| Jan 5 @ 9:04 PM |
Is it over for Hillary Clinton ?
|
|
lefthandedluckie
Posts: 5,023
|
These are the daily numbers as put out by three polling organizations! Clinton is still leading!
rasmussen daily tracking history
presidential polls
president polls 2008
|
|
  |
|
| Jan 5 @ 9:14 PM |
Is it over for Hillary Clinton ? |
|
Say_Yes
Posts: 1,779
|
It isn't even close to being over for Hilary. She has a ton of money and a lot of support. The dem race will soon be down to Hilary, Obama & Edwards, with Edwards being the first of those three to exit. (Look for him to sell his support, in exchange for another chance to be VP.)
Once it is down to a heads up match-up, things will get VERY ugly. It is still too early to call the winner of the Dem nomination, but from what I see, it is a two whorse race.
|
| |
|
| Jan 5 @ 9:22 PM |
Is it over for Hillary Clinton ?
|
|
kjac
Posts: 5,484
|
I'd agree with the yes man. I don't see Edwards lasting much longer. I'm glad the primaries in my state have been moved up, but I don't see Edwards even lasting that long.
|
|
| |
|
| Jan 5 @ 9:32 PM |
Is it over for Hillary Clinton ? |
|
Nightowl001
Posts: 4,087
|
With the Super-Duper-Duped-up-Tuesday coming up this year in February, I really don't see any of the major candidates dropping out before that. But even if the delegate apportionment isn't enough to declare a party candidate after that, there will be a major house cleaning then. There will be too few states left after that to give enough delegates to anyone who wasn't already a front runner to make any attempt to catch up.
|
| |
|
| Jan 5 @ 9:56 PM |
Is it over for Hillary Clinton ?
|
|
MusicMonster
Posts: 2,954
|
Kjac said:
I'd agree with the yes man. I don't see Edwards lasting much longer. I'm glad the primaries in my state have been moved up, but I don't see Edwards even lasting that long.
Yet Edwards fared better than Clinton. Few in the media seem to be giving that any clout at all. In fact they still seldom talk about Edwards. They still consider the race to be almost entirely Obama vs Clinton, as are all the prevailing headlines.
McCain did very poorly, yet he's considered to be 'on-a-roll' and surging at this point. Huh?? Given all that, what was the purpose of the Iowa caucus?
-MM 
|
|
| |
|
| Jan 5 @ 10:13 PM |
Is it over for Hillary Clinton ? |
|
lefthandedluckie
Posts: 5,023
|
Would this be a fair look at how things are going right now......
|
| |
|
| Jan 6 @ 6:28 AM |
Is it over for Hillary Clinton ?
|
|
kjac
Posts: 5,484
|
The only people who think McCain is on a role are the people who want him to be on a roll. He single-handedly ended his presidential bid before it started.
|
|
| |
|
| Jan 6 @ 11:16 AM |
Is it over for Hillary Clinton ? |
|
lefthandedluckie
Posts: 5,023
|
Can anyone explain what has happened to Mr. 9-11....Rudy the Mayor of the U.S.? Seems since he had that stay at that hospital a week or so ago he has just about dropped off the radar! 
|
| |
|
| Jan 6 @ 3:02 PM |
Is it over for Hillary Clinton ?
|
|
onoudn
Posts: 4,151
|
I watched the debates last night, and also another event where Hillary Clinton took indvidual questions from the audience. The first thing I noticed in the debates is that the republicans are beyond boring. It felt more like I was watching them play bingo, than a debate. And none of them ever got a bingo. When it came to the Democrats the first thing I noticed was that all the guys were taking notes. Hillary Clinton on the other hand just spoke from memory. I think this shows a firm grasp of the issues. I didn'tn like the tag team on Hillary Clinton by Obama and Edwards. I didn't like Richardson boring references to him being an executive. I don't by Edwards as the modern day man for the common people. He comes off like he thinks the American people are stupid. I still like Hillary. I think that she is the most qualified of all the candidates repubs, and democrats. And frankly, I think that if she were a man she would have been President a long time ago.
|
|
| |
|
| Jan 6 @ 3:09 PM |
Is it over for Hillary Clinton ? |
|
Nightowl001
Posts: 4,087
|
I think that if she were a man she would have been President a long time ago.
I completely agree with that! (Doesn't mean I currently think she is the best candidate; I just agree with the assessment.)
|
| |
|
| Jan 6 @ 3:52 PM |
Is it over for Hillary Clinton ?
|
|
onoudn
Posts: 4,151
|
Hillary Clinton outlined what her agenda is going to be as President in very clear, and precise terms. She's been doing that for some time. But, apparently the media is not interested in reporting it. All I ever see is what amounts to sound bites which are twisted around to the media "message of the day".
They, meaning the media, focus on disputes between Hillary, Obama, and Edwards, and her come back in the debate by joking about a question "hurting her feelings", but nothing substantive.
For instance, what's her stance on Roe V. Wade ?
What would she tell a conservative Christian that doesn't agree with her policy on abortions ?
What her stance on the no child left behind program ?
Where will the money come from to fund all the programs she is proposing to help end the "war on the middle" class ?
What's her plan to bring the troops home ?
Does she support stem cell research ?
What exactly is here plan to increase health care for all American ?
Will she allow tax's cuts for the rich ?
|
|
| |
|
| Jan 6 @ 4:19 PM |
Is it over for Hillary Clinton ? |
|
Nightowl001
Posts: 4,087
|
I agree that Hillary's positions have been outlined well and for quite some time, with some minor revision here and there. While other's call it flip-flopping, part of her position changes I see as deciding, "Okay, we tried that, and it stank! Let's reverse it and try something else," (i.e. her position on NAFTA).
I know she has a different take on the immigration problem than I do, but then again, so do most of the candidates running. Making them all legal isn't an answer, but it really is impractical to think about shipping them all back. I've heard few positions in the middle ground, and I don't really have any suggestions I think would be workable either. If we're not going to enforce the laws on the books, we need to change them. And we need to secure our borders first and foremost.
Part of her funding to reduce the war on the middle class would come from allowing the Bush tax cuts to sunset. Part of it would come from reduced borrowing to further fund the war, although she is not a strong advocate for ending the war as soon as I would like to see. Her website talks about a tax cut for the middle class, and right now, though I realize it appeals to the majority of voters who usually "vote their pocketbook," I think it's fiscally irresponsible to talk about cutting any taxes until we get part of the crushing debt burden Bush is leaving us with paid down. (All the Democrats are talking about tax cuts for the middle class, trying to get anyone who makes less than $200,000 a year to see them as better for their pockets than the Republicans; I believe they're all being irresponsible at best, and just making empty promises at worst. I don't think Congress would actually approve any massive tax cuts for any group in the next couple of sessions.)
Again, the war is an issue on which I'm torn. An immediate complete pull out would leave the area in ruin, largely due to problems we created. We have some responsibility to try to clean it up. A mult-billion dollar endless presence is not the answer. Law enforcement officers in the US go through a few weeks of training. Military recruits go through a few weeks of boot camp. Four years should have been long enough to train Iraqi forces to handle the majority of the load of the security for their own region. I would like to see an immediate pull out of the majority of our presence, leaving behind yet some advisors, trainers, etc., to oversee the remainder of the transition to the Iraqi forces providing their own security, but probably a total pull out within another 2 years. I'm not real clear on the specifics of her plan (she'll convene all the military people for recommendations on starting a withdrawal within 60 days of her taking office, is what it says on her website) but I suspect it is slower than what I would like to see, though along the same lines eventually. Still, not a reason to not vote for her, as i don't see anyone else making any speeches about a plan any better or closer to what I would like to see.
|
| |
|
| Jan 6 @ 5:04 PM |
Is it over for Hillary Clinton ?
|
|
onoudn
Posts: 4,151
|
Hillary says that she will basically initiate the same plan Bill Clinton did to balance the buget in 1990. She claims it will be based on fiscal responsibilty, and not lowering taxes, or spending beyond what we can afford. The Clinton's claim responsiblity for leaving Bush with a surplus budget. But, the republican dispute this. The Democrats all point to tax's cuts for the rich, corruption, favors given to special interest, and the war as the reason for the rediculous budget deficit we are now in. But Hillary Clinton is the only one who is proposing a plan that has worked in the past which is, as I mentioned previously, basically the same plan Bill Clinton used to balance he budget. Plus she says that bringing the troops home will decrease spending considerably.
But she's not just going to abruptly end the war. She proposes a gradual withdrawal taking into account Iraq's taking responsibility for its own internal affairs, leaving supportive forces, accounting for all the equipment in the field, providing protection to Iraq soldiers that were assistive in the war effort, all of which she says she'll begin within 60 days of taking office.
She also supports stem cell research, saying that she going to end Bush's war on science.
If memory serves she supports Roe V Wade, and is pro-choice.
She plans to adopt a health-care plan that mimics the health care benefits of congress. She claims she learned a big lesson when she was first lady and proposed a health care plan that wasn't all the popular. She understands now that if people like their plan than they should be left alone....duh on that one.
So her plan will not be mandated health care.
Basically, the main difference I see between her and the others is she is proposing things that have a proven history of success. That includes herself, which she claims her record shows some 35 years of working for change for the common American.
The others Democrats are just guessing and speculating that they might be able to get the jobe done. And the Republicans seem to be just hoping for devine intervention, and being percieved as Reagan like.
|
|
| |
|
| Jan 6 @ 5:12 PM |
Is it over for Hillary Clinton ? |
|
Skydognc
Posts: 2,654
|
<---------- has no significant or intelligent input whatsoever,
so I thought I would post a comment here, and be in good company!
(kidding)
|
| |
|
| Jan 6 @ 5:16 PM |
Is it over for Hillary Clinton ?
|
|
Nightowl001
Posts: 4,087
|
Heya, Sky! 
|
|
| |
|
| Jan 6 @ 5:16 PM |
Is it over for Hillary Clinton ? |
|
onoudn
Posts: 4,151
|
oooooooooook 
|
| |
|
| Jan 8 @ 10:36 PM |
Is it over for Hillary Clinton ?
|
|
Loreli
Posts: 20,161
|
Not in NH
Her and McCain
|
|
| |
|
| Jan 8 @ 10:48 PM |
Is it over for Hillary Clinton ? |
|
iam7545
Posts: 4,151
|
Unreal loreli - they pollsters missed by 10 points - WOW!
Very Bad!
|
| |
|
| Jan 8 @ 10:53 PM |
Is it over for Hillary Clinton ?
|
|
Nightowl001
Posts: 4,087
|
What I'm still even more amazed at is that the projected totals for the Democratic primary alone is going to be over 250,000 voters. In a PRIMARY! I know they were talking starting about noon about how some polling places were running out of Democratic ballots and having to send around for more!
Depending on how well her speech goes here in a little bit, Hillary is going to get a HUGE bump in the national polls off of this.
|
|
| |
|
| Jan 8 @ 11:07 PM |
Is it over for Hillary Clinton ? |
|
iam7545
Posts: 4,151
|
NO - you are right! The analysts that I am reading say that the large turnout makes it impossible to predict.
They REALLY BLEW IT!
|
| |
|
|