Romney higher negatives than Clinton?

[jonks]

http://www.eyeon08.com/2007/08...-electability-problem/

Romney?s electability problem
Survey of 800 Likely Voters
August 6-7 and August 8-9, 2007

Candidate
Def. FOR
Def. AGAINST
Net

Obama 29% 35% -6
Clinton 33% 43% -10
Giuliani 26% 37% -11
Thompson 20% 33% -13
Edwards 20% 38% -18
McCain 16% 35% -19
Romney 16% 44% -28

The argument for Mitt Romney being the frontrunner is building. His successes in the early states are remarkable. However, he does have a problem. Is he actually electable in a general? A Rasmussen poll suggests that the answer is a clear no.

Rasmussen has a monthly poll measuring the size of the electorate who won?t vote for someone. You can see the summarized results to the right. Hillary is clearly still a polarizing figure, but Mitt Romney is too:

The Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 44% of Likely Voters would definitely vote against Romney if he?s on the ballot in 2008. That?s a point higher than the 43% who would definitely vote against Clinton.

The bad news for Romney is that that is the good news. Here?s the bad news:

In terms of partisan reaction, it?s interesting to note that 25% of Republicans say they would definitely vote against Romney while 22% of Democrats would vote against Edwards.

2004 was a squeaker. Bush won by the skin of his teeth, with something like 90% of Republicans behind him. If Romney is losing 1-in-4, he is in deep, deep trouble.
-------------------------------

The table may be clearer on the site.

Everyone carping on Hillary can now take aim at a new target. Plus 25% of REPs say they would definitely not vote for him...

 

[Fern]

HRC has had high negatives for a long long time. Because they've been for so long, many pundits suggest taht she won't be able to change them, no matter how much she campaigns.

Romney, OTOH, is *new* and I think it's questionable how much some of those polled actual know about him. But because he's rather new and unknown, he may be able change the negatives by campaigning.

The above IMO differentiates HRC and Romney with respect to their negatives.

Fern

 

[piasabird]

No one knew anything about Carter but he got elected somehow???

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: Fern
HRC has had high negatives for a long long time. Because they've been for so long, many pundits suggest taht she won't be able to change them, no matter how much she campaigns.

Romney, OTOH, is *new* and I think it's questionable how much some of those polled actual know about him. But because he's rather new and unknown, he may be able change the negatives by campaigning.

The above IMO differentiates HRC and Romney with respect to their negatives.

Fern

If you know little or nothing about Romney, why would you be "definitely against" him? The people against him must dislike him for some reason.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: piasabird
No one knew anything about Carter but he got elected somehow???

because we didn't want him the state anymore

we're sorry for that bit of spite



Actually, Ford was toast anyway, he did the right thing knowing full well the price he would pay

 

[Starbuck1975]

The challenge Hillary faces is overcoming higher negatives based on over a decade of being in the national spotlight...as First Lady and later Senator...those opposed to Hillary are not likely to change their minds.

Romney, on the other hand, has yet to hit the national stage. He was rather successful as a Republican governor of a largely liberal and Democrat controlled state, which says something about his ability to work both sides of the fence...whether or not he is ready for prime time is another story.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
The challenge Hillary faces is overcoming higher negatives based on over a decade of being in the national spotlight...as First Lady and later Senator...those opposed to Hillary are not likely to change their minds.

Romney, on the other hand, has yet to hit the national stage. He was rather successful as a Republican governor of a largely liberal and Democrat controlled state, which says something about his ability to work both sides of the fence...whether or not he is ready for prime time is another story.

This will be his problem as a nominee. He worked "the other side" of the fence by being liberal on all social issues, except cruelty to animals, which he is all in favor of.

The more republican voters learn about him, the more turned off they'll be. Especially when the attack adds start running side-by-sides of his 180 degree turns on major issues all in the last couple years coincidentally just as he was gearing up for the presidential race. OTOH, I've found lots of pro-lifers don't care what a person's former position was once he or she reached the "right" conclusion.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: Fern

-snip-

Fern

If you know little or nothing about Romney, why would you be "definitely against" him? The people against him must dislike him for some reason.

Cuz they know he's a Mormon.

Fern