Mele, I'm not sure there is anything they can do.
The honest truth is that she is unlikeable and accordingly, she really has very little to work with despite her wad.
What they will do is dig up dirt, smoke screen and scandalized everyone in their path, as always before.
Expect a very negative campaign and expect them to do their best to divide the country, as always before.
2007-11-26 19:17:05
·
answer #1
·
answered by wider scope 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I have several thoughts, which may not directly answer the question, but here goes:
First, I think moving up all the primaries was a horrible idea. It used to be that there were one or two primaries a week all through the winter and spring, from February to June. That way, a good candidate who was not previously well known could emerge and start to amass financial contributions as they "caught fire" on the stump. Now, it will all be over by February! Every other state wanted to be first like Iowa and New Hampshire, but now that there are only a couple of weeks between those first two and the rest of the primaries Iowa and New Hampshire are MORE important, not less. Whoever wins there will have a huge advantage, and the people ahead have big piggy banks.
Although yes there can be surprises, just fewer of them. Huckabee is gaining on Romney and yes Obama is ahead of Clinton in some polls, even though Romney and Hillary have more money and organization. I think Hillary's supporters think she has good policies on health care and other domestic issues, and also believe that with the Clinton organization and finances behind her she would be the hardest to beat in a general election. But the Obama people have money too, and say this is a "change" election and Clinton stands for more of the same. And Obama is seen as more "anti-war" than Clinton.
If I were Obama or Edwards I would try to make the case that Clinton is not electable. The Democrats really want to win this time and they will dump Hillary the way they moved from Dean to Kerry if the case is persuasively made that she can't win.
Republicans are still looking for the "true conservative," but also need to find a candidate who will address many of the concerns voters have that are traditionally discussed more by Democrats (health care, etc.). It's a tough position to be in - Giuliani is touted as someone who could do well in a general election but much of the Republican base doesn't like him because of his stand on some social issues.
I think the Democrats have a real shot at taking power this year, but Hillary has a high negative rating and some people believe the Republicans are better on national security issues. I'm not sure that many people are really enthusiastic about the field of candidates!
I'm not sure what will happen. There's just too much time until the election, pollsters say American voters are in a strange mood, and the war/security situation, and the economy, could change at any time.
So polls are only of limited use at this point. Even if they tell us who people want for president today, the election is a year away and NO ONE has a crystal ball to predict.
All I can say is "fasten your seat belts. It's going to be a bumpy ride."
2007-11-26 07:34:06
·
answer #2
·
answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
I know that a lot of people put no stock or faith in polls, but I think they are always important. Rarely they are incorrect, but more than not they are a good gauge. However, Mele, I disagree that money will not be a factor. Unfortunately, money is always a factor in elections. I don't know what they'll do next, but I wish they'd stop shredding each other's throats and start talking more about the issues. Politics is already a dirty business. And the politicians just seem to keep making it dirtier.
2007-11-26 11:17:43
·
answer #3
·
answered by Lettie D 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Not important or really relevant until October 2008.
Too few people are answering their phones at this point, and nobody knows for sure who the GOP will run next year.
In 2004, the polls had Kerry winning the election by 2 points right up until election day. But Bush won the popular vote 51-48%. How did this happen? The polls only poll about 1,000 voters. On election day, more than 110 million people vote.
The tiny sample taken by the pollsters is not sizeable enough to be a representative sample of the voting population. According to Statistics theory, a valid sample size is 30% of the voting population. 1,000 voters is not 30% of the voting population, so margins of error were more sizeable than pollsters thought they were.
2007-11-26 07:10:20
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
To be honest, I don't pay attention to the polls. Yes, occasionally they predict the right winner of the Presidential election, but more often than not the answers are manipulated to make people think that a certain candidate is better than another, and is more likely to win the election. Polls rarely have any effect on the actual election. Half the time, nobody knows who they are going to vote for until they are at the election place, and faced with a choice. So no, I don't think that polls are important, even now.
2007-11-26 07:09:08
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
At THIS TIME, polls only influence a rather small percentage of the 'undecideds,' and some financial donations, however with 11 months yet to go, ANYTHING CAN, and usually does, GO WRONG FOR AT LEAST ONE CANDIDATE !
For a well known classic example of this, read about the 1948 Dewey / Truman Election. There was a newspaper that went to print the night of that election, and declared DEWEY WINS !!!! Well, guess what?? TRUMAN WON !!!!!!!!
Polls are great, at this early date, as a means of 'showing up' a particulate candidate, however with 11 months left before the election, THE GAME IS ANY BODIES, RIGHT NOW !!!!
2007-11-26 07:39:15
·
answer #6
·
answered by I'M HERE 4
·
2⤊
1⤋
That is the problem when you run your life depending on what the polls tell you.
Now the election is getting closer and people are really starting to pay attention.
Hillary is in trouble. The DNC has been burn twice by Clinton.
1. They lost Congress
2. They lost the White House
Both to the GOP mainly due to the Clintons.
Now Hillary is facing heat she can't handle so she is going to burn out soon.
2007-11-26 07:08:46
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
0⤋
the Clintositas are already trying to make her the come back kid lick they did when Slick Willy lost Iowa and came is 2nd place in New Hampshire.
They started this last week and the machine is always working to make the drive by media be awed. Just like when she told GQ not to tell the whole story and what did they do but bow down which is why to get the truth you need to follow RUSH who runs the country or Glenn Beck.
2007-11-26 10:07:25
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
Yes and no. Polls give an indication on the leanings of the current public. Americans are fickle and subject to change their minds many times before the election. What it does say is that her current tactic is failing and she will have to address that, it also says that her opponents tactics are working. She will adjust and then they will have to respond as well. The election is still a long way off, and money will be very important, as that is how they change their public image.
2007-11-26 07:21:37
·
answer #9
·
answered by libsticker 7
·
5⤊
1⤋
You should put a link to the story you are refering to because the Yahoo home page changes constantly.
In most recent polls I've seen, Obama has considerably larger leads vs any Republican challenger than Hillary does.
EDIT: Oh, I found the story. It's a Zogby poll, not a Reuter's poll.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071126/pl_nm/usa_politics_poll_dc;_ylt=At80k6Z28f3VUBDFX_JX617zj9AF
2007-11-26 07:11:25
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋