According to a new Mason-Dixon survey, given exclusively to NBC/MSNBC and McClatchy newspapers, Clinton is the only major presidential candidate -- either Democrat and Republican -- for whom a majority of likely general election voters say they would not consider voting. In addition, she's the only candidate who registers with a net-unfavorable rating.That sews it up. Democrats must nominate ABC -- anyone but Clinton.
In the poll, 48% say they would consider voting for Clinton versus 52% who say they wouldn't. By comparison, majorities signal they would consider voting for all other major presidential candidates or possible candidates: Giuliani (64%-36%), Fred Thompson (62%-38%), Bloomberg (61%-39%), Obama (60%-40%), Edwards (59%-41%), McCain (58%-42%), Biden (57%-43%), Richardson (57%-43%), Huckabee (56%-44%), and Romney (54%-46%).
Moreover, 39% say they recognize Clinton favorably, while 42% say they recognize her unfavorably.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Can Hillary win?
MSNBC and McClatchy have conducted a new poll:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
I've been saying for years now that nominating Hillary Clinton would be a suicidal gesture on the part of the Democratic Party. One can reasonably debate whether that is a positive thing or not, but it would mean the end of the party.
Of course, we then must deal with an electorate that considers Rudy "the Crook" Guiliani, Fred "the Womanizer" Thompson, and Michael "the Billionaire" Bloomberg better candidates than any Democrat running. Arrrrgh.
Tch-tch-tch! You guys are repeating memes and swallowing disinformation from the right-wing media. Have you no sense of skepticism of our media and its polls?
Here's a tip: beware of any poll that bums you out. It was probably cooked up to please the Right.
Haven't you noticed that Hillary makes the wingers poop their pants? For that very reason, they're going to try to make it look like she can't win, and that they even want her to win.
It's the Right's old game of deception to demoralize the left. They want to make you feel and think like losers...and it looks like they;ve largely succeeded.
Another tip: Watch out when you start repeating right-wing talking points. I submit that "Anyone But Hillary" is something the Right says--not something you should be saying.
If you want to kick winger butt, you're gonna have to stop falling for their propaganda. Cheer up, you guys. The Republicans are going to get slaughtered again in 2008. I guarantee it.
"Here's a tip: beware of any poll that bums you out. It was probably cooked up to please the Right."
And so we should listen only to the data which tells us what we want to believe? How very Bushian.
McClatchy has done some of the most honest reporting in recent times. I've seen no evidence that this poll was cooked.
And all the evidence indicates to me that the Right would prefer running against Hillary Clinton to Obama or Gore or Edwards. Did Rupert Murdoch ever raise money for Edwards?
>>nominating Hillary Clinton would be a suicidal gesture on the part of the Democratic Party
Agreed, but I’m still not convinced that they wont do it anyway. Between her and Bill, their ability to raise funds for other candidates would be unrivaled.
I think this race could become VERY unpredictable if Bloomberg enters as an independent and puts some real $ behind it. I don’t think anyone has a good handle on which side he would draw more votes from, in a general sense, but my gut tells me that if Clinton is the nominee, a lot more Dems than Reps, would jump ship in favor of Bloomberg.
As a democratic supporter and someone who liked Bill Clinton, I do not have a favorable impression of Hillary Clinton, and I'm not sure that I can really pinpoint why. I just don't really care for her. Something about her just rubs me the wrong way. Would I vote for her in a general election? Yes. Do I think she can win a general election? No. And I fear that it wouldn't even be close.
Nominating Hillary Clinton would be a disaster for the Democrats. While I am concerned a bit about Barack Obama's lack of experience, I think he has a far better chance of winning a general election than does Clinton. Hillary will not win. Republicans, even many moderates, can't stand her. Women don't gravitate to her like one might think. And even independents and many Dems don't care for her much. She cannot win the election. Period.
Of the top three Democratic candidates the one that gets more flack and is ignored the most is Edwards.
I think that Edwards poses the most danger not to the Republicans, but to the power structure (that is if it has been decided that Democrats are going to win 08) because he is the most left leaning candidate.
If our political system (regardless of party) is hijacked by corporations and campaigns are funded by them, all candidates are beholden to some of them. None is free to do as he/she pleases if elected, but the one that is the farthest from their desired policies is the most dangerous.
Why else the Repubs have tried so hard to rig the Judicial system, the last line of defense for Americans citizens?
Add on pure ambition, the desire so strong that you are willing to do what ever it takes to achieve the goal (the first black! or the first woman!) and you find more room for corruption.
I can just see the DNC spin now:
"Hillary, the candidate who can bring us together!"
I would have counted myself in the "wouldn't consider voting for Hillary" crowd (oh wait, I mean in the primary, of course I'll vote against the fascists in the general) but when I saw the debate last night I thought she was OK.
Not at the top of my list, but worth considering.
So, early polls might not be that meaningful, even if they aren't just right-wing propaganda (which they may well be).
In a perfect world, the candidate least interested in the reins of power will be forced to take them. And that would be Gore.
But we're not perfect. A tree stump like Romney defends his rank stupidity by saying his dog likes fresh air. Fred Thompson? There's that *sound* from Law and Order that causes his fans to blush every time. And seriously, what's to like about Hillary?
Stop telling me I'm falling for wingnut talking points when I agree to agree: she's Bush with a skirt. Knows how to raise money, can't sneeze without a cue card, hides behind religion and bad jokes.
Sad really. She's smart in a textbook kind of way, and stupid in every other way that counts in terms of cultivating consensus. She sends my BS detector into over drive everytime, and I'd like to trust her, really I would. I'm just tired of being lied to and pandered to. And Bill makes me sick.
With acceptance comes sanity: we're just not that into her.
And in general, the Party doesn't care what the naysayers think about all of this anyway. Brief behavioral switches to sway votes. All they need is a 72 hour window to sway opinion one way or another and it's history.
As a rule, we elect more stupid people than we care to admit. So it is with a mix of embarrassment and resignation that I give you President Romney. WenG
I'm still surprised this poll saw the light of day. Now we must make it known to the fake progressives of the world who keep blindly insisting she's our only chance.
I trust you'll keep doing your part, Joe.
I am unaware of any track record of accuracy for polls taken 16 months out from an election. I suspect any retrospective of such polling would show that they in fact have little or no predictive accuracy whatsoever.
Two examples arise immediately, those of Reagan and Clinton. Both were quite unpopular into the 3rd years of their presidencies, languishing in the 40% approval zones, at about the same point out from their re-election bids. As intervening events transpired, both won their re-election bids handily (Reagan, in fact, in a landslide, even after showing himself senile in the debates, unable to merely complete his peroration in the critical second debate).
And, the telling 'more than half' number that supposedly wouldn't vote for her vanishes upon applying the margin of error, which is plus or minus four percentage points. (The error margin actually makes this headline moot, which is why, I suppose, those opposing Hillary don't mention it?)
So it may very well be that at this very early stage, when nobody is interested let alone serious about the presidential candidates (that doesn't occur until variously Labor Day 2008, or until October 2008, depending upon which political scientist one asks), AND nobody knows much of anything about Hillary except the right wing scam scandal campaign thrown at her for 8 to 10 years by the right, Hillary has a far better chance to right her ship, acquaint the country with her actual character, etc., than did PRESIDENTS who were already known quantities.
Ask New Yorkers. They were diffident to negative about her carpetbagger candidacy for so long that some experts claimed she would never even run, so low were her numbers. Then, failing to get up to and over 50% was said to be a death knell for her Senate bid, as she was sorta an incumbent in terms of being known. However, as she became known to New Yorkers, and especially the harder case anti-Hillary types upstate, she won her races going away. And for those that know Rudy and Hillary the closest, the New Yorkers, THEY favor Hillary over Rudy by a very large margin.
People in the country may THINK they know Hillary. But like the voters in NY, and the Republicans in the Senate, they have an impression that is false, and which Hillary has a proven record of being able to turn around.
And, btw, the choice of using 'likely voters' for the screen is bizarre so far out. The rule, which you'll see if you look into other polls' screens, is to use registered voters, with the tightened down screen of only asking 'likely voters' used after Labor Day, or a month out, from election day. I suspect that has something to do with skewing these numbers as well, because by far, more Democratic voters are not 'likely voters' than are GOP voters. Doesn't mean they WON'T vote, but that they are considered 'not likely,' for among other reasons, that they may not be currently registered, and/or didn't vote last time.
sofla
BTW, Joe, McClatchy did not do this polling. They, and MS/NBC were given the exclusive to REPORT the poll, which was done by Mason/Dixon. So, while I agree McClatchy's reporting has been quite good, THEIR credibility doesn't weigh in favor of this poll. I'm sure they are reporting it accurately and fairly, but they didn't design the poll, determine that it would use a likely voter screen, didn't select and then likely weight those selected to be in the poll, etc.
sofla
Your point is very well taken, sofla. I happily concede.
Sputter, mutter, SAY WHAT!!!??? A response I was unprepared for! I'll take the concession to be on the second, short post (which is undeniably true, of course), although I'd hope the first post was perhaps persuasive as well.
Not to belabor my first post's point (much) further, but I heard Travis Smiley make a good point today on this exact poll result. That is that both Hillary's and Obama's 'wouldn't consider ever voting for them' figures include some substantial number of troglodyte types who would never vote for ANY woman or ANY black man. Throw them together with GOPers who would never vote for a Democrat, and you have three groups who do not deserve and should never effectively have a veto on whom the Democrats nominate.
sofla
Did Rupert Murdoch ever raise money for Edwards?
A great question to which most know the answer: No, and not in a million years. John Edwards is the biggest threat to the existing power structure in this country. Gore is the only possible candidate who even comes close.
Post a Comment