Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Zogby Poll: Half Say They Would Never Vote for Hillary Clinton for President
Zogby ^ | October 20, 2007

Posted on 10/20/2007 11:22:06 AM PDT by keepitreal

While she is winning wide support in nationwide samples among Democrats in the race for their party’s presidential nomination, half of likely voters nationwide said they would never vote for New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, a new Zogby Interactive poll shows.

The online survey of 9,718 likely voters nationwide showed that 50% said Clinton would never get their presidential vote. This is up from 46% who said they could never vote for Clinton in a Zogby International telephone survey conducted in early March. Older voters are most resistant to Clinton – 59% of those age 65 and older said they would never vote for the New York senator, but she is much more acceptable to younger voters: 42% of those age 18–29 said they would never vote for Clinton for President.

(Excerpt) Read more at zogby.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2008; 2008polls; clinton; election; electionpresident; elections; hillary; negatives
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-124 next last
Hard to win when 50% of the voters will NEVER vote for you!
1 posted on 10/20/2007 11:22:08 AM PDT by keepitreal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: keepitreal

Didn’t stop Beezelbubba either time which should make us more nervous than them.


2 posted on 10/20/2007 11:24:11 AM PDT by Dahoser (America's great untapped alternative energy source: The Founding Fathers spinning in their graves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: keepitreal

And this from the left leaning Zogby Polls? Interesting.


3 posted on 10/20/2007 11:25:34 AM PDT by Dreagon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: keepitreal

Her hubby won with 43% of the vote.

Third party candidate at that time. Talk of the same this time based on who gets the Republican nomination. That’s Hillary’s ticket...


4 posted on 10/20/2007 11:26:07 AM PDT by tips up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dreagon

She does not need 50% of the votes to win. She just has to carry the right states.


5 posted on 10/20/2007 11:26:41 AM PDT by WakeUpAndVote (Got Towel?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: keepitreal
Her husband never got 50% and he was elected twice.

Time for the Clintons to dig up a third party candidate.

6 posted on 10/20/2007 11:26:53 AM PDT by USNBandit (sarcasm engaged at all times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: keepitreal

What I’ve been saying for year...the Shrew is unelectable in a national election. Let’s hope she gets the Dem nomination.


7 posted on 10/20/2007 11:27:29 AM PDT by SamAdams76 (I am 36 days away from outliving Freddie Mercury)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: keepitreal

Hard to win when 50% of the voters will NEVER vote for you!

Yes, but rats have their ways of finding, make that waking up, the needed votes.


8 posted on 10/20/2007 11:28:28 AM PDT by millerph
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: keepitreal
“Hard to win when 50% of the voters will NEVER vote for you!”

True, but I’m not sure that I believe the poll. Zogby isn’t above lying to us in hopes that the Right will lower its guard against advancement of the Antichrist.

9 posted on 10/20/2007 11:28:35 AM PDT by vetsvette (Bring Him Back)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tips up

We’ve just got to work hard to nominate a conservative. Iowa and New Hampshire are just around the corner. It’s time to stop worrying and time to start using the same energy we used to kill the amnesty bill into supporting conservative candidates. In my case it’s Thompson.


10 posted on 10/20/2007 11:29:12 AM PDT by mainerforglobalwarming
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76
What I’ve been saying for year...the Shrew is unelectable in a national election. Let’s hope she gets the Dem nomination.

That's what everyone was saying about Bill Clinton in 1991.

11 posted on 10/20/2007 11:29:25 AM PDT by gitmo (From now on, ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: keepitreal

Wait til the Clintons lure a third-party candidate like Ross Perot into the race - - then she won’t need 51% of the votes.


12 posted on 10/20/2007 11:29:38 AM PDT by Liberty Wins (Not only does Fred Thompson cut taxes, he cuts tax collectors.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: keepitreal

Wait till they hear her stump speeches every night on the news shrieking with that voice that makes you want to jab icepicks into your ear drums.


13 posted on 10/20/2007 11:30:23 AM PDT by finnman69 (cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestu s globus, inflammare animos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dreagon
And this from the left leaning Zogby Polls? Interesting.

Perhaps Zogby still holds Hillary's vote for the war against her.

14 posted on 10/20/2007 11:33:32 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: keepitreal
I hope those 50% still feel the same way on 11-08. Some of the GOP candidates do not do very well either. The problem is third party candidates that could cause Hillary to win with less than 50% of the votes. The next 12 months are going to be very interesting.
15 posted on 10/20/2007 11:35:44 AM PDT by Uncle Hal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gitmo

“That’s what everyone was saying about Bill Clinton in 1991.”

A valid point but she does not have near the charm that Bubba did. That said, a third party candidate with a following like Perot’s is still a scary thought.


16 posted on 10/20/2007 11:36:21 AM PDT by L98Fiero (A fool who'll waste his life, God rest his guts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: L98Fiero

Unless it’s Al Gore.


17 posted on 10/20/2007 11:37:30 AM PDT by mainerforglobalwarming
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: keepitreal

Oh well there are a host of illegals who will overcome that 50%. No well will be left untapped.


18 posted on 10/20/2007 11:37:39 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dreagon
And this from the left leaning Zogby Polls? Interesting.

All the more reason why the GOP must not choose Rudy Guliani, and instead opt for Romney, Thompson ... or ?

I wholeheartedly believe the mushy middle will support Romney the most, and Thompson to a lesser extent -- rather than vote for a shrill quasi communist like Hillary.

19 posted on 10/20/2007 11:40:32 AM PDT by Edit35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mainerforglobalwarming

“Unless it’s Al Gore.”

Hisortically, I just don’t get that lucky. ;)


20 posted on 10/20/2007 11:40:36 AM PDT by L98Fiero (A fool who'll waste his life, God rest his guts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: WakeUpAndVote

Exactly . She needs to pick off a Red state somewhere . I look for her to put a Red stater on the ticket , perhaps from Virginia or Ohio .


21 posted on 10/20/2007 11:41:08 AM PDT by Neu Pragmatist (Unite against Rudy ! - Vote Thompson ! - It's the only way to beat Hillary !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: finnman69

Especially that stump speech where she tells everyone they’re fat!

WASHINGTON - Hey, Tubby, step away from the Big Mac!

That would be the message from a President Hillary Clinton, who suggested Thursday that Americans are roaming eating machines whose belt-busting habits are adding to the country’s health woes.

“People now eat all day long,” said Sen. Clinton (D-N.Y.), comparing habits now to her childhood. “We had three meals a day. [Now] people walk down the street, they eat in their cars - they eat everywhere.”

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/10/19/2007-10-19_hillary_talks_us_eating_habits_at_health.html


22 posted on 10/20/2007 11:41:25 AM PDT by keepitreal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: keepitreal

I will point it out again. The men that are left in the US need to rally on this one.

Do not try to beat this woman by giving up all you believe in and accept a liberal male.

Stand up and fight her by standing for family and the security of the US, otherwise you will lose to a nanny state liberal whether there is a D or an R before their name.


23 posted on 10/20/2007 11:41:40 AM PDT by dforest (Duncan Hunter is the best hope we have on both fronts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
Wait till they hear her stump speeches every night on the news shrieking with that voice that makes you want to jab icepicks into your ear drums.

And then there's the Clinton Cackle:

Can you imagine having to listen to President Hillary for the next 8 years?

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

24 posted on 10/20/2007 11:42:14 AM PDT by Bubba_Leroy (What did Rather know and when did he know it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: L98Fiero

We did get luck with Reagan in 1980 though. Who was it John Anderson, a liberal republican that ran for president that year? I though he got 10% of the vote and Reagan still beat Carter by 10 points.
As for Gore I don’t think he’ll run either. If Nader ran and got 2 0r 3% of the vote that would be something at least. And He might if the anti-war left loses faith in Hillary.


25 posted on 10/20/2007 11:44:10 AM PDT by mainerforglobalwarming
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Dahoser

This is why she must “Perot” the election.


26 posted on 10/20/2007 11:45:35 AM PDT by Shady (The Fairness Doctrine is ANYTHING but fair!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: keepitreal
50% said Clinton would never get their presidential vote

Clinton can still get elected. Obviously, this poll did NOT sample dead voters - they don't answer the phone, and they don't respond much to surveys. But they do vote, and will vote in large turnouts for Hillary!.

27 posted on 10/20/2007 11:49:49 AM PDT by C210N
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: keepitreal
I've been saying this a long time now, but it's a real and present threat that Hillary become the next CINC. The problem is that the conservative base is split. Half will flatly refuse to vote for quasi-conservative (RINO) nominees such as Guiliani, Romney, and McCain (is he even still "viable"?). The other half will of course vote for whichever RINO gets endorsed by the RNC in fear simply to try to prevent Hillary from getting into office.

If a Guiliani, or Romney make it as a national nominee, the election is over. At that point, Hillary will have already won. There are too many of us who simply do not fear. We won't vote for RINOs, even knowing that it will likely tilt the election in Hillary's favor in 2008. For this, I've been called a leftist, stupid, a troll, and numerous other names. We'll vote for Duncan Hunter, Fred Thompson, Ron Paul...etc...etc...

But what do we call people who have been warned (according to my last paragraph) and yet continue to act blindly out of fear? It's obvious to me that the RNC is attempting to "steer" people, and is fairly successful with it... to the point of steering those whom they are able to.

50% of the voters doesn't mean anything. It's the electoral college who actually makes the decision.

One more time...IF a RNC RINO makes to the 2008 election, Hillary will become the 44th President of the United States of America.
28 posted on 10/20/2007 11:54:27 AM PDT by hiredhand (My kitty disappeared. NOT the rifle!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: keepitreal
she is much more acceptable to younger voters: 42% of those age 18–29 said they would never vote for Clinton for President.

I thought for a minute that I was reading The Onion. I haven't laughed so loud at a line in a serious news report in a long time.

I think this explains why the liberal media have been covering Hillary's financial scandals so much. They don't think she can win in the general election. But if she does get nominated, they will surely clam up.

29 posted on 10/20/2007 11:55:46 AM PDT by Rocky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: keepitreal

Not when self-important idiots like Dobson talk about backing a 3rd Party candidate. Combine that with the sanctimonious single-issue voter getting ready to “send another message” and you get Hitlery the First, Primer of the Peoples Socialist Collective of America.


30 posted on 10/20/2007 11:59:31 AM PDT by Redleg Duke ("All gave some, and some gave all!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: keepitreal

“People now eat all day long,” said Sen. Clinton (D-N.Y.), comparing habits now to her childhood. “We had three meals a day. [Now] people walk down the street, they eat in their cars - they eat everywhere.”

If she keeps this up, she is going to lose the fat vote.


31 posted on 10/20/2007 12:00:05 PM PDT by SusaninOhio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: SusaninOhio

“Approximately 23 percent of Americans are obese. An additional 36 percent are overweight.”

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB4549/index1.html

Yep, better not alienate 59% of the population!


32 posted on 10/20/2007 12:04:32 PM PDT by keepitreal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Redleg Duke

I’ve been trying to stay upbeat, but if she does win, there may never be another conservative in the white house. Everything that goes wrong in her first term will be blamed on Bush, she will start wars for political purposes, so she’ll most likely be re-elected. By 2016 the 20 million illegals, millions of convicted felons, will be given the right to vote. So I don’t see how having her in the white house is a positive for the conservative cause.


33 posted on 10/20/2007 12:05:14 PM PDT by mainerforglobalwarming
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: mainerforglobalwarming

If every single person who voted for John Anderson in 1980 had instead voted for “the incumbent” (not likely), Ronald Reagan would still have won both the popular and electoral vote.


34 posted on 10/20/2007 12:10:24 PM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: USNBandit

That is why we need to not vote for any 3rd party candidate, not matter what. If a third party does start to promote a conservative Christian, be warned, the Reform Party was ran by liberal homosexuals from San Fransico, though many thought it was just about Perot, it was a big front. It was Clinton’s people all along, and I suspect that it will be Clinton’s people again should a “Christian Conservative” decide to run on a third party ticket.


35 posted on 10/20/2007 12:13:17 PM PDT by rodeo-mamma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring
Oh, I believe Reagan would have gotten at least 55% of the vote. As for Nader, he might play a part in this election because many on the lunatic left are upset with Hillary’s stance on the war. Can he get 2 or 3 points, yeah. In states like Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvaina , he could be the difference maker.
36 posted on 10/20/2007 12:13:54 PM PDT by mainerforglobalwarming
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: keepitreal

Her national negatives have always been above 50%. Her fellow RATS are in fear of their lives if they mention it.


37 posted on 10/20/2007 12:16:21 PM PDT by ozzymandus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MojoWire

“All the more reason why the GOP must not choose Rudy Guliani, and instead opt for Romney, Thompson ... or ?”

I agree with you, we could be being fooled into picking Rudy because the Clinton people know that this will cause a back-lash. So people need to be smart and refuse to vote for Rudy at all, even though he has some good qualities, it’s not enough to be elected President as a Republcian, we can’t have a pro-abortion candidate, no matter how good they sound, because it will only cause a 3rd party, despite warnings to Chrisitans, people will not listen. So we must understand that.


38 posted on 10/20/2007 12:16:25 PM PDT by rodeo-mamma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: millerph

They will dig up the votes somewhere.


39 posted on 10/20/2007 12:18:24 PM PDT by Farmer Dean (168 grains of instant conflict resolution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SusaninOhio

She did say that “we” will have to take things away from you for the common good.Like your dinner.What next,the Food Police?


40 posted on 10/20/2007 12:20:58 PM PDT by Farmer Dean (168 grains of instant conflict resolution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76

perfectly electable with the proper application of revolutionary politics through staging off noose intimidation and other race and class baiting schemes. The party being led by Hillary Clinton and Rahm Emmanuel know all about revolutionary politics.


41 posted on 10/20/2007 12:21:37 PM PDT by kinghorse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: WakeUpAndVote

In this instance it would be the wrong states.

I am really tired of having the socialistic fascists in power in this country. They have monopolized the educational systems and almost entirely eliminated any libertarian or conservative thought as racist or intolerant.

They have successfully taken over the schools and are indoctrinating the youth. We are doomed if we do not take it back.


42 posted on 10/20/2007 12:23:19 PM PDT by 2ndClassCitizen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: keepitreal
Two things:

1) We know that conservative leaning people are usually under-represented in polls (not sure if that's as true for the "interactives" as for telephone), so the actual percentage could be much higher.

2)I believe there's a fair amount of the public who normally does not vote, but dislike her strongly enough to the point where they will make the effort to vote against her.

Did I say two? I meant three...Of course, the fraudulent/illegal/felon voting turnout will be massive, as will the first time twits who do not remember her previous Presidency, and think they are voting for student class president, not the leader of the free world. (Hillary promised better pizza in the school cafeteria and longer recess? Cool!)

43 posted on 10/20/2007 12:26:38 PM PDT by Mygirlsmom (Mrs Clinton! How'd your campain fund get so big????? "Ancient Chinese Secret!!!!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ozzymandus

Hillary is recognized as a ruthless person to those who she perceives as her enemies.

If she gets in power be prepared for some deep political persecutions to occur. This will not be pretty.


44 posted on 10/20/2007 12:27:15 PM PDT by 2ndClassCitizen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: L98Fiero
A valid point but she does not have near the charm that Bubba did.

But she has name recognition and people already associate her with the White House.

45 posted on 10/20/2007 12:27:58 PM PDT by gitmo (From now on, ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: keepitreal

“Hard to win when 50% of the voters will NEVER vote for you!”

Not hard at all. Hillary’s husband did it in 1992 with 43% of the popular vote, and again in 1996 with 49.2% of the vote.

In both cases, more than half the electorate voted for someone other than a Clinton.

All Hillary has to hope for is another funny-talking crazy Texan running as an independent to split the anti-Clinton vote again.


46 posted on 10/20/2007 12:29:03 PM PDT by bw17
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hiredhand
"If a Guiliani, or Romney make it as a national nominee, the election is over."

I like the way you throw in Romney there with Rudy. The case could be made that Fred is "quasi conservative" too. Refusal to state an opinion and say one is a Federalist could be interpretted as someone who isn't as conservative as they would like others to think, and this is their way of avoiding being called names. I guess two can play that game, so you are saying it's your way or the highway? That's nice, maybe we should all play that game. And what is it with this RINO insult? We are all individuals, people do think for themselves. That's really good, call names and isolate everyone. What makes you think you are the "real Republican?" It's just ridicules, do you have any idea of how dangerous the democratic party is? People can vary a little in their opinions, it does't make them fake. Meanwhile, while you play word games because people are individuals, you will help the traitor party to win. That's really healthy, there is nothing dysfunctional about that at all. Grow up.

47 posted on 10/20/2007 12:29:36 PM PDT by rodeo-mamma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: keepitreal

That’s 50% of the LIVE vote. She’ll get 100% of the DEAD voters support.


48 posted on 10/20/2007 12:31:18 PM PDT by Terpin (Missing: One very clever and insightful tagline. Reward for safe return!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: keepitreal
Huck Fillary!
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
49 posted on 10/20/2007 12:31:28 PM PDT by Bon mots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bubba_Leroy

50 posted on 10/20/2007 12:33:41 PM PDT by Bon mots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-124 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson