USA TODAY: Poll shows majority would vote for Hillary

[quaoar]

The margin of error on the poll is plus or minus 5 percent.

By SUSAN PAGE
USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — For the first time, a majority of Americans say they are likely to vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton if she runs for president in 2008, according to a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday. The survey shows that the New York senator and former first lady has broadened her support nationwide over the past two years, though she still provokes powerful feelings from those who oppose her.

Clinton commands as much strong support - but more strong opposition - as George W. Bush did in a “Newsweek” poll in November 1998, two years before the 2000 election. She is in slightly stronger position than then-vice president Al Gore, the eventual 2000 Democratic nominee, was in 1998.

“Over time, Clinton fatigue has dissipated ... and people are looking back on the Clinton years more favorably,” says Andrew Kohut, director of the nonpartisan Pew Research Center. In a Pew poll released this month, Kohut called former president Bill Clinton and the senator “comeback kids” because of their rising ratings.

< snip >

In the poll, 29 percent were “very likely” to vote for Clinton for president if she runs in 2008; 24 percent were “somewhat likely.” Seven percent were “not very likely” and 39 percent were “not at all likely” to vote for her.

[quaoar]

1. Here's the link

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-05-26-hillary-poll_x.htm

[Skittles]

2. a majority would vote for a f***ing ham sandwich right now

:o

[snowbear]

3. LOL Skittles !!!!!

:rofl: :spray: :rofl: :spray:

[Somawas]

7. if that were true

they would have voted for Kerry.

[nebula]

11. They did vote for Kerry...

[carpetbagger]

8. The ham sandwich has lower negatives.

Our 08 nominee won't be running against Bush.

[Bozita]

4. imho, the United Airlines pension ruling got a lot of people's attention

That bankruptcy court ruling was the tipping point.

[Carolab]

5. Swell. n/t

[lenidog]

6. Who the hell did they have her supposedly running against

the poll means jack unless they have a possible candidate running against her.

[FrenchieCat]

9. It's the media in overdrive....

Ya know how they like to tell us what to do, and who to vote for.

They are not about to walk away from that kind of power.

Corporate Media RULES!

[lenidog]

12. Exactly

Its always been that way and I think it will always be. A real eye opener is a book by David Halberstam called "The Powers That Be." Its an older book published in 1979 but it tells you how the media gained such power over our politics and policies and expanded it through the decades.

[LuPeRcALiO]

10. '"29 percent were “very likely” ... 24 percent were “somewhat likely.”'

'29 percent were “very likely” to vote for Clinton for president if she runs in 2008; 24 percent were “somewhat likely.” Seven percent were “not very likely” and 39 percent were “not at all likely” to vote for her.'

Question: Does that really add up to "majority would vote for Hillary"?

Answer: no.

[quaoar]

13. I guess that depends

on whether "somewhat likely" can be considered "likely."

[serryjw]

16. Among those surveyed, 54% called Clinton a liberal

RFLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!...What do we call DK,Barbara Boxer & Feingold?

[LuPeRcALiO]

18. Stalinists

:sarcasm:

[Mass]

24. I guess it depends who would run against her in a GE

[FrenchieCat]

14. But, But, But.....

it's OK....the headline never match the story. Why should this one?

Remember....Corporate Media Rules!

[Al-CIAda]

19. Means 100% likely USA Today is issuing propaganda pushing HC. n/t

[quaoar]

15. Here's an interesting bit

An overwhelming 80 percent of liberals were likely to support her, compared with 58 percent of moderates and 33 percent of conservatives.
Among those surveyed, 54 percent called Clinton a liberal, 30 percent a moderate and 9 percent a conservative.

[laugle]

17. 55% approval rating today and what is

the chimp at 42%. Stop bagging on Hillary. We all thought Kerry was soooooooo electable and look what happened. Damm, we would have been better off taking a chance with Dean. At least the guy has guts. Albeit, he is a bit of a loose cannon, but he does say how we all feel. Our party needs to support the best and the brightest candidates and not believe all that right wing propaganda. I think they are scared shitless of Hillary!

[FrenchieCat]

20. No one is "bagging" Hillary....but come on....

The woman has not announced that she was running....but the media has been talking about her non-stop as running since BEFORE the last election was even over.

I mean, how stoopid are we supposed to be? Should we at DU be saying..."Gee, that means she's gonna be our next president" about this story.

Since the media only speaks of her all of the time, and have said her name hundreds of times....of course she's gonna win the poll. It's a self fufilling prophecy.


Which came first, the endless discussion of Hillary as Prez, or the polls, or the reporting of the polls saying Hillary is the one for Prez? At some point, it's all the same. Round and round they go....where they end, we all know!

see?

CORPORATE MEDIA RULES!

[quaoar]

25. I'd vote for Hillary if she is the nominee

But she is being talked up by Republicans who profess to be scared that she'd be tough to beat but that's who they prefer to run against.

[laugle]

32. Last night on Air America,

Mike Molloy had one of the CEO's of his radio station on, he said "liberals eat there own". I think that is the point I am making about people bagging on Hillary. Frankly, I am not thinking that much about 2008. There are just too many issues right now that are important, i.e., election reform and putting up good candidates against the pubs in 2006. I do have visions of taking back the senate and impeaching that creature in the White House! Do you think it is possible? By the way, I do like Westley Clark also, and think he would make an equally good candidate in 2008.

[ndcohn]

Dean is not the best or the brightest

Dean isnt even that liberal, yet Dean would have recieved 42% of the vote tops, and you could have put the election of 2004 with 1936 1964 1972 1984. Dean is the worst major politican in either party. John Kerry was the most electable, and his 48.27 was about tops that any candidate could have achieved, except arguably Gephart/Edwards could have come close or matched or plausably done better, contingent on better campaign management.

[ndcohn]

21. Dean is not the best or the brightest

Dean isnt even that liberal, yet Dean would have recieved 42% of the vote tops, and you could have put the election of 2004 with 1936 1964 1972 1984. Dean is the worst major politican in either party. John Kerry was the most electable, and his 48.27 was about tops that any candidate could have achieved, except arguably Gephart/Edwards could have come close or matched or plausably done better, contingent on better campaign management.

[Carolab]

29. Utter crap. And you have to post it TWICE? n/t

[laugle]

34. LOL, n/t

[CWebster]

22. Since hers is the only name up

She's the only choice.

[Mass]

23. So 45 % would not vote for her whoever her opponent is

as there were no opponent given.

Sure, I would vote for her if she is the nominee, but I certainly would prefer somebody else, that is less ready to compromise and to take hawkish positions.

[SaveElmer]

26. We always underestimate the Clintons

If she runs, and I think she will, she has an excellent chance of winning...possibly better than any other candidate. The fact is that Republicans are scared of her. Where did Kerry lose support in 2004 -- among women. Can you imagine what % of the women's vote would come Hillary's way. And I don't think she would suffer much drop among male voters either.

Plus one would be hard pressed to come up with two people with better political skills and instincts than Bill and Hillary Clinton.

I hope she does run, and if she does I think she will win!

[laugle]

33. AMEN!!!!

I could not have said it better. You are absolutely right about the Clintons. 2 for the price of one.

[Ishoutandscream]

27. This is just to get the looney right in a tizzy

They gotta have hate, and there's no more hate that they have than in the Clintons. Rush, Hannity, et al are probably loving this.

[mikelewis]

28. The American people can vote for whoever they want but the party...

is the one that decides who runs. I have nothing against Hilary, she just doesn't have much going for her IMO. If they want a woman to run, run Boxer. Hell, if they want a man to run, run Boxer. She has more balls than any of them.

[Carolab]

30. Exactly. Can we have someone who is official on "OUR" side?

Hillary is on HER side.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

31. "Looking back on the Clinton years more favorably"

are the key words. The majority of americans aren't like us...they aren't obsessed with dems or pubs. They just want to be in a nice safe place, and compared with this nightmare, the Clinton days were Very Good. Plus we weren't knee deep in debt that will be left for our children. And I honestly think that if they vote for Hillary, deep down they think they are getting the Big Dog back. Because his popularity is still off the charts.

[DeaconBlues]

35. beware fo the 39 percent who are "not very likely" to vote for her

these are the people who will be motivated to come out to vote, and will pull the lever against her (compared to the 29% on the other end). If Rove and company have anything right, its that in this age of apathy the candidates who win are the ones who can use those who are already emotionally-charged and motivated. I really don't see a large group that is motivated to see Clinton in charge, but I do see a large number who motivated to keep her out of power.