Hillary's high negatives

[Tony]

This was what I was talking about in the big knock down drag out Darrel and I had earlier.
For my friends who will compromise vote for Hillary in the name of utilitarianism as opposed to personal principles, does this do anything to your math?
She just might be the most un-electable of the big three Dems.

Hope I do this link right...if not, sorry Sav!

link

Edited by Savonarola, 20071126 2308: Try again, Tony.

[Dardedar]

DAR
Here is what I hope. The Dems nominate the person most likely/capable of beating the GOP and then the Dems band together and support this person with a minimum of bickering. Another 4 or 8 years of war and fear mongering I would rather avoid.
I admit that I largely like Hillary because I think she has the best chance of kicking ass.
Regarding the poll above. I have always been concerned with her very high negatives. It's a problem. There is a big segment that really hates her and will never vote for her. But two reasons why this poll means very little:

"The survey showed Clinton not performing as well as Obama and Edwards among independents and younger voters, pollster John Zogby said."

Younger voters don't vote much. The dems are way ahead with the independents this time. Perhaps she excels in another category that makes up for this (such as, currently, mainstream dems).

But the main reason this poll can be disregarded.

"The poll of 9,355 people had a margin of error of plus or minus one percentage point. The interactive poll surveys individuals who have registered to take part in online polls."

It's not a random sample. It's a select group of people who have registered to take part in online polls and are much more likely to have a higher concentration of activists and those who support unelectable marginal candidates (and especially dislike Hillary's more middling positions).

D.

[Tony]

Dar wrote:

Here is what I hope. The Dems nominate the person most likely/capable of beating the GOP and then the Dems band together and support this person with a minimum of bickering. Another 4 or 8 years of war and fear mongering I would rather avoid.

Indeed, I get you. But I'm wondering: Since this is not the first indication that Hillary is not the most electable Dem (She has always had the highest negatives in the polls, of any candidate), does that mean you are considering changing your decision to support her in the primaries....on utilitarian grounds of course.

Some of this is me just ribbing you to see how straight you walk the utilitarian strategy you advocated in our big bash. But mostly, this really is a serious concern and question. Are we sure Hillary is the most electable? Some empirical data suggests not.

Tred

[Dardedar]

DAR
See my updated info written after I read your link. I haven't registered to vote and am not sure I will register as a demo when I do. So I won't be involved in the primaries. If I was, I would support Hillary because I think she will perform the best (it really is a sport). I really don't like Edwards very much and I don't think Obama would do so well. But perhaps in this climate any demo can win. I hope so.

Do remember, at our little micro level, our single vote does not change anything and never will. Shermer wrote an article once pointing out how it is odd that, considering this fact, people take the time to vote and get all worked up over their one little vote.

[Doug]

Since this is not the first indication that Hillary is not the most electable Dem (She has always had the highest negatives in the polls, of any candidate), does that mean you are considering changing your decision to support her in the primaries....on utilitarian grounds of course.

DOUG
Hillary does have high negatives compared to the other Democratic candidates, but not that much higher. And her negatives among her party are lower than the GOP frontrunners in THEIR party.

=====
On the July 5 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, Human Events Online editor Terry Jeffrey asserted that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) has "high negatives in her own party." In fact, recent polls show Clinton's unfavorable ratings among Democrats to be under 20 percent, which is comparable to those of the three leading Republican presidential candidates within their party.

A June 26-27 Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll found that 18 percent of Democratic respondents had an "unfavorable opinion" of Clinton, while 26 percent of Republican respondents had an unfavorable opinion of Sen. John McCain (AZ) and 15 percent of Republicans had an unfavorable opinion of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Clinton's favorable and unfavorable ratings among Democrats were both two points higher than former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's favorable and unfavorable ratings among Republicans. (In this same poll, less than 20 percent had an unfavorable opinion of each of the three leading Democrats -- with Sen. Barack Obama (IL) at 18 percent and former Sen. John Edwards (NC) at 14 percent.)

Similarly, in a June 26-28 CBS News poll, 14 percent of Democrats had an unfavorable opinion of Clinton, while 20 percent of Republicans had an unfavorable opinion of McCain and 12 percent of Giuliani. Romney's unfavorable rating among Republican respondents (8 percent) was lower than Clinton's rating among Democratic respondents, while Clinton's favorable rating was 45 points higher than Romney's in that poll, with most polled either undecided or not familiar enough with Romney to respond. (Less than 15 percent of Democrats had an unfavorable opinion of each of the three leading Democrats -- with Obama at 13 percent and Edwards at 12 percent.)
===========
See here.

The narrative that Hillary has prohibitively high negatives is just a GOP myth. They just HATE her so much they can't see straight.

[Dardedar]

DAR
TPM does a good job of showing what is going on here:

Media Lavishes Attention On Bogus Internet Poll Showing Hillary Losing To Repubs -- And Ignores Reputable Poll Finding Opposite

November 27, 2007 -- 11:03 AM EST

Ladies and gentlemen, a tale of two polls.

Yesterday two polling firms -- Zogby and Gallup -- released surveys of the presidential race that offered strikingly different conclusions. The Zogby poll found that Hillary is trailing five leading GOP candidates in general election matchups. The Gallup Poll, by contrast, found that Hillary, and to a lesser degree Obama, has a slight to sizable lead over the top GOP contenders.

A couple of other things that distinguish these two polls: The Zogby one is an online poll, a notoriously unreliable method, while the Gallup one is a telephone poll. And, as Charles Franklin of Pollster.com observed yesterday, the Zogby poll is completely out of sync with multiple other national polls finding Hillary with a lead over the GOP candidates. The Zogby poll actually found that Mike Huckabee is leading Hillary in a national matchup. The Gallup findings were in line with most other surveys.

I don't need to tell you which poll got all the media attention. Do I?

The Zogby survey was covered repeatedly on CNN, earned coverage from MSNBC, Fox News, and Reuters and was covered by multiple other smaller outlets.

By contrast, I can't find a single example of any reporter or commentator on the major networks or news outlets referring to the Gallup poll at all, with the lone exception of UPI. While the Zogby poll was mentioned by multiple reporters and pundits, the only mentions the Gallup poll got on TV were from Hillary advisers who had to bring it up themselves on the air in order to inject it into the conversation.

You could argue that the Zogby poll got all the coverage it did precisely because it is out of sync with multiple other polls, and thus is news. But the truth is that the reporters and editors at the major nets know full well that the Zogby poll is bunk -- yet they breathlessly covered it anyway.

Worse, the Zogby poll was covered with few mentions either of its dubious methodology or of the degree to which its findings don't jibe with other surveys. Bottom line: The Zogby poll was considered big news because many in the political press are heavily invested in the Hillary-is-unelectable narrative for all kinds of reasons that have little to do with a desire to, you know, practice journalism.

LINK

[Tony]

That is interesting.

Now can you explain the mystery of the Huckabee poll surge?

Tred

[Dardedar]

DAR
I told Doug a month or two ago. The only Repub that scares me is Huckabee. So, to answer your question, if Huckabee is surging, it is probably because all of the other candidates are stinkers and people are learning that preacher Huck (who belongs to a mainstream cult not an obscure one and hasn't been married three times) can carry a good chunk of the fundie vote while perhaps pealing off some independents with his social policy leanings.

[LaWood]

Tony:

Now can you explain the mystery of the Huckabee poll surge?

His rise is quick and thus he has not been vented by the media. After he is expect some harsh criticisms. He is gifted with quick wit and good "one-liners" which our sound-bite media loves. For a more thorough discussion of Huckabee try this:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/20 ... source=rss

Will take the time and learn to make a blue hyper-link one of these days.

Also google Club for Growth, a major consortium of rich right wingers who oppose Huckabee for his tax and spend policies which have not been outed, save for a few reluctant mentions. Huckabee seems to be striving for the middle ground in conservative politics. When mention and broadcast of his mass "Moonie" marriage ceremonies gets out wonder what that will do? There will surely come major ads about his release of Wayne Dumond, the convicted rapist, who when released with Huckabee's assistance, raped and killed again. His staff has spun that story several different times but a real opposition candidate will really make some hay with it.

[Doug]

Now can you explain the mystery of the Huckabee poll surge?

DOUG
Huckabee is a fundie, and fundies do well with hicks. But in the national polls, Huckabee isn't doing well at all. In fact, Ron Paul is outraising Huckabee in donations.

Related story:
Romney is competitive in Iowa because he has spent a LOT of time and money there, but nationally he is going nowhere.

[LaWood]

Huckabee in Iowa

There's two things to keep in mind:

1. Iowa does not hold a primary ELECTION. They hold a caucus. Caucuses
do not intend to represent a democratic choice for the voters. Often they're about policy choices.


2. Is Iowa a blue or red state? Here's the last 4 election cycles:

2004:
Bush 49.90 %
Kerry 49.23 %

2000:
Gore 48.54 %
Bush 48.22 %


1996 :
Clinton 50.26 %
Dole 39.92 %

Source: Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections (good source)

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/

From the above even if Huck wins Iowa it is not particularly meaningful. Super Tues is 68 days away.
.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Back to Hillary (and she's not my first choice) - the anti-Hillary propaganda has been out since she was the junior attorney writing the articles of impeachment on Nixon. The Rs have actually been after her longer than they've been after Bill (they started on Bill in 1990 when he refused to promise he wouldn't run for president in 1992). Many of the Hill-haters on the Dem side are so young, they started with a negative view and just looked around for something they could attach the emotion to (the fact that she voted, along with all but I think 3, for the bill that authorized the president to utilize all options, including as a last resort the military one, to deal with supposed WMDs in Iraq was perfect for that).

Hillary really is a moderate. She's only liberal/progressive compared to neocons. She started out as a Goldwater Republican and she only left the Rs when their behavior/laws/funding conflicted with her "Methodist Dogooder" -ism. She is solid on anything having to do with children (education, health, welfare, etc) and/or anything their parents need to take care of them (childcare, training, education, jobs). She is good on civil rights, women's rights, and most environmental things. With a good adviser to point out the effects on families of NAFTA-type trade deals, she'll make sure they include labor and environmental "safety" clauses. It's been "kids first" with Hillary since she was a teenager. She solidly supports the military. Here's the problem with Hillary. She trusts the military "experts". Since right now the "experts" are those who say what W wants said (because he fired the rest), that's bad. Should she become president, that will be good. She won't be micromanaging the military (which she is well aware she has no more idea of how to do than W does, not that it stops him) and will choose her own experts (probably Wes Clark with some input from Colin Powell, since the latter knows more about the Iraqi cluster**** than anybody else who'd be willing to talk to her). Both the Clintons value efficiency above loyalty (they're solid on loyalty, but like things to work right), so her appointees will be crackerjacks at whatever they are appointed to do. That will include intelligence and military advisors.

So this says she's got all the Dems who aren't in the far left camp, she's got most of the moderate-to-left independents, and she's even got moderate Rs who either care about kids or have enough fiscal sense to realize where the current tax policies are taking us. She may not be the first choice of everyone in these groups, but she's an OK 2nd or 3rd.

[Betsy]

I think that for once, we don't have to worry too much about who can win in November - ANY Of them could. The GOP has the lamest group of candidates I've ever seen them have plus they have the last 8 years to overcome. Huckabee is no threat - he will shoot himself in the foot at least fifteen times before November 2008. He'll say something stupid like he always does -- banana republic, flat tax for everybody, jesus jesus jesus, etc. Hillary, Obama or Edwards would trample him.

[Dardedar]

Huckabee is no threat - he will shoot himself in the foot at least fifteen times before November 2008. He'll say something stupid like he always does...

DAR
He does tend to do that once in a while doesn't he? But he does have this preacher ability to connect emotionally with people. That's important. Hillary doesn't seem to have that and instead leaves people a little cold.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Hillary is perceived as being cold because the MSM has been portraying her that way for over 30 years. She is a reserved woman, but not nearly as reserved as Jackie Kennedy or Eleanor Roosevelt - or Bess Truman, for that matter. She is a warm and caring person who only shows that side of herself around friends (or kids). She was very active - did most of the research - in Clinton's education reform package when he was Gov of AR. You will still hear Rs inciting AR rednecks to mouth-foaming frenzy over the anti-child abuse laws she drafted and helped Bill push through. (Spin, spin, and more spin - "Hillary says I don't have to do my homework" - and the number of people who don't seem to get the difference between a swat on the bottom and a bruise-causing, blood-letting, and sometimes bone-breaking beating are absolutely legion in the Bible Belt. If you weren't here for it, just wait - they'll resurrect it for this election, should she get the nomination.)

In fact, she's very like Eleanor Roosevelt in many ways, which figures, since Eleanor is the woman Hillary took as role model back when she was a teenager (may explain her attitude towards Bill's "zipper problem" as Molly Ivins called it). I don't know if Eleanor Roosevelt would have made a good president, but she - or Hillary - would definately make a better one than we have at the moment. I'm still an Edwards person, but if it comes to that, it MAY take a Clinton to clean up after a Bush again. Heaven (or whatever) knows the Hill-haters are pushing me into her camp.

[Doug]

Hillary is perceived as being cold because the MSM has been portraying her that way for over 30 years. She is a reserved woman, but not nearly as reserved as Jackie Kennedy or Eleanor Roosevelt - or Bess Truman, for that matter.

DOUG
Yes, the MSM buys into the bullshit GOP stereotypes, so they allow Republicans to call Hillary all kinds of names without asking them for evidence.

I don't see ANY evidence that Hillary is cold. They also call her "ambitious," but of course what presidential candidate is not?