McCain Rejection Rate Spikes; Clinton, Giuliani Still Lead (Hill's unfavorable at 45)

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3053012&page=1

McCain Rejection Rate Spikes; Clinton, Giuliani Still Lead

ABC News/Washington Post Poll Finds McCain Matches Clinton's Voter Rejection, Giuliani Loses Ground but Stays Ahead

By GARY LANGER

April 18, 2007 — Voter rejection of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the candidate who's most staunchly backed the Iraq War, has spiked in the last year, to the point where nearly half of Americans — including a quarter of Republicans — say they definitely would not support him for president.

That marks a sharp change. In an ABC News/Washington Post poll in May 2006, 28 percent said they wouldn't consider supporting McCain if he were to win his party's nomination. Today that's risen to 47 percent.

It's worse still for former Republican Gov. Mitt Romney; a majority of Americans, 54 percent, say they definitely wouldn't vote for him, including a third of Republicans — a particularly broad level of rejection within his own party.

Indeed McCain and Romney's negatives on this measure match or exceed those of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., whose polarized political profile has been well documented. Forty-five percent of adults say they definitely wouldn't vote for her, about the same as last May. <snip>

Polls consistently show 45-52% of people rule out voting for HRC...

Another interesting tidbit from the poll:

==Clinton still holds a substantial lead in familiarity, but even in her own party, among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, just a narrow majority, 52 percent, say they know at least a good amount about her positions.

That falls to 28 percent familiarity with Edwards, and 25 percent with Obama. ==

Edwards and Obama have solid name ID but people don't know what they stand for yet. Once that happens they should rise in the polls...

specific positions, or they may reject him based on his presentation flaws in making his case.

Edwards has the same problem.

Indeed it will be a race to the day of the general election.

As to "won't vote for", in 04 we discussed that to death - and then found the GOP all came home. Anybody we put up starts with a loss of 43% of the voters, and with 43% of the voters in their pocket - the fight is for the middle

These "will not vote for" numbers in April mean little, IMO. Indeed 45% is spot on as the lock down GOP vote to start with - so hard to get to uptight about that number.

The Gallup 52% is coming for a Republican who has lost credibility since his dad died - I'm fairly sure the questions are focus group tested before they go in a Gallup poll - and those that elicit the worst Hillary response chosen.

opposed to the thought of Hillary in the Whitehouse.

I really can't see how it couldn't be true. She's a poor (and shrill) speaker. She's been vilified by both the right-wing and the left-wing. She's personally connected to scandals (in the public's minds) that the Democratic Party should want left behind. She's and elitist.

Heck I can't even come up with defenses for her, except a vague "the Republican will probably be worse" which only works with partisans. If she wins I'm writing off 2008 as a loss and working on 2012.

The Republican field does not look bad, to indies, when she's the other option.

After losing dozens of House seats in 1938, FDR found solace in the fact the "progressive" powerbase had been weakened: "We have on the positive side eliminated Phil La Follette and the Farmer-Labor people in the Northwest as a standing Third Party Threat.”

When Harry Truman won a close race in '48, he said he was happy to have done it without the "progressives."

We WON'T miss anyone who doesn't work to get the nominee elected in 2008.

She can't win the general *and* she hates progressives.

Hysterical.

But the post is nevertheless true. If the perfect progressive movment wants to continue to be the enemy of the good, they will continue to be relegated to minor player status.

my beliefs.

No. I'm not writing the 2008 election off, if she wins, because she promotes bad policies (which she does). I'm writing her off because she can not win the general election. Too many people strongly dislike her and *will* vote for the Republican just to keep her out of the Whitehouse.

I'm not writing the 2008 election off, if she wins, because she promotes bad policies (which she does).

Tell me the key policy differences between her and Edwards.

John Edwards' five top issues
Restoring America's Moral Leadership in the World
Guaranteeing Affordable, Quality Health Care for Every American
Eliminating Poverty
Strengthening America's Middle Class
Leading the Fight against Global Warming and Our Addiction to Foreign Oil
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3224815

Her methods are questionable in the first two.
The last three she appears to fully disagree with.

I asked for the key policy differences between her and Edwards.

41. If (NAME) wins the (Democratic/Republican) nomination for president would
you definitely vote for (him/her) in the general election for president in
2008, would you consider voting for (him/her) or would you definitely not vote
for (him/her)?
4/15/07 - Summary Table
Definitely Would Definitely No
would consider would not opinion
a. Hillary Clinton 27 26 45 1
b. Barack Obama 20 40 36 5
c. John Edwards 18 45 35 3
d. Rudy Giuliani 17 40 40 2
e. John McCain 12 39 47 2
f. Mitt Romney 7 32 54 8

--------------------------

Hillary has the highest "Definitely would." That plus "Would Consider" gives her 53%.
Obama and Edwards have fewer who "definitely would" vote for them, but slightly higher combinations of Would and Would Consider, 60% and 63%.

So Obama and Edwards have more possibility, but less certainty, than Clinton. This election hinges a lot on whether Obama and Edwards can define themselves in a way that will convert those maybes into yeses. Right now they are both rock stars. People like them for their personalities. People barely know them, as the poll shows. Both candidates have at times portrayed themselves as liberal and as moderate. When they choose one direction or the other, they will lose some and gain some support. How that splits may determine whether either can beat Clinton.

I don't see any of the Republicans beating any of the three. The support for Giuliani is weak even amongst Republicans, and McCain has hurt himself too much. I was worried about Fred Thompson, but his lymphoma is going to keep him from winning (fair or not). The only chance the Republicans have is to get Obama or Edwards nominated and then hope that they can smear them enough to make their guy look better. Hillary has been smeared so much they can't really do anything worse to her. Edwards has faced that as our VP candidate, so I'm sure he has a plan to counter it this time. Obama is just so suave I suspect he'll have great instincts.

I think we're sitting really pretty right now, whichever candidate we nominate. Certainly the Republicans are worried.

talking points on DU as some see advantage to their candidate over other candidates.

At some point, I hope, folks will realize that the GOP plants these "memes" or "themes" for a reason - and that repeating them - regardless of the short term advantage - is a long term negative to the part and thus to anyone who wins the primary.

The general really depends are how hard the media works against us - they have less political credibility each day as their GOP bias shows more and more - but they have reach, and many voters turn in the last week only and then vote on "feelings" - which are tied to the prior years theme selling by the media.

should just concede the 2008 election now and save themselves the trouble.

McCain is not popular in circles of folks I know because his voting record is so far right. But his pro-surge supplication to Bush just puts it over the top. He appealed to independents in 2000 but I'm thinking they are looking elsewhere for 08, and rightly so.

but he has lost all of his "maverick" republican status the minute he started catering to the Christian right and towing the party line on Iraq. Bring on Giuliani!!

Rudy, I predict--everybody wants to see some sort of upset, or dark horse scenario, but I don't think it's gonna happen.

the Christian right has wounded him with independents.

I'm nervous about Giuliani because I perceive him to be a horrible excuse for a public servant, yet his poll numbers -- for now at least -- are high. Likely leftover from the public imagining that he's a "hero" for 9/11. I think by summer or fall his Republican opponents will have whittled Rudy down to size.

It seems there is no GOP field in its own right, no matter how you look at it. The possible exception was Hagel and he performed perhaps the most cowardly creep back into the shadows at the behest of the Bush machine. But the Bush benediction has been even deadlier to the fawning likes of McCain and soon Guiliani. And if this is the best Jeb can do to produce a slick puppet then both Bush supported and independent(hah) cnadidates are equally doomed.

I would think with Romeny's continued slow collapse from nothingness to Elmer Fudd legend that the next step will be the careful, quiet search for a dark horse, also a Bush crony(sign soul contract on the dotted line) will emerge after the sequence of current crises have run their course enough to change things and establish Bush's survival to 2008.

With many a Walrus and Carpenter tear Jeb will bid a sad farewell to the current "A" tier and quietly or publicly, depending on circumstances, line himself up to be the Dick Cheney of the new administration.

My point is, don't be so sure who the GOP candidate will be. The likely meltdown seems highly conducise to a candidate totally outside the present field. It is the Democrats who are the fixed and changeless targets, with no necessity or inclination to substitute, other than Gore(also pre-tainted with strong negatives). In Rove terms. We can be whittled down almost predictably. The GOP can pull a rabbit out of the hat that the media will reward with a combo of awe and incompetence. There are a lot of negatives to having a no-name GOP crony leap out at the jaded public, but the prospect gives them risky possibility rather than grim but perhaps respectable defeat. I think we may begin to miss the dynamism and change Dean brought to 2004 when Clark also felt he could jump in.

It is way too early indeed. But negatives mean nothing as a questionnaire entry asked about different candidates. Just check out your co-workers attitudes towards them. Hillary provokes rage to deep concern to resignation. If you separate that into real votes the results don't seem that scary- which is why she is running, but it is perilous ground to begin our chances with. Other people have picked up media memes of the various candidates that sometimes fit into a "negative" judgment. Sometimes they haven't heard any of the bad stuff(serious or YouTube gaffe blows) about McCain or Guiliani yet. The first impressions about Edwards or Obama derive from antagonistic GOP media and the assumption they are uphill against Hill. When they realize they actually have a choice to vote that will change a lot.

The idea that the GOP will come home regardless is not necessarily true- as per the Goldwater blowout when that party was uncharacteristically split and disaffected. The moderate healing and centrist philosophy will enable the usual gridlock if the other side is able to prop up some new ham sandwich. LBJ was a little more honestly insecure and lied through his teeth and went for the jugular. If we have yet another stiff stand up honest and tall, gentlemanly campaign trodding gingerly through the 2% swing vote quagmire we will have done all that is humanly possible to lose or significantly surrender the margins and the coattails. We do have the leisure of not playing dirty or dishonest but not to go soft and easy.

There are some peculiar dynamics that have nothing to do symptomatic polling checks in both parties. Such as the GOP power struggle, or rather struggle for power since there is no possibility yet of any faction replacing the Bush cabale. Think of their choices. Getting away scot free and largely forgotten. Getting a new GOP schmo to take the heat. Getting another crony in. Getting Jeb inside. All of those they would like to converge to finish up and clean up after Junior- and ideally pave the way for Prez Jeb. But don't tel the American public that, it's too obvious and haha it won't happen will it? The Democratic dynamic is, well, more democratic with more groups, input and even rivalries that lack that incestuous dynastic focus.

it's because he won't run unless someone can show him a crystal ball image of him being inaugurated--he is too proud and egotistical to allow himself to run and lose. I don't agree that Jeb would be viable in '08, but perhaps they will throw this one to reinstate the Bush Dynasty in 2012. It's early, and the dynamics will certainly change, but so far the GOP shows no signs of abandoning its history of uniting around a front-runner early on.

but they have no clear frontrunner, just well known rabbits running out of steam. I don';t think it is the GOP as an entity any longer that gets to choose, but an inner circle and dependent financial supporters close to the Bushes. In the proposition of new directions and new candidates it is the Conservatives that seem either muddled or MIA. In such a circumstance the time and manner of choosing is in a few hands with clear intentions. We sometimes forget that our primaries which are far from democratically perfect are totally foreign to the control over the process the Bushes enjoy.

You are at least right about Hagel losing, because lose he would if the Bushes merely shut off the media, money cheat machine OR let it drift. Nor could he or anyone command a deal because of simple Bush equations. If someone WERE charismatic and could win on their own the Bushes couldn't put them under their thumb. If someone were not they demand more loyalty and deals to make front man(fall guy) cronyism certain. beating the bushes means destroying the GOP. A paradox Hagel finally woke up to with a little does of dynastic reality. And losing like Reagan would leave him no better off with no true faction to survive a 2008 fiasco. They need to survive first a Bush total defeat or prepare for a new party or grand rebellion among donors, ideologues, interest groups and pols. And for anyone to start open plotting and presenting now has few advantages or incentives.

This election will be about the Bush dynasty against the Democrats. Tyranny begins with the total loss of the tyrant's own party's independence.

that by and large the Bush Family Evil Empire is the linchpin of the party, and when someone pulls it, there will be chaos and a power vacuum in the GOP. If it had already happened, then a charismatic leader could have risen to take the helm by now, and we might be seeing a very different race for prez in '08--so maybe it's good that the Neocons and the BFEE still have a death grip on the party. That will help Dems, certainly, and already has. I agree as well that if Hagel started to get any traction, he would be promptly shut down in the media and in funding--he is dangerous to them, and they would Swiftboat him and spare no mercy. What they did to McCain would look like a gentle wag of the finger in comparison. Hopefully the party's death spiral will continue unabated, and a new GOP will be slow to emerge from the ashes.