Posted on 06/06/2005 10:29:04 AM PDT by West Coast Conservative
More voters in the United States would vote against New York senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in a presidential election, according to a poll by Rasmussen Reports. 41 per cent of respondents say they would definitely vote for another candidate if the former first lady runs for president in 2008, a four per cent increase since mid-May.
Rodham Clinton—a Democrat—was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2000, defeating Republican Rick Lazio by 12 per cent. She ruled out a presidential bid in 2004. 61 per cent of respondents believe it is very or somewhat likely that Rodham Clinton will be the Democratic nominee in 2008.
On Jun. 1 in an NBC Nightly News interview, former president Bill Clinton declared that his wife has not yet settled on a White House bid, saying, "I am quite confident she has not decided to do that, or, if she has, she hasn’t told me."
Neither of the two major political parties in the U.S. has ever nominated a woman for president. In 1984, New York congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro was Walter Mondale’s vice-presidential nominee in the Democratic ticket.
(Excerpt) Read more at angus-reid.com ...
You mean the centrist face isn't working.
The problem is that she wants everyone to think she has changed. But, she really hasn't.
I don’t know about Guiliani, but I’d take Hillary over McCain any day of the week – simply because he’s McCain and she isn’t.
Another Clinton non-lie. (Depending on what 'is' is.)
I think the surge may be due to left-wingers who are peeved at Hillary's attempts to come off as a centrist.
Given the recent turn of media stories against Hillary, I doubt she'll be the 2008 candidate. McCain will never win enough in the GOP primaries to be the nominee. Guiliani might, but his personal history will likely be his undoing if he tries (besides, no mayor of NYC has ever been President).
Wrong again. ;)
I think most Republicans would prefer a real conservative.
I vote for neither. I write myself in..
"Cliton" library? Hehehe!
Yeah, it's an "interactive" library; not all the books are colored in yet.
Hey, we won in 2004. That should be good enough for you, shouldn't it? Let's just savor the moment for the next four years.
/sarcasm
Rice / Brownback 08'.... The libs will never know what hit-um....
Santorum?
Why the heck can't we find a GOPer who's got credibility as a candidate?
First, this is Rasmussen. When a pro-Hillary group comes out with these numbers, like Quinnipiac, I'll pay attention.
Secondly, the Democrat is *not* going to be accepted by 40-45% of the public. Get that number above 50% and now you're talking significance.
Then statistically we're overdue.
"It's going to be Hillary vs. Giuliani or McCain."
Boy that will bring out the conservative and Christian conservative vote.
I hope she cries when she sees even worse pre-hype numbers (if she has tear ducts, that is).
Who commissioned the poll? That will decide whether or not I believe it.
No credible conservative GOP candidates because the Reagan/Bush leadership well has run dry.
I think that's Him!!
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.