GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
So says Mason-Dixon:
The poll by Mason-Dixon Polling and Research found that 52 percent of Americans wouldn’t consider voting for Clinton, D-N.Y. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, was second in the can’t-stand-’em category, with 46 percent saying they wouldn’t consider voting for him.
Clinton has long been considered a politically polarizing figure who would be a tough sell to some voters, especially many men, but also Clinton-haters of both genders.
Thursday’s survey provides a snapshot of the challenges she faces, according to Larry Harris, a Mason-Dixon principal.
“Hillary’s carrying a lot of baggage,” he said. “She’s the only one that has a majority who say they can’t vote for her.”
Clinton rang up high negatives across the board, with 60 percent of independents, 56 percent of men, 47 percent of women and 88 percent of Republicans saying they wouldn’t consider voting for her.
Romney struggled most with women: 50.9 percent said they wouldn’t consider voting for him.
“It’s the flip-flop of Hillary,” Harris said of Romney. “One could suppose it’s the Mormon issue — we didn’t ask follow-up questions — but his religion is an issue.”
On name recognition, Clinton also led the 2008 presidential pack in voter disapproval, with 42 percent saying they recognized her name and were unfavorable toward her, versus 39 percent favorable.
That gave her a double-digit lead in that bad-news category over Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, a Democrat. They each had 28 percent unfavorable recognition.
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani had the highest favorable recognition at 43 percent, with Clinton close behind at 39 percent. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was third at 36 percent, followed by McCain at 33 percent and Edwards at 32 percent.
McCain rang up the highest favorable rating among independent voters with 39.4 percent, followed by Giuliani with 37.3 percent. Edwards scored well with independents, too, with 31.1 percent favorable; Obama had 28 percent favorable.
If Hillary does win, it will be with less than 50 percent of the vote. You know, like Nixon.
June 30th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
DAve,
These statistics are good for today only. While I would think it’s welcome news that Hillary wouldn’t get more than 50%, these statistics totally negate any momentum that can be achieved in campaigning.
I think we are in trouble if we think we can rely on a poll that tracks perceived negatives prior to any real campaigning. Hillary is a smart cookie, and a smart campaigner, I think she will appeal to far more people than the poll claims.
June 30th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
who in the gop would she (or any of the Dem. 08 people) would be afraid of in these presidential debates that they have and VP debates they have beween 2 party headliners on the 08 national ticket?
June 30th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
DaveG we have no way of accurately knowing if Hillary wins by how much it will be.
Political campaigns have effects on the actual election. I know this simple truth is often thrown aside so we can pontificate about an election over a year away.
It’s laughable though when claims like this are made especially based on early surveys.
June 30th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Dave,
Of course she’ll win with less than 50%. Bill never got 50% either. No one seems to remember this. Bill won both his elections with a strong 3rd party in Perot. He got 19% in 92 and 9% in 1996.
In fact, no democrat has got 50% of the vote since Carter in 1976 and he barely squeaked by at like 50.1%. No democrat has gotten more than 51% since Johnson in 1964. Kennedy didn’t get 50%. Neither did Truman. Only once since the end of WW2 and the FDR era have the dems gotten 50%. By contrast, the GOP has done it 7 times(Ike twice, Nixon in 72, Reagan twice, Bush in 88 and Bush in 04). The GOP has done it 5 times since the dems last did it.
The GOP has a much greater potential than the dems.
Of course in all their talk about Bush stealing the election, no liberal or dem ever mentioned that 57% of the country voted AGAINST Bill. That he won with the lowest % of the vote in years.
A Rudy/Fred or Fred/Rudy ticket in some form is the GOP’s best chance.
How ironic than in a year when the Dems have their best chance in a decade, they go with a)the 1st woman b) a sitting Senator c)someone with no executive/leadership experience at all d)a northerner e)the most polarizing and controversial candidate in the field. They sure know how to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
I;m reminded of a quoye by James Carville, who regardles of his politics, certainly has great quips. He said, “the bad news for Republicans is that this is our election to lose, the good news for Republicans is that we’re more than capable of doing so”.
June 30th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
You need to also take a look at the net favorable ratings. Rudy has a large lead in this
category, which takes into account the favorable rating versus the unfavorable rating.
Romney doesn’t do well because of his “new” anti-abortion stance, even though he could
make up for it with his good presence in front of the camera.
With a Rudy/Thompson ticket or similar, the Dems and Hillary could face a 5-12 point
loss in the general election, which would be wonderful to see.
As Rudy says, this is an extremely election because it will be up to the voters to decide which direction our country will head. Will it head toward weak national security; high taxes; large social programs; big government; more affirmative action; implementation of the communist styled “fairness” doctrine; softness; Dems connection to Hollywood and its communistic/socialistic/immoral activities?????
This certainly is a big election!
June 30th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
I tell you one thing I rather Have rudy some where on this ticket then LOSE THIS BIG ELECTION AGAINST HILLARY!!! Needless to say we can not afford to have A LOSER (like I think that could happen if we elect mccain at the GOP convention!) against Hiilary! I thank mmcain for his service to our county but he CAN’t win the general election!
June 30th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
first off, anyone who thinks the GOP could win this election by 5-12 pts is dreaming.
This country is still pretty divided and whoever wins will win by a max of 5 pts, probably closer to 3, if that.
I doubt anyone will get 300+ EVs, certainly not the 400+ the GOP had from 1980-1992. Neither side will even approach Bill’s 370 EVs.
I think Rudy has the highest potential for EVs, followed by Fred.
June 30th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
The VP nominee generally has little effect on the general election vote. A Rudy/Fred ticket is stronger than a Fred/Rudy ticket. They are not interchangeable.
June 30th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
I think SCOTUS will be a factor. A lot of people aren’t happy with the concervative court and it’s decisions, and they may just suck it up and vote for “any Democrat” in order to make changes there. Even those that say they won[’t vot for Hillary just might when push comes to shove. Add to that a lot of Republican voters might just stay home if it’s a candidate they don’t like since they are happy with the Supreme Court as it is and don’t feel that urgency.
June 30th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
How is “won’t vote for” different than being “unfavorable”?
June 30th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Another thing that hasn’t been mentioned…have you all seen Hillary in action lately? This woman that has appeared in the last few months is not the old Hillary I remember. Disregarding her policies, I have to give the evil one an A+ in her debate performance. She has dominated the stage, was clear, articulate and even likeable. In short, it was believable that she could be a commander in chief.
That said only losers like us have really been paying attention to these campaigns and watching the debates. The American public has not been introduced to the Hillary re-make. Until they are, I’m not sure these are accurate.
Furthermore, I tend to believe a lot of these Republicans, especially Fred Thompson, are susceptible of being associated with Bush (running for cover from the FredHeads…how dare I question their candidate). Americans may not like her and they may say that they won’t vote for her now. But if they perceive the Republican to be a Bush Take 3, some still won’t in that case, but I bet more than enough of them will cut their loses and vote for her as the lesser of two evils.
June 30th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
What changes would a liberal base be hoping for with the current SCOTUS? Stevens is the only justice who would be likely to retire during the next term and it’s not like a Democratic president could really move the court to the left with his replacement. The only potential movement on the court would be if Stevens was replaced with a conservative justice. Besides, the largest group of voters concerned with Supreme Court appointments is the Pro-Life socon movement that wants to see Roe overturned. While the left doesn’t favor a general conservative shift in the court, there isn’t an issue that rallies and energizes their voters where court nominations are concerned. The issue of the SCOTUS could really only work in our favor in the next election.