Posted on 08/21/2007 6:04:36 AM PDT by PilloryHillary
No other candidate running for President in 2008 has a higher negative rating than Senator Hillary Clinton. Most polls currently show Hillary with a 49% negative rating.
Rasmussen Reports, who had one of the most accurate polling results prior to the 2004 Presidential race, has Hillary’s unfavorable rating at 54%, with a 45% favorable rating.
Gallup has Barack Obama, on the other hand polling at only a 34% negative rating. While Hillary is the current front runner for the nomination, Barack Obama is polling head to head better against top Republicans, and therefore could fair better to win the national election because of his lower negative ratings.
No Presidential candidate has ever won the Presidency with a negative rating as high as 49%. Yet Senator Clinton claims that her negatives won’t keep her from winning . While she blames her negatives on the "right wing" attack machine against her, it’s her trustworthiness, and authenticity that is also a key factor in her unfavorable ratings.
In 2000, Al Gore had overwhelming popularity and won the popular vote, yet it was not enough to win the national election, and he lost the electorate vote. In 2004, John Kerry’s negative rating was averaging 43% before the election. He of course was able to win the Democratic nomination, but he was unable to win the general election.
Polls indicate that Hillary is favorite to win the Democratic nomination. While not impossible to overcome these numbers, having such high unfavorables 14 months before the general election may not be a good starting point for Hillary. Many people have not yet begun to focus on the Presidential election this early, and negative numbers could increase as voters begin to focus on the candidates as the election draws near.
Currently, Hillary is struggling in some blue states against Rudy Guiliani. In Colorado, Rudy has a 10 point lead over Hillary. In Oregon, 52% of the states voter’s currently have an unfavorable opinion of the Democratic frontrunner.
In the latest Rasmussen Report poll Hillary trails Rudy by seven points nationally.
As the primaries approach, Democrats will need to consider her negative ratings as a factor in winning the national election. If her negative numbers continue to rise over 50% and she wins the Democratic nomination, she will have an uphill battle to keep her negative numbers from rising further during the national campaign.
OK now I’m conflicted.
On the one hand, I want Hillary to lose the nomination to spare us the chance of another Clinton presidency.
On the other hand, I want Hillary to win the nomination because I think she’s the only one we can beat in the current environment.
What to do?
Pray for a darkhorse...........
...I don’t think that any of the current field of dems can “win” an election, but they can back their way into the White House with a majority of the minority if the Republicans nominated Frudy McRomney.
That would be "could fare better", for those of you speaking English.
Judging by what’s available from the Republican camp, and how devided it is, I’d say she has a good chance at winning.
I’m curious how a reporter could write this article and fail to mention that her hubby won in 1992 with 42 percent of the popular vote. Hillary’s best chance is for a three-way race to allow her to win by plurality. Any article that fails to raise that possibility is rather lacking.
There is always voter fraud.
Hope she wins the nomination and the GOP doesn’t self-destruct by nominating a RINO against her. So we can kill off her presidential amibitions AND have a conservative (or at least centrist pubbie) in the White House.
She doesn’t have Obama’s FBI file.
The dems will rally behind her if she is nominated just as we will rally behind whichever knucklehead the gop nominates.
I look forward to the battle. I want her to win the nomination. It will then be a clean up or down war for the survival of the US... and of us. I have confidence that 52-55% of the American people (even factoring in all the dead and illegals who will vote for the Demon Bitch from Hell) will vote for life, will vote for survival, will vote to have a future.
Yeah, I "unapprove" of Hillary.
I’m curious how a reporter could write this article and fail to mention that her hubby won in 1992 with 42 percent of the popular vote.Worth repeating. Over and over and over again.
In a word, NO!
Hillary loses 98 states by combining McGovern and Mondale campaigns. Contrary to your facile dismissal of those you call Rinos, Republicans could lose by running a preacher, I think or by ignoring the candidates who have the executive experience advantage and fielding just another senator..
The Dems seem likely to have more money than the Repubs. That buys a lot of attack ads to drive up the negatives of the Pubs and a lot of soft and fluffy ads to drive down the negatives of Hillary. Throw in a billion dollars worth of puff pieces from the mainstream media on Hillary and this won’t be a cakewalk.
They're relying on Bubba to pick up the women's vote...which is how he won in the first place. You'll probably see him more and more as we get further into this. It's called the "sucker" vote.
HIllary does the "group" vote thing. She has the black vote via Bubba. She has the FEMALE vote via Bubba. She has the Hispanic vote via Bubba.
Gee...In the end, it looks like no one is really voting for Hillary!!
Correct. Say Giuliani takes the primary early and a conservative enters as an independent... that could be more than enough for her to win the election.
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.