Hillary slipping?

[Stinger]

Latest RCP avg. Guliani 44.8% Clinton 45.2%.

 

[TOJ]

So what. The election is in Nov, 08 and then Hillary will get the most votes in the only poll that counts. You might as well resign yourself to it. :mrgreen:

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Latest RCP avg. Guliani 44.8% Clinton 45.2%.

First you have to get a pro-Choice, pro-Gun Control, pro-Gay Rights, guy with a very seedy marital history past the GOP primaries and nominated.

 

[Stinger]

First you have to get a pro-Choice, pro-Gun Control, pro-Gay Rights, guy with a very seedy marital history past the GOP primaries and nominated.

He's got a 6.7% lead.

Abortions, a non-issue anymore
Gun-control, won't get out of congress
Gay rights, state issue a President won't have much to do with it.

Economy and Security will win the next election.

 

[Navy Pride]

I think Hillary will get the nomination but she is still unelectable........

 

[Arillious]

I think Hillary will get the nomination but she is still unelectable........

...and then you woke up.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

He's got a 6.7% lead.

Abortions, a non-issue anymore
Gun-control, won't get out of congress
Gay rights, state issue a President won't have much to do with it.

Economy and Security will win the next election.

Among GOP Primary Voters, Abortion is a huge issue. So is Gun Control and Gay Rights.

Moreover, the national polls are meaningless in the primaries. Who leads in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina?

 

[Stinger]

Among GOP Primary Voters, Abortion is a huge issue. So is Gun Control and Gay Rights.

I repeat he has a substantial lead in the polls WITH his position on those issues.

Moreover, the national polls are meaningless in the primaries. Who leads in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina?[/quote]

Iowa - Romney
NH - Romney
SC - Giuliani

FL-Giuliani

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Iowa - Romney
NH - Romney
SC - Giuliani

FL-Giuliani

Well, here is what could very well happen, Romney wins Iowa and NH, and the momentum of those wins propels him through the rest of the primaries, and on to the nomination.

In the General Election, the fact that he is a Mormon costs him a percentage of the religious right vote, and any Democrat running against him ends up winning.

 

[Stinger]

Well, here is what could very well happen, Romney wins Iowa and NH, and the momentum of those wins propels him through the rest of the primaries, and on to the nomination.

Not likely, those two primaries have lost thier importance with some candidates totally ignoring Iowa now.

In the General Election, the fact that he is a Mormon costs him a percentage of the religious right vote,

Nonsense made up by a desperate MSM.

The fact is what you said couldn't happen is happening, Giuliani is a viable Republican candidate despite his position on issues which will not be the telling issues of this election.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Not likely, those two primaries have lost thier importance with some candidates totally ignoring Iowa now.

Some candidates are ignoring Iowa because they see no chance of winning it. We will see whether losing the first two primaries makes a difference or not.

Nonsense made up by a desperate MSM.

Do you know any Christians? Do you know any conservative Christians? They only vote for other evangelical Christians (In fact, they believe scripture commands them only to vote for other evangelical Christians). They consider mormonism to be a heretical cult. They would no sooner vote for Mormon than they would a Pagan.

 

[Stinger]

Some candidates are ignoring Iowa because they see no chance of winning it.

Because it is not important anymore and they aren't going to waste money there. The superprimaries are where it's at.

We will see whether losing the first two primaries makes a difference or not.

Iowa is not a primary to begin with is a straw poll.

"The state holds the one of the earliest tests of voter sentiments with statewide caucuses in January ahead of the November 2008 presidential election. The straw poll often gives an early indication of voter sentiment although it has not always proved an accurate gauge of January's results."

Giuliani to skip August Iowa poll - Boston.com

NH is so small in inconsequential anymore. The new primaries dates the larger states have adopted have been done so for just that reason.

Do you know any Christians?

Yeah lots.

Do you know any conservative Christians?

Yeah lots.

They only vote for other evangelical Christians

Not necessarily.

Are you claiming SC doesn't have a large conservative evangelical Christian base?

 

[Kandahar]

Not likely, those two primaries have lost thier importance with some candidates totally ignoring Iowa now.

Stinger you are just plain wrong. The candidates are skipping only the Iowa straw poll in August (which is merely a tradition), not the Iowa caucuses in January which are the first-in-the-nation official poll.

No serious candidate is skipping the Iowa caucuses. The Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary remain very important. If Romney is able to pull off a win in both of them, it's very likely that his momentum will be too great to stop, just as John Kerry's was in 2004.


As for Hillary...her probability of being the Democratic nominee (as measured by the prediction markets) is 48%, and it's been stable in the 40-50% range for several months. I don't see any signs that she's slipping.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Are you claiming SC doesn't have a large conservative evangelical Christian base?

Romney may not win in SC. Ask your evangelical friends if they would vote for a mormon. For a lot of evangelicals, a mormon may as well be a wiccan.

 

[TOJ]

Romney may not win in SC. Ask your evangelical friends if they would vote for a mormon. For a lot of evangelicals, a mormon may as well be a wiccan.

Where in the hell do you get these ideas? One of my best friends is a Missionary Baptist from the heart of the Bible belt. She and her whole family are big Romney supporters. We have had many conversastions about him. I disagree with her because I think he must have taken flip-flop lessons from Kerry. He changes positions to suit his current campaign situation.

I have never heard any Christians I know, and that is a lot, say the crap you are spewing. :roll:

All that said, Hillary will be the next CiC.

 

[Kandahar]

Where in the hell do you get these ideas? One of my best friends is a Missionary Baptist from the heart of the Bible belt. She and her whole family are big Romney supporters. We have had many conversastions about him. I disagree with her because I think he must have taken flip-flop lessons from Kerry. He changes positions to suit his current campaign situation.

I have never heard any Christians I know, and that is a lot, say the crap you are spewing. :roll:

According to Gallup, 24% of Americans say that they would never vote for a well-qualified member of their own party, if the candidate in question was a Mormon.

Some Americans Reluctant to Vote for Mormon, 72-Year-Old Presidential Candidates

Presumably, these people are mostly evangelical Christians (the GOP base) and not secular liberals, although the poll doesn't really say.

 

[TOJ]

According to Gallup, 24% of Americans say that they would never vote for a well-qualified member of their own party, if the candidate in question was a Mormon.

Some Americans Reluctant to Vote for Mormon, 72-Year-Old Presidential Candidates

Presumably, these people are mostly evangelical Christians (the GOP base) and not secular liberals, although the poll doesn't really say.

Or maybe they are Muslim or Buddist or atheist. Bigotry toward Christians or Mormons is sure fashionable with left-wingers.

 

[Kandahar]

Or maybe they are Muslim or Buddist or atheist.

Those categories still don't add up to 24% of the population. And I've never heard a Buddhist criticize ANY religion.

Bigotry toward Christians or Mormons is sure fashionable with left-wingers.

Here's another poll that actually says 37% of Americans wouldn't vote for a Mormon.

Bloomberg.com: Politics

This one DOES show the composition, so it's a bit better than the Gallup Poll. Apparently, bigotry against Mormons is a fairly nonpartisan issue. 40% of Democrats said that they would not, while 1/3 of Republicans and independents said that they would not.

If 1/3 of Romney's base leaves him, and 1/3 of independents are automatically off-limits, he has a very serious problem.

 

[Stinger]

Stinger you are just plain wrong. The candidates are skipping only the Iowa straw poll in August (which is merely a tradition), not the Iowa caucuses in January which are the first-in-the-nation official poll.

Yes they are staying away from the polls coming up which are done in caucuses and are the first indication, and Iowa won't have the same effect come January because so many other states have move their primaries up just for that reason.

No serious candidate is skipping the Iowa caucuses. The Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary remain very important.

Not nearly as much as they have in the past, the other states are fed up with the pull they had in the past and the candidates know this.

If Romney is able to pull off a win in both of them, it's very likely that his momentum will be too great to stop, just as John Kerry's was in 2004.

Why do you think all the states that have moved thier primaries up have done so? And THOSE primaries are the ones to target. The early primaries have lost their big influence.

As for Hillary...her probability of being the Democratic nominee (as measured by the prediction markets) is 48%, and it's been stable in the 40-50% range for several months. I don't see any signs that she's slipping.

Who was she being compared to in the OP, a Democrat or a Republican?

 

[Sergeant Stinger1]

He's got a 6.7% lead.

Abortions, a non-issue anymore
Gun-control, won't get out of congress
Gay rights, state issue a President won't have much to do with it.

Economy and Security will win the next election.

---
:2funny: 6.7% Lead in July 2007???::2funny: :neener BTW: You do know that :sinking: Guiuliani :sinking: doesn't have any chance at becoming Pres! Right?

 

[Kandahar]

Yes they are staying away from the polls coming up which are done in caucuses and are the first indication, and Iowa won't have the same effect come January because so many other states have move their primaries up just for that reason.



Not nearly as much as they have in the past, the other states are fed up with the pull they had in the past and the candidates know this.



Why do you think all the states that have moved thier primaries up have done so? And THOSE primaries are the ones to target. The early primaries have lost their big influence.

This is just speculation at this point, since it's never been done before. The truth is you don't really know HOW the front-loaded primary schedule will be affected by Iowa and New Hampshire. They're still the first, so it's possible that they'll become even MORE important since there won't be a lot of results from other states prior to Super Tuesday. Even if they become less important, they will still be the most important states in the primary, by far.

Who was she being compared to in the OP, a Democrat or a Republican?

Oh you mean she's slipping in terms of the general election? Right now her probability of being the next president, as determined by the market, is 28%. She's been in the 25-35% range since last November (except for a slight bump in May). So I don't really see much evidence that she's slipping.

 

[the makeout hobo]

Personally, i could see the states after super-duper Tuesday, the ones that haven't moved up, even more important. There is a possibility that there won't be a clear winner after Super-Duper Tuesday. If that happens, the states that didn't move up will in effect become the new, impromptu Iowas and New Hampshires- the small states that everyone just NEEDS to win. Of course, the smaller candidates will likely be shaken off the boat by now. It'll mostly be down to who survives out of the Big Four of each party.

 

[Stinger]

This is just speculation at this point, since it's never been done before.

:rofl it's ALL SPECULATION. It's ALWAYS speculation at this point.

The truth is you don't really know HOW the front-loaded primary schedule will be affected by Iowa and New Hampshire.

Well all these professional political analyst, elected officals, party officials, et al in all these states have sure invested in that speculation.

They're still the first, so it's possible that they'll become even MORE important since there won't be a lot of results from other states prior to Super Tuesday.

You know all these states didn' t go through all these motions and negotiations and debating and writing the legislation and passing it just to do it. They did it to lessen the impact of those early primaries and negate them as much as possible.

Even if they become less important, they will still be the most important states in the primary, by far.

Bill Clinton.

Oh you mean she's slipping in terms of the general election? Right now her probability of being the next president, as determined by the market, is 28%. She's been in the 25-35% range since last November (except for a slight bump in May). So I don't really see much evidence that she's slipping.

Hmmmm Battleground and Gallop both have Giuliani now beating Hillary head on. Battleground by 6% more than any poll has Hillary beating Giuliani.

 

[Stinger]

Personally, i could see the states after super-duper Tuesday, the ones that haven't moved up, even more important. There is a possibility that there won't be a clear winner after Super-Duper Tuesday. If that happens, the states that didn't move up will in effect become the new, impromptu Iowas and New Hampshires- the small states that everyone just NEEDS to win. Of course, the smaller candidates will likely be shaken off the boat by now. It'll mostly be down to who survives out of the Big Four of each party.

Be great wouldn't it?

 

[Stinger]

Re: Hillary slipping? Even More!

Latest has Guiliani winning

Guiliani 46%
Clinton 45%

She overwhelmingly beats all her Democrat competition in the primary, but loses in the general.