Clinton's Negatives

[Alamom]

or more RW Myths.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/the_contest_for_the_democratic_nomination


The Contest For the Democratic Nomination
By Douglas Schoen
Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Clinton >

Her favorable rating is 81% among Democrats and her negative rating is only 17%. With rating this high it is hard to see how she will be denied the nomination. Her favorability rating exceeds former Senator John Edwards by 11% and Senator Obama by 19%.

Beyond her favoranle rating, Senator Clinton is also seen as the most liberal candidate in the field. In a race where close to half the primary electorate are ideological or operational liberals, this is extremely good news for the New York Senator.

She is also seen as the most electable candidate among Democrats. This rebuts one of the top reasons cited by her detractors for her presumed difficulty in winning the election.

The Real Clear Politics averages confirm the Rasmussen findings. Senator Clinton holds a 19% lead in the RCP national numbers and leads in each of the first major primary states by wide margins in New Hampshire (18%), South Carolina (12%) and Florida (22%) and a narrow margin in first in the nation Iowa (3%).

Rasmussen Reports polling also shows Clinton leading in New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida.

[BeyondGeography]

1. Her ratings with Democrats are not the issue

all they show is we'll be nominating someone who is mostly popular with us and mostly despised by the rest of the country.

Her unfavorables with Democrats are indeed consistently low, but that makes her overall unfavorable number even nore alarming. To get to the mid-40's in total, her unfavorable rating among non-Democrats needs to be around 80%.

[w4rma]

10. No kidding. There is nothing about the general election polling in the OP. (nt)

[PurityOfEssence]

12. Yet this meets with consistent dismissal

There are some very powerful forces of human nature at work, and they're the traditional ones that bring ruin.

To many of her supporters, it's a "we're gonna show 'em" romp to gleefully rub the reactionaries' noses in their hounding of Bill by shoving another Clinton down their throat and making them cry "uncle".

To many others, it's time for a woman president, and anyone who stands in their way is a misogynist troglodyte; if the gender appeal is even raised, shrieks of prejudice ensue, since that's simply not an issue. Indeed, her gender has nothing to do with it; all these lefties would jump over a couple of very electable Democrats to vote for this crypto-conservative because she's...um...I'm sure I'll think of it.

Many others have "bought" the inevitability crap and have a tiresome and vulgar need to be on the winning bandwagon. This is more prevalent than generally thought and is a dismal commentary on human nature.

This country has been torn apart from the right and the left for the last few years with the bullying need to bring the other side to heel, and this is a big issue here; that's why it's the first point in this post. We need to work together, and although I see the irony of my being so dead-set and hell-bent against someone who "claims" to work with the righties, that sort of illustrates my take on her: her consensus building is more for her self-advancement than for the enactment of policies. She is, AT BEST, a moderate, and I believe her policies don't benefit the workers and middle class, and I think that's dangerous to us all because a shrinking middle class will destroy our economy.

Here's some food for thought: lefties continually carp and keen that they don't understand the evil conservative mindset. In the same breath, however, they claim that this isn't an issue.

If her unfavorables are as high among the general population as polls say, this, coupled with the antipathy from leftists and the tepid toleration of moderate Democrats will strip away many voters who would otherwise vote Democratic.

[BeyondGeography]

13. There's a strong schadenfreude aspect to her "appeal"

many of her supporters do want to stick it in the faces of those who oppose her. They can't wait to see the look on George W.'s face when he's standing there watching her get sworn in. They want to witness the collective nervous breakdown of the RW echo chamber. Hell, even I see the comic value in that.

But then what? How to govern after certain reptilian impulses have been satisfied? And what can Democrats reasonably expect from the House of Triangulation in return for their devotion once the inevitable reaction occurs and she goes to that place she knows best, on the defensive?

[PurityOfEssence]

16. Absolutely. It's juvenile and dangerous, but there it is.

This seething need for vengeance is as tiresome as it is reckless.

There are many elements of her candidacy that appeal to the basest of human instincts, and that just exacerbates an already icky situation.

I hate the triumphant barking of the victors as they ridicule their opponents; it just reeks of conservatives dismissing all detractors as "whiners". This, coupled with the obvious conservative stripe of the woman leave a decidedly bad taste in my mouth.

The giddy appeal of jumping on the bandwagon always sets my contrarian teeth on edge, and that vehicle is leading a fool's parade.

Worshiping "toughness" and ruthless precision REALLY gets under my skin. In the service of a moral quest, these are fine tools, but in the service of personal advancement above all else, they're truly dangerous. The weak may feel thrilled by having their champion-of-the-moment be a pillar of strength, but they should also be aware that this same resolute energy can and will be turned against them when it's convenient.

We don't "owe" her this. We're witnessing a schizophrenic version of justice: the revenge of the downtrodden when the person really hasn't been subjected to that much. The victim card is very effective when played to lefties, and she's been buffeted by plenty of criticism over the years, but she's still famous, wealthy, powerful and privileged beyond most people's ability to even imagine. Are we to put our futures on the line because she's taken some hits? I doubt she'd do it for us.

What's more important, building a more fair and stable world or being able to dance around a bunch of reactionaries in some kind of "nyah-nyah" humiliation spectacle? Do people actually think their opponents are going to brush this off and join the rest of us in moving on to a better society and economy? Fat fucking chance; they're going to be even more entrenched.

The backlash from this kind of juvenile vengeance slapped the reactionaries hard in the face in the 1998 election, and we'd be best advised to pay attention to things like that.

What this pissy little fixation held by so many Clinton supporters REALLY is is the political equivalent of making faces at another driver who makes a thoughtless maneuver in traffic: the "wronged" driver just manages to annoy everyone and potentially cause further accidents. In the end, even if the first driver's mistake was selfish or lame, the second driver's insistence on humiliating and harassing the first one just makes the second driver look worse and messes up everyone's day.

[rinsd]

15. Well the GOP is the exact opposite and her numbers with indies range from a net of -5 to 0 (nt)

[Dhalgren]

2. We should just save our money and cancel the primaries,

this looks like a done-deal...

[durrrty libby]

3. She is doing fabulous. Last night on the PBS debate she

nailed it and received roaring applause:applause: :woohoo:

[bluescribbler]

4. The most liberal candidate?????

Dennis Kucinich might have something to say about that.

[Jackpine Radical]

5. She MUST be the most liberal.

Rush & Hannity have been telling us she's a far-left whacko for years.

It doesn't matter that none of her actual positions on things like the war, health care and NAFTA are liberal.

[bluescribbler]

14. It's funny

The Rush and Hannity crowd call her a left wing wacko. Some even call her a Marxist. Here on DU I've seen people call her a corporatist. She can't possibly be both.

[Jackpine Radical]

19. Rush & Hannity are trying to dedefine the meaning of left-wing.

Ig they can convince everyone that Hill is left-wing, that moves the "center" a long way to the right.

[Clintonista2]

17. The most liberal electable candidate

[William769]

6. Obama'a campaign is starting to implode

It's apparent in the fear and desperation you can see in their postings here on DU.

[durrrty libby]

7. They have just about lost touch with reality

[calteacherguy]

18. Obama is a great Democrat, and I respect him a lot.

I see no evidence of his campaign "imploding."

[L0oniX]

8. Only Gore can save us from Hillary's lobbyists

I will now ignore this thread so don't bother trying to attack me.

[William769]

11. Why attack you?

Gores endorsement of Hillary is right around the corner.

[youthere]

9. The poll is misleading..

I view Mrs. Clinton favorably..but I will not caucus for her.

[BenDavid]

20. The gentleman that wrote this for

Rasmussen is a conservative, but I do not hold that against him, but I can say that last week CNN/Gallup released a poll thta gave HRC a 51% FAVORABLE RATING and for the first time her NEGATIVES went before the 40% mark...They were at 39%....Oh help me L-rd cause that is what I read in here for the past several months, Clintons negatives are going to defeat us.....Well hell where is all the joy and celebration from those that were spewing all this venom? uh huh Not to be found. As usual, but we all should celebrate this, whether you be for Obama, Edwards or anyone else because if HRC does capture the nomination and I believe she will (february 9, 2008) she will have strong numbers heading into the race for president....

One other thing I would like to say and to those with other candidates please read: It is curious that so many poll driven pundits overlook the fact that HRC's negatives are clustered mainly among Republicans and republican leaning independents who are unlikely to to vote for her in any circumstance. Second, too many on the right are girding themselves for the wrong fight. Most on tv and radio are talking like they will be facing Leona Helmsley, the Queen of Mean" when the republican nominee will face off against HRC. They do not understand this will not be the HRC they will be confronting. Before this is over and at some point in 08 HRC's candidacy will have more in common with Amelia Earharts's first trans atlantic flight and Sally Ride's first trip into space, then Helmsleys heartlessness.....The key and when this point is made in 08 it will be the SYMBOLISM that will be playing out in politics this go round. HRC's bid to become the first ever woman president will be a big deal. HRC and her campaign will not adopt this cause as HRC has said, she is not running as a woman, but rather the best qualified candidate who happens to be a woman. When this point ocurs in 08 that HRC will be the first woman president it will over shadow every other issue and image in this campaign.

I do thank you
Ben David