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.
On one hand I want her to lose, on the other hand I want her to lose.
These polls are always inaccurate because they fail to poll the dead people that are a huge constituency and vote 100% democrat.
Sounds like the ad slogan for Verbal Advantage. Used to hear that advertised on Rush. How time flies....
...”There are no ideological reasons not to vote for Thompson. There are for Rudy.”
I’m sorry, but I cannot believe there are Republicans who would stay home in the event of a Giuliani versus Hillary! matchup. I think we could tolerate and survive 4 years of Giuliani, I do not think the USA as we know it would survive another Clinton in the WH. If it is Hillary!, I would vote for Snoopy the Dog over her. This is not time to be concerned about conservative-enough or not - this is a time to circle the wagons and defeat once and for all the Clintons. It’s that serious. Hillary Clinton is a clear and present danger to the USA and our way of life.
That was a long time ago in rutting years. He may have had some ladykiller qualities once, but lately he looks like Larry Tate.
In the latest Rasmussen Report poll Hillary trails Rudy by seven points nationally.
The 2008 presidential contest will be won in the "purple" and "light blue" states - NOT in the red states.
There can be no denying that, for the moment, conservatism seems to be in retreat. This could change (mostly through significant progress in Iraq that even the mainstream media could not ignore), but I still believe the Republicans' best chances for winning against Hillary will be through "turning" a few states that, until now, the 'rats took for granted.
The hardcore red states are NOT going to tip to Hillary or B. Hussein Obama. Does any more really need be said about this?
We need to go after "the mushy middle" in the purple states, voters who can be likened to fields of "waving wheat". That is to say, their politics and worldview seems to bend toward the general direction of political trends. Many of these "uncommited" and "independent" voters are nonpolitical in nature, or are simply unwilling to commit themselves. Too often they are influenced NOT by a particular candidate's positions, but rather by what OTHERS (read: the mainstream media) SAY about those positions and policies.
This is why the "drunk driving scandal" wounded G.W. Bush immediately prior to the 2000 election. It was a perfect example of how the media and 'rat strategists used the scandal machine to generate "winds of the media" to bend the waving wheat away from Bush and into their favor.
As much as the high-octane politiczed folks of FR enjoy deriding the "wheat voters" as "sheeple", it is the sheeple who hold the key this time around.
- John
Other than one aberrant poll result in Arkansas and close polls in Florida, Giuliani is solidly ahead of Hillary across the south. Sure, Rudy won't roll up Reagansque numbers across the south but he only needs a majority in a two-person match-up.
Your analysis focuses only on the two extremes and leaves out the key voting bloc: the moderates. For every conservative like yourself who won't vote for Giuliani, the Rudy people believe that they will pick 1+ moderate and most polling suggests that this is correct. Contrary to what you see with Freepers, current polling shows that the vast majority of conservatives will vote for Giuliani in a match-up with Hillary.
This primary season is an interesting one for me as a political junkie. Philosophically, I'm very much aligned with Fred Thompson. Strategically, I see Giuliani as the strongest general election candidate. It puts me in a quandary. Do I vote for the person most aligned with my political views even though his chances of winning the general election against Hillary are too close for my comfort or do I vote for the guy who is most likely to beat Hillary? I'm glad I don't have to decide today.
Other polling shows a lot of conservative voters are not aware of Rudy's liberal positions, and when they find out about those, they change their mind about supporting him.
Your analysis focuses only on the two extremes and leaves out the key voting bloc: the moderates
Pro-life and pro-gun are the key attractors of Reagan Dems. Rudy won't have those. And it does no good to run leftward when you can't bring your base with you and those to the left don't like your pro-war position anyway.
Some random thoughts:
Gore was not as popular as commonly believed, mostly because of his Alpha Male petty-antics during the debates.
Bush might have had a nice sweep, if not a cakewalk, were it not for the 25-year old DWI news released on the Thursday before the 2000 election. Bill O'Reilly gave it maximum coverage, probably more so than any other TV host. The coverage was devastating and put Florida in limbo for 35 days.
Gore lost ultimately in the electoral college, not the electorate. If Gore had not gone to the Supreme Court, he would have still lost because the Florida legislature was Republican.
Hillary had high negatives in her first run for senator from New York until the media made her a victim in a debate with Lazio as he tried to have her sign an agreement to refuse soft money. Lazio was accused of "invading her space." Hillary will claim whatever she needs to win.
The media will work overtime at sabotaging the GOP candidate. Look for the dirty tricks. Sometimes, they get caught as is the case of the Albany Times-Union where their reporter in the Spitzer police state scandal.
Principles mean little to liberals. They change them to suit their purposes more often than one can change a baby's dirty diapers. It really smells.
Republicans are now divided and demoralized, so they will run as soon as their candidate is attacked and attribute it to some internal tragic flaw. In other words, too many spineless conservatives will buy the liberal MSM line.
A Democrat in the White House, particularly one who has been there before, can do great damage for years beyond their incumbency. She knows the ropes, so she will instinctively and immediately set about to expand government and hire civil service liberals who have a habit staying on and undercutting conservative programs. Thay are difficult to remove. Witness the State Dept., CIA and even U.S. Attorneys.
The key to curbing social policy and other abuses is the Supreme Court. If Hillary gets elected, she will be able to appoint at least three justices, perhaps more. That will significantly alter the face of America.
United we stand, divided we fall. Compromises may be necessary to achieve victory.
.
Is that “sucker vote” the Lewinsky factor?
Your comma belongs inside the quotation. :O)
I strongly disagree that Guilini is most likely to beat Hillary. The only way that someone with negatives as high as Hillary wins--is to divide the Republican Party. Remember, Slick never got 50% of the vote either time.
Rudy continues his long, slow and inevitable slide as more and more Republicans hear the 'whole' liberal Rudy story. There are still many Republicans that do not realize how liberal he really is.
The best way to SPLIT AND DIVIDE the Republican Party WIDE-OPEN is to trash the traditional conservative base (with its values and principles) with a LIBERAL like Guiliani.
If you want to split the Party WIDE OPEN--a LIBERAL like Rudy is JUST THE MAN FOR THE JOB.
That’s her biggest hope.
BINGO!!! That is PRECISELY why it would be lunacy for the Republicans to nominate a liberal like Guiliani. No one can divide the Party better than Rudy.
Acc to various sources I've seen, the Hebrew word for lightning is barak.
As they were in 2006, these people are very nervous about strong conservatives. Here in my home state of Kansas, Jim Ryun was vilified for being too conservative. In Kansas, of all places.
Ronald Reagan was elected 27 and 23 years ago. The political landscape has changed dramatically in that time. In today's political environment, Ronald Reagan would have his hands full with billy jeff. Although the Gipper would win, it would be no landslide. Today's typical voter is closer to billy jeff than Reagan.
Bingo! I think that Ross Perot number 2 is Ron Paul. I know tin foil hat time.
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.