Half of US voters say never to Hillary
The question to ponder seems to be; Is America ready for a female president and if so, is America ready for that person to be Hillary Clinton?
I believe we have progressed to the point that electing a woman is possible, but I do not believe we are ready for this particular woman!
I believe we have progressed to the point that electing a woman is possible, but I do not believe we are ready for this particular woman!
Hillary Clinton, seen here 20 October 2007, may be the Democratic Party's 2008 presidential front-runner but she also tops the list when voters are asked for whom they would never, ever cast a ballot, a poll out Monday found.From Google news (AFP), a recent article read:
Hillary Clinton may be the Democratic Party's 2008 presidential front-runner but she also tops the list when voters are asked for whom they would never, ever cast a ballot, a poll out Monday found.
Fully 50 percent of US voters say that when it comes to Clinton, she can campaign all she likes but there is no way in the world she can win their support, with her negative rating up slightly from 46 percent in March, the Zogby poll said.
Older voters were the most hostile to the attorney and former first lady-turned US senator, who is seeking to become the first woman US president. Fifty-nine percent of those over 65 said they would never vote for Clinton, according to the survey which ranked leading Democratic and Republican hopefuls.
Clinton's Democratic rival Barack Obama drew a 37 percent rating of those who would never back him.
On the Republican side, front-runner Rudy Giuliani also drew a great deal of negative responses: 43 percent said they would never vote for him, and 42 percent said Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney was their choice for never.
This Internet survey of 9718 people with a one percent margin of error was done October 11-15.
posted by Anonymous at 6:08 AM
19 Comments:
Voila. You've discovered the reason why we must endure another "Sodrel for Congress" campaign; if Hillary runs, Hot Wheels reasons that he'll get a contact buzz from the anti-Clinton vote, especially in a fundamentialist backwater like the 9th district.
Sad thing is, he's probably right.
When is the democratic party going to "see the light?"
I know we'll probably disagree, but I don't see a single democratic front-runner for president come close to the qualifications of the republican front-runners.
To HEALTHBLOGGER:
How can anyone possibility make the statement: " I don't see a single democratic front-runner for president come close to the qualifications of the republican front-runners." ?
Are you blind? Or just a Polly Anna hopeful? We all know that no one candidate stands out as exceptional...Repubican or Democrat.
I am a registered Democrat, but I vote for the person. As a result I voted for Regan. And then I voted for Bush the first time, but his opponent got my vote during the second election...it was more a vote against Bush than anythng else.
As much as people want to think that Hillary doesn't stand a chance on getting elected, people may be surprised. Unfortunately, Bush has ruined the chances for Republicans in general because of guilt by association even if one emerges who is strong.
That being the case, I add to the discussion my observation of the comment of many people. As much as they didn't like Clinton, they wish he were back in office instead of Bush because our country was more stable then...and there is my point. Hillary carries the associated image of her husband and a vote for her is a vote for him.
Wishful thinking doesn't prevent undesired results. Get ready. We may very well end of with Hillary as our next President. And I wonder how this will affect our health care delivery system in this country. Bill Clinton attempted to address our health system the first year he was in office. If you recall he assigned it to Hillary. But Capital Hill was not ready for a First Lady who "worked out side the home"...nor were they ready to forfeit their power by letting one political party ... or individual...get credit for solving our problem.
For the most part, our elected officials are decent human beings, but unfortunately they are a different breed whose actions will always put themselves first. Their constituents come second and their interest is promoted only if it supports the elected official's position. That is why our health care delivery system issue was dropped when Clinton was first elected.
It has been said that age brings cynicism. Why is that? Could it possibly be disappointing experiences in politicians throughout the years? I know my comments come across as negataive, but if you can get past that feeling, just think about what I am saying.
Think about it.
Hillary made alot of mistakes in her original Health Care Reform. She even admits to her mistakes. Her present position on Healthcare seems somewhat socialized.
We might be ready for a woman president, but we are not ready for socialized medicine.
I will ponder your qualification point.
I will say this, the same could of have been said about Kerry and Bush. From a qualification standpoint there was no comparison. I assume you voted for Kerry?(grin)
This comment has been removed by the author.
What qualifications did Kerry have other than politics and a history of extreme liberal voting ranked in the top 5.
What successful business or state did he manage. He is a career politician just as Hilary and neither are qualified to run the country.
Were there better choices than Bush, certainly, but between Bush and Kerry, I still voted for Bush
The Clinton healthcare plan failed because it was a disaster from the start and a financial black hole with a bottomless pit.
The new plan is not much better and I agree, we are not ready for socialized medicine
No qualifications can prepare a person for the decisions they will make as the leader of the free world. If "qualifications" are your criteria, you won't find a candidate for whom to vote.
The question should not be whether we are ready for a woman to be president. The question should be whether a particular candidate will make the kinds of decisions with which we would agree. Focusing on immutable characteristics will lead nowhere.
Bringing this to Mrs. Clinton, it is not likely she would make decisions I would like. My disagreements with her are too numerous to list. But my vote for her opponent will not be a vote against her. It will be a vote for the ideas I support.
As long as Republicans advance conservative ideas in the campaign, they will defeat Mrs. Clinton, regardless of the nominee. But if they choose to simply campaign for a vote against her, they will lose. This was played out in last year's Congressional elections.
As a side note, I am not 100% convinced Mrs. Clinton will be the democrat nominee. But that is a separate issue for another day.
As you said with NA, we will disagree. The only qualification Bush had were connections. Same with his businesses. Heck, he did not even really do his National Guard service. Need proof, look at his "success" since being appointed President. The man has no clue and I usually give people the benefit of the doubt.
Surprise, you are against socialized medicine. Duh! I am not saying that I am for it or that you don't have reasons beyond INCOME but you have to admit your income would definitely suffer.
I do agree with anoymous and his/her post.
I also do not think she is a shoe-in for the nomination and I do believe republicans have a very good chance if they continue to advance their conservative ideas.
We will never know how someone other than Bush would have done and can only speculate. I for one believe we would have been much worse off if he had not been at the helm.
I believe that we would have been much better off.
Now, what did either of us prove? You can make lists and so can I and still disagree. Let's narrow it down.
For the sake of discussion, I accept the President's reasons that we went to Iraq. How could a competent and qualified leader not pay for this war? Why does this President saddle your children and grandchildren with this tremendous debt?
The same reason we have saddled our children and grandchildren with the welfare debt, healthcare debt etc, etc.
Philosophically, I believe governments primary role is a military one to protect its citizens and I would rather pay for that than some of the other rediculous things we pay for.
How about spending less than we take in. There's a radical concept
Has anyone heard anymore about the loan we secured from China? I am talking the 100 Million we borrowed to help financae the war. I cannot understand why that little issue hasn't brought out more discussion. Why havaen't people been furious??? What was Bush thinking to indebt us to China? Talk about irresponsible leadership!
If Obama was an economic conservative, would you vote for him HB? He's an evangelical Christian - and he's got my vote (not that it matters since we live in Indiana).
I was amused by HB's statement of "advancing conservative views", only because the concepts of "advanced" and "conservative views" seem so incompatible in their Republican context. Kind of like a "department of government efficiency" - an oxymoronic theory at best.
I suppose that more amusing was the concern that we're saddling our children & grandchildren with "welfare & healthcare debt". I'm not sure anyone saw the news about the $1.2 trillion dollars we've spent on this inane war conducted to settle old Bush family grudges. I'm no economist, but I cant help but wonder if these dollars couldnt have helped correct a few of the other lingering debts of which HB speaks.
This isnt a "Hillary" issue, as I dont know that as a Democrat, I could even vote for her. But, compared to what we've got now, how could it get much worse?
"How about spending less than we take in. There's a radical concept"
When President Bush went into office the budget was balanced with a small surplus. Again, assuming that this war is totally justified, why is Bush not paying for it? Are you not saying that a prudent and qualified person would do that? Under the assumptions, he must lead and tax the citizens to pay for this war, not leave it for some future generation of citizens to pay for it. Citizens WILL pay for it, why not the current citizens? Re-read your sentence above. Either spend less or take in more.
None of us really know if the war is justified. We do not have access to all information. Most of us have our opinions. That's why I took it out of the equation. We are there, spending big money, and the piper must be paid. I believe that all 3 are facts, not opinion.
Here is what any Democratic who is nominated has to do. They need to flip one red state and they win. I cannot see any Republican, in light of things now, who has any potential to flip a blue state. Rudy did a good job as major of NYC, but he won't even carry the city if he runs. He grand-standing on 9/11 has made New Yorkers angry and bitter.
So the question is this. Can the Dems flip a red state?
What are the possibilities?
Ohio. Huge suggestions of voter fraud were made in the last election. The Dems swept the state house and now have a wildly popular governor after a wildly unpopular governor. I can see Ohio flipping.
Florida. Huge possibilities of voter fraud in 2000. The political landscape as changed there.
Virgina. Growing discontentment with the Republicans and this state has gotten bluer.
I don't know if Hillary will even get the nomination, but I do see a strong chance for a change in the air. The Dems chances of flipping one state seem to be higher than the Republicans not having a state flipped or seeing a blue state flip in their direction.
Presidential politics isn't won on who is the most popular. It is won on the ability to win the states with the most electoral votes. Whatever one thinks about the Clintons, they are the smartest politicians (I use this term deliberately) I have ever seen and they know how to win elections.
lawguy,
Your cheap shot at HB on "advancing conservative ideas" should actually have been directed at me, since I was the first to bring that up just 2 posts above his.
For now, I'll just say this. Conservative does not necessarily equal republican, and republican does not necessarily equal conservative.
Hence, I wrote that Republicans should advance conservative ideas in the upcoming campaign. The point that I was making, which is that Republicans abandoned their conservative principles in last year's Congressional campaigns, would render your comments moot.
"Advanced" as you used it, and "advancing" as I originally used the term, do not mean the same thing.
There is a distinction between what I wrote (that to which HB was referring), and what you scoffed at. As an attorney, you should know better.
Grasshopper -
Relax. Breathe deeply. Repeat.
There's nothing like a little political debate to get the blood pressure moving.
There's an old saying in court that the last one to speak doesn't always make one right. However, while I'd typically move on after reading your post, I felt compelled to simply point out that really, there were no "cheap shots" in my post. HB is a respected friend of mine, and while we're often on the same page in the blogsphere, the fact I might poke fun (or even offer a differing view) doesn't make it a "cheap shot". I'll let him make that decision.
You're right as to my joke about the oxymoron of the phrase "advanced conservative ideas", I mistook a comment in your post for his. My bad.
The fact is that only cheap shot I've seen in this diatribe was yours, at me, about "knowing better as an attorney." If I drove a bus for a living, would you still have judged me for my mistake? Doubtful.
Don't get me wrong, I can take it. Life is a contact sport. Let's just not be hypocritical when taking shots standing behind th veiled anonymity of the internet world.
Let's move on.
Post a Comment
<< Home