Skip to comments.Hillary Meter: Makeover is Working, Only 43% Believe Clinton is Liberal
Posted on 04/07/2005 6:10:32 PM PDT by yoe
Scott Rasmussen has announced that he will begin to track Hillary Clinton's extreme makeover as she attempts to soften her liberal image and move towards the political center. If his latest "Hillary Meter" poll is any indication, Clinton is having success.
The latest numbers according to Rasmussen Reports:
--Currently, 43% of Americans view the former First Lady as politically liberal. That's down from 51% at the end of January.
--At the same time, the number who view Mrs. Clinton as politically moderate has increased from 27% to 34%.
--32% say that if she is the Democratic nominee, they will definitely vote FOR Hillary Clinton.
---37% say that if she is the Democratic nominee, they will definitely vote AGAINST her.
-- 26%) say it depends upon who she runs against.
Rasmussen notes that she still has only a 44% approval rating with 40% disapproval, and more women would vote against her, than for her.
Hillary is re-inventing herself as an anti-abortion, gun loving, military hawk with each passing day. Oh--and expect the God references to flow from Hillary as often as she can work them in. The extreme makeover is in full swing.
This is a brilliant idea by the veteran pollster Scott Rasmussen.
So according to you she will be President unless the Republicans nominate who? Can you give the name of three potential nominees? or at give three quality or issues for GOP candidate where he can beat Hillary Clinton? Let us hear your solution since you have been showing all the power of Hillary and all the problems of the GOP.
Given a choice between someone who says the right things and someone who is an outright enemy such as yourself, what do you thing working Americans will choose ?
Well at least now you semi-admit that you are shilling for hillary on FR.
Especially with your above comment that she would say the "right things" to get your vote, while you totally disregard her record, such as pushing through the pardon of the FALN terrorists.
1. Tough on illegal immigration. Tancredo tough.
2. Dump CAFTA. Tariffs on China.
3. Push the sodomite marriage amendment.
Problem is, I don't know if the open borders, globalist corporate GOP will support measures 1 or 2. But a GOP that didn't will surely lose in 2008. Issue #1 is a complete non negotiable. No matter what bilge Dane is spewing given a choice between a politician who at least recognizes a problem that is severely impacting the quality of life in the Southwest US and a corporate cheap labor globalist who spouts about "compassion for dishwashers", the American people will emphatically choose the former.
Given a choice between someone who says the right things on illegal immigration and someone such as yourself who actively wants to do the wrong things, what do you think the American people will choose ?
O.K. Sam now we know your agenda.
I guess what you must be thinking is that at least 20% of FR will vote for the candidate who at least says they are for rounding up criminal aliens and closing the borders.
I think that for about 90% of us, that is part of the equation, but to ascribe to those of us who share that sentiment that we would vote for Sen. Clinton for that reason alone and not consider other qualities is shallow.
If I do not understand your calculus, please straighten me out.
My agenda is warning the GOP to stop being foolishly complacent.
A cultural conservative/economic populist could sweep to power easily in 2008 and you are naive if you think you can beat Hillary with 1990's rhetoric. It didn't work in 1992 and it didn't work in 1996. Why should 2008 be any different ? What ammunition will you have then that you didn't have in 1996 ? Is there some new scandal to be dug up ? Or will independent voters just shrug, "there go the Clinton-haters again" ?
All Hillary will need is just one southwest state, which Dane's open borders policy will certainly forfeit for the GOP. Economic populism will guarantee Ohio. And as has been pointed out a smaller percentage of Americans are covered by health insurance today than in 1994 so national health care will become more and more of a winning issue for Democrats especially as the baby boom ages.
Maybe not Tancredo personally. But toughness on illegal immigration will be essential to carrying the southwest.
The side that is toughest on illegal immigration will win the 2008 election.
And hillary(or any other democrat, for that matter) is not that person, no matter how much you and the MSM wish it so.
Sheesh you guys and gals in hillary's basement are desparate.
Do you really think that Hillary gives a damn about the border issue? Are you sure she will push the Marriage ammendment? Are you sure that she will slap tariffs on China even though her husband administration was brought and paid for by China? Do you want a Candian Style Healthcare System, more gun control laws, higher taxes, and god knows what else cause she "talks" about the border issue? If so you have no brains...
Good post, I have a feeling the people who would turn on hillary would be women.
The other thing is I'm not so sure the Democratic party even wants her to run.. They have other people they can run, like some decent govenors. And they've got Kerry talking of running again..
Then John Edwards.. who I believe will sooner or later become President.. He is very smooth and sharp. Also much more moderate, not so much of an idealist.
Don't be ridiculous.
jveritas' question was about what a GOP candidate was to do, not what I expected any Democrat to do. No Democrat would ever support any sodomite marriage amendment. And there is strong bipartisan support for tariffs on China working its way through the Senate, even as we speak. We have a coalition of Christians appalled at Chinese religious persecution, displaced workers, hawks genuinely concerned about our industrial decline, etc.
And as for national health care, as the baby boom ages it is coming. Period.
Gun control ? The national Democratic party has dumped that completely as an issue.
And borders. Don't you think the American people will choose someone who says the right things over someone who actively wants to do the wrong things ? And there are alot of Dane-style open border types who essentially want to flood the American labor market with third world labor to drive the living standards of non-college educated Americans down to Mexican levels. Don't you think the American people have it figured out that "compassion" is not the least part of their agenda ? Don't you think Americans will choose someone who at least says they want to help over someone who actively wants to hurt them ?
" I think Hillary is smart enough to recognize the shifting consensus away from free trade at all costs globalism."
From her rhetoric she definately has picked up on that. But the powers behind the throne in the Democratic party are as pro-globalist if not more as the Republican party backers.
Having said that she can run on a moderately anti-globalist platform.. and tarriffs for blue collar workers.. then be a globalist when she is elected. No rule about that.
Talk is cheap.. Also her husband "promised" a middle tax cut and it never happend!
Look at the NAFTA vote. The entire Democratic base was against it. It only passed Congress with all Republicans and some New Democrats.
Free trade split both parties along class lines. But now the difference is that white collar professionals have learned that they are every bit as economically vulnerable as auto workers were. Any job that is done in front of a computer terminal can be shipped overseas.
Breaking news: Hillary was not running for President in 1992 and 1996.
Basically we got to have more regulations on business then??? We got to outlaw progress so people can work forever at a factory?
Exactly if the Republicans were as amoral as the dems, they would just run a candidate who says they are against too much Mexican immigration. Then do nothing on it when elected.
The baby boom is a reality. And it means national health care as they age, whether you like it or not.
And who in the GOP walks, rather than "talks" about borders ? A lot of people walk, but in the direction of open borders, amnesty, and guest worker programs. Do you see the corporate GOP allowing a nominee who supports real border security or do you see someone Dane-style who talks about "compassionate" guest worker programs that will "only take jobs Americans don't want" ? If that is what the GOP throws up in 2008 and I suspect that it will be, American workers will throw their lot behind anyone who promises to help them against someone who actively wants to reduce them to the Mexican standard of living.
Thank you for making my point.. It goes both ways for me..
Sorry I don't want to pay for a bunch of old hippies!!!
You're not making sense.
It doesn't matter. This is Apr., 2005. The polls are meaningless, because NOBODY except for the MSM has even thought about the next election, which is almost 4 years away. This is just an obsession by the media to write about something THEY consider exciting, but nobody else cares, one way or other.
Even if I thought Her Heinous was not a liberal now, it doesn't mean scratch when I seriously consider her as my next president, sometime in 2008. Of course, I couldn't seriously consider her for anything other than a well deserved jail term.
You obsession with the illegal immigration issue is making you create your own delusional world.
And hillary's "husband" also said he would be tough on China in 92, and then sold them military secrets for campaign contributions.
sammy must think we all must have short memories, like the jack asses he shills for.
It has gone beyond obsession for some people here. I have a feeling some these people are really trolls trying to divide us..
Thank you for reminding me about that..
Here is the thing, can they do better on the border yes. However, I'm not going to vote for a person who has empty promises..
sammy is also probably biting his tongue on hillary's "pledge" in 92 that her "husband" would "end welfare as we know it", as he vetoed welfare reform 3 times, exactly the same number of times he vetoed ending partial birth abortion.
Anybody here who claims to be a conservative yet supports Hillary is not a true conservative..
Agreed. There are some issues that are more important than the illegal immigration issue. Taxes, defense, right to life and abortion, free market versus socialism, conservative judge who hold the law versus liberal judges who make them on the bench, etc...
Yes they can, but hillary says a couple of throw away words and to some on FR shes the new political goddess.
I'm still waiting for hillary to show up and embrace the so-called minutemen.
She won't, like how she didn't say a word about Terri Schindler-Schiavo, but what the hey there are good Republicans to bash, in the meantime.
How about the threat to support her? Can that be the hammer that will drive home the point to the GOP? Do you think they even care? Then and after that it is not even about the WH, it is indeed about congress and the courts. Now the threat should be clear, do you agree?
That means 57% view the Hildabeast as conservative? Right? Sheesh, where is Darwin when you need him?
My country amazes me on so many different levels. No matter, if her broadbeam ever attains the presidency, the fecal matter WILL hit the rotating oscillator, big time.
If she really wants to prove she grew a brain then she'll run as a republican... ;)
Very well said. You will be surprised that at least 10% of Free Republic members do support Hillary because she said she will do something about immigration. It is pathetic beyond belief. But I am not worried because at least 10 to 15% of Free Republic members did not vote for President Bush and they do not vote for the Republican party because in their eyes the GOP is "not conservative enough".
"I suppose we'll see if Mr. Rove is as smart as everyone thinks he is."
I am not aware that Mr. Rove works for the Republican Party. I believe he's been solely with GW Bush, for several campaigns.
Whew final authority, I surmise you would have used the same point electing hitler or stalin.
With friends like you, who needs enemies.
However as you know Dane, if Hillary Clinton run for President cannot be the stealth candidate (Kerry tried and failed miserably) because she will be forced to give her opinion or lack of on every issue. And that why I keep saying if people think that Kerry was a flip floper then they have seen nothing yet when it comes to Hillary Clinton, she will be the butt joke of the country.
PS: I like your new tag line :)
Fortunately, the American people are more perceptive about the globalist agenda than you are.
It has already happenned. Already wages for construction workers have plumetted across the southwest. Why ? Illegals. Illegals are a globalist elite tool to reduce the American standard of living to Mexican levels. Or are you naive enough to buy the "compassion" slop that open border lobby types hand out ?
If its a choice between those who want to actively hurt American workers and those who even promise to recognize illegals as a problem, its no contest. Look at the Minutemen. The grass roots anger and sense of betrayal over "guest worker" and "only taking jobs Americans don't want" is spreading. If you want to be on the wrong side of it with Dane, prepare for a nasty shock in 2008 because, surprise, most Americans don't hate the Clintons as much as you do.
Illegal immigration and indeed the whole NAFTA, CAFTA agenda is about whether America will be a sovereign, first world country twenty years from now or will be run from behind fortified walls by the people Dane shills for. And if you think that an America of steadily dropping wages will wish to bear the economic cost of being a military superpower you are crazy.
The point I refered to is the issue of criminal aliens and open borders. I also wrote, THREAT. I think most of us on these threads heartily desire the GOP to take the issue of borders seriously and are looking for ways to make our point.
I can't believe you and your knee-jerk argument goes to the concept of Hitler as soon as you do. Why don't you just call me and the other 80% or better FR members who disagree with you on the border issue, NAZI's.
I been out and just getting back into the dialogue. Currently, the GOP nominee pool is thin in terms of national name recognition. GWB benefitted from his father's name. As much as it pains me, the strongest candidate the GOP can muster in a national election today is McCain. Unfortunately, he will have a problem making it out of the primaries. On the plus side, he is pro-Life, strong on defense, won his Senate reelection in 2004 surpassing Bush (77% to 55%) and he has a relatively strong conservative rating. He also has plenty of negatives, which could suppress GOP turnout. Age is also a problem.
Other GOP possibilities are Bill Owens, George Allen, Mike Huckabee, Bob Erlich, and Mitt Romney. Hopefully someone will emerge between now and 2008.
I agree that cultural issues could be used as wedge issues along with immigration reform and national defense. The GOP must continue to be the party of ideas. I would even use SS reform as long as it properly framed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.