Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I couldn't find a thread on this topic and I am surprised.
According to a Gallup/USA Today poll, 55% of married men won't vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumastances. 50% of all men say they wouldn't vote for her.
Overall 43 percent of all Americans say they won't support Clinton, higher than any 2008 presidential candidate.
Clinton's negatives are so high in the survey that 36 percent of women and even 10 percent of Democrats say there's no chance she will earn their vote.
Clinton's unfavorable rating in the poll was 45%, vs. 30% for Obama and 31% for Edwards
Now, to be fair, Gallup doesn't poll registered voters or even people likely to vote. It just polls adults over 18. Normally, I dismiss Gallup poll results on the 2008 election because who cares what people who don't vote, think? I also dismiss Real Clear Politics results because they average the other polls (and if they are including Gallup, they are are also not including people registered or likely to vote.)
If she gets the nomination, it still comes down to a very simple point, can she retain the states won by Kerry and pick up just enough additional support to get her the electoral votes needed. It isn't just the number of whatever class of folks will vote for her (such as married men), it is also the geographic distribution. Also, the number may change when provided with a specific alternative, instead of a vacuum.
My guess is that she would retain the Kerry states, and probably pick up another state (at least one) between Ohio, Virginia and Colorado.
If she gets the nomination, it still comes down to a very simple point, can she retain the states won by Kerry and pick up just enough additional support to get her the electoral votes needed. It isn't just the number of whatever class of folks will vote for her (such as married men), it is also the geographic distribution. Also, the number may change when provided with a specific alternative, instead of a vacuum.
My guess is that she would retain the Kerry states, and probably pick up another state (at least one) between Ohio, Virginia and Colorado.
You talked about the "Kerry states" in another thread, also. Whatever THAT has to do with married men over 55 I don't know...
It's not surprising that married men don't support her. Isn't her largest fan-base single/divorced women, the black community and the gay community? I'll have to look for stats to be certain but I think I remember reading that.
I can almost look at this photo and see why many men would find her undesirable as a candidate. Research has shown that we really do care about looks ~ right or wrong, we do...
[i]You talked about the "Kerry states" in another thread, also. Whatever THAT has to do with married men over 55 I don't know...
I don't believe the article was about married men over 55, but translate it as you see appropriate.
The point is that if 100% of the married guys in North Carolina, Georgia, Texas, Kentucky, etc don't support her, it doesn't matter. These weren't part of the Democratic base states in 2004 anyway, and wouldn't be expected to go Democrat in 2008. If she picks up support from 50% of the married guys in New York, California, Pennsylvania, etc, she still should retain those states. It allows you (or others) to see how she can have support from only 45% of the married guys but still win the election.
I couldn't find a thread on this topic and I am surprised.
According to a Gallup/USA Today poll, 55% of married men won't vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumastances. 50% of all men say they wouldn't vote for her.
Overall 43 percent of all Americans say they won't support Clinton, higher than any 2008 presidential candidate.
Clinton's negatives are so high in the survey that 36 percent of women and even 10 percent of Democrats say there's no chance she will earn their vote.
Clinton's unfavorable rating in the poll was 45%, vs. 30% for Obama and 31% for Edwards
Now, to be fair, Gallup doesn't poll registered voters or even people likely to vote. It just polls adults over 18. Normally, I dismiss Gallup poll results on the 2008 election because who cares what people who don't vote, think? I also dismiss Real Clear Politics results because they average the other polls (and if they are including Gallup, they are are also not including people registered or likely to vote.)
Hillary has huge negative numbers. To accurately gauge a candidate's real support in a national election you have to take the candidate's approval numbers, and subtract his or her negative numbers. For the most part, Hillary and Obama are probably the two candidates the democrats shouldn't have run. The way the republicans keep walking into walls and digging deeper and deeper holes for themselves, if the democrats actually ran a moderate democrat they would probably be almost a lock to win the general election next November. Hillary will most likely win the democratic nomination and she will bring out republican voters in droves.
The democrats are gambling. They are gambling Hillary will get enough females across the board to vote for her to compensate for the huge negative numbers she has.
If the democrats were smart they could use the antiwar sentiment in the US to lock up the congress and take the presidency. But instead they are doing everything they possibly can to keep the republican in the thick of things.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.