A new poll by Zogby shows Hillary Clinton topping the league of candidates that Americans would not consider supporting.
50% of nearly 10,000 voters said they would never vote for the New York Senator. Only 37% said the same of Barack Obama, her principal rival. There has been something of an 'inevitability' about Mrs Clinton winning the Democrat nomination recently but this poll underlines the danger of her candidacy for her party. It will be ammunition for Obama as he starts to take the gloves off in a bid to erode her huge advantage of 25.8% in the RCP average of polls.
The leading GOP candidates - Giuliani (43%), McCain (45%) and Romney (42%) are all quite close to each other in terms of the 'I'll never vote for him'. Huckabee - profiled earlier today on BritainAndAmerica - has the best 'untouchable rating' of the Republican hopefuls; 35%.
Actually, we've been getting polling data saying that 50-53% (within the margin of error for this poll as well) of American voters would never vote for Hillary all along :). Zogby, however, generally polls only registered likely voters (people who actually tend to vote in both national and local elections) on political polls, so this one has a bit more "authority" than some of the others.
One of the things that she's working hard to try to overcome is that there aren't very many people in the US who LIKE her. Even some of the people who would vote for her don't particularly like her. What she has to do to win is trash her opponents and opposition media, and that is what is currently going on with the attacks on Rush Limbaugh and others.
Posted by: mamapajamas | October 22, 2007 at 12:43 AM
This is a good sign.
I was polled by Zogby on this very survey recently.
Hillary's in trouble. She has corrupt campaign financing issues (multiple Chinatown dishwashers contributing a thousand dollars to her campaign???), she suffers from a poor image: shrill harpy who abandoned Socks the cat once she left the White House, and she is a Socialist who will force people to buy health insurance whether they want it or not.
Frankly, when she raises her voice, it makes me want to run screaming from the room.
Posted by: atheling | October 22, 2007 at 12:49 AM
The fact that she's taken on Sandy Burgler as her national security consultant would keep me from ever voting for her.
Posted by: Kevin Sampson | October 22, 2007 at 05:48 AM
It is time to attack Hilllary now. If she gets the nomination the MSM will not let any of the bad things get out.
Posted by: davod | October 22, 2007 at 10:52 AM
Hillary was pretty roundly attacked in the Republican debate last night :D
Posted by: mamapajamas | October 22, 2007 at 08:55 PM
Even my uber-Lib friends refuse to vote for her, so there is no great revelation with the Zogby poll.
Other than a few nitwits here it seems the only people who think she's qualified for the job live in Europe and can't vote for her. The ones in the US who want her belong to the "entitlement" crowd who pretend that everything in life is free.
Even though the Dems are worrying about her I hope she gets the nod. It will prove that the Dems never fail to shoot themselves in the foot (Kerry, anyone?), and she will probably lose. The debates will finally be interesting, too. Once she starts screeching and snarling it will be over for the Democrats.
Posted by: Anna | October 22, 2007 at 09:28 PM
mamapajamas, Hillary has to trash and intimidate her opponents, sad but true. What she also needs to do is disinfect her campaign. The stench of corruption is wafting over the country. It's like living downwind from a garbage dump. ;))
Posted by: Anna | October 22, 2007 at 09:34 PM
Anna... I'm pretty sure Hillary's camp will be disinfected by the Republicans when push comes to a shove next year ;).
You don't think they'll let her get away with this do you? ;)
Posted by: mamapajamas | October 23, 2007 at 12:48 AM
It gets worse...
This number has increased from a prior Zogby poll in march that 46% would not vote for Hillary. She even beat out Kucinich (49% would never vote for him).
Ouch!
Posted by: Frogg, USA | October 23, 2007 at 05:42 AM
I have to say I haven't been interested enough to follow it closely and this negative momentum is a surprise. The impression I had from the ever-present MSM has been the opposite. Its still early in my opinion but its nice to know.
Posted by: Steevo | October 23, 2007 at 07:06 AM
I mentioned Hillary in the other thread, but I think it's more appropriate to continue the discussion here. I'm one of those Europeans you mention who thinks Hilary would be good! Let me explain why.
First of all I am in no way a socialist, I am a Conservative Party supporter in the UK. But I don't really feel that the American Democrat party is a truly socialist party anyway, as that kind of thing would never be tolerated in a country which values personal freedom as much as America. I just don't see the pendulum swinging that far left.
Secondly, I am not arguing that America should surrender it's freedom of action to international bodies, but that it should give more of a nod to multilateralism, and where it does have to depart from this approach, at least have someone highly articulate to put America's case to the world.
To an outsider, Hillary seems highly intelligent, strong minded, diplomatic and with the crucial Thatcherite ability reinvent herself. She would cut an extremely striking figure on the world stage, especially as a woman -certainly the most powerful woman in the world, and arguably the most powerful woman ever.
I compare her to Thatcher, not in political terms, because they are polls apart there, but in the fact that her international standing is so much higher than her standing at home. In Britain, Thatcher is passionately admired by many, but utterly reviled by many too. In the wider world she seems to command much more uncomplicated respect and admiration.
Lastly, however unfair, it must be said that George Bush's struggles with language have made him something of an international laughing stock. There couldn't be much more of a contrast with Hillary.
But like I said, that's only a view from over the pond. At the end of the day, if she's going to be a mess as a President, of course it's not worth electing her just to enhance America's standing abroad. But otherwise, lots of us foreigners would be wondering just why you'd pass someone like that up.
Posted by: Simon | October 24, 2007 at 05:39 PM
"lots of us foreigners would be wondering just why you'd pass someone like that up."
Because she's a Socialist. She said "I have many ideas. Americans can't afford them". If that isn't a red flag (pardon the pun), what is?
"To an outsider, Hillary seems highly intelligent, strong minded, diplomatic and with the crucial Thatcherite ability reinvent herself."
Give some examples, please.
"I don't really feel that the American Democrat party is a truly socialist party anyway, as that kind of thing would never be tolerated in a country which values personal freedom as much as America"
Oh yeah? You are apparently quite ignorant of the Democratic Party's platform:
1. Anti homeschooling and anti school choice (which was also the position of the Nazi Party - a SOCIALIST party in 1930's and 1940's Germany).
2. Pro abortion (under the guise of "pro choice" which is strange considering their "anti choice" stance against parents' rights in educating their children.) Just like Socialist Europe.
3. High tax burdens on businesses and the wealthy, which in turn place burdens on the working man. (Doesn't Socialist Europe impose the same?)
4. Government regulations on business (again, like Socialist Europe).
5. Government provided health care and mandatory health care insurance (isn't that what you folks do in Socialist Europe?)
6. Spend, spend, spend, especially for special interest groups.
7. Welfare state (just like Socialist Europe)
8. Non stop immigration without cultural assimilation (just like Socialist Europe).
I'm sure I've missed plenty, and maybe others can provide the missing information, but those are starters.
"Lastly, however unfair, it must be said that George Bush's struggles with language have made him something of an international laughing stock"
I recall that you had a King (some George or another - the one who reigned during WWII) who had a stuttering problem. Of course, we polite folks never mock those who might have disabilities, nor do we believe everything that is written or said by Leftist dominated media. Oddly enough, George Bush's Harvard GPA was higher than John Kerry's... but then, the Left never let facts get in the way of their prejudices.
"She would cut an extremely striking figure on the world stage, especially as a woman -certainly the most powerful woman in the world, and arguably the most powerful woman ever".
And that's what it comes down to for Hillary: POWER. She doesn't give a damn about America or Americans, but she craves power and will cheat, lie and steal to get it. Anyone who votes for her or supports her fails to see through the corruption that dominates her political career, and is rather, to put it frankly, politically stupid.
Posted by: atheling | October 24, 2007 at 06:17 PM
Simon, PLEASE explain any policy that Hillary has had any hand in accomplishing.
She has done NOTHING but sit back in the warmth of the "rock star" aura the news media unjustly awards her.
The ONLY "accomplishment" anyone can point to is her failed attempt to institute nationalized health care in the US.
Did you know that had the US gone under Hillarycare, if you had a heart attack or some other emergency while visiting the US, any doctor who assisted you could have gone to prison? That was the way Hillary was going to keep the thing under control. She was going to CRIMINALIZE doctors treating anyone from outside their service area. And there were NO caveats or conditions or exceptions given for emergencies by travelers.
She missed a problem THAT huge and THAT obvious! That doesn't speak well for her "abilities".
In fact, the only talent I've ever seen is an unparalleled ability to destroy her political opponents.
Posted by: mamapajamas | October 27, 2007 at 11:51 PM