You can't quit being old or being twice divorced. And Romney's happy being a Mormon.

g.  Used to do a lot of coke
h.  Arrested for drunk driving
i.  Sent thousands of soldiers to their deaths under false pretenses
j.  Believes you should sit down, shut up and let him be "The Decider"

Thing is, even though 99% would say all of these matter, at least 30% of the population would still vote for Bush.  Strange days indeed.

JUST NOT HILLARY.

I read a poll today showing her down in New Jersey by 8 points to Giuliani, down 3 to McCain.  I can't support a primary candidate that's going to make us fight that hard in a state like Jersey (her neighboring state, for God's sake).  And she's doing worse in New York than John Kerry did!  What the hell?

Hillary Clinton is not our best course of action.  She's too divisive.  At this point, even though I think Obama isn't ready to be President, I'd support him over a destined to lose Hillary Clinton. 

Democrats...DON'T BE SELF-DESTRUCTIVE, as we so frequently are.  Please, when choosing who to support, CONSIDER ELECTABILITY.

38. (IF NAMED CANDIDATE, Q35) Would you be satisfied or dissatisfied with (INSERT NAMED CANDIDATE) as the Democratic party nominee?

  Satisfied  Dissatisfied  No opinion
2/25/07  86   13   1

Clinton  84  16   1   (N=267)

38. (IF NAMED CANDIDATE, Q35) Would you be satisfied or dissatisfied with (INSERT NAMED CANDIDATE) as the Democratic party nominee?

  No opinion
2/25/07 
Satisfied 86
Dissatisfied  13
  No opinion  1

Clinton
  Satisfied  84
  Dissatisfied  16
  No opinion  1

  (N=267)

That's a completely different polls.  The Quinnie poll that I'm talking about has Hillary losing traditionally blue states.

this is reflecting the difference between abstract fairness and in-the-flesh fairness, that is to say, sometimes people don't think they have problems with certain groups, but when confronted with such a person they find reasons for their unfairness.  This happens all the time.

DanG, it's clear that you don't care for Clinton, but outside of intentional political gatherings, the only folks who have approached me at the grassroots level are Clinton supporters.

Just because somebody is the most politically inclusive amongst other Democrats doesn't mean that the person is the best to run.  She may be politically smooth around liberal Democratic activists, but that won't work everywhere.  Hillary is losing Jersey (LOTS of social moderates and conservatives in certain parts of Jersey), is only up 1 in Ct., and is suprisingly weak in her own state (+10 in comparison to Kerry's +26 or something).  Look at the recent polls.  Hillary got a little boost from her anouncement, but it's already fading. 

Hillary Clinton will lose in 2008.  Mark my words.  If she's the nominee, hell, I'll vote for the Senate and House (if Thelma even has a serious challenger), but I'll write in Mark Warner or Jim Webb for President.  Not like it'll matter.  Hillary would lose by double-digits in Virginia.

Yeah, I'm one of those ANYBODY but Hillary guys.  Hey...since all these blogs are endorsing candidates, maybe that should be mine...anybody but Hillary..

I don't think I was very clear on the point I wanted to make.  Here's a better example hopefully.  Suppose most people surveyed claim to have no preference between detergent brands X, Y, and Z. 
The supply, price, marketing methods are all identical for all three brands but sales of brand Y far exceed brands X and Z.

Those surveyed *really* don't think they have a preference, but actually they do.  there's material around on this phenom but I don't have time to find a better discussion.

My second point is that I don't find your arguments against Hillary convincing.

She is incapable of getting enough EC votes to win.  She's losing in places like Jersey, is barely winning in CT.  And do you really think Clinton can win Ohio against McCain or Giuliani?  My point is that, by reading recent polls, Hillary will be too difficult a sell.  I'd prefer somebody far less divisive who can reach out to Independent voters.

I couldn't agree with you more. She will do worse than Kerry in 2004. And that would not be because she is a woman but rather because her campaign strategy is flawed. It is just plain stupid for a Democratic candidate to adopt a Karl Rove election strategy, which is to use a money and "hardball politics" to win.
She is continue to hide behind her so-called "centrist positioning" and will not seriously engage in policy debates.

While she is thinking she could drive out the race the other Democratic candidates during the primaries (even that remains to be seen), I just don't see how she could win a "Rovian" battle against any Republican candidate, especially given her controversial past.
The performance of the Clinton presidency can be rated average at best (the economy included).

Plus, I just don't see how she can defend her husband's record on national security and defense (don't forget that defense budget was flat or has dropped during the Clinton's years), not to mention the various personal scandals in which they were involved.

Remember this is wife number 2 for McCain. He's also divorced.  The Mormon thing though, I really don't blame people for not wanting to vote for a Mormon.  Mormons don't believe the Bible.  Most religios sects believe the Bible. Momons were known for being poligamists until they wanted to get into the Union. They wear chastity belts, they don't like drugs.  Not the usual hard drugs like cocaine but anything with caffeine.  I remember I was out riding my bike and when I stopped to rest, these Mormons came up to me.  We got done to a meeting place(I wanted to let them down gently) so I suggested a restaurant.  They said no because its against their religion to drink caffeine. I never proposed them ordering anything. They could've drunk water for all I care.  Mormons just come across as weird. Maybe they are. I think they are based upon my knowledge of them. 

from this poll that put atheists the farthest down on the "no no" list.  As Richard Dawkins points out, if you are running for office in the US you better profess a belief in God even if you are an agnostic bordering on atheism or an atheist.

Maybe, Kathy, you are getting at the notion that no candidate is perfect, but I may choose a smoking Mormon (ha!) over a black female Catholic pro-choicer because in my logic I see one as less objectionable as the other.

I really don't think anyone would vote against Obama because he smoked. 

Times have changed.  If you go back and look at old TV clips, lots of people smoked on the air, e.g., panelists on game shows.  I recall seeing Johnny Carson putting his cigarette away when a break ended suddenly and he was caught on camera.  Pro golfers used to smoke all the time.

The question for Dan perhaps is -- would you vote for Hillary if she was the choice against Romney or Brownback?

As to Mormons -- the few I've met were ultra honest.  I remember one guy I knew -- a Republican economist -- who was a political appointee under Reagan -- and who got fired from EPA for refusing to back an anti-environmental proposal because the evidence pointed the other way.  In general I believe there's no correlation between being ethical, and being religious, or belonging to any particular religion.

I know a Mormon Republican economist, and he voted for Jim Webb.  He's sharp, responsible, thoughtful and conscientious with regard to ethics.  He's younger though and certainly no Reagan appointee..