Gallup Proves Rove Wrong On Hillary's Unfavorables

[CatWoman]

White House adviser Karl Rove -- who announced he would be leaving his post at the end of August -- has during the last week made a number of statements about New York Senator Hillary Clinton's image and electability, in some instances invoking specific mentions of Gallup polls. The thrust of Rove's assertions is that Clinton's "unfavorable" ratings are at record levels for a presidential candidate, and that as a result she is "fatally flawed" in her quest to be elected in November 2008.

Rove is correct in noting that Clinton's unfavorable ratings are high, and unusually so for a candidate this far ahead of the election. However, a review of historical Gallup data suggests that contrary to Rove's assertions, her current image ratings do not necessarily spell defeat. Clinton's current unfavorable ratings are in reality not much different from what other past candidates have had in the year they won the election. Second, her image has been more negative than positive several other times during the past 15 years, but often has recovered and could do so again. Last, despite Clinton's high unfavorables, she remains competitive with the Republican candidates in Gallup's presidential test elections.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/08/22/gallup-proves-rove-wrong-_n_61429.html

[William769]

1. Thanks for posting CatWoman.

[cosmicone]

2. My point exactly...

Her unfavorables are high because there are a lot of other choices right now. As the field narrows and competition's makeup changes, many of them will turn to favorables. "Favorability" is relative.