Hillary vs 
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.
Dick Morris' theory is that yes, Hillary has a 49% negative rating from the current electorate, but Hillary will supposedly bring in tens of millions of new voters: single women, unmarried or divorced and minorities. Let's see if Hillary increases the Dem vote during the primaries. Will she bring out more people to the Iowa caucuses? Will she bring out more voters in New Hampshire?
And if Giuliani wins the nomination and goes against Hillary!, you will, what? Not vote over “abortion”? While I appreciate your moral view on this issue, it is one issue, and in my opinion not voting for Giuliani against Clinton for this reason is, well, unreasonable. Or, do you not agree that the Clintons in the WH would endanger all of us?
I will write in a vote. And there are a whole lot more like me.
It may be one issue, but it is a make or break issue. If we do not respect life, we deserve what we get.
The Clintons in the White House would endanger us all. But people taking a “pragmatic” stance and dropping their convictions on an issue such as this is even more dangerous. As Luther said, to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. I fear God more than I do Hillary.
History shows the Clintons will prop-up a third party candidate if the going gets tough.
Remember, they are worried about the same thing on their side.
It is not impossible that Gore could run Green Party. I don't know how much he hates the Clintons, but he could think that by killing the "moderate" Clintons politically, once and for all, he could solidify the Dems to the left and lead the part to future victory.
Stranger things have happened...remember the Perot voters...
I have no “complaints.” I vote for a person who best represents my values. Murdering children in the name of choice is not one of my values. I can not hold my nose and vote on this one. If Rudy is the candidate, I will be writing in or voting independent. Case closed.
Not to throw garbage on the parade, but exactly how different do you see the voting records of Empty Suit Obama, Elitist Edwards and Shrillary?
They all represent the extreme of the Rat party. The rest is all about style and Shrillary will have her hate machine in full gear spying on everyone and using all federal agencies including the IRS as part of the Clinton machine.
Same as before. Just worse.
” Negative perceptions can be changed by emotional events.
America would soften toward Hillary, if, for example, her daughter were to tragically die and a grieving mother were portrayed.”
Pointing out the charade of politicians lives.
The average citizen can suffer the same loss, and must move on with their life. They are awarded any special status.
Yes, feel bad for her as a parent, but NO to anything else.
When Saddam Hussein paid the families of homicide bombers for each of the bombings that they committed, even though he did not personally carry out the act, was he or was he not guilty of complicity to murder?
When Rudy or any politician supports the continuance of funding and continuance in law of a procedure that barbarically destroys human lives, they too are complicitous to the crime of murder.
As far as your fallacious argument that a vote for a third party is a vote for Hillary, bull. It is a vote for a third party. The Republicans are not owed my vote. They have to earn it. If they do something as stupid as putting up a pro-abort as their candidate, against the party’s platform, I will take my vote elsewhere.
Your final comment is that Rudy isn’t your first pick, but if it is between Rudy and Hillary you will gladly pick Rudy. The facts are, it isn’t between Rudy and Hillary. We still have a free country and we have the rights to vote for whomever we wish. We are not limited to two candidates. We can write in whomever we wish and still be exercising our full rights as citizens. By saying Rudy isn’t your first pick, you are indicating that someone else is. By voting for Rudy instead of your first pick, you are allowing pragmatism to rule over your life rather than truth. When a nation does that, the person with the best sales pitch wins and truth goes out the window.
Sorry. I wish Rudy weren’t a pro-abort candidate because I like him in other ways. But this issue is important enough to me and to the life of this country that it is a hill worth dying on. And yes, having Hillary may test the literality of that comment.
But you know, it could just be a choice about how quickly do we die. If Rudy puts in pro-abort justices, which he may, then we go the way of Europe and a generation or two from now, it won’t matter any way. We will have aborted ourselves to unsustainable proportions. We will have had our chance to preserve our future (which may be too far gone as it is, but we have to try), and we will have chosen fear over foresight. We will have missed the opportunity of our nation’s life. And we will be judged accordingly.
I'm counting on Oprah backing her boy..and praying he takes the nomination away from Hillary. We can deal with that..
sw
Didn’t her part-time husband get in with just 42%?
Hillary vs
Voting for Stalin of voting for Hitler is still voting for a dictatorial thug.
You may not want to equate Rudy with either of the above, but then again, you aren’t a fetus.
You too, kempo.
A centrist pubbie has proved over an over to be as useless as a one-legged clothespin.
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.