Poll majority say they'd be likely to vote for Hillary

[Skins24]

Are Americans insane?

Poll majority say they'd be likely to vote for Clinton By Susan Page, USA TODAY

2 hours, 41 minutes ago

For the first time, a majority of Americans say they are likely to vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton if she runs for president in 2008, according to a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday.

The survey shows that the New York senator and former first lady has broadened her support nationwide over the past two years, though she still provokes powerful feelings from those who oppose her.

Clinton commands as much strong support - but more strong opposition - as George W. Bush did in a Newsweek poll in November 1998, two years before the 2000 election. She is in slightly stronger position than then-vice president Al Gore, the eventual 2000 Democratic nominee, was in 1998.

"Over time, Clinton fatigue has dissipated ... and people are looking back on the Clinton years more favorably," says Andrew Kohut, director of the non-partisan Pew Research Center. In a Pew poll released this month, Kohut called former president Bill Clinton and the senator "comeback kids" because of their rising ratings.

"This may also reflect that she has been recasting her image as a more moderate person," he says.

Spokesmen for Sen. Clinton declined to discuss the survey. "She's just focused on working and doing her job for New York," says Anne Lewis, a veteran Democratic operative working at Hillpac, Clinton's political action committee.

Clinton has been leading the field of Democratic presidential contenders for the 2008 election, still more than three years away. She is running for a second Senate term next year and has dodged questions about whether she'll make a White House bid.

In the poll, 29% were "very likely" to vote for Clinton for president if she runs in 2008; 24% were "somewhat likely." Seven percent were "not very likely" and 39% were "not at all likely" to vote for her.

Her strong support has risen by 8 percentage points, and her strong opposition has dropped by 5 points since the same question was asked in June 2003.

In the new survey, more than seven in 10 Americans said they would be likely to vote for an unspecified woman for president in 2008 if she were running. One in five said they wouldn't be likely to vote for her.

Karen White, political director of the liberal group Emily's List, says the findings underscore growing acceptance of women as candidates, even for president. "People realize that women reach across party lines and are problem-solvers, and they want to see more of that in public life," she says.

No woman has been nominated for national office by one of the two major parties since Geraldine Ferraro was Walter Mondale's running mate in 1984.

Voters under 30 were by far the most likely to say they would support a woman for president. More than half of them said they were "very likely" to vote for a woman, compared with less than one-third of those 50 and older.

Among those who were very or somewhat likely to vote for Clinton for president, there were:

•A big gender gap. Six of 10 women but 45% of men were likely to support her.

•Significant differences by age. Two of three voters under 30 were likely to support her, compared with fewer than half of those 50 and older.

•Strongest support from those with the lowest income. Sixty-three percent of those with annual household incomes of $20,000 or less were likely to support her, compared with 49% of those with incomes of $75,000 or higher.

•And big swings by ideology. An overwhelming 80% of liberals were likely to support her, compared with 58% of moderates and 33% of conservatives.

Among those surveyed, 54% called Clinton a liberal, 30% a moderate and 9% a conservative.

In related news, pigs have learn how to fly. A sure sign the world is about to end.

[herrmag]

I'd like more details on the polling sample used. Did they only poll in NY and Cali?

EDIT: When they posed the question "would you vote for her", they didn't state against whom she would be running. Silly poll. I don't doubt that she'll be running in '08, and will have some serious support, but this "poll" is a fluff piece, nothing more. Get some serious facts and real figures, and then I would take more interest in this article.

[Kilmer17]

29 very likely plus 24 somewhat likely equals exacltly NOTHING if it doesnt offer an option on the other side.

He!!, I'd vote for Hillary if my choice was her or John Kerry.

[@DCGoldPants]

never underestimate us voting for the wrong people over and over again.

[gbear]

hermag, to me perhaps the most interesting thing in a set of polls like this is the inability to say those for her are simply against canidate x. For years now it seems the Dems have put up the "not GW" opponent. In effect many of the votes were against the Republicans (anyone but Bush ring a bell?) as much as they were for canidate x. In a poll like this, that's not the case.

I think that may be the strongest point Hillary Clinton brings to an ellection ticket. She and her husband have enough history that it is likely to put the Republicans back in the position of running against someone rather than for something. That's been my biggest beef with the Dems canidates in the past decade because Im not sure one wins the presidency on being against someone. How many polls showed the Bill Clinton would have won reelection the day after his presidency ended (even with all those who loath him)? Wasn't that why it was a shock that Gore couldn't win?

Just cruious, how many dislike Hillary simply because she is married to Bill?

I'm also kind of curious when I read about how she is recasting herself as a moderate. I think people never paid much attention. She and Bill were moderate and are moderate in comparrison to most of the Dem canidates. For example on abortion, she has always said "safe, legal, and rare." Somehow efforts to reduce the numbers of abortion is now "her moderating her views to appeal to the middle." Her view never changed. Saying she's changed her views and painting her like a flip flopper on many of these issues just shows a lack of historical research.

[flyingtiger1013]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

He!!, I'd vote for Hillary if my choice was her or John Kerry.

Eeeewwwww. I guess I would too. :doh:

Of course, that's after sending my 3 daughters to work in a wh*rehouse....

[Thiebear]

But those saying they are virtually certain to vote against her topped those virtually certain to support her by 10 percentage points in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/26/hillary.clinton/index.html

When asked how likely they would be to vote for a woman in 2008, 32 percent of registered voters said very likely,

Then you have that to get over... Thats 68% not very likely....

Not a gleaming glob of hope there....

[codeorama]

Polls are dumb.

[Guest Gichin13]

I liked Bill.

No way I vote for Hillary.

[herrmag]

Originally posted by gbear

hermag, to me perhaps the most interesting thing in a set of polls like this is the inability to say those for her are simply against canidate x. For years now it seems the Dems have put up the "not GW" opponent. In effect many of the votes were against the Republicans (anyone but Bush ring a bell?) as much as they were for canidate x. In a poll like this, that's not the case.

I think that may be the strongest point Hillary Clinton brings to an ellection ticket. She and her husband have enough history that it is likely to put the Republicans back in the position of running against someone rather than for something. That's been my biggest beef with the Dems canidates in the past decade because Im not sure one wins the presidency on being against someone. How many polls showed the Bill Clinton would have won reelection the day after his presidency ended (even with all those who loath him)? Wasn't that why it was a shock that Gore couldn't win?

Just cruious, how many dislike Hillary simply because she is married to Bill?

I'm also kind of curious when I read about how she is recasting herself as a moderate. I think people never paid much attention. She and Bill were moderate and are moderate in comparrison to most of the Dem canidates. For example on abortion, she has always said "safe, legal, and rare." Somehow efforts to reduce the numbers of abortion is now "her moderating her views to appeal to the middle." Her view never changed. Saying she's changed her views and painting her like a flip flopper on many of these issues just shows a lack of historical research.

Point taken, gbear. But let's be honest, there is a high percentage of Americans that, when faced with percentages and a "poll", believe it to automatically be fact, and true across the nation. Thiebear showed two good examples of how what was represented in the article is not necessarily representative of what would really happen if Hillary ran. I just hate when journalists try to exaggerate the importance of their piece. I know that their sole job is to help sell newspapers, so maybe I should just relax. I can just imagine my sister though, right now, reading this article and calling me on the phone and saying "USA Today took a poll and said Hillary will be the next president!"

[Dallsux]

I don't recall being polled about this. I love how these azzholes that conduct these polls make it out like because the majority of the people THEY POLLED would vote for her, that the majority of American voters would vote for her. I hate political polls. They are all such bulls*** & yet so many people rely on them as if they were gospel. :doh:

[Leonard Washington]

aparantly republicans don't vote on polls.

[gbear]

Cowboyssuckazz,

you are aware that I don't have to flip a coin 1000 times to have a reasonably good guess how many times it will come up heads if flipped a 1000 times right?

Now you can argue the numbers as presented aren't statistically significant, or that the population polled isn't representative of the voting public, but the fact that they didn't ask for your oppinion...not really the be all and end all of a polls validity.

[Phat Hog]

Hillary against whom?

[Mickalino]

Originally posted by Leonard Washington

aparantly republicans don't vote on polls.

Apparently, ANY PERSON with an I.Q. above 20 is not permitted to vote on these polls.

[Sarge]

This poll was obviously conducted in a nut house somewhere