47% would vote NO on Hillary

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.

47% would vote NO on Hillary

Posted: 6/20/06 at 12:49am

Dems better find a good candidate to run.
NO

If anyone ever tells you that you put too much Parmesan cheese on your pasta, stop talking to them. You don't need that kind of negativity in your life.

re: 47% would vote NO on Hillary

Posted: 6/20/06 at 2:20am

oh please, you forgot this tidbit

This telephone poll of 1,001 adult Americans was conducted June 1-6 by Harris Interactive for CNN

only a Republican would state emphatically that something is so based on 1,001 people being asked

Oh Goth, you never fail to amuse me.

It is ridiculous to set a detective story in New York City. New York City is itself a detective story... AGATHA CHRISTIE, Life magazine, May 14, 1956

re: 47% would vote NO on Hillary

Posted: 6/20/06 at 2:26am

Ya I was wondering how acurate that was.

Thread Jack: Elphaba are you coming down to see Yours, Anne

Updated On: 6/20/06 at 02:26 AM

re: 47% would vote NO on Hillary

Posted: 6/20/06 at 2:31am

yes Neddy, I'm going to get tickets on July 1, when they become available, and I hope they are doing a Sunday matinee....

It is ridiculous to set a detective story in New York City. New York City is itself a detective story... AGATHA CHRISTIE, Life magazine, May 14, 1956

re: 47% would vote NO on Hillary

Posted: 6/20/06 at 2:33am

Elphaba, believe me, I have no intention of siding with a Republican when I say this, but you'd probably be surprised to know that 1,000 is the typical sample size of a nationwide Gallup Poll:

http://media.gallup.com/PDF/FAQ/HowArePolls.pdf

I think the more important point is that any poll (regardless of sample size) this far in advance of an election is totally meaningless.

And if we're going to trumpet meaningless statistics, note also that Hillary Clinton had the highest percentage of respondents of any of the candidates, including Republicans, to say they definitely _would_ vote for her.

re: 47% would vote NO on Hillary

Posted: 6/20/06 at 2:40am

They do.

I highly suggest you come down and see Oliver and Beauty and the Beast to. They really do fantastic shows, but if you have to see one out of the two I really think you should come down and see OLIVER!

re: 47% would vote NO on Hillary

Posted: 6/20/06 at 3:09am

To repeat what Jilani said, she had the highest percentage of "definitely would vote for".

Hillary is a controversial figure--that she only got 47% no is actually good considering how divided the Republicans have made this country.

johnraymondbarker.com

re: 47% would vote NO on Hillary

Posted: 6/20/06 at 7:45am

Hillary is unelectable.

AL GORE IN '08!

re: 47% would vote no on hillary

Posted: 6/20/06 at 7:49am

it's all well and good to prophesy about '08 based on polls but there happens to be a slew of elections this fall. these will determine in great part who the nominee in '08 will be. besides they're only 4 1/2 months away. let's prophesy about those and then worry about '08 afterwards.

r.i.p. marco, my guardian angel.

...global warming can manifest itself as heat, cool, precipitation, storms, drought, wind, or any other phenomenon, much like a shapeshifter. -- jim geraghty

pray to st. jude

i'm a sonic reducer

he was the gimmicky sort

fenchurch=mejusthavingfun=magwildwood=mmousefan=bkcollector=bradmajors=somethingtotalkabout: the fenchurch mpd collective

#10

re: 47% would vote no on hillary

Posted: 6/20/06 at 7:57am

Papa, fess up; they called you 470 times, didn't they?

#11

re: 47% would vote no on hillary

Posted: 6/20/06 at 8:17am

I don't think Hilary could win. She could possibly win on the VP ticket. I will vote for her if she runs, but I would prefer someone better.

Pretty pretty please don't you ever ever feel like you're less than f**ckin' perfect!

#12

re: 47% would vote no on hillary

Posted: 6/20/06 at 8:43am

I'll vote for her when she comes out of the closet. Right now, she is a brittle, humorless phony.

Gee, considering how few lesbians have a sense of humor she might be better off staying in the closet. . . :)

Do you know what happens when you let Veal Prince Orloff sit in an oven too long?

#13

re: 47% would vote no on hillary

Posted: 6/20/06 at 8:46am

them f***ers never call me, bway. zogby on the other hand sends me interactive polls all the time. of course in those i am always the token republican.

#14

re: 47% would vote no on hillary

Posted: 6/20/06 at 9:33am

I'd be the token Democrat for a Fox news poll anytime, but they never call me either.
And, in a serious note, this is part of that whole "are the polls really representative" question given that so many people under 30 (and around 30, thank you very much) don't have land lines anymore.

#15

re: 47% would vote no on hillary

Posted: 6/20/06 at 9:48am

But you know what must really eat away at the empty spot where your soul should be, Goth? The fact that if Bill b-b-but Clinton could run again, he'd win in a landslide. Without any of the election chicanery (activist Supreme Court justices, hindrance of access to polling places in Democratic districs, electronic voting machines with no paper trails) that seems to be such a necessity for the kinds of results we've seen for the better part of the decade.

Twitter @NamoInExile Instagram none

Updated On: 6/20/06 at 09:48 AM

#16

re: 47% would vote no on hillary

Posted: 6/20/06 at 9:49am

and over 30. i think that a limited poll like this with three candidates, none of whom is assured of anything, is pretty much nothing more than a masturbatory fantasy ginned up to grab attention.

#17

re: 47% would vote no on hillary

Posted: 6/20/06 at 9:51am

Aren't almost all polls seemingly just to drum up support on one side or another these days?
I mean, really. If you start to break down the questions they're asking, it's almost ridiculous and they literally just seemed geared for spin.

#18

re: 47% would vote no on hillary

Posted: 6/20/06 at 9:57am

well, i mean it's so easy to slant things with a question. that's why i prefer to look at all the sides of a poll before i accept any of the results. there are so many factors that can influence responses in one of these things. the wording of a question can skew things one way or the other. the breakdown of respondants can push it one way or the other. artifical "weighting" to correct for one thing or another. registered vs. non-registered. likely voters. taking any of these polls too seriously is just asking to be disappointed when their results don't ring true in the end.

#19

re: 47% would vote no on hillary

Posted: 6/20/06 at 10:01am

I'm always amazed at the wildly divergent answers to seemingly connected questions.
For instance, Bush's overall approval rating on a recent poll might be 35% while his handling of the Iraq War could be 20% but his handling of the War on Terrorism (which the Administration says the Iraq War is as well) might be higher, while the economy is super low but...the general discrepancies in his "individual" performance indicators never seem to quite add up to the overall approval rating. It always strikes me as being a direct result of the questions being misleading and/or the respondants not really understanding the question.

← Back to Message Board

View all Videos

Tickets From $59

Tickets From $60

Tickets From $95

Tickets From $72