« Brownback Supports Pace's "Homosexuality Is Immoral" Comment | Home | Hillary: Homosexuality Is Not Immoral »
Poll: Almost Half Say They Would Definitely Vote Against Hillary
A new Rasmussen poll finds that nearly half of voters — 46% — say they would definitely vote against Hillary, while only 26% say they'd definitely vote against Rudy, the lowest number of any of the Presidential candidates. The two candidates were an even draw when it comes to the number of people who say they would definitely vote for the two: 30% would definitely pick Hillary, while 31% say they'd definitely pick Rudy. Rudy, meanwhile, is the only candidate in this poll to have more people say they'd definitely vote for him than would definitely vote against him.
Here's how some of the other candidates fared with the definitely for vs. definitely against question:
• Barack Obama, 28%-37% • John McCain, 21%-34% • John Edwards, 20%-39%
Advertisement
Rasmussen is a GOP organ.
I am not saying the numbers are made up but Rasmussen numbers always tilt to the right.
March 15, 2007 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Rasmussen was dead-on target in 2004. These numbers look about right to me. Clinton has no elbow room - almost half the country at this early stage will NOT vote for her. You think she'll become more popular as the campaign grinds on? Not likely.
And when is this expected downturn in Guiliani's numbers supposed to show up in these polls? Aren't Republican voters becoming aware of his various foibles and liberal-leanings? Yet, he continues to pull away from McCain. He will be, I fear, a teflon candidate - in the primaries and in the general.
March 15, 2007 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but 46% is close to the amount who would definitely vote against any Democrat. I doubt any Dem will get more than 54% in a general election. Even Mr. Anti-cynicism.
March 15, 2007 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with felix. Giuliani is looking like a Teflon candidate. But at one point, so did McCain. What brought McCain down? His close association with the Iraq war and the surge. Giuliani has been equally supportive of the Iraq war and indeed of the whole neocon "dream" of Cheney, Wolfowitz, Bill Kristol et al. See his 2004 repub. convention speech. The Democrats need to start pointing this out, because what will drive moderates from Giuilani is not, as many liberals and pundits think, his divorces or his temper tantrums but rather his hawkishness and the prospect that on foreign policy Giulani will deliver more of what Cheney and Bush have been delivering. Moderates are exhausted with the neocon foreign policy worldview.
March 15, 2007 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Senator Clinton's negatives are really, really worrisome..... My republican friends (Yes. I have some.)who are not pleased with their party's candidates tell me they would not vote for her. We are really, really lucky that the Governator cannot run. With his social tolerenace and great green stance in Caliufornia, the Gov. Schwarzenegger could demolish the Dem nominee.
March 15, 2007 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Giuliani and Romney have been very quiet about their surge support since November. I think his divorces, temperment, ethical judgement are as important as his war position. His credibility needs to be cut down to size. It is all too easy in modern US politics to perouette away from unpopular positions.
March 15, 2007 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Second term Arnold is a Democrat anyway, so he'd be in Rudy's position of having to get through the GOP primaries. The entire GOP voting segment of Iowa is going to get automated phone calls explaining Rudy's social views and family life in explicit detail before the caucuses, and we'll see how they like him then.
No one on our side seems to think Hillary is going to waltz away with it, even though she's up in the polls, and I think it's safe to assume the same with the other side as well.
March 15, 2007 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Every % matters. It seems almost self-evident that Hillary will have less upside possibility and less margin of error than pretty much all of the other candidates.
March 15, 2007 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can bluster all you want, but electability is a key issue. There are real differences in the ability of the various potential Dem nominees to draw the independents and moderate Repubs needed to win a general election.
Hillary's net favorability rating (positives - negatives) is at +5 and is lower now than Al Gore on election day 2000 after Bush and Rove had spent hundreds of millions smearing him. Obama, who you continually deride for reasons you never really express, is at +22. Please explain why you have such an attitude about Obama.
March 15, 2007 10:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Knowing that poster is a NY'r, my guess is that they have been a Hilliary supporter for the past 6 years and may even have worked to re-elect Senator Clinton.
March 16, 2007 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps, the real guage of even this issue will be Limbaugh. Whatever he says will be how the moderates decide to vote for or against Guiliani.
March 16, 2007 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink