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.
Of course, the other possibility of a Hillary victory is if the Republican candidate just isn't ready for prime time. The only possible candidate on either side who has been throughly vetted is Al Gore and to a lesser degree John Edwards. Like him or not, Al Gore did run a very viable campaign in 2000 and came frightfully close to winning. I still think Gore is the most viable candidate the Democrats could run.
Yes, she can win if she is able to have a large turn out of single women, who tend to vote democrat.
If the Republican Party does something totally stupid--like trashing its traditional conservative base by nominating a LIBERAL, Hillary can win.
If you want to DIVIDE AND SPLIT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY WIDE OPEN,,,,Rudy is JUST THE MAN FOR THE JOB!!!
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.
(Note to Bill O’Reilly — this is not a suggestion of harm for Chelsea.)
I think Algore could win, no matter who the 'Pubbies run.
But it would be hard to run a viable primary campaign without ever getting on an airplane. And Algore knows better than to get on an airplane if he's running against Hillary!.
The Viking Kitties would be preferable. At least they play with you a bit before the ZOT!
Grammar nazis have no mercy. I know, 'cuz I are one....
I think some of the negatives are on the left, who will go with her in the election.
I actually think that is an important part of her plan.
Even attempting to compare Fred to Dole is like comparing a fire hose to a lawn sprinkler.
How about “Fury”? He was dark. :)
My friend Flicka......
Depends on who the candidate is. If it is Rudy, Hillary wins. The party is too divided. If it is Thompson, I think the troops will rally to defeat Hillary if for no other reason. There are no ideological reasons not to vote for Thompson. There are for Rudy.
Never fear. The Clintons most likely have a Ross Perot II waiting in the wings with enough of a fake, know-it-all, conservative platform to siphon off enough Republican votes for her to win it. Add that to some manufactured “scandal” involving the Republican nominee at the last minute before the elections, after it’s too late for him to recover or disprove it - and there you have it - President Hillary Rodham Clinton - Her Highness Potentate. She wouldn’t be running without the assurance of winning. The danger is in underestimating how low they will go to win. Never forget it.
he won with 42% of the popular vote, because the conservative ticket was split between Dole and Perot.
Yes, I would prefer a good Zotting over being reprimanded by the grammar police. It’s much more enjoyable. :-)
We may be looking at a Hillary Presidency if something exciting doesn’t happen on the Republican side soon (are you listening, Fred?)
We’ll just have to wait and see.
“... there is a requirement that the nominees for President and Vice-President be from different states.”
IIRC, the Constitution says that a state’s electors (to the Electoral College) cannot vote for candidates for President *and* Vice-President if they are *both* from that state. As a practical matter, to prevent the possibility of a split Presidency and Vice-Presidency and for geographical balance, nominees for President and Vice-President historically have been from different states.
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.