Poll: Clinton gets high 'no' vote for 2008 Respondents also ranked who they were likely to vote for (CNN) -- With the presidential election more than two years away, a CNN poll released Monday suggests that nearly half of Americans would "definitely vote against" Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Respondents were asked whether they would "definitely vote for," "consider voting for," or "definitely vote against" three Democrats and three Republicans who might run for president in 2008. Regarding potential Democratic candidates, 47 percent of respondents said they would "definitely vote against" both Clinton, the junior senator from New York who is running for re-election this year, and Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the party's candidate in 2004. (Poll) Forty-eight percent said the same of former Vice President Al Gore, who has repeatedly denied he intends to run again for president. Among the Republicans, Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani fared better than the Democrats, and Florida Gov. Jeb Bush fared worse. Only 30 percent said they would "definitely vote against" Giuliani; 34 percent said that of McCain. As for Bush, brother of the current president, 63 percent said there was no way he would get their vote. The younger Bush has denied interest in running for president in 2008. Among all choices, Clinton had the highest positive number; of those polled, 22 percent said they would "definitely vote for" her. Giuliani was next with 19 percent, followed by Gore with 17 percent, Kerry with 14 percent, McCain with 12 percent and Bush at 9 percent. This telephone poll of 1,001 adult Americans was conducted June 1-6 by Harris Interactive for CNN. The poll had a sampling error of plus or
That doesn't mean he is not going to get elected, does it? After all, there are always voting machines. I already wrote the code for it in BASIC: 10 Input X 20 If X = Bush Go To 50 30 If X = Dem. candidate Let X = Bush, then go to 50 50 Print "The winner is:", X See, how simple??? P.S.: Also with the wonderful electorial system, mathematically a candidate can win with only 34% of the votes. THAT'S what I call Democracy!!!
I can't see the whole of ZZzzz's post because he's on ignore. But I read the article. The article also said that almost half of those asked would also "definitely vote against" Kerry and Al Bore and Clinton. Rudy had the best odds. http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/19/poll.presidential/index.html
You are such a putz. Post after post, "I can't see blah, blah, blah because he's on ignore." What a pathetic loozer.... Obviously out of sight, is not out of mind for you....
Actually I screwed up the math a bit on that one, but so far nobody has noticed. I know the correct %, but as a test here is the question for all those, who actually managed to finish 6th grade: What is the minimum % in the American electoral college election system, with what a candidate still can win the presidency??? I also have a simpler code for the voting machines, after all I am a firm believer in Keeping It Simple: 10 Input X (where X is the summary of votes) 20 Print "The winner is:", Bush
Jebbie seems to be carrying on the bush tradition of making money... http://web.archive.org/web/20030413214909/http://www.miami.com/mld/miami/4221945.htm Found this story by accident when I was researching the firm named MWI.
I've said this before: George poisoned the well for Jeb. The real story in this poll is Hillary's amazing negatives. This is not Ann Coulter but a former First Lady who has been lionized by the media and clearly is top dog in the Democrat Party. Plus, her Hollywood friends produced a TV show designed to get people comfortable with the notion of a female president. (Show is being cancelled.) I would have thought the non-stop publicity and manipulation would have had a greater effect.
This is what I do if I am a democrat strategist. Hillary is unelectable in the red states as it stands now. I push hard for Hillary knowing that she is unelectable. I make Barak Obama her running mate, further sealing the deal...red states are in no way going to vote in a Hillary and a black VP. Sorry, it is the truth. What does this accomplish? It ends the book on Bill and Hillary. It puts Obama in the spotlight, which he needs, and the loss will not be blamed on him. It puts some idiot republican in the white house for the next 4 years, inheriting the mess that GW leaves, further angering both conservatives and liberals. Barring a miracle, the president that follow Bush will be a one termer, and the dems need new blood. The only way to kill the Clintons politically, is to have them destroyed in an election. The only issue that I have with all of this, is the court will then probably get another white male on the bench, which is going to throw us further to the right. However, Hillary could be elected if, just like in 92, there is a strong 3rd party candidate, from the south, who is a rednecked conservative running against say, Rudy and Hillary...which could give just enough of a pull to Hillary.
If Hillary runs she'll be the winner of the nomination. (She may pull a Cuomo though). It would be very difficult for any one male (Gore, Edwards, Kerry etal) in a multi-male field to out poll a single female candidate in a series of democratic primaries. It's the same reason Obama is in the Senate. He was a black guy running against a handful of white men. In Illinois about 1/3 of Dem primary voters are black. Clear edge. In Democratic politics race and gender are showstoppers in multi-candidate fields.
Presidential race in 2004 primary was multi-field, and race was not an issue, nor a benefit to Rev Al. More racist ignorant BS from Pabst...