Posted on 04/20/2006 5:06:38 AM PDT by HonduGOP
April 19, 2006--Just 26% of Americans say they will definitely vote for Senator Hillary Clinton if she runs for President in 2008. That matches the lowest level of support ever recorded for the former First Lady and is the sixth consecutive Hillary Meter poll showing her solid support below 30%.
The number who would definitely vote against Clinton in 2008 rose a couple of points in our latest survey to 41% (see trends).
Senator Clinton's effort to shift perceptions of her politics towards the center have stalled as well. She is viewed as politically liberal by 47% of voters while 35% see her as politically moderate.
In January 2005, 51% saw Clinton as politically liberal. She moderated her image in the early part of last year, but the number seeing her as liberal has not consistently dipped below the 45% range.
Collectively, today’s Hillary Meter places Senator Clinton a net 58 points to the left of the nation's political center. Two weeks ago, she was 56 points to the left of center.
The political center is calculated by subtracting the number of liberals from the number of conservatives among the general public (35% conservative, 18% liberal for a net +17). For the Senator, 6% conservative minus 47% liberal equals a net minus 41. The minus 41 reading for Senator Clinton is 58 points away from the plus 17 reading for the general public.
Nationally, Clinton remains a polarizing figure--40% of Americans have a favorable opinion of her while 44% hold an unfavorable view.
Crosstabs are available for Premium Members.
The Hillary Meter is a twice monthly measure of Senator Hillary Clinton's effort to move to the political center. The next update is scheduled for Wednesday, May 3, 2006. For as long as the former First Lady is a viable candidate for the White House, Rasmussen Reports will monitor public perceptions of her political ideology.
Familiarity has bred contempt.
Few of these polls matter until 2008.
Who ARE these people????
All I know is WE MUST keep control of Congress in Nov at all costs.
Don't play into the socialist hands by passing their Mccain/Kennedy bill.
Might Hillary yet save the Republican Party?
While I generally share your skepticism of polls so far out, I don't in this case. We already know that jockeying for the Presidency begins a long way out from 2008. The whispers among Dems have already started that "she can't win" because of her high negatives. We saw similar things with Janet Reno and Howard Dean, albeit both during shorter time spans. Will it be enough to torpedo her? I don't know. But I am by no means convinced Ms. Clinton will even be able to win her party's primary, much less get 270 electoral votes.
I do wish I had the same belief. IMO, the only way she'll not make the Dem Canidacy is if Bill were to pass on long before. He still had quite a few strings to pull on her behalf, and a lot of his loyal people would fall away were he no longer there.
If we could just get her the hell out of the Senate , maybe she would go away. I doubt it though.
I wonder how much of this, if any, can be attributed to John Spencer?I also wonder what loosing her Senate seat this November might do to her Presidential aspirations?
Of course, if she doesn't win the primary and run in 2008, one of my all time favorite fantasies will go down the tubes: Voting AGAINST The Hildabeaste J
Few of these polls matter until 2008.
Only the exit polls are important damit. John Kerry
I think Hillary as the Dem nominee is the Republicans' best chance to win in 2008. I'm not saying it would be easy - it won't be. But I believe she is beatable, even if the GOP is in a weakened state. If the Democrats suddenly get smart and nominate someone like a Mark Warner or Tom Vilsack or Evan Bayh or Bill Richardson (someone who can credibly act the part of a moderate), then I think the GOP would be facing a really uphill climb.
I think it is likely that Hillary will win the nomination. She will have such a huge edge in early fundraising, that by the time the rest of the field is winnowed down to one clear anti-Hillary alternative, she'll still have the New York and Illinois and California primaries ahead of her, where she'll clean up. She'll also have the edge with the superdelegates. Unless she falters early on, or unless another Democrat catches fire and emerges as the alternative before the early primaries are over, I expect her to win.
And what about her makes those people have a favorable opinion of her? Is it her hairdo? Her often bored and/or tired demeanor? Her being now a New Yorker?
Unless she falters early on, or unless another Democrat catches fire and emerges as the alternative before the early primaries are over, I expect her to win.
But keep in mind that is exactly what happened in '04. I remember laughing at Kerry's campaign when he had to loan himself money, saying something like "he may not be toast, but the bread's gettin' warm." But what propelled him back into contention and the nomination was the perception that Howard couldn't win. It was helped along by the scream (Yeeeaaaggghhh!!), but the momentum was already there.
She also has a big advantage the way the DemonRats are arranging the early primaries so there will be a number of large states having their primaries at the same time as the Iowa caucuses and the N. H. primary. That's likely to allow the Witch to pick up a great deal of DemonRat momentum without being subjected to any serious scrutiny.
That's true, but there is one major difference between Dean and Hillary. Dean was an outsider candidate that the party machine never really wanted a part of. His early success was a house of cards built on internet donations and support from people who usually don't vote. That's why he underachieved early and imploded so dramatically at the slightest misstep. Hillary has a much stronger fundamental base of support with the core of the party that it will take something dramatic to knock out those underpinnings.
On the other hand, if she remains a senator from NY, she is likely to replace both of Massachusetts' senators as the largest waste of skin in the Senate after they retire/"go down to defeat in flames" (doesn't matter how we get them out of the Senate, just as long as we do!).
Well, we both agree Hillary is much more entrenched within the "establishment." But I don't view Dean as that much of an outsider, especially back during that time. Heck, even after his supernova meltdown they still went and made him DNC Chairman.
The 2008 presidential campaign starts the day after the 2006 midterms. That's still a long way off in politcal time, but these negative numbers for Hillary have to be of concern to her.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.