January 26, 2006

51% "definitely will not vote for" Hillary Clinton.

According to a Gallup Poll. (via Powerline.) The linked poll also has 46% saying they would "definitely not vote for" Condoleezza Rice. Let's look at the graph:



Why is Rice 9 points less popular than Clinton among independents? Each woman is equally unpopular within her own party. But Clinton is much more unpopular with Republicans than Rice is with Democrats.

I question whether people who say they will "definitely not vote for" someone really are completely hardened into that position. The question doesn't say "if the election were held today," but I suspect people think that way, because they like to give a firm answer, especially if they have solid affiliation with their party. What I'd like to know is whether Republicans disfavor Clinton more than they disfavor other Democrats and whether Democrats disfavor Rice more than they disfavor other Republicans. What if Republicans are more likely to express instantly aversive reactions to Democrats than Democrats are for Republicans? That might just say something about the personality types that are attracted to one party or another. And, of course, these polls don't take account of the Electoral College. I'm thinking that Hillary-loathing is concentrated in states the Democrats never win anyway.

And, by the way, what's with pairing up the two women like this? They are just two possible candidates. Why compare these two as if there is a separate women's category? Because we just can't help it. Well, maybe media would try to control this urge if we complained enough. Should we?

22 comments:

Goesh said...

Perception and extrapolation and projection and assumption, all to generate some bytes and imagined informational power, much like a hash put together hastily after a hectic day of work, grabbing things from the fridge, slinging them into a suace pan, throwing in spices and oil , adjusting heat and stirring while changing clothes and on the phone and trying to read some mail - it turns out to be crap but we congratulate ourselves on the nice effort and convince ourselves it wasn't too bad for a hastily prepared meal....we got us a cheap Condi/Hillary hash here, that's all

Michiel said...

This poll is asking a meaningless question. Presidential elections are not referenda, but contests. I bet those Democrats who say they will definitely not vote for Hillary will turn out en masse for her if her opponent is Dick Cheney.

Conversely, many Rice-disliking Republicans will support her if she's running against... well... Hillary Clinton for one.

Why not ask respondents: given a Condi Rice vs. Hillary Clinton race, who would you vote for? That would be much more interesting.

sonia said...

This poll can be easily explained if you take account of the race factor. Hard-core racists are more likely to be independent than either Democratic or Republican. That's why while Rice has an advantage over Clinton among big parties supporters (significantly fewer Democrats hate her than Republicans hate Clinton), she looses significantly among Independents. We tend to think of Independents as moderates situated between Reps and Dems, but in reality a lot of them are fringe lunatics.

reader_iam said...

Complaining would only encourage them.

Scott Wickstein said...

As a not American sort of person, I have to say I find it incredible that 20% of registered Democrats and 19% of registered Republicans would come out and say that they'd definately not vote for Clinton and Rice.

Party loyalties seem to be more fluid in the United States?

Dave said...

"Hard-core racists are more likely to be independent than either Democratic or Republican."

What evidence do you have of this? It's a compelling statement, and one that I would not dismess out of hand, but I don't know of any evidence to back it up.

Dave said...

Regarding party loyalties in the United States: it depends on whom you ask, and the position the candidate in question is running for.

Example: I would never vote for a Democratic candidate in a race for a seat in Washington DC (i.e., President, Representative, Senator) but I have voted for Democratic candidates at the local and state level. Other Americans may have a different view of the matter.

As for this poll in particular, it's important to remember that both Condi Rice and Hillary Clinton are very polarizing figures, even within their own party.

Many Democrats do not like Clinton either because they perceive her as a carpetbagger or because of her association with Bill Clinton.

Many Republicans do not like Condi Rice because they don't trust that she's never married, and that she has an independent mind.

Of course, there are many Democrats that love Hillary, and there are many Republicans that love Condi.

Personally, I loathe Hillary and think Condi is great...

Hope that helps, Scott.

Jacques Cuze said...

Why is Rice 9 points less popular than Clinton among independents?

So far what we have from Hillary is a lot of shameful pandering.

What we have from Rice is a lot of observable lies and incompetence:

[The August 6th PDB] "was historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information. And it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks inside the United States."

Katrina and her shoes.

I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 5/16/02
and
* CLAIM: "The president increased counterterrorism funding several-fold" before 9/11. – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/24/04
* FACT: According to internal government documents, the first full Bush budget for FY2003 "did not endorse F.B.I. requests for $58 million for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators" and "proposed a $65 million cut for the program that gives state and local counterterrorism grants." Newsweek noted the Administration "vetoed a request to divert $800 million from missile defense into counterterrorism." [Source: New York Times, 2/28/04; Newsweek, 5/27/02]


and

CLAIM: "No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

and

* CLAIM: "Not a single National Security Council principal at that meeting recommended to the president going after Iraq. The president thought about it. The next day he told me Iraq is to the side." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
* FACT: According to the Washington Post, "six days after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush signed a 2-and-a-half-page document marked 'TOP SECRET'" that "directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq." This is corroborated by a CBS News, which reported on 9/4/02 that five hours after the 9/11 attacks, "Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq." [Source: Washington Post, 1/12/03. CBS News, 9/4/02]


and


On CNN's "Late Edition" Rice said the tubes "are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs


and

Maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency, but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery" she said. But as early as October, 2002, Tenet personally warned Rice's deputy, Steve Hadley, not to use the Africa/uranium claim.


and


With Mallets Toward One (washingtonpost.com): Meanwhile, reporters keep hounding the administration over President Bush's use of the bogus Iraqi uranium procurement allegation. They pestered national security adviser Condoleezza Rice last week on Air Force One. When an intelligence agency demurs from a consensus view in an assessment, it "takes a footnote," Rice explained. The State Department's Intelligence and Research (INR) office doubted the story about Iraq trying to buy uranium from Niger, she said, and that "standard INR footnote was 59 pages in the back," so she and Bush didn't know...


In summary: Hillary, shameful panderer and leery of taking leadership positions now that might jeopardize her run. Rice, serial liar and demonstrably incompetent.

The question is not why indepedents might like Hillary more than Rice, but how you can like Rice at all?

Soft-bigotry of low expectations indeed.

Verification word: Greenwald

ChrisO said...

I think it's a comparison that's almost impossible to make. Hilary has had more than 15 years of public presence, and has been subjected to incredibly vicious and often untrue attacks over that time, to the point that she is the poster girl for everything Republicans hate about the Democratic Party, and in particular about the Clinton presidency. Anecdotally, from the comments I read I would say she's more hated than Bill. Of course, she has also had the opportunity during that time to gather her fair share of admirers.

Condi, on the other hand, is much less well known, and although she is associated with the war in Iraq, generally seems to have an air of competence and an inoffensive personality. As we have seen repeatedly, what people think of candidates now is almost meaningless. The grueling test of a presidential campaign tends to change perceptions a great deal as the campaign wears on.

And for what it's worth, and based on nothing more than my own observations, I don't believe black women are judged by their race quite as harshly as black men.

RogerA said...

I second Dave's question re racists--independents.

me said...

Hillary will never be elected. Aside from everything else, Whitewater will once again be an issue. Unfortunately, Hillary was the moving force behid Whitewater, and it was only a miracle that she was not prosecuted.

Icepick said...

Condi and Hillary make a natural grouping beyond both being women: Each is the most compelling candidate either party can currently offer. Hillary's hoped for career arc of First Lady to Senator to President would make her a compelling candidate even if she wasn't the first woman President. And Condi's personal history is even more compelling, probably the greatest rags-to-President story since Lincoln's, and probably much more so.

Charles said...

There is, of course, no data that says hard core racists are independents. It was a nice try. I could equally make a statement that since racists are from the south, on both sides of it, they should be registered as Democrats. Even though they are electing Republicans.

How could a liberal NOT vote for Condi, just to prove to (or reassure) themselves that they are not racists? Can you see the campaigners trying to explain Hillary calling Condi "Aunt Jemimah" and how she "lived on Massa' Bush's plantation"?

But Michiel is right, it is a meaningless question to generate (loose use of the word) information on a dull news day.

Legally Intoxicated (Retired) said...

I agree with michiel. I mean, I have a poll on my site where Hillary Clinton is barely beating the other "candidates," including Ashton Kutcher, a Yeti, Belly Button Lint, Hepatitis B, and the Fonz.

Simon Kenton said...

Mrs Quxxo -

I really think you're going to have to escalate beyond the Pepto-bismol and go straight to Imodium. This logorrhea can't be any more fun for you than it is for us.

Scott Wickstein said...

Dave- thank you for the explaination. I'm from Australia where party loyalties are like football teams- you wouldn't see party supporters not support whoever the party put up in that way.

ChrisO said...

Charles

You said "Can you see the campaigners trying to explain Hillary calling Condi "Aunt Jemimah" and how she "lived on Massa' Bush's plantation"?

What the hell is that? As far as I know, and I did a quick Google search to check, Hilary never said any such thing. Are you just throwing that crap out there to give the impression that Hilary said those things, or are you predicting that she will say those things? Because if it's the former I think you're wrong, and if it's the latter I think you're retarded.

chuck b. said...

Whitewater's going to be an issue?! Please kill me now. I don't want to hear about Whitewater again.

I'm totally ready for the next election... I don't have a horse in the race, so to speak, but I am ready to move on from the Bush/Cheney era. It's not that I don't like Bush (In fact, I don't like him, but I don't loathe him either)--I'm just sick of hearing about him all the time, and I can't stand seeing him on television. Pretty much anyone else will do for me (except Kerry of course).

Hillary, Condi, whatever.


So, Sonia's profile picture is a naked woman. I'm not just seeing things, right?

Ann Althouse said...

Chuck b.: Yes, apparently, Sonia is singlehandedly making the post-a-comment page not safe for work. I can turn off all the icons as a solution. Should I?

Ann Althouse said...

Okay, I've undisplayed all the profile pictures. Sonia's welcome to choose her own profile picture, but it doesn't work to have it displaying as part of my blog.

Charles said...

Thank you ChrisO for my personality diagnosis. I was predicting that in Hillary vs Condi, Hillary (and her supporters) will make racially couched slurs against Condi, as Hillary has a habit of doing. Or perhaps merely play to particular audiences she is speaking to, then not get any moral outrage directed at her as other political figures do. If you want to start personal attacks, make sure you have a clue what you are talking about in the future please.

ChrisO said...

I know exactly what you're talking about. You're using impercise language to plant the seed of Hilary making comments about Condoleeza Rice that she never made. You're speculation about Hilary making racially charged comments is wrong and unecessarily divisive, and not worthy of respect. Don't go into the gutter and then whine about how you're portrayed.

And while we're talking about racially charged comments, why is it that Republicans can never mention Janice Rogers Brown without bringing up her race? It is stated quite blatantly that Democrats can't oppose minority nominees because they would be selling out their constituency. This is either racial politics of the worst kind, or affirmative action for Republican judicial nominees. The only people I hear playing the race card with Condi are Republicans.