TPMCafe: Two Polls in Two Days Say Almost Half Would Never Vote for Hillary

[flpoljunkie]

Two Polls In Two Days Say Almost Half Would Never Vote For Hillary

By Eric Kleefeld

Two for two: A new Zogby poll finds that nearly half of respondents say they would never vote for Hillary Clinton — the second poll in two days reaching that conclusion.

In today's Zogby survey, 46% of likely voters say they would never vote for Hillary Clinton — exactly the same number who said the same thing in a Rasmussen poll that was released yesterday.

The only Presidential candidate who does worse in this department according to today's Zogby poll is Newt Gingrich (who was not tested in the Rasmussen poll), with 53% of voters dead set against him. Al Gore is slightly less unpopular than Hillary, with 43% saying they would never vote for him, followed by Mitt Romney at 39%. Candidates like Barack Obama, John Edwards and John McCain had more respectable scores in the low 30's, with Giuliani at the lowest score of 29% — rankings that mirror yesterday's findings, too.

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/mar/16/two_polls_in_two_days_say_that_almost_half_would_never_vote_for_hillary

[skipos]

1. I am not surprised.

HRC would have the toughest time in the general election of all of our candidates, IMO.

[mrgorth]

2. Well,

maybe a better time than DK or Sharpton if he runs but that's it.

[Learn2Swim]

3. not much of a shock,

imo... and agree

[skipos]

4. I am an ABCer myself (anyone but Clinton). nt

[Carolina]

7. Love it!

ABCer.

Me, too. I can't even stand to hear her talk any more.

[Captain Hilts]

5. Same for Kerry. Same for Gore. W/o a Rep. candidate, it means nothing. nt

[flpoljunkie]

6. Why would the Democrats want to nominate someone whom 46% of LV say they'd never vote for?

New Zogby poll asks voters who would never get their vote—Gingrich, Clinton, Gore, and Romney lead the field

With the actual voting still a long way into the future, more than half of the American electorate has already made up its mind about who they won’t be casting ballots for in 2008 – 53% said they would never vote for Newt Gingrich, even as the Georgia firebrand continues to mull a jump into the field of Republican presidential candidates, a new Zogby International telephone poll shows.

The leading Democrat in the race can’t feel much solace – nearly half (46%) said they have an aversion to voting for New York Sen. Hillary Clinton. In a national Zogby telephone survey of likely Democratic primary voters in late February, she led the field of Democratic presidential candidates at 33%. It’s no surprise Clinton has been written off by a vast majority of self-described conservative (70%) and very conservative (79%) voters, but even among moderate voters, 42% said they would never cast a vote to put Clinton into the White House.

Another potential candidate attracting a high percentage of antipathy is Al Gore – 43% said they would never vote for the former vice president and 2000 presidential candidate. While Gore has not officially jumped into the 2008 presidential fray, his documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” has kept his name in the headlines as opposing sides clash over global warming. Gore may also have some trouble wooing moderate voters – 39% have already made up their mind they would never vote Gore in 2008.

The telephone survey, which asked likely voters to indicate who they would never vote for from a field of 10 potential and declared presidential candidates, was conducted nationwide from March 7-9, 2007 and carries a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percentage points.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1263

[Captain Hilts]

11. Because 58% of moderate voters say they just might vote for her.

Without a definite Republican candidate, these numbers just float a bit.

Plus, HRC has a closet vote. She has always received more votes than polling points.

I worked in political polling for 8 years.

[flpoljunkie]

14. Interestingly enough, Zogby does not share your view regarding the moderate voter.

It’s no surprise Clinton has been written off by a vast majority of self-described conservative (70%) and very conservative (79%) voters, but even among moderate voters, 42% said they would never cast a vote to put Clinton into the White House.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1263

[Captain Hilts]

16. If 42% of moderates say they won't vote for her, that leaves 58%.

So, 58% of the contested voters say it is possible that they'll vote for her.

[flpoljunkie]

17. Zogby evidently considers this 42% number to be considerable. That is the point.

[Carolina]

8. I think HRC

AKA Her Royal Clinton is being foisted on us, or shall I say being designated the anointed one, by the media twits who want to see Democrats go down in flames (again!) in 2008.

We need fighters who will speak plainly, call a spade a spade in our leadership. We need new blood!

[Captain Hilts]

12. I think Obama is the latest Annointed One, nt

[Colobo]

13. Viva Obama!

[msongs]

9. Zogby poll says 54% WOULD vote for hillary and that makes her the winner :-)

so all the (fill in the blanks) in the anti-hillary crowd will have to find another reason to dislike her.

Do the math, 46% will not vote her still makes her a winner (50% plus one).

And she won't beat our brains out with her bible either. That's a big plus.

Unfortunately, Howard Dean is still my first choice, but that is not likely.

Msongs
www.msongs.com

[flpoljunkie]

15. No, Zogby did not say that. What he said was that 46% would never vote for her. That does not mean

the remaining 56% would vote for her. Perhaps they would, if she were the nominee, but we do not know.

[PATRICK]

10. Even though the percent of hardened

dislike is critical when talking about national vote margins and making a crucial effort all the harder and less rewarding for the party, this particular poll is still on the surface. What kind of negatives and how strong? Who are the people by groups? Who more susceptible to holding their nose or changing their mind?

The "more respectable" low scores might mirror how diehard the GOP and RW indoctrinated masses are against any Democrats and how (naively or generously) open Democrats are to GOP candidates based on that same constant MSM spin. Instinct and calculations like these tell me that Sen. Clinton, as bashed unfairly as she and all Dems in the background have been, is suffering more from this revolting pro GOP bias inculcated by the media- and any disability or retreat on the part of Dems in dealing with it as symbolic of their "failings". A ham sandwich like Romney can overcome his negatives more easily by gulling the masses according to the system than Hillary. Unfortunately, she seems set with her advisers on a frontrunner course reminiscent of others whose response to fixed negatives and the scariness of actually losing grounds to rival party candidates is to make things even worse. or at least in not being able to manage the media machine perception that caused her most of the harm in the first place.

People might get to like Hillary once she is "in" and doing good, but never the hardcore and never the MSM machine as it is. That raises governance and electability issues that studious people(like ourselves) find deeper than even the hardened mass prejudices, related from different angles and all across the board. WITH media help, on the other hand, there has been the longest time a yearning for a GOP "maverick", some male hero type, and a really naive readiness to go for a McCain until so much two-faced evidence has been thrown in our faces that love finally turns to hate. Hagel, unfortunately is getting the benefit of this recurring weakness of mind. But for the masses, it generally automatically works for the GOP and not the Dems unless there is lots of grass roots approval of the good Dem in action or outrage at the Republican tyrant. Enough to overcome the wheedling spin of the public news dis-services.

At this point, this state of affairs is unfair across the board to Dems but so damaging to Hillary as to kindly suggest that voters, given a fair choice, won't have the mindset to try her for any reason or ideological motivation. Yet she could still very conceivably win the primaries with the backhanded help of the same corrupt system that has crippled her, win the presidency in spite of it all and maybe govern well with a democratic majority in both houses. Most Democrats are NOT in the mood for a the largest "in spite of" factor, especially after the last two times.

At this time there is no overwhelming Democrat(or new exciting entries) who can overcome the poll bias created by MSM propaganda or party failure unless one can look deeper into the who and see crossover from the GOP biased group and the possibility of change among saner people opposed for one reason or another. And that doesn't mean it will happen when voting time comes.

[AshevilleGuy]

18. Dosn't matter, unless Gore comes in, she is the annointed one. n/t