Poll: Democrats lead, Clinton is vulnerable, no one is popular Update: Hillary has a man problem

posted at 7:30 am on November 8, 2007 by Bryan

The latest WSJ/NBC poll reads like a reverse of the Lake Wobegon intro: Nobody looks smart and everyone is pretty much below average. Democrats hold a 50-35% lead on the generic question of which party should get the White House after Bush. But Hillary is weak and weakening while Giuliani is within the margin of error on her.

By 50% to 35%, the poll shows, Americans prefer that a Democrat gets elected to succeed Mr. Bush next November. In a direct matchup of leading candidates, however, that margin shrinks to 46% for Mrs. Clinton and 45% for Mr. Giuliani because of defections from voters like Linda Dunbar.

“I just don’t totally trust her,” said the 57-year-old homemaker from the Cleveland suburb of Seven Hills. Though Mrs. Dunbar voted for Bill Clinton in the 1990s, she would back Mr. Giuliani over Mrs. Clinton next November because at a time of steep foreign-policy challenges, “I just don’t believe the international world is ready for a woman president.”

I actually think the world is ready for a woman president. Just not that particular woman. Margaret Thatcher, yes. Hillary Clinton, no. Giuliani, as is usually the case, has the best line as to why:

Mr. Giuliani has maintained an aggressive stance toward his in-state rival for the White House. While promoting his antiterror credentials with tough talk on Iran, the former New York City mayor slammed Mrs. Clinton for displaying “the worst of the Clinton years” by equivocating in the debate on driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants. “If you think a question about driver’s licenses is a tough question, a gotcha question, you’re not ready for [Iranian leader Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad,” Mr. Giuliani told a New Hampshire town hall meeting a few days ago.

That’s more than a one-liner. It’s a meme. And it’s accurate. Unfortunately, none of the top Democrats appear to be ready to go toe to toe with the world’s villains. Combine the new signs of Hillary’s weakness with her already high negatives, and she becomes a problematic candidate for the Democrats in a field of problematic candidates. She can be stopped.

Update: In probably the least surprising poll result since polling began, Hillary has a gender gap.

More than eight in 10 Republicans and more than half the married men in a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll say they definitely wouldn’t vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton for president…

The poll found that 36% of women wouldn’t vote for Clinton, compared with 50% of men — and 55% of married men. Obama had comparable appeal to women and more to men. Clinton’s appeal overall falls as income rises, the reverse of the findings for Obama.

The same poll also says she would beat Giuliani, but take that with a grain of salt this far out. 36% of women won’t vote for her, though?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Unless the GOP over reaches on the illegal immigration issue. Mort may be left of center but he has some good observations and experience with political analysis.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/despite_danger_gop_tees_up_imm.html

Bradky on November 8, 2007 at 7:52 AM

1. This poll probably oversampled Democrats. Again.

2. Guiliani’s “I can beat Hillary” meme becomes pointless of Barack wins the nomination instead. Then you’ve got star power vs. “I can beat Hillary.”

Any Republican, bar Thompson because he’s a radioactive fraud and Paul because he’s an insane loon, can take out a woman with that many negatives and that much corrupted history.

However, we’re going to need someone who isn’t going to keep the South home in November.

It’s funny, I had a dream last night where almost the entire country turned blue because the South decided to stay home.

BKennedy on November 8, 2007 at 7:53 AM

It’s funny, I had a dream last night where almost the entire country turned blue because the South decided to stay home.

BKennedy on November 8, 2007 at 7:53 AM

And giving Hillary the mandate associated with the landslide would be their legacy. The south used to be all blue till about 40 years ago. guess some of you all can wait 40 years for another shift if your scenario plays out… strange strategy though. “lose to win in 2048″

Bradky on November 8, 2007 at 8:00 AM

There’s such a vaccuum on the democrat side. No one is “there” to hit the hanging curve ball of her flaws out of the ball park. Obama is trying, but he’s as dry as rye bread toast. Edwards is parrot with no soul. Biden is a senator from Deleware. Richardson has been emasculated. Kucinich is from another planet. Dodd is _______? It’s too bad they don’t have a Zell Miller, Harold Ford or an Ernest Hollings that could run given the left wing loons and goons running the party now.

It will be imperative the Republicans IGNORE the media outcry of them piling on or being mean to her. Take it to her, show no mercy, and rub it in her face when they win!

SouthernGent on November 8, 2007 at 8:20 AM

I’m hearing Rudy can’t win because the Clintons will haul out enough ‘dirt’ on him to turn off most of the values voters, once the primaries are over. But really, how bad can it be?

petefrt on November 8, 2007 at 8:26 AM

The south used to be all blue till about 40 years ago. guess some of you all can wait 40 years for another shift if your scenario plays out… strange strategy though. “lose to win in 2048″

Bradky on November 8, 2007 at 8:00 AM

That shows you have an AMAZING grasp of Southern politics history. Just like the elitists from the North who ‘know everything’. Do you recall what else was going on in the south 40 years ago? Do you understand WHY the change happened? It wasn’t because our only choice for president was liberal vs. liberal light.

It won’t be the south’s fault that the Republicans don’t put up a candidate that can win. Rudy won’t win anyway. Mitt has the inside track for the nomination and Rudy will be out of the race by Feb 6th. He is only a ‘good candidate’ as the front runner. When Mitt wins the first three states, he’ll win the rest of them from the momentum and EXTRA money he gets for his campaign.

I appreciate your indictment of the South though. Thanks, you understand politics here so well.

ThackerAgency on November 8, 2007 at 8:32 AM

The entire field (R and D) is like watching Dancing with the Stars. Not a single one of them has…I dunno….spark?
Gravitas?….Statesmanship?

To me the entire country is walking around with their chins on the ground and waiting for a commercial break. Weird times. I still believe it will boil down to ‘bad’ Rs not getting votes. ‘Anything but R’ is going to be the footnote in some history book.

Limerick on November 8, 2007 at 8:35 AM

With the MSM propaganda machine running 24/7, if things look this thin for the Dems, it’s a good sign. The buzz seems to be about the abilities of each Republican candidate, while the Democrats point to the weakness of each of their candidate.

Hening on November 8, 2007 at 8:39 AM

petefrt on November 8, 2007 at 8:26 AM

3 wives, bernie kerick, saudi clients, and who knows what else.

zane on November 8, 2007 at 8:49 AM

The same poll also says she would beat Giuliani, but take that with a grain of salt this far out. 36% of women won’t vote for her, though?

Hmmm…pessimism, an exit question and italics.

Either Bryan has worked with Allah far too long, or the Big A is secretly blogging on his vacation.

Slublog on November 8, 2007 at 9:11 AM

I want Tom Dodd to run (AKA the character from “Man of the Year”)

I had to watch that movie again last night. Imagine a candidate who spoke the truth “I did not have sex with that woman. I “WANTED” to, but it just didn’t happen”. A candidate who just tells the flat out truth of his past and his goals, then dives right in to discussing policy instead of the same olf minutia politicians normaly drone on about.

Wyrd on November 8, 2007 at 9:11 AM

I actually think the world is ready for a woman president. Just not that particular woman.

I miss Jeanne Kirkpatrick.

Kowboy on November 8, 2007 at 9:13 AM

The one liners win the vote, not the dirt. People are tired of the dirt, voters don’t like piling on, it’s the glass house syndrome.
Rudy will take Hillary down in debates and one liners, Hillary has the machine.

right2bright on November 8, 2007 at 9:15 AM

One key that we in America are afraid to mention…

You do understand that our enemies WILL judge us by the person we put into office? That the President is the face of our opposition to them?

If we elect a woman, especialy one whose only real experience is as the WIFE of an X President… do you think they’ll respect her?

No, it will do nothing but reaffirm in their eyes that we are decadent and stupid.

Its the Carter / Reagen thing writ even larger… they had no respect for weak man Carter, and so kept our hostages…

Just think of the crap they are going to pull if we have a WOMAN as President…

Romeo13 on November 8, 2007 at 9:18 AM

I actually think the world is ready for a woman president.

Nor a president that has dressed as a woman?

http://www.passionateamerica.com/pictures/Giuliani_Drag.jpg

Texas Nick 77 on November 8, 2007 at 9:21 AM

It’s funny, I had a dream last night where almost the entire country turned blue because the South decided to stay home.

BKennedy on November 8, 2007 at 7:53 AM

Put Rudy at the top of the ticket, and your dream may come true.

Texas Nick 77 on November 8, 2007 at 9:24 AM

Texas Nick 77 on November 8, 2007 at 9:21 AM

Hey, did Giuliani dress in drag a few times?

Wow, I had absolutely no idea! No one ever mentions it on this site.

You people have to tell me these things.

/sarc

Slublog on November 8, 2007 at 9:24 AM

ThackerAgency on November 8, 2007 at 8:32 AM

Mitt has dumped 17 mil of his own money (can’t raise any money from the people, just his business friends). And he is sitting at 10%, barely.
How many churches is Mitt going to go to? How many pulpits are going to open up to him? The whispering campaign has begun, he looks pretty, has plenty of money, but he doesn’t connect with everyday people. He wears undergarment to protect himself from evil…how many baptists are going to vote for that? Now that may or may not be true, but that is the type of cr*p that he has to deal with.
Carter—Christian
Bush 1—Christian
Clinton–Christian
Bush 2—Christian
Next—–Better be Christian (sorry that’s how it is for now)
Look how Barack has had to distance himself from the Muslim identity. And that is with a party that loves that stuff.
When was the last president elected that was shunned by the churches, or when was the last president elected that tried to buy his way into the office? Forbes? Perot?
Rudy has his faults, and churches can point to him and call for redemption or forgiveness or whatever example…but Mitt is vowed to a religion whose founders and leaders hold Christians as “”We talk about Christianity, but it is a perfect pack of nonsense” that is from their Journal of Discourses, John Taylor LDS’s third president (and prophet), not something Mormons tend to ignore.
So Mitt is going to deny his Church leaders or embrace the hatred.
I think it is wrong but that is what will happen, and that is why his candidacy is doomed.
Quite frankly his political history and flip-flopping would and should be enough to sink him.

right2bright on November 8, 2007 at 9:37 AM

The entire field (R and D) is like watching Dancing with the Stars. Not a single one of them has…I dunno….spark?
Gravitas?….Statesmanship?

To me the entire country is walking around with their chins on the ground and waiting for a commercial break. Weird times. I still believe it will boil down to ‘bad’ Rs not getting votes. ‘Anything but R’ is going to be the footnote in some history book.

I totally agree withe the first statement, but I don’t agree with the second. If the Republicans can find a good candidate, he will win. People vote for people they like. Al Gore would have won if he wasn’t such a downer.

Like you, I think the entire field is p poor. I guess dynamic, fun, and capable politicians are extinct.

saiga on November 8, 2007 at 9:59 AM

Married men much more likely to vote Republican. Married women also much more likely to vote Republican.

You can see the Democrats want to destroy the family. They believe it is necessary to destroy the family in order to save the country. (With saving the country meaning electing more Democrats.)

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on November 8, 2007 at 10:18 AM

I still support Rudy as the best chance at beating the dems, but I have to say, as the candidates have solidified their policies, I am having more confidence in Mitt as the guy who is closest to conservative values.

The tipping point seems to be this:

Would independent thinking evangelicals rather vote for a Mormon who holds their same basic social values, or a candidate who has very little in common with them but appears to have a better chance to win? I’ll tell ya, I am VERY conflicted about it, but I am a very pragmatic conservative. I feel that ANY rep is better than ANY dem. At this time, if everything were equal, I’d lean toward Mitt because he has the more complete package. But everything isn’t equal. Rudy is a stronger candidate and will have to vote for him in the primary unless Mitt makes some serious moves that put him over the top. I felt that event had occurred with the Weyrich endorsement. But now that Robertson has endorsed Rudy, Weyrich’s endorsement is balanced out.
But for some reason it doesn’t strengthen Rudy in my mind because Rudy isn’t trying to convince us that he is a social conservative, but rather you get what you get with him. Robertsons endorsement was based on Rudy’s ability to win and his assurances that Rudy would appoint strict constructionist justices. This has been my biggest question mark with Rudy. Will he REALLY appoint constructionist justices and will he fight for them to the bitter end? I have heard accusations that he appointed the team that selected the liberal judges he appointed during his time as mayor.

It conclusion, it isn’t so much that Rudy has diminished in my mind, but that Mitt has made up some serious ground in being a viable challenge to the dems. The choice is just too close to be able to make a definitive decision.

I think if Mitt can minimize Robertsons endorsement by gathering some more big name evangelicals, he will emerge as THE conservative candidate for America to rest their hopes on.

Off Topic:
If John Taylor was running for president that might be a problem. It’s too bad for the bigots that he isn’t because then they might have a reason to espouse their bigotry and get away with calling it rational debate.

csdeven on November 8, 2007 at 10:33 AM

Rudy is the wrong candidate. No true social conservative is interested in supporting him, Pat Robertson not withstanding. What profit is it if a man gain the whole world and lose his own soul?

The real candidate who is rising in the polls and has the principles, rhetoric, and experience to beat Hillary in 2008 is Mike Huckabee. But don’t take my word for it, ask Rasmussen.

Look at this latest polling data for a general election matchup and then tell me that Rudy is the only one who can beat Hillary. If there are some things you don’t like about Huckabee (and not all those criticisms are even accurate), you certainly can’t claim with a straight face that Rudy is preferable. A liberal hawk? No thanks. I’ve had enough centrist neocon shenanigans for one decade, thank you.

Jared White on November 8, 2007 at 10:52 AM

Jared White on November 8, 2007 at 10:52 AM

That is an unsustainable argument. The national polls mean nothing. We don’t have a national election for president. We have 50 state elections, so the more telling poll numbers would be the state polls. Huck has a lot of ground to make up and no money to do it. His message would have to be overpowering in order to make up the ground. No one has seen that yet. Huck is the master of the one liner sound bite. Unfortunately, no one falls for that any more. Especially since his one liners are getting more attention than his substantive policies. We require substance and if Huck is serious he needs to going on it.

csdeven on November 8, 2007 at 11:17 AM

I felt the earth move! Did ‘ol CS get yelled at by the Boss? Did his/her mother slap CS around and finally teach him/her some manners or even, heaven forbid, character? No name calling, no cheap shots, no grade school yard bullying. Must be somebody else using the nickname.

countywolf on November 8, 2007 at 11:59 AM

The New York Times is going to lead a campaign against Guiliani, the likes of which even the NY Times has never done before. The squalid NY Times campaign has already begun, courtesy of its leftwing columnists Gail Sheehy and Maureen Dowd. They have started the silly stories about Rudy lived in an apartment with a gay couple. You would think that logically this would endear the former mayor to the Times. But since the Times loathes Guiliani with a furor that is unmatched, the Times is willing to throw political correctness to the wind and to send out messages that there must be something terribly weird about Guiliani to share an apartment with a gay couple. Actually, Rudy did nothing out of the ordinary. During the period in which his marriage was ending, he moved out of the marital home and left it to his wife, pending the conclusion of the divorce. Two friends of his offered to let him use a spare bedroom in their apartment on a temporary basis. If Hillary Clinton had left the White House during the Monica scandal and moved into an apartment with two lesbian women, the NY Times and Collins and Dowd in particular would have saluted her courage and branded anyone who mentioned her living quarters “a homophobe”. Collins, Rich and Dowd have also repeatedly accused Rudy of being a crossdresser. Actually he wore a costume to a charity ball that raised lots of money for charitable causes. But if the Times can use it to smear Guiliani, then again the Times will put its hatred of the former mayor over political correctness.

Larraby on November 8, 2007 at 12:13 PM

I’m hearing Rudy can’t win because the Clintons will haul out enough ‘dirt’ on him to turn off most of the values voters, once the primaries are over. But really, how bad can it be?

petefrt on November 8, 2007 at 8:26 AM

No one has more dirt associated with them than the Clintons. No one.

Connie on November 8, 2007 at 12:50 PM

If there are some things you don’t like about Huckabee (and not all those criticisms are even accurate), you certainly can’t claim with a straight face that Rudy is preferable.
Jared White on November 8, 2007 at 10:52 AM

Yes, I can. Watch me.
[straightface] “Rudy is preferable to Huckabee.” [/straightface]

Jared, you apparently think that all conservatives have the same priorities as you; thus your use of the word “certainly.” You’re wrong. I’m a hard-right Christian conservative who’s pulling for Romney, but I won’t cry if Rudy is the nominee. No promises if Huckabee starts getting traction.

Splashman on November 8, 2007 at 1:09 PM

The New York Times is going to lead a campaign against Guiliani, the likes of which even the NY Times has never done before.

That will probably boost his national numbers.

awake on November 8, 2007 at 1:36 PM

Maybe she should show a little cleavage. No wait, didn’t work. How about her in a bathing suit. No wait same problem. Hmmm what if some one carved a bust of her. Hmmm this isn’t working too well. She’s screwed.

- The Cat

MirCat on November 8, 2007 at 1:38 PM

More than eight in 10 Republicans and more than half the married men in a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll say they definitely wouldn’t vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton for president…

I want to know what is wrong with the 2 out of 10? They must be really confused and clueless of what’s to come.

Mitt will not be the nominee. Too slick. 2008 will not work for slickness. The libs will choose Hillary and then she’ll be chopped down in the general, no matter who’s the nominee on the right. They know this but can’t help themselves.

Entelechy on November 8, 2007 at 1:51 PM

Mitt will not be the nominee. Too slick. 2008 will not work for slickness.
Entelechy on November 8, 2007 at 1:51 PM

“Slick” is an adjective that Romney’s detractors (on both sides of the aisle) would like to pin on him. Pray tell, where does “well-prepared & highly knowledgeable” end, and “slick” begin? That’s rhetorical; the point is, every positive character trait of every candidate can and will be spun into a character flaw by their opponents. And as supposed flaws go, the “slick” meme isn’t as bad as some others I could name (moderate, inexperienced, nanny-stater, undisciplined, etc.)

Splashman on November 8, 2007 at 2:41 PM

Clinton’s appeal overall falls as income rises, the reverse of the findings for Obama.

That doesn’t surprise me in the least where Shrillary is concerned, but why does the same trend not hold true for BO?

…36% of women wouldn’t vote for Clinton…

This doesn’t surprise me either, although I thought it would be higher. I would never ever vote for her, and I don’t think I know any women who would. She pissed off the stay-at-home moms with her “never stayed home to bake cookies” comment. Those of us who have succeeded in male-dominated fields find her tag-along with Bill disgusting. She plays the gender card far too easily. She would be nowhere without Bill. Although she knows this, she would certainly never admit that. Every time I say “President Hillary Clinton” in my head, I feel the need for a very strong drink.

lan astaslem on November 8, 2007 at 2:42 PM

I want to know what is wrong with the 2 out of 10?
Entelechy on November 8, 2007 at 1:51 PM

That part made me laugh. Thanks!

Splashman on November 8, 2007 at 2:42 PM

“Slick” is an adjective that Romney’s detractors (on both sides of the aisle) would like to pin on him. Pray tell, where does “well-prepared & highly knowledgeable” end, and “slick” begin?

With the hair. Definitely the hair.

Slublog on November 8, 2007 at 3:13 PM

Every time I say “President Hillary Clinton” in my head, I feel the need for a very strong drink.

Sounds like a good drinking game.

aengus on November 8, 2007 at 4:13 PM

Heh. I can’t argue with that. :)

Splashman on November 8, 2007 at 4:13 PM

Oops — aengus slipped in there. I was responding to Slublog.

Splashman on November 8, 2007 at 4:14 PM

I understand the no one is popular concept as I don’t like any of them at this point. I liked Fred a lot and still hope that maybe he’ll kick it up and become what many of us hoped he would be. I will not, under any circumstances, vote for a democrat in ’08 in any national election. That means, excepting my House Rep who has overall held to conservative values, I’ll have to hold my nose to vote (R) for the remaining offices. I have resigned myself to having either a Rudy RINO or a scary socialist as president for 4 years.

deepdiver on November 8, 2007 at 4:43 PM

ThackerAgency on November 8, 2007 at 8:32 AM

You have stated several times that you won’t vote for Rudy. Your analysis doesn’t carry much weight. I probably know a bit more about the south than you seem to.

Bradky on November 8, 2007 at 8:09 PM