Among all candidates (both parties) Hillary has the most voters (46%) who've already rejected her

[Stop Cornyn]

In response to those who post that "Hillary Clinton's Negatives Lowest Among The Top Democrats" -- it is key to note that Hillary has the lowest negatives among likely Democratic primary voters.

Does anyone sincerely believe that she can't possibly win the primary? Of course she can win the primary. It is her negatives in the general election where Hillary gets us into trouble.

When you consider likely voters of both parties, Hillary has the disadvantage that 46% of the electorate has already decided that they definitely wouldn't vote for her. This is the highest percentage of voters who definitely wouldn't vote for her of any candidate in either party.

It is not that Hillary is despised among Democrats -- that's a minority view among Democrats; she's just not well liked among independents and moderate Republicans and, consequently, she an easier target for Republicans in the general election.

If Hillary were ideologically outstanding, that might be a risk worth taking, but she's the most hawkish, most triangulating, and most lobbyist-indebted of all the major candidates so the risk of nominating Hillary and then losing in November offers no ideological payoff in exchange for taking that risk.

Obama and Edwards both offer less risk of losing in November plus the prospect of a better presidency from an ideological perspective.

[SaveElmer]

1. Obama and Edwards are at 43%...within MoE...

Nice try though!!!

[IndianaJones]

2. hey....you're using math. nt.

[insanad]

11. Polarizing Effect

While many of the things Hilary Clinton is so well practiced at are viable in the leadership skills necessary to be a president, she is also vehemently loathed by most Republicans, many insecure men, and lots of traditional women. The potential for the Democrats to win the presidency and other important positions is very very good, especially after years of what the Republicans have done to take the position to absolutely new lows. I think even many Republicans would vote for a good Democratic leader if given the choice between Romney, Guliani, or Edwards and Obama. Unfortunately, if the Democrats choose Hilary Clinton as their candidate, they'll in effect guarantee that Republicans will rally to vote against her, as will some Democrats and many independents. Even if she manages to win the election her personality and history will further polarize the whole Washington scene and the gridlock we've had for the last 20 years will only escalate. She is so vulnerable to whatever opinions and polls tell her to do that she'll be virtually paralyzed by trying to please everyone. In the end, she'll please no one.

I've been reading a lot about Barack Obama and even though he's young (actually he and I are the same age, so that means I'm young too!!!), a little inexperienced, and some ignorant and backward illiterates equate the rhyme of his name with Osama, I still think he has all the values, rhetoric, and history of being able to unify people on both sides of the fence. He is maturing quickly to the game of politics and shows a great deal of grace and dignity. One of the most important elements in good leadership is to have the ability to inspire many people to do good and worthwhile things. Other than the bigots that would reject him because his father was black, I cannot see how anyone could negate his value as a lawmaker, a compassionate visionary, and a potentially great leader. Visit his website and read about the things he's actually participated in or enacted in his Senatorial career.

I believe that Senator Obama can unify the American people, the international climate and attitude toward Americans, the various Republican and Democratic factions, and with all that support, he can be effective as a leader. The programs he supports will benefit all of us, especially the poor. It may be the money of the wealthy that builds universities and hospitals, but much of that money is made on the backs of the millions of "Ants" that they exploit. His efforts and vision resonate with so many people that live on that edge. There's more of us (ants) than there are of them (grasshoppers) and it's time we show our revolt by voting for the one who has OUR interests at heart.

[Tejanocrat]

14. You're right, and Rasmussen's most recent polling confirms this:

Using a three-poll rolling average to quiet any statistical noise, the Clinton effect becomes clear--the former First Lady earns between 46%and 49% of the vote against each of the top five Republican hopefuls. It doesn’t matter if it’s Rudy Giuliani or Mike Huckabee, John McCain or Fred Thompson.

If you average the results of the top five candidates, you find Clinton’s support at 48%. She also attracts 48% support when matched up with the little known Ron Paul. Adding further support to the notion that it’s all about Clinton is this tidbit-- among the voters who have never heard of Ron Paul or don’t know enough to have an opinion, Clinton attracts the exact same total--48%. So, whether the candidate is a frontrunner or an also ran—or even if voters have never heard of the candidate, Clinton earns about 48% of the vote. These numbers make sense when you consider that Clinton is by far the best known of all the candidates and that opinions of her are split roughly down the middle.

Link: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/2008_republican_presidential_primary

[opihimoimoi]

3. I happen to feel Hilliary will kick Pubs ass in the Gen El....all them Pubs look like SHIT

[Tejanocrat]

12. That's the problem: with Hillary as the nominee, the vote becomes a referendum on Hillary instead

of a choice between their turds and our champions. Rasmussen's most recent polling confirms this:

Using a three-poll rolling average to quiet any statistical noise, the Clinton effect becomes clear--the former First Lady earns between 46%and 49% of the vote against each of the top five Republican hopefuls. It doesn’t matter if it’s Rudy Giuliani or Mike Huckabee, John McCain or Fred Thompson.

If you average the results of the top five candidates, you find Clinton’s support at 48%. She also attracts 48% support when matched up with the little known Ron Paul. Adding further support to the notion that it’s all about Clinton is this tidbit-- among the voters who have never heard of Ron Paul or don’t know enough to have an opinion, Clinton attracts the exact same total--48%. So, whether the candidate is a frontrunner or an also ran—or even if voters have never heard of the candidate, Clinton earns about 48% of the vote. These numbers make sense when you consider that Clinton is by far the best known of all the candidates and that opinions of her are split roughly down the middle.

[opihimoimoi]

15. The American peeps out there are DISGUSTED with the Pub Party

They want a CHANGE to BLUE...them Red folks had their Op and blew it...They LOST THE TRUST

[Yael]

18. Yes, but enough to go all the way to the

single most hated woman in this country?

Too much of a long shot and not one I am willing to take.

[cuke]

4. You win elections by getting more people to vote for you than the other candidates

In the primaries, polls show Hillary getting more votes than the other dems

In the GE, polls show Hillary getting more votes than the repukes

That's how you win elections.

[ShortnFiery]

5. Just perhaps ...

Those in power believe that for a DLC Candidate running for President, "The Third Time's a Charm?"

Many of us think that it's suspect to run the same DLC Third Way "centrists" when they are clearly not winning the Presidency come the GE. Bill Clinton was, IMO, the exception that proves the rule. :shrug:

[TwilightZone]

6. Keep reading...

Looking at core support and opposition on a net basis, Clinton also comes out on top in October. With 35% saying they will definitely vote for her and 46% definitely voting against, Clinton’s net is minus 11 points.

Giuliani’s net number is minus 14 (29% definitely for and 43% definitely against). Thompson is close behind at minus 15 (24% for, 39% against).

Obama suffered the biggest decline since August. His core opposition has grown from 35% then to 43% today. Over the same time frame, his core support fell from 29% to 25%.

Your "less risk" argument is not supported by the data. Hillary's net is higher than either Obama or Edwards.

[mwb970]

7. Some of the 46% may change their minds after they see more of her.

Even the "definites". Hill has a way of gradually winning people over. If she keeps it up, the negativity will subside.

[bullimiami]

8. seriously. she is going to be going up against a republican.

republican voters who are insane are going to vote for whatever creep they nominate.
i put that at about 30%.
how many of the reasonably functional 70% are going to be more negative about hillary than a maniac like romney or giuliani?

not a majority, nowhere near it.

[Orangepeel]

9. The good news is, that if somebody hasn't already rejected her, odds are they won't

I'm supporting Edwards. I like the focus on poverty and I think he'll have the least difficulty winning the general.

But if Hillary wins the nomination, I'm not counting the election over by any means. As much shit as she's taken from all sides? If only 46% of likely voters (was is likely voters?) have already rejected her, there's a good chance she'll win with over 50% of the vote.

[Tejanocrat]

10. It does seem like Hillary is well positioned to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Here's the problem (as laid out by Rasumssen's polling):

Using a three-poll rolling average to quiet any statistical noise, the Clinton effect becomes clear--the former First Lady earns between 46%and 49% of the vote against each of the top five Republican hopefuls. It doesn’t matter if it’s Rudy Giuliani or Mike Huckabee, John McCain or Fred Thompson.

If you average the results of the top five candidates, you find Clinton’s support at 48%. She also attracts 48% support when matched up with the little known Ron Paul. Adding further support to the notion that it’s all about Clinton is this tidbit-- among the voters who have never heard of Ron Paul or don’t know enough to have an opinion, Clinton attracts the exact same total--48%. So, whether the candidate is a frontrunner or an also ran—or even if voters have never heard of the candidate, Clinton earns about 48% of the vote. These numbers make sense when you consider that Clinton is by far the best known of all the candidates and that opinions of her are split roughly down the middle.

With Hillary as our nominee, the vote becomes a referendum on Hillary because she's so polarizing.

With Obama or Edwards as our nominee, the vote is a choice between two visions (which is a vote we win!).

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. Another Cherrypicker (Polls)

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

[autorank]

16. Which is why it is silly to believe that she leads anybody in the primaries

or the national head to heads. This charade of a Potemkin presidential campaign is a joke.

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

17. I Really Don't Give A Shit Anymore

If the Dems want to risk LOSING AGAIN, by nominating her, then Fine.

This whole country is going down the toilet, so if we end up with another repub, thanks to the LAMENESS of the Democratic Party, then so be it. Will make any decision I face as to whether to stay in this country, that much easier.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. I Agree

If there's anything the Clintons are good at it's losing campaigns...


:sarcasm:

[bpeale]

26. i absolutely agree

i am ordering my passport as we speak. between clinton & the repubs is no choice at all. be prepared to be in iraq until beyond 2013. god, i hate thinking about all your sons & daughters dieing for that crap! but that's your choice. i will not under any circumstances vote for her.

[phen43]

20. absolutely!!!

Everyone I know that is a Rep(and some dems)think she is the devil in human form. I have defended her to no end during both of her runs for the Senate. Both times, which I also voted for her.

[bvar22]

21. Absolutely Agree!

"If Hillary were ideologically outstanding, that might be a risk worth taking, but she's the most hawkish, most triangulating, and most lobbyist-indebted of all the major candidates so the risk of nominating Hillary and then losing in November offers no ideological payoff in exchange for taking that risk."

Why waste this chance by nominating the most Conservative Democratic candidate? :shrug:

[PurityOfEssence]

22. Exactly: if her ideology, character and policies were better, she'd be worth the risk

We have better options standing right there on the stage with her, and one of them has decidedly better chances in the general election.

I think Obama's in more than a little trouble right now, though, so I don't agree with that part of your assessment.

[CreekDog]

23. Hillary's negatives are *declining*. How many candidates can claim that?

Not any as far as I can tell.

[Czolgosz]

24. In 2004 we had a great labor candidate a new candidate of hope (Dean) and we picked a Yankee Senator

who went on to lose.

HAVE WE LEARNED NOTHING?

[Tom Rinaldo]

25. Strokes for giving the most reasonably worded presentation of this position

that I have read on DU to date. It is a pleasure to read any argument, even those I don't necessarily agree with, presented here is a sound non bombastic or inflated manner.

There are refuting arguments that can be made in return, such as the fact that Hillary has turned out to be a very skilled and professional campaigner, and comparitively few Americans, especially non-Democrats, have yet experienced Hillary directly making the case to them for her postions on issues and her leadership qualities. But I really like the way that you presented your case here.