Clinton "no more polarizing than other leading Democratic contenders"

[DeepModem Mom]

WP,pg1: In Latest Poll, Good News for Both Clintons
Senator Has 8-Point Lead Over Giuliani
By Dan Balz and Jon Cohen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, October 4, 2007; Page A01

....Many Republicans have said that they are eager to run a general-election campaign against Hillary Clinton, describing her as a highly polarizing candidate who would unite and energize the opposition. But, as of now, Clinton appears to be no more polarizing than other leading Democratic contenders. Nor is there a potential Republican nominee who appears significantly less polarizing.

Forty-one percent of those surveyed said they definitely would not vote for Clinton in the general election if she were the Democratic nominee, one of the lowest "reject rates" among the leading candidates in either of the two major parties. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) registers the lowest definite opposition, at 39 percent.

Former senator John Edwards of North Carolina often contends that he is the most electable Democrat and one who can campaign successfully in regions where Clinton cannot, but the poll found that, over the past five months, more Americans have turned away from him as a general-election option. In April, 35 percent said they definitely would not vote for him; in the latest poll, 43 percent ruled him out. And in the South, Edwards's home turf, the three leading Democrats have all been ruled out by nearly identical percentages: Edwards by 47 percent, Clinton by 46 percent and Obama by 45 percent.

Americans currently view the top four Republican candidates in equally or even more negative terms. Forty-four percent said they definitely would not vote for Giuliani, while 45 percent said the same of Sen. John McCain (Ariz.). More than half of all Americans said they definitely would not vote for former senator Fred D. Thompson of Tennessee (54 percent) or former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney (57 percent).

On the other side of the ledger, more Americans, three in 10, said they definitely would support Clinton rather than any of the other leading candidates of either party. In contrast, 17 percent said they definitely would support Giuliani....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/03/AR2007100302036.html?nav=hcmodule

[bluestateguy]

1. Clinton is the most polarizing because she is the most well known

A year from now, our nominee, whoever he or she is, will be universally known and will inherit the Right's hatred and enmity ("how dare they try to take our White House from us!").

[niceypoo]

28. Had either Kerry or Gore taken office, the GOP would have attempted to impeach them also...

...of this I am certain. It is what the right has degenerated into. It doesn't matter who wins the nomination; they will go off the deep end.

[babylonsister]

2. Sorry, 'Mom', but I don't buy it or 'get' it.

The relentless feeding of positive Hillary news to me is making me ill. Maybe because I just don't 'get' it or believe it.

[saracat]

3. I think the Clintons must "own" the Washington Post.This is a true crock.

I do not "get" this or believe it either.

[depakid]

22. Crock is redundant when we're discussing the Post

It's earned about as much credibility as a tabloid these past 10 years.

[emilyg]

5. Feel free to read the endless Obama news.

[babylonsister]

7. Please. On DU?

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[emilyg]

15. Yes. I just read 4.

[DeepModem Mom]

12. I just post what I find. I also posted tonight: "Edwards: Clinton will continue war in Iraq"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3576328 -- and I posted favorable articles about Obama earlier.

There are a lot of articles boosting HRC right now, because of the financial report, and the WP poll. I support Obama, but am pretty quiet about it, preferring to be able to post articles about all the candidates, both pro and con, without being strongly identified with any of them.

There are cycles -- this will pass.

[BenDavid]

4. Last month HRC did something

that many in here that are supporting other candidates were always writing about her negatives. Well, in the latest CNN/Gallup poll HRC negatives has dropped below the 40% mark and were at 39%.good news there.Another thing happened today, the ABC/Washington Post poll showed for the first time, a majority of Democrats nationwide supports Clinton for their party's nomination.53 percent. More good news.....

"What's behind the Clinton surge? Fifty-seven percent of Democrats think she's the candidate with the best chance to win the White House. That number went up 14 points in September. She also leads as the candidate who best reflects the Democratic Party's values"

I would never say the race for the nomination is over nor would HRC either, but HRC will campaign hard and harder to insure she receives the party's nomination.....Wheras on the republican side they are in free fall over there. You have some of the heavy weights in the christian right saying if Rudy gets the nomination they will run a third party candidate which is a true conservative....

What HRC will be doing will be out campaigning in those states not only to secure the nomination but also to help maintain the majority in both Houses of Congress....That too is looking good....Viginia where Mark Warner will run and now New Mexico where Bill Richardson might forego the run for the white house and go for the Senate seat now to be open in 08....

Folks we have a chance to win big in 08 and whether it be HRC and that is who I support or another the Dems can secure a big lock on what policies HRC will offer.....Unless the dems behave as those dems in 94 when they ran away from Bill because they got scared of the republicans and did not stand with their president..In 94 the dems reminded me of Casear and all the knives that were stuck in Bill's back..and this time if the going gets a little rough, I hope the dems have the grapefruits to stay with HRC.....

Ben David

[emilyg]

6. Thank you.

[Clovis Sangrail]

10. "..best reflects the Democratic Party's values" really?

I didn't realize supporting staying in Iraq until after 2013 was a great reflection of Democratic values.
But then again, I don't really think handing president Boosh a legislative club to hit Iran with did that either

Maybe she figures everybody screws up once and he already did that on Iraq so it's all good.

[saracat]

27. Yeah last month Hillary vited for Kyl/Lieberman .For that alone noone should ever vote for her.

She is supporting a potential invasion of Iran, or making it "look " like she is for the GE as her supporters put it.I am not sure which of those actions is more despicable.

[pnwmom]

8. This is what I've thought all along.

Clinton's negatives were higher before because she was the best known, and the Rethugs had had years of attacking her. But all the people who were going to hate her already do, probably have for years.

Now that the public is getting to know the other candidates better, more negatives are developing for them, too.

ANY of our candidates will be subject to slime and Swiftboating -- what will matter is how adept our eventual nominee is at handling the attacks.

[ShortnFiery]

9. Whaaa?

:rofl:

HRC is very polarizing and is promoted only by "centrists" ... both the right and left DESPISE her.

She will not be queen, no matter how much money the Clintonian DLC pours into her campaign.

She's too polarizing. ;)

[pnwmom]

11. By definition, someone who appeals to the center but is despised

by both extreme ends of the spectrum is NOT polarizing.

[ShortnFiery]

13. Well, IMO, "the center" today was "the right" yesterday. The Clintonian DLC underestimates

the numbers of people who were TRADITIONALLY "center." They're going to get their political a**es handed to them and perhaps, bring the party down with them. The only silver lining is, just perhaps, the DLC will "go republican moderate" which is where they truly belong. :shrug:

[w4rma]

25. corporate isn't center (nt)

[Trisket-Bisket]

21. So is Dumpy.

n/t

[calteacherguy]

14. "Many Republicans have said that they are eager to run a general-election campaign against Hillary"

Hmmm, now why would that be? I'm sure they would never lie, right?

:think:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

16. A desperate nation reaches out for what seems the safest choice.

The Clintons are a known commodity. They did not blow up the world. They ran things okay. The stock market didn't crash. There were no race riots.

That's all anyone wants...

She may not be the best, but she's perceived as low risk by most folks, and this nation is tired of risk.

[ShortnFiery]

17. I'm not that desperate! No more Clintons OR Bushes in the White House. nt

[babylonsister]

18. Cool post. That's it. But she isn't the best for a lot of reasons. I hope

people don't vote for her because of Bill.

[Donnachaidh]

23. come on sis -- you KNOW they will

Gee -- Hillary pulling strings to get a bad piece out of GQ by offering up Bill as the carrot-on-a-stick interview? Great cover for damage control. :shrug:

[provis99]

20. Agree, she's no risk

Because she won't change much. But its sad when the most we can hope for is things not getting worse, rather than taking a chance and making things better.

[Cameron27]

19. It's a good summation of the poll,

thanks for posting.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. I Can't Wait For Her To Spank Rudy.

eom

[ThomCat]

26. One big problem with their methodology

It's not clear, but appears, that they asked Everyone whether they would definitely not vote for each democratic candidate. That includes republican voters.

So that is approximately 30% for each and every one of them right off the bat. That is going to smooth the curve and make the democratic candidates appear to be much closer together than they really are.

If they only ask democratic voters who they absolutely would not vote for then you get a much more accurate picture of which candidates polarize our voters and which ones don't. After all, that's what we're concerned about. Which candidate is most likely to make democratic voters stay home, or vote 3rd party, or switch sides. We already know that republican voters won't vote for any democrat.