Clinton's White House hopes hit by poll

[T_i_B]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1802228,00.html

Almost half of Americans could never bring themselves to vote for Hillary Clinton in a presidential election, according to an opinion poll published yesterday which shows how much of a struggle the former first lady faces.

The CNN poll will alarm the Clinton camp after finding that 47% of those questioned would "definitely not vote for" the New York senator - a negative score that towers over the two Republicans most favoured to oppose her in the 2008 election. Only 30% of respondents said the same about Rudy Giuliani, and 34% about John McCain.

"This is the kind of number that only goes up as campaign controversies accumulate," said Larry Sabato, the director of the Centre for Politics at the University of Virginia. "It would mean she'd have to run a near-perfect campaign in the best possible circumstances in order to win. "Is that impossible? No. For all we know there'll be a Democratic landslide. But the last one was in 1964. They don't happen very often."

The fading hopes of some Democrats that Al Gore might mount a challenge from the left of Ms Clinton will fade further with the news that he scored worse in the poll, with 48% negatives. Ms Clinton did, however, have the highest positive number, with 22% saying they would "definitely" vote for her. The worst performer of all was Jeb Bush, who received a 63% negative score, though he is highly unlikely to put himself forward.

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. I don't want any more Clintons. Once was enough.

[still_one]

3. I agree, and I don't want anymore bushs either

once was too much

[yardwork]

19. Bill Clinton was a good president, over all

He was too conservative for my tastes, and his ethical behavior left a lot to be desired, but overall his presidency didn't cause a lot of harm and arguably did some good. It was a million times better than what we have now.

That said, I don't care for Hilary as president. She's even more conservative than Bill, and she's a divisive figure (much of that due to the right-wing and not her fault, but true nonetheless). We need a stronger candidate, and then we need to watch those voting machines!!!

[BenDavid]

52. Sadly, three are people

who think eight years of peace and prosperity was a disaster. How can we win when we hate winning and winners?

[still_one]

2. It is very simple, the people want NEW BLOOD

they are tired of the same business as usual

and even though Gore is NOT understood by most people, and got a very raw deal, it would be difficult for him to make a come back, yet alone Gore and Clinton haven't even announced

[skipos]

5. People want "new blood" and that's why they favor McCain and Guiliani?!?

[still_one]

20. I didn't say people were not deluded, because

both guiliani and mccain ARE NOT NEW BLOOD, or even a new direction for that matter

[Master Mahon]

4. She brought it on herself

1. By not knowing or caring about the democratic base core beliefs.
2. By being a 'flip flopper'.

[niceypoo]

43. Her war position has driven dems away

She harps Bushes position on the subject.

[Demeter]

6. Too Bad: Didn't Say How Many Democrats Vote Nay

That would be the real shocker.

[snowbear]

29. Trust me... MORE Democrats than R-Thugs say Nay on Hillary!

Republicans are chomping at the bit to have her as our nominee!

But it won't happen.

Hillary knows what she's doing. She'll take every bit of money they want to toss our way.


And after her succesful re-election in NY.. she knows damn well that Democrats are going to need every red cent that "Rupert and the righties" are throwing at her!

Hill and Bill are going to have the last laugh when it comes to '08 fundraising for Democrats.

[Hippo_Tron]

35. I sure hope so

That would be great if she stayed out of the presidential race and donated her war chest to help other dems.

[wyldwolf]

7. The same poll looks worse for John Kerry and Al Gore

Hillary also gets a higher "defintely WOULD vote for" than both Gore and Kerry.

Regarding potential Democratic candidates, 47 percent of respondents said they would "definitely not vote for" both Clinton, the junior senator from New York who is running for re-election this year, and Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the party's candidate in 2004. (Poll)

Forty-eight percent said the same of former Vice President Al Gore, who has repeatedly denied he intends to run again for president...

Among all choices, Clinton had the highest positive number; of those polled, 22 percent said they would "definitely vote for" her.

Giuliani was next with 19 percent, followed by Gore with 17 percent, Kerry with 14 percent, McCain with 12 percent and Bush at 9 percent.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/19/poll.presidential/index.html

[T_i_B]

8. The Grauniad article did point this out for Gore

And they also mentioned that Jeb Bush did badly on this poll too.

[rinsd]

10. Article could just as well read Clinton has the most solidified base. (nt)

[Larkspur]

16. Wonder who they polled

what was the ratio of Dems-Republicans-Independents and under Independents what was the ration of conservative to liberal?

I'm no Hillary fan and am disappointed in Gore's scores. He's done a wonderful job since leaving office, but he hasn't been in the limelight much. His movie is doing really well, so wonder if those who have high negatives on Gore are ardent Repukes.

[Larkspur]

17. Are these polled the same who give Laura "Stepford Wife" Bush high

popularity numbers?

[Blasphemer]

22. Poll simply indicates who has been scrutined on a National level

Kerry, Gore and Clinton have due to the former's Presidential runs and the latter's stint as First Lady. McCain and Guliani haven't had that level of scrutiny nationally yet. Of course Jeb is in a class by himself whereby his name alone is enough to turn everyone but the staunchest right wingers off.

[Radical Activist]

26. Amazing how unpopular national leaders are.

On both sides. That suggests to me that first, neither party is offering what people really want. Second, anyone who is in the public eye for a period of time is going to be constantly torn down.

[Clark2008]

42. That's because Gore and Kerry are seen as "losers."

While, absolutely Gore won the election and possibly Kerry won the election, the sheeple only know what the corporate media shoves down their throats, which says each of the two lost their respective elections.

That's why their negatives are higher - they're considered "losers" and the American people just never seem to root for the underdog anymore.

Of course, I don't think Gore is going to run and I doubt Kerry will get the nomination. And, if Hillary does, well, the election is lost from the nomination because she won't flip any red states and she may even lose us Michigan and Pennsylvania, who's "redneck" factors rival the South and the mid-West in the rural areas (note: I'm in the South. When I say "redneck," I mean those who never venture outside of the corporate media for news and don't want to inform themselves).

[JimDandy]

9. If she's the party's pick, I'm voting for her. I've had enough of repugs!

:dem:

[Bucky]

46. I think 95% of DUers feel the same. The point is we don't want that choice

If you're falling out of an airplane, you're gonna hope your parachute works. But before we get to that point, some of us want to pick a more reliable parachute.

[AndyTiedye]

11. The Media Has Done Such a Job on The Democrats That No Dem Is Electable

That is really what this poll says.

We have had over 5 years of the biggest fuckup pResident in our history,
and yet our candidates are still polling far behind almost every Republican.
This is terrible news, not only for Hillary Clinton and Al Gore, but for
every other Democratic contender, for our party, and our country.

[bluethruandthru]

13. We need help!

There must be a "Karl Rove" type democratic strategist out there who can start leading this party! We need to cohesive, unified message to take to the voters and this has to happen now!
This should be Howard Dean's number one priority...find a strong party strategist!

[AndyTiedye]

14. Our Message Never Gets to the Voters

All the voters ever hear is the Republican message.
A lot of them don't like the Repubican message,
but it's all they hear, so most of them believe that
the Democrats would be even worse.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[noonwitch]

15. I still think Hillary can beat anyone the GOP will nominate

Unless they nominate Rudy or McCain, which I highly doubt will happen in either case. Rudy is pro-choice, so the base is not going to pick him. He will only win primaries in states with open primaries.

McCain is conservative, but for some reasons, conservatives think he's a liberal. I think it's over the whole campaign finance thing. He's more solidly anti-choice than Jeb, and supports the war.

But if they nominate someone like Santorum, Pence, Allen, etc.-Hillary can beat any of them. She could beat Condi, too, but Condi is too liberal herself to get the party's nomination. Not just that, but I hardly think that the party of the white male is going to nominate a black female for president.

I actually think a Hillary/Condi match would be great, as far as the debate goes and having a good choice. Both are smart, both are considered unlikable by the other side, and the issue of gender would then be removed from the debate. When all the racists like my grandpa don't vote, then Hillary wins in a landslide! Also, as my grandpa is one of those americans not on the USSC that gets to cast two ballots, it's two less votes for Condi. (Grandpa gets an absentee ballot for Grandma, who is in a nursing home and not legally competent to vote anymore, and casts it for republicans).

[enough already]

21. She can't beat ANYONE they nominate

Pukes will crawl out of the woodwork and stand in line for days to vote against her. It would be a landslide that would make Mondale's run against Reagan look competitive by comparison.

[LincolnMcGrath]

24. I agree

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[LincolnMcGrath]

39. That was a statement, not a complaint.

Now go on with your business of locking threads you disagree with.

[MoonRiver]

18. I'm hoping this is a sign she won't get the nomination.

Please, please.

[high density]

23. That doesn't matter...

Since most of us already knew that she'd turn zero red states blue (and turn how many blue states red?) in 2008.

[Doctor_J]

25. How do they know she is "hoping" for the WH?

[MODemocrat]

27. I' d rather have Hillary than Condi or any republican

But the way the democrats are crapping on their own, we're sure to get another republican.
Myself, I enjoyed not having a bloody war, and not worrying about my social security being yanked out from under me. Also was never treated like a second class citizen before the Bush debacle.....
Thankfully, I won't live long enough to see the complete demise of our once great country.

[Adelante]

28. She did no worse than Kerry and Gore

47% definitely not voting for Hillary Clinton; 48% definitely not voting for Al Gore; 47% definitely not voting for John Kerry

22% would definitely vote for Clinton, 17% for Gore and 14% for Kerry

22% would consider voting for Clinton, 17% would consider voting for Gore, and 14% would consider voting for Kerry

[sellitman]

30. I wonder how Russ would do?

He's my choice in the early going.

[Cocoa]

31. bullshit

this poll is meaningless at this point.

All most people know about Hillary is that they're supposed to hate her, they don't know why. Hillary will have a chance to overcome that.

[Awsi Dooger]

41. That's right

Hillary's positives would improve during the campaign and the number definitely against her would decline. Larry Sabato is an idiot for suggesting the opposite.

Why can't a moron like that be in charge of the betting lines so I can take advantage of him daily?

Hillary is not my top choice because I think a female in 2008 would still have a very tough time getting elected. But these posts that it would be a guaranteed avalanche defeat and doom for our party are asinine. If she lost it would be by a margin similar to Kerry's. We're guaranteed a floor minimum 45-46% no matter who we nominate, and Hillary would do better than that.

[babylonsister]

32. I think the repugs will be more alarmed than the Dems. nt

[populistdriven]

33. Lewis Black - how to elect the next president:

throw a dart at a map of north america,

air drop a monkey at that locaton

the first person the monkey touches is the president

[AtomicKitten]

34. Wait, isn't that how we got Bush?

No, I remember. He IS the monkey.

[Bucky]

45. How about nine monkeys? Oh wait, we tried that.

Well, five out of nine monkeys.

[Andromeda]

40. This poll is meaningless.

I've seen polls that showed her as the favored candidate. Another poll has Hillary with the highest positive numbers so how do you reconcile that?

[leesa]

44. Wakey. Wakey Hillary. No more Republican Lite. No more DLC

Corporate shills.

[Strawman]

47. Funny how some see this as a referendum on her politics

It's not. I don't agree with Hillary Clinton on some important issues, and she is not likely to be my choice in a presidential primary, but this is more the result of a successful personal smear job on hate radio and in the media that has unfairly painted her as an shrewish phony bitch driven by a powerlust than it is the result of her political statements or roll call votes.

Al Gore's politics seem to have changed, and he seems to be in tune with the mood of the country on the war and guess what? His "negatives" are still very high. How is that possible? Cuz he's still that annyoning "wooden" know-it-all sitting at the front of the class answering every question.

To me these polls reflect how much our electoral politics are based on bullshit celebrity/personality crap and horseshit "likeability" more than anything else these days. Mostly due to the lack of depth in media coverage of politics. They cover politics like they cover Brangelina. And here we are. So don't take the opportunity to jump on Hillary here, even if you want a more liberal nominee because I find little affirmation for public support of any political ideology in stuff like this.

[Triana]

48. HILLARY CLINTON never said she was running...

...so her "hopes" haven't been dashed. She has stated on at least one occasion that she has NO INTENTION of running -- so this article starts out wrong-footed right from the get-go.

The whole thing is moot.

[oasis]

49. I'd advise Hillary to run anyway and test the waters two years from now.

[Redneck Socialist]

50. Who the fuck comes up with this shit?

McCain? Giuliani? Dollars to donuts neither of those whack-jobs is going to be the pub nominee...

and Hillary isn't going to be the Democratic nominee either.

This is just media gas bags jacking off.

[Zhade]

51. What hope? She never had a chance.

Thankfully.

[roody]

53. If the Dems cannot come up with a candidate who

did not vote to give Bush war powers, they will not win.