Why is Fox News including Clinton in it's polls?

That might explain doing it * once. * Consistently keeping her in the mix, month after month, as though she actually is running, is just…perverse.

Besides, I don’t think what you say about her is even true. Or at least, not in the way you think it is. The only people I have EVER heard mention being interested in seeing Hilary run are conservatives. Seriously. And they bring it up all the time. This board is proof enough of that. What the hell is it about? Us non-New York lefties don’t think about her much at all, so far as I can tell.

  • Fox and Hilary
    sittin’ in a tree
    k-i-s-s-i-n-g

That’s true in my world. It seems to me that the only people who think liberals want Hillary Clinton to run for President are conservatives, the media, and Hillary Clinton herself. The liberals I know and have read have expressed exactly zero interest in Hillary Clinton and a bid for the White House.

Like whom? Democrats?

In her case, it is. That might be true for polls taken during the exploratory part of the campaign cycle, when potential candidates are testing the waters - like a frickin’ year ago. Now, we *know * who the candidates are, and including anybody who isn’t one looks more like a neurotic obsession than genuine curiosity.

But what the hell. The longer it takes for the RW hate-media yammerers to realize she really, truly isn’t running, and isn’t plotting to rig the convention to draft her, and isn’t somehow going to declare martial law and suspend the election and get herself and Bill back into permanent power, the better it is for Kerry. Might as well leave 'em alone.

You’re a jackass. Not to mention a vandal.

What!? How the hell is that vandalism? You can reset the channels in two seconds if you’ve got such a fucking hard-on for Bill O’Reilly.

And 9% of Democrats said they would vote for Bush.

I’m a bit more cynical. I think it’s Fox’s way of poisoning the poll. Let’s say that they rotate the names, or whatever, but Hillary is always first, or first if the voter is “undecided”. That reminds all of the Hillary/Clinton haters, “Wait, that’s right, if I vote for Kerry/Edwards/Clark I might get stuck with Hillary as a VP. I don’t want that!” It would also tend to explain why the Dems consistently lose to Bush in the Fox polls but are at least competitive if not winning in most of the other polls. On the bright side, they can’t poll everybody and most folks who watch Fox exclusively have already decided who they’ll vote for, or are smart enough to know when they’re being baited (see the 10% of unsure Pubbies in that one poll).

Oh, I should also point out that all these polls show is how the popular vote would go if it happened right now. The only way to have an idea how the actual election will turn out would be to break out a poll by electoral college, adjust for inaccuracies and unknown future events*. It’s likely to be a close one anyway you slice it.
*Events like finding huge caches of WMDs in Iraqi, photos of OBL and Hussein on a fishing jaunt aboard the Monkey Business, photos of Dick Cheney in a Dominatrix outfit whipping PotUS while he wears a choke collar and leather, etc.

As long as he’s not showing a nipple!

What are you basing this on? Anecdotal info or something substanitive?

Well, the poll data might get you headed in that direction. But I’m more apt to guess (and it’s purely a WAG without more data) that the Dems voting for Bush is an indication of people who are registered Democrat but have gone over to Republican Presidential candidates since Reagan or earlier.

There is a subset of Democrats who like to have a Republican president, to cut their taxes, but a Democratic Congressman or Senator, to bring the spending back home. Classic example of this would be West Virginia, which voted for Bush over Gore (336,475-295,497) in the 2000 Election, but whose State House is 75-25 Democrat to Republican, State Senate is 28-6 Democrat (the Republicans gained one State Senator), 2-1 Democrat in Congress (gained one Republican seat) and have 2 Democratic Senators, with the Robert “Pork Barrel” Byrd as the re-elected incumbent Senator. Of course they might have just been really disenchanted with VP Gore. It will be interesting to see if they stay Republican at the Presidential level in the 2004 election. (Clinton carried West Virginia in 1992 and 1996, so maybe Gore is just that dislikable, or Bush II is very popular there).

I think it’s the equivalent of an ISP blocking spam. And SanibelMan has it right - if listening to the mindless crap that Fox spews out is your notion of how best to keep yourself “informed,” then add the fucking channel back into the lineup, ya’ moron. Oh, wait, most Fox viewers probably wouldn’t know how to do that, now would they?

The name Clinton (referring to either one) is the Republican/Conservative boogeyman. Has been for quite a while, now.

“Make sure to pray for the eternal damnation of all Democrats, little George, or the Clinton will come along and make you marry a man!”

“Eat your vegetables, little Karl, or the Democrats will have the Clinton come over and take away all your guns!”

“Wash behind your ears, little Paul, or the Clintons will make you buy a car that gets more than eight miles to the gallon!”

I’m betting those three probably sent a couple SDMB fundies into sweat-covered flashbacks

-Joe

A vandal? Are you truly that dense? Save your overblown sense of outrage for things that actually matter in the least. God almighty what a blowhard you are.