February 11, 2009 4:34 PM

What's In A Name?

By
David L Miller
(CBS)  By Kathy Frankovic, CBS News director of surveys



Hillary Clinton is the most asked-about woman of all time. There have been more poll questions about her than about any other woman. And, since the polls also have given her status as the front-running Democratic candidate for president, that number is likely to grow enormously through 2008.

As of July 8, 2007, there have been 2,377 public polling questions that include the name "Hillary Clinton" or "Hillary Rodham Clinton" (plus six more where "Hillary" was misspelled "Hilary"). That's according to the University of Connecticut's Roper Center iPoll database, which has archived public poll questions and answers since the early days of scientific polling in the 1930s.

Usually, when pollsters ask about first ladies — and those who want to be first ladies — the questions are very simple, like: "Is your opinion of Elizabeth Edwards favorable or not favorable?" Questions about Hillary Clinton were much more pointed, even early in her husband's 1992 campaign. The Gallup Organization may have been the first polling organization to ask anything about her — and the question already pointed to presidential ambitions. It was: "From what you know and have read, who would make the better President … Bill Clinton, or his wife Hillary Clinton?" By about two to one (45 percent to 24 percent), in February 1992, Americans chose Bill Clinton.

The coupling of Bill and Hillary Clinton in that poll was matched with questions comparing the Democratic challenger with the incumbent president and vice president and their wives. Who would make the better president — George or Barbara Bush? There was no contest — 63 percent chose then-President Bush and 28 percent his wife. Vice President Dan Quayle led his wife Marilyn by just 45 percent to 30 percent.

Also in February 1992, the TIME/CNN/Yankelovich Clancy Shulman Poll put the Clinton presidential question directly: "From what you know of Hillary Clinton, do you think she has what it takes to be President of the United States, or don't you think so?" Just 19 percent of Americans thought she did, while twice as many, 40 percent, were sure she did not.

Those early negative assessments of Mrs. Clinton as a possible president have been replaced by generally positive ones today — for nine of the past 10 years, she has ranked as the country's most admired woman (losing to Laura Bush only in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks). And Americans, especially Democrats, think she has the right stuff to be president. According to a May ABC News/Washington Post poll, she led Barack Obama and John Edwards as the candidate with "the best experience to be president." Sixty-six percent of Democrats chose Clinton, 19 percent Edwards, and 9 percent Obama. In a January CBS News Poll, 57 percent of all adults said they thought Hillary Clinton "has the right kind of experience to be a good president." Thirty-four percent disagreed.

By the way, there is not a lot of polling evidence that how Clinton is referred to makes a major difference in poll results, although in recent CBS News Polls, she received slightly higher favorable ratings without "Rodham" in her name. The differences, however, are small and not necessarily significant.

The senator has used both versions of her name. On her Senate Web site, she is Hillary Rodham Clinton, while she is simply Hillary Clinton on her presidential campaign page.

Just over a third of the pollsters' 2,377 questions, 36 percent, use the senator's full name — Hillary Rodham Clinton. In the remainder of the questions, she is Hillary Clinton, without the Rodham. Pollsters tend to follow a person's preference when it comes to their names. So during her husband's 1992 campaign, none of the 107 poll questions used Rodham in identifying Mrs. Clinton. But after the election, when she made the change, and through 2006, nearly 40 percent of poll questions used Rodham when identifying Mrs. Clinton. Now, pollsters are adapting to her latest name change. Less than a third of the questions asked about Sen. Clinton now use "Rodham" as part of her name. She has once again become just "Hillary Clinton."

For years, Americans have been asked whether they would vote for a qualified woman candidate "of their own party," and the number saying "yes" has increased dramatically since 1937. Then, just 33 percent told Gallup they would vote for a qualified woman. In a CBS News/New York Times poll conducted in January 2006, that figure reached a high of 92 percent. Eighty-eight percent now tell Gallup they would vote for a woman.

But while nearly all Americans say they would be willing to vote for a woman, far fewer say America is ready to elect a woman president. In January, a CBS News Poll found just 54 percent believing that the country was ready for a woman president.

But that 54 percent sense of likelihood is probably more of a statement about whether the public thinks America is ready to elect one particular woman — Hillary Clinton!
By Kathy Frankovic

Copyright 2009 CBS. All rights reserved.
Add a Comment See all 27 Comments
by notbuynit July 21, 2007 10:24 PM EDT
Why don't you step up and run thatchmo62? You seem to know an awful lot.
Reply to this comment
by adian1-2009 July 14, 2007 8:51 AM EDT
At this point in time, she is the best, she'll win the nomination and she'll be our first woman president! Simple!
Reply to this comment
by guysdigdirt July 12, 2007 10:51 PM EDT
Anyone who is running against a "pretend Christian, lover of money Republican" is the lesser of two evils.
Posted by harp1963
---------------
As opposed to a ""pretend Christian, lover of money" democrat? You are not against any of those things, just Republicans, and why is that Einstein? Can you give a legit reason with backing facts or is it just your hate of "R" words? Don't insult yourself by using the opinions of journalists or Democratic politicians, use your own words with clear concise facts, if you can.
Reply to this comment
by guysdigdirt July 12, 2007 10:51 PM EDT
Anyone who is running against a "pretend Christian, lover of money Republican" is the lesser of two evils.
Posted by harp1963
---------------
As opposed to a ""pretend Christian, lover of money" democrat? You are not against any of those things, just Republicans, and why is that Einstein? Can you give a legit reason with backing facts or is it just your hate of "R" words? Don't insult yourself by using the opinions of journalists or Democratic politicians, use your own words with clear concise facts, if you can.
Reply to this comment
by guysdigdirt July 12, 2007 10:48 PM EDT
She also, has at her side the vast experience of her husband, that gives us a much better chance of turning this around.
Posted by skyk
-------------------

There is one huge mark against her. He is a dishonest person and she, I would hope, only stuck with him for the opportunity for power for herself which is also a great mark against her. She is not in this for the right reasons, she is a dishonest, self absorbed, liar, tavern wench and should be slinging drinks, not running for president let alone becoming president.
Reply to this comment
by thatchmo62 July 12, 2007 4:56 PM EDT
Clinton is as qualified as any of the other candidates running for president. Unfortunately, that isn't saying very much. There isn't anyone currently running, Republican or Democrat, that I would vote for. None of them are true leaders. Just opportunists looking for power to satisfy their egos, rehashing the same old failed ideas. Is there anyone out there that can save this country from itself?
Reply to this comment
by bayoudawg3 July 12, 2007 8:53 AM EDT
Unfortunately, the next person elected President will be elected simply because he or she is not George Bush, not because they would be the most qualified person to be President. As long as we have only two major parties, I fear, we will always be faced with choosing '...the lesser of two evils.' I wouldn't give you two cents for any of the candidates from either major party. They are all bought and paid for by the corrupt elite who really run this country.
Reply to this comment
by harp1963 July 12, 2007 4:50 AM EDT
I'd vote for Jeffery Dalmer if he was running against ANY Republican. Hilary, Obama, Jeffery Dalmer, homeless people living under a bridge, people who have just been discharged from mental institutions...it doesn't really matter. Anyone who is running against a "pretend Christian, lover of money Republican" is the lesser of two evils.

NEVER VOTE REPUBLICAN AGAIN!
Reply to this comment
by tcoleman12 July 12, 2007 2:29 AM EDT
Right on Republic1776, except I would look at JC Watts rather than Powell. Much better conservative.
Reply to this comment
by sheldon2000-2009 July 12, 2007 1:50 AM EDT
After already enduring a second Bush presidency, can America survive a second round with the Clintons? A non-partisan case against a second Clinton presidency is presented in my book, "Hillary Clinton Nude: Naked Ambition, Hillary Clinton And America's Demise." There are sound reasons why many Americans, from across the ideological spectrum, are not sanguine about trusting the nation's destiny to another celebrity politician.
Reply to this comment
See all 27 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook