39% say they will definitely vote AGAINST Edwards.

[calteacherguy]

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

Wonder what the margin of error was in this...5%, perhaps? Hmmm, maybe 44% would definitely vote against Edwards. Hmmm.....

[ColonelTom]

1. or perhaps 34%.

Your point?

[calteacherguy]

3. My point is those bashing Hillary on "electability" have no point.

They are on very shaky statistical ground, indeed.

[TheUniverse]

8. Hillary clinton 's "won't vote for" numbers are higher.

You can easily win the presidency with a 39 percent "won't vote for" figure. Thats leaves 61 percent (which I assume would be the Democratic base and the moderates, which is what you need to win).

[calteacherguy]

20. So are her "definitely will vote for" numbers. nt

[TheUniverse]

22. Well, she is by far the most well known candidate

Everyone has already decided on her.

[Donnachaidh]

28. and what are those?

I like math. :sarcasm:

[slick8790]

2. Yeah, 5% doesn't mean anything.

Especially to John Kerry or Al Gore. They didn't need an extra 5%, did they?

By your logic, hillary could also have 49% who would never vote for her.

*edit* also, what's an acceptable "not vote for" number?

[Hieronymus]

24. Hillary supporters sure hate that figure.

[acmavm]

4. Are you related to Hilary or something?

[calteacherguy]

5. Not that I know of...of course if you go back far enough everyone's related to just about everybody!

nt

[Mojambo]

6. He's an Obama supporter if I remember correctly.

Certainly has his issues with Edwards though.

[Colobo]

12. No; he's for Hillary now.

[Mojambo]

16. My mistake.

Thanks for clarifying.

[calteacherguy]

19. I like both Clinton and Obama, each for their own reasons.

They both make me proud to be a Democrat.

[DavidDvorkin]

7. They must be reading DU.

Absorbing the GOP talking points repeated by Democratic mouths.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

9. ah, the smell of Hilliarians in the morning - smells like PR SPIN

I saw the e-mail of the Hilliarians, who advised their members to continue to start new threads here, at Kos, and a number of other places every day, and to attack us who don't care for her much

[superkia]

18. Thats all I have seen of her campaign...Spin, she belongs on FOX!

I really haven't seen her speak up against the system like she said that she would, I see her making talking points while her supporters only throw out attacks with no substance supporting or promoting why she is the best candidate to be president? If the supporters are behind her so much, you would think they would have something other than talking points and spin. Clinton should just sell out completely and go spend some time with the fox crew.

Note: I am sure not all Clinton supporters are this way, its just the majority here on DU.

[JTFrog]

37. Should? lol

[babylonsister]

21. Series?! I missed that, but would love to see it. nt

[bluestateguy]

10. Great! We'll take the other 61%

Last time I checked, that was a bigger number than 39%.

[calteacherguy]

11. Also, last time I checked, 56% was better than 44%.

Point is, there is no real significant difference between those saying they would definitely "vote against" any in the "top tier." Further, there is no way to determine how these numbers will evolve over time. It's not valid to single Clinton out as "the least electable" when exactly the opposite may be true.

[Donnachaidh]

13. what was that number about Hillary's UN-electibility?

It was decidedly higher -- 54%

the polls mean NOTHING.

[calteacherguy]

14. 44% nt

[Donnachaidh]

27. there was another that was 54 %

still -- much.ado.about.NOTHING

[calteacherguy]

31. Still....link, please. nt

[calteacherguy]

39. I think you are referrring to a very old, very irrelevant poll. Is there still a link for it? nt

[illinoisprogressive]

15. not as high as hillary's

[calteacherguy]

17. Perhaps...depends on MOE.

And in any case, we are only talking about a few percentage points. A lot can change in the coming months. Clinton is becoming more popular and better liked by the American people everyday. The right-wing lies about her are becoming ancient history.

[countmyvote4real]

23. I will gladly take Edwards over "Heil Hilary" any day.

No more dynasties for me. Especially not now.

[southerncrone]

25. Especially when * says he "admires" her. Too cozy for me.

[THUNDER HANDS]

26. well

I've taken a lot of online surveys on which candidate my views match up with most, and Edwards comes out on top on every one.

But I'm still supporting Obama.

Sometimes it's more than just the dinnerplate of issues that you have to weigh when choosing a candidate to support in a primary.

[Indenturedebtor]

29. HIllary is the one Democratic candidate

That I would not be happy about supporting. Big business loves Hillary Clinton.

I would still support her over any jackboot, but damn if it wouldn't hurt. And again, I have yet to meet someone in my personal or private life who wants Hillary in office. The only people I see or hear supporting her are on TV or teh interweb... and I meet ALOT of people every day.

[jillan]

30. Same thing with Obama

Obama
23% for
37% against

used the same link.

That's what's nice about having a candidate in the second tier....you don't have to worry about this nonsense.

[BenDavid]

32. February 12th HRC wins nomination

[ChairmanAgnostic]

38. don't SCARE US like that. all we need is another AIPAC fool

in charge of this country. Hillary would be a disaster for this country. worse yet, her pro-AIAPC policies would do no good for Israel, either. Given the growing awareness within israel that AIPAD does them no favors, I only wish that conversation would cross over here and be held without baseless claims that such discusssions are somehow anti-semitic.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

33. That's actually not bad. n/t

[last_texas_dem]

34. And your point is...?

Basically any Democrat begins with at least 40-percent, if not 45-percent, of voters definitely voting against them. Consider that since LBJ, only one Democratic Presidential candidate has broken 50-percent, and that was Jimmy Carter in 1976 (50.1-percent). Clinton won twice without breaking 50-percent, and Gore got the most votes without getting a 50-percent majority.

39-percent, 44-percent, whatever... neither of these figures are bad and in fact are probably slightly better than a typical Democratic candidate. Personally, judging by a number of your posts, I think you just have something personal against Edwards and are really digging to find something, anything, to attack him on.

[Perry Logan]

35. Rasmussen's figures are cooked.

Rasmussen is a Republican firm that regularly asks slanted questions and produces pro-Republican results through a questionable poll weighting method.

Rasmussen regularly has the wildest outliers of all on Bush job approval (typically about 5-7% higher than the average of other polls).

From the start of 2005, Rasmussen has weighted to make Rep and Dem party ID equal at 37%. Yet his table of unweighted data since start 2004 shows that in every month, the Dem figure exceeded the Rep figure, often significantly. This weighting introduces a persistent bias which can be quantified if you know the cross-tab data.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/3/17/11424/8443

[framecop]

36. Actually, at this point, they just "think" they will "definitely" vote against Edwards

Most of those 39% are basing their opinions of a bunch on fake scandals that have been perpetrated by the media over the course of the year.

If John Edwards was the Democratic Nominee, and he was receiving all of the attention, many of them would change their minds.

Few are going to change their minds about Hillary Clinton, having seen her for the past 15 years.

Edwards' numbers reflect the now (bloggers, hair, house, hedge fund, donors, etc). All meant to generate fake outrage, which could easily dissipate, if given time to explain it.

Hillary Clinton's numbers are set.

There is a difference.

Learn to read what's behind numbers.

[Milo_Bloom]

40. Edwards, Clinton... same thing, different clothes.

Both capitulators, neither deserve to be in office.