"NEVER? Whaddaya mean, ‘never?’"
Seems like I’ll stoop to anything to get you to click on a blog post, doesn’t it? Sorry about the headline. Tacky. I would never encourage you to hate anyone.
But my point was to share with you the results of this Zogby poll, which found that half the electorate says it would never vote for Hillary Clinton. She has the highest negatives, and Mike Huckabee and Bill Richardson have the lowest, going by that standard. (You may have already read about this, as it came out Saturday, but I’m just now getting around to checking the e-mail account the release came to). An excerpt from the report:
While she is winning wide support in nationwide samples among Democrats in the race for their party’s presidential nomination, half of likely voters nationwide said they would never vote for New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, a new Zogby Interactive poll shows.
The online survey of 9,718 likely voters nationwide showed that 50% said Clinton would never get their presidential vote. This is up from 46% who said they could never vote for Clinton in a Zogby International telephone survey conducted in early March. Older voters are most resistant to Clinton – 59% of those age 65 and older said they would never vote for the New York senator, but she is much more acceptable to younger voters: 42% of those age 18–29 said they would never vote for Clinton for President.
At the other end of the scale, Republican Mike Huckabee and Democrats Bill Richardson and Barack Obama faired best, as they were least objectionable to likely voters. Richardson was forever objectionable as President to 34%, while 35% said they could never vote for Huckabee and 37% said they would never cast a presidential ballot for Obama, the survey showed….
Here’s the full list:
Whom would you NEVER vote for for President of the U.S.?
%
Clinton (D)
50%
Kucinich (D)
49%
Gravel (D)
47%
Paul (R)
47%
Brownback (R)
47%
Tancredo (R)
46%
McCain (R)
45%
Hunter (R)
44%
Giuliani (R)
43%
Romney (R)
42%
Edwards (D)
42%
Thompson (R)
41%
Dodd (D)
41%
Biden (D)
40%
Obama (D)
37%
Huckabee (R)
35%
Richardson (D)
34%
Not sure
4%
I got to thinking about it just now, and wondered for the first time which, of all the candidates, would I be least likely to choose at this point? Here’s how I would rank them personally:
- Gravel — I’m 99.44 percent sure I would never vote for this guy.
- Paul — 97.1 %
- Kucinich — 97.05 %
- Tancredo — 95 %
- Hunter — 94 %
- Edwards — 90%
- Dodd — 51%
- Thompson — 50%
- Richardson — 40%
- Clinton — 35%
- Romney — 30%
- Giuliani — 25%
- Brownback — 20%
- Obama — 15%
- Biden — 14%
- Huckabee — 13%
- McCain — 5%
Mind you, that’s just off the top of my head, based on what I know now, without any of my editorial board colleagues setting me straight on any of the calls. And I’ll admit I cheated on one — I can’t even picture "Hunter," much left summon up any relevant impressions, so I just sort of buried him in the pack toward the "less likely" end, hoping no one would notice.
How about you?
Related Posts
Hi Brad.
For what it’s worth, Ron Paul is running as a Republican, but he is listed as a Democrat in the table you posted. Was that Zogby’s mistake? Also, it seems like your links for Dodd and Thompson both take you to a post you wrote about Thompson. What was the link for Dodd supposed to be?
Interesting findings, by the way. We must have crossed a wavelength because I wrote about Clinton’s negatives earlier this afternoon. Did you notice how the candidates at the top (bottom?) of the list are the gadfly Dems while the most acceptable ones are, aside from Obama, the second tier Dems? Why aren’t Richardson, Biden, and Dodd more popular? They all perform better against almost all of the Republicans in this poll, save for the very appealing Huckabee.
I’ll play along:
* Gravel 100% never
* Kucinich 100%
* Giuliani 100%
* Brownback 100%
* Tancredo 95%
* Hunter 95%
* Dodd 95%
* Thompson 95%
* Richardson 75%
* Biden 75%
* McCain 51%
* Clinton 51%
* Romney 35%
* Huckabee 15%
* Obama 10%
* Edwards 10%
* Paul 1% definite
If two of the above rated 50% against
are nominated, I will vote 3rd party.
All McCain has to do to move on the good
side is drop his immigration amnesty push AND name one South Carolina political operative who he felt was responsible for slandering him in 2000.
Anthony, the first is Zogby’s mistake; I just copied and pasted. The second — well, I spotted that glitch earlier and tried to fix it. I’ll try again.
And Doug — You like Edwards second best? Better than Obama? I would have thought he’d be low on your list. Or high on your list. Whatever.
I have no problem with Edwards at all. Same score as Obama. We need a smart guy in the office after eight years of the current occupant – the worst President of my lifetime.
Edwards has no chance of winning anyway. We’re going to go through all sorts of hype for the next six months and Hilary will get the nod. The only interesting question will be whether she puts Obama on the ticket and guarantees a victory or goes for a safe old white guy and gives the Republicans a slim chance. Anyway, if the economy tanks in the new year, it’ll be a wipeout like Clinton-Dole.
Clinton – 100%
Kucinich – 1000%
Dodd – only if he chooses McGovern as a running mate
Ok, I’ll play along.
Brownback – 100% (he continues to blame Clinton for all our problems)
Gravel – 98% (He’s a complete nut)
Tancredo – 80% (who?)
Hunter – 80% (who?)
Guiliani – 75% (Creepiest man alive)
Romney – 65% (Flip-flop champion)
Thompson – 65% (Go back to acting)
McCain – 60% (good man but wrong for the job)
Huckabee – 55% (too bad he raised his hand when asked if he did not believe in evolution)
Paul – 50% (Right on half the issues)
Richardson – 45% (He should run for the senate)
Obama – 30% (too green, should be right in ’16)
Biden – 30% (talks to much, but ok on the issues)
Kucinich – 20% (best looking spouse of the group)
Dodd – 10% (Perfect on the issues. I’d like to see a little more personality)
Edwards – 7% (He’s a great man that doesn’t deserve the slanderous treatment he gets)
Clinton – 4% (She will bring back that Clinton magic to the White House)
Wow. I just figured out how to use these numbers. Zogby, that is.
Hillary plus Barack equals 87 percent unelectable. Thompson plus Huckabee equals 86 percent unelectable.
Meaning 14 percent of registered voters would choose Fred and Mike, and 13 percent Rodham-Hussein.
That translates into 27 percent turnout with a popular vote edge of slightly less than 4 percent to Thompson-Huckabee, or Huckabee-Thompson, as you will.
Sounds like an election to me, with Florida deciding which twosome gets the most electoral votes.
Of course, by this line of reasoning, Barry-Barack, or vice versa, would win in a landslide, pulling two-thirds of the vote with 43 percent turnout.
I think I better spend all my money before the Democrats can take it, unless they actually pick the most obvious ticket, which, ironically, gives them the biggest chance to lose.
More simply, could it be that Zogby has tapped the reality behind all the hype — that a majority of Americans (Democrats and Republicans) still aren’t ready for a woman or a minority president? Maybe respondents are just saying no to gender and race.
Clinton-100% NEVER
Giuliani-100% NEVER
Edwards-90%
Obama-90%
Dodd-85%
Biden-80%
Romney-80%
Richardson-75%
Kucinich-70%
Gravel-65%
Huckabee-60%
McCain-50%
Thompson-50%
Hunter-40%
Tancredo-25%
Paul-0% DEFINITE
You are an embarrassment to South Carolina. Based on how few responses you get…it seems obvious that very few people care what you think or say.