Rove's Wrong About Clinton, Gallup Says

The Clinton campaign and rivals are debating the significance of this Gallup analysis of Karl Rove's attack on Hillary Clinton's allegedly unprecedented unfavorability rating.

First, Gallup concludes that Rove is simply wrong:

A review of Gallup poll data suggests that Hillary Clinton's current high unfavorable ratings are not unprecedented. Other candidates have had similarly high unfavorable ratings at various points in presidential election campaigns in previous years. Two of these candidates -- George W. Bush in 2004 and Bill Clinton in 1992 -- went on to win the election.

Point in favor of Clinton: other Democratic presidential candidates have been as polarizing as she's been (and still won); the 49% unfavorable number is one data point of many; she's been more popular than she is today, which means, of course, that there is room to grow.

Point in favor of not-Clinton: Clinton's relative polarity rating hasn't necessary been tied to an exogenous event; perhaps there's a correlation between the degree to which voters perceive Washington to be polarized and Clinton's own rating. Al Gore's high negatives came at the height of his post-election recount battle; Bill Clinton's high negatives came on the heels of Gennifer Flower's disclosure. And he won the election with 43% of the vote in 1992.

Comments

No, no, I am quite sure little Karl has THE numbers. Just like 2006.

Posted by AJ | August 22, 2007 12:49 PM

It doesn/t realy matter what the polls say about Rove, Hillary is still not Presidential Material.
Just what has she done and just what is she going to do? Bad mothing Bush and his administration seems like the only thing she is good at.
She can't satify her husband, she can't make her mind up( has John Kerry Syndrom) and she hasn't done anything as a Senator but run her mouth and bitch.

Posted by John Spencer | August 22, 2007 9:01 PM

My question is whether "unfavorables" are the same as "negatives."

Either way, I don't think Clinton is electable. General elections are decided by which party is more energized and how the true independents in the middle break. Clinton would be a bad tactical move for Democrats in both cases.

She would energize the Republicans more than any other Democrat.

And her high negatives are attached to lingering questions of her trustworthiness. My understanding is that lacking trustworthiness is perhaps the fastest way to repel independents. I'm guessing the Republicans know this, too, and work on highlighting this negative perception.

Posted by Paul | August 22, 2007 10:25 PM

Hillary’s problem is not simply that she generally tends to have high unfavorables, but the high numbers of people who specifically say they would not vote for her for President.

Posted by Karl | August 23, 2007 2:56 AM