46% of Americans would definitely vote against Senator Clinton

[Clarkie1]

March 20, 2007

<snip>

50% of all Americans say they would definitely vote against Gingrich if he is on the ballot in 2008. That’s the highest level of opposition measured for any Presidential candidate. Senator Hillary Clinton (D) is in second place on this list—46% would definitely vote against her. No other political leader tops the 40% mark.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm

[bluerum]

1. How do you vote "against" someone. I always thought you voted for them. eom

[Clarkie1]

4. I've voted against candidates....it's the old lesser of two evils thing. nt

[Moochy]

8. Dont you remember ABB?

Anybody But Bush?

[bluerum]

14. Right. You vote for someone to vote against someone else. I see. eom

[NMDemDist2]

2. yeah but she only needs 50.1% to win

:hi:

[Clarkie1]

3. No, she needs the majority of electoral votes to win.

That's gonna be tough when only 54% of the country will even consider voting for her...doesn't leave much wiggle room.

[NMDemDist2]

5. true, but all the recent elections have been very very close

Bill only won the frist time cuz of Perot :shrug:

[Clarkie1]

10. I'd prefer a Democratic landslide, but pehaps that just me. nt

[NMDemDist2]

11. wouldn't we all?

but for as much Hillary bashing that goes on around here, we could do worse as President.

a lot worse. Guliani comes to mind.

I am still hoping for Gore or Clark to jump in :eyes:

edit for stupid spelling

[Clarkie1]

17. About all that Hillary "bashing"

Yeah, we could do worse...but I will do everything I can to prevent the nomination of a candidate with a 46% disapproval rating.

Demcorats can do better. A lot better.

[Alexander]

23. That's some bullshit

When Perot dropped out for two months polls showed Clinton would've stomped Bush with or without Perot's presence.

[NMDemDist2]

27. sorry, you are correct

but don't need to be so freaking rude about it.

Bush started out strong, but Clinton came on in the summer b4 the elections.

however that doesn't negate my point of the recent elections and how evenly the nation is divided at this point

[BayCityProgressive]

6. wow

so basically...if it were Gingrich vs Clinton we would have low turn out and third parties for sure.

[Clarkie1]

7. LOL. I guess so. nt

[Greyhound]

70. ARGH, the nightmare scenario rears its ugly head...

And we start packing November 5th.

[xkenx]

64. When 46% of nation FOR SURE won't vote for her, she's in big trouble.

That means 54% might consider voting for her. That doesn't say they will. But if only 10% of those 54% possibles do not vote for her, she loses.
Just the war alone--a Rethug like Chuck Hagel who mostly opposed Iraq can expose HRC's support of Bush. Those negatives are really hard to overcome. Look around here and DKos; our own polling has HRC in single digits. 2008 is all about flipping red states. Assume she holds all blue states (want to bet about NH, PA, WI?) Red states, by definition have more Rs than Ds, so a Dem. must get a significant majority of Is in the red states to win. Gore and Kerry couldn't do it (male Vietnam vets with lots of experience), so what on earth is going to help Hillary win a red state, given their political makeup and her negatives. She is $100M of free advertising for the Rethugs to get out their base, and our base is barely lukewarm to her. Take time off work to vote for her?; go out in the rain or snow to vote for her? Positive passion gets out the vote, and we need it desperately. No wonder the Rethugs tout her candidacy so much; they are salivating at the opportunity to run against her.

[job777]

77. Sorry

Not worth the risk.

[natrat]

9. her whole campaign is a farce-a complete joke-a republican dream

[juno jones]

12. I have nothing against her...

...but for whatever lame reason she is divisive. Too much republican smear on that one. We need to start afresh. Well Gore isn't exactly fresh, but I see people lining up in droves to see him and the european governments love him too. I hope he runs. we could do worse..

[Clarkie1]

13. Gore would be an outstanding candidate. nt

[TreasonousBastard]

15. Sounds about right, I hardly ever...

hear anyone say anything positive about Hillary, and when her name comes up there are plenty of sneers and "ughs." There are lots of ressons for that, not the least of which is, well, Hillary herself.

But, from back in the Clinton White house, the smear machine did its job well and mention Hillary during the 90s and you got a "yuk." Noobdy could ever explain exactly why they didn't like her much, but they sure didn't think all that kindly about her.

Now, I think everyone's pretty much in the mood for a real change. It's not really so much about Hillary any more, but about cleaning the whole mess of 'em out. She's part of the past, and nobody's looking to bring the past back, even the good parts of it.

A nice, fresh, new broom to sweep really clean.

[JNelson6563]

63. Exactly!

You summed it up perfectly. People have been pounded with the smear campaign for so long it has worked. They don't like her and, though they may not know why, they are very certain about not liking her. This is what I wish the Clinton supporters would understand. We desperately need the swing voters in 08. These are generally people who are not much involved/interested in politics, just enough to somewhat follow what stories the media feeds them. Though far from equal to Freepers and other wingers they have consumed more than enough of the steady servings of the smear-the-Clintons campaign over the years to've absorbed it.

There's no denying or getting around it. I dread a Clinton campaign in the general. The airwaves would be literally saturated with the exact same crap we've seen these past 14 years or so. Ugh. The worst part is knowing how many would eat it right up and promptly go vote "against" that (2nd only to Bill) most evil of creatures, Hillary Clinton.

I know it's unfair but it's true and I would like to think everyone here is at least somewhat capable of seeing/admitting it.

Julie

[mmonk]

16. Doesn't leave much margin for error, does it?

[Miss Chybil]

18. Now when Rasmussen was coming out with polls that favored Bush

everybody thought they were biased. It's amazing how such accusations change with the subject of the poll.

[Colobo]

39. The guy was accurate, he deserves credit

[AtomicKitten]

19. And your non-vote makes that 46% plus one.

You're on a mission Clarkie1 and as a long-time Democrat I don't care for the ferocity of it.

IMO that level of energy is best spent fighting the GOP.

[Clarkie1]

37. Well, you can think of it as fighting the GOP

By preventing the nomination of a candidate 46% of Americans are determined to vote against.

[msongs]

20. 54% WOULD vote for her - BTW this exact topic was posted days ago here nt

[cascadiance]

41. How do we know that?

The 46% quoted here are the ones that definitely won't vote for her. There are probably many others that lean against her even if not in the definitely no category. Keeping that group to under 4% would be tough. That is a BIG definite no answer.

[NobleCynic]

73. That does not logically follow

How that is phrased, it is not an either or question. Therefore 46% saying definitely no is not 54% saying definitely yes.

[mzteris]

21. you're really beginning to

chap my hide.

And I LIKE CLARK.

Enough with the Clinton bashing already. Whose payroll are you on anyway?

[Clarkie1]

22. This has nothing to do with Clark. And Frankly, your hide doens't concern me. nt

[mzteris]

26. But as a "Clark supporter"

you should be concerned.

I LIKE CLARK - but your attitude *could* turn people off of him.

I'm jes' sayin' :shrug:


I think you're being very short sighted. Or very well paid.

[Clarkie1]

29. I support Obama, if you don't like it, tough. nt

[mzteris]

30. Then why's your name "Clarkie1" ?????

Ohhhhhhhh - I get it. . .

It's part of the OBAMA vs. Clinton BS that's been made up to discredit BOTH of them...


Edit to add: I like Obama, too.
AND
I like Gore.
I like Clinton.
I like Clark.

I like ABaR (Anybody But a Republican!!!!!)

You should be doing the same instead of denigrating Democratic candidates. Unless, of course, you had another agenda, hmmmmmmm????????

[Clarkie1]

32. You are way off base.

I've been here for several years. I started out as a Clark supporter in 04'. Of the "top three" candidates at the moment, Obama is my favorite.

How is posting a poll denigrating? I'm providing useful information. Do you really think that Democratic Primary voters shouldn't take into consideration that Senator Clinton has the greatest percentage of Americans determined to vote against her?

And that's just one reason to vote against her. The OP is a public service announcement for the Democratic Party.

[Clark2008]

48. Face it, Clarkie.

The only DUers who get accused of this crap are Clark supporters. A Kucinich supporter - a Gore supporter - a Richardson supporter, etc. could have posted this poll and no one would have said a damn thing.

I don't know why that is, but some people here think the only reason we Clarkies don't like some of the other candidates is because we support Clark and that's not true. I can't stand Edwards, for example, and I wouldn't vote for him with or without Clark in the race. It has nothing to do with Clark - I just think Edwards is a snake-oil salesman. :shrug:

[Clarkie1]

55. I hear ya.

I think I'll give the Hillary "bashing" a rest for awhile....although I fail to see how posting a poll can be considered bashing, or pointing out that Obama got where he his on his own can be considered bashing.

I just hope we nominate someone who can win, protect the constitution, and will fight for progressive values. That's the bottom line.

[mzteris]

66. nope

You keep missing the part where I keep saying I really like CLARK. I think he's probably one of the most intelligent men I've seen in a long time.

I liked him the first time I saw him on tv and I didn't know who he was or what party he was or anything. I told my husband, "I don't know who that man is, but HE should be President."

I like them all, fwiw. I don't like everything about all of them. I like some things and dislike some things - but I'm NOT going to bash any of "OUR" candidates. It just ain't right, doncha know.

It's bad for DU and bad for the Democrats and it's just bad form, period.

[mzteris]

65. you denigrate her

every chance you get.

How is that good for anyone?

If you have to sling mud to get ahead, there's something wrong. And in the process, you make your own "candidate" look bad.

As my grandpa used to say, if you can't say something good about someone, then don't say anything at all.


What are you going to do if she does get the nomination? Vote for the 'pub candidate - or not vote at all? Which is essentially the same as voting for the 'pubs.......

You can claim that your venomous attacks are "just information" but they way in which they are worded show your true colors, I'm afraid.

[MadHound]

78. Umm, this is the primary season

It is when the party decides who they want, and yes, things get ugly. Asking for people to play nice is both pollyannish and unrealistic. I guarantee you that the Hillary campaign isn't going to play nice, and neither will any other.

Deal with it.

[AndyTiedye]

24. Hillary Clinton Cannot Win With Such High Negatives

Nobody has ever been elected with negatives so high, and negatives NEVER go down, only UP.
The Repiglican media will make sure they go WAY up.

If Hillary Clinton is our nominee, we can expect a Repiglican landslide, and the loss of the House.
(We will already have lost the Senate by then due to Lieberman's impending defection).

[NAO]

42. High Negatives AND Low Positives from her own party

While Repubs HATE her, many Dems are ambivalent or negative about her.

If she is nominated, there will be another Repub in the WH in 2009.

[PresidentObama]

49. Thats a bold prediction.

Whats the justification of that prediction? A poll a year out? ;)

[PresidentObama]

25. Oh yeah? 86% of DU likes to attack her for anything she does, good or bad. n/t

[pampango]

28. Now that percentage is more reliable than some of these other

poll results. ;)

[PresidentObama]

31. Which is very unfortunate. n/t

[Clarkie1]

35. No it's not.

Nominating our strongest candidate is serious business. It would be unfortunate if there was not criticism of her. I will support who I believe to be the best and strongest candidate for the general election, while at the same time doing everything I can to hurt her chances of winning the nomination.

Nominating a candidate that 46% of Americans are determined to vote against is lunacy. And it's not like people haven't got a chance to know her....the opinions have hardened.

[PresidentObama]

43. No one, to my knowledge, is asking for limits on criticism of HRC.

"I will support who I believe to be the best and strongest candidate for the general election, while at the same time doing everything I can to hurt her chances of winning the nomination."

:eyes: At least your honest.

And I don't buy into polls. Especially this far out. If she is hated that much she won't be leading the Democratic candidate polls for much longer, right? I will agree she is polarizing to a degree, but 46% seems a little...out there.

[Miss Chybil]

54. Support who you like. If they're any good, you don't have to bash anybody

else. They'll win, naturally. When you have to stoop to bashing, it means you've lost - or do not have - confidence in your own candidate. It's kind of like being a bigot. You have to put other people down to make yourself feel better.

Spend your time trumpeting the value of your choice for the nomination and you're time will be well spent. And... don't bother saying you "only posted a poll," you've posted your true motivation here:

"...doing everything I can to hurt her chances of winning the nomination."

[Clarkie1]

58. Kudos for your idealism.

I used to be like that.

Politics never seems to turn out that way thought, does it?

I didn't post that as my only motivation. She's the frontrunner, and there are several candidates I would prefer over her. I think it is more likely than not she would lose the general election. So yes, I want to do everything I can to hurt her chances of winnning the nomination so a better candidate will...at the same time, I will positively support candidates I believe would be a better choice.

[AZBlue]

33. ONLY 86%?

Seems a little low to me....
:crazy:

[nashville_brook]

59. even DU'ers don't like her -- she'd be a disaster candidate

[AZBlue]

34. Negative surveys are the cornerstone of the GOP.

And that pretty much sums up how accurate and reliable they are!

[heatstreak]

36. Let's hope Al Gore is reading this

[PresidentObama]

45. If he is...Run, Al run!!

And you too Wes!!

:rofl:

[Gman]

38. I'll take a 54 - 46% win any day.

There's at least 35% that will vote against any Democrat.

[Clarkie1]

40. Well, so would I.

Problem is the 54% aren't all sure things.

[PresidentObama]

44. You pretend like these polls number won't change again and again. They will. n/t

[Clarkie1]

51. They will, however...

I would point out that Senator Clinton is one of the most, if the the most, well-known figure in American politics. The better known the individual, the less likely opinions about them are to change, irregardless of the merits of the opinions.

[xkenx]

69. Only 5% of the 54% who MIGHT vote for HRC have to vote R, and she is toast.

That is why high negatives are the sign of a loser.

[mtnsnake]

46. That's good news for her. Last year it was something like 75% so she's doing marvelously

At the rate she's improving, the percentage will probably be down to around 15% by next Spring, according to my math, so you know what that means....President Hillary.

[PresidentObama]

47. Oh no, mtnsnake you said two words that don't go together on DU.

President Hillary

:evilgrin:

No dessert after dinner for you. DU has put you into time out!!

[mtnsnake]

50. I don't knwo. The way the stars are lining up, it almost looks inevitable

If this huge improvement is true that Clarkie1 is reporting, it might be curtains for the rest of the candidates.

Now get me my dessert, will ya. :evilgrin:

[Clarkie1]

52. Do you have a link for that? nt

[mtnsnake]

53. No just a VCR

I think I heard it on television. Anyway, I said "something like" so it could be off by a few percentage points one way or the other. Man, I never thought she'd be down to 46% this soon. Imagine where she'll be next month. Probably around 39%. Ya think?

[Clarkie1]

56. LOL. Too funny. nt

[Learn2Swim]

71. I hope this was a joke...

[Learn2Swim]

72. in November, her negative ratings were at 40%

I did just a little light digging, and this is what I came up with. Most data coming from their "Hillary Meter", which has been around since the end of 2005 I believe.

As of Nov 6, 2006:
Thirty-nine percent (39%) of Americans say they would definitely vote against Senator Clinton if she is on the Presidential ballot in 2008. Thirty percent (30%) say they would definitely vote for her, while a quarter of respondents (25%) say their vote would depend upon who she runs against. These numbers have remained largely unchanged since the last survey. In every edition of the Hillary Meter, a plurality of Americans have said they would definitely vote against the former First Lady.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Hillary%20Meter.htm

As of May 26, 2005, from CNN:
(CNN) -- More than half of those responding to a new poll said they would be at least somewhat likely to vote for Sen. Hillary Clinton if she runs for president in 2008.

But those saying they are virtually certain to vote against her topped those virtually certain to support her by 10 percentage points in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.

The poll found 29 percent were very likely to cast a vote for Hillary Clinton for president and 24 percent said they were somewhat likely.

Seven percent were not very likely and 39 percent said they were not at all likely. The margin of error was plus or minus 5 percentage points.

The poll found her on stronger ground than in June 2003, when a similar poll had as its respective numbers: 21, 21, 12 and 44.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/26/hillary.clinton/index.html

Don't let the facts stand in your way.

[NobleCynic]

74. Really?

Huh.

If she can keep that trend going, maybe my reservations about her electability will fade. The question does follow as to whether or not that is because of her actions or increasing public discontent with the administration.

If it is due to her campaigning, kudos.

If it is due to general disillusionment with the Republicans, then those same numbers will likely apply to any Democratic candidate.

[Learn2Swim]

75. No. Not Really. He pulled the 75% number out of his ass.

That's the problem with the interweb. Someone says something with conviction, and everyone lines up taking it as fact.

Research the post above yours for the FACTS. It doesn't even make sense that ANYONE not named shrub could get anywhere close to the 75% mark. Think about it. Use the ol' noggin. Hell he's fucked up our country, and ruined world opinion of us, all while breaking the law, and he's only in the mid-60's. Hopefully that puts at least some things into perspective.


Jeez people.

[NobleCynic]

76. Oh, I'm not taking the number as if it were written testament in stone

I really need to remember to throw more sarcasm gifs in my posts. (After the "Huh." would have been most appropriate.) Or phrase it better in the first place.

Regardless, I'm simply stating that even if it were true, I'd question whether such a shift is a general shift regarding preferences toward Democrats in general, or truly representative of her campaigning. And considering her campaign so far, I'm hard pressed to buy it's her.

[w4rma]

57. Let's please not nominate her. (nt)

[doc03]

60. That is exactly why I hope she does not

make it through the primaries. I would vote for her myself if that is who we are stuck with but she just has too many negatives to win. I think if she is our candidate it will be the biggest blowout in history. I felt that John Kerry was a very poor pick in 2004 and even more so about Hillary for 2008. I voted against Kerry by voting for Kucinich in the Ohio primary but the vote in Ohio was meaningless since the MSM had already selected Kerry by then.. I am afraid the MSM is doing their best to set us up for a big loss again by selecting Hillary in 2008.

[Faryn Balyncd]

61. Who wants another president who supports the perpetual military occupation of Iraq?

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

[skipos]

62. One of the many reasons that HRC should not be our nominee and

Newt should be the Repub nominee. Or Mitt, as he is pretty beatable too.

[Learn2Swim]

67. it amazes me

that some people still seem to think that this won't matter, if HRC were the nom. And some others will probably act like this is news, and that we can't trust this kind of poll this far out; when the fact is, she's always had high negatives. They simpy aren't going to dissappear, and I see her as the candidate that would have the most difficult time in changing public opinion of her. People have had their minds made up on Hill for about a decade. It is what it is

[Forkboy]

68. The real question is which way it's trending

For all I know from the one poll that 46% could be lower than before...or it could be higher.Most polls in and of themselves are useless. :shrug:

[MadHound]

79. This will only get worse,

Especially if we're not out of Iraq by election time. If Hillary gets the nod, and we're still in Iraq, the anti war left will abandon the party in droves, either voting third party or staying home on election day. Sorry, but if that happens, the Dems can kiss the White House, and probably their Congressional majorities goodbye.

[catgirl]

80. The GOP wants Hillary to win the primaries

Ghouliani will stomp on her in the Nov. elections. All the dirt will
come out. I'm afraid to say Obama may have the same fate. Edwards,
Clark and the best candidate-Al Gore will be hard for them to beat. If
Gore and Clark don't enter the race, and Edwards drops out, I hope John
Kerry will reconsider his decision not to run.

[BoneDaddy]

81. WOW

what a surprise. Duh.