Hillary Clinton Popularity Poll
Posted by Moonage on 27 May 2005 | Tagged as: 2006 US Senate Races, 2008 Presidential Race
Well, that’s not a totally correct headline. Here’s why:
Hillary has possibly a 29% support base. 24% are saying "who else is going to run?". 7% are saying if nothing worse runs, I’ll vote for her. And 39% won’t vote for her under any circumstances. 39% negative vs 29% positive isn’t quite the spin USAToday is giving it at all. Considering no one else is really being considered as a candidate, that’s pretty awful actually.
Two other quick points:
-
"This may also reflect that she has been recasting her image as a more moderate person," he ( Kohut of Pew Research ) says. I, and I’m sure most every political observer have noticed the swing to the middle if not the right by Hillary. IMO, this is the only chance she has. But, "An overwhelming 80% of liberals were likely to support her, compared with 58% of moderates and 33% of conservatives. Among those surveyed, 54% called Clinton a liberal, 30% a moderate and 9% a conservative." She still has a huge perception problem. ( Thanks to Kerry, Feinstein, and especailly Dean ). Where this problem will truly manifest itself is when a strong conservative jumps into the picture. And trust me, there will be a strong conservative.
-
"Spokesmen for Sen. Clinton declined to discuss the survey. "She’s just focused on working and doing her job for New York," says Anne Lewis, a veteran Democratic operative working at Hillpac, Clinton’s political action committee." First she has to get past 2006. I think Hillary realizes that a lot moreso than most pundits. She might have an interesting race in 2006 with Jeanine Pirro jumping into the fray. If she wins in a cakewalk in ‘06, that’s when you’ll hear a different tune from Anne Lewis. And justifiably so.
Until then, these polls are useless fodder.
8 Comments »
on 28 May 2005 at 9:36 pm 1.StormWarning
said …
I know that you disagree with me (because of the PAC) but I still don’t expect her to run in ‘08.
Archive this please.
on 28 May 2005 at 10:18 pm 2.Moonage
said …
I can’t say for sure that she will or will not. But, I can assure you, she’s testing the water. And, I think she knows as well as I do that glow from “the Clinton years” will be forgotten in 2012. If she doesn’t run in 2008, she will never be a serious candidate.
Having said that, unless something changes, I’m willing to put money on her running.
on 31 May 2005 at 12:34 pm 3.Bryan Kerwick
said …
The real question is can we get Dr. Rice to run?
By far the most qualified for the job. Politics aside, this a no brainer.
I really beleive that the folks would do what they think is in their best interest regardless of the media spin.
Republicans, Democrats, Liberals and Conservatives are all in the same boat.
Hillary or someone else. The question is who.
on 02 Jun 2005 at 10:02 pm 4.StormWarning
said …
OK, lets try this one on for size.
My very early “consensus” poll for 2008 is:
D: Evan Bayh
R: Bill Frist
New 3rd Party: John McCain
As I’ve written before, “let us not deal with today’s reality or things as they are or as they seem to be, but look at things the way they may become.”
on 03 Jun 2005 at 1:13 am 5.Bryan Kerwick
said …
All of the above have no shot at all.
D: Evan Bayh Would NEVER get the Democratic Party Nomination. The Looney Hollywood crowd that hijacked this Party would not stand for someone this centrist.
R: Bill Frist Would have a hard time winning the Republican Nomination and would get his head handed to him by Hillary.
New 3rd Party: John McCain Wouldn’t ever be able to raise enough money. He also would be fed to wolves by the Right Wing of the Republican Party so much so that they might support another Republican for his Senate seat in Arizona, namely the Governor of that state.
It’s still way too early to tell but I still think the only 2 possible people to run and beat Hillary are Rudy Guilianni or Dr. Rice. Both of these can get the Republican Nomination and raise serious cash if they wanted the job. They also pose unique problems for Hillary. It is hard for Hillary to run against someone she is trying to be similar to. Rudy is Liberal enough on issues like abortion, womans rights and generally most social issues. He also is Conservative enough on things like the War to make it difficult for her to make enough different comparisons with. Running against an opposite is easier for her than someone similar. Her move to center right for this Presidential election has been a lesson in political smarts. If however, she can’t make enough differences in her debates, America would vote for it’s 9/11 hero and not her.
Dr. Rice makes a completely different problem for her. Hillary can not vilify her or risk alienating the Black vote and the Woman vote. Dr. Rice may be of no match to Hillary politically but she is way smarter and far more to the right her entire life, not just the past 6 years. That is why these 2 are the only ones I think can beat her but I feel Rudy’s health problems will keep him out of the fray. I’ll stick with Dr. Rice.
on 03 Jun 2005 at 7:52 am 6.StormWarning
said …
IMO, Rudy won’t run:
1) he’s pro-life, anti-gun
2) he’s doing very well in his consulting business
3) he’s a northeasterner (doesn’t bode well historically)
IMO, Hillary won’t run (despite other opinions):
1) she’s a northeastern Democrat
2) she’s a lightening rod for everyone
3) she’s doing nicely as Senator from NY State
I believe that the Democrats will run someone from the midwest who can project a semblance of “values.” Despite the “Hollywood influence” I believe that someone like Bayh, or Tom Vilsac (Iowa governor) will end up being the nominee.
I don’t know about the dynamic of Frist and McCain at this point. It may be a little early to call that one (actually, its a little early to bet on either race). But I do think that you are underestimating McCain’s appeal to the “middle.”
on 03 Jun 2005 at 9:32 pm 7.Bryan Kerwick
said …
The only shot a midwestern democrat has at garnering the Democratic Party nomination AND winning a National Election is Ford from Tennesse. I am a Center-Right pro business, small government, anti-regulation Independent which I guess in this day and age makes me a Neo-con Republican to most. I would vote for Ford in a heartbeat over most we have discussed with the possible exception of Dr. Rice. I would love to see the Democratic Party wrested from the far left wing looneys in Hollywood but I’m not holding my breath.
Ford is young, charismatic, decent looking(for the ladies out there that also voted for Kennedy for the same reason) CENTRIST, strong on principles and generally is in touch with the American Electorate. The fact he is black might help with the looney libs but I seriously doubt it. That is precisely why he would never get the Democratic Nomination. It’s a damn shame because he would make a good President IMO.
Northeastern Canidates are not necessarily bad for America. Just the ones who have run in the last 50 years of my life. Rudy would have great appeal to the electorate as a whole and Hillary really isn’t from my birthplace of New York. Plus I wouldn’t vote for her because she isn’t a Yankee fan even during the years when they sucked. Trust me I know too well about when the Yankees sucked. I was there.
on 04 Jun 2005 at 9:04 am 8.StormWarning
said …
Trust me I know too well about when the Yankees sucked. I was there.
Been here all my life. I remember well the 1962 WS (I think) when Ralph Terry was pitching against the SF Giants (my Dad had gotten seats from one of his subcontractors on the first base line…problem was that it was the old Stadium and my seat was directly behind a girder).
Also remember watching Ryne Duran pitch…saw Bob Cerv and Enos Slaughter play the outfield…watch Gil MacDougal and Phil Rizzuto…
Harold Ford is a great up and coming Democrat. I doubt if he has enough clout yet to make a run for the Presidency.