Poll: Thumbs Down on Prez Hillary Clinton

[rlg94086]

Darn these early polls! Hopefully, the Democratic party doesn’t pay any attention, because I was looking forward to a Rebublican victory against Hillary.

newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/25/113250.shtml?s=et

By a margin of three to one, Americans say they would “definitely” vote against Hillary Clinton for president, a CNN/Gallup poll released Tuesday has found.
While just 16 percent say they had made up their minds to back Clinton when she seeks the presidency in 2008, 51 percent say there’s no way they want to see the former first lady back in the White House.

 

[Ortho]

rlg94086:

Darn these early polls! Hopefully, the Democratic party doesn’t pay any attention, because I was looking forward to a Rebublican victory against Hillary.

newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/25/113250.shtml?s=et

The article says 60% of men would vote against her, and 43% of women would vote against her. That averages to 52% voting against her.

How does that translate to, “By a margin of three to one, Americans say they would “definitely” vote against Hillary Clinton for president,”

 

[gilliam]

Among registered voters, 48% would consider voting for New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for president in 2008, including 16% who say they would “definitely” vote for her. Fifty-one percent say they would “definitely” not vote for Clintonpoll.gallup.com/Library/opt_print.gif poll.gallup.com/Library/opt_email.gif January 25, 2006

Hillary/Condi Polarize Electorate

But Clinton more objectionable to Republicans than Rice to Democrats

by David W. Moore

GALLUP** NEWS SERVICE**

PRINCETON, NJ – A new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll finds the two women who are most frequently mentioned as potential presidential candidates of their respective parties are each opposed by about half the electorate. Among registered voters, 48% would consider voting for New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for president in 2008, including 16% who say they would “definitely” vote for her. Fifty-one percent say they would “definitely” not vote for Clinton.

Follow link for tables:

poll.gallup.com/content/?ci=21103

 

[gnjsdad]

Ortho:

The article says 60% of men would vote against her, and 43% of women would vote against her. That averages to 52% voting against her.

How does that translate to, “By a margin of three to one, Americans say they would “definitely” vote against Hillary Clinton for president,”

51% say they would definitely not vote for Hillary, while 16% say they would definitely vote for her. Fifty one percent is more than 3 times 16%.

Incidentally, Newsmax is not being accurate with its claim. The Gallup Poll says 48% would consider voting for Hillary, a number which includes the 16 who say they would definitely vote for her. She does have a bit of a problem with the high “definitely not” percentage. She is a polarizing figure, for sure.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

gilliam:

Among registered voters, 48% would consider voting for New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for president in 2008…

This is high enough to scare me.

 

[rlg94086]

Well, I would have posted a link from CNN since it’s the CNN/Gallup poll, but I couldn’t find the poll on CNN.

What I did find on CNN was this gem from Molly Ivins, but she’s a right wing kook.
cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/20/ivins.hillary/index.html

Molly Ivins: Not. backing. Hillary.

AUSTIN, Texas (Creators Syndicate) – I’d like to make it clear to the people who run the Democratic Party that I will not support Hillary Clinton for president.

Enough. Enough triangulation, calculation and equivocation. Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone This is not a Dick Morris election. Sen. Clinton is apparently incapable of taking a clear stand on the war in Iraq, and that alone is enough to disqualify her. Her failure to speak out on Terri Schiavo, not to mention that gross pandering on flag-burning, are just contemptible little dodges.

The recent death of Gene McCarthy reminded me of a lesson I spent a long, long time unlearning, so now I have to re-learn it. It’s about political courage and heroes, and when a country is desperate for leadership. There are times when regular politics will not do, and this is one of those times. There are times a country is so tired of bull that only the truth can provide relief.

I think Ivins illustrates Hillary’s problem. She is reviled by conservatives and not trusted by the far left because of her pro-Iraq stance. That is why she has such a small “definitely vote for her” percentage.

51% say they would definitely not vote for Hillary, while 16% say they would definitely vote for her. Fifty one percent is more than 3 times 16%.

Incidentally, Newsmax is not being accurate with its claim. The Gallup Poll says 48% would consider voting for Hillary, a number which includes the 16 who say they would definitely vote for her. She does have a bit of a problem with the high “definitely not” percentage. She is a polarizing figure, for sure.

 

[gilliam]

Ani Ibi:

This is high enough to scare me.

These polls this early are really silly. 2.5 years is an eternity in politics.

 

[estesbob]

Ortho:

The article says 60% of men would vote against her, and 43% of women would vote against her. That averages to 52% voting against her.

How does that translate to, “By a margin of three to one, Americans say they would “definitely” vote against Hillary Clinton for president,”

52% to 16% that a little over three to one.

I think Hillary and the Democrats should ignore the polls. Run Hillary Run!!! Please Democrats nominate her! Please!

 

[rlg94086]

gilliam:

These polls this early are really silly. 2.5 years is an eternity in politics.

I agree, but I think a “definitely would not vote for” statement is pretty strong. I personally doubt that Hillary would be able to overcome the opinions of that group.

 

[rlg94086]

Make sure you tell the pollsters you would support her 1000%! Maybe we should buy Hillary 2008 bumper stickers…mmmmmmmmaybe not.

52% to 16% that a little over three to one.

I think Hillary and the Democrats should ignore the polls. Run Hillary Run!!! Please Democrats nominate her! Please!

 

[MikeWM]

gnjsdad:

Incidentally, Newsmax is not being accurate with its claim.

Goodness, that’s a shocker! Usually it is so accurate and unbiased

The Gallup Poll says 48% would consider voting for Hillary, a number which includes the 16 who say they would definitely vote for her. She does have a bit of a problem with the high “definitely not” percentage. She is a polarizing figure, for sure.

Yes, she is, but Bush has shown that polarizing figures can win, in some circumstances.

Who knows?

Mike

 

[estesbob]

MikeWM:

Goodness, that’s a shocker! Usually it is so accurate and unbiased

Yes, she is, but Bush has shown that polarizing figures can win, in some circumstances.

Who knows?

Mike

Bush was never a polarizing figure except for the those on the far left. Unfortunately for the democrats their party bought into that myth and it has cost them 3 elections so far,

Bush was elected with more votes that any President in the History of the United States-breaking a record that had stood for 20 years. Only in the minds of the tin foil hat crowd does that translate into being polarizing.

 

[MikeWM]

estesbob:

Bush was never a polarizing figure except for the those on the far left. Unfortunately for the democrats their party bought into that myth and it has cost them 3 elections so far,

Bush was elected with more votes that any President in the History of the United States-breaking a record that had stood for 20 years. Only in the minds of the tin foil hat crowd does that translate into being polarizing.

Ah, nice to see that your general demeanour to those you disagree with has improved so much since the last time I commented on it. ‘Tin foil hat’ crowd, eh?

If you don’t believe that Bush is a polarising president, lets just say it’s not me that’s deluding myself.

Mike

 

[legeorge]

OK, I kinda admit it. I wouldn’t mind the dems putting up Hillary for president. Cause I would just love to see Sen. Brownback get the republican nomination and blow Hillary out of the water! Aren’t I horrible?

 

[rlg94086]

Actually, accurate is the wrong word in this case. They were very accurate, but they were not complete - only told the part of the story that they liked.

While polarizing figures can win, Hillary has alienated many on the far left - see my Molly Ivins link. That will make it difficult for her. Politickin’ is a tricky thing.

Robert

MikeWM:

Goodness, that’s a shocker! Usually it is so accurate and unbiased

Yes, she is, but Bush has shown that polarizing figures can win, in some circumstances.

Who knows?

Mike

 

[MikeWM]

rlg94086:

Actually, accurate is the wrong word in this case. They were very accurate, but they were not complete - only told the part of the story that they liked.

Yes, fair enough

While polarizing figures can win, Hillary has alienated many on the far left - see my Molly Ivins link. That will make it difficult for her. Politickin’ is a tricky thing.

Oh, I agree. I’m not especially a fan of Hillary myself. You have to be careful of taking your ‘usual’ supporters for granted while you try to make a grab for some of the other guy’s territory - because ‘they have no-one else to vote for, so it’ll have to be me’ is a very dangerous mindset to get into.

Mike

 

[Al_Masetti]

When Hillary Clinton was running for Senate, some political pundit said that Liberals would do anything, … they would crawl over broken glass… to make sure she gets elected.

 

[estesbob]

MikeWM:

Ah, nice to see that your general demeanour to those you disagree with has improved so much since the last time I commented on it. ‘Tin foil hat’ crowd, eh?

If you don’t believe that Bush is a polarising president, lets just say it’s not me that’s deluding myself.

Mike

It is a delusion to claim that a man who recieved more votes than any President in the history of the United States is poloraizing.

 

[Philip_P]

estesbob:

It is a delusion to claim that a man who recieved more votes than any President in the history of the United States is poloraizing.

The man who won the second highest number of votes in history is John Kerry.

Come on, bob, what do you hope to accomplish by this attitude? It’s bad form when critics of Bush resort to name calling, slanders, and dismissive stereotypes of those whom they disagree with politically. It’s equally bad from when Bush supporters do the same.

Do you honestly believe that half the country is the “far left” or part of the “tin foil crowd?”

 

[jc-servant]

polarize

1. cause a division of opinion

-to make the differences between groups or ideas ever more clear-cut and extreme and harden the opposition between them, or to become ever more sharply divided and opposed

Given the definition above from the dictionary, I would say that Pres. Bush and Sen. Clinton could both fit in this category. Before someone starts flaming me over this opinion and accusing me of being on either the far left or right I would like to point out that I’m actually a moderate, lifelong Republican. I’m pro-life and a military brat, so Sen. Clinton would not get my vote if she stood on her head. However, I can see where the President’s actions and attitude have caused division.

This country is split down the middle and digging into our positions as the last presidential election showed. The “right fighting” I’ve seen on these boards over politics confirm those divisions for me. Merely having the most votes cast in history numerically did not equal a huge *percentage *of the population voting for Pres. Bush. The country was divided so equally that it came down to Florida’s electoral votes if memory serves. This was not a “Ronald Reagan mandate” type of victory. I’m afraid that the same thing is likely to occur in the next presidential election regardless of who the two major parties run because so many people are determined to be “right” and to prove that their party is “right” without ever conceding even one point to the other side.