More than half of Americans won't vote for Clinton, poll shows

[Logan13]

More than half of Americans won't vote for Clinton, poll shows
http://www.contracostatimes.com/port...144&siteId=571

WASHINGTON -- More than half of Americans say they wouldn't consider voting for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for president if she becomes the Democratic nominee, according to a new national poll made available to McClatchy Newspapers and NBC News.
The poll by Mason-Dixon Polling and Research found that 52 percent of Americans wouldn't consider voting for Clinton, D-N.Y. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, was second in the can't-stand-'em category, with 46 percent saying they wouldn't consider voting for him.

Clinton has long been considered a politically polarizing figure who would be a tough sell to some voters, especially many men, but also Clinton-haters of both genders.

Thursday's survey provides a snapshot of the challenges she faces, according to Larry Harris, a Mason-Dixon principal.

"Hillary's carrying a lot of baggage," he said. "She's the only one that has a majority who say they can't vote for her."

Clinton rang up high negatives across the board, with 60 percent of independents, 56 percent of men, 47 percent of women and 88 percent of Republicans saying they wouldn't consider voting for her.

Romney struggled most with women: 50.9 percent said they wouldn't consider voting for him.

"It's the flip-flop of Hillary," Harris said of Romney. "One could suppose it's the Mormon issue -- we didn't ask follow-up questions -- but his religion is an issue."

On name recognition, Clinton also led the 2008 presidential pack in voter disapproval, with 42 percent saying they recognized her name and were unfavorable toward her, versus 39 percent favorable.

That gave her a double-digit lead in that bad-news category over Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, a Democrat. They each had 28 percent unfavorable recognition.

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani had the highest favorable recognition at 43 percent, with Clinton close behind at 39 percent. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was third at 36 percent, followed by McCain at 33 percent and Edwards at 32 percent.

McCain rang up the highest favorable rating among independent voters with 39.4 percent, followed by Giuliani with 37.3 percent. Edwards scored well with independents, too, with 31.1 percent favorable; Obama had 28 percent favorable.

The Mason-Dixon survey was conducted June 23-25 with 625 likely general-election voters. It has an error margin of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

[inheritmylife]

How many Americans actually vote these days? I bet they could all fit in Guantanamo. No?

[Logan13]

How many Americans actually vote these days? I bet they could all fit in Guantanamo. No?

"survey was conducted with likely general-election voters"

[inheritmylife]

"survey was conducted with likely general-election voters"

Yeah, and what exactly does that mean to you bud?

[Coop77]

You don't need a majority of the vote to win. Hell, you don't even have to get the most votes to win, as we saw in 2000.

But yeah, if primary voters are smart they'll vote for a candidate that will be popular in the GE.

[Logan13]

Yeah, and what exactly does that mean to you bud?

Obviously it means what it says.

[CSAR]

As an American and a disabled vet I wouldn't vote for that b!tch.

[godkilla]

if i was american i would vote for hilary just so that pimp bill could get another blow job in the oval office.

[eliteforce]

Bush sr was very unpopular also, especially at the early stages of the campaign (where as Dukakis was popular early on), but ultimatly people have to vote on issues, and the 2 big issues will be Iraq and economy-on both those issues clinton will be more in-line with the voters.

[Hoggage_54]

As an American and a disabled vet I wouldn't vote for that b!tch.

Explain...

[BgMc31]

I know Logan is going and many others are going to flame the shit out of me for saying this, but I honestly don't think that America is ready for a woman, or a minority president. Having a woman, black, and hispanic as three of your four frontrunners aren't doing the Dems any good. Preferably, I'd vote for Hillary. She's a female George Bush. By that I mean, neither are easily swayed from their positions. I admire anyone who has courage in their convictions. She's a go-getter and a very strong personality.

[eliteforce]

But if they could put Bill back in office, they would..this is seen as the closest alternative, a woman-but basically the same people that were running the show before; when everything was going better..guiliani or mccain will get stuck defending bushes failures, advocating continuos occupation of iraq, and promoting a US economy that probably won't be doing super at the time of the 08 campaign-considering interest rates will likly continue to rise and the real estate slump should continue for the next few years-this effects other economic indicators such as durable goods orders.

[mcpeepants]

But if they could put Bill back in office, they would..this is seen as the closest alternative, a woman-but basically the same people that were running the show before; when everything was going better..guiliani or mccain will get stuck defending bushes failures, advocating continuos occupation of iraq, and promoting a US economy that probably won't be doing super at the time of the 08 campaign-considering interest rates will likly continue to rise and the real estate slump should continue for the next few years-this effects other economic indicators such as durable goods orders.

posted on wrong one

[mcpeepants]

Bush sr was very unpopular also, especially at the early stages of the campaign (where as Dukakis was popular early on), but ultimatly people have to vote on issues, and the 2 big issues will be Iraq and economy-on both those issues clinton will be more in-line with the voters.

I don't think Clinton is online with the Iraq war. She's only taking a softer position on Iraq because of primary politics, just like Kerry voted against Iraq war funding when Dean was in the lead. I can easily see her going back to hawkish mode, like Kerry, if she gets the nomination.

[Johny-too-small]

I know Logan is going and many others are going to flame the shit out of me for saying this, but I honestly don't think that America is ready for a woman, or a minority president. Having a woman, black, and hispanic as three of your four frontrunners aren't doing the Dems any good.

Youre right. Id vote for David Palmer from the tv show 24. He kicked ass!

[Logan13]

I know Logan is going and many others are going to flame the shit out of me for saying this, but I honestly don't think that America is ready for a woman, or a minority president. Having a woman, black, and hispanic as three of your four frontrunners aren't doing the Dems any good. Preferably, I'd vote for Hillary. She's a female George Bush. By that I mean, neither are easily swayed from their positions. I admire anyone who has courage in their convictions. She's a go-getter and a very strong personality.

Why would I flame you for a truely honest opinion?

[mcpeepants]

I know Logan is going and many others are going to flame the shit out of me for saying this, but I honestly don't think that America is ready for a woman, or a minority president. Having a woman, black, and hispanic as three of your four frontrunners aren't doing the Dems any good. Preferably, I'd vote for Hillary. She's a female George Bush. By that I mean, neither are easily swayed from their positions. I admire anyone who has courage in their convictions. She's a go-getter and a very strong personality.

dems won't win if there nominee is a woman or minority despite how bad the republican nominees are except for Ron Paul. Although there is no way I would vote for Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Gore, basically all of the dem nominees except for Kucinich and Gravel. I hope Nader runs again and Bloomberg entering the race would make since interesting.

[kfrost06]

I don't think Clinton is online with the Iraq war. She's only taking a softer position on Iraq because of primary politics, just like Kerry voted against Iraq war funding when Dean was in the lead. I can easily see her going back to hawkish mode, like Kerry, if she gets the nomination.

Good post and very true. I am extremely dissappointed in all the candidates running on both sides and notta one of them is worth voting for. I can say being a Republican I hope Hilary or Obama win the primary then it will be an easy win for the Republicans.

[kfrost06]

I know Logan is going and many others are going to flame the shit out of me for saying this, but I honestly don't think that America is ready for a woman, or a minority president. Having a woman, black, and hispanic as three of your four frontrunners aren't doing the Dems any good. Preferably, I'd vote for Hillary. She's a female George Bush. By that I mean, neither are easily swayed from their positions. I admire anyone who has courage in their convictions. She's a go-getter and a very strong personality.

Agreed but I must say the white male, john edwards is the biggest sleazeball of them all. I may not agree with Hilary or Obama on their issues but I think they are sincere in their views, Edwards on the otherhand uses his wifes illness, his sons death and anything else he can to get in the press.

[BgMc31]

Agreed but I must say the white male, john edwards is the biggest sleazeball of them all. I may not agree with Hilary or Obama on their issues but I think they are sincere in their views, Edwards on the otherhand uses his wifes illness, his sons death and anything else he can to get in the press.

C'mon Kfrost, stop drinking Coulture cool aid for a second. That's simply not true about John Edwards using his family's tradgedies for self-promotion. That's typical republican propaganda and you falling for it makes you look like the typical republican sheep being led to slaughter. LOL!!!

I'm not an Edwards fan because he doesn't seem a genuine as the other candidates.

[BgMc31]

Good post and very true. I am extremely dissappointed in all the candidates running on both sides and notta one of them is worth voting for. I can say being a Republican I hope Hilary or Obama win the primary then it will be an easy win for the Republicans.

I don't think it would be an easy win, but I agree it would be a win for the Republicans. I think it would be the lowest turnout in history simply because those who don't want another republican controlled presidency (which there are many) just won't turn out to vote.

[kfrost06]

C'mon Kfrost, stop drinking Coulture cool aid for a second. That's simply not true about John Edwards using his family's tradgedies for self-promotion. That's typical republican propaganda and you falling for it makes you look like the typical republican sheep being led to slaughter. LOL!!!

I'm not an Edwards fan because he doesn't seem a genuine as the other candidates.

Bob Shrum was the campaign consultant for John Kerry, he recently wrote a book where he said, "(Kerry) was even queasier about Edwards after they met. Edwards had told Kerry he was going to share a story with him that he'd never told anyone else — that after his son Wade had been killed, he climbed onto the slab at the funeral home, laid there and hugged his body, and promised that he'd do all he could to make life better for people, to live up to Wade's ideals of service. Kerry was stunned, not moved, because, as he told me later, Edwards had recounted the same exact story to him, almost in the exact same words, a year or two before — and with the same preface, that he'd never shared the memory with anyone else. Kerry said he found it chilling, and he decided he couldn't pick Edwards unless he met with him again."

Edwards is a sleazy ambulance chasing lawyer, and yes you are correct, he is not genuine.

[kfrost06]

I don't think it would be an easy win, but I agree it would be a win for the Republicans. I think it would be the lowest turnout in history simply because those who don't want another republican controlled presidency (which there are many) just won't turn out to vote.

We need to stop agreeing, I find it scary I can say that there is not currently any Republican that I will get off my butt to vote for. It's still early and hopefully someone worth wild will join. lately, I find that I am not voting FOR someone but AGAINST the opponent. I bet you are doing the same thing.

[RA]

Bush sr was very unpopular also, especially at the early stages of the campaign (where as Dukakis was popular early on), but ultimatly people have to vote on issues, and the 2 big issues will be Iraq and economy-on both those issues clinton will be more in-line with the voters.

Im not sure where you got that but he was popular. The only reason he lost a second term was Clinton could pound away at the dip in the economy we were having.

[BgMc31]

Im not sure where you got that but he was popular. The only reason he lost a second term was Clinton could pound away at the dip in the economy we were having.

Not true in early 1992 his approval rating was 29% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush).

[Logan13]

Not true in early 1992 his approval rating was 29% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush).

Bush Sr. was not a well liked President. Hell, I voted for Clinton in '92. Bush did not have the charisma of Reagan or Clinton. Kind of a dry personality. BTW, did you know that the approval rating of the US Congress is the lowest it has ever been? People are tired of the bullshit in gov't.

[RA]

Not true in early 1992 his approval rating was 29% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush).

Something is wrong with the link..

In 92 isnt that when the economy was going sour?

[eliteforce]

What I meant was that Bush Sr had been a very unpopular candidate early on during the election campaign, while Reagan was still president, he had to struggle to overcome Dole, and hen his poll numbers were still lower than Dukakis early on, but he still came back to win it and become president..so I doubt these low clinton numbers mean anything, the mainstream candidates are always unpopular early on.

[RA]

What I meant was that Bush Sr had been a very unpopular candidate early on during the election campaign, while Reagan was still president, he had to struggle to overcome Dole, and hen his poll numbers were still lower than Dukakis early on, but he still came back to win it and become president..so I doubt these low clinton numbers mean anything, the mainstream candidates are always unpopular early on.

Well see. Im voting for Fred Thompson


btw, Reagan was far from "mainstream" By comparison Bush is very very liberal next to Reagan.

[BgMc31]

Bush Sr. was not a well liked President. Hell, I voted for Clinton in '92. Bush did not have the charisma of Reagan or Clinton. Kind of a dry personality. BTW, did you know that the approval rating of the US Congress is the lowest it has ever been? People are tired of the bullshit in gov't.

Yeah the congressional approval rate is at 25% but did you know that 62% of the American public believe a democratic congress is better than a republican congress (CNN reported this Thursday). Either way, you're right, people are tired of gov't bullshit. And like Kfrost said, I'll be voting for the lesser of two evils. I just haven't determined who the lesser evil is yet... a bull headed woman, an inexperienced black man, or a former actor/politician who played a racist role in a movie a little too convincingly, LOL!!!!

[Logan13]

Yeah the congressional approval rate is at 25% but did you know that 62% of the American public believe a democratic congress is better than a republican congress (CNN reported this Thursday).

This is the ALL-TIME lowest approval rating for Congress since they have been keeping records. 62% believe that a democratic congress is better, when there is a republican president, as I do as well. But remember, the lowest all-time approval rating that has occurred is during the time that the Dems are in control............

[kfrost06]

(CNN reported this Thursday)

Well, there's the problem right there^^^

[Tock]

IMHO, we would be better off if the politicians paid more attention to voters, and less attention to money.

If I was King of the planet, I'd
1) reverse the US Supreme Court's ruling that Money = Free Speech
2) allow only living, breathing people (no corporations or unions) to donate $$$ to political campaigns
3) allow candidates to accept $$$ only from people who lived in the geographical area they represented.

Seems to me that millionaires in New York City have no business influencing elections in Alabama, and millionaires in Texas have no business influencing elections in Vermont or Rhode Island.

JMHO.

Anyway, all the candidates - both Democrat and Republican - are obligated to millionaire, corporate, and special interest money. The rest of us peons, the ones who actually go out and mark ballots and make the system work, what we want doesn't really count to them.

If I had a better candidate to vote for, I wouldn't vote for Clinton, either.

[BgMc31]

Well, there's the problem right there^^^

Much more credible than your friends at FoxNews, LOL!!!

[Logan13]

Much more credible than your friends at FoxNews, LOL!!!

go Ted Turner..............

[BgMc31]

go Ted Turner..............

go Rupert Murdoch.....

[Logan13]

go Rupert Murdoch.....

At least Rupert Murdoch holds benefits for candidates in both parties. Say what you will, but he does support both sides. Turner is so far left of the American public(besides you, Tock, and Carlos) that whatever he says, no one listens............

[thetank]

2 candidates had no chance from go: the woman and the black guy. thier politics fall distantly second to thier ethnicity and gender. ridiculous, but true.

[Carlos_E]

2 candidates had no chance from go: the woman and the black guy. thier politics fall distantly second to thier ethnicity and gender. ridiculous, but true.

Thankfully, not everyone thinks like you.

[BgMc31]

Thankfully, not everyone thinks like you.

Unfortunately Carlos, far too many do!