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

Hillary Clinton is superior to every Republican candidate in every way and to most of the Democratic candidates as well. Most people don't know much about her and won't even bother to find out. At 26 years old she helped draft the Articles of Impeachment against Nixon (one reason she may be so hated by the Republicans), she has traveled to almost every country in the world, has fought for children and women's issues all her life and in fact advised her husband on many issues when he was President. Its time people start really looking at the candidates and not just listening to sound bites they hear or sticking with their party. If people would have read and learned about Al Gore and compared him to Bush, he would not be in office now. Jus think how different things would be in this country - we certainly would not be in Iraq!

Diane Celia (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 2:34 PM)

Well' Obama will be killed if he gets too close. If JFK who was a white President was killed by our government just because he was a good man and an anti-war President;just imagine a Black man as President.

Joey Anchorage Alaska (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 2:35 PM)

I agree that Clinton is intelligent. However, based on what I have observed, she will do what benefits her, and then put the American poeple second. She reminds me of a used car salesperson: all smiles while screwing you over.

Alex, Cincinnati, OH (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 2:37 PM)

Clinton is one of the slaves of Israel...quite electable but a disaster for our country...
Chuck Hagel with Obama as VP, that would be my dreamteam and our very last chance coming decade of surviving the rise of China while having Israel as this immense obstacle to the world trusting us and partnering with us!

John Doe, Seattle, Wash (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 2:39 PM)

Paul, I don't know first hand myself either. What I do know is this: if every voter who said eighteen months before the 1980 election that they would never vote for Ronald Reagan didn't vote for him, you'd be saying "Ronald who?"

Joe, D.C. (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 2:42 PM)

During the 1990s, Sen. Clinton's strong involvement in her husband's administration was often used as a critique of her husband. Point, many on the right argued that she should not have been involved as she was. Fact, she had an office in the West Wing and many former Clinton staffers, including Pres. Bill Clinton himself, have stated that she was a key player in that administration. Clearly, her involvement there should be a credit to her resume of experience and not considered "riding her husband's coat tails."

For general consideration, I would like to point out that Pres. Clinton and Sen. Clinton are not biological relatives as are Pres. George HW Bush and Pres. George W Bush. The Clinton arrangement isn't about being born into a Dynasty, but rather two individuals with similar life purposes and skills romantically liking each other.

When the general election comes, it will be vitriolic. No matter who the candidate is, their negatives will be high. It is partly a function of name recognition (see Al Gore's negatives in the Fox poll). This includes Obama who will be confronted with the Tony Rezko situation. I also don't understand the Obama fans who are so willing to anoint him a Messiah when he has already demonstrated his willingness to go after a candidates spouse. I found this very saddening as I was hoping that he would be the "real deal."

The fact that people know so much about her is an asset to a general election. Her recent biographies point that there is nothing new to dig up on her. The air waves won't be jammed with negatives about her because there simply won't be anything new to satisfy news consumers. This cannot be said about other candidates or the Republican candidate. She is also in a great position to go negative against the Republican candidate. Her likability ratings already reflect that people expect her campaign to do this at some point. Unfortunately, this election is going to be rough. Some of the more "likable" candidates should they be the nominee will get ripped to shreds! This is especially true if the nominee is a moderate Republican.

Bill Lexington, KY (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 2:44 PM)

Hillary is a great candidate, people just dont give her a chance. People still have negative feelings towards her from past problems, people such focus on what she has done since she became senator.

Aidyn, NY, NY (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 3:02 PM)

To Russel in Maryland
Many of us do not like SOcialists, Communists or Stalinists (Hillary's particular pursuasion).
And the Democratic Party platform is to steal from the rich give to themselves and censor anyone who might complain (everyone) but the socialist elite.

Rich; Greenfield, IN (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 3:06 PM)

One wonders what kind of negatives the other male candidates are getting. I really believe this is a "man's world" thing for President in this country, and...I am not surprised.

Barbara C (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 3:08 PM)

Joe, thanks for the set-up. Ever hear of the "Reagan Effect?" His negatives were never above 45 heading into an election, meaning a net of positive 10 (well known enough that almost everyone had an opinion, whether positive or negative). Though seemingly high, he won both presidential races convincingly. Conventional wisdom among people who get paid big bucks to look at all this holds there's a magic negatives number somewhere just above 45 - the point at which the candidate crosses from electable to unelectable. Those in the high 40s have crossed the line. Bush in 2004 may have broken that conventional wisdom, but I'm not 100 percent sure his negatives had hit high 40s by then. Since, they absolutely has. I've always heard that Hillary Clinton's negatives were around 48... until the Mason Dixon poll that puts them even higher. To some degree, there is a 'its all relative' aspect. If Clinton ran against Barry Bonds, sure, then she may be able to survive her high negatives. And third party campaigns that draw enough to allow someone to win with just a plurality also open up a whole new discussion. But generally speaking, she can't overcome her negatives in a traditional two-candidate race.

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 3:40 PM)

All of the above commentary is based on Hillary--a woman---with an attitude....I am a woman who would love to elect a woman as President. Unfortunately she would have to have a very strong personality which Hillary does but a woman in power is considered a b**** and a man in power considered successful. That on it's own is a shame. How about we vote for the best candidate-the one who shows strength and competence, standards and open mindedness, experience and knowledge now woman vs man, african american vs caucasian.....the best candidate...unfortunately i don't think this is Hillary. I will vote for her if she wins the nomination (because anyone is better then another Bush lacky) but in the primary I'm Joe Biden all the way!!! He speaks his mind, He is the longest sitting senator in congress, he's fought hard for what he beleives in (Darfur, Iraq, Education, Health care) and he's the only one that has had a detailed workable plan for Iraq for the past 4 years. its funny that all (republican and democrat alike) are now preaching what he's been preaching for years...

Paula Lee (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 3:49 PM)

Sadly, when I focus on what Hillary has done since becoming a Senator, I have an even lower opinion on her. When I look at how she has voted in the Senate, I think "Socialist".

Alex, Cincinnati, OH (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 3:53 PM)

I think America needs someone fresh in the White House.Think about it, if Hillary were elected, the USA could be under control of either the Bush or Clinton families for 28 years total. This in itself is very scary. However, if it comes down to either Hillary or one of the nitwits on the other side, I surely would welcome "Willy" back as America's Ambassador to the World.

dean yorgey, Alexandria, VA (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 3:54 PM)

Well. We have some people droning on about how "Hillary would do anything and say anything to get elected" and others insisting that she'll flipflop on issues...apparently without bothering to even LOOK at her record as an elected official, the work she does in the Senate, or the fact that she's stood her ground on the issue of voting to go to war (and not apologizing for the Bush administration's manipulated intelligence it was based upon). We have others who think that SHE should have read (if ONLY it had been made AVAILABLE, folks...) the full National Intelligence Estimate that our current president can't be bothered to read or appreciate. And we have even others who are just so anxious to jump on the "fad bandwagon" regarding MY senator who *I* already voted for--Mr. Obama--without knowing anything about his previous political experience or [lack of] executive experience...and who seem to think that feeling good about a group hug and "kumbaya" is a good substitute for plans and policies that are yet to be seen, let alone fleshed out (the last "feel good" president we elected is widely respected 30 years after he left office, but Jimmy Carter was NOT a great president).

I strongly suggest that people start using the grey matter between their two ears to THINK on their own about what a president does, how s/he does it, and the qualities and qualifications that one needs to DO THE JOB WELL. We did not do a very good job on that over the past two presidential elections, and this should not be a "personal likeability" or beauty contest, folks. Forget what you THINK you know and start reading and listening and watching with an open mind. And if that means having to have amnesia that someone's last name happens to be "Clinton", then so be it...judge her based on what her OWN record is, not as an appendage to her spouse.

Dean W., Chicago, IL (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 4:04 PM)

Interesting comments Dean though I think some people feel that maybe if she didn't have that appendage she would be a more respectible woman worthy of some votes. But alas she does have an appendage and until I can hear a legitimage reason that isn't political about that appendage still being there than my vote will go almost anywhere but Hillary. As to Sen. Obama's inexperience... it is his experience at the grassroots which will bring the people into the political arena once again and not keep the typical political machinery around that we see with Hillary's campaign and what will be her presidency. One more point to add Sen. Obama will probably outraise Hillary this quarter even though she is taking money from PACs and Lobbyist, oh yeah and shes maxing out donors while Sen. Obama's donors are everyday people donating whatever they can. Hmmm a movement by the people for the people in Hillary's camp I think not. You will only find such a movement in the Obama camp and maybe in those of the 2 and 3 tier candidates!!!

Steve S., South Orange, NJ (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 4:33 PM)

Just remember the following:

A strong male is cool!
A strong female is a bitch!!

Deric, Austin, TX (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 5:07 PM)

I do worry about Hillary being thought of as unelectable; it's a real problem. But, she has looked awesome at each one of the debates so far; very presidential. People may say they won't vote for her now, but let's see what the polls look like when the GOP nominates one of their hacks to run against her; she may look pretty good by then. I'm not crazy about the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton thing, either, but, unless Obama starts looking like more than an empty suit, or if Gore decides to get in late, it's gonna be Hillary --- and this country could do a lot worse; look who's in office now...

Mike R., Davis, CA (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 5:10 PM)

Dean, have you looked at Hillary's Senate record? If so, please tell us what she has accomplished. I suspect you yourself have not studied her record. I have done so, and it is less than impressive. And, yes the complete NIE was available for Senator Clinton to read, but she failed to take the time to go to the secure Senate location where that report was made available for about ten days before the vote. Her staff, in this instance, could not read it for her as they did not have the clearance, so she had to read that 90-pages herself, but chose not to do so. Senator Graham of Florida had read the entire report and urged Senator Clinton and other Democrats to read the complete report before the vote.

D of Illinois (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 5:42 PM)

Paul, its really so much simpler than you're trying to make it. Sure, this Mason Dixon poll says that over 50% of Americans say they won't vote for Sen. Clinton. My point is, well, what if she's actually up against a potential opponent? Well, every poll taken in the last month shows she would beat all comers--whether for the Democratic nomination or for the general election. So, if all the polls say she would beat everyone, of what possible use is a poll that says more than half the people wouldn't vote for her? Simple: its only use is as a media device that allows them to report that there is a contest when, in reality, the party's over.

Joe, D.C. (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 7:39 PM)

Dean W. - great, sensible comments.

Several inaccuracies throughout these posts should be noted. First, most of the data suggest that Hillary, not Obama, is drawing support from "everyday" people (e.g., single moms) whereas Obama is drawing greater support from the so-called elite electorate - e.g., young professionals.

Hillary is also not a socialist, Marxist, or Stalinist. Her idea to use the purchasing power of the federal government to create a market to spurn energy innovation in the PRIVATE sector is institutional capitalist. This was also true of her healthcare plan from the 1990's. It is also suspect that Warren Buffet of all people would think of describing a socialist as the right person for the White House (as he did of Sen. Clinton).

The idea of high negatives as a predictor of presidential choice is certainly interesting in an election where a former first lady is running for president. How well do the old indicators matter in such a climate.

Bill - Lexington, KY (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 9:03 PM)

From the immoral Giuliani who can only run using scare tactics and rehashed Bush-isms and flip/flopper, insincere far right pandering Romney to big moneyed lobbyist Thompson, and just plain big mouthed Newt, Clinton trumps every Republican wannabe.

If (an if only given excellent Obama competition) she is elected she will have the entire west coast, and east coast from DC north in the bag from get go. Add into that calculation Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Hawaii and New Mexico. Not far behind in the “given” category is Iowa.

Consider how republicans screwed up Ohio; it will be an easy target. Odds trend better than 50% that Missouri, Florida, Nevada and Colorado will trade red for blue. Considering republican preoccupation with Mexican bashing, Californian migration, younger trending demographics and the inevitable failure of the McCain candidacy, Arizona is more than fair game. Even without the War Issue, Republican Party disarray and distaste for its own nominees will move the battle ground deeper into given red territory - Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas, and Louisiana and even, dare I say, Texas. Will she win these states? It won't matter; they will serve as an insurmountable drain on republican resources.

If you add in the excessive vitriolic hatred conservatives instinctively spew at Hillary, ultimately it will only succeed in motivating those of us whose are fed up with the evil wrought by the Bush administration to finally become active while other real Christians who gave their trust to Bush in vain will retract in disgusted by the lengths to which conservatives will go to try to derail her candidacy. Remember the lesson of Kerry, message trumps the “anti” vote and with their message already dried up the “anti” vote is all conservatives will have to offer. Mark my words; the question isn’t if she wins, but by how much.

S. Reidy Philadelphia, PA (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 9:37 PM)

The problem Hillary has is that the reasonable middle (dem's and rep's) have little regard for her, and most think she lacks the integrity required for pres. As bad as he was ethically, Bill was just about the best pure politician that has ever lived. I don't think Hillary has a chance with a stand up guy like Thompson...and she will probably face him...Obama's bombing.

Dr. J. (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 9:41 PM)

I am not a clinton hater, but seriously would love to know what Hillary has truly DONE...it is offensive to think that we as a country are seriously considering her for our most powerful position. With her lack of a real reume, other than to be Bills wife...wouldnt get her an interview with many companies for real employment versus government work.

John foley, nashville, TN (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 10:23 PM)

Hillary is a crook, a fraud and a liar...PERIOD!

http://stophernow.wordpress.com/

Snooper, TX (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 10:54 PM)

I continually see people stating that Clinton is well qualified and would be such a great president; however, HER record states otherwise. Much of her support is derived from name recognition and the belief in a “two-for-one” deal. Is the suggestion that if someone other than Hillary were to win, Bill would not be supportive and offer advice for the good of the country? If so…who are the Clintons really trying to help themselves or the United States of America? Since January of 2001 she has sponsored out of 311 bills, only 270 have made it out of her own committees. Such a performance rates as very poor according to GovTrack. Not to mention her unwillingness to answer hypothetical questions during recent debates. Two terms of a president unwilling to evaluate hypotheticals is enough for me, a fact which probably explains why she voted for the war. Oh wait, she didn’t even read the bill before voting for it. Brilliant!

Dub,Texas (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 10:59 PM)

David Brooks, NY Times regarding Hillary's Iraq vote-No Apology Needed, "She voted yes in order to give Powell bipartisan leverage at the U.N. This is how she's always explained that vote, and I confess that until now, I've regarded her explanation as a transparent political dodge. Didn't everyone know this was a war resolution? But now, having investigated her public comments, I think diplomatic leverage really was on her mind. I also know, from a third person, that she was spending a lot of time with Powell and wanted to help." REad the rest of this- it might give some of you a new look at your knee jerk negativity towards HRC.

Not only did Hillary talk to Colin Powell in depth but also Madeleine Albright and many others including her husband- She was no doubt the most informed of all those voting-she did not need to read the NIE she talked to the principals who helped write it. Could those of you attempting to trash Senator Clinton please try to elevate the conversation. Use your space to tell us why your candidate deserves to be President- It seems most bashers can only put Hillary down so that their choice appears to look better- It doesn't work that way any more- this election is too important. We need to hit the ground running- the whole world will be watching. Stop beating up on those on your own team-it's hurting us all.

Veritas, Boston, MA (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 11:04 PM)

Why do people not trust Hillary?
- She goes to Rutgers to denounce Imus, but takes big $$$ from a music group that puts out trashy songs.
- She reportdly has 8 lobbyists on her campaign staff and has received the 2nd highest amount of $$$ from insurance companies. As president, is she going to pass legislation that favors the insurance companies and big business, or the people of the country?
-I believe that Bill gave us NAFTA and outsourcing of good jobs. Do we want Hill & Bill outsourcing more jobs?
-Ruppert Murdock hosted a private fund raiser for Hillary in her re-election campaign to NY senate. To me Hillary is an elephant wearing a donkey costume.
- She has only 6+ years of elected leadership experience versus 10+ years for Barack Obama.
+ Sorry... 20 years as the wife of a govenor and president is not leadership experience. Granted, Hillary is a polished politian, and knows the ways of Washington, but THAT'S the problem. The business of politics as usual is the problem. Hillary has mastered the ways of taking $$$ from the lobbyists and big business. And... traveling around the world getting your picture taken with world leaders is not "leadership exprience." So a lot of people know her.

As and independent I am supporting Barack Obama because he has fresh ideas, had the vision to be against the war 6 months before, without having access to the NIE, has a plan for universal health care, is not taking $$$ from the lobbyists and PAC's, and is a natural born leader who can unite people across party lines.

Hugh from NC (Sent Saturday, June 30, 2007 12:14 AM)

For those who think that Hillary is being misperceived simply because she bends gender roles, look up Carl Bernstein's recent book on her, her "pushy pollsters," or a recent discussion on Meet the Press on "Slick Hillary."

In these you'll see the perspective people are having about her lack of honest in her character or words.

Jeff Morgan, Austin, TX (Sent Saturday, June 30, 2007 1:25 AM)

Not sure why Ron Paul is missing from blogs and mainstream media. For the first time since Kennedy a candidate actually cares about the people he hopes to serve. Hillary is nothing but an extension of the Bush/Clinton/Bush New World Order Merry Go Round.

T Money ATL, GA (Sent Saturday, June 30, 2007 1:51 AM)

This article seems to me to be about electability, not what Hillary has or has not done, and I also notice that most of the comments on here come from people in big cities, or other liberal areas of the country. having lived in a more rural and conservative areas in the past (Montana and Idaho), I have to say I don't think Hillary is electable, The fact is Rural America is not going to vote for her, in fact some people hate her, I hear one woman (she was about 60ish) refer to her at Hitlery. While I don't agree with that; the fact remains that she probably wouldn't win a general election. Personally I don't plan on voting for her in the primary, but if she wins it, I might vote for her in the general election, it would depend on who the republicans elect.

Greg, Underhil, VT (Sent Saturday, June 30, 2007 1:56 AM)

I'd rather have an empty, honest suit than an overfilled pants suit with a dishonest occupant. That is Mrs. Clinton.....

Nancianne (Sent Saturday, June 30, 2007 9:22 AM)

I think we all need to keep something in mind....the only reason Hillary has high unfavorables is because she is in a job/position that requires her to that a position ( go figure!) When she was First Lady and Bill cheated on her...her favorability ratings went up. She was viewed as a fairly good First Lady. When ever you are put in the position to take a stand on certain issues, you obviously become a polarizing figure. Hillary Clinton draws attacks from both sides because like her husband, she is a moderate with a slight liberal lean. And really besides Universal Health Care in the early 90's, she really has no major piece of legislation that can be attributed to her that make people say : "She's a horrible choice, look at the record!" She is a very shrewd senator who according to all her colleagues and about everyone else is a hard worker. She is a good Senator.I like Obama but he doesn't have the political wounds to be a presidential candidate..my vote is for Hillary. And on the "manipulative and insincere" issue, the only reason people are saying this about Hillary is because she is a WOMAN. Some running for President such as McCain, Guliani, Romney are manipulative and have displayed it in the past...I don't hear those arguments being levyed on them....just a thought

Travis of Chicago,Illinois (Sent Saturday, June 30, 2007 9:23 AM)

not going to happen first thing we must review is "a woman ever going to hold the highest office" not foranother 20 years America is not ready f0r that Now lets look at Hillary- she is to confrontational, has no charisma (neither does Bush) and is easily led

mike busan korea (Sent Saturday, June 30, 2007 11:43 AM)

Senator & Bill Clinton are the sleeziest,most dishonest, corrupt, couple alive. That's all U.S.A. needs is another presidency with a CLINTON! To Quote
another, "if you don't hate Bill Clinton, you don't love America!!!!!"

Holly Marcyoniak (Sent Saturday, June 30, 2007 4:53 PM)

Hillary is so electable when compared to the neo GOP candidates. The only person on the GOP side that can beat her in the general election is Ron Paul. He's the only man that will bring out the grassroots conservatives, constitutionalists, libertarians and non-voters to the GOP side. No other GOP candidate can resonate with the above voters. Since Ron Paul is anti-war, he trumps Hillary on a supposed 'democratic' issue as well as his call for the end of the Patriot Act and the War on Drugs. Hillary seems too close to the neocons on most issues to beat Dr. Paul.

Ken Toporek. Belleville, Mich (Sent Saturday, June 30, 2007 4:53 PM)

Holly Marcyoniak (Sent Saturday, June 30, 2007 4:58 PM)

I agree with the first poster who commented about the press continually finding itself deeply embedded in Hillary's A**. I also share the sentiment that enough is enough of the Clintons and Bushes, let's move on. I personally believe Obama will win the democratic nomination when it is all said and done. If the dems do nominate her, with the knowledge she cannot win a general election, I will leave the party because they seem hell bent on nominating candidates who cannot win.

Jason Curtis, Asheville, NC (Sent Saturday, June 30, 2007 6:08 PM)

Everyone should learn of these poll results. I knew this from the beginning and have supported Obama. Unfortunately, the Clintons have the Democratic pundits and much of the media "afraid" to criticize her, especially after each debate that the polls of viewers show Obama won. Obama can select Joe Biden for VP and immediately shed the inexperience and National Security excuse that has held him back.

Gerald Williams, PhD., Harrisburg, PA (Sent Sunday, July 01, 2007 5:54 AM)

Joe, speaking of simplicity I simply think you are wrong on this point. Everything I've read (I subscribe to Campaigns and Elections) points to these early head-to-head polls being meaningless, but conversely also pointing to a candidate's negatives carrying lasting significance.

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA (Sent Monday, July 02, 2007 8:48 AM)

I really get tired of people misusing/bashing polls when they don't understand the underlying statistics. For example, while 52% of those sampled said that they would not vote for Hilary, there was a margin of error of +/- 4 points. This means that the likely (but not guaranteed range) of people who will not vote for Hilary is 48% to 56%. If the actual value is somewhere between 48% and 50%, then you do not have a majority saying that they won't vote for her! While it is true that Romney is the only other candidate whose interval reaches 50%, you can't infer that it is highly unlikely that she can win, because if 51% of people will consider voting for her, she can still get a majority. Of course, none of this has to do with the electoral college and state-by-state results, so it simply gives us something to talk about.

As for the people who complain about 625 or 3000 for being too small, please consider taking some statistics courses before making such statements.

Chris Lacke, Pitman, NJ (Sent Monday, July 02, 2007 5:19 PM)

Chris, you make a good mathematical point but not a good political one. Let's see its only 48 percent - Clinton's best case given that margin of error. That means she has to win 50.1 out of the remaining 52 percent. Politically speaking, that's impossible. If the Republican nominee captures just 2.1 percent of the vote from among those voters who at this point are already sure they'd never vote for her, he wins.

Your point about electoral college mapping is relevant. To be fully correct, I should say its practically impossible for her to win the popular vote.

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA (Sent Tuesday, July 03, 2007 12:10 PM)

I'm a moderate republican turned independent after the Bush disaster. I voted Democrat down the line last election to send a hard message. This country desperately needs a new direction. Hillary, however, is not the answer. Republican's "want" her to be the nominee, you can bank on that. She is widely seen as an opportunistic, scripted, scheming consummate politician who stood by Bill Clinton through all his past womanizing strictly for political advantage. She cherry picked a district where she could win a senate seat with no other intention than using the people of New York as a stepping stone to further her political ambition. This nation, needs a brand new start, her very polarizing nature and the fact that such a large segment of society dislikes her (right or wrong) would only exasperate the division of the country and hand it back to the republicans. If the democrats and independents are smart, they will shift their support to Obama and not waste this golden opportunity. I believe Obama represents the best chance we have to bring this nation back together.

Jesse, Virginia Beach, VA. (Sent Tuesday, July 03, 2007 1:14 PM)

Will vote for the Senator if she wins the nomination but I hope she does not. Why?

1. Wrong on Iraq at nearly every level including telling a senior national security advisor that she anticipates troops in Iraq throughout her two terms, according to reporting by Ted Koppel.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10947954.

2. She is far and away the most solicitous toward the corporate agenda among all the Democratic candidates and even many of the Republican candidates.

3. Like her husband, she is all about her. She spent 10s of millions on her re-election even though a) she was going to cruise to victory and b) intended to abandon her seat anyway in two years. Her money could have helped take over the Senate in NY or elsewhere but she cares only about her.

4. She will unify the GOP and others such that even if she wins the presidency, and I believe she might, she will destroy opportunities in down ticket races.

Trond Jacobsen, Ann Arbor, MI (Sent Thursday, July 12, 2007 9:44 PM)

Ron Paul 2008, Non-interventionsist foreign policy, states rights, abolish the federal reserve, individual rights. He'll win, I guarentee it.

Mike (Sent Wednesday, August 01, 2007 10:09 PM)

Change the cycle. Someone borh 20 years ago has never known a President with a last name not Bush or Clinton. We do not need to continue this cycle. Surely there is a family within this great country not named Bush or Clinton who can lead this country. Why do we want a repeat of Clinton in the White HOuse? and who do you think will be the TOP advisor to Hillary? STOP THE CYCLE.

Linda McDonald (Sent Thursday, August 02, 2007 10:36 AM)

It is a sad day in American politics, for both parties, when the American voters cast votes for the "lesser of two evils". We live in the best country in the world, but our political system is in a sad state of repair. Obvious party line politics in the House and Senate reek of "politics" and not the interest of the American public. Unfortunately, a vote for Senator Clinton would be devisive and would further polarize the American public.

Where is Harry Truman when we need him?

Bob McEwen, Il.

Bob McEwen, Litchfield, IL, (Sent Sunday, November 18, 2007 1:12 PM)

hillary is not even qualified to be dog catcher much less president and since when does being first lady make you qualified to be president in that case we need laura bush she is first lady so she must be qualified to run i hate to inform you but if she cant win the south she cant win how do you think george bush won gore couldnt even win his own home state of tennessee what does that say about him i also love global warming al

linda ocala florida (Sent Wednesday, November 21, 2007 9:40 PM)

linda ocala florida (Sent Wednesday, November 21, 2007 10:01 PM)

First off, the name "President" was made for a man, and the name "First Lady" was for the wife of the president.
A woman has no business trying to play commander and chief of the US military. Second of all, a president in general, should not be elected unless he has prior experience in the armed forces. It would be very embarrassing to be in the military and having your commander and chief, knowing nothing of, directing you and ordering you about, other countries will lose all respect for America, as will many US citizens. The only way she can win polls, are from brain-washed men, women, or kids voting, that is why they advertise on hillaryhub.com in such a children friendly way, to get them to vote. Women shouldn't even be voting in the first place, it's the reason why Clinton was elected making our elections very inaccurate and unstable, because half the votes were simply because of they way he appealed to the women, capturing their votes, regardless of weather or not he is or was a good president.

Timothy Ford (Sent Friday, December 07, 2007 8:35 PM)

The first negative thing I remember about the Clinton administration was the sacking of the people in the White House Travel Office. After that fauxpas everything else turned to you know what and then it got worse. I think Hillary should accept all the help she can get from Bill; THE KISS OF DEATH.

John Smith, Ogden UT (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 8:36 PM)

<< Previous

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