ask which topics on the table are most important to you? It seems many republicans have very different views from each other, as well as many of the democrats, surely with a broad spectrum of views some reps should at least beat some democrats. Or, are you just voting democrat for the sake of voting democrat? Do you assume it's all about parties? Because that is how the Dems took control over the house and senate, and they've done NOTHING to stop bush. That clearly isn't the way to save this country
    • baldr, on 11/27/2007, -3/+13I am a die-hard democrat, and I would rather have Ron Paul than Hillary Clinton. Clinton is just another secretive, self-concerned, power-blinded, and power-hungry politician. If she is elected I will lose faith in this country and move to Canada.
      • Fafnir43, on 11/27/2007, -1/+7In fairness, Ron Paul wasn't on the poll and the rest of the GOP is pretty much just one nebulous mass of Lovecraftian evil. Probably worse than Hillary, although I'll agree it's a close-run thing.
      • vertexoflife, on 11/27/2007, -1/+2Amen.
    • buggles, on 11/27/2007, -5/+7then you are as bright as Hillery. "anything to get the power" that is precisely why America has Bush as a president. The only *alternatives* the democratic party is presenting are self-serving power hungry drones that don't stand for anything outside of their own ambition.
    • bjornski, on 11/27/2007, -7/+5Voting Republican this election is pushing the lever on the toilet. America is already circling the bowl, a Republican candidate would seal the deal.

      Amero, here we come!
    • ipxodi, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2Choosing a candidate is NOT a team sport. This is not Red Sox vs Yankees or Ford vs. Chevy. Other than in the most general terms. it's not important what party a candidate belongs to -- it's what the candidate stands for that is important.
      Do some research and learn where the candidates stand with respect to the issues that are important to you. Vote for the one that most closely matches.
      http://www.connect2elect.com might be a good place to start.
  • dmadzak, on 11/27/2007, -8/+21There is the old saying why vote for most republicans (democrat want-to-be) when you can get the real thing. Why vote for Hillary (republican want-to-be) when you can get the real thing. Add the fact that many people (even Democrats) just will not vote for her, even if you put her up against Hitler and I'm not surprised.
    • FredFredrickson, on 11/27/2007, -5/+2Why would you vote for a Republican after what they have done to our country over the last 7 years? The US used to be something we could be proud of.
    • rarson, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2Aside from all the idiots who want to vote for her because she's a woman. That's why we didn't allow women to vote! (Just kidding.)
  • insomniacal, on 11/27/2007, -15/+5OUCH! I'm considering voting Ron Paul, may actually lean toward the GOP candidate depending on who it turns out to be ... and don't expect _either_ to win. So this really surprises me. What's Hillary doing wrong? Out of all election cycles, the Dems should have this election in the bag.
    • williamdyer, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2Let's see: shrill, lying neocon beotch... what's not to like?
  • acid0426, on 11/27/2007, -16/+7With the exception of Guiliani and Thompson, I would rather have a Republican candidate win the election. If Guliani, Thompson, or Hillary win I'm like ***** this and moving to Sweden. McCain or Huckabee would not be bad. McCain has said bad things and made some bad decisions but would take a progressive role in office. Huckabee would be somewhat the same. Obviously I'd much rather have Paul or Kucinich but looking at the odds I have to be realistic.
    • xsquirrel378x, on 11/27/2007, -4/+6yuck huckabee....no thanks
      and dont think for a second he stands a chance of winning anything
      • Acewrap, on 11/27/2007, -2/+6That's what they said about Carter, Reagan and Kerry early in their primaries also. Remember the inevitable Howard Dean?
        • xsquirrel378x, on 11/27/2007, -1/+5what does huckabee offer other than more continuation of war and more ***** christian fundamentalist values imposed on the general population. ill give him credit for making me laugh trying to defend creationism over darwinism in front of millions of people though
          • williamdyer, on 11/27/2007, -2/+1Fair tax.
          • saintdesy, on 11/27/2007, -1/+1He's an anti-corporatist. I don't really agree with him on anything besides that, but at least, however misguided on whatever else he believes, he is a nice guy who actually believes what he says, which is more than I can say about Hillary.
        • rarson, on 11/27/2007, -0/+5In Dean's defense, he lost because of a media assault, not for anything he did. It was clear the media was determined to ruin his campaign.
          • Acewrap, on 11/27/2007, -0/+1I'm not arguing that. I'm saying the "inevitable" and "no chance" labels have no place this early in the election process.
          • saintdesy, on 11/27/2007, -0/+4yeah, poor Dean...they ATE him alive after that 'YEEEAAHHHHH!"
    • bjornski, on 11/27/2007, -4/+8McCain not bad?

      "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran"

      He'd have us deeper in the ***** than we are now.
      • acid0426, on 11/27/2007, -8/+4Oh yes, because politicians are so serious all the time. It was a joke, a parody of a song. If Obama said the same thing everyone would be applauding his sense of humor. McCain would not take us to Iran.
        • rarson, on 11/27/2007, -1/+5You mean you actually think McCain wouldn't jump on the chance to bomb Iran? Ha! You haven't been paying attention, have you?

          The fact that some Democratic candidates also want to bomb Iran should tell you that it's not the parties themselves that are different, it's the people running for office.
  • KiwiHopeful, on 11/27/2007, -17/+26Before anyone breaks out the fine Champale, keep in mind that Zogby's polls are notorious for bias and manipulation. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this one (at least until I get a chance to look at the methodology) but I'm taking it with a large grain of salt until I see some corroborating polls. BTW, here's an excellent example of Zogby's anti-Ron Paul bias: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/20/122957/56
    • skjold, on 11/27/2007, -2/+5Zogby's fine, but this is an 'interactive' poll, which means it was online. That makes it a little dubious.

      It makes me happy nonetheless.
    • ZenMojo, on 11/27/2007, -2/+1That pretty much covers it.
    • BigSax, on 11/27/2007, -2/+4I would also like to note that the percentage margins she trails by would all fall within a 5% error margin that you see in most polls....so the entire thing is *****.
      • LastVisibleDog, on 11/27/2007, -3/+3I see you can not read - making you a major audience for the Democrat Party - illiterate and gullible:

        " The Zogby poll was conducted online among 9,150 likely voters across the United States between November 21 and 26, and carried a margin of error of plus or minus 1 percentage point."

        Nice try Hillary fanboy
    • smoothmedia, on 11/27/2007, -2/+4Check out pollster.com's opinion on this poll. They think it has to be a software glitch.
      Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee are polling extremely low nationally, yet somehow they both beat Clinton.
      http://www.pollster.com/blogs/zogby_internet_poll_ ...
      • 3tcp, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2Or people just hate hillary clinton so much that when forced to choose between her and someone they've never heard of they choose the guy they've never heard of. I'm sure that there are lots of obama & edwards supporters who would never vote for clinton
    • Troika37, on 11/27/2007, -1/+1I find it odd that you question this Zogby poll. No political campaign requests copies of their polling results more often than Hillary Clinton's.
    • LastVisibleDog, on 11/27/2007, -2/+3The bias in Zogby's polls are usually toward the left
    • tjolson, on 11/27/2007, -3/+1They asked 9000 people. Pretty small sample......
  • scronline, on 11/27/2007, -6/+27All I can say is thank, friggin god! I don't have a problem with a woman as president, but THAT woman.... eeeeeesh. She reminds me too much of Cheney.
    • saigumi, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2Well... back when Bill was prez.. she WAS Cheney if you buy into that whole "puppet master" ideology.
    • insllvn, on 11/27/2007, -0/+3She is a slightly less attractive female variant of Cheney.
    • 3tcp, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2If hilary clinton is our first woman president, we won't have a second woman president for a loooong time.
    • maxvolt, on 12/04/2007, -0/+0scronline, are you kidding? Did you forget how Cheney kicked John Edwards ass in the last debates! Dems are in a state of denile, Cheney and Bush won two straight elections against your best. Hillary has so many high negatives, she doesnt stand a chance.
  • FascistNation, on 11/27/2007, -8/+11The thing that bugs me the most about these polls is they occur every election year towards the finish line. Polls show one candidate beating the crap out of the others. This pattern maintains for many months. Then as the election draws near, suddenly the polls show overnight the race is tightening.

    Oh, look, it is a news story after all. Pay attention serfs. Get out and vote to validate the process and the winner. Obama is closing on Hillary! The GOP is passing Hillary! Is it fools or tools? Either way you are being manipulated by the media. In the end that politician, the anointed one, will kick the asses of their opponents. THe vote totals are dialed in that way. Too much ego to make it a close call.
  • plato1123, on 11/27/2007, -23/+9Omg a woman with a brain? Everyone run and hide!!! The campaign is so early, Hillary is really the only candidate anybody knows, and what they know is from her failed health care reform. Give her a couple debates and against Gulianni and she'll beat him by 9 points, guaranteed. I think McCain is the only republican who could give Hillary a run in the general election... and of course, the GOP will never nominate McCain cuz well Gulianni not only destroys terrorists, he eats them, poops them, and redicules them while he's pooping them. God bless America.
    • CrackyJSquirrel, on 11/27/2007, -2/+8Maybe because I am not from the south, but I don't think people have an issue with "a woman with a brain", welcome to 2007.. There is far more disingenuous things about her and corporate money backing that people are afraid of. She is a fake person and a flip flopping candidate. I think people see through her and her act is too weak to fool the masses.
      I believe America is ready and has been ready for a female president. Just not Hillery.
    • Acewrap, on 11/27/2007, -0/+9Maybe the issue isn't "a woman with a brain", maybe it's that I looked at her policy positions and I just don't like them.
      • Troika37, on 11/27/2007, -1/+2Can't be. The left says if you don't like Hillary it's because you're a bigoted chauvinist who is stuck in the old ways. Policies have nothing to do with it. If you don't vote for her, you hate women. If you don't vote for Obama, you hate blacks. Either way, they win, and those who voted against them are either racist or bigoted.
    • trailboss49, on 12/08/2007, -0/+0It isn't a 'woman with a brain' that people object to, it's 'a woman with no morals' that people find frightening.
  • thredden, on 11/27/2007, -8/+31don't poll me bro!
  • jazh, on 11/27/2007, -18/+24This is total rubbish:

    Hillary has a comanding lead against Guliani is almost all recent polls:
    http://pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

    Yet again, I thought diggers were intelligent people, obviously not given that they think one poll is more accurate than about 20 in the past month by various methods.
    • cranium, on 11/27/2007, -1/+2Zogby is NOT "rubbish". He's one of the more accurate pollsters.
    • smoothmedia, on 11/27/2007, -0/+1http://www.pollster.com/blogs/zogby_internet_poll_ ...
    • LastVisibleDog, on 11/27/2007, -4/+3And the Hillary fanboys start to cry like little girls.....
    • Troika37, on 11/27/2007, -1/+1I find it odd that you question this Zogby poll. No political campaign requests copies of their polling results more often than Hillary Clinton's.
    • maxvolt, on 12/04/2007, -0/+0LoL, I must laugh in your face...sorry. How quickly you all forget. Who did the MAJORITY of the polls, 4 and 8 years ago say would win the elections....Hint: it wasn't GWB. So what do we have now, ONE poll says one thing and OTHER polls say something else...which ones are right, which ones are wrong? Beats the hell out of me...but I do know this...Polls are historically wrong. This is precisely why running a campaign based on polls is a trap. Candidates would always do better to speak from their own heart, which is what I believe both Huckabee and Obama do. The next thing that comes into play is their believability...who do you believe more? Oh and who could forget the other thing that comes in for the less intelligent is what is the letter beside your voting affiliation (I/R/D ?). The less intelligent hear what their guy/gal says, don't like it or don't bother hearing it, but vote for him/her anyway just because they have the same letter next to their name...as if any politician is loyal to them...truly misguided.
  • crazyspaceman, on 11/27/2007, -6/+23I call shenanigans no one can lose to Fred Thompson.
  • mrzack, on 11/27/2007, -24/+29/11 - INSIDE JOB
    Billary knows
  • mkriss5681, on 11/27/2007, -7/+13As a lifelong democrat I seriously doubt Hilliary will win the primary. We know what is at stake in this election and Hillary is to moderate and at times almost conservative to get Democratic votes. Even if she was elected as the candidate I doubt she would be able to court enough independent, republican and southern voters to win.
    • neodorian, on 11/27/2007, -0/+3She is too moderate and conservative for a modern Democrat but to a Republican who has nothing but bile for her, she is Stalin incarnate. It's not good when your opposition party as well as a good chunk of your own party ain't too keen on you.
  • danconia, on 11/27/2007, -3/+7This must not take into account the fact that the media is going to more or less back her once the primaries are over. They'll attack her right now but once she wins the primary boy they can't wait for her to get into office.
    The media will dictate the opinion of the masses... that's unfortunately just the way things work these days.
  • ingenium21, on 11/27/2007, -6/+31I find it sad that so many people would vote for Giuliani, very sad. Giuliani is a disgraceful candidate. Dishonest, untrustworthy, and is already in the pocket so many lobbyists it is very disconcerting. To vote for him because of this false, idiotic notion of "America's mayor" and 9/11 9/11 9/11 is stupid. All he will do is continue to divide this country, add more of OUR TAXES into homeland security, and continue to isolate the people of Arab descent.
    If hillary went against someone sensible like John McCain, or Ron Paul, I would vote for them, but these findings of the fact that she comes out losing against Mitt Romney, and Giuliani are very very scary.
    Although If Obama or Edwards get the nomination and win, I will be very relieved.
    • FloppyLlamaDigg, on 11/27/2007, -1/+6McCain is sensible?
    • Troika37, on 11/27/2007, -3/+4But you're ok with Mrs. "American can't afford all my ideas" Clinton?

      Yes, she said that, yes she was serious. You don't want your taxes to go to security and defense, but you're ok with paying other people's medical bills?
      • theutopian, on 11/27/2007, -1/+2You already do when you pay for insurance.
      • neodorian, on 11/27/2007, -1/+3"Security" and "Defense" don't mean the same thing to these guys. They call elective foreign wars "defense".

        And yes, I'd rather that my tax money went to keep our citizenry healthy and educated rather than being funneled into the so-called "defense" industry. A healthy and well-educated populace is the first step toward national strength in my opinion.
      • ronaldinho, on 11/27/2007, -1/+1Yeah, I don't actually mind helping someone in my own country than helping to fund a lost war which we should have never entered into in the first place. And don't say I'm abandoning the troops. If people are saying that, just end the ***** war and GTFO
    • beats1234, on 11/27/2007, -6/+0go to school or something before you just start spitting liberal nonsense you heard on MTV
    • ingenium21, on 11/27/2007, -2/+6Troika and Beats, your ignorance knows no bounds, she did not say Amerca can't afford all my ideas, that was spun, by the conservative press, and fed into the mouths of simple minded people like you. McCain is sensible, he may not be perfect, but who is? At least McCain knows what torture is, where as Giuliani will pass it off as a joke in his campaign trail.

      Beats, I consider you the dumbest person alive, to consider me uneducated just because I spout the truth is the stupidest thing to say. Name one good thing Giuliani has said about public policy (that is something regarding our healthcare, or our educational policy) and not tried to put security in there? He is scaring us into voting for us just because he wants us to believe that there is a bogeyman out there waiting to kill us if we don't. And his foreign policy cabinet is the most insulting of all. Filled with zionists and policy advisors deemed "too crazy" for GWB, all of them are for attacking Iran, which HAS NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

      Troika, of courese I do not want my taxes to go to security and defense, not when it takes my rights away from me. I refuse to give my hard earned money to anyone who refuses to apply Habeas Corpus to my rights. I, also am not for paying other people's medical bills, but I am for the right and fair treatment of me, you, and everyone else in this country when it comes to Healthcare. Instead you, me, and everyone else in the world has to worry about paying insurance, copays, and deductibles.
      • neodorian, on 11/27/2007, -2/+2Aw man, you had me until "zionists".
        • ingenium21, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2I don't deem it negatively, well I do, but I mean it as the term "Zionist- Someone who is concerned with the state of Israel and the Jewish people in Palestine and the West Bank". I have nothing against the Jewish Community, but what the Israeli government does I find appalling and wrong.
      • Troika37, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2With no weapons of mass destruction in her arsenal, how exactly did Iran turn over blueprints for nuclear warheads?
        • psyfauve, on 12/11/2007, -0/+0You can have blueprints for a house and no house unless you have the money, material and know-how to build one. That's why they say Iran will probably have one around 2010-2011.
    • Troika37, on 11/27/2007, -2/+2Ing - Since you seem to focus on the issue of socialized medicine, allow me a question. Do we, the voting public, get to decide whether or not it is illegal to smoke? After all, we all pay for those who exponentially increase their odds of cancer by partaking in a known danger. Do we further get to decide who has sex with who since we all pay to treat STDs? It can also be argued that the government would get to decide who ate what so as to cut down on cholesterol and obesity issues. Do you seriously want that much government oversight in your life? You seem put out that terrorists captured in the field are denied American Constitutional rights. I can't imagine your anger at the government deciding on a menu or sex partner for you.
      • ingenium21, on 11/27/2007, -2/+2Socialized Medicine does not control that much oversight on your life, although that much propaganda can be spread by Insurance companies on the very same subjects that you just covered. Let me just add though, where in countries like Australia, France, or Norway, where Healthcare is universal, there is no oversight in what people eat, smoke, drink, or who they make love to; here we are dealing with insurance companies who deny some of us due to pre-existing conditions and obese americans. So that very thing that you are asking me is already happening on a private level. Insurance companies deny you based on your genetics and deny you because you are obese. Whereas countries with Universal healthcare allow people the healthcare that they need, give them the treatment that they need, without ever questioning their lifestyle.
        • Troika37, on 11/27/2007, -1/+2Yes, socialized medical countries give you the treatment you need, without ever questioning what it is you did that led to your need for treatment. In extreme cases, however, women are turned away from hospital after hospital while in labor. Cancer patients wait weeks or months for MRIs and CT scans and X-rays can take up to a week. You are allowed the healthcare you need, on a schedule that can do more damage than good. With personal income tax rates (in the countries you listed) falling between 38% and 62%, - which pay for socialized programs - healthcare should be immediate.
        • agooga, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1British lawmakers HAVE recently proposed limiting or excluding healthcare to citizens who are obese. Their system is stretched, this is seen as a possible solution. Scary, no?
  • Karmashock, on 11/27/2007, -10/+11hmmm... it would be funny if Ron Paul actually won the primary. I find that highly unlikely because I think 90 percent of his voters are theoretical, but it would be funny nonetheless... and I don't mind being wrong.
    • staggerlee14760, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1 Soon everyone will see that the candidate with most meet-up groups, most grass-roots support,most internet support and is the peoples candidate can win it's the same as Bobby Kennedy. All of the rest of the candidates are CFR NWO scum except Ron Paul and Kucinich. They have been picked by cooperations and the corporate mouthpieces. All these bias polls do is denigrate our Democratic system to manipulate our judgment to make a peoples candidate seem like they can't win which just isn't true. The question is how can they include all of the other candidates except Ron Paul. Even though their own polls have shown that he ranks higher than Mccain. If you use the arguement that he doesn't have enough support than why is all other candidates included. This just shows their bias!! Shame on them and if we allow them to continue to manipulate our democratic republic than shame on us!!
    • b00mhauer, on 12/05/2007, -0/+1have yall checked ron's fund raising lately? 10.5million so far for this quarter. and tomorrow is another money bomb drive (Dec 5), which Ill be donating to. check it out www.ronpaul2008.com
  • suggsjc, on 11/27/2007, -5/+19I think this is pretty consistent with the "anybody but Hillary" mantra (which I FULLY support). Besides, do we really want another Clinton (or Bush) president?
    • ingenium21, on 11/27/2007, -5/+5You should try the "Anybody non-conservative" mantra instead, it makes more sense and would probably lead to a much better economy.
      • dmadzak, on 11/27/2007, -2/+1I don't know, I'd be willing to try a conservative, too bad neither party is fielding one.
    • datdamonfoo, on 11/27/2007, -5/+5Another Clinton, yes. Another Republican, no.
    • FredFredrickson, on 11/27/2007, -0/+5Anybody but a conservative '08
    • nurall, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1i don't like any of the candidates, but i like Hillary the least
  • flink405, on 11/27/2007, -7/+8This is the poll I would like to see:
    1. Which Clinton would you vote for President?
    a. Hillary
    b. Bill

    2. Which Clinton do you think would be a better President?
    a. Hillary
    b. Bill
    • insomniacal, on 11/27/2007, -7/+2Are you entirely discounting the two-term limit? Or do you believe the two-term limit applies only to Bush, not Clinton?
      Rule of law isn't person-specific.
      • thefanmyj, on 11/27/2007, -5/+1FDR?
      • Acewrap, on 11/27/2007, -1/+5"Rule of law isn't person-specific."
        If you really believed that, you'd be rioting in the street in front of the White House.
      • FredFredrickson, on 11/27/2007, -2/+1*whoosh*
        Goes way over his head!
  • withears, on 11/27/2007, -13/+36A few things should really be pointed out.

    1. Zogby is the most right-leaning of all the pollsters.
    2. The most recent Gallup poll showed just the opposite - Hillary wins against ANY republican.
    3. In this Zogby poll, no republican gets more than 50% against Hillary - a key statistic and the resulting margin of error is so large as to make interpretation meaningless.

    I appreciate that the republicans and Zogby have a vested interest in this, but this "poll" isn't very useful.
    • toconnor, on 11/27/2007, -0/+3While I don't want withears to be correct, he/she is. http://www.gallup.com/poll/102862/Democratic-Candi ...
    • Troika37, on 11/27/2007, -3/+4When you consider a Democrat hasn't taken more than 50% of the popular vote in sixty years, it becomes relevant.
    • dunderballer, on 11/27/2007, -1/+8Zogby is not right leaning. In fact, John Zogby describes himself as a liberal and is a contributing writer to the liberal Huffington Post. That said, his company's polling data isn't always right. Last election, he incorrectly predicted Kerry would win the vote; in 2000, he incorrectly predicted that that Bush would win the vote.
    • LastVisibleDog, on 11/27/2007, -3/+3You are full of fecal matter Hillary Fanboy - Zogby himself is VERY left and his polls are known to lean left - like most Democrats you got it backassward.

      Your "margin of error" claptrap is pure crap pulled out of thin air to prop up your silly comment.

      Democrats live by spin and assume everybody else does also - wishful thinking by the Democrat minions, nothing more
    • erikmartin, on 12/04/2007, -0/+0Zogby's online polls have historically been more accurate than telephone polls. This one surveyed over 9,000 people, and has a margin of error of 1%. The gallup poll you mention is over 2 weeks old!
  • pgoetz, on 11/27/2007, -13/+31Zogby is to polls as Fox is to news: namely, a joke.
  • G001, on 11/27/2007, -3/+17I'm no Hillary fan, but I don't put much stock in this. It's a Zogby Interactive poll: "The Zogby poll was conducted online among..." Their online polling has always been of dubious value. I don't give it the same weight as phone polling.

    This site gives you the most recent head-to-head polling of the major candidates. Check it anytime there's a story on some amazing poll to see if it's an outlier. It looks like this one is.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/presi ...
  • thefanmyj, on 11/27/2007, -5/+7How does a 5 point lead by a Republican render Hillary's momentum "kaput"? What's the margin of error on the poll?
    • mwalker05, on 11/27/2007, -1/+1the fact that every candidate polled ahead is really the most convincing. its usually 5%, meaning huckabee was the only one with a statistically significant lead
      • LastVisibleDog, on 11/27/2007, -2/+2try reading the article - the margin or error is 1%
    • LastVisibleDog, on 11/27/2007, -2/+11% - can you people read?
  • G001, on 11/27/2007, -3/+8I'm no Hillary fan, but I don't put much stock in this. Zogby's online polling has always been of dubious value. I don't give it the same weight as phone polling.

    This page summarizes all the recent head-to-head polling. Check it whenever there's some amazing poll to see if it's an outlier or not. This one apparently is.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/presi ...
  • SaperKain, on 11/27/2007, -10/+9Hey newsflash diggers. No matter how much u gonna whine about it, it will probably come down to Hillary vs Giuliani. If u will not vote for Hill u are just helping republicans to steal election again.
    • ri59, on 11/27/2007, -1/+2How is apathy helping the other side "steal" the election?

      Bias much?
      • zanzzz, on 11/27/2007, -0/+1So if they are the candidates what do you propose non apathetic voters do?
    • podrag, on 11/28/2007, -1/+1They were both born from the same Satan seed... So... Who really cares what you have to say. You vote for Hitler or The Goon and you play the game. I choose not to play the game. Anyone who is smart won't play the game. CNN, FOX, MSNBC, Rep, Dem, Neo-Lib, Neo-Con it's all the same statist crap.
    • mcrunch2, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1Giuliani? not even close. it will be either romney or huckabee. giuliani is kaput!
      • SwedishNinja, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Sure, in Iowa maybe, but in the National polls, Giuliani is WAY out in front.
  • InRussetShadows, on 11/27/2007, -10/+11The Dems absolutely need Ron Paul as a third-party candidate to split the vote. Otherwise they won't win. What can you say about a party that hasn't won 50% of the popular vote in a presidential election since 1964? I'd be darn ashamed if I was a Democrat. Of course that explains why most Democrats would rather vote for Harry Truman than anyone that their party serves up as a candidate.
    • datastorageguy, on 11/27/2007, -2/+4The Democratic party is in a sad state if it's chances of winning the presidency hinge on a third party canidate.
      • UrinalPooper, on 11/27/2007, -0/+5It's worked for them (Perot) and against them (Nader).
    • nathanbrisk, on 11/27/2007, -1/+2Actually, Ron Paul's candidacy is a danger to the Democratic party. Ron Paul is taking votes away from the liberals--not the conservatives. If he runs as a third-party candidate, he'll single-handedly snatch the young liberal vote from the Democrats (leaving it wide open for Giuliani to take the moderates and conservatives).
    • midknight558, on 11/28/2007, -0/+0Wait a minute, is Truman running!? Thank god, finally a politician i'm willing to vote for.
  • KingBunny, on 11/27/2007, -2/+6I really hope this doesn't turn into an exaggeration of the standard "who's the less-bad candidate" elections..

    "Hmm, candidate A drinks puppies blood, but candidate B wants us to recycle the elderly.. though choice."
    • saigumi, on 11/27/2007, -0/+3No kidding. That is how I felt last time over Kerry vs Bush.
    • nurall, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2it already is the "who's the less-bad candidate" election

      i don't like any of them.
  • chaos7, on 11/27/2007, -3/+9i'd like to see obama or kacinich win over hillary clinton.
    • ronaldinho, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2Obama or Kucinich vs Paul, just for the sake of actually having competent candidates who is not bought by corporations and lobbyists
      • maxvolt, on 12/04/2007, -1/+0Obama is just as bought and paid for as Hilary. Kucinich is a total nut job, And Ron Paul is a liberal democrat masquerading as a republican. Your choices are rather dismal, though I will say one thing for Obama, he seems sincere, Hillary is totally untrustworthy or sincere, but both Obama and Hillary are Senators/Congressmen, which means they have NEVER run a single thing, they have ZERO EXECUTIVE experience (like the guy down at McDonald's)...I don't think the Presidency of the United States, the most powerful nation on the planet, is the right place to find out if they have executive leadership skills. This is why historically Presidents have been Governors and Generals, the executive experience is imperative at this level. Obama should run for Governor of a state first, lets see what he can do there. Hillary should do the same, the only problem is no state will elect her Governor....and her we are talking about her being President?!?! staggering. Governor Richards is a much better choice for democrats, he is a like-able guy, he has proven executive experience, even for repubs he would have to be considered. That's why Romney, Huckabee and Guliani have a good chance as well, they have executive experience, and we are able to compare their actual leadership abilities. Putting a senator or congressman in the White House, you might as well put a college kid in for on the job training, this is with very few exceptions (after all some high school kids do grow up to be executives).
  • sfxc13, on 11/27/2007, -3/+5Don't know where Zogby poll gets its numbers, but RealClearPolitics is one of the most respected nonpartisan polling organizations. And the results there are the opposite
    • mcrunch2, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1and this is a surprise? the only people who count for the primaries are those voting in the primaries.
  • samdu, on 11/27/2007, -8/+6Faith in the American electorate RESTORED! :)
  • Dustin00, on 11/27/2007, -7/+8Kucinich.
  • cjrando, on 11/27/2007, -8/+15Another poll where they specifically leave out Ron Paul.
    • FredFredrickson, on 11/27/2007, -5/+3Keep telling yourself that.
    • tomasII, on 11/27/2007, -4/+1because he really is insignificant....learn that
  • WorkingDead, on 11/27/2007, -4/+7I think the scariest thing about all this is that a significant portion of the country is even humoring the idea that it would be OK to have either Hillary or Giuliani as the leader of anything. I would be pretty pissed if either of these people actually got elected to my home owners association. This is unacceptable.
    • BabyWookie, on 11/27/2007, -1/+2I feel the same way about Hillary, all of the Republicans and Biden. Ron Paul is scary in a different way from the rest of the repugs, but ***** scary nevertheless.
      • podrag, on 11/28/2007, -1/+2No I think you are confused. Ron Paul is not scary. The state is scary. Ron Paul wants to reduce the size of the state. Therefore Ron Paul=Less Fear.
        • BabyWookie, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2Not having the protections and safety nets offered by the state, having your whole life dependent on the whims of the market, having to trust your fellow human beings to do the right thing and having to trust the capitalists to play fair, is plenty scary.
          • podrag, on 11/29/2007, -0/+2Uh trusting the government to play fair is way worse man. They have armies and guns and stuff. And 'trusting capitalists to play fair' isn't so bad because anyone can be a capitalist. You can start a business if you want! And the less tax you pay the easier it is... for eveyone... which means more businesses offer more servies, more competitively, which means a higher standard of living, more personal responsibility, more social and individual empowerment and more freedom... for everyone... and people who are stupid and lazy don't hold the rest of us back... and the derserving poor are catered for by charity, rather than being strong-armed into paying for things we don't agree with! Yay!
          • BabyWookie, on 11/29/2007, -2/+1@podrag (dumb broken comments):

            Those are some pretty standard American Libertarian views. I don't particularly agree with them.

            As far as trusting the government... this is why we have different branches and so many checks and balances. The market needs checks and balances too. Not any one can be a successful capitalist. If any one could, most every one would be and there would be hardly any one left to work for them. Most people are just not blessed with the neccessary skills, talents or the drive. The capitalist system actually depends on this and thrives on the "class division".

            Eliminating the income taxes will not necessarily guarantee that you get to keep more money. A lot of the capitalists will just want to keep that money for themselves and simply lower your own pay. Because they can. The standards of living will definitely go up for them. They will be able to afford three mansions, instead of two and add a few more Ferraris to their garage, while most people continue to struggle making it from pay-check to pay-check. This is bound to happen due to the flaws in human nature.

            As far as "people who are stupid and lazy" simply dying out and no longer "holding us back". That's a pretty social Darwinist and might I say, even fascist view. It's not a very realistic one either. These people are not simply going to crawl into a corner and die. In their desperation, they will turn to pan-handling, criminal activity and even violent rioting. The streets will be filled with them and you will need body-guards to protect yourself. It's not going to be pretty and is going to be terrible for the health of the society.

            Depending strictly on private charities has its flaws too. A lot of them have forceful agendas, such as converting people to various faiths and they can pick and choose who they help, based on the person's willingness to submit to such agendas. They are not all just going to go ahead an help every one who needs it, no questions asked or strings attached.
          • podrag, on 12/02/2007, -0/+1WAKE UP CALL. Some people create more goods and services than others. They get more money. If they didn't create the goods and services in the first place there would be no wealth for Socialists to get jealous over. And why should responsible members of society be forced to pay off people through the welfare system not to riot and cause crime. This attitude has arisen precisely because of this 'something for nothing' culture engendered by socialism. How about they work and save instead! And if they pay less tax they can do it more easily. If someone gets into debt by spending too much they can SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR ACTIONS. How about that for a change eh? People's unwillingness to take responsibility is why we have given up our liberty for so-called 'security', is why the dollar is crashing, is why manufacturing has been destroyed in the UK, and is why everyone's standard of living will rapidly fall off a cliff. Governments are inherently irresponsible abusers of power as Adam Smith already told us. The government is the biggest, most monstrous, most deceitful, most manipulative and least responsible monopoly of them all. You seriously need to wake up and look around man.
  • MikeFallopian, on 11/27/2007, -1/+3A 3% or 4% lead in polls is pretty much meaningless, when you factor in the margin of error and how far away the election is. All these polls do is give CNN and FOX talking heads something to blabber about.
  • chesscat, on 11/27/2007, -2/+12Gosh, the election is still 11 months away and it's been declared over for Hillary. This is such nonsense.
  • zachshmack, on 11/27/2007, -9/+14I love it. The Hilary fanatics are up in arms saying it's just because she's a woman. Isn't it great to have that to fall back on? Surely it couldn't be because she's a two-faced liar, nooooooo.
    • kaeryn, on 11/27/2007, -7/+2Hilary fanatics? another idiot heard from. STUPID CHILD!
    • FredFredrickson, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2Who said that it's because she's a woman?
    • Genghis1, on 11/28/2007, -1/+1"two-faced liar" describes the current administration perfectly
    • mcrunch2, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1i think it more like 3 or 4-faced! Don't forget to add in a couple for Bill too - although maybe he's got his face stuck somewhere else.
  • TheRealM3D, on 11/27/2007, -7/+5This poll doesn't take into account that Ron Paul will probably end up running as a third party candidate and siphon off a lot of conservative voters. Doesn't matter who the Dems put up, they will probably safely land in the White House unless Ron Paul actually earns the Republican nomination. But who knows? Maybe a strong third (fourth?) party candidate will come out of the democratic primary and we'll have a true four-horse race.
    • insomniac8400, on 11/27/2007, -3/+5Ron Paul pulls from both sides.
      • kaeryn, on 11/27/2007, -2/+3You mean Ron Paul pulls IDIOTS from both sides.

        Yes I mean YOU! IDIOT!
    • LastVisibleDog, on 11/27/2007, -2/+2There is no evidence Ron Paul will run as an Independent - you are doing some more of that Democrat wishful thinking. (in modern times there has not been a true three-horse race so the four-horse race is really a pipe dream)
  • saigumi, on 11/27/2007, -4/+7Fits with me. Hillary is the 1 Democrat I wouldn't vote for.

    Accoring to that Connect2Elect. Her and Obama are my bottom 2 people most like me. I'd vote for Obama over Guilliani any day. Hillary vs. Guilliani... out.. that's like asking if I want my teeth kicked out or my nads kicked in.
    • sj200, on 11/27/2007, -3/+1. . . and you believed them!?! Want to buy a bridge?!!
    • mcrunch2, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1hahaha - great comment, especially the 'choice' at the end. Hillary is fine with me as she seems least likely to win of the democrats. Edwards could possibly win with his good looks and tiffanys street-cred. A good thing the dem's can't see it. Hillary has so much baggage it would take more than a train to carry it.
  • kaeryn, on 11/27/2007, -8/+5So many of you are all TALK and no action.
    If you feel so strongly about Ron Paul than REGISTER as a ***** republican so that you can get him nominated. PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
    If you don't like Senator Clinton then DON"T VOTE FOR HER.

    I want the MOST INTELLIGENT person to be President, not the one who PANDERS to imbeciles who don't look at a persons record, probably because they can't read, not Oprah's TOY BOY and NOT a ***** PREACHER or anyone who actually BELIEVES the world was created in 7 days. But hey judging by the comments on this bogus poll, zogby has no science to it at all, the country is totally ***** in any case.
    • skjold, on 11/27/2007, -0/+3Talk about looking at records... I'd love to see Hillary's, except she won't release it for some reason...
    • mcrunch2, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1'...I want the most intelligent'... I guess that means you won't get what you want...again. As long as politicians are running for office and the major news support them, you won't get much intelligence. Remember that the average NY time's type paper writes fairy tales for your average 4th grader.
    • jerrryglen, on 12/06/2007, -0/+0Kaeryn, Your language and bigotry reveal your intelligence. Please do not run for office. Thank you
  • Todamont, on 11/27/2007, -12/+15Hillary represents the rise of fascism and the death of America. Please, if you have any sense, please don't vote for her.
    • MikeFallopian, on 11/27/2007, -2/+3Please tell me you're trying to be funny.
    • FredFredrickson, on 11/27/2007, -1/+5And the whole of the Republican party doesn't?
      • timsama, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2And if you don't vote Hillary, you automatically have to vote Republican, is that it? Screw both parties, neither one represents the American People anymore.
    • sj200, on 11/27/2007, -2/+3Yeah, let's vote another ***** idiot like George W in again!
      Good idea dipstick!! NOT!!!
    • mcrunch2, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1Sad to say, they all belong the the trilateral commission and are after the same thing - no US constitution to hold them back from power.
  • insomniac8400, on 11/27/2007, -12/+2At least this confirms without a doubt that these polls are made up. No way any GOP candidate but Ron Paul could win the general election.
    • GhostyBoy, on 11/27/2007, -0/+1I don't know why you got buried. You are right on both counts. The polls are B.S., and no pro-war candidate can win when everyone wants the hell out of Iraq.
    • nathanbrisk, on 11/27/2007, -1/+1Ron Paul can't win even the Republican primary, much less the general election. Maybe the polls are fixed, though.
  • greendigger, on 11/27/2007, -2/+2My vote goes to Obama! We need a fresh mind like him, not a robotic Hillary.
    • nixfu, on 11/27/2007, -3/+3Fresh as in clueless??
    • FredFredrickson, on 11/27/2007, -0/+1I don't really see Hillary as "robotic,"and I am still torn between the two. Each represents something new, and something better than any of this conservative ***** we've had to put up with for the last 7 years.
  • nixfu, on 11/27/2007, -5/+3The DEMS are crazy by trying to kill their best candidate.... Hillary has the most experience (Obama is a totally clueless newbie compared to her and it shows in just about everything that comes out of his mouth), the most campaign organization(which is what makes you win AFTER the primary pandering to your base).
    • GhostyBoy, on 11/27/2007, -2/+2Hillary is the worst candidate in the whole race. She is owned by defense contractors and the Israel lobby and doesn't give a damn about everyday people.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 90 of 90 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.