Clinton campaigned before a crowd of over 10,000 in Oakland, Calif., on Sunday. Polls show she plays better in the East than in the West. AP Photo by Jakub Mosur
by Mark Silva
Public opinion about Hillary Clinton is split down the middle.
Looking at an aggregate of more than 7,000 interviews in which Americans were asked to evaluate the New York senator and Democratic candidate for president between June and September, the people at the Gallup Poll found a 48-48 split in viewpoints.
That’s 48 percent favorable, 48 percent unfavorable
That was no surprise. The question was, who is most likely to have a favorable opinion of Clinton, and who is least likely to have a favorable opinion?
The party's front-running candidate for the White House in 2008 fares better among women than men, better in the East than in the rest of the nation, better among the lower-income than among the higher-income. Better among the youngest and among the oldest.
The survey found that African-Americas are most likely to favor Clinton: 84 percent. No surprise there: Black voters tend to support Democrats by about that margin. The survey found that 81 percent of Democrats favor Clinton, ‘nuff said.
But the numbers start to get more interesting, the further down the list of subgroups Gallup goes: 72 percent of conservative Democrats favor the senator, as well as 71 percent of moderate Democrats.
Among those making less than $20,000 a year, 60 percent have a favorable view. Among $20,000 to $29,000 bracket, it’s 55 percent.
Among women, the senator is regarded favorably by 54 percent.
The others who hold a greater than average favorable rating – higher than 48 percent in this case -- for Clinton include those who never or seldom attend church, people with postgraduate educations, the 18 to 29 year old set, people 65 and older.
Conversely, it is conservative Republicans who are least likely to hold a favorable view: 10 percent. Republicans in general don’t see her much more kindly: 15 percent.
And then there are the men. Only 41 percent of those surveyed hold a favorable view of Clinton.
Among white Americans in general: 43 percent favorable.
Among those making more than $75,000 a year, just 42 percent view the candidate favorably.
Among those who attend church weekly: 42 percent.
Clinton also stands stronger in the East than in the rest of the country. In the East, it's 54 percent favorable. In the South and West 46 percent, Midwest 47 percent.
For much more, see the Gallup report.
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Her support is as broad based as it can be, and she has every demographic that a Democrat should have. She has a lock on the groups that the Obamaniacs bizarrely claim that their candidate has.
Better get used to saying "President Clinton" again, America... and also, by the way, of seeing a lot of First Husband Bubba for four years.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 1, 2007 8:36 AM
The game is almost over.
The GOP has thrown away the Latin vote, and the Evangelicals don't like Giuliani anyway.
Hillary will grind down Obama then Giuliani. And, there are lots of suckers who will think they are Enlightened if they vote for a woman.
So, you'll have Madam Clinton for four years.
Get ready.
Posted by: JJ | October 1, 2007 8:55 AM
I would probably think about liking Hillary/Bill were it not for the fact that she is riding largely on the strange popularity of the overrated 42nd president of the U.S. The "woman" issue is a phony one from my perspective, because I don't believe that White Women in this country have been as oppressed and downtrodden as they make themselves out to be. After all they inherit all of the wealth of the oppressors, who were their fathers, brothers, uncles and were always the helpmates, willing or unwilling. If elected, she will have inherited the presidency like George II. I think Hillary/Bill would have been more greatly admired, much more respected had she divorced Bill/Hillary and struck out on her own. She could have carved out a path for herself that is genuine instead of the one that depended on a tattered relationship.
Posted by: GW | October 1, 2007 9:20 AM
Better get used to saying "President Clinton" again, America... and also, by the way, of seeing a lot of First Husband Bubba for four years.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 1, 2007 8:36 AM
Thank you Mr.A for finally making a "persuasivo" statement.
Posted by: Raving Loon | October 1, 2007 9:59 AM
No more Clinton....no more Bush...Run Al Run !!
Posted by: pitsniff | October 1, 2007 10:05 AM
The "woman" issue is a phony one from my perspective,
After all they inherit all of the wealth of the oppressors, who were their fathers, brothers, uncles and were always the helpmates, willing or unwilling.
GW...I have to say when you put it like that, you only seem to prove the "woman" theory.
Posted by: bill r. | October 1, 2007 10:09 AM
Republicans are saying, "Please, please, please nominate Hillary." She may be ahead in the polls but they have proved to be false in the past. Only one poll counts: election day. New Yorker Hillary will be the John Kerry and Michael Dukasis of '08, big lead in the polls, second place in the vote. Kind of like another New York representative this year, the Mets: masters at blowing a big lead.
Posted by: Phoenix | October 1, 2007 10:11 AM
Since all of the candidates on both sides of the aisle are "liberals", then it is irrelevant (as always) who wins the next election. The United State will continue to be controlled by private enterprise, with little to no representation for the poor and middle-class who in turn will be taxed to no end, no matter who wins.
Posted by: Arthur Nicholas | October 1, 2007 10:50 AM
Phoenix:
You seem to forget that is '08, you will have a fractured Repuclican Party. They don't trust Giuliani, so if he runs, the conservatives stay home. As for Romney, Hillary will shred him as one of the greatest flip-floppers of all time.
Also, she will not stand still for the negative attacks that were used against Dukakis and Kerry - she will fire back, and fire back hard.
Posted by: BobinATL | October 1, 2007 11:00 AM
Unfortunately, I must agree with Phoenix. The Republicans will do all they can to help Mrs. Clinton win the Democratic nomination. She's a huge target for the Republican-Roverian smear machine. Swiftboating? You ain't seen nuthin' yet . . . .
Dems - If you want a candidate who'll offer less ammo to your opponents, nominate Edwards or Obama. Both would do better in the general election than Madam Inevitability.
Posted by: Buster | October 1, 2007 11:00 AM
Buster
Amen brother. These GOP goofs are hoping for Hillary, even rooting for her. If they change the outcome of the primaries and she actually wins the general election they should all keep their traps shut.
Posted by: nisleib | October 1, 2007 11:08 AM
Hillary: crooked money,
crooked investments, same poor memory as her husband, no experience...and some of you have the gall to say she will be a target of a "smear campaign"? What in the hell have the Democrats done for the last 30 years?...smear campaigns...how your enemy attacks you is most likely their own weakness.
Think about it...it it's not too much trouble.
Posted by: sailor | October 1, 2007 11:18 AM
I see....lets pick a liberal candidate that the
conservatives like. Tell me who in the world would that be? Do you read the posts of JohnD and gang? They don't like any of them let alone vote for them. They don't like Obama(not white enough I guess) don't like Edwards (gets an expensive haircut).
I think the republicans have done enough damage that even most of the country wouldn't vote for a republican.
Posted by: bill r. | October 1, 2007 11:31 AM
Phoenix, nislieb and Buster:
You might be right that some Reps are hoping for HC to win, but then maybe not; don't you think they'd be just a satisfied with Obama?
Buster, if you don't think Obama is just as easily smearable, you just haven't been paying attention.
Anyway, the Republicans who are pulling for HC (probably fewer than you imagine, IMO) are whistling past the graveyard. They can't escape being saddled with the war, and the electors are in the mood for change anyway -- after all it's a normal thing for power to shift in a vital democracy.
Spot on Robin ATL: Clinton is no Kerry or Dukakis. She's much tougher and smarter.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 1, 2007 12:53 PM
Hillary fight back unlike Kerry and Dukakis? You've got to be kidding. When confronted with tough questions by Tim Russert and others, she only "cackled," a term used by London newspapers. If that's fighting back, then smiling Jimmy Carter would have been reelected. And Republicans fractured? What else is new. They're always fractured and no more so than in 2000 when Al Gore went into the race with an "insurmountable" lead. The one thing that will unite Republicans is not from within but from without...and no one more than Hillary. That's why Bush, Rove, Limbaugh and others are saying she's unbeatable. And yes, I do believe Obama would be a much stronger candidate to appeal to Democrats, Republicans and Independents.
Posted by: Phoenix | October 1, 2007 1:14 PM
Anyone who thinks that this woman is going to win the general election is nuts!! There is no way.
Posted by: Brandon Johns | October 1, 2007 5:13 PM
Anyone who thinks that this woman is going to win the general election is nuts!! There is no way.
Posted by: Brandon Johns | October 1, 2007 5:18 PM
When Hillary gets the Democratic party nomination she will be going one on one with the Republican nominee. Look out. Hillary will be so much smarter and so better prepared that people will move to support her. She will eat Rudy's lunch.
Posted by: c. perry | October 1, 2007 6:11 PM
Go Hillary!
Posted by: Me | October 1, 2007 7:56 PM
I understand that 52% polled disapprove and 48% approve. Compare to the Republican popularity poll in Iowa where Obama came in 3rd.
Posted by: Andy | October 2, 2007 12:13 AM
Go Hillary... Go and don't let the door hit you on the way out. She tries to paint this image with her 'experience and change' rhetoric that is nauseating. She is a pandering politician bought by corporate money and sold by corporate spin machines.
Posted by: johnnyraygun | October 2, 2007 12:30 AM
"Hillary" is more metaphor than person, and her popularity is fueled by a mythology surrounding the Clinton Dynasty that cannot withstand scrutiny. She will be nominated, but will implode when [FINALLY] asked direct questions that she must address without obfuscation.
Posted by: Jay Rusovich | November 26, 2007 10:00 AM
i hate hillary
Posted by: haha | March 17, 2008 2:11 PM