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 Hillarys 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 wont keep her from winning . While she blames her negatives on the "right wing" attack machine against her, its 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 Kerrys 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 voters 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.
No other credible candidate does that better than a liberal like Rudy.
Actually, it's the divorced female and never-married and divorced male vote that goes for the Clintonoids, as I recall. I believe Mrs. Ankles and the Dems have no general edge among women per se. What there is between Dems and the GOP is a "Marriage Gap."
What the Chappaqua Mafia represents is a coalition of those who have given up on the moral life. Unfortunately, among the divorced and never-married population, such victims of their own despair seem to have a majority.
Local Republican organizations need poll watchers. New York City Repubs with the Guilianni political campaign worked with Rikers Island Guards to provide muscle to protect poll watchers and lawyers (shutting down voter fraud in an inner city polling place can get very ugly very quickly), telephone banks to dispatch lawyers with injunctions in hand (banks in undisclosed location) etc. to limit voter fraud. Worked well, any Republican orgs that are worried about it should contact New York republicans regarding.
You’ll hear arguments on both sides. My opinion: No. Bill Clinton cannot serve as Vice President. The VP nominee must meet all the criteria of the presidential nominee. WJC is disqualified having served his 2 elected terms in office.
Others will tell you that he could still “succeed” to the presidency. In short, if the Dems tried it there’d be a Constitutional fight.
If the Electors from New York cannot vote for Bubba, he cannot be elected Veep, under any realistic electoral math.
-the question IS can 51% win her the election?
If a voter hates both Hillary and the GOP candidate, that person may hate Hillary less.
I agree with earlier posters who said that the biggest threats a Republican nominee faces in 2008 is a conservative third-party candidate who emerges because of dissatisfaction with that nominee.
I tend to agree with that statement. Al Gore would hold all the blue states.
Contrary to what many on this forum think, Giuliani will hold all the southern states against Hillary. That would not be true in a race with Al Gore. I don't see where Giuliani would make up for these lost red southern states against a perceived moderate Democrat like Gore.
In a battle of the Tennesseans, Gore would have an advantage in that he would have a large block of electoral votes in the blue states already locked up. Thompson would be defending more vulnerable states and Gore could really go on the offensive in battleground states. Given the current political environment, Gore would have a very good shot at carrying Ohio against Thompson. Gore came within 537 votes of carrying Florida against another southern candidate so you have to say that Florida is within his reach. Gore would probably get New Hampshire this time. The other state that I think that a moderate Democrat like Gore could pick up with hard campaigning is Missouri.
Huh?? "Overwhelming popularity"???
People judge you by the words you use.
I'm sorry, he would not hold Southern states and he would have a hard time pulling in blue dog Democrats. Rudy is pro-abort and anti-gun. That is a lethal combination for a GOP nominee. It means that person will not hold the base and will not attract Reagan Dems. And Rudy cannot run leftwards for more votes on a pro-war stance. He is boxed in by his past. The GOP would be suicidal to climb in that box with him.
With the help of the DiBold voting machines installed all over this nation, sure she can win.
Exactly!
Hillary’s best chance is to run a campaign so nasty, and drive up the Republican nominee’s negatives so high, that as much as voters dislike Hillary, they’ll hate the Republican more.
Sure. She’s got her Clintonista mouthpieces all over the place, she never tells the truth, and 85% of the news media is on her side. It should be easy.
I didn't write the article.
Re 1968, some say Wallace being in the race was a boost to Humphrey. Nixon even said in his book that Wallace took conservative voters away from him. Nixon’s margin might have been larger. He almost certainly would have carried TX so his electoral college margin would have been larger. Without Wallace in the race Nixon thought he would have taken an outright majority of the popular vote too.
I agree, but mainly because he is Constitutionally ineligible for the office (I hope).
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.