Hillary Trails Generic GOP Candidate by Seven Points

Rasmussen Reports ^ | 12/13/04 | Scott Rasmussen

[Embraer2004]

December 13, 2004--If the next Presidential Election were held today, 46% of voters would vote for a generic Republican candidate over Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that 39% of voters would cast their ballot for Senator Clinton.

The New York Senator holds a narrow 45% to 42% lead among women, but trails by 17 points among men.

The national telephone survey of 1,500 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports December 3-5, 2004. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

An earlier Rasmussen Reports survey found that 42% of Democrats believe that Senator Clinton is the Democrats' strongest candidate for 2008. Other survey data shows that 51% of Democrats want their next Presidential candidate to be more of a centrist than John Kerry.

Forty-five percent (45%) of voters have a favorable opinion of Senator Clinton while 42% have an unfavorable opinion. The fact that 87% of voters have an opinion about her is remarkably high for a United States Senator.

[oceanview]

this doesn't mean much. we need to be running 527 ads against her, starting next year, to get those negative numbers up to near 50%. we need to run an early negative campaign against her, because as it stands now, it looks likely that our candidate is likely to be "unknown" by national political standards.

[ohCompGk]

Hillary. Love her or hate her. Nothing in between. Fortunately, she doesn't have enough lovers. Maybe she should talk to Bill:)

[HitmanLV]

She must be dealt with, but I don't think she is nearly as formidable as she has convinced herself she is. Frankly I don't even think she will get the nomination.

[Giant Conservative]

Any socially conservative Republican, provided they have a sufficient resume of experience governing, can beat Clinton in 2008.

On the other hand, any socially liberal Republican would unquestionably lose to Clinton in 2008.

So, which way will the Republican Party go?

[Theresawithanh]

She may not get the nomination. The dems may consider her too polarizing, and may be content just to have her and Bill as the not-so-behind-the-scenes architects of the party.

I have to admit, I'm kinda surprised that only 46% said they'd vote for the generic Republican candidate instead of Hill. I would have figured it at about the mid-fifties percent.

[ohCompGk]

I don't really expect the Dem's to jump on Hillary's bandwagon despite what she would like. It's probably too soon to start on her until we see real signs from the Dems.

[oceanview]

don't overestimate the Bush win - a 60K vote swing in Ohio, and Kerry is president-elect right now. The 2004 election was not a 1984 redux.

Richardson will be on the ticket, they will do better amongst Hispanics. The first national ticket with a woman at the top, and a Hispanic as the VP, will generate tremendous media atention. If they take every Kerry state, and play for NM, AZ, NV and CO (remember, CO elected a Hispanic senator in a state wide race against a well known republican) - they can get to 270.

The demographics of the US are changing. People move from places like NY to VA and NC, and bring their Democratic votes with them. That's why we are losers in NH and MAINE now, the libs fleeing MASS bring their votes with them. Same with the western states with people fleeing CA.

Hillary could win this election; not that she will, but she could. The conservative base alone cannot elect a president - Bush got plenty of independent voters in 2004, if he hadn't, he would have lost.

[Embraer2004]

It will be a GOP Governor: Keep your eye on Colorado's Bill Owens, Minnesotta's Tim Pawlenty and Massachusetts' Mitt Romney since one of them may become a serious contender to get the Republican nomination in 2008. Forget Rudy, Pataki and McCain, they are damaged goods. Jeb Bush would be the ideal candidate, but I think that Jeb will wait 4 or 8 more years, 2012 or 2016. Outside chances (very dark horses) for Rick Perry of Texas, Robert Ehrlich of Maryland, and Dirk Kempthore of Idaho. Bill Frist or Condi Rice may get the Vice-Presidential nod.

[carlr]

A true conservative Republican cannot win a state office without massive upstate turnout.They may not win even with one as the state is evenly divided between NYC and the rest of the state.Add in Albany,Buffalo,Syracuse,Rochester and other upstate urban areas and the odds of a conservative being elected to the Senate or Governor`s office is very small.
Hillary will have a very good chance to be re-elected if she runs again.
This is of course not cast in stone and any effort to defeat her must be undertaken.
It may fail but all NY FReepers need to be committed to this cause.

[knarf]

The bwitch is un-electable.
That's not to say it couldn't/wouldn't get a seat (after all, it is a senator) .... but the Daley machine no longer has the clout it used to have.

Take the pension and go away, bwitch ... and take yer mutt with y' too !

[Giant Conservative]

The conservative base alone cannot elect a president.

No Republican will ever again win the Presidency without the socially conservative base of the Republican Party. The GOP ticket in 2008 must be 100% pro-life, for example.

[oceanview]

you need a coalition to win. if the conservative base is going to exclude certain candidates, and risk putting someone up there that won't get independent votes - they will lose.

it cuts both ways, but that's what it means to have a coalition.

[Giant Conservative]

If the conservative base is going to exclude certain candidates, and risk putting someone up there that won't get independent votes - they will lose.

Of course, the nature of any political party is exclusion. For example, no member of a group called "Communists in America" would ever be included in the pool of potential applicants for the Presidency.

So the question is not whether or not the pool of candidates will be limited to exclude candidates of incompatable ideologies: of course it will be, per the example above.

That leaves the real question, very simply, as:

A) What ideological/political positions must a Republican nominee for President have, and B) which ideological/political positions traditionally associated with the Republican party are to be considered non-mandatory?

I would like to hear your short lists for both A) and B) above.

[bluebeak]

don't underestimate the princess of darkness ... and most of the republican names are not well none (G. Allen, Frist, etc.) ... or are loose (and rusty) cannons (Hagel and McCain)

[ApplegateRanch]

Can't we at least have the decency to wait until after President Bush is re-inaugurated before started this interminable BS?