Hillary Reaches Fifty
Alienating The Electorate
By California Yankee Posted in 2008 — Comments (38) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The Harris Poll finds 50 percent of U.S. adults would not vote for Hillary if she is the Democratic candidate for President. Even 21 percent of Democrats would not vote for her.
The New York Senator fares little better with independents - 48 percent say they would not vote for her, while 37 percent say they would.
Dislike of Hillary is personal. Those over 62 are more likely to dislike Hillary. Over half (54%) dislike her track record as a U.S. Senator and 60 percent feel the same about her track record as First Lady. Sixty-five percent of this group say they dislike Hillary's personal opinions and 61 percent dislike her as a person. More than half, 52 percent of respondents agree that Hillary does not appear to connect with people on a personal level, and this number is even higher among married women (53%), men (56%), those over 62 (68%), and Republicans (73%).
Things that happened during the Clinton presidency still hurt the Senator:
A plurality (45%) agrees that it is difficult to trust her because of Whitewater and other scandals in the Clinton White House, while 42 percent disagree. Similar numbers (44%) agree that her handling of health care in the White House raises questions about her ability and 34 percent disagree.
Read on ...
I'm sure there are many reasons not to put too much stock in these findings, but the last time I saw a Rasmussen Reports "Hillary Meter" only 39 percent said they would definitely vote against Senator Clinton if she is on the Presidential ballot in 2008. I'm also sure it's not wise of me to compare two different online polls from two different companies. Nevertheless, it does seem like quite an achievement when half of voting-age Americans say they are unwilling to vote for the current Democratic front runner.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Hacking John McCain — Comments (12) »
Hillary Reaches Fifty 38 Comments (0 topical, 38 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Check out some of the demographic breakdowns in those numbers.
The number of senior, those over 62 who would never vote for Billary is something like 67 percent. Always remember that Old People vote.
About the only thing that could swing a general election her way would be the Republican side nominating someone more polarizing, pretty hard to do.
_______________________________
Dennis Miller for President...no more wimps!
The poll taken on Hillary has renewed my faith in the American People, I always thought the American people were smarter than politicians give them credit for. I now know that this is true.
The more people get to see her in action, the more they are going to back away from her. I think one Clinton in the Whitehouse is enough.
I was pleasently surprised when I saw that headline on one of the major media blogs. Since when I read the article it stated that 46% would not vote for her I thought that all the media was going to post something like this- Most Voters Will Vote For Hillary. They are going to make her mad.
Hillary is like every stuffy humorless middle-age pants-suited female high school principal you've known in your life, all rolled into one heavy little package.
Forget high school principal, if that's a "female job." Make it uniformed police chief if you want. The comparison still works.
Only 31% of those surveyed think Hillary is too liberal. 41% think she's neither too liberal nor too conservative.
I remember about 15 years ago, we were telling ourselves that no one would elect a pot smoking draft dodger.
In 2000, we barely won the Presidency with just over 500 votes in Florida.
In 2004, a (then) popular war-time President with a reasonably good economy barely won re-election, with Ohio making the difference.
I think the '08 Nominee would much prefer to have the electoral enviornment of '00 or '04 than the baggage he (or she) will be saddled with.
While Hill's numbers can be temporarily comforting, we can't derrive any sense of inevitability from them. The primaries will be over in early February. The MSM will have 8-9 months to tear down the Republican Nominee, while simultaneously nominating the Dem Nominee for sainthood.
We need to take our nominating process seriously, and choose the best person to win in November, and govern for the next 8 years. It won't be easy, even if they were to nominate Satan herself.
I really don't care where she stands on the issues, I would NEVER vote for her.
Shouldn't people consider what politicans stand on the issues before voting for them?
If there was a sociopath nutcase who was rock solid on the issues, I wouldn't vote for them. Same way I feel about Hillary.
if you're in charge of her campaign, where do you go w/ this kind of poll.
she can't try to go out and sell her message -- she turns too many people off when she speachreeches.
she can't go into hiding until after the campaign -- her primary foes will hammer her for that.
Remember the "listening tour" for her original Senate campaign? She had no contact with "real people" that wasn't carefully scripted in advance. No questions from the press. All photo ops, no substance. Try to hold the lead she's been anointed and run out the clock. Then rely on MSM to propogate "progressive" propoganda for the general election, and buy a few more votes in Ohio this time.
I doubt the American public will buy her political maneuvering. We know the Clintons, and we know them well enough to know when they're BSing. Hopefully the lessons learned in the past two elections will be forefront in voters' minds.
yes, you are right on here. it looks like things starting so early is bad for both Hillary and Rudy (though I still believe Hillary will get the D nomination in the end).
that said, I think there is a possible exception to the danger of "hiding" as a poster above notes, and that's if she comes out and makes an appeal for some normalcy in the campaign, a step back from the premature, media-charged insanity we're getting this year. she can appear to take the high road in this way, pay attention to the work of the senate, etc by saying "look, campaigns don't start this early, this isn't a healthy developement, I'll see you in the summer". its self-serving, yeah, but its also true. perhaps it lets her opponents fill the void and get more attention, but it also raises their fatigue factor. in this way she gets the best of both worlds: the early entry combined with a bit of the "freshness" factor of a Gingrich or a Gore or a Thompson may be intending to capitalize on by waiting.
it also gives the surge more time to work, which would hurt her Dem opponents a lot more than it does her, as she's taken an at least slightly more responsible path. it helps the Republicans more of course, but there's probably still time for her to pull her toe out of the surrender pool, and if Iraq really does start looking up before 11/08, while proving the Republicans right, it also might lessen the need for the Daddy party in the minds of some.
it would also hurt the efforts to paint Bush as a lame duck, which I think is the motivation behind the media's premature start this cycle, but I think it would cause a lot of people, even those that have no intention of voting for her, like me, to give her some respect, but it might help with independents, let her look presedential, and stabilize her campaign if they feel in some danger.
I'm not sure if that strategy would work as well for McCain since he's in a more competitive race, but there might be room for them to "team up" (that may be a bit too cynical) in such a stratgey. kind of help each other win the nomination before turning on each other.
on a somewhat related note, there's been talk of Bush forming a bipartisan "war council" of sorts with lawmakers from both parties, which I think would be a good idea. McCain and Lieberman would be the obvious "captains" of such a squad, but its concievable Bush could offer Clinton a spot at that table, and it might be wise for both of them.
Two candidates that are generally disliked by the base of their own party and who aren't particularly like by the People as a whole. I'm starting to think that the election is Romney's to lose.
Dick Morris (I think) wrote a column that the Republican nominating process is like a tournament. The "moderates" will whittle down to one candidate, and the conservatives will do the same. I really believe McCain will be the first top tier guy out, maybe sooner than a lot of folks think. New fundraising numbers will give more insight into this possibility, I think.
I also think Romney will never exceed 20%. (Wait for immediate response from MyManMitt.com).
If Thompson gets serious, I think it's him vs Rudy in the "finals" of the tourney. I'd prefer Thompson of the two, but could support either one.
Hillary doesn't and won't wear well. What we need is lots of photo close ups of that sagging face and plenty of,pardon the expression, full body shots. Someone who would be rejected by Weight Watchers as incorrigible shouldn't be allowed to stuff the White House with her presence, she's William Howard Taft without the mustache, unless she shaves at night.
As any Republican who gets the nomination will lack the testicular fortitude to open the closet and rattle Hillary's uncountable skeletons, even as the media discover more Republican no-underlying-crime scandals, we need a revival of a Swift Boat campaign, actually many Swift Boat campaigns as we don't wish to overload just a few. The media will go spastic as they believe that only they should control the scandal spigot and the worst kind of scandal is telling the truth about a Democrat.
So what scandal campaign will win, the Republican X pulled Peggy's pigtails in the third grade scandal, or the Bill and Hillary profited from foreign bribes scandal?
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
"What we need is lots of photo close ups of that sagging face and plenty of,pardon the expression, full body shots. Someone who would be rejected by Weight Watchers as incorrigible shouldn't be allowed to stuff the White House with her presence, she's William Howard Taft without the mustache, unless she shaves at night."
Because that kind of approach is so positive and moves the national debate forward.
And in any case, what national debate? Have you heard anything from Hillary that would qualify as debate, perhaps the "we've got to get the nation moving" kind of gas?
Sorry, but as Hillary and Bill deal in it so they deserve it and do the names Paula Jones and Linda Tripp come to mind?
Do you doubt that Hillary and her flacks in the media will refrain from sliming people, that scandals will be manufactured and blown up? Have you forgotten the dredging up of a DUI, 26 year old ticket that Bush had to endure. Sadly it works.
The post that cost you a night's sleep was meant both as sarcasm and dark humor, at least the part you quoted. The Swift Boat part is dead serious as it should be. Kindly reread the comparison to what the media does routinely and ask what the alternatives are. I'm almost sorry you're so sensitive but tough darts. If Hillary has the questionable past then it has to and should be used against her. As they say, character counts.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
If someone already has negatives as high as Hillary, the public already isn't comfortable. We need to give the country Hope and Optimism again. (Morning in America worked pretty well against Malaise and sweaters).
If we pile on with the politics of personal destruction, we take someone with high negatives and make her a victim.
It might be a novel approach to reach out to independents with a few ideas that resonate to them. Maybe actually articulate common sense convervative values. Can you imagine Fred Thompson saying "Aw shucks, we're just going to have to all roll up our sleeves and get to work" while Hillary says "The government can fix that as long as we have diversity quotas and proper union representation in the work force". We don't need personal destruction. She can handle that herself.
between sound policy initiatives and reminding people what Hillary is. The power of negative campaigning is unquestionable however, it wins elections and where it doesn't it still makes a difference in vote count. Bush almost lost because of the DUI thing and we saw what justly happened to Kerry.
As you say "we don't need the politics of personal destruction"[ and have you noticed you borrow the phrase from the Clintons ] we are wading through another artificial scandal concerning the fired attorneys, we have endured other such false cases over the past few years that have undeniably hurt Bush.
While I do appreciate the tone of your post I feel it is exceedingly dangerous to cede the field of personal issues to the Dems, especially when dealing with a moral cripple like Hillary. Such is her nature that character and her past must be made an issue, or does it not matter what type of person is President ?
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
I apologize if the post sounded a bit "preachy", but I just don't think negative attacks are going to matter if we don't get back "on message". I really got tired in the 06 campaigns answering people about what we stood for. We haven't had an articulate spokesperson for the conservative cause since Reagan.
And I really think Hillary wants us to go after her. She's going to say (and already has) that everything has been investigated, all questions are answered, and it's the same "right wing conspiracy" that just wants to stop progress. The MSM will cooperate, repeat her lines over and over, and refuse to report that every investigation was stonewalled, and no questions were ever answered.
If she has to battle over ideas, however, she'll be trying to defend Hilliarycare, War flip-flopping, and tax increases. She tends to come across very condecending when she explains issues, and loves talking down to people who she deems intellectually inferior (read: everyone). I'd rather fight her on those terms then let the media make her a victim.
who look more like HRC than Miss May, so I don't think I'd try that meme. Republicans have never won the scandal mongering game, but it is still worth some attention. I don't think it moves votes against the Ds, though. By their lights if Candidate A is a "good person" anything that he might have done is a misunderstanding or a vast right wing conspiracy; nothing sticks with their fundamental constituency. The scandal game only works to motivate our constituency and to remind the waverers that they shouldn't even consider the D.
In Vino Veritas
What do you all think about Obama? It's either him or Edwards who is going to steal Hillary's crown, but I don't think either will be able to overcome the Clinton political machine.
Howard Dean, for his part, can claim to have laid the groundwork to take advantage of an off year for Republicans, using the party building principles that he explored in his campaign.
Obama's running on how photogenic he is.
Run like Reagan!
Look, positive upbeat messages almost always win out over fear, posturing, meanness, and dirty laundry. Unless the democratic party has become so perverse that you can't even count on them to act the way normal humans always react.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
is that enough to preempt the inevitable all-out Clinton assault, should he gain substantial ground leading into primary season?
Kinda goes without saying that they have been that perverse. Not a nag, just an observation in good cheer.:)
The poster child for fear, posturing, meanness and dirty laundry. The fact that he ever got over a goose egg in a primary means that they don't think like normal people.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
"the only thing that could swing a general election her way would be the Republican side nominating someone more polarizing, pretty hard to do"
Paging Mr. Gingrich! Mr. Newt Gingrich
United States Air Force
http://airforcepundit.blogspot.com
about Newt. While I think he's positioning himself where we want the party to be, and he's articulating the right messages, a Hillary vs. Gingrich matchup might be the quickest way to get a McCain-Liberman ticket, or a Bloomberg-Hagel ticket, etc.
In 1912 (wasn't it?), we had a three way race like that, and the Republican Taft got pummelled because the Republicans split between the Republican and the ex-Republican. TR was just a favorite of Republicans, well liked and popular, even if he did take off and run under a Progressive banner. So Wilson won even though a Democrat hadn't won in ages.
I don't see a McCain/Lieberman or Bloomberg/Hagel ticket doing that to Republicans, though. Bloomberg and McCain are not well-loved by Republicans across the country like that. Giuliani could do it, perhaps only Giuliani could, but haven't we been told he's too loyal a Republican to do that?
So I wouldn't fear such a three way race, not a bit.
Run like Reagan!
for Hillary, but I have a hard time believing the Democrats hate her as much as they pretend to. on the 3rd hand, I do find it hard to imagine her winning unless, like Bill, its with a plurality/split Republican vote.