Amid all the enthusiasm for the current Democratic slugfest, not to mention the entertaining spectacle that is the Republican nominating process — huge kudos here to the Romney bellyflop — there seems to have been relatively little discussion about how our current, increasingly tenuous, front-runner might fare in a general election. I’m talking here about Senator Clinton’s sky-high negatives. Time reports that 41% of the country say they will not vote for her. Virtually every other poll I could find on the subject says about the same thing.
I don’t know about you, but I can say that Senator Clinton generates a rare degree of antipathy among those of my friends who do not like her. Those individuals, consistent Democratic voters all, really don’t like her. It seems unreasonable to me, and I’ll vote for her if she wins the nomination, but I’ve heard similar anecdotal reports from others, and I find them hard to dismiss given the consistency of the polling.
What do you think?
is nearly a year old. The fav/unfav numbers may be similar now, but I’d like to see more recent data.
<
p>In any event, whoever the Democratic nominee is, it seems likely to me that at least 45-48% of the country will not vote for him or her — and that’s if we’re lucky.
If anyone can find it, please comment.
<
p>As to losing 45-48% of the country from the get-go, I wonder where you get those numbers? My understanding was that people were so displeased with Bush that the Democrats had a much larger advantage in general, but maybe I just dreamed that.
<
p>Anyone, anyone?
anyone who thinks we’ll do better than 55-45 is living in a dream world. A ten-point win would be huge — a real mandate. But it would still mean that 45% of the country voted the other way.
<
p>I don’t have polling to back it up — just my guess. Which, the way the polling has been going lately, is probably worth about as much!
Democrats: 50% wouldn’t vote for Hillary, 42% wouldn’t vote for Edwards, and 37% wouldn’t vote for Obama
<
p>GOP: 45% wouldn’t vote for McCain, and 42% wouldn’t vote for Romney.
<
p>Obama “wins?”
<
p>http://www.zogby.com/news/Read…
Zogby Interactive = online polling = highly suspect.
<
p>Look at some of the breakdowns — he says that older voters are much more resistant to Clinton — claims that 59% of voters age 65 and older say they’d never vote for her. But that’s exactly the opposite of how the exit polls have gone, where Clinton has consistently won among older voters. Not a reliable poll.
the GOP candidate is going to be stapled to Bush by the Dems. Whichever Dem doesn’t like HRC/BHO/JRE will hold his or her nose in all likelihood.
<
p>Will he donate money? Campaign? Spread the good word among colleagues? Nah. Does that matter? Yip. How much? Dunno.
We’ve been singing the same tune for quite awhile, every poll I’ve seen show McCain, the likely Republican nominee, kicking her butt. Every poll shows her with sky high negatives even among some democrats including this one. I can safely say that in November I will not be casting a vote for Hillary Clinton and there are millions around the country who will be saying the same thing.
<
p>Now another thing thats important is that the Republican nominee is going to be wounded, we are seeing the Dems cut each other now, but its very late in the game and the excitement about taking back America will overcome any of our internal divisions, while this Obama supporter won’t back a Clinton nomination I think Im in the minority of his supporters when it comes to that. What is scary though is that when people like Rush and Dennis Prager and Howie Carr attack GOP frontrunners like Huckabee and McCain, all of those wingnuts will get out in force behind guys they despise like McCain or Huckabee to vote against Clinton. Mark my words on that.
<
p>Uniting the Republican party is not in our interests, they are dividing, possibly permanently at this juncture, and giving them another Clinton to beat up will reinject energy and life into their party and even give it purpose.
<
p>Bad move for the Dems to back Clinton.
Vote for McCain? Vote for some nobody 3rd-party candidate? Stay home?
<
p>And if McCain wins because folks like you didn’t vote for Clinton, and the troops are still in Iraq four years from now, and more soldiers have died, and nothing has happened with health insurance, whose fault will that be?
<
p>Yours, my friend.
The fault of troops dying with Iraq rests squarely with George Bush who put them there, John McCain and Hillary Clinton who voted to put them there, and the very Hillary Clinton who promised to keep troops there until 2013 and supports permanent bases.
<
p>Sorry your argument just won’t sell me buddy.
…hold the people who voted for George Bush responsible for their votes?
<
p>I’m sorry, but IMO the “I’m just not voting…” is the worst kind of self indulgent snark.
<
p>You spend a certain amount of time concerning yourself with issues polical as evidenced by the time you spend on this site. This stuff is important, no?
<
p>Sorry, but neither you nor anyone else gets a get out of hillary jail free card. If we end up with a crappy republican president who will possibly get the chance to replace liberal SCOTUS judges, force the economy further into the toilet and continue with the 21st Century American Empire Doctrine because you and those like you “just can’t deal” with Hillary, well, then you get to deal with the responsibility. Your vote counts, even when you don’t want it to.
G. W. Bush did not get elected President. He had the Presidency absolutely handed to him on a silver platter…..twice! Inotherwords, with the help of his family, Karl Rover and the U. S. Supreme Court, he managed to steal the Presidency and get himself appointed, both times. Most Americans are responsible, because that was allowed to happen, and as a consequence, the United States became a laughing-stock for the rest of the world, especially the French, who laughed their heads off.
but you can’t hide. This is a democracy, which means the voters ultimately run the show. If you don’t do what you can to stop the 100-year surge, you’re part of the problem.
<
p>Really, the irresponsibility of those who want to end the war but say they won’t vote for Clinton if she’s the nominee is beyond astonishing to me. Her commitments on Iraq are basically indistinguishable from Obama’s — Edwards is the one who’s making more aggressive commitments. You like Obama better? Fine — vote for him in the primary, as you’ve already done. But come the general election, if your candidate doesn’t win, you’re taking your ball and going home? That’s pathetic.
<
p>If you don’t do what you can to change who’s running the show in Washington, the consequences are indeed your fault. Sorry, but that’s how democracy works. If you don’t like it, I suggest you move to a country that has a different system. Then you can happily take no responsibility for anything.
…of the people who went around in 2000 saying that Bush and Gore were the same and so lets go vote for Nader.
<
p>All these rubes who dismissed Gore as the “corporate establishment” nominee are probably alot of the same people who were practically begging for Gore to get in this year to save us from..wait for it…the “corporate establishment”.
<
p>Pfft.
Come come, sir. Senator Clinton:
<
p>
<
p>Senator Obama:
<
p>
<
p>There is a world of difference between those two positions. Obama’s plan is specific and includes numbers, a timetable, and an overall plan. Clinton’s “plan,” is just a promise to come up with a plan within 60 days. That’s really no plan or promise at all, in my opinion, which is why I called it, “deliberately deceptive.”
Link
<
p>Clinton:
<
p>
<
p>Obama:
<
p>
<
p>So, what they’re both saying is: I’m hoping to get most of the troops out within a year or so. But nothing is certain, because it’s tricky — there are civilians and pro-American Iraqis to protect; there are estimates of how quickly we can move that might not hold; we don’t know whether Bush will draw down the surge; blah blah blah. But yeah, within a year or so.
<
p>Yup, I’ll stick with “basically indistinguishable,” like I said above.
Is that what they said in the heat of debate was basically indistinguishable, but thanks to my helpful research you can see that when forced to put their plans down in writing they actually do have some significant distinguishing characteristics. No, no: no need to thank me. Education is my business.
But, sadly, inaccurate. More likely, I think, is that Obama knows he cannot actually commit to withdrawing “one to two combat brigades a month” — frankly I’d be surprised if the guy knows what a combat brigade is, since he hasn’t exactly got a lot of background in military affairs. The situation on the ground may change; it may turn out that not that many troops can be safely withdrawn in a given month for a large variety of reasons, as accurately stated by Clinton in her debate answer (as quoted above). That’s why, when put on the spot, Obama appropriately says that the bottom line isn’t 1-2 brigades a month, it’s how many troops can be “safely” withdrawn. Current “estimates” are in the 1-2 brigade range — great, that’s what he’ll do if those estimates hold. If they don’t, he’ll do something else.
<
p>Or are you suggesting that Obama misspoke in the debate? If that’s what you’re saying, it’s the first I’ve heard of it.
Don’t you realize that the Obama and Edwards campaigns are setting policy based on my BMG posts and those of Charley, respectively? Same thing with Dodd, of course, before the cool reason of the talking points you gave him drove him from the race.
<
p>I still think there is a difference, but I suppose we can agree that the inability of the debate hosts to pin the candidates down on their Iraq policies — for example, by doing the rudimentary research of reading their websites before the debate — was unfortunate. Once again, the MSM displays its inadequacies.
<
p>At least, judging by the subject line to your comment, I amused you, however dry the laughter. That’s something, I suppose.
The purity voting fringe, which is thankfully rather small, doesn’t get it. Their vote becomes a masturbatory exercise instead of a civic responsibility, something more to do with narcissistic needs and less to do with the greater good and the needs of the many. This thinking in adults also reveals a mile-wide childish streak, as you’ve pointed out, that has been cultivated and framed to look more like virtue and less like pique.
<
p>I don’t know if you read General Jesus, but if you do, you will be understand why I am reminded of the type of guy who preserves his vote essence in a Mason jar in the basement. Something to do with squandering something precious and unique.
My vote legitimately counts and its definitely not a “masturbatory exercise” i take it seriously as my civic duty to elect someone I believe would make a great president. My grandfather and great uncle fought in WWII to make sure i had a choice and to me honestly, choosing the lesser of two evils or voting for the smarter of two idiots is about as free and fair as a Russian or Venezuelan election. Our first president warned against political parties and partisan politics because he knew partisan bickering would divide the country and suck out any reasonable discourse from the debates.
<
p>What is really negligent, to me what is really a masturbatory exercise is the idiocy of voting for the lesser of two evils and then wondering why nothing in Washington changes.
<
p>I am tired of the partisan bickering, I am tired of Democrats who can’t compromise on abortion and I am tired of Republicans who are unwilling to realize that gay people deserve rights. I am tired of Republicans and Democrats leading us into ill conceived wars and I am tired of Democratic politicians committing us to making the mistake of an early exit just to pander to voters. I am tired of this country consistently going in the wrong direction and yes Clinton is responsible for that wrong direction as the current President is.
<
p>I want new ideas, innovative ideas, I am tired of the old fights.
<
p>My generation has grown up in a time where it seems that the individual does not matter. My parents and most of the country voted for Gore, but he didnt win because some elites said Bush was the President. 9/11 happened and nothing anyone did could stop it and honestly nothing we’ve done has made up for it. The Iraq War happened and even though I protested, nearly got arrested, and cried over that war it still happened regardless of my actions. Bush got re-elected, legitmately in my view this time, and again it was a vote that was out of my hands.
<
p>So now that I actually have the power to vote I am not going to waste my vote on a candidate who basically enabled this same kind of elitism I despised. Where was she when we needed her to resist ever bad policy of this administration? Where was she when we needed someone to fight? Where was she when I was getting threatened by police officers my family called friends? Where was she when I was crying? Where was she when I was called disloyal and unpatriotic? Where was she when we needed her?
<
p>She played it safe and stayed silent because at the end of the day the only reason Hillary says she will end the war is because thats what pollsters say people want. Hillary Clinton is dishonest, opportunistic, and much like John Kerry or Mitt Romney she stands for absolutely nothing but achieving her own power. I cannot validate an ego so self serving and so shallow with my vote.
that Uzbekistan is lovely this time of year…
You have not refuted any of my arguments that Hillary Clinton stands for absolutely nothing and has not been there for any of us when we needed her. As soon as you do that than we can have a discussion.
Now wasn’t there a poll that showed that Clinton’s negatives compared with all the major republican candidates and the Republicans’ negatives were each higher then Senator Clinton’s negatives? I wish I could find it.
Independents determine the fate of the general election. Independents overwhelming voted for Barack Obama in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada. They did not, and will not, support Hillary Clinton in the general election.
…no idea it that statement is true or not. Polls about independents in the general will not be relevant until the nominees are set. I am from NH originally and know quite a few independents who voted for Obama in the primary but will without doubt vote for Clinton in the general if she is the nominee because they have already decided the republicans are out no matter what.
This far out it is both cynical and pessimistic to concede to some kind of poll-driven reality. The whole reason we have campaigns is to change people’s minds. Besides, there is always the Electoral College factor, so national polling only has worth in a state-by-state breakdown. She has won Republican counties in New York. I saw a recent poll indicating an edge for Hillary in Florida, a bellwhether state. This attitude does nothing than allow the Republicans to win by default.
against this guy : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J…
<
p>she didn’t do anywhere near as hot against this guy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R… the first time around. Lazio was a real opponent, a sitting US Rep from swing-region Long Island, instead of some homeless Yonkers mayor, way to conservative for the state at large, who was just in way over his head.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R…
Although regardless of the opponent she faced, it does suggest that the statement that “Republicans and independents would never vote for Hillary!” is demonstratively false.
Look, I’ve no doubt Hillary would be very a competitive candidate if nominated. How much more or less so than Obama or Edwards is anyone’s guess.
<
p>All I’m saying is: Judging Hillary’s appeal in a general election for prez from her ’06 romp would be like judging Ted Kennedy’s presidential appeal from HIS ’06 non-contest.
<
p>After all, in ’06 Hillary was an incumbent D senator in a very heavily D state in a tidalwave D year.
<
p>I think her 2000 race is a much better meter stick, since she was fighting for an open senate seat against a capable, well-financed opponent in a year which leaned D in senate races (6 D pick-ups, 1 D loss), but was not the landslide of 2006.
<
p>As much as the Clinton campaign might like to spin it otherwise, the ’06 doesn’t mean much for ’08.
I think Hillary would defeat Huckabee or Romney, but I’d worry about the (seemingly more likely) matchup with McCain, mainly because of the treatment he gets from the media. Earlier in the month, I overheard who otherwise sounded like a liberal Democrat saying she’d vote for McCain over Hillary because Hillary was “power mad” and McCain is “the only one who says what he believes and sticks with it.” Asked about Roe, she said she didn’t think McCain would try to overturn it.
<
p>Would Obama or Edwards do better? I don’t really know, though Obama does seem to appeal to people who aren’t Democrats.
<
p>Disclosure: I marked my absentee ballot for Obama today, but (assuming I don’t get hit by a bus or something before then) I’ll vote for the Democratic nominee in November.
<
p>That’s one of the reasons why head-to-head polling before the nominees are even close to set is close to meaningless. McCain (if he’s the nominee) will face an uphill battle convincing the religious right to vote for him (as opposed to not voting), which will involve him repeatedly stressing the need to put “strict constructionist” Justices on the Court.
<
p>During the course of the campaign, voters like the one you mention will think twice before voting for McCain.
The truth is either Clinton, Obama or McCain could win in November.
<
p>It’s really pointless to line up the current polls, but if you did you would find Clinton beating all GOP candidates routinely – with the exception of a close fight with McCain. The same is true of Obama, though he does a point or two beter than Clinton in those match-ups with McCain.
<
p>However, the polls today are of course not predictive of the future. The Clintons know McCain and McCain has a nice long Senate record to pick over – ripe with many ultra-conservative votes. He also lacks expertise in what may be the number 1 issue this year – the economy. Voters are historicaly drawn to Democrats in time of economic incertainty, so this will give Clinton the upper hand.
<
p>I’m done with making big predictions, but unless you are a poltical neophyte, you know better than to go by anecdotes or polling that is being conducted during the primary season, 10 months away from election day.
<
p>So, yes she can win. She can also lose. But one things seems certain – its better to be a Democrat this year.
Thanks for the helpful and interesting comments all you fellow losers, with nothing better to do than speculate on a potential political matchup, almost a year away, late at night. It’s good to have company. 😉
The economy was bad when Bush beat Kerry, conventional wisdom was that Kerry would beat Bush on the economy, he ignored the war, ignored healthcare, and ran on the economy and lost.
<
p>Sorry bud but Dems cant depend on bread and butter voters anymore to win them elections, especially when most of those working class voters are pro-life, pro-gun, and hawkish on security.
mouth, 5 more undecided voters go with either Hillary or Edwards.
<
p>Kerry ignored the war? He ignored healthcare? Most voters are pro-life?
<
p>If you really are a college student as you claim, this country is screwed.
….know what “working class voter” means? I tell you what it means, nothing…there is no working class anymore which is part of the problem. You are being very presumptuous.
<
p>Actually, this is not true, and it’s important. Though there were some warning signs for what we’re seeing now, the economy was not all that bad in 2004. It’s bad now, and looks like it will be very bad by election time. Additionally, the economy already is being cited by more voters as the most important issue to them than it was in 2004, and those numbers will likely continue to increase as we get closer to November.
<
p>Remember that McCain’s perceived strength is on foreign policy and security issues, not the economy. If the economy is as big an issue as it appears it will be, the Democrat (Obama or Clinton) will win by larger margins than current head-to-head polling suggests.
Yes, after a 16-year Republican smear campaign, Hillary’s negatives are high — around 45%. With everything from drug-running to murder accusations thrown at her, the majority of the population likes here.
<
p>I like taking my chances with somebody who holds that majority favorability after that grinder over somebody who is a mystery and has proven unable to combat attacks within his own party.
For Jerome Armstrong. Sorry for the inconsistency.
Remember how many people hated Bush during the last election? Look how that turned out.
Hitlery.
Howard Dean who could unite progressives and independents was out because of an unelectable cry. We got Kerry/Edwards instead. That brought us four more years of Bush.