Poll: Clinton gets high 'no' vote for 2008

Poll: Clinton gets high 'no' vote for 2008

Of five potential rivals, Jeb Bush fares worse among respondents

Monday, June 19, 2006; Posted: 9:22 p.m. EDT (01:22 GMT)

(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)

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/19/poll.presidential/index.html

If it were just the Republicans who did not like her it would be one thing, but someone who divides her own party so much should not get the nomination. We need someone everyone can be happy with. Although Feingold is my personal favorite candidate, I do think Al Gore would be the most unifying.

On Edit: Wow Gore's numbers don't look too good either. And McCain and Giullani have some scary numbers. Well I suppose it is early, and since Democrats don't march in lockstep like Republicans do you can expect more division among their candidates early on. Once a nominee is chosen I'm sure that person will fare much better. I still don't think Hillary can win though.

Rudy's at 19%, Al's at 17%. And I think as more people realize we were fed a bunch of lies about 9/11 Rudy's "hero" status will start to fade.

Kerry and Clinton would be miserable candidates..

has had more positions on the Iraq war than the rest of the senate combined..I can't even take him seriously. Sorry, I like how he votes 90% of the time but he would make a terrible candidate...just as bad as Hillary. Warner, Feingold, Schweitzer or Obama should be the nominee.

Kerry has been consistent since 1998 on Iraq.

You may be listening too much to corporate media who do not seem to understand that Kerry needs to resubmit withdrawal plans with new goal dates, because Bush didn't move on any of the previous plans and the situation in Iraq keeps getting worse.

Kerry keeps pushing because FEW ARE. Or wasn't that in your corporate media talking point sheet?

the experience to be both a candidate and a president is Feingold.

if you add the definately vote for and the consider vote for it is more than the "definately vote against"
We have to get that "consider" vote!

towards when they decide who to eventually support. We're not like GOPs who do as they're told by the higher ups.

I imagine whoever has the best chops and policies will win the debates and the primaries, and the Dem nominee who works to expose the voting machines and SECURE them before the vote, will be the only Dem who can win the Nov.2008 election.

are all meaningless these days when it comes to 08. Would you vote for or against? For most people, including those who said definitively against, it is a question of against whom they run.

But if CNN wants to disqualify itself, who am I to say they should not!

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.

kinda of bipolar. On one hand it says that "nearly half of Americans would "definitely vote against" Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton." The poll then turns around and says that "among all choices, Clinton had the highest positive number; of those polled, 22 percent said they would "definitely vote for" her."

This describes a love-hate relationship: people will be just as committed to vote against her as they are to vote for her.

Forty-eight percent said the same of former Vice President Al Gore, who has repeatedly denied he intends to run again for president.

Hillary also gets a higher "defintely WOULD vote for" than both Gore and Kerry.

What does this mean in 2006? Nothin'!

either insignificant or relatively small differences - 1 1/2 years out. What's interesting to me is that, unlike polls in the last year or so where Hillary was clearly better than everyone else, the differences here are small.

Considering that since the election, Hillary has been designated the next candidate and has had mostly very positive media in the last 5 years, these are not good results for her. Gore, on the other hand, seems to be recovering from several years of abuse and only a few months of positive media. Kerry's results are surprisingly good as the media hasn't been absolutely negative on him since he lost and didn't counter the slander in 2004 as they should have.

If her position were different, would we be divided over this?

voter apathy??

I might be willing to run if asked. I could use a job. I don't have any qualifications for the presidency, but neither does Bush. Apparently it's not a barrier. Unlike Bush, I do believe in the Constitution. For me it's not "just a goddamned piece of paper." And, I've never had a problem with offending people so I can be counted on to say what's on my mind. Anybody here interested in the position of running mate? Heck! If elected, I'll even let the voters be the deciders. ;)

as a moderate: my avatar.

He's a red-state general who won this country's last pre-Bush war. He's intelligent. He can speak Bible, while still being a half-Jewish person who's loved by Muslims. He studied foreign policy, dimplomacy and taught economics.

And those middle voters Hub2Sparkly wrote about in an on-going thread? They'd go for him: he talks WITH people, not AT them. And, he's majorly outside of the Beltway (so much so the press STILL won't pay attention to him - of course, that might be because he's for re-regulating them).

His negatives would be next-to-nill once people actually KNEW who he was. Most people who hear him speak then wonder why they never heard about him (save his announcement to run) in the 2004 primaries.