Clinton loses ground against GOP in hypothetical 2016 matchups

[cali]

Hillary Clinton’s troubles are costing her politically, as potential Republican presidential rivals have inched closer to her in 2016 matchups, a new McClatchy-Marist poll found Friday.

The former secretary of state fell below the crucial 50 percent level of support in one-on-one matchups against Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Scott Walker, and she was barely above that benchmark against Rand Paul, Rick Perry and Ted Cruz.

None have formally declared themselves candidates yet.


<snip>

Clinton led Walker, who’s vaulted into the top tier of possible Republican contenders in recent weeks, by 48 to 44 percent. While Clinton won among moderates and liberals, Walker had a 70-26 percent advantage with conservatives.

<snip>

Experts consider a drop below 50 percent a danger sign for well-known candidates. It suggests that more than half the electorate has judged them and is looking elsewhere. While the Republican candidates aren’t well known, and it’s very early in the nominating process, there appears to be an opening for a credible challenge to Clinton.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/03/06/258941/clinton-loses-ground-against-gop.html#storylink=cpy

I've said for quite a while now, that Clinton will almost surely be the nominee and that I believe she'll lose the general- depending, of course, on who their nominee is. But if it's Walker or Bush, I think odds are against her. I don't see her getting enough independents or inspiring young people to turn out en masse. Everything sticks to Hillary. She has the opposite of "teflon"- more like flypaper. Now, that's largely not her fault, but when it comes to winning, that's irrelevant.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. Well, don't look for her supporters to abandon her even if she's not electable.

They're rather ride a sinking ship all the way to the seafloor, as we saw with the 2008 PUMA's.

Don't look for them to turn around and embrace a candidate that would fire up the youth vote, minorities, and lefties.

[hrmjustin]

3. Excuse me? Every Clinton supporter here said they would support the nominee.

Not every Warren or Sanders supporter has said they will. That is the new Puma!

This is among the active posters.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

18. That's because every Clinton supporter here is dead certain HRC will be the nominee.

If, by some miracle, she isn't, look for a round of different people suddenly finding fault with whoever is.

[hrmjustin]

20. So you are calling us liars?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. Geez, Freud identified projection as a coping mechanism two centuries ago...

And we have tons of confirmation bias thrown in for good measure; folks look for information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

27. No, I think you're just

saying what you believe at this point in time, and, like every other human being, you'll reserve the right to change your mind if circumstances change.

[hrmjustin]

38. So you are saying I might turn my back on the Democratic Party?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

41. You're right, you personally won't.

You're dead solid 'team blue, no matter what' to go that route.

[hrmjustin]

43. And so are the Hillary supporters of this board thank you very much!

We are not the ones saying we won't commit to voting for the nominee.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

46. Ok, I'll grant you that.

You're all the kind of folks who would commit to a Lieberman as long as he puts a D behind his name.

[hrmjustin]

48. Wow you just keep on going with the insults.

For your information I went next door to Connecticut to campaign for Ned Lamont.

Just sad you feel the need to insult Democrats.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

52. How was that an insult?

You yourself had JUST said that you'd always vote for the Democrat, no matter what.

[hrmjustin]

53. I would not have supported Lieberman.

You used a name that would infuriate people here.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

60. I apparently actually used a name that showed you yourself that when you said you'd always vote for

a Dem, even you had a line you'd draw somewhere.

Now one could then say that yes, that showed your statement about 'always voting for a Dem' was a lie after all.

But I prefer to think it merely shows that absolutist statements are always foolish to make, and that you're more sensible than to actually 'always vote for the Dem no matter what'.

[hrmjustin]

62. I do always vote Democratic.

I would have skipped thst election If I lived there.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

65. Well, I vote Dem probably 95%-99% of the time.

There are a few specific people I won't vote for no matter what the run as, and in those cases I vote third party or even write in.

(Exception - I also never vote for anyone running unopposed. My feeling is they can vote for themselves and be done with it, the rest of us don't need to boost their tally.)

[hrmjustin]

67. Well I will support our nominee.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

73. That's a slippery slope argument and consequently a logical fallacy./NT

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

84. Actually it's the heart of the fighting between people on site.

What we saw is that most people do have some line in the sand. Where we end up fighting is where we disagree on where our own personal line is. His line was Lieberman, mine is Hillary.

[Agschmid]

56. Not you...

It's not personal. But if HRC isn't the nominee there will be people who will be talking about "waffles" a lot more often.

It's the nature of politics...

[hrmjustin]

59. Seems rather personal to me and the other members of this board who support her.

[Agschmid]

61. It's not.

It's the Internet its really hard to be personal, don't stress.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

79. Why not wait til the primaries are ova b4 declarin one's allegiance? Shud neva let ANY candidate take ur vote 4 granted if u want ur issues addressed.

[leftofcool]

31. I think he/she just did.

[hrmjustin]

40. Yep. just sad!

[JaneyVee]

39. Nope, I will gladly vote for whoever the D nominee is.

Can you say the same?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

44. No, but them I'm not registered as a Democrat. I'm a Democratic Socialist.

I'll vote for the best candidate that runs in the general. If the Dem candidate is the best candidate running, I'll vote for them.

[JaneyVee]

49. So you might vote Republican?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

50. I sincerely doubt it. In every election since I've been old enough to vote

they've never yet run the best candidate in any race in which I've voted except county auditor. In that position, they actually bothered to run a CPA when the Dem running was totally clueless about finance.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

58. ..which is why all of those state and local technical positions should be non partisan

I don't care if the county auditor is a wingnut as much as I care whether s/he is a qualified CPA or CIA (not the spying CIA -- the auditing one)

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

63. That would be nice, but I would still worry about things like judgeships.

They DON'T list judges affiliations locally, and it allows hardcore rw'ers to win votes from dems who don't know any better, and then you get them working in unison with sheriffs to send minorities to jail on stupid and trumped up charges.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

54. No

I think it's probable she's the nominee, but a lot can go wrong in 1 1/4 years. We've already seen the e-mail dustup; a new candidate could emerge a la Barack Obama; a political wild card could change the landscape.

I'll support the nominee, whoever it is. I don't like Warren's chances in a GE, but I'd support her. Same with Sanders and Biden.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

68. It's conceivable.

I don't see the email bit as changing anything electorally, barring it spinning off into further investigations like 'Bridgegate' spinning off into 'Sandy Moneygate'.

In the 2.5+ decades I've been voting, there have been less than a dozen Dems I have refused to vote for at any level. HRC just happens to be one of them.

[roguevalley]

77. even though there are plenty here who say

it doesn't matter, emails and all, it does. It creates the perception of sleaze and the easy road. I am astonished that she who has been through the mud for two decades hasn't learned that little truth.

Even bill clinton got back on the pedophile's plane. I am just dumbfounded at their lack of self awareness. being friends with the bushes will not save them the shit storm they have created for themselves.

It does not matter if it 'matters'. It does. Perception matters.

[hrmjustin]

78. Thats your opinion.

[roguevalley]

82. yes it is. same as yours. Equal. I don't

make personal assessments of those who feel differently and I am glad you didn't of me. Would that more would on both sides of this issue. It will be settled by the millions who will apply their own to the problem. and for that, everything a candidate does matters. This matters for that and in the end, we will all see if the masses buy her version. And I would say if they don't, that it isn't their fault. Its hers for laying herself open to this sort of slag.

[hrmjustin]

83. Well she will have to answer for it and I think she will do just fine.

[Aerows]

92. I respect your ardency for Hillary as the President

but I do not share it.

I neither think she is the best candidate with regards to social issues, nor do I think she is the best candidate with regard to financial issues.

I love you as a great DUer, respect the things you say, hrmjustin, but on this matter, I disagree. Vehemently.

[hrmjustin]

95. Always respect you my friend.

Many great DUers don't agree with me on this.

[Aerows]

96. Love you anyway :)

[H2O Man]

2. Interesting.

I think your last sentence raises a point that deserves our attention.

[hrmjustin]

4. Not changing my opinion over a poll.

Btw did the test Warren or Sanders in this poll?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. Not changing my opinion over a poll.

I'm not changing my opinion over one isolated poll.

I will look at all of them, ergo:


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_christie_vs_clinton-3766.html


BTW, of course it's going to be a competitive race as the original poster contends. This nation is almost two nations, split down the middle.

[hrmjustin]

9. Agreed! It will be a competitive race especially because it is a third term for our party.

The fact is if someone wants to beat Hillary in the primary thry have to prove themselves. Considering no one has tried to do this yet suggests to me it will be very hard to do. These last few months were wasted by possible challengers to her and I still don't see anyone making a strong challenge to her yet.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. It would be nice if folks built up their own favorite candidates instead of tearing down others./NT

[hrmjustin]

14. That is not going to happen because in order to beat Hillary they have to attack her.

At this point that is.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. Wowza

The problem of cherry looking polls...

If you take the McClatchy poll at its face value:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1682657/mcclatchy-marist-poll-2016-nature-of-the-sample.pdf#storylink=relast

She has actually increased her lead over Bush in the past week :

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2172

I'm not trying to argue she has actually increased or decreased her lead , just showing the inanity of cherry picking polls.

[cali]

12. I'm not suggesting you do. I'm expressing MY opinion

which is not formed by this poll, but solidified by it. And Warren and Sanders are irrelevant to my opinion on this.

[hrmjustin]

15. Fair enough but I was just stating my opinion as well.

I still would like to see the pollsters add other names than Hillary.

[leftofcool]

34. I would like to see how Warren, Sanders and O'Malley poll against the potential clown car.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. There are a Blue Wall of states...

There are a Blue Wall of states and the District Of Colombia that comprise 242 Electoral College votes. These states have been in the Democratic column in every election since 1992.

What states are Scott Walker and Jeb Bush taking out of that column?

[cali]

22. I don't think that blue wall is impregnable

NH could be in play and Wisconsin. I don't think PA is absolutely safe or New Mexico or Iowa or VA.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. New Mexico, New Hampshire, and Virginia aren't part of the Blue Wall./NT

[cali]

37. they are according to wiki and every other source I checked out before

posting. Name the states that are the blue wall, then- and tote up the evs.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

71. Res ipsa loquitur:

http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/-prdec2011_143024778553.pdf


Absent are New Hampshire, Virginia, and New Mexico,

[RiverLover]

6. Maybe she'd win over some Tea baggers if she runs.

[hrmjustin]

10. I doubt it.

[wyldwolf]

16. Here's what I'd say if I wanted to be as crass as your post above ^^

Maybe she'd win over some Native Americans if she runs.. maybe...




But see, I have too much respect for Senator Warren to take that route. But I don't have the same respect for you or those like you.

Clinton supporter on DU have REALLY held back.

[leftofcool]

23. Maybe it's time to stop holding back.

And I can assure you Warren will never have the NA vote. I am 100% positive on that one.

[wyldwolf]

33. Am I wrong?

Have you seen ONE Clinton supporter use this very real issue as an attack? I haven't.

[leftofcool]

36. Not here on DU. But, you should see the NA forums I belong to.

OMG!

[RiverLover]

42. You can use it.

Much like the people in Massachusetts, I also think that's a laughable objection to Elizabeth Warren.

I won't even bother responding to it.

[leftofcool]

51. You think taking away a minority spot from a bonafide registered Native American is laughable?

Do you know how many Native American women or men for that matter would love to get into Harvard. They have the grades and sometimes the money, but there are only so many minority spots available. So, it's perfectly okay for Warren to take one of those spots, even though she is not nor ever has been registered with any tribe? Would this have been okay if Hillary had done this? Would it have been laughable?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

89. Is that what she did?

I never knew the genesis of the brouhaha.

[wyldwolf]

94. I just had a Warren supporter pull the 'sniper fire' story out...

... seemingly out of nowhere. The discussion wasn't about that. It was completely irrelevant to the discussion. I STILL didn't use Warren's Native American claims. I could have. Just have too much respect for her. Too bad other DUers have to stoop low.

But the Native American story and all the details are really really interesting.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

26. Laugh.

But see, I have too much respect for Senator Warren to take that route.

Um, no you don't, because you just did it. But nice try at pretending you're not just flinging poo like anyone else.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. I have no animus against Senator Warren. *

It would be nice if her supporters spent their time building her up instead of tearing Secretary of Clinton down.









* I did start a thread questioning her support of Ronald Reagan though. If you put up a stick of dynamite up my rectum, hooked it up to a remote control device, told me you would set it off if I didn't vote for him, I would make peace with my maker, and vote for his opponent.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

57. President Obama has lauded Reagan and spoken about being Reaganesque.

So that doesn't seem like that great a line of attack against Warren.


As to 'tearing down', at this point in the electoral cycle, that's simply the most effective tactic to change the relative positions of the two. Once the filing window passes, either A) Warren won't be in it for certain, at which point there will be no reason to even try to boost her, or B) she will have filed, and her supporters will be busy as all get out doing just that, talking her up in the real world rather than online.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

74. It frosted me when President Obama said "Reagan was a transformational leader"

It frosted me when President Obama said "Reagan was a transformational leader" but that's of a whole different cloth than actually voting for him.

[wyldwolf]

35. Laugh.

Yes I do.

And no I'm not.

[leftofcool]

21. Wow! You really do hate Hillary.

[RiverLover]

28. I hate tea baggers.

I'm disappointed in Democrats who preach transparency & then purposely hide their activities & communications with foreign countries & companies, willfully violating rules in place.

Hillary Clinton Emails: A Timeline of What Rules Were Allegedly Ignored
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-emails-timeline-rules-allegedly/story?id=29442707

[hrmjustin]

55. Certainly not a fan.

Lol.

[wyldwolf]

8. My faith in Clinton's chances will waver if TWO things happen...

1. She falls 5+ points BEHIND every Republican
2. We have another candidate putting up numbers like Clinton is doing.

I believe in the accuracy of polls. But Polls will rise and fall.

[leftofcool]

17. +1

[ananda]

13. If people would actually elect a Reep president..

.. this country is far worse off than we think.

Many here say about Wisconsin, they deserve what they get,
or elections have consequences.

I shudder to think of the repercussions if that happens to the
country.

It hardly bears thinking about!

[fredamae]

30. Well, that's what "they" Want us

to believe...excuse me...I mean, that's what they Want "Sheep who will blindly follow popular opinion"-real or not...to believe.

The "rational independent thinker" will recognize MSM/GOP psychological triggers and Continue to call bull shit, imo...unless and until credible, verifiable evidence is presented.

[cali]

45. well that made little sense. Polls are credible and verifiable evidence.

and sorry, but the GOP/MSM has jackshit to do with my opinion. I don't watch or listen to the MSM. I'm not influenced by the GOP "psychological triggers"- whatever YOU may think those triggers are.

Calm down, fredamae. Freaking out over this is silly, fredamae.

[fredamae]

47. Polls are credible? I disagree

Polls are only are only as reliable as the person who commissions and pays for them is honest. imo.

[TheKentuckian]

64. I'll go as far as to say a well designed poll that is properly weighted and sampled

is a reasonable but not an always accurate snapshot of the moment the "picture" was captured but little further.

There is no perfect prescience unless it belong to God and really good guesses even less perfect.

Valuable tools for sure, the sun around which people should orbit? Not even close for my money.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

66. Considering the baggage she's carrying it's hardly surpising.

[JoePhilly]

69. Cross your fingers.

We need her to lose so that the GOP can destroy the country because only then will the people finally rise up.

btw ... its not looking like two or more years of complaining about Hillary will generate an acceptably liberal alternative candidate.

[Efilroft Sul]

70. Hypotheticals don't win elections.

The Republicans have to actually nominate an asshole with the last name of Bush to run at the top of their ticket.

[karynnj]

72. This poll was done March 1-4 (I looked at pollingreport.com)

If the polling was uniform over that interval, half would be before the NYT reported the most recent story - so these responses would not reflect this. However, for the second half, this might have been the last thing they heard about HRC.

One interesting question, for which I have no idea how to assess, is how much of HRC's support in the primary is a function of her polling as beating all Republicans. (There were a very few outliers at various times where she was tied, but in general she has had a healthy margin.) I suspect that name recognition coupled with the belief that HRC is a sure thing for keeping the Presidency has an enormous impact on the primary results.

My gut reaction is that you will unfortunately be right that HRC might have a tough fight to win the Presidency. The saving grace might be that there is no charismatic Republican without a lot of baggage who would not have his own (hopefully greater) problems.

The last week has increased my fears - the email reinforces some of the worst images I have of Clinton, but what is scarier is the reaction of her team - which has been to slowly do all of the following -

- argue that others did the same thing - when in fact, what they did went beyond anything I have heard of previous Secretaries of State. (Not to mention, I think this triggers the same reaction from many of us who are parents - as someone else posted, we didn't accept that response from our kids even when they were little.

- argue that both Obama and Kerry also have some (unproven/undefined) private email too, ignoring that the SD has said specifically that Kerry has exclusively used government email on anything work related and it is archived contemporaneously.

- argue that it did not break the law -- ignoring that more is expected than just not breaking the law.

- Ignoring that the SD will likely have to augment every FOIA and inquiry concerning the Clinton era by going over these Clinton emails AND having to at least implicitly add the caveat that it only includes the email given to them by HRC. The SD has no way to claim that nothing was extracted after the fact.

- Note this also is why the historical record is impacted - obviously being able to remove or edit anything that lends a bad light on a decision seen up to 6 years later could make these records suspect.

_ In typical Clinton fashion, her way to resolve this is not to explain what she did and defend it or take responsibility. It is to make a splash saying the SD should make everything public. This would be nice transparency except that no one looking to dispute HRC will accept this as the full account. So, the SD, not only is left with likely augmenting inquiries, but with the task of redacting private or sensitive material for this huge cache of emails. On top of that, they have been accused of stonewalling for about a year -- when it appears from the behind the scenes accounts, they were working to comply in complete good faith.

This will likely blow over as a news story, but it is easy to resurrect. Consider how many - maybe coordinated to not happen all at the same time - demands for reprocessing the inquiries on ANY topic requested to the SD over the last 6 years that covers the Clinton years.

Not to mention, there are likely more shoes to fall - as is typical with many Clinton things. One thing mentioned that troubles me is that her aide Huma Abedin was also on this serve. That means that work emails from Clinton to a top aide are not in the SD records. Knowing this, it is hard to accept the view that the SD has or will get everything. (Note - I have heard nothing said about Abedin's emails being sent to the SD - and they should be as well.)

[RiverLover]

87. Really good points, karynnj/karynvt!

And thorough analysis.

Thanks!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

93. Could it be that a lot of rank and file Democrats like Hillary...

Could it be that a lot of rank and file Democrats like Hillary and associate her with the last time America was prosperous and at relative peace?


To ordinary, non ideological, folks that means a lot.

[brooklynite]

76. Funny, last week the anti-Hillary people were telling us polls are meaningless

[cali]

86. i did not i have never said pols are meaningless n

try again

[brooklynite]

88. I didn't say -you-.....

...I'm talking about the anti-Hillary brigade in general

[LittleBlue]

80. 4 points above Walker? FML

We could actually see a President Walker

How hard is it to get Canadian citizenship?

[daredtowork]

81. Yep

But just saying that you doubt Hillary would win the general election somehow implies you aren't voting and Democratic disloyalty around here.

[fadedrose]

85. It's hard for anyone to run

with all the talk about her being so far ahead in the polls and formidable. It is almost impossible for anyone to get contributions for a lost cause.

[Aerows]

90. A Republican as President of the US

ranks somewhere between "I have tapeworm" and "Hillary Clinton is President."

If we can't find a better candidate than Hillary, we need to hang it up, because she IS a Republican with a D after her name.

[AtomicKitten]

91. That is what was inevitable.