POLL: Hillary leads bottom-feeder Repukes Huckabee and Brownback by only single digits

[jefferson_dem]

Now...that doesn't exactly inspire confidence in her electability?

Clinton Holds Single-Digit Leads Over Huckabee, Brownback
Wednesday, May 30, 2007

Democratic frontrunner Hillary Rodham Clinton now leads former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (R) 48% to 43%. Senator Clinton also leads Republican Senator Sam Brownback 49% to 41%.

Clinton moderately leads among unaffiliated voters in both match-ups.

Among women, Clinton enjoys a substantial double-digit lead over both GOP contenders. Among male voters, she is and Brownback are tied. Huckabee leads Clinton among men 48% to 43%.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/clinton_holds_single_digit_leads_over_huckabee_brownback

[BeyondGeography]

1. Older White Men for Hillary...now there's a small group

I'm talking 55 and over. From first-hand experience (business people I deal with, family relations), they tend to be irrational about the Hillster, to the point where even I have to step in to defend her. A sad statement, if ever there was one.

[flpoljunkie]

2. Hillary Clinton's Unfavorability is also listed at 51%--with 35% Very Unfavorable.

However, in general election match-ups, she typically is outperformed by Illinois Senator Barack Obama (D) and former North Carolina Senator John Edwards (D). That’s largely because voters have such strong opinions—one way or the other—about the former First Lady. Forty-seven percent (47%) of American voters say they will definitely vote against Clinton if she’s on the ballot in 2008.

Hillary Clinton is now viewed favorably by 49% of likely voters, unfavorably by 51%. That includes 22% with a Very Favorable opinion and 35% with a Very Unfavorable opinion. While she is a polarizing figure nationwide, Clinton remains popular with Democrats--82% of Democrats have a favorable view of the New York Senator including 43% with a Very Favorable view.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/clinton_holds_single_digit_leads_over_huckabee_brownback

[jefferson_dem]

3. A negative favorability differential is virtually impossible to overcome.

Chimpy's politically polarizing tendencies are rivaled only by Hillary's. Hopefully, this reality will start to sink in among Dem primary voters...

[rinsd]

25. Bill Clinton & Al Gore.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE3DD153EF932A25754C0A964958260

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/052500-01.htm

And it should be noted that Gore turned around his favorable in the last 5 or 6 months of the general election.

[jcrew2001]

33. And gore just barely won the election, or did he?

nt

[rinsd]

34. But I thought it was vritually impossible.

Apprently so impossible its only been done twice in the last 4 elections.

[jcrew2001]

38. So Hillary will be more favorable when the election comes

Good luck with that

[rinsd]

39. As opposed to being an impossibility?

That's the problem with statements in the absolute.

They are rarely correct.

[jcrew2001]

41. Well, I know currently her unfavorability is high, so she's got

nowhere else to go but down, correct?

[rinsd]

43. See I knew there was something positive rattling around your noggin.

[Tellurian]

54. ANOTHER ATTACK HILLARY THREAD...YOU PEOPLE ARE SOOOOOO DESPERATE!!!

[oasis]

4. How's she doing among Democrats?

When the real race for the WH begins, Hill'll reap the lion's share of Dem and Independent holdouts.

Count on it.

[William769]

5. But leads Obama by 10 points!

:rofl:

[dionysus]

6. so she can win the primary and lose the general...

boy what a barrel of laughs eh?

[William769]

7. No one has yet to prove to me (or it seems by the polls many people)that she will lose the General.

[JoePhilly]

45. I'd vote for Hillary over ANY GOPer, but stratgeically ...

She presents the right with a huge target. They've had YEARS to dig up, and INVENT dirt on her and Bill.

Of all the Dem candidates, she's the only one that could give energy to the right on voting day. The other Dem candidates are basically unknowns to the right, certainly less hated, and the GOP candidates generate almost no energy which is why there's like 20 of them.

I'd rather see Edwards/Obama (or insert other favorite ticket here), with Hillary poised to become leader of the Senate. With that situation, we'd own executive branch, Senate, and the House will probably hold with Pelosi or other good Dem.

We need to think about how to get stronger in these 2 branches of government, then work to fix the mess in DOJ, Supreme Court, FEMA, etc, etc, etc.

[SaveElmer]

8. She also leads every other Republican contender...

And is tied with Guiliani in these polls...correct?

[jefferson_dem]

9. Tied with Ghouliani and up by three on McCain in May 5 Ras poll.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008_clinton_ties_giuliani_45_to_45

Not sure if Ras has anything more recent than that.

Remember that Hillary still has 47% of the public who will never vote for her. That's not promising.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_enjoys_highest_level_of_base_support_for_second_straight_month_33_will_definitely_vote_for_him

[SaveElmer]

10. A number that fluctuates...

So I guess never is a relative term...changing those numbers is what a campaign is all about...after all 3 months before the 1992 General election...Bill was running in third place...

In any case from Rasmussen:

"In national General Election match-ups, Clinton is now essentially even with Republican frontrunner Rudy Giuliani. She leads all other Republicans including Fred Thompson, John McCain, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, Senator Sam Brownback, Senator Chuck Hagel, and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. "

And these numbers against second tier Republicans are significantly outside what other polls show...and even here she doubled her margin over Brownback since the last Rasmussen...

[skipos]

11. With her pile of money, huge machine, big name recognition and popular Presidential husband

she should be beating Repubs by larger margins than Edwards and Obama in ALL the polls. Instead, she underperforms Edwards and/or Obama in most polls.

Too bad Dems like to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

[William769]

12. Care to list those polls?

[skipos]

16. Here ya go

Go to ANY pollster... pollingreport, rasmussen, zogby, quinnipiac, etc and find me ONE national general election poll where Hillary Clinton is leading the Republican candidate by a larger margin than Edwards *AND* Obama. Go find ONE poll that show that Hillary CLinton has LESS people committed to voting against her than both Edwards and Obama. Go find ONE poll that shows Hillary with a higher favorable/unfavorable ratings than both Edwards and Obama.

When you find these, come back and post them.

I see ge polls with Edwards outperforming both Hillary and Obama, I see ge polls with Obama outperforming both Hillary and Edwards, I never see ge polls with Hillary outperforming both Edwards and Obama.

It is very clear that at this point in time, despite her millions, machine, name recognition, and popular Presidential husband, she is not our strongest general election candidate.

[William769]

19. And I quote

""she underperforms Edwards and/or Obama in most polls", you made the assertion, not me. It's up to you to comeup with the polls.

BTW most means more than one or two.

[skipos]

26. Do you make the assertion that she ISN'T our weakest

general election candidate? If so, then YOU come up the polls that back that up.

I already mentioned all the polling places you can check out...

http://pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_enjoys_highest_level_of_base_support_for_second_straight_month_33_will_definitely_vote_for_him
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_democratic_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1277.xml
http://zogby.com/

[SaveElmer]

13. Ridiculous....nt

[skipos]

14. I agree, it is totally ridiculous that we would nominate Hillary

when she is clearly the weakest general election candidate of our top tier. I guess some Dems are so used to losing it becomes the path of least resistance.

[SaveElmer]

15. What's ridiculous is seriously advocating...

Choosing a candidate on the basis of basically one set of polls 18 months before an election...polls which btw, don't even predict the dire consequences you are sure will follow...

In fact , it is about the dumbest idea I have ever seen suggested around here...and that is saying something...

[skipos]

17. Don't worry, I have dozens of reasons why I think Hillary would be a weak President

and a weak candidate. He crappy poll numbers, which I am glad to see you don't even bother to refute anymore, is only one of them.

[SaveElmer]

18. I have never refuted poll numbers...

Unlike many others, I don't immediately jump in and trash the pollster if there are numbers I don't like...

However...

I refute Hillary would be a weak candidate, I refute she would be a poor President, I refute that Rasmussen is the be all and end all of polling firms, I refute the notion that high negatives are immutable, I refute the notion that effective campaigning is irrelevant, and I even refute the notion that Rasmussen indicates she will lose in the General...

And most of all I refute the notion that anyone should make a decision based on one set of polls 18 months before an election...

[skipos]

23. "I refute Hillary would be a weak candidate"

Most evidence refutes that for now.

"I refute she would be a poor President,"
That's your opinion. There is no way to know.

"I refute that Rasmussen is the be all and end all of polling firms,"
I never said it was. Go look at polling report and tell me of our 3 top tier candidates, who tends to underperform the other to in the general election polls.

"I refute the notion that high negatives are immutable,"
Sure, and maybe GW Bush will leave with a 60% approval rating. It is possible, but after months and months of consistently weak numbers, it is unlikely.

"I refute the notion that effective campaigning is irrelevant,"
She has the most money, the highest name recognition, the biggest machine, and is married to one of the most popular presidents in the last few decades. Her effective campaigning should show some results outside of the primary polls.

"and I even refute the notion that Rasmussen indicates she will lose in the General."
Maybe she can win. Maybe not. What Rasmussen doesn indicate is that 47% say that they would definitely vote against Clinton. I guess she can spend her millions trying to change their minds, but my point is that Edwards and Obama don't have nearly the challenge that she does.

"And most of all I refute the notion that anyone should make a decision based on one set of polls 18 months before an election."

That's great, because I never said that. As I said before, I have dozens of reasons why I think she would be a mediocre candidate and a mediocre president. Weak poll numbers are just one of them.

[SaveElmer]

27. ...

"Most evidence refutes that for now."

The only evidence you provide are polls, usually Rasmussen.

"Sure, and maybe GW Bush will leave with a 60% approval rating. It is possible, but after months and months of consistently weak numbers, it is unlikely."

Or Bill Clinton will rebound from a third place showing and 47% disapproval numbers three months before the general, lower those into the thirties by election day and win the election. Or that Al Gore would lower his negatives from the mid-forties to the low thirties in 2000 and win as well...

"Maybe she can win. Maybe not. What Rasmussen doesn indicate is that 47% say that they would definitely vote against Clinton. I guess she can spend her millions trying to change their minds, but my point is that Edwards and Obama don't have nearly the challenge that she does."

Spending millions trying to convince people is what a campaign is all about...Edwards and Obama have to spend millions convincing Democratic voters they would be a superior candidate and superior President than Hillary...so far it doesn't appear to be working...

"That's great, because I never said that. As I said before, I have dozens of reasons why I think she would be a mediocre candidate and a mediocre president. Weak poll numbers are just one of them."

You end nearly every post on this topic with the following

"Too bad Dems like to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory."

The implication is clear...

[skipos]

28. Pollingreport, Zogby, Quinnipiac etc are just as unflattering to Hillary

as Rasmussen when compared with Edwards and Obama.

My implication as that we like to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Nominating someone like Hillary brings us one step closer to that imo, and I am not alone in that opinion. Her crappy numbers are the only ONE of the reasons I feel that way. She might be able to win. She might not.

[SaveElmer]

29. Yet you only ever use that comment...

On threads related to her poll numbers....virtually the only evidence you ever present to show her as the weakest candidate...

And sorry, the consistent lead in the primary race, and the fact that more often than not she is shown leading the Republican competition hardly can be defined as crappy...

Have you picked a candidate yet...?

[skipos]

31. No, I have not picked a candidate yet.

Edwards, Obama, Richardson, Gore and Clark are my 1st tier. Dodd, Biden, Gravel and Kucinich are my 2nd tier. Hillary is my 3rd tier.

[SaveElmer]

32. You should go for Gravel...

You would have no competition around here...

Funny you would put Gore so high given that his negatives are about the same as Hillary's...

And you certainly don't think Gravel or Kucinich would have a shot do you?

[skipos]

35. Yes, Gore's negatives are almost as high as Hillary's

As I said, I am not all about "electability." What Gore has going for him is that he seems to be the candidate that very few people intensely dislike. I have no proof other than what I read and who I talk to, but I don't think I have even come across a Dem who claims "I will NEVER vote for Gore." I have heard that about all the other candidates, especially Hillary.

As for Gravel and Kucinich, I don't think their general election prospects are worth talking about.

[skipos]

37. I'll also add another thing that Gore has going for him that Hillary does not

as far as the g.e. is concernced. I think a Hillary nomination is going to yeild another significant 3rd party/Nader type run from the left. I do not think a Gore nomination would get the same treatment. By "significant" I mean "gets 2-3%" but we know how much that can effect elections. Though Nader saw his support significantly decrease in 2004, if he runs against Hillary in 2008 I think it could get back to 3% again. Maybe higher since it seems like the lefty dislike of Hillary 2008 is stronger than the lefty dislike of Gore 2000. I have no proof of any of this, it is just a hunch.

[rinsd]

40. Not gonna happen. The party smartened up.

They fought Nader every step of the way in 2004 which had more to do with his not being a factor than any real loss of support.

And if some dumbfucks decide to run a feel good spoiler campaign that results in a GOP President, they can enjoy the blame.

[skipos]

47. My hunch is that the dumbfucks are more likely to run a feel good spoiler against Hillary

than Gore. 500,000 people still voted for Nader in 2004. Not very much, but still enough to spoil a close election.

[William769]

20. You have yet to site any.

Maybe if you did they would be refuted.

[jefferson_dem]

22. Add Zogby to what Ras finds - that Hillary would be a weak(er) General Election candidate

Do you care to win the presidency or are you cool to just steamroll to the nomination, only to crash and burn in the fall?

***

Obama would defeat all Republican opponents, including John McCain of Arizona, Rudy Giuliani of New York City, Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, and Fred Thompson of Tennessee in prospective presidential contests, the poll shows.

Meanwhile, Clinton would be defeated by both McCain and Giuliani, but would win against Romney and Thompson, the survey shows. Democrat John Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina, would also lose to McCain and Giuliani but defeats Romney and Thompson.

The telephone survey, conducted May 17–20, 2007, included 993 respondents and carries a margin of error of +/– 3.2 percentage points.

Overall, Obama would defeat McCain by a 47% to 43% margin, with the remaining 10% not sure. Against McCain, Obama does much better than Clinton among independents and Republicans, the survey shows. He wins 14% of the Republican vote, while just 8% of GOPers would cross the aisle for Clinton. Among independents, Obama wins 42% support against McCain, while Clinton wins 39% support. In both contests, McCain leads the two Democratic rivals among independents.

There is a big swing between the McCain–Obama contest and the McCain–Clinton contest among moderate voters, which in this survey included a partisan make–up of 38% Democrats, 25% Republicans, and 38% independents. In the McCain–Clinton contest, moderates favor McCain by a 49% to 45% edge, but in the McCain–Obama contest, moderates swing to favor Obama by a 49% to 41% margin. In contests against Giuliani, Obama enjoys a similar advantage compared to Clinton among these key swing voters.

Among independents, Giuliani narrowly tops Clinton, 44% to 43%, but Obama holds a huge 56% to 30% edge over Giuliani among those same voters.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1316

[rinsd]

24. You really buy that McCain is beating Hillary and Edwards? That Hillary is up 15pts?

That McCain is outperforming Rudy in head to head matchups even as his campaign implodes?

This particular Zogby poll seems off in alot of ways.

[BlueStater]

30. I agree

McCain, thus far, has been running an extremely embarrasing, lackluster campaign. I don't see him beating anyone.

[reprobate]

52. But she's the top pick of all the corporations. And she was behind NAFTA.

Of course we should nominate her so we will be forever governed by the very rich elite like herself.

I can't understand democrats who want her as president of the country. She would not represent us. She would represent the corporations.

[zulchzulu]

36. Ford spent a lot of money marketing and hyping the Edsel

Look what happened there...

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

21. That's not such an accomplishment

Those guys have little name recognition, and in the case of Brownback, he's completely off his rocker.

[illinoisprogressive]

42. 51% negatives along with 47% who will absolutely will not vote for her.

i think dems need to look at these as strong signs that we will lose again! if Hillary is the nominee. hey, good idea! Let's pick the one who beats the republicans, has low unfavorables and high likability and can win.

[rinsd]

44. I'll stick with which candidate Democrats feel is best.

And I think she will make a great President.

[mckeown1128]

48. So you feel that...

the best democratic candidate is the one who polls the worst against the rethuglicans?

[Hawaii Hiker]

46. This is actually rather scary

Look, Paris Hilton should be able to lead in a poll against religious crazies such as a Brownback, Huckabee....A Democrat should have 80%+ of the vote against 2 wackos like that...

John Edwards should get the nomination, he's the safest & most electable choice, & WE CAN TAKE BACK THE WHITE HOUSE, cuz quite simply, we cannot afford another fucking Re-thug-lican in the WH for at least 20 years...

[Robbins]

49. Hillary

As unpopular as Bush Is now she still Is the weakest candiate.Hillary IS the most conservative of the 3.She co sponsed the flag burning amendent,and supported Bush's absentace program.Hillary could find time to campaign for Lieberman during the primary but couldn't find time to campaign for Lamont during the general election.Let's remember the Clintons pushed NAFTA through.SHe has nearly
said we will keep a permeant Military pressence In Iraq,and she was one of the most biggest supports of Iraq among Democrats.And do we really want to hear about the scandals again?And a woman
who Is so cold that she works to keep her husband's affairs secret Is not our best candiate.And the
Clintons have never helped other democrats get elected.If you want a Senate where Lieberman Is
Ilrelvent she will not help that dream.

[illinoisprogressive]

50. This is how weak a ge candidate hillary would be: tonight on cspan

there was a focus group of dems, repubs and indies. it lasted 2 hours and went through all sorts of things. the interviewer was really good and would zero in on things, ect.
he really made people think.
the outstanding thing was that all around, all parties, had negative things to say about Hillary. only 2 would vote for her. the rest said they absolutely would never vote for her.
She was roundly disliked by all but, 2.
obama rated the highest. If election were held based on it Obama would beat everyone by a mile. there was high posltives and even after the group pretty much said there was concern about his experience, he still beat everyone else in who they would vote for. guillianni came in 2nd.
hillary rated very low.

[SaveElmer]

51. ...

:rofl:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

53. HRC would be a disaster. A vote for HRC is a vote for a President Thompson or President Giuliani nt

[Tellurian]

55. Yes, and she beats them handily.. so yes, a vote for Hillary will elect a democratic President!