GovernmentExecutive.com

"Can Hillary Clinton win?" That is one of the most common questions in American politics these days, except among people who flatly declare, "There is no way Hillary Clinton can win."

All but the most committed Republicans acknowledge the difficulty of their party's winning the White House next year. Four of the five times since World War II that a party has had a chance to win three consecutive presidential races, "time for a change" sentiment prevented it. (The exception was George H.W. Bush's 1988 election at the end of Ronald Reagan's second term.)

Heading into 2008, the Republican brand is undoubtedly tarnished. That's why the NBC News/Wall Street Journal and CBS/New York Times polls conducted this month have given the Democrats advantages of 13 and 16 points, respectively, on the generic presidential ballot question, with the former also giving Democrats a 12-point lead on the generic congressional test.

Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, is widely derided as "too polarizing." Although there is no definitive way to measure the size of the anti-Hillary vote, a number of reasonable gauges exist that, together, produce an educated guess. Is Clinton's die-hard opposition more than 50 percent of the electorate, about 50 percent, or under 50 percent? Or, is it close to the percentage of voters who wouldn't cast ballots for any Democrat for president, no matter who the nominee was?

One way to measure the opposition is to look at Clinton's "unfavorable" ratings, because presumably those who would never consider voting for her would say they have a negative opinion of her. In a poll conducted this month by CNN/Opinion Research, 39 percent of adults had an unfavorable opinion of Clinton. So did 40 percent in the CBS/New York Times poll and 45 percent in a Fox/Opinion Dynamics survey. The September NBC/Wall Street Journal found 42 percent of respondents voicing a negative view of Clinton. So, using the worst number for Clinton, from the Fox poll, the anti-Clinton vote might be 45 percent.

A second approach is to ask people directly if they would vote for Clinton. In the July CBS/New York Times poll, 34 percent of registered voters said they would "definitely not" vote for Clinton. In the September Fox poll, 42 percent of registered voters said they would "never" vote for Clinton, and 39 percent said they would have trouble sleeping at night if she were president. Again taking the worst number for Clinton, 42 percent of voters say that they are hard-core anti-Clinton.

A third way is to simply match Clinton up in trial heats with a variety of Republican candidates. The NBC/Wall Street Journal survey -- conducted by veteran pollsters Peter Hart, a Democrat, and Neil Newhouse, a Republican -- tested Clinton against four Republicans. She led former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee by 14 points, 50 percent to 36 percent; led former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney by 13 points, 51 percent to 38 percent; led former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee by 9 points, 50 percent to 41 percent; and led former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani by 7 points, 49 percent to 42 percent.

The CNN/Opinion Research poll put Clinton 13 points ahead of Thompson, 55 percent to 42 percent, but just 4 points ahead of Giuliani, 50 percent to 46 percent, a statistical tie. A new Cook Political Report/RT Strategies poll conducted September 13-16 had Clinton just 2 points in front of Giuliani, 45 percent to 43 percent -- another statistical tie.

Clinton's potential opponents drew anywhere from 34 percent to 46 percent of the vote in these trial heats. And Pollster.com's trend estimates for Clinton's rivals ranged from a low of 39 percent to a high of 44 percent. Using this method to measure opposition to Clinton, the highest number is 46 percent.

Data and common sense suggest that Clinton has a hard-core level of opposition in the mid-40s -- at most 46 percent, but perhaps a bit lower. One might argue that a noncontroversial Democratic nominee (if such a thing is possible) might do better than Clinton. But, particularly since the playing field is tilted in the Democrats' favor for 2008, the evidence just doesn't support the idea that she cannot win.

COMMENTS

• Personally, this campaign has me in a quandary. Once more, as has happened more times in the past than I would wish, it seems that I (like many others) will not be so much voting for as voting against someone. In short, I do NOT know for whom I will vote but I dang sure know who I will NOT vote for! So saying, I am still looking for the "lesser of ... evils". A friend of mine sent me a link that purports to help folks identify candidates with similar expressed thoughts and feelings. Upon reaching the site, you participate in a questionnaire; which I found a little wanting as I do with most. The results of the questionnaire are compared to stated stances of various candidates on differing topics with the intent of finding the greatest matches. Operationally speaking, I found the web site a little cumbersome in that I couldn't reach the bottom of the questionnaire without "selecting" (as if to copy) the text since it reached a scrolling limit. In critiquing, I found some of the questions unsatisfactory. One example was "Taxes: Do you believe the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts should be made permanent?" While I dread more taxes, I hate the deficit even more. My personal preference would be better summed up as "Pay as you go, just spend less." Still, simple questions enable simple answers. What amazed me about this quiz was that I learned more on who was for what. My supposed preferred candidate was one I have personal difficulties with. Now I will have to relook those assumptions and reasons. My partner, who sent it to me, even discovered a candidate that neither of us knew was even in the race. The topics include immigration, taxes, stem-cell research, health care, abortion, line-item veto, energy, marriage, death penalty, and Iraq. The results rank all the candidates to your answers and even show what you agree with on and what you don't. http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460 Tip off Posted October 3, 2007 11:09 AM
• It is not that I find for any public figure it wrong to provide criticism. It is the context of the criticism is very anti female. Every time a female runs for either President or VP the edge of criticism is from a much sharper blade. Please do keep in mind that women are the majority in the nation and when added with the other disenfranchised minorities that equates to a significant part of the population. This does not indicate we all vote the same, but just continue to chip away at our civil rights and equality then watch the magic. Ali Sue Posted September 27, 2007 2:48 PM
• Miss Ali: You might find evidence of intolerance and prejudice in your own comment. I don't think you're very open minded to free speech when you judge criticism of Hilary to be unconstitutional. If you only tolerate information that fits your pre-conceived ideas, it is especially dangerous to believe that you are well informed! Michael Posted September 27, 2007 11:31 AM