Poll Shows Erosion Of Trust in Clinton

[babylonsister]

Poll Shows Erosion Of Trust in Clinton

By Anne E. Kornblut and Jon Cohen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, April 16, 2008; Page A06


PHILADELPHIA, April 15 -- Lost in the Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign's aggressive attacks on Barack Obama in recent days is a deep and enduring problem that threatens to undercut any inroads Clinton has made in her struggle to overtake him in the Democratic presidential race: She has lost trust among voters, a majority of whom now view her as dishonest.

Her advisers' efforts to deal with the problem -- by having her acknowledge her mistakes and crack self-deprecating jokes -- do not seem to have succeeded. Privately, the aides admit that the recent controversy over her claim to have ducked sniper fire on a trip to Bosnia probably made things worse.

Clinton is viewed as "honest and trustworthy" by just 39 percent of Americans, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, compared with 52 percent in May 2006. Nearly six in 10 said in the new poll that she is not honest and trustworthy. And now, compared with Obama, Clinton has a deep trust deficit among Democrats, trailing him by 23 points as the more honest, an area on which she once led both Obama and John Edwards.

Among Democrats, 63 percent called her honest, down 18 points from 2006; among independents, her trust level has dropped 13 points, to 37 percent. Republicans held Clinton in low regard on this in the past (23 percent called her honest two years ago), but it is even lower now, at 16 percent. Majorities of men and women now say the phrase does not apply to Clinton; two years ago, narrow majorities of both did.

Advisers argue that her positive ratings have dipped as she has been defined by her opponents -- a normal campaign occurrence -- and that her honesty problem reflects the pounding she took from Republicans in the 1990s. But the Bosnia incident and the way the campaign handled it have left advisers divided over what a candidate can do after such a steep drop in trust.

more...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/15/AR2008041502883.html?hpid=topnews

[catgirl]

1. Ouch (nt)

[MoJoWorkin]

2. I imagine she he is going to be one mean mama tonite at the debate.

from above article:

"Advisers argue that her positive ratings have dipped as she has been defined by her opponents -- a normal campaign occurrence"

My response:

So how come, with all the pounding she had give to Obama, HIS positives are rising?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5526274

[bowens43]

4. Let's hope so .

the nastier she gets the better ir is for Obama.

[babylonsister]

5. Now her 'advisors' are encouraging her to go even more negative;

yes, it could get ugly tonight. But I'm wondering what positive message they're talking about? I haven't seen one lately. And isn't Clinton the 'establishment candidate'? That's why people are so whacked. How COULD he? :D


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/189259.php

According to Doug Schoen, estranged partner of Mark Penn and one-time pollster for Bill Clinton, says Hillary Clinton should abandon her purely positive campaign and instead go negative on Obama.

From tomorrow' WaPo ...

Hillary Clinton took an important step Monday toward winning the Democratic nomination by launching an ad targeting Barack Obama's recent comments about working-class voters clinging to "guns or religion." The ad is a marked change from her recent determination to use a positive message until the Democratic convention, but for Clinton to capture the nomination she needs to completely abandon her positive campaign and continue to hammer away at Obama.

It pretty much goes on from there. But, seriously, what is Schoen smoking? Hasn't Clinton been going after Obama pretty much tooth and claw for like eight weeks? Politics ain't bean bag. And if you're going to take down the establishment candidate you need to expect an onslaught, especially one with a potent and resilient base of support in the party. Perhaps the hothouse environment has simply gone on too long at this point. But it's getting really hard for me not to conclude that a lot of these guys in the Penn/Clinton consultant world have simply gone insane.

more...

[ChairmanAgnostic]

3. this is no erosion. This is a major league mudslide.

predictable, given the amount of mud she and her team sling.

[0007]

6. hilary must have a clue by her soggy depends and the mental picture

in her mind.

[NJmaverick]

7. The girl who cried wolf

Perhaps instead of showing Hillary how to shoot ducks, her father should have been telling her that classic story.

[mwb970]

8. How can she possibly win if this is all true?

Clinton is viewed as "honest and trustworthy" by just 39 percent of Americans, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, compared with 52 percent in May 2006. Nearly six in 10 said in the new poll that she is not honest and trustworthy. And now, compared with Obama, Clinton has a deep trust deficit among Democrats, trailing him by 23 points as the more honest, an area on which she once led both Obama and John Edwards.

Wow. Only 39 percent say she's honest! And this is before the actual campaign! Why would we nominate a person with such high negatives? HRC and BO are both smart and competent, and either would be better as president than the vomit-inducing bush. But only one of them is actually trusted by Americans. So, who should we nominate? Who, who, who?