Hmmm.
And while Clinton finds herself atop all candidates in terms of strong favorability — in the poll, 28 percent said they feel strongly favorable toward her — she also outpaces any other candidate on strong unfavorables. More than a third, 35 percent, have strongly negative views of her, more than 10 points higher than any other contender.
What do you think that means for the presidential race?
I think it means that she has strong name recognition!
Beyond that, it’s tough to tell. If you were to put up a poll somewhere like here or dKos, I bet you’d get a significant percentage of people who would say that they have a negative / strongly negative view of her…but that they would still hold their nose and vote for her over any Republican in the general.
noseholding and won’t do it again for Hillary or anyone else. Voting while holding your nose only gets you more candidates who require noseholding.
less on the outcome…what about what it means for the flavor of the campaign, downticket effects, etc. and then, of course, for mandate?
Well, I think what I stated about nose-holding is applicable to the downticket effect I think; a lot of people are saying that a Hillary nomination is going to kill Democrats downticket because of the the high unfavorables, but I’m not convinced that’s the case.
I don’t have any great insights to the flavor of the campaign, at least in the general. With the long primary seasons we’re going to pretty much know everything there is to know about both major party candidates by the time they’re given the nod; from there it’s all about media framing and attacks. We will probably be able to guess what they’ll hammer on; they’re not likely to change their playbook at all, they’ll attack the Democratic nominee at their strengths to try to turn them into weakness as opposed to hammering their actual weaknesses.
If past results are any indication of future performance, mandates are simply stated, not earned.
which said that despite all her negatives, people are willing to vote Democratic on all fronts.
That being said, I still can’t stand the b*tch. A queen without an official coronation still ain’t a queen.
in a word, down ticket – no coat tails.
Can’t win an election with that high negatives and note it’s early in the game and voters are not yet focused.
The media wants her.
High negatives will drive down our turnout, and drive up the Republican turnout. That is exactly what we don’t need down ticket. Even if we win it will be hard to govern wish such high negatives.
My take on running a candidate with High Negatives is that it will look too much like the Gerlach-Murphy race in PA-06, going in we thought her the most likely Philly suburb to win and instead she is the one we lost.
There is a reason that Hilary is dead in the water in states like Idaho and Obama opened the first Democratic campaign office there since Kennedy in ’80.
I will NOT vote for her, despite being a liberal feminist who’d love to see a woman in high office. She simply wants power too badly, and isn’t willing to earn it on her own. What has she done in Congress? What has she done outside of Congress?
She is a triangulating coward who goes where the money flows and says whatever big money wants her to say.
The chief reason why I will not vote for her, even if she is the final candidate, is that I can’t rationalize voting for the lesser of two evils. That is still evil and still helping to establish the dictatorship. There is no way that I want to look into a mirror and see someone who voted for the Empress of the Arabies.
Meanwhile, Papa Bush is beginning to drum up support for George P.. What did we ever do to deserve dynasties? Vote for candidates by name recognition rather than by ability!
It is a pity that our founding fathers didn’t put a clause into the Constitution requiring that the highest offices couldn’t be held by relatives nor be passed on to relatives within the (4? 9?) degrees of marriage. If you can’t marry your grandson or niece or brother (gender irrelevant), that person can’t inherit your job or hold a similar high-level decision-making office. Government is incestuous precisely because it is incestuous.
I don’t vote for who I think will win, but who will do the best job. It is a JOB. If we wouldn’t hire an embezzler, or someone who’d give away trade secrets, or somebody who’d destroy the corporation through mismanagement, even if they have the founder’s last name, then why would we vote for office-holders because of name alone?
If a 3-legged dog with fleas was named Clinton or Bush would that be enough to get elected?
personally I could give a shit about who gets the job. They all suck. Plus, If musharif succeeds in this blatant coup, we won’t be having any election in the near future.
And while i am at it- how about the latest johnny cum lately- feingold. Now he says that he won’t vote for the piece of shit- mukasey. Big deal. He waited and got his ass covered. Bet we see cardin and kohl jump on board. AIPAC strikes again.
Vote green if you must but Don’t vote for either the dems or the goopers.
l think to many people underestimate the extreme dislike, bordering on an almost visceral hatred, of her that’s just below the surface in much of the country. l honestly do not believe she will win the general if she captures the nomination. she’s basically writing off the south, most, if not all of the midwest, the southwest, the mountain west, the northwest and will struggle in california…how do you win with that strategy?
in my estimation, you don’t. at best, she maybe keeps it close enough to steal. end result: another ratpublican president and a continuation of an ineffectual congress.
…snatching defeat from the jaws of victory…again
the pundits’, and consultants’ myopica regarding her chances for success reminds me of this old new yorker cover:
as to coattails, as idredit states, there are none. what rags and tatters are left to grab onto, will drag lot of people running house and senate races, as well as some hard fought local ones, in purple states, who may have a viable chance with edwards or someone else on the ticket, down as well.
l’m acquainted with several people close to the udall campaign for senate, as well as markey’s in cd4 against the odious musgrave, and whenever hillary’s name comes up, they get very pensive and worried…obama too, for that matter.
she hasn’t a chance here against any r.
my 2¢
later
[://www.impeachbush.org/site/PageServer]