Have y'all seen Rasmussen's definitely vote for/against/depends poll

I've seen the numbers before in articles but stumbled across this link that provided the historical numbers for several candidates. It provides some good news/bad news for most candidates. At this stage of the game, all candidates have more "will definitely vote against" than "vote for" numbers.

Mittens has a higher "definitely vote against" than any declared candidate and the highest negative net at -28%. Hillary has the second highest "definitely vote against" of a declared candidate. However, sher also has the highest "definitely vote for" giving her a -10% net which is second in least negative. She also has the lowest "depends" number at 20% indicating that more people have made up their mind about her. Obama has the least negative net at -6%.

Bill Richardson, who I personally am leaning towards, has next to last most negative net at -22 for the Democrats but he also has the highest "depends" number at 44% and lowest "definitely vote against" number at 30%. He has a smaller "definitely vote for" number tying Biden at 8%. It looks like Richardson has a big chance for improvement if he can repeat his strong performance in the last debate and give a similar performance in interviews.

Edwards is kind of in the middle of the pack with a -18% net. Biden has the worst net at -34%.

The good news from this poll is that the electorate is more favorable to our top two candidates than any Repug. Ghouliani is the top for the repugs in the poll with a net of -11% but his "definitely vote for" number is lower than Hillary or Obama.

So, why am I bothered that Hillary has consistently gotten between 43-48% would DEFINITELY VOTE AGAINST HER.

President Guilliani?

Hillary isn't my first choice but I think she is improving her image. I've noticed that in the favorable/unfavorable rating, the unfavorable ratings tend to increase a good bit as the candidates become more well known. She's also by far the best campaigner of the bunch. If any of our candidates can turn around high negatives, she can do it.

I think that Ghouliani would be a weak general election candidate. Right now, the general public isn't paying a lot of attention to the race and views him as the guy standing around the rubble on 9/11. He's got so many negatives in his past that I think as more comes out about him, he'll lose out to Mittens or another Repug in their primary. The only Repug, I'm worried about is Huckabilly. I think some of his more populist views will appeal to the general public if he somehow makes it through the primary.

Good stuff. I think the "definitely vote against" is a much more important number. I think it's much less likely to go down, and such can only go up. With the way the media smears the democratic candidates (edwards and his haircut, obama and his experience, hillary and basically everything rush/sean hannity/etc. say every day), most of this "vote against" is just a visceral hatred, not easily taken away by facts, or anything at all for that matter.

The "definitely vote for" is not worth much, in my opinion, at least for democrats. When push comes to shove and the GE approaches, I think many people will look at the republican and say "can i really vote for this?" and vote dem. The number of democrats is on the rise, and this is definitely to our advantage.

As such, I look at this as showing Obama as our strongest candidate with any significant "vote for" numbers, followed closely by JE. Clinton's numbers worry me, 43% in the hole is not a comforting number.

I agree about richardson having the most room for improvement. Although looking at the trends, he seems kind stagnant, not pulling people for or against.

The smarmy sleazeball has the highest "will never vote for him" numbers of the bunch (44%). :evilgrin: