HRC's favorable rating is down to 46% (Psst...you can't win with 46%...pass it on)

[draft_mario_cuomo]

On Hardball there was a segment on why so many people hate HRC. A Gallup poll that had her unfavorable rating at 50% and her favorable rating at a measly 46% was cited. Her favorables continue to fall...

[bigdarryl]

1. OH well the media and some DU'ers say shes already the nominee.

[snowbear]

15. Darryl... some DU'ers announce winners in EVERY election .. and a great deal of the time...

........ just like the MSM ---- they are DEAD wrong.


Just the way it goes during primary season.

Do you seriously think after 8 years of George W. Bush, we're going to put up a candidate who only 1/4 of Independents can stomach?!?!?!

You're falling into the ol' "I believe the polls this early out" trap.


If the polls were right during the early part of the '03 primaries, we would've elected Lieberman at one point.. Gephart at another part of the same primary... and further into the primary, Howard Dean.

None of that happened. Never does.

Don't fall into the"it's already over because Tweety Matthews and the MSM poll said it was" crowd.

Election after election, they get it WRONG!

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Stinky The Clown]

3. Why are you waiting, then?

Have a nice flight ... wherever you're going.

[liberal renegade]

11. Why do you wish all of us Dem's to go down in flames?

Are you part of that equation?

I'm getting sick of the Al Gore wishful thinking. Had he stood his ground and taken what was rightfully his, we wouldn't be in this fucking mess...

[Nederland]

51. And I am sick and tired

...of people saying that Al Gore didn't stand his ground. Face it, the Supreme Court made its ruling and according to the Constitution that is as far as you can legally go. Beyond that you are talking about calling for guns in the streets and a non-legal seizure of power. Is that really what you think Gore should have done, presided over a military coup?

[durrrty libby]

13. We? Well you may be a blight and no worries about the god thing

[SaveElmer]

4. Funny how Hardball is all of a sudden respectable television...

When bashing Clinton is involved...

btw: Looks like your boy is gonna slip out of the top tier here before long...can only tie a guy not running and only 2 pts ahead of Richardson in New Hampshire...

Looks like he is gonna get overtaken in Texas too...

[bigdarryl]

5. WHAT!!!!! Hardball is TOTALLY for Hillary you see it everday

[durrrty libby]

7. The Hillary haters here seem to be very troubled people

The venom they spew reeks of desperation

[journalist3072]

8. I agree. Sometimes when I am on DU, I think I am on Free Republic

Especially with the anti-Hillary venom on here.

Talk about drinking the right-wing kool aid.

[durrrty libby]

10. They rattle off RW rhetoric word for word and non-stop

They are like tics to a dog every time a Hillary doing well thread is posted

[journalist3072]

14. Exactly!!! eom

[earthlover]

36. the hillary haters are Republicans, you are being snarky towards Democrats

I don't know any Dems who hate Hillary. Many think she is too conservative. Others think she has sold out and just pandered to the right in order to be electable. However the vast majority of both groups would vote for her in the general because the Republican would probably be at least a smidgen more conservative than Hillary on some issues. These are some of whom you call "hillary haters" and spout your venom against. But it ain't so.

There are also Democrats of various stripes, some moderate, some more liberal, etc, who view the election pragmatically. They see Hillary as not electable. They know that if the Dems lose, the Reps win. And they are not real keen about enabling the Reps to win in a year that should be ours for the taking. Again, this group does not hate Hillary. They would work hard for her in November. They are the hard working beavers every election who work hard, even when the party doesn't give them much to work with in the way of electability.

You seem to forget that who you are being snarky towards are fellow Democrats, the very Democrats who you need to work hard if Hillary is the nominee. Yesterday you called me a jackass because I had the audacity to ask for positive reasons to vote FOR Hillary instead of knocking the others.

This snarkiness is dividing our party much more than the debates between the candidates.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

17. Gallup is not a respectable polling organization?

The fact is there has been a consistent decline in HRC's favorability rating this year. The Gallup poll is consistent with this trend. The question is, if this continues and HRC ends the year in the low 40's or even the high 30's, are we dumb enough to still nominate her?

[SaveElmer]

19. The question is...

Why do you poo poo polls as meaningless when they don't show what you want, but when they do they are gospel all of a sudden...and of course, only quote the ones that make the point you wish to make...

And if voters are still choosing things based on name recognition and they aren't actually engaged in the campaign yet, why the concern about these particular polls...?

[calteacherguy]

22. Nice attempted spin.

Not effective, though.

[SaveElmer]

Yet true...nt

[calteacherguy]

28. Name recognition is why Hillary Clinton's unfavorability ratings are so high.

And that's the truth.

Actually, it's more like name recognition-plus, in her case. Folks recognize who she is, and they've made up their minds about her. There is little or no room to swing the undecided.

When it comes to Hillary Clinton, folks have already made up their minds. Nominating her would therefore be a risky proposition for the Democratic Party.

[SaveElmer]

30. Hardly...

She had high name recognition 4 years ago when her negatives were in the low 30's...

It's what campaigns are all about...

[calteacherguy]

32. Nice spin.

But not convincing.

[SaveElmer]

33. Nice answer...

Not...look it up if you don't believe me...

Negative ratings change all the time, and are not the immutable number so many Hillary opponents wish they would be...

1992, Bill CLinton 48% negatives shortly before the Dem convention...

Dropped to the thirties by election day...


2000, Al Gore...same thing...

[calteacherguy]

34. None of those people at those times were known as long as she's been known.

And in any case, the most essential fact is that here unfavorable ratings are the highest of any candidate NOW. And since this race has (allegedly) started, I haven't seen them going down, just up.

[SaveElmer]

38. Now...

17 months before the election...you are seriously advocating choosing a candidate based on polls 17 months from an election....?

[calteacherguy]

46. Absolutely not.

Note I said the race has *allegedly* started, but if her favorability ratings don't reverse course by January, then yes I do advocate taking such information into account at the polls.

[rinsd]

31. So why were her favorables at 58% in Jan? Was she an unknown prior to 2007?

And please note an opinion is rarely "the truth", especially so in your case.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

23. HRC is a known quantity with 15 years in the spotlight and 99% name ID

Many people--and this number has been steadily increasing this year--simply do not like her. She is damaged goods.

You are comparing apples to oranges. Nationall horse race polls are based on name ID and have little value due to that and our Iowa/NH centric nomination system. This is not a comparative poll but a poll assessing the feelings voters have toward one candidate. If the candidate was new and relatively unknown, he or she could repair his or her image. HRC cannot. Views of her have crystallized based on 15 years of observation (it doesn't matter if they aren't engaged in the campaign yet. They have known her since 1992!).

[SaveElmer]

27. Yet her negatives have shifted wildly...

From low thirties to high forties...so they are not set in stone as you try to imply...

Provide a single shred of evidence that shows high negatives are immutable...

Just the opposite has been the case...in both the 1992 and 2000 elections for example...the fact is campaigns matter, and evidence shows wherever Hillary has campaigned personally, her positives go up and negatives drop...and that will be the case as the campaign goes along...

The hypocrisy around here is stunning, with no attempt to conceal it. Polls are only accurate when they show what you wish them to show....

So how about commenting on Edwards continued miserable showing, on the verge of falling into 5th in New Hampshire...? You think that is an accurate assessment given the latest polling data?

[calteacherguy]

35. Re: Edwards.

The man does not meet my qualifications for POTUS. I think other voters share my high expectations.

Clinton certainly has more experience, I'll give her that. But what she has isn't enough, either.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

39. Clarification

They are not all set in stone but a large majority of that group is. The room for maneuvering she has is small. Contrast that to blank slate Obama.

==Just the opposite has been the case...in both the 1992 and 2000 elections for example.==

The 1992 election is a weak comparison. It involved a then relatively obscure small state governor who was hit hard by right-wing attacks early. That hurt him but he remained largely a blank slate. He was new. Views of him did not crystallize. He was able to recover his image due to this. HRC does not have this luxury. Gore in 2000 is a better comparison. Let's see how her numbers look by the end of this year. If she stays this low, or the trend continues and she falls to the low 40's or high 30's, it would be an incredibly foolish gamble to nominate her.

==wherever Hillary has campaigned personally, her positives go up and negatives drop...and that will be the case as the campaign goes along...==

They continue to drop during the course of this campaign. This is not just about New York. We can't extrapolate too much from what happened in one state election to a national election. Plus, she has only been in only one real campaign. That campaign also occurred at the height of her husband's prestige and popularity.

==So how about commenting on Edwards continued miserable showing, on the verge of falling into 5th in New Hampshire...? You think that is an accurate assessment given the latest polling data?==

He seems to be in danger of falling out of the top-tier. The only value national polls have is that they show trends. It seems his trend has been downward in the national polls. In NH he was once in the 20's, even ahead of Obama at various points. Now he is barely in the double digits and in danger of falling to fourth. The only silver lining the campaign has right now is that he continues to lead in Iowa. Remember, Kerry was nowhere in the national polls and trailed Dean and Clark substantially in NH before he won Iowa. However, it is hard to see Edwards winning Iowa if these trends continue. He needs to continue what he began in the NH debate: contrast himself with HRC and Obama. He can't afford to play the "VP" strategy he used against Kerry in 2004 nor can he afford Obama's deferential stance toward HRC. Obama may be hedging his bets and hoping for the VP spot if he does not overtake HRC. Obama is also close enough to HRC nationally that he can overtake her "naturally" if things go well for him or HRC falters. He also has an inherent ability to grow due to him having the lowest name ID of the top-tier candidate. HRC is at her peak; Obama is not.

[SaveElmer]

45. ...

"They are not all set in stone but a large majority of that group is. The room for maneuvering she has is small. Contrast that to blank slate Obama."

I don't quite agree with this. Among Republicans her negatives are set in stone...no changing them. Obama gets a fair proportion of Republicans viewing him favorably. As the campaign rolls along, those will harden against him as well. He is not a particularly moderate Democrat so there is no way a significant number of Republicans cotton to him...

So any Democrat, by election day is going to have a floor of about 35-40% negatives...

The gains are to be made with independents...and it is here Hillary must concentrate her efforts. The current view of her is based on a perception of her developed in the media while she was not a candidate. As a candidate she has an opportunity to change those perceptions. I don't say it won't be a challenge, but there is no evidence at all that it cannot be done. Meanwhile, Hillary has several advantages over Obama. Almost no one in the Democratic Party (other than Bill), has been as successful at dealing withe the right wing sleaze machine. Obama is untested in this area. He is vulnerable to charges that he lacks experience, and he has almost an equal challenge in trying to maintain the positive view independents have of him, a task that will become much more difficult as the media pounces. Whether they like her or not, most people have discounted the over the top attacks on Hillary by the Republicans and the media, which confers some immunity to her. But like the swift boat charges against Kerry, attacks of that type on Obama are going to have legs at first, and we don't yet know how Obama will handle them

Also don't underestimate her appeal to women, which has been impressive so far. Independent women are one of the groups she could do quite well with in a well run campaign

"They continue to drop during the course of this campaign. This is not just about New York. We can't extrapolate too much from what happened in one state election to a national election. Plus, she has only been in only one real campaign. That campaign also occurred at the height of her husband's prestige and popularity."

You can extrapolate some from New York...she is not only popular in the big cities, but in Republican rural areas as well. And like national horse race polls, which have some validity, it would be more interesting to see what her favorable ratings do in state polls, as she campaigns...I suspect you would see a significant improvement in those places...in addition, they are running a primary campaign, designed to appeal to Democrats. General election campaigns are a whole different animal, with a whole different set of strategies...

As to your comments on Edwards...I agree...he is not done, but getting close

[draft_mario_cuomo]

48. You are right. Independents are the key

Perhaps HRC can change people's view of her through the course of the campaign but I think that is unlikely. If people didn't pay enough attention to know the truth about Kerry "voting for the $87 billion before he voted against it" I don't think they will pay enough attention to learn enough about HRC to change their perceptions of her. Still, I concede it is possible that you may be right and that over the course of a general election campaign HRC can improve her image. The opposite can also occur, though. HRC has not faced the full-throttle assault from the right-wing yet. If she is this weak now--and getting weaker--if she somehow managed to win the nomination with favorability in the low 40's how devastated would she be over the summer and fall when the right-wing attacks her 24/7? HRC has no margin for error on wooing swing voters. She will need nearly perfect luck and a perfect campaign to survive the inevitable right-wing assault.

==Almost no one in the Democratic Party (other than Bill), has been as successful at dealing withe the right wing sleaze machine.==

I don't think this is the case. If you are correct, why is her favorable rating so low?

==Obama is untested in this area. He is vulnerable to charges that he lacks experience, and he has almost an equal challenge in trying to maintain the positive view independents have of him, a task that will become much more difficult as the media pounces.==

These are very good points, as is the argument of HRC having a degree of immunity. On the flip side, though, Obama has several advantages over HRC. He is unknown and has deliberately been as generic and vague as possible in this campaign. This will allow him to morph into whatever is most politically convenient in the general election. He is a fresh face and that is a plus right now. Most importantly, though, he has charisma that can help him weather the storm. HRC, unlike Bill, does not have this vital asset against right-wing attacks.

==Also don't underestimate her appeal to women, which has been impressive so far. Independent women are one of the groups she could do quite well with in a well run campaign==

That is true, but, there is a flip side to that. She has not run nearly as strong among men. I think this is partly due to her overtly running on her gender. Obama has not run overtly on his race and this is why his level of support among whites and blacks is roughly the same. He also does very well among Latinos, despite having low name ID (40% do not know him yet--Edwards is unknown by 60%).

==You can extrapolate some from New York...she is not only popular in the big cities, but in Republican rural areas as well.==

It is easier, though, for a polarizing figure to succeed at the state level than at the national level. This partly because you have more direct contact with a higher percentage of voters at the state level because you can cover a higher percentage of the state than you can of the nation, more direct local press coverage of your visits to the area (which will tend to be more favorable and endearing than of a similar event in a distant location), and the ability to deliver pork to those areas to win votes.

Good arguments, though. You are a great advocate of your candidate! :toast:

[earthlover]

49. good post!

[rinsd]

29. And she was known quantity in January when her favorables were at 58%

"Views of her have crystallized based on 15 years of observation"

So much for that theory huh?

So when does Edwards drop out and beg Obama for the VP job?

[Bucky]

56. I'm sorry, but you just don't understand.

Any organization that reports information that I don't like is de facto disreputable, if not owned outright by Karl Rove.

[flpoljunkie]

6. Andrea Mitchell said Hillary could win with UNFAV at 50%. Gergen said Hillary would unite Rep base-

altho he said 2008 could be the year she could win with the Republican field as it is today.

[rinsd]

9. Pssst...favorable ratings are not set in stone (nt)

[draft_mario_cuomo]

18. Good point. HRC's are consistently falling. How low will they be by December? nt

[rinsd]

25. We'll just have to wait and see.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

40. Is there any point at which you would stop supporting her?

If her favorable rating fell to 38% would you stop supporting her because she is unelectable? Or are you on the HRC train regardless of what happens?

[rinsd]

42. Stop supporting her because of polling numbers? Are you kidding?

I am supporting her till she wins or concedes.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

43. We can't afford four more years of Republican rule

Nominating a candidate with a 38% favorable rating would be tantamount to surrendering the White House for four more years. President Thompson or President 9/11, er, Giuliani? :scared:

[rinsd]

44. You are welcome to choose your candidate on how they matchup in the general

I choose a different path.

[ShortnFiery]

55. DLC rule is not much different than that of secular republican rule.

:shrug: They (DLC anointed President) may kiss you on the cheek before they allow the war profiteers and other corporations to financially SCREW the middle class, but "screw us" they will.

[Hart2008]

26. The Hillary Limbo: How low can she go? n/t

[sampsonblk]

63. Exactly

nt

[partylessinOhio]

12. Hardball birdbrain hates Hillary. Between his rantings and 2 very negative

recent books written about her, what would you expect that to do to her favorable ratings?

She's being swiftboated. She's being Imused. She's being Parised.

You cannot fight this culture of hate with a peashooter. You have got to be strong and united. You cannot talk religion and prayer and reveal your weaknesses to Solid O'Potatoes on CNN.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

20. It is what is it, regardless of the causes. We have to deal with it

We can't nominate someone whose favorability rating is, let's say, 41% in November of 2008 and then whine about her loss being unfair because of all the attacks on her. Well, I supposed we could whine. It won't matter. The repukes will be laughing all the way to the White House by then. We need to recognize her weaknesses and assess whether we are willing to take a 30/70 gamble on her given the high stakes involved in the next election.

The attacks will only intensify if she is the nominee. Can you imagine how low her favorability rating will be after 9 months of 24/7 attacks from the right-wing machine?

[truedelphi]

62. One of my concerns about Hillary as a nominee is the fact that the

MSM ios always stating her case and giving her a lot of recognition

i keep thinking to myself Jsut what is it that THEY have on her.

They really do seem to want her badly - not that she is popular with them.

[Sadie4629]

16. Actually . . .

I think Bill Clinton did win with 46% of the vote.

[earthlover]

21. and is Ross Perot running this year?

And was Bill Clinton's negative ratings as high then as Hillary's are now? Apples to apples, ya know....

[draft_mario_cuomo]

24. Exactly. Plus, polling suggests a Bloomberg candidacy would HURT HRC

After all, they have essentially the same views. The 3rd party factor would hurt this Clinton, unless a right-wing version of Nader runs if Giuliani is nominated but there is no evidence that anyone is waiting in the wings to do so at this point.

[Nederland]

52. In fact Perot may run this year

It's just that this time around his name is Bloomberg.

[MasonJar]

37. Hardball! Hmmm! Isn't that the same guy who practically had an

orgasim over Bush in his flight suit? I am sorry if I am not going to let the Pugs tell me what to think and neither should you. Hillary this week...Obama and John next week...the corporate media is sold, y'all....sold bigtime....they like all those perks that come with the GOPers.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

41. It was a Gallup poll that found the 46% fav/50% unfav rating

It isn't as if Matthews was making this up.

[illinoisprogressive]

47. Saw mitchell try vainly to spin it. but, everyone knows this is a big problem for hillary

it was also discussed how this will lose the presidency for us if she is the nominee. i agree.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

53. The pro-HRC spin in the media is amusing nt

[Bucky]

57. Shut up you Democrats! We'll tell you who your frontrunners are.

And then we'll tell you why you hate America and want the terrorists to win.

[Discord]

50. No Confidence vote from me for HRC!!!

No more Old School Dems!!!

We need a new path, and new leadership.

[Harry Monroe]

54. We will most definitely lose the WH in '08...

...if Hillary is the nominee. I'll vote for her, of course, but she is unelectable nationwide. Too many negatives and questions remain.

Please run Al Gore!!!!!

Gore/Edwards or Gore/Obama is a dream ticket!!

[Perry Logan]

58. Signs of media overdose here

Some of you have been watching the American media way the hell too much. Why do you do this when you know it's there solely to ease the death throes of the Republican Party?

I advise a strict fast from the American news. It is enemy propaganda, designed to weaken the left. Biased news, rigged polls, and a steady stream of Hillary-bashing are messing with your minds and destroying your self-confidence. Many of the commentators here are unconsciously parroting what they've heard a thousand times in the media.

Buck up, fellow liberals. Lose the news and you'll feel better. If she's nominated, Hillary will absolutely win. I have this on God's authority. And the Right will poop their pants.

I'd like you to imagine the political Right pooping their pants as Hillary is sworn in as President of the United States. Now don't you feel better?

[depakid]

59. This isn't news

Hillary's negatives will prevent her from winning in the general election. That's been understood for many years and a lot of us hoped she'd do the right thing and pass on running.

Unfortunately, doing the right thing isn't a Clinton trait.

[Cosmocat]

60. It pains me, it really does ...

I think she would be a fine president, she is smart, tough ... I have seen her talk when she is on her game, and she has a very progressive and positive vision for the country ...

But, the GOP has spent, literally, the last 15 years chipping at this lady ...

I am running for a county wide office in central PA and have been knocking doors since February, and I can tell you that I have heard, from Rs, this one sentence more times than I can remember when the conversation turns that direction ...

"I don't care who the next president is as long as it isn't Hillary ... I hate that woman with a passion that burns my soul" ...

NOW, those are the words of the 30 percent bubble, mostly Rs who wouldn't vote D either way, be it Edwards, Obama or whoever ... But, the passion ...

I think the rest of the unfavorables goes to more moderate voters who just plain are tired the nonstop hatred that is spewed about the lady ... They don't like her, they don't really dislike her, either ... They just don't want to spend 4 or 8 years of having the Rush Limbaughs of the world go ape shiite if she is president ...

NOW ... IMO, that is why the numbers are where they are ... But they why is not as important as the fact that they ARE where they are ...

As much as I know she would be a fine president, I also know that if we want a sane president (read a democrat), our chances are better with someone else ... I don't think she is a LOCK to lose, but I think it will be a blood war just to have her barely win ...

Yuck ...

[depakid]

61. They literally spend BILLIONS demonizing her

And they've gotten a significant psychological return on their investment. It's an emotional deal- a short-circuiting of the reasoning process.

Like you, I've heard the same sorts of things from a number of people who on many other issues, I consider to be reasonable people.

While I'd be the first to say "this isn't fair" and that the vast majority of this crap is either falsehood or mis-characterization, the fact remains that the damage is done and this kind of thing has coattails.

[The_Progressive]

64. Hillary will win the nomination

And she will get a lot of Republican "Wimmyn Folk ©" to vote their sex and bolt their husbands and the party.

She will be the next President.

[KingFlorez]

65. That means absolutely nothing

The election is more than a year away, this sort of thing is irrelevant at this point and doesn't measure support by any means.

[mckeown1128]

66. I dare a Clinton supporter to explain how she

can win the GE???

[Sparkly]

68. Look at the poll: 48-43

Her polling 48% doesn't mean her opponent (in this poll, Rudy) has 52%... She is still ahead (although with the margin of error, not by much).

[Sparkly]

67. See Media Matters

http://mediamatters.org/items/200706140002?f=h_top