Poll: Is Hillary Electable?

Posted: Thursday, June 28, 2007 5:00 PM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: Democrats, Republicans

From NBC's Mark Murray
Earlier today, Howard Wolfson, the communications director for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, said in a memo: "As [Clinton strategist] Mark Penn likes to say, people always ask 'can Hillary win?' but he has never had this asked of someone who is already winning. This week's national polls underscore that observation."

But those polls only tell part of the story. According to a new Mason-Dixon survey, given exclusively to NBC/MSNBC and McClatchy newspapers, Clinton is the only major presidential candidate -- either Democrat and Republican -- for whom a majority of likely general election voters say they would not consider voting. In addition, she's the only candidate who registers with a net-unfavorable rating.

In the poll, 48% say they would consider voting for Clinton versus 52% who say they wouldn't. By comparison, majorities signal they would consider voting for all other major presidential candidates or possible candidates: Giuliani (64%-36%), Fred Thompson (62%-38%), Bloomberg (61%-39%), Obama (60%-40%), Edwards (59%-41%), McCain (58%-42%), Biden (57%-43%), Richardson (57%-43%), Huckabee (56%-44%), and Romney (54%-46%).

Moreover, 39% say they recognize Clinton favorably, while 42% say they recognize her unfavorably. By contrast, every other candidate has a net-positive favorable rating: Giuliani (43%-17%), Obama (36%-21%), McCain (33%-28%), Edwards (32%-28%), Thompson (25%-12%), Romney (24%-20%), Biden (21%-20), Bloomberg (20%-18%), Richardson (19%-15%), and Huckabee (16%-12%).

The poll was taken of 625 likely general election voters from June 23-25, and has a margin of error of +/- 4%.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

It's a miracle...MSNBC reporting something other than what is posted on hillarhub.com!

Dee of VA (Sent Thursday, June 28, 2007 5:33 PM)

Any idea where all those negatives come from? Stupid partisan comments that throw more heat than light are NOT welcome. I can see anti-war people having a beef with her. I can see Bill Clinton haters transferring the hate to her. Some people don't like that she tried to reform health care (can't understand why that is a problem). I think some of it may be people who don't like women who aren't in their place. Otherwise what gives -- her positions and agenda are little different from the other Democrats? Though not my first choice I would gladly vote for her over any of the Bush clones.

Russell in Maryland (Sent Thursday, June 28, 2007 5:36 PM)

Hillary tries hard. She is smart but practical wistom is lacking. It sound good to send Bill out in the world to be US emmisary at large if elected. "Who Better" says she". Bill is out playing Play boy now. Keeping a sleightly low profile with the ladies, but not low enough. When he goes out in the wold and plays grab *** with some Muslim chick or toys around in India and other places, the US imaged is in the tank.

They only see each other twice a week, which may be understandable, but only for them. Baggage friends. She is loaded with baggage. Some of which belongs back in the White House anyway. The ghosts are coming back to haunt us.

Don Jones
MyManFred.com

Don Jones (Sent Thursday, June 28, 2007 5:36 PM)

Hillary tries hard. She is smart but practical wisdom is lacking. It sound good to send Bill out in the world to be US emissary at large if elected. "Who Better" says she". Bill is out playing Playboy now. Keeping a slightly low profile with the ladies, but not low enough. When he goes out in the wold and plays grab *** with some Muslim chick or toys around in India and other places, the US imaged is in the tank.

They only see each other twice a week, which may be understandable, but only for them. Baggage friends. She is loaded with baggage. Some of which belongs back in the White House anyway. The ghosts are coming back to haunt us.

Don Jones
MyManFred.com

Don Jones (Sent Thursday, June 28, 2007 5:41 PM)

Even though this is one poll that I FINALLY agree with, using 625 voters is still not a true showing of the General Public. There is a Harris Poll that shows Senator Obama within 4 point of Hillary Clinton, they polled over 3,000 people. That is a poll that I like too, but still 3,000 is not 3 million. I have never been polled for a President campaign. Polls are for spinsters to spin their webs.

Lynn, Millington (Sent Thursday, June 28, 2007 5:49 PM)

I am a Democrat who will not vote for Hillary. She is the female version of Karl Rove: manipulative, calculating, divisive. She burns bridges, not builds them. I agree with her on most of the issues. It's how she goes about addressing the issues that greatly concerns me.

Brad, Austin, TX (Sent Thursday, June 28, 2007 5:55 PM)

To 'Russell in Maryland' I think you make the point. You say Hillary doesn't appeal to rabid republican partisans, Bill Clinton haters, anti-war people, people mad at her about the failure of healthcare, sexists, republicans, progressive democrats, and independents. And that leaves whom in support of her? I'd say people who are not following politics and have heard her name more than any other candidates. Kinda like the Republican voters who know Rudy Giuilani's name but don't know that he doesn't stand for anything that they have believed in over the last 25 years.

Ellen Hamm, St. Louis, MO (Sent Thursday, June 28, 2007 6:14 PM)

I truly believe that those who hate Hillary simply hate her for no good reason. Hillary is the best candidate who will deliver for the American people ,not the lobby groups. She has the most experience. She has met the world leaders and politics is a passion for both Clintons. Americans should give her a chance. They will surely benefit.

Nazir Patel, Toronto, Ontario (Sent Thursday, June 28, 2007 7:33 PM)

This is yet another scare tactic and foolish one time poll which doesn't tell us crap. Hillary will win the nomination and go against all the weak repubs who folks will not vote for. They might hold their noses but will vote for the first female president Hillary Rodham Clinton.

F St Louis (Sent Thursday, June 28, 2007 8:22 PM)

What Brad brings up is an important observation.
"manipulative, calculating, divisive. She burns bridges, not builds them. I agree with her on most of the issues."

It seems that this is a powerful component to her negatives. When the words she says are seen as the product of a political formula, for example, what gets implied is self-interest, and a lack of honesty.

It's one of those 'what kinda person you are' issues. Not an issues issue

Jeff Morgan, Austin, TX (Sent Thursday, June 28, 2007 8:31 PM)

I will certainly vote for her because shes a democrat. Our country did damn good when her husband was in office. Something people shouldnt forget. What ever democrat gets the nomination, thats who I'll be voting for.

bb (Sent Thursday, June 28, 2007 8:36 PM)

I believe Senator Clinton will be the Democractic nominee. The key to her winning the general election is if women will feel safer with her or the Republican nomiee protecting them. She may come up short on that issue.

William, Little Rock, Ar. (Sent Thursday, June 28, 2007 8:51 PM)

I will not question her intelligence, she is very intelligent, and while I don't think she has done a great job representing our state, her fellow Senators say she is a very competent Senator. As this election season rolls on, her negatives will go higher, I don't know how you nominate someone with that high a negative and expect them to win. I still believe the nomination will go to Obama, Edwards or Richardson when all is said and done. I deep down believe it will be Richardson, who has the best experience to be President of any of the candidates, Democrat or Republican.

Mark, Dunkirk, NY (Sent Thursday, June 28, 2007 10:15 PM)

Americans, and those being polled, are far more familiar with Hillary than any other Democratic candidate. This increases both her positives and negatives.

I believe her challenge is keeping her top (positive) poll position when Americans are similarly familiar with her and the rest of the candidates. With Obama outraising Hillary, this is a real issue in her campaign's future, as he will have the resources to be on the same level of familiarity with her.

Jeff Morgan, Austin, TX (Sent Thursday, June 28, 2007 11:20 PM)

I thought that Hillary had the strongest responses tonight. It may be that she is being seen as "manipulative, calculating and devisive" because she is not in a traditional feminine role. In any case, I wish there was a duplicity litmus test for all of the candidates and I dread the increased intensity of attacks as the campaign continues. I long for civility and serious discussions that highlight actual, thoughtful and imaginative proposals that detail solutions. No shortage of problems.

Candace Armstrong, Bloomington, IL (Sent Thursday, June 28, 2007 11:37 PM)

Hillary is the embodiment of the Manchurian Candidate. She will say just about anything to get elected and is a plastic carbon copy of Eva Peron. She will flip-flop and dance her way to the presidency behind a veil of political handlers that would make Al Gore's 2000 run look like a twisted acid flash back. All we have to look forward to is finger in the wind decisions and cheap political pandering from her ilk. Obama is our only hope and I don't say that lightly. He doesn't have the Clinton political machine poll testing his stands on the issues.

Harold Fine, Santa Ana, CA (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 2:17 AM)

Does any one think no matter who the democratic candidate, that the crap won't be piled high in front of the fan. The spin machine will make us dizzy.

H P Boston (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 8:05 AM)

Hillary 's political skills are a match or superior to any male candidate. Her answers are superior and her effectiveness as President will be superior. Hillary Clinton deserves a sober analysis and consideration. The negative stereoyype adjectives that some attach to a woman would be badges of courage and honor in a male candidate. Too obvious to compute.

Jo-Ann Rivera (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 8:10 AM)

The election is won with votes, and clinton leads all republicans as we speak in VOTES, according to most polls.

Andrew (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 8:20 AM)

Nazir Patel: First of all you are indian and i can tell by your name. Second, you live in Toronto, that is telling your dailly live in not affected by our politics unless you are lookig for an H1-B or you want some or our jobs to go India. Tell what Hillary experience you are talking about??. The last time I check I cannot recall any realization of Hillary except lying.Let me tell you why i think Hillary cannot be our president. She is polarize, which mean she will be a distraction on the white house because of her past, she does not stand for any new idea, and most of all we have plenty of american that have bigger heart for teh country and we do NOT want to keep that dynasty in place Clintons, Bushes that is enoughhhhhhhhhhhhh, I am tired 20+ years.

Tibwa (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 8:52 AM)

Anyone who behaves like George W. Bush does not deserve to be a mayor in my town – much less the president of the United States. He is a self-righteous autocrat that would fare better in ancient Rome than here and now. Another candidate unworthy of the position is Hillary Rodham Clinton. While I agree with more of her ideas (let's face it: they're not really HER ideas) than those of the current Republican party, she herself is unworthy of the office. Like many experienced politicians before her, she is fake and ambitious to serve herself. I agree with the comedian who said, “Hillary is as sincere as an internet hook-up.” Let's not mock the presidency twice.

Another general question I’d like to raise: Can we not find anyone else in the over 300 million citizens in the country to elect to the presidency other than a Bush or a Clinton? Since 1988 (almost 20 years) all we’ve had were Bushes and Clintons. Is this the best we can do: a self-absorbed hag and a self righteous crusader (Relax, I know he's not running again)? Is this the best that our great country can produce? Or is the truth as one author put it: While most countries overthrow dynastic monarchies in favor of a democracy, America stands alone in overthrowing a democracy in favor of a dynastic monarchy? Pretty soon, by our own choosing, the only people with experience will be Clintons and Bushes. And if they are our only choices, then perhaps the 4th of July 1776 was merely a passing fad and we really do want an exeperienced royal queen.

Ahamas, Howell, NJ (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 9:10 AM)

To bb - Way to go. I agree with you 150%.

To Brad - A female version of Karl Rove? PULEEZE! Don't be so insulting. Where is her Karl Rove smirk?Tell me what candidate is NOT manipulative? I think you are saying all this because Hillary is a female. Do you honestly think she will not be good for the country. She is just up front and tells it like it is. She will mellow with time. Especially with guidance from Bill.

Louise Marino, New York, NY (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 9:18 AM)

She is unelectable. And its not a one-time poll, as someone mentioned above - she has polled high negatives for years, whether those who view her negatively do so for good reason or not. She is unelectable.

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 9:24 AM)

Who cares whether Clinton is electable if this career politician isn't any better than Bush in freeing our country from the destructive grip Israel has on it. We need a courageous candidates who is willing to listen to the needs of our people and not sell our army to Israel's interests...

John Doe, Seattle, Wash (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 9:31 AM)

The problem I am noticing is that we have a lot of people who know that they hate Hillary, but very few of them actually know the reason why. While I am most certainly not a Hillary supporter, I think she certainly does deserve a long, hard look. I wouldn't count her out, nor would I say that she is a shoe in. Quite frankly, I agree with the notion that America is ready for some fresh blood in the White House. It has nothing to do with the fact that Hillary is a woman, or even a Democrat, but more that she is simply a Clinton. The fact that her husband did well for our country bears nothing on the outlook of her performance, nor does his scandalous past indicate what may come to pass. The moral of the story: Hillary is a strong, smart, independant woman, but I just can't trust her any more than I can bear the thought of another 4 years of polarized politics.

Likewise, Barack Obama has a strong shot at becoming the first President in 20 years to come from a different background. What America needs is strong, decisive, uncorrupted leadership, and that's exactly what Obama offers.

Sean Palmer, Brewster, NY (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 9:52 AM)

The problem with polls like this one is that they're directly contradicted by polls showing Hillary either BEATING all Republican comers or trailing by a very small margin, and always with the Republican having a lot less support than those who say they'd "never" vote for Hillary.

The truth is whether someone will ACTUALLY vote for Hillary depends on more than what they think of Hillary. There are people in these polls who will, in fact, vote for her if they dislike the Republican nominee even more and/or want a change in party control of the White House.

The only polls that show whether Hillary is electable are the trial heat polls against named Republicans. And in those, as I noted above, she always wins or trails only very narrowly, and performs equally well against named Republicans as other top Democrats.

Jayant, Washington, DC (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 9:58 AM)

As a New Yorker from the state's second largest city, I echo the sentiment that Mrs. Clinton has never been a adequate representitive of this region or its needs and, thus, I could never support her for the presidency. If she cannot even represent our entire state, how can I trust her to represent our entire nation? She is a typical politician who sucked Western New York dry to run for the Senate in 2000 and then represented only downstate and her own presidential aspirations in Washington. Conversely, as a Republican, I would vote for our state's senior Senator, Charles Schumer, who actually remembers that the state does not end at the Hudson River and allows principle and not politics to guide his decision-making.

Derek, Buffalo, NY (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 10:02 AM)

Like the first poster, it is a miracle that there is finally an article not cheerleading for Hillary and spinning it for her.
The fact is that the vaunted experience Hillary claims is from her husband's career. Like the women in the 1950s, Hillary uses her husband for identity.
Stand on her own and campaign as herself and she is not much of anything. Her real and own experience is 6 years. period.
She is untrustworthy, corrupt and alot like Bush. I would never vote for her.
As for polls. Well if the msm stopped forcing her at us with faux stories going alot with the clinton spin machine and reported about her real self, she would be polling very low. But, isn't that the point. Build her up and ignore her shaky creds.

diane (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 10:17 AM)

Here is logic.. Our country is dis-array. Clinton has the experience. She was in the White House.. nows the game. And even has an ex-president who will back her. Lets get real husband and wife talk about everything including work.

Do you think we need someone who is going to have a learining curve?????????

With this current war we need someone who is going to know "NOW" how to work the game and get things done. And done fast.

I'm not saying I approve of her.. I'm saying she make the most logical choice. And lets also get real her hubby has influence ...knows enough of the game. I just hope he will be able to keep his pants on this time. :-)

parsippany, nj (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 10:20 AM)

The voting public has had several years now of painful education in how hype and message design allowed the wrong person to be in charge of this country. The voting public now is rawly aware that Bush rode into his level of incompetence position through NAME RECOGNITION. More than any other reason for Hillary's high negatives, I believe that voters, including many Democrats, are wising up to reject a campaign made up of NAME RECOGNITION coupled with poll-driven sound bites. I have been struck with how nothing is ever offered about her actual leadership history except generalities.

D of Illinois (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 10:22 AM)

As a feminist, I am very dissapointed that I cannot vote for the first serious female candidate for President. However, what will it say about the Democratic party if it chooses to nominate Hillary- one of THE primary players in facilitating our country going to war in Iraq? To choose her is to say that the war was OK. To choose her is to say that what's happening in Iraq really doesn't matter. To choose her says that no politician has to take responsiblity for their role in the war. If Democrats can't value a truly anti-Iraq war candidate, no one will. And that thought is truly depressing...

It is for this reason - Because Hillary supported the war for personal political reasons- that I would never vote for her.

Barack Obama is my candidate and it is he who deserves feminist Democratic support!

Mary Murphy, Boston, MA (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 10:22 AM)

I find it ironic that so many Republicans don't like Hillary. I, myself don't like her because I lump her in a boat with the Republicans and consider her closer to being one than any other Democrat. I didn't support Gore in the 2000 election (nor Bush) because he was too much apart of the machine. That's a big reason that I don't support Hillary now, unless it was the General election, then I'd have to.

Matt, South Bend, IN (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 10:42 AM)

Hillary polls terrible in Deep South, which is already written off. Who cares? That's what skews the poll. Just because 2/3 of Alabamans and South Carolinians, wouldn't vote for her doesn't mean squat. She'll dominate in Blue America and battleground West. Plus she'll kick any R in a debate.

Go Hill

Dale
Austin, TX

Dale Lennon, Austin, TX (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 10:51 AM)

Why the comparisons of Clinton to Bush (Rove)? For starters, because I keep reading over and over again that anyone who doesn't support her must simply hate women. Its just like being called unpatriotic for thinking maybe Iraq wasn't the smartest decision. Then on top of that we keep seeing indicators of a dirty tricks machine. All seems rather Rovian.

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 11:03 AM)

I think Sen. Clinton's superior intellect and position on the issues will win over many fence-sitters. She towers over this Bush presidency in all areas. It's interesting to read the variety of insults some of the more "macho" men come up with (men who would probably refuse to vote for any woman under any circumstances). She is the best candidate - end of story.

Barbara Shaver, Pembroke Pines, FL (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 11:17 AM)

I have pretty much decided to ignore the election news until after summer. Everywhere I go I hear the same crap about candidate A is more experienced candidate B is not experienced or candidate A is a poop head while candidate B is less poopy faced. I am sick and tired of our two party system where we the media and highly paid consultants tell us who we should vote for so that we can maintain the status quo.

dave, columbia, missouri (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 11:52 AM)

If anyone here cares to do some research, find our what the gini coefficient was during the Clinton era and what it has been since the repubicans took power. If you are still not impressed, look at the national debt in January 2000 and today and if possible over the entire existence of the U.S as a nation and you will begin to appreciate the fact that NO ONE has achieved more for the American economy than Bill Clinton. EVER. Please give us Hillary as president so we may reclaim some of the lost economic glory!!!

Tony B., Arlington, TX (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 11:59 AM)

Senator Clinton's 'superior intellect' is demonstrated by her failure to initially pass the bar exam, and her failure to read the complete NIE before voting to give Bush a green light on invading Iraq.
Senator Clinton's 'position on the issues' is demonstrated by her ability to poll test all her sound bite non-answers.
Senator Clinton's ' 'woman power' is demonstrated by her dependency on Bill Clinton's coattails and name.
Senator Clinton's 'leadership' ability' is demonstrated by her hurrying to the head of any parade organized by someone else.
Senator Clinton's strength is demonstrated by her refusal to admit her mistakes.

D of Illinois (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 11:59 AM)

I asked my wife why she thought Hillary was getting so much negative feeling. She said that Hillary was a strong woman and many people cannot accept a strong woman. I wonder if a different strong woman candidate would have the same problem? Lets hear if the anti-Hillary people would support Nancy Pelosi!

Russell in Maryland (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 12:02 PM)

Same old same old...women being judged by how well their husbands are received. Can we just look for once at a person and consider these factors - is she smart, is she approachable, is she concerned about us, does she have good ideas and likely to follow through on those ideas. Let's please judge her on her own merits and not for God's sake her husband.

SueWKline (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 12:04 PM)

Negatives do matter! Yes, Hillary can win the presidency despite her negatives by winning big in urban centers; however, her negatives will cost us the Senate and hurt our House majority. The number of Dem Senators that voted against the recent immigration bill (because they face re-election in volatile states) demonstrates the fragile position that we are in and the seriousness of choosing a candidate that build our base. This is why Obama's number of contributors is far more significant to our Party's future than the size of Hillary's war chest.

Mike, Sparks, NV (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 12:09 PM)

hilary clinton is the most qualified candidate. she deserves our respect. we have to choose the best person regardless whether we like her or not. our personal feelings should not influence our choice for the sake of our country.

lita (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 12:33 PM)

lita (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 12:35 PM)

We can not afford another gop president at the moment (other than Ron Paul) the Stakes are far too high to alienate undecided voters by running clinton. I am sorry to speak the non Politically correct truth, but... Men Don't trust the idea of a woman President!!! no matter what they are telling you. Do any of you honestly believe that the History concious, potential first female president is actually going to prove to the world that she is weak by ending the war as soon as she wins office? I know it sounds wonderful. Either the first Female or first Black nominee, but if you think that the 70 - 90 yeard olds who actually vote are ready for this then you are fooling yourself. One of the main things that got our current presitent (the worst in history) got ellected was his sense of optimism. and we see where that is getting us. So for 2008 can we drop the blind and stupid optimism and use a little realism, sorry everyone that means John Edwards for president, with Clinton or Obama as his vice.

Vince Philadelphia (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 12:36 PM)

I am a woman and voted for Bill Clinton TWICE and probably would again if possible. However, there is no way .... I mean NO WAY ... I would ever vote for Hillary Clinton. She will do or say anything for a vote and her position depends entirely on the group she addresses. She is running entirely on the personality and likability of her husband. And Folks, the last name is the only thing they have in common.

April Clover (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 12:47 PM)

Assume that the war, or how we got into the war is still a relavent issue at general election time. Why would we want to rerun the Kerry flip/flop campaign theme;... she's against the war but she voted for it? Why not go with one who showed good foresight and not just hindsight carping? Why be stuck with someone who can't be seen critizing anything Bill ever did or did not do. Why pull everything Gore could not run successfully away from and see if Hillary can run away from bad bill while she is embracing his popularity and trying to substitute it for her high negatives. Can't we just turn the page, make our opposition at least have to make up some new lies and strategies for winning and not just dust off the old play book that has worked so well for them in the past.

I think Clinton is unelectable. You just can't write off the South, Independents, Hillary haters, Hillary doubters, Bill haters, and people who don't hate her but just want to TURN the Page and expect to win in the general.

J. Barnes (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 12:55 PM)

It is NOT a anti-war minority of the Democratic base that the MSM is the habit of characterizing as "wacko", but the majority of the country that wants out of Iraq. Clinton is out of sync on the issue and deviously qualifies her position. Clinton continues to support the Insurance industry overseeing healthcare. She is beholden to the Corporations-same as Bush and that is why she is being promoted as the inevitable, spurning on the bandwagon effect. She is the status quo--and doesn't represent any shift from the Bush agenda.

KF Trenton, NJ (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 1:23 PM)

Simply stated, the Mason-Dixon survey is meaningless. Asking voters whether they would or would not vote for one particular candidate tells you absolutely nothing about what those same voters would do if they instead had to choose between that one particular candidate and a second particular candidate. The general election will not be a choice between Sen. Clinton and not Sen. Clinton; it will be a choice between Sen. Clinton and one of the Republican flunkies. And, as this article accurately reports, the three most recent national polls by three different polling organizations all show Sen. Clinton beating all of the Republican candidates. The rest of this article is pure horse$#@&.

Joe, D.C. (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 1:32 PM)

I'd vote for her if she came up to the nomination, but I'd rather have Obama.

Although honestly as long as no one has Leiberman on their ticket I'll be happy.

Kevin, Detroit MI (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 1:43 PM)

I disagree, Joe. Not that I know first hand myself, but the pollsters also seem to disagree, or they wouldn't be polling for negatives. Same for the news outlets, political parties and campaigns that pay big bucks to these pollsters. Same for the writers and editors of Campaigns and Elections Magazine. You're butting heads with political conventional wisdom. Plus the element you're missing with these 18-month-out hypothetical match-ups is turn-out. Someone with Clinton's negatives would drive a large turn-out of Republicans. I hear it all the time from Republicans I know. As demoralized as they are now, and they might not even show up November of next year. Nominate Clinton, and they'll start buying yard signs, re-organizing their precincts, opening their checkbooks, all to ensure she is never innaugerated. I've never seen a more polarizing figure (least not one that seemingly has a real shot at getting a major party nomination) - she's unelectable.

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 2:07 PM)

Next >>

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=248165