Sunday, October 21, 2007

Zogby Poll: Half Say They Would Never Vote for Hillary Clinton for President

Hat Tip: Daily Dish

Zogby Poll: Half Say They Would Never Vote for Hillary Clinton for President

Other top tier candidates in both parties win more acceptance; Richardson & Huckabee favored most

While she is winning wide support in nationwide samples among Democrats in the race for their party’s presidential nomination, half of likely voters nationwide said they would never vote for New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, a new Zogby Interactive poll shows.

The online survey of 9,718 likely voters nationwide showed that 50% said Clinton would never get their presidential vote. This is up from 46% who said they could never vote for Clinton in a Zogby International telephone survey conducted in early March. Older voters are most resistant to Clinton – 59% of those age 65 and older said they would never vote for the New York senator, but she is much more acceptable to younger voters: 42% of those age 18–29 said they would never vote for Clinton for President.

Whom would you NEVER vote for for President of the U.S.?

Clinton (D)

Kucinich (D)

Gravel (D)

Paul (R)

Brownback (R)

Tancredo (R)

McCain (R)

Hunter (R)

Giuliani (R)

Romney (R)

Edwards (D)

Thompson (R)

Dodd (D)

Biden (D)

Obama (D)

Huckabee (R)

Richardson (D)

Not sure

At the other end of the scale, Republican Mike Huckabee and Democrats Bill Richardson and Barack Obama faired best, as they were least objectionable to likely voters. Richardson was forever objectionable as President to 34%, while 35% said they could never vote for Huckabee and 37% said they would never cast a presidential ballot for Obama, the survey showed.

The Zogby Interactive poll, conducted Oct. 11–15, 2007, included 9,718 likely voters nationwide and carries a margin of error of +/– 1.0 percentage point.

In a Zogby International telephone survey conducted in March, 46% said they would never vote for Clinton. In that survey, she finished in second place, behind Republican Newt Gingrich, a divisive figure who has since announced he would not seek the presidency and was not included in this new online survey. In that earlier poll, 54% said they would never vote for Gingrich. This recent survey included only the 17 candidates who were at that time running for President in one of the major parties. Former Vice President Al Gore, who like Gingrich was also included in the earlier Zogby survey of who would never win voters’ support for the White House, was excluded from this latest survey because of his insistence that he has no interest in a run for the presidency.

Interest in a Gore candidacy has been rekindled after he recently won the Nobel Prize for peace in connection with his work on the issue of global climate change.

Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, who announced Friday he would end his campaign, was included in the poll. He might have sensed the nationwide opposition to his campaign, as 47% said they would never vote for him for President. The survey showed he was tied as the third most objectionable candidate, behind Clinton and Congressman Dennis Kucinich (49%). Tied with Brownback was Democrat Michael Gravel, a former Alaska senator, and GOP Congressman Ron Paul.

Opposition to Clinton among Democratic and Republican women revealed mirror opposite attitudes, the Zogby Interactive survey showed. While 83% of Republican women said they would never vote for her, just 17% said they could possibly cast a ballot for her. Among Democratic women, just 17% said they would never vote for Hillary, while 83% said they could.

Democratic women appear smitten by former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina and Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois – just 11% said they could never vote for them for President. Republican women, on the other hand, find former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney most attractive – just 14% said they would never vote for him. Tied for a close second was former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who were found to be objectionable by just 15% of Republican women.

For a complete methodological statement on this survey, please visit:

This isn't the first poll that says this. So, I don't want to hear anything about Clinton being a 'realistic' choice for President and Obama being an 'idealistic' choice. If you want to talk to me about being ' realistic', don't bring up a candidate who, 13 months out, HALF THE COUNTRY TELLS YOU THEY'LL NEVER VOTE FOR.

If folks told me that they were supporting Edwards because they were being ' realistic', I'd buy that. But realism and choosing someone that HALF the country will never be persuaded to vote for - DO NOT MATCH. Obama might have a ' Bradley Effect', but it would have to be tsunami-sized to catch up to Hillary right now.

1 comment:

Brian said...

The Dems are headed for a trainwreck with Hillary Clinton.

She is getting so much support because she is the media favorite. The other key candidates (like Edwards) can't get the same TV time. Other candidates have almost been shut out of the process already.

This is one of the reasons why election reform is needed... this is one of the areas that needs to be fixed (media coverage). Candidates should get equal time, whether it's radio, TV, or online ads.

There is no way that this woman is electable in a General election. She is the wrong candidate...especially when Dems will have to flip a couple of Purple States in order to win... Ohio, Missouri, Florida, Tennessee, Nevada, etc... and keep what they won in 2000 and 2004. Hillary Clinton is the worst person they could recruit to pull this off.

Her negatives are extremely high (according to Rasmussen, pollingreport, & all the major polling organizations, etc).

John Edwards would make a much better challenger to to GOP in the general election, with relatively low negatives (meaning Americans have not made up their minds on him yet....he has room to gain a lot of voters....esp. independents). Independents will decide the next election... just like they do most of the time. We are the tie breakers in a deeply divided Country. And Independents are not crazy about Hillary.

With the way things are going I think we will be looking at President Romney, Giuliani or MCCain in a little over a year from now. Within the first year of a Giuliani or McCain administration.... we really could be looking at WWIII. An attack against Iran would be a certainty. Romney would likely do the same.

But then again... even if Hillary Clinton wins the general election by some miracle... her foreign policy would not be much different from that of the Republican candidates. She's a pro-war Democrat...just like her Husband. I couldn't stand them when he was in office... and I can't stand them now.

A Hillary Clinton victory would mean that we would be ruled by the same 2 families for 3 decades straight. Is that Democracy?

Americans have lived under quasi dictatorship for so long (under the false title of Democracy) that Americans don't even know what Democracy actually means. They have no point of reference.

You have to go to Canada, South America or Europe to see what an actual Democracy looks like.