50% say NO to Hillary

[The_Professor]

Fifty percent of adults would not vote for Clinton 
By Kelly McCormack 
March 27, 2007 
Half of voting-age Americans say they would not vote for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) if she became the Democratic nominee for president in 2008, according to a Harris Interactive poll released Tuesday.
More than one in five Democrats that participated in the survey said they would not vote for Clinton. Overall, 36 percent say they would vote for the former first lady and 11 percent are unsure of their top choice.

Forty-eight percent of Independent voters also said that they would choose another candidate over Clinton, the poll, which surveyed 2,223 potential voters, states.

Fifty-six percent of men said that they would not vote for Clinton, while 45 percent of women said that she would not be their pick. In addition, 69 percent of those 62 and older said that they would not vote for Clinton.

Nearly half of the respondents said that they dislike Clinton’s political opinions and Clinton as a person. Fifty-two percent of people also said that “she does not appear to connect with people on a personal level.”
 
http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/fifty-percent-of-americans-would-not-vote-for-clinton-2007-03-27.html

[Plane]

Fifty percent of adults would not vote for Clinton 

   This is good news for Clinton , she only has to persuede one or two percent!

[sirs]

Doesn't that mean 50% say yes?     

[Xavier_Onassis]

What this poll ignores is that more often than not, people vote AGAINST a candidate rather than FOR one.

If the Republicans nominate Gingrich, and his sordid affairs become a big deal, then some of those (especially women) who were planning to vote AGAINST Hillary would vote FOR her so as to vote AGAINST the Newtster.

The same could happen if McCain is nominated and the 'mighty surge' in Iraq results only in many more dead Americans.

Basically, with this poll and a quarter, you MIGHT be able to get a cuppa coffee. It's the sort of blather we hear from Rush all the time.

President Hillary would be likely to be most like President Bill,and he was very popular, and by contrast to the current schmuck, more and more so.

What is a blowjob and the misuse of a panatella compared with the 6,000 dead and 20,000 maimed and insane that Juniorbush has caused?

[The_Professor]

I guess a question I might ask is:  "Are the big negatives surrounding Hillary(she also boosts BIG positivies) an effective election strategy versus a Democrat candidate who doesn't have such highs/lows"

[The_Professor]

Reprinted from NewsMax.com

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 10:31 a.m. EDT
David Brooks: Hillary Clinton Can Win in '08


Conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks has no doubt about it. Hillary can win the presidency.

During an interview on the "Imus in the Morning" show Wednesday morning, Brooks explained why he thinks Hillary Clinton can beat the Republican candidate next year.

Here's an excerpt from the show:

Imus: Speaking with David Brooks of The New York Times and the "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer" . . . I was talking to Chris Matthews earlier this morning, I asked him if he thought Hillary Clinton can be elected president, and I’ll ask you, do you think she can?

Brooks: I think she can, because basically I’ve seen her win over a lot of people who think they hate her; then they see her and they don’t hate her.

The second political hack reason is, there is a group of voters in this country who will swing back and forth. They are basically single white women making $45,000 a year. There are a lot of voters like that. Voters like that voted for George Bush in high numbers in 2004. Hillary Clinton is very popular with those voters.

They like both Clintons and they like her. So you get 30,000 voters like that, women and waitresses and stuff like that, and Ohio switches. She can win Ohio and she can with the country. That said, I’m betting these days on Obama.

Imus: She comes off as the single phoniest most transparent, evil person on the planet with the exception, I used to think, of Al Gore; but my view of Al Gore has changed now. She is an awful human being and to put up with that nonsense from that fat, stupid husband of hers is insulting. I don’t get the whole deal . . .


Brooks: Is that an endorsement of her? [laughs]. I’ll tell you the reason people like her. People in the Senate like her because she is substantive, she knows what she is talking about, so give her some credit with that.

One of her colleagues once told me that when you talk to Sen. Clinton, you can always tell what position she is going to take, but you can never tell how she got there. There is a wall there, and she will never let you behind the wall; and that is tough politically.

If she doesn’t naturally trust people, they may not naturally trust her. She may not win over you, but I think she can win over some . . . That said, if you look at her and Obama back to back, Obama just has more talent and more substance.


Imus: . . . Chris Matthews observed that he thought Sen. Obama was frozen in terms of his support because he wasn’t willing to take her on.


Brooks: She’s going to take him on . . . What [Obama's] got to do is fill in who he is. Everyone knows the personal style. He’s got to show he has some policy positions there; he’s got some expertise in the world there, some experience. The guy is two days older than me, and that kind of scares the hell out of me, that somebody that young is running for president. But, if anyone can do it, he does have the talent . . .


My problem with him is, he’s a bit upscale. He’s got sort of NPR-type manners, which there is nothing wrong with, but he has to connect with people who are sort of mass market, and I’m not sure he can do that.


Imus: I realize this was 100 years ago, but wasn’t Jack Kennedy 43 when he was elected?


Brooks: Yeah, he was, but he had been around; he had fought in a war . . . You know, Teddy Roosevelt was, I think, 41.