Wow, if only 50% are saying they wouldn't vote for her, it looks like Hillary is our next Prez

[mtnsnake]

The Clinton people must be celebrating after seeing the results of that Harris Interactive Poll where only 50% of voting age Americans, Republican and Democrat alike, are saying they wouldn't vote for her if she gets the Democratic nod. I thought it would be much higher than that, considering how it's so soon before the primaries and how most people being polled at this juncture in time are going to tell the pollsters that they wouldn't vote for ANY candidate that's not their OWN personal favorite candidate. It's only human nature. Once the primaries are over, you can bank on it that many of the same people saying "no" now would be saying "yes" once she got the nod.

Damn, I was hoping Obama would be our next president, but what the heck, the Goddess of Peace will make a fine president, too. I still can't believe that only 50% of Americans, Republican and Democrat alike, are saying "no" to her at this juncture of time, and she hasn't even won the Primary yet. If this Harris poll is accurate that was posted in another thread, it looks like we're looking at the first female president of the United States, folks. Kind of exciting when you really stop and think about it.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. LOL I love it.

ONLY 50% won't support her.

All I can say is give her time.

[Tellurian]

3. When she gets the nod from Martha Stewart...she's a lock!

[w4rma]

29. I'm confused. I can't tell who is being sarcastic and who isn't.

:crazy::freak::yoiks:

[Tellurian]

56. Of course, I'm serious..

MS has the biggest stay at home female demographic nationwide.

And the picture I posted is one of the best ones I've seen taken
of the Clintons together.

[MethuenProgressive]

2. "I can make data dance!" - my friend the stats guy

"More than one in five Democrats ...said they would not vote for Clinton"

Great spin was worked with the words above.
Applying opposite spin to the same data:
"More than 75% of Democrats said they would vote for Hillary Clinton."

[papau]

4. Interactive polls are internet polls - the actual percentage is high - 43% - that say

they would not vote for her - but that is not of "likely voters" as I recall.

Does anyone have a link to a real - not interactive - "likely voter" or "registered voter" poll on the "never vote for" question?

[flpoljunkie]

10. Zogby telephone poll of likely voters say 46% would never vote for Hillary Clinton

Poll: Over Half Say "No" to Newt; 46% Would Never Vote For Hillary

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

[papau]

57. Thanks :-)

:-)

[beyurslf]

61. It seems that somewhere around 45-48% would "never" vote for her in

the 2000 Senate race when she received 55% of the vote.

[Deep13]

5. Problem is...

...everyone has pretty much made up his or her mind. There is no room for movement. If nominated, how well she does will depend on who comes out to vote and in which states they are standing in. In 50% are already saying no, that means less than half are saying yes or maybe. A better result would be a third saying no, a third yes and the remaining third undecided.

[rpannier]

7. As I pointed out in another post

Her first run at Senator had her in the mid-40's
It's a year until the primaries
No one knows for sure who she'd run against.
I can say I'd never vote for 'Person X.' But if person X was running against someone I loathe (satanorum, brown-blech, etc) I'm voting for Person X

It's just too early to know what anyone will do.

[ShortnFiery]

8. And we have to also ask ourselves, "How much dirt are the right wingers

either digging up, filming now OR are going to make up out of thin air?" Any smear campaign will get the base of the Republican Party out *strong.*

IMO, if she truly cared about the welfare of our beloved Country, HRC would bow out and make it known that she's available for the VP slot.

No lie, HRC doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell. We will have a Republican President in 2008 if she can BUY her way into duping the Democratic Populace (and right wingers will come out in droves to vote for her in open primaries) to vote for her. :(

[rpannier]

6. When she ran for Senate the first time the polling put her in the mid-40's

faux news and dick morris were touting that being her ceiling and she'd lose.
They were wrong.
The majority of the people do not make a 'set-in-stone' decision a year before they vote.
There are too many factors to weigh.

[Laurab]

25. New York is a blue state.

I'm not surprised that Hillary won here. Polling in all the states is another matter completely. I agree that there are a number of factors to weigh, and that it is very early, but I fear that most people already DO have their feelings about Hillary "set-in-stone". I am still hoping one or two other people enter, and I also think that as Obama gets more exposure, his poll numbers will grow.

Although I have nothing against Hillary personally, and she makes an okay senator, I believe she is as hated by the republics as much as * is hated by the dems, although in her case, she doesn't deserve it. It would be a huge thing to overcome, and I don't think she can do it. I really do believe she would be a great get-out-the-vote candidate, unfortunately, for the other party.

I don't think it's a given, by any means, that she'll win the primary, but if she does, I really hope I'm wrong. The one good thing is that the republic candidates who have announced are pretty pitiful.

[Captain Hilts]

53. Yes, it's blue, but Ind. suburban women turned out and voted for her. nt

[Captain Hilts]

52. HRC gets more voting points than polling points. nt

[rpannier]

63. Very true

BTW: Nice name.
Mook was a great outfielder and all around excellent baseball player (IMO).

Don't know if that's why you picked that name or not.
Just thought I'd mention it.

[SOS]

54. Which opponent?

Everyone thought Giuliani would run for Senate in 2000. Hillary would have lost against Giuliani in NY state.
Giuliani decided not to run and the Republicans had to run a complete unknown named Ricky Lazio.
And even against Ricky she only got 55%.

[rpannier]

62. I'm not sure she'd have lost

The marriage scandal was alive and his popularity was dropping as a result.

[bullimiami]

9. when given only 2 choices. Hillary or some (dee dee dee) Repug.

im guessing a number of those might reconsider.

[enough already]

24. Keep telling yourself that

Meanwhile, get ready to swear in another puke.

[ShortnFiery]

36. But Hillary is a dee + right wing votes in open primaries + your IMO, duped votes

===> HRC and the DLC are the "Dee Dee Dee" with a Republican President enjoying a landslide victory.


"Ding! Fries Ready!"

[skipos]

11. Tell me if you see a pattern here.

Clinton has the most money and name recogntion of all the Dem candidates yet...

Thompson 44% Clinton 43% CLINTON LOSES BY 1%
Thompson 37% Obama 49% OBAMA WINS BY 12%

Brownback (41%) Clinton (46%) CLINTON WINS BY 5%
Brownback (34%) Obama (49%) OBAMA WINS BY 15%

Gingrich (43%) Clinton (50%) CLINTON WINS BY 7%
Gingrich (38%) Obama (48%) OBAMA WINS BY 10%

Giuliani (49%) Clinton (41%) CLINTON LOSES BY 8%
Giuliani (46%) Obama (40%) OBAMA LOSES BY 6%
Giuliani (48%) Edwards (41%) EDWARDS LOSES BY 7%

McCain (48%) Clinton (41%) CLINTON LOSES BY 7%
McCain (44%) Obama (44%) TIED
McCain (44%) Edwards (45%) EDWARDS WINS BY 1%

You can see the details at Rasmussen.com. They were the most accurate pollster in 2006.

[mtnsnake]

12. I saw a pattern alright

...like in 2004 when they all predicted we wouldn't lose to a moron, and we did!

[skipos]

13. Please show me what 2004 polls you are talking about

These are the ones I saw...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry_hth.html

[mtnsnake]

15. Yikes, from the looks of that poll, I'd say Hillary is doing better than I thought

Unless I'm interpreting it wrong, looks to me like she's way ahead of where Kerry was, and we haven't even hit the primaries yet. Holy smokes, my guy Obama has an uphill battle ahead of him.

[skipos]

16. It seems to me like you are trying to find the silver lining

in the dark cloud currently surrounding Hillary's general election prospects. Hillary, with all her money and name recognition, underperforms lesser known dems (Obama) and equally known Repubs (Giuliani) and some how that's !!!GOOD NEWS 4 HILLARY!!!

Polls are not the end all be all, but there is no harm accepting the reality of the challenges that face Obama, Edwards, Hillary, and everyone else. Fantasyland !!!EVERYTHING IS GREAT FOR HILLARY!!! stuff isn't helpful to anyone.

[mtnsnake]

17. It's the other ones who better find the silver lining!

If Hillary is doing this well now, imagine how well she'll be doing AFTER she wins the Primary, if she does win the primary, that is. I wish I could find a silver lining in this for Obama, but it's hard, considering who he's up against.

One thing we know for sure is that the Republicans are going to do everything they can to try and sway Democrats into voting for someone OTHER than Hillary as our nominee. The Goddess of Peace is the LAST candidate that they want to go up against, although if Obama pulls it out, I think they'll be pretty scared of him, too.

[skipos]

19. Please explain the logic in your conclusions

According to Ras Clinton's fav/unfav are 50/48. Obama's are 54/36%. Rudy's are 66/29% How is that
!!!GOOD NEWS FOR HILLARY!?!

Hillary usually underperforms Obama and Edwards in head to head general election polls. Rudy and McCain thump Hillary by wider margins than they thump Edwards and McCain. How is that !!!GOOD NEWS FOR HILLARY!?!

Nader has hinted that he is very likely to run if Hillary is nominated. How is that !!!GOOD NEWS FOR HILLARY!?!

Jerry Falwell and other Republicans have indicated that they hope Hillary gets the nomination. How is that !!!GOOD NEWS FOR HILLARY!?!

Hillary loses to Rudy in blue state polls in NJ and PA. How is that !!!GOOD NEWS FOR HILLARY!?!

I posted a bunch of polls showing Hillary underperforming, and you said it was !!!GOOD NEWS FOR HILLARY!!! because the 2004 polls were inaccurate. I then posted a link proving that you were lying and you concluded that 2004 polls showing Kerry losing was !!!GOOD NEWS FOR HILLARY!!!

Either post some thoughtful analysis or lets just end the discussion.

[mtnsnake]

20. You believe Jerry Falwell and other Republicans?

Geez, skipos, that's not a good sign.

Anyway, I've gotta check out and get to work. I'm gonna be working until midnight as it is, if I don't get going soon! Catch you later.

[skipos]

21. I believe he knows the nutjobs who follow him, and what those nutjobs want.

And they want a Hillary nomination.

[Silence Dogood]

22. They want an Obama nomination..

lots easier to chewup before swallowing. Although, I am an Obama supporter, I see him faltering already due to his lack of experience in the political world.

[skipos]

23. Proof?

You can google that Falwell quote about his troops wanting a Hillary nomination, or you can look to the fact that Rupert Murdoch gave her some loot. Or the fact that MSM talks about her inevitable nomination.

I HIGHLY doubt that Repubs look at 20,000 people coming out to see Obama and say "Yeah, we want HIM to be the nominee" so I'd like to see some evidence for you conclusion. The fact that they have to dig up unpaid parking tickets as "dirt" would indicate they don't have a lot of great material to work with, other than his scary muslim sounding name.

Will they hammer Obama for his "lack of experience?" Sure. They did that to Edwards in 04.

If we saw a Republican candidate who according to the polls didn't have a lot of independent appeal, didn't do very well in general election matchups, had pretty high unfavorable ratings, and had 50% of voters saying they would never vote for him/her, would he want that person to be the Repub nominee? I would.

Well, it doesn't take much research to see that Hillary has all the makings of a weak general election candidate.

By the way, there was a thread over at Freerepublic about who they saw as the toughest to beat in the general election, and the general consensus what that it was Obama.

[Silence Dogood]

30. Your strong suit is naivete

tomorrow on "latest edition" there is a story of how Obama is treating his "best" friends. An old friend of Obamas' living in a car. The RW spin machine hasn't even started a world class smearing yet of Obama. He's totally unprepared and practically defenseless at this point in time. It's "The Silence of the Lambs", theme all over again.

[skipos]

55. Nice. You insult me and then fail to back up your claims.

Welcome to DU.

[Learn2Swim]

31. Incorrect.

All the righties I know want a chance to take down Hillary. Talk about an easy target. They've been stockpiling the ammo for the better part of a decade.

Obama, on the other hand, scares them, bc he isn't an easy target, and he won't be as easy to hit either. They have no arsenal for him. Add in the intangibles factor, (fresh face, new way forward, incredible orator, uniter, extremely sharp and well disciplined, etc.) and to that the fact that he has charm and charisma for miles, they become worried. HRC couldn't spell charm if you spotted her the c and the r.

Also incorrect on the Obama already fading statement. Hold tight, we've got a loooooong ways to go. Obama is going to surprise alot of people in this country before this race is over, even some of his 'supporters'.

On a related note, I think the right also fears FEARS Edwards. HRC is not a fear of theirs. HRC is their sworn enemy. Much moreso than Gore. Much moreso than Kerry. It would not be pretty.

From my viewpoint, HRC is the right's only hope.

[Silence Dogood]

32. Delusional

For cryin out loud, they saw him weak and unprepared for the LV gig. Maybe their plan is to take down our candidates one by one. Right now Bama is the most vulnerable. If you can't see that, you need an optician. The RWing doesn't care in what order they remove Democratic hopefuls, as long as their candidate is left standing strong at the general, they could care less who falls first and in what order.

[Learn2Swim]

33. so you think...

"the LV gig" is going to determine the race for the Dem nomination?

Hilarious.

[Silence Dogood]

37. Every day

I ask God, why do I attract the the blind morons..

[Learn2Swim]

42. then perhaps you should query her

on why it is the blind can't lead the blind?

You're better than this. Show it in your posts.

[Silence Dogood]

45. It's done

so give it up already. Your just blowing smoke and trying to confuse people with your own delusions projected on the unsuspecting, the way things really are.

Obama is in a peck of trouble and you don't really care!

[Learn2Swim]

46. I see

that you are unaware of what the term 'conversation' means. It also seems you struggle with taking (good, free) advice.

Oh well. I tried. Good day to you sir

[laugle]

58. LOL, that's what the

"Ignore" button is for......

Welcome to DU!!

[Learn2Swim]

35. Most vulnerable

in the general to me, would have to be the ONLY serious candidate from ANY party with unfavorables matching or bettering said person's favorables. Pretty simple really.

[Silence Dogood]

38. Ignats..

He has to make thru the primary... hello!

[Learn2Swim]

39. Then why are we talking about any of this?

wtf are we here? Because NOBODY has made it thru the primaries yet, nor will they for some time to come. Hillary is not the nominee, not by a long shot. Not yet, anyway.

[Silence Dogood]

41. You stuck your nose in my conversation

you can take it right out again without prejudice.

[fooj]

50. Since when has OBAMA been YOUR guy?

I've yet to see you start a thread re: Obama. Interesting.

[mtnsnake]

65. WTF are you whining about now??

Obama has been my favorite candidate from the day he was rumored to become a candidate. I started some threads about him a while back, just not any recently. If you wanna find them, search for 'em.

Good gawd if your not crying about Hillary your crying about something else. Jayeeeeezus!!

[Silence Dogood]

14. with the +/- moe for Clinton, it's a non-starter-

[Double T]

18. FIRST FEMALE PRESIDENT OF THE USA..............

who is ALSO a DEMOCRAT. I suggest 'WE' wait for the debates to be finished before 'WE' begin the coronation.

[PresidentObama]

26. mtnsnake. What are you up to now?

:evilgrin: Stirring the pot, I see? At least you tell the truth in doing so. It's hard to get angry at the truth, isn't it?

[mtnsnake]

47. Who me?

Just tellin it like it is, kind of.

At least you tell the truth in doing so. It's hard to get angry at the truth, isn't it?

Damn right. There's nothing like the truth. Hey, you know what the t in mtnsnake stands for. :evilgrin:

[JNelson6563]

27. In other news we've increased the chocolate rations

from 8 to 6 grams. You're welcome.

[Learn2Swim]

28. you shouldn't be bragging about ONLY 50% unfavorables...

Those are actually QUITE TERRIBLE. AWFUL.

Shrub has fucked this country up six ways from Sunday for six plus years, and he still is about 64-66% unfavorables. And he is a walking talking embicile.

If we nominate Clinton, we are gonna get rolled. She's almost as unpopular as our most 'unpopular' (and easily biggest idiot) president in the modern era. And she hasn't stepped foot into the office yet. That's pretty astounding. I can guaren-damn-tee you shrubs numbers looked NOTHING LIKE HILLARY'S before he took office.

It takes hard work to get numbers this bad. And when your company is Newt and Shrub, well, I think that says it all.

Hillary is a guarenteed 'W' in the R column come November '08.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Learn2Swim]

43. Perhaps you should reread my post...

and try some entry-level math. UN-favorables

Oh. And quit trying to be such a dick. You could end up a victim of your own success.

[Forkboy]

34. Someone needs to hire you for PR pronto!

You're wasting your skills on us here at DU. :)

[mtnsnake]

48. hahaha, I'm hoping Obama takes notice

If I get the job, Forky, I want you for my first assistant!

[Forkboy]

49. Oh no...the public wouldn't want to hear what I'd want to say.

:)

[fooj]

51. BWAHAHAHA!

PR...BULLSHIT...I guess it's all the same to some.

[Faryn Balyncd]

44. First - - Female - - President - - to - - Advocate - - Perpetual - - Occupation - - of - - Iraq

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/14/washington/14cnd-clinton.html?ei=5090&en=205ac04e1a67b900&ex=1331524800&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1175106987-qdxdscPn5qtThb4YnEt6ZA

[Clarkie1]

59. K & R for visibility, not merit. nt

[ComerPerro]

60. you assume that the other half definately would vote for her

fifty percent disapproval is not a good thing. Ever.

[robcon]

64. I believe Hillary clinton will be our next president.

Great campaigner, great senator, great person.