CNNGALLUP SHOCK POLL: ONLY 16% FIRM ON HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT

Drudge Report ^ | Jan 25 2006 | Drudge

[Anti-Bubba182]

CNNGALLUP SHOCK POLL: ONLY 16% FIRM ON HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT Wed Jan 25 2006 10:50:26 ET

Most voters now say there's no way they'd vote for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton if she runs for president in 2008 - while just 16 percent are firmly in her camp, a stunning new poll shows.

CNNGALLUP found that 51 percent say they definitely won't vote for Clinton (D-N.Y.) in 2008, another 32 percent might consider it, and only 16 percent vow to back her. That means committed anti-Hillary voters outnumber pro-Hillary voters by 3-1. The poll suggests she can forget about crossover votes - 90 percent of Republicans and 75 percent of conservatives say there's no way they'd back her.

Meanwhile, 46% said they would oppose Secretary of State Rice if she ran for President - a step Rice has repeatedly said she won't take.

END

[ark_girl]

Rush talked about that poll today. He was pointing out the fact that with the media love-fest coverage she's have for 13 years now, people still don't like her....how much can they really do for her in two years. Her numbers are like this and the public hasn't really even been introduced properly to the plethora of reasons to REALLY not like her. This is the best she's ever gonna look to people because she hasn't been challenged yet. By all accounts of that woman's temper, the first time she loses her cool in a debate should be some high entertainment.

Granted, NOBODY liked John Kerry (I would dare say not even the liberals) and we can within inches of getting that schmuck.

But, if Hillary gets it, it'll be because the moderates hate our guy worse.

[illinoissmith]

Yup, that's actually pretty natural if there isn't an intentionally constructed system in place to prevent it. It's called a 'dialect'. They tend to develop in geographic areas relatively isolated from societal centers. It's related to how human language works.

First, there's a matter of language change - the same process behind the fact that we speak differently from the Brits and the Australians, and all three speak differently from Chaucer. (See L. Campbell's Historical Linguistics : An Introduction for more on language change.)

Second, there's a matter of, basically, language mixing. For example, you might notice that Irish or Scottish English has a certain accent to it. Well, that's not just due to language change, it is also due to the fact that the first of their ancestors to learn English were bilingual in Celtic languages, and a little bit of influence from those languages was passed on to their children. Similar with the Minnesota area 'Yooper' accent; a lot of the qualities of that accent are things inherited from the languages spoken by the Scandinavian immigrants who came over, and learned English as a second language. Vowels in Yooper dialect, for example, involve much less tongue movement during production than vowels in mainstream American English.

The examples I mentioned are not very stark examples, but people in more isolated areas tend to have even more changes outside of the mainstream changes, and tend to retain more of the qualities of the languages their ancestors spoke before learning English.

I'm not familiar with specific examples, but supposedly a lot of dialects of English spoken by black people have a similar history; influence from the languages spoken by their ancestors and relative social isolation leading to different changes occurring in those dialects than in the mainstream dialects.

Now, I am *NOT* saying that dialects, within a single nation, which make it difficult for everyone to communicate, and which make it difficult for certain groups to participate in intellectual or public life, are something we must just happily accept.

It's important to educate people in a county in a way that enables them to all communicate with each other. This is something the educational system seems to be doing less and less well (it dealt quite well with the waves of immigrants at the turn of the last century). If anything, that means that in a nation covering a huge geographic spread, it is extra important to confront the underlying mechanics of language chance and dialects.

In my opinion, having schools which don't teach the mainstream dialect to students is a very sad way of cutting them off from mainstream culture, discussion of politics, ideas, and so on... We should know how to do it; the school system did it for for German, Italian, Russian, etc., immigrants back around 1900. My guess is, not bothering to do this is one way to keep people voting for Democrats, who thrive on others being dependent. Sad.

[rwfromkansas]

I generally don't hope evil on those I disagree with, but if she does run and looks like she is doing well, I hope some nut shoots her in the head.

[tuff_schlitz]

"government workers"? Isn't that an oxymoron?

[rwfromkansas]

Though I would never do something like that.

[section9]

One of the reasons Condi has such high negatives is the fact that she is part of the Bush Administration. What you are seeing is the result of the acid partisanship of the day. On her own, she usually does better.

Hillary cannot overcome this against Condi in a Presidential campaign. It simply cannot be done. These are killer negatives.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[Chode]

[tuff_schlitz]

sHrillary is neither smart nor clever. She is just never challenged by the fawning MSM. I mean, Bill never even got hit with a simple follow-up question that would have nailed him to the wall...(remember the "There IS no sexual relationship" response, which begged a simple follow-up like: "What kind of ass-hat do you take me for with a weasel-ass answer like that?! WAS there a sexual relationship?"). Hitlary just needs to get asked three or four hardball questions and she'd crack like a Jordan almond.

[bannie]

The poles don't matter. Clintons cheat.

[I still care]

Hillary has been upsetting the left by running too far right, too fast.

The past few days, since the plantation remark, she has been making really nasty anti Bush super leftist remarks. When I heard her on the radio this afternoon, I said to young I still care, "She's run too far right too fast. Her poll numbers must be bad among the left - her base is ticked off. She's running back trying to show off her liberal credentials."

Not surprised to see this poll at all.

[Ma3lst0rm]

I totally agree and I don't think he would be happy with the sidelines. Hillary would be stupid to try to be elected with Bill hanging on for the ride. However rejecting him also would be dangerous to her political fortunes unless she had some kind of arrangement with him. I would feel pity for her to try to govern with him there beside her.

[uncbob]

She's very smart, very clever and should not be taken lightly.

Nope

Just has the press carrying her water and kissing her broad butt

[dbostan]

It's not surprising, at all.
Would you like a wife like her?
The answer is NO.

[manwiththehands]

Still ... 16% represents millions of Americans.

AAAAAHHHHHH!

That's scary.

[cubreporter]

She's very smart





Smart? Smart????? No way. No how. Not smart at all!

[TheLion]

Does this mean we can now stop running threads about Hillary and Condi for president? /sarcasm

[SamAdams76]

SHHHHHHHHHHHH! We must keep this quiet until AFTER the Rat convention in '08!

[YaYa123]

try as I might, I can't find this poll at
http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/

or anywhere else on cnn.com