Poll majority say they'd be likely to vote for Clinton
By Susan Page, USA TODAY
Fri May 27, 9:22 AM ET

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.

________________________________________________

Personally, I'd be shocked. But if the Republicans put up a hard-right conservative (ie, DeLay or the like) she's probably got a legit shot.

God I hope one of the party's can put a genuine moderate candidate into the general election.

yep... brought to you by the same people that predicted a win for Gore in 2000, and a win for Kerry in 2004...

Kinda' jumping the gun by doing a poll for a potential presidential candidate, 3 years out. Besides, nobody really knows who will be running for the Rep's, or the Dem's, this far in advance. If Billary runs, and the Rep's counter w/ Elizabeth Dole or Colin Powell, then you can kiss those conservative & moderate votes goodbye, for the Dems.

It's assinine to have a poll out this far in advance. May as well take a poll to find out what the weather will be like in November of 2008.

Any fuck who believes the USA Today/CNN are idiots.

But with that said I hope to god she does run. That bitch will lose her ass. If the Democrats are really that stupid then go for it.

ps. I'd vote for Al Sharpton before her and I'm fairly sure he should be shot.

They have a certain bias, but so does everybody else - including CBN, Faux News, the WSJ, etc - it's on both sides. The key is to have an understanding that no news source is without some amount bias.

Any yeah, the poll is more than a little premature, but I thought it was interesting, if for nothing else as an indication that we'll likely get another choice between a "liberal weiner" and a "right wing nut-job."

I wonder what their definition of Conservative was to find 33% to like her must have been a very Liberal Interpretation, for this Conservative would never even entertain the thought unless a RINO like McCain ran against her, but even then I think I just wouldn't Vote or would go for the 3rd party Candidate.

This is more likely a fund raising ploy. :rolleyes:

Wasn't Hillary already President???

Bingo! That made the poll worthless IMO.

They don't conduct the poll. Gallup does.

It's so that obvious USA TODAY, CNN and Gallop poll hate our freedom.

/am I too early?

No comment, I will save my hate speech for her when she tries to run.

I'm not opposed to a female for president.

I'm horribly opposed to THAT one though.

4 wheelers will need to unite against her. She's a bigger enviro-nazi than her husband and will likely try to pass more sweeping wilderness bills that could close down your favorite trails. Don't let the west go the way the east has gone where pay to play offroad parks are getting to be the only wheeling options.

So what happens if the GOP puts up Laura Bush to oppose Hillary?

Hillary would win.

But she won't run.

*IF* she were to, she wouldn't make it out of the primaries.

The GOP has many more qualified (Vilified) people than Laura to put against her, but we'll see won't we.
How about Condi for Pres? Watch those Dems squirming would be cool. No matter what Hillary does she can't be Black. I wouldn't put anything past her though. :rolleyes:

Condi would have a snowball's chance in hell. Sad as it is, this country is not ready for a black president, let alone a woman.

Even Colin Powell would have to overcome that - it wouldn't be hard for him, though - just keep on with his Gulf War record. But he has no interest in the office.

The WHITE HOUSE 2008,

PRESIDENT HILLARY CLIN.... I cant even say it.

Would she even win her "home" state if Giuliani were nominated? I'm pulling for a Giuliani/Rice ticket.

She cant win, she is too polarizing. The effort mounted against her would make the one against John Kerry look like a PTA meeting.

The poll was flawed in that there was no mention of an opponent. All it says is that some people would vote for her, and some would think about voting for her.

Hell, I would think about voting for her if the opponent was Idi Amin for example. I would then be included in that majority group.

At least with Idi Amin you know what you are getting.

Hillary is the kind of woman to go skeet shooting with gays while in blackface just after having an abortion. She will say and do just about anything to get a vote. I did not trust her in 2000, and I don't trust her now. Depending on who runs against her, I don't think her re-election in 2006 to the Senate is a "lock".

MJ

The fundis won't let Giuliani thru the primaries.

I couldn't imagine Rudy picking Rice as a running mate, anyway.

Subject: ethics test question

This test only has one question, but it's a very important one. By
giving an honest answer, you will discover where you stand morally.

The test features an unlikely, completely fictional situation in which
you will have to make a decision.
Remember that your answer needs to be honest, yet spontaneous. Please
scroll down slowly and give due consideration to each line.

You are in Florida, Miami to be specific.
There is chaos all around you, caused by a hurricane, with severe
flooding.
This is a flood of biblical proportions.
You are a photojournalist working for a major newspaper, and you're
caught in the middle of this epic disaster. The situation is nearly
hopeless.

You're trying to shoot career-making photos.
There are houses and people swirling around you, some disappearing under
the water.
Nature is unleashing all of its destructive fury.
Suddenly you see a woman in the water. She is fighting for her life,
trying not to be taken down with the debris. You move closer. Somehow
the woman looks familiar. You suddenly realize who it is. It's Hillary
Clinton!

At the same time you notice that the raging waters are about to take her
under . . . . . . . forever.
You have two options--you can save the life of Hillary Clinton, or you
can shoot a dramatic Pulitzer Prize winning photo, documenting the death
of one of the world's most powerful women.

So here's the question, and please give an honest answer:
Would you select high contrast color film, or would you go with the
classic simplicity of black and white?

Nice!!!

I would go with the black and white.

I would have to go with the color, I want every detail to stand out