Hillary’s Male Problem
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2008 Election, Barack, Edwards, Hillary, Polls
This is just one poll, but if the findings are correct it’s a significant reason why Dems should think twice about making Hill the heir apparent.
WASHINGTON — 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 provides an early snapshot of who’s ruling out Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama, the three leading candidates for the Democratic nomination.
And the following findings about Obama aren’t surprising, since independents are desperately looking for a change from the status quo of the old guard…
In a general election, the poll suggests that Clinton has the least potential for winning votes from Republicans — 84% say they definitely would not vote for her, compared with six in 10 for either Obama or Edwards. Independents show the least resistance to Obama and the most to Edwards.
However, Hillary’s pollster says she has a shot at capturing a significant block of Republican women…
Pollster Mark Penn, a top Clinton strategist, says Clinton’s strength against GOP hopefuls is growing. “With candidates who are lesser known, typically we see the opposite pattern happen,” he says, citing 2004 nominee John Kerry as an example. Penn also says her appeal to Republican women is rising, and nearly a quarter of them could defect to her in a general election.
I guess we’ll see, but beating the “Republican women will make up the difference” drum doesn’t seem like a very viable campaign strategy. You have to lean on hope and ideas, not gender, and Hillary’s campaign is shaping up to be almost entirely about that.
Seriously, where are the big ideas? I haven’t seen any from Hillary yet, and she definitely poached her health care proposal from the Edwards campaign. Somebody please tell me what makes her a compelling leader because I’m at a loss.
This entry was posted on Thursday, November 8th, 2007 and is filed under 2008 Election, Barack, Edwards, Hillary, Polls. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
November 8th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Hillary is such an ambiguous president candidate. First she votes against ethanol then she changes her mind and decides to support it in her energy plan. In the last debate, she contradicted herself in different subjects, which is obvious in this video that compares her many contradictions at the same day: http://www.weshow.com/us/p/22225/the_politics_of_parsing_by_hillary_clinton
You guys that have watched the debate or this video that shows just some of her obvious contradictions should agree with me that we just can’t vote for a so clearly pathetic candidate.
November 8th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Hillary will be the democratic candidate! This type of poll parsing is just fodder for us to keep talking about her! She has been anointed and, no matter how much the democrat fringe-left complains about her, she will be the candidate… check my post on Presidential Primary Data to see just how big her influence is, not only polls and fundraising, but in web traffic and the blogosphere….
http://thetomoreport.blogspot.com/2007/11/2008-presidential-primary-data-tracker.html
November 8th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Read my buddy, David Paul Kuhn’s book, The Neglected Voter: White Men and the Democratic Dilemma and read a great analysis of how the Democratic Party has lost the male vote since the Carter administration. (I’m going to his book party tonight). Hillary is just another in a long line of Dem candidates who have alienated white male voters. Dems nag like an annoying wife. Poor Hillary fits that bill to a tee. As a white male who is sick of the Republican hypocrisy and incompetence and knee bending to the whacko religious right, I’m desperate for a Democratic win - but can we stand to be nagged and condescended to for four or eight years by a persed-lipped nanny President? I initially supported Hillary because she represented competence, but I’m thinking twice. Edwards is too feminine, too. Maybe Barrack, but he seems light. What’s a White male who wants change supposed to do? This race ain’t over, that’s for sure.
November 9th, 2007 at 5:55 am
I’m desperate for a Democratic win - but can we stand to be nagged and condescended to for four or eight years by a persed-lipped nanny President? I initially supported Hillary because she represented competence, but I’m thinking twice. Edwards is too feminine,
Umm, Hillary is a “nanny”? Dems are like “an annoying wife”? Edwards is too “feminine”? You do realize that these comments come off as hostile to women (and gays too, given the Edwards comment).
November 12th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
titpykunywiko…
exxiriwexewa…
November 16th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
50%+ of Married American Men Would Not Vote for Hillary…
Additional stats showing that Hillary Clinton’s popularity among men is a major area of concern…
November 16th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
It’s not even that Hillary is a woman, it’s that she finds *nothing* wrong with corporate lobbying. She certainly does not have my vote. I would vote for a woman if it was the right one. Maybe Sigourney Weaver.
November 16th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
I would love to vote for a qualified woman as president. I just don’t think Hillary is the one. She doesn’t have the experience. I don’t count being married to Bill as ‘qualifying ” experience. After all he cheated on her and she did little more than cover for him till she could get “her shot” at power. Her resume is light except for the totally planned things she did in the Senate to position herself for this run. She is very thin skinned, secreative and dogmatic and do we need a president with all the bad qualities of both Bush and Cheney.