NBC-WSJ POLL: NEW CLINTON LOWS

[WyldRogue]

Here's an excerpt:

"As expected, one of the two major Democratic candidates saw a downturn in the latest NBC/WSJ poll, but it's not the candidate that you think. Hillary Clinton is sporting the lowest personal ratings of the campaign. Moreover, her 37 percent positive rating is the lowest the NBC/WSJ poll has recorded since March 2001, two months after she was elected to the U.S. Senate from New York."

What is interesting is near the end of the article which I find abysmal:

"One thing about these head-to-head matchups: Our pollsters found that for the second poll in a row, more than 20 percent of Clinton and Obama supporters say they would support McCain when he's matched up against the other Democrat. There is clearly some hardening of feelings among some of the most core supporters of both Democrats, though it may be Obama voters, who are more bitter in the long run."


You Dems are on the verge of causing the demise of your own party as you people have certainly turned vicious toward the opposing candidate and their supporters. The whole world is watching you people tear each other's candidates to shreds (and each other for that matter) while losing the focus on the ultimate goal: keeping the Rethugs from reclaiming the WH and PARTY UNITY. While you 2 fractured 'entities' snipe each other, you guys are making the Rethugs look like the saner of the 2 parties. I guess it'll all end soon but by then, thanks to the constant in-fighting by everyone in the Dem party, BOTH candidates will no longer be viable candidates by the time the GE comes around and McSame is elected President. Then there will be no one to blame but yourselves for handing the election over to the GOP.

For the sake of our country, PLEASE stop the sniping, the tit-for-tat BS and the childish 'I won't vote for 'X' is they win the nomination. Partisan BS is what tore our country apart and the way things look now, it seems history will repeat itself.

Obama or Clinton in 2008 for the sake of our country and for ALL of us.

Just words from a worried Individual that wants to put the Dems in the WH.

[FARAFIELD]

1. obAMA or Clinton?

are you joking, the one in the lead doesnt get out. That takes nerve to say that

[WyldRogue]

4. Are you implying...

... that I said that Obama has to get out of the race?? Now where in the hell did you come to that conclusion with what I myself said??

Must not have read the context properly if you spouted that linear-defensive BS.

I said that BOTH sides MUST stop the in-party destruction, otherwise McSame will get the WH.

[tabasco]

2. When will Hillary realize her gutter politics is only hurting herself?

The rotten "kitchen sink" strategy has blown back in her face.

[marshall]

3. Getting in bed with Rush Limbaugh didn't help either

Since Hillary's goals seem to now coincide with Limbaugh's, she has reached a new low.

[Medusa]

7. She doesn't care. She's setting herself up for 2012

of course she'll be a has-been in that race too.

[nyccitizen]

19. She won't get the nomination in 2012 either...

Hopefully because Barack will be up for re-election...

But if he does lose to McCain, look for Al Gore to run for the Democratic nomination in 2012. He will be able to make the argument that Hillary had her chance and blew it in 2008, and he will have the support of the party establishment, many of whom will blame Hillary if Barack loses this year. (He is also a year younger than Hillary, and significantly younger than McCain, so age won't be a factor).

[StevieM]

14. The "Kitchen Sink" strategy was a media narrative. It was Hillary who suffered the venomous attacks

eom

[tabasco]

16. Wrong answer.

It’s the new Clinton campaign strategy. One of her campaign aides even told the New York Times that they’re planning a “kitchen-sink” fusillade against Obama, hurling out every possible attack and hoping that something will stick. But at this point, it will only hurt her chances – as it makes her appear shrill and desperate.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/27/111139/913/770/465010

The Clinton campaign started the filthy. rotten smear campaign after they lost 11 primaries in a row. They cannot elevate Clinton so they have to tear down Obama. WAKE UP!

[StevieM]

18. First of all, you just repeated the media narrative. Second, the "11 straight losses" was also

a false media narrative. One was a Dems abroad mail-in vote (and didn't Obama say something about not counting contests, like Florida, where you "can't campaign"). Another was a convention in the Virgin Islands. 5 more were caucuses, not primaries (and caucuses are not elections, they don't reflect the sentiments of the people of a given state). So he actually won 5 primaries. And those were manly in states where he was understood to have a huge advantage. Although I do think that the Clinton people were crazy for buying into the myth about Wisconsin being unwinnable--she should have campaigned there for more then a weekend. Then again, he outspent her by 5 to 1 and refused to debate her so that she could level the playing field slightly, something she never did to him when she was the front runner.

Obama will do anything to win. He proved that when he refused to debate her in Wisconsin, and then again when he fought revotes in Michigan and Florida. And he is the one who has been smearing her on a daily basis, basically calling her a bad person. His campaign against her is reminiscent of Bush's campaign against Al Gore. This is not a man who belongs in public office.

Steve

[Mooney]

22. Your talking points are all about a month old.

Nobody's buying it. Caucuses count. Every state counts. The Virgin Islands and Democrats abroad count. You don't get to decide what counts and what doesn't after the fact, based on whether or not you preferred candidate won them. He also never refused to debate her.

FAIL.

[StevieM]

24. I didn't say they didn't count. But first of all, the earlier poster said he won "primaries" which

isn't true, so I corrected it. Second, it makes it sound like Clinton and Obama went to 11 straight states, the voters heard their messages, and chose him. That's not what happened in The Virgin Islands and Dems Abroad (although they certainly highlight the absurdity of his argument about Florida). Third, caucuses don't reflect the sentiments of the people. So the argument that the people prefer him, based on a delegate lead stemming from caucuses, is a failed argument. Now, if you want to argue that the whole thing is a delegate count then fine--but that's not what Obama is saying. He's saying that the pledged delegates indicate the choice of the poeple and therefore the SDs should simply vote 100/0 or 50/50 to ratify that decision without jeapordizing his delegate lead. If the whole thing is a delegate fight then that includes SDs, in which case it doesn't matter what his pledged delegate lead is.

And, yes, Obama refused to debate in Wisconsin. They were both invited to a debate at Marquette University, which would have aired on public television, and he declined. She ran an ad criticizing him for refusing to debate, and that was when she was labeled a negative campaigner by the media.

Steve

[Mooney]

25. Of course you said that they don't count.

You characterized the claim that HRC had suffered 11 straight losses as a "false media narrative." You then went on to discount the contests that she had lost:

One was a Dems abroad mail-in vote (and didn't Obama say something about not counting contests, like Florida, where you "can't campaign"). Another was a convention in the Virgin Islands. 5 more were caucuses, not primaries (and caucuses are not elections, they don't reflect the sentiments of the people of a given state). So he actually won 5 primaries.

The only way that you can disqualify the contests that you did would be on the grounds that they don't count. But they do count. The Virgin Islands contest counts. That's why delegates are awarded on the basis of a candidate's showing there. And caucuses count. Caucuses have always counted. It wasn't until this election, when Hillary Clinton started losing caucuses, that they suddenly became "undemocratic." Were you this enraged when Bill Clinton won caucuses? Or when Hillary Clinton won the Nevada caucus?

When you say "caucuses don't reflect the sentiments of the people" you need to provide some kind of evidence to back that up. Simply dismissing them isn't an argument, and you need an argument if you're going to suggest that the results of six or seven contests should be flatly ignored. You're saying that Obama's argument is not valid because his premise, that delegates apportioned as the result of caucus results, is inherently flawed due to the undemocratic nature of caucuses. But you don't explain how they're undemocratic. Ypu also don't explain why a system that's been used in primaries for 100 years suddenly became so undemocratic that we should change the rules in the middle of the game and discount those results.

[StevieM]

26. Well, in Washington State I believe there was a caucus that Obama won in a landslide and a

non-binding primary that he won by three points. Also, if you look at the split that exists between Clinton and Obama in states that held primaries, and the Obama dominance of all caucuses, it isn't statistically believable that it is a coincidence. And, of course, exit polling has shown that they don't reflect the state demographically, in terms of income or age.

But the issue isn't that Obama doesn't get the delegates. The issue is whether a lead in delgates, stemming from domination of caucuses, means he was clearly the choice of the people. If it's just one big delegate fight, then it doesn't matter, and all delegates count and get to make up there own mind. But if it is about the SDs respecting the choice of the people, then it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that there are many ways of defining that beyond who has the most PDs. For example, who got the most votes nation-wide? And I think that's why Obama doesn't want Michigan and Florida to vote again, because they might cut into his popular vote total.

Steve

[Mooney]

28. So you mean that in the official contest,

which was the caucus, he won by a "landslide" (your word)? The "non-binding" (again, your word) primary, which if memory serves was referred to as a "beauty contest," doesn't award any delegates. Do you honestly believe that the results of an official contest are less valid than the results of a "non-binding" contest? If the non-binding contest basically doesn't count and awards no delegates, why would it suddenly be that a proportionate amount of people would magically show up?

Once again, caucuses count and have been a completely legitimate part of the primary process for 100 years. Now, suddenly, they're undemocratic and unrepresentative? Please.

Obama took the caucuses seriously. Hillary didn't. That's why she's in second place. He was smarter than her and he was more resourceful than her. The fact that she didn't take the caucuses seriously and didn't prepare for them accordingly is her own damn fault. No amount of after-the-fact "objective analysis" (cough cough) will change that.

By the way, if you're so concerned about voter disenfranchisement due to the exclusionary nature of caucuses, what have you done in the past to work to get rid of them? How many hours of volunteer work have you done? How many letters have you written to your state representatives? And what are you planning on doing after this primary season to get rid of them, to ensure that future primaries are more democratic, so that voters aren't disenfranchised, as you're saying they are?

[tabasco]

27. LOL. OK, a Clinton aide is part of the media. Whatever you say.

I guess the Dems abroad don't count, like all those other states that don't count.

Thanks for reciting the familiar absurdities.

[Azathoth]

21. Yeah, it was all a Vast Liberal Media Conspiracy to smear Hillary

No wonder the Hillary surrogates are finding themselves at home over at Faux. :eyes:

[Mooney]

23. Her own campaign referred to it as the "kitchen sink" strategy.

Do you think we haven't all been paying attention here?

[Occam Bandage]

29. Media narrative? That was the Clinton campaign's term.

[RBInMaine]

5. The country will NOT support Hillary Clinton. MORE than half the nation despises her.

[WyldRogue]

9. Then by your own words....

... McSame wins the WH. If the Dem party cannot unite, then we all suffer the defeat. Those damn Rethugs WILL unite behind McSame and that would be the ultimate travesty.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WyldRogue]

8. So what??

Smear me because I'm an Independent AND I only have 69 posts??

Man, definitely an infantile reply and thank you for showing that UNITY there buddy. Obama would be sooo proud that you are keeping his message at heart. At least I hear the man and his words while obviously, you're just a bandwagoneer. Calling me a troll for what reason?? I did not attack either Obama or Clinton, only stated that it is time to stop the BS in-fighting or we stand to lose the fucking chance to claim the WH and you call me a troll?? Wow, stay in your protected little world child and let us adults try to bring some semblance of order in this chaotic time. I understand you hate the Clintons with so much passion now that you'll automatically label anyone with an objective view other than yours a troll, or a RW plant or some other BS tag of your choosing.

Some of you are absolutely childish and definitely need some growing up to do. Attacking me for what?? Damn, didn't know that I have to be a damn post whore or live on this fucking blog 24/7 so that I can have a damn opinion. Not to mention the fact that I'm a hard working American whose voice, feeling, concerns, and vote counts JUST AS MUCH AS YOURS DOES you pompous @ss. No clue as to why you fools are attacking me but it just shows the utter contempt that NO ONE PERSON can have an independent opinion.

[Danger Mouse]

10. ah, i see. less than 1000 posts. must be a troll.

two can play at that asinine game.

[WyldRogue]

11. Thank you...

...for your support Elrond. Only wish everyone else could use civility and reason. I'm not knocking on either candidate. Both have their 'quirks' but hell, don't we all??

I am waiting as patiently as I can so that myself, my family and my fellow constituents can go cast our vote for the Dem nominee. Obama would be preferable but will definitely vote for Clinton over McSame/McBush.

[Danger Mouse]

15. No problem. I hate seeing people bash on new posters..especially when, ironically...

they have low posts counts themselves.

[Alexander]

12. So if Hillary only has 37% approval, and 20% of those won't vote Obama...

Doesn't that mean only a paltry 7.4% of Democrats are huffing and puffing right now?

I hope most of them come back to the fold in the GE (and most of them will), but 7.4% is not exactly a worrying figure.

[WyldRogue]

13. But...

... you're not taking in consideration that the Indies are on the sidelines and so far, BOTH sides of the fractured Dem party have essentially made us feel that we aren't really a force come this GE, which sadly, is totally wrong. Too many Obama supporters and Clinton supporters actually think that they don't need the Independent vote to win the GE and that is flawed math. Still, I find it amusing that so many dismiss me because of the fact that I am an Independent but as I stated to an attacker before, my voice, feelings, concerns, and vote counts just as much in the coming GE.

Just wish we had a nominee already. The Rethug have already gotten their shyt together and having McSame touring the ME as the presumptive President elect (in case some of your aren't looking OUTSIDE of the box).

While the fracture continues to bog down the Dem party, McSame and the Rethugs are running free and stockpiling for the GE since they have a head start.

[gateley]

17. Third time I've posted this today - y'all must have missed it:

snip

"That's the only thing that could make John McCain president ... if the Democrats get divided," Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said Wednesday.

sniip


http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/26/dems.switch.poll/

[Azathoth]

20. Hillary's numbers are going down into Dubya territory now n/t

[Frustratedlady]

30. How many of these votes can be traced back to the new Dem members?

There has been such a huge recruitment of members or people who switched parties. What impact do they have? Less loyal?

[grantcart]

31. right we need to go back to being a smaller party