Poll Suggests Hillary, Gore Have Bad Combination Of High Name Recognition, High Unfavorable Ratings

[JABBS]

Click here to read the analysis.

Essentially, in both cases, voters know who these people are, and are split on whether they think of them favorably. Each would be hard-pressed to change the minds of a large chunk of voters.

[skipos]

1. Which should factor into our descision to nominate them

I like Gore, but damn, it is pretty obvious that it would be extrememly difficult for him to win the general election with how many people have already decided they won't vote for him.

[rainy]

3. I think things are so different and that Gore will speak out as a

real leader that he will turn heads. Maybe this poll is a sham and that the right is really scared of these two. They are starting now to discredit them. They will work hard to discredit any of our pics but these two will be the toughest to beat so it begins.

[JABBS]

4. the poll is from rasmussen reports

which was found to be the most accurate in calling races for the 2006 mid-terms. it's not a right-wing poll, or an effort to discredit anyone.

[skipos]

5. I know it is common for DUers to diregard polls when they don't like the results

but Gore, Kerry and Clinton have high unfavorables in EVERY poll I have seen. I may like them as candidates, but the polls clearly indicate they have significant uphill battles that other candidates do not have.

[Deep13]

2. "known" usually equals "unfavorable"

That is why senators with high name recognition have such a hard time in the presidential process. Governors are less known and may define themselves assuming the other side does not beat them to it. Someone from a fly-over state would be the best.

[JABBS]

6. not true

On the GOP side, Giuliani, McCain and Condi each had high name recognition, relatively lower unfavorability ratings. Edwards had a lower unfavorability rating.

[skipos]

7. Yes. Only two senators have been elected President in the last century

and neither of them defeated an incumbent President. Non-senators have better odds, for obvious reasons.

[Deep13]

12. JFK and who else?

I don't know the other one.

[skipos]

16. Harding (in 1920?)

And I think you have to go another 40 years before that to find the next one.

[Deep13]

26. Oh yeah. I forgot about him.

Just like everyone else did the minute he was elected.

[Kelly Rupert]

8. I'm surprised Richardson isn't getting more play.

[JABBS]

9. hasn't he said he's not running?

[Kelly Rupert]

10. Not that I've heard.

[blm]

11. Whoever gets the intense negative GOP scrutiny for a sustained period of time

will be the person with the highest negatives - so it doesn't matter what any poll really says now. EVERY Dem will be going through that gauntlet. It's how weak and badly WE DEMOCRATS handle the lies is what will determine the outcome.

So far, it appears the GOP and media has a very easy time of attacking Democrats because too many skittish Dems are fearful of the media's ability to lie against our leaders instead of joining efforts to beat them back from their lies.

[JABBS]

13. just to be clear, it was democrats who were surveyed

rasmussen did a similar survey of republican voters/republican candidates.

[blm]

15. I know - and many Democrats are susceptible to fearfulness re media portrayal.

I don't think Democrats as a group are tough characters impervious to criticism and lies - they are susceptible to media spin as anyone else.

Democrats as a group have to learn to FIGHT the media lies, not accept them.

[AtomicKitten]

14. unfortunately once the GOP Wrecking Machine

has their way with a Democratic candidate - any candidate - their "favorability rating" will plummet in these kinds of surveys. The only thing that really matters is that their favorability rating exceeds 50%.

[JABBS]

17. only hillary has such a rating

although edwards and obama are close, and have higher undecideds that could be converted to the positive column.

[AtomicKitten]

18. I find this stuff fascinating.

Sometimes we forget or lose sight of the fact that we are just a tiny microcosm of the rest of the country.

[JABBS]

28. agreed

[KoKo]

19. I'm surprised Gore has high unfavorable to favorable ratings. He's

very popular on the Left. Obama has high ratings because the Media has pumped him for Entertainment value. Even though some Dems here on DU like him. He's an unknown that might sound good and catchy who might not wear well down the road where experience to clean up Bush's mess will be most important by the time the primaries come around.

Right now folks just want to think about folks that don't have track record but sound good because they speak well about issues. :shrug:

[JABBS]

20. i agree that gore has been through the ringer

the right has done a great job of portraying him as an exaggerator, and more recently as a fringe guy who yells and screams from the sidelines.

[HappyWeasel]

21. Wasn't it the same case with dubya in 2000 and 2004?

The problem with that is that it would force into an area of a liberal induced "cold civil war". The good thing about this is that we would have an excellent chance to "Get out the base". However, we will be courting apolitical nihilists, poor people and others disenfranchised voices. Then again, the right had to court the apolitical in their ascendancy.

[yellowcanine]

22. Unfortuantely, as good a president as I think Hillary would make, she is too easy to be demonized

in the same way Gore was. Ironically Gore is probably "innoculated" against it now, partly because Bush has been such a fuck up and partly because Gore has been standing tall on the issue of Global Warming, which everyone except the true wingnuts recognizes as a problem now.

[JABBS]

23. gore's problem

is that people have been taught by the right to believe he exaggerates. that's a hard one to get over.

I don't think Gore is running, btw.

[Clark2008]

24. I don't discount these findings - but GAG - why do so many

people like Edwards? He's such a snake-oil salesman.

He makes me :puke: with his slickness.

[JABBS]

27. i like him

because he has an issue, fairness, that he has been able to take from a conceptual idea to a set of policies. he connected with me with his two americas speech, and i appreciate the work he has done since then in establishing his poverty center.

he tanked as a veep candidate in 2004, but he's raised a lot of money, scores well with moderates and independents, and i think would have a very good chance of winning if he had the right veep candidate at his side.

[Hippo_Tron]

25. I wonder what Nixon's favorability was in 1967

Nixon came back with a much more favorable image despite the fact that it was the same old Nixon. Gore has more than a new image, IMO.