Gallup: HCR Favorability Plunges from 58 to 45 !

[Laura PourMeADrink]

Tell me again why we would want her as a candidate? Or, do you just think this is all Gallup-skewed?


http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003573058


GALLUP: Hillary Clinton's Favorable Rating Plunges

By E&P Staff

Published: April 18, 2007 12:30 PM ET

NEW YORK As the early stage of the race for president heats up, support for Sen. Hillary Clinton appears to be cooling. A majority of Americans now have an unfavorable image of her, a new Gallup poll released today shows. Her current 45% favorable rating is one of the lowest Gallup has measured for her since 1993.

Her lead as frontrunner for the Democratic nod has narrowed to just 31% to 26% over Sen. Barack Obama. Former Sen. John Edwards comes in at 16% and Al Gore 15%.

"The recent decline in her image appears to be broad-based, as it is evident among most key subgroups," Gallup reports.

In the latest poll, conducted April 13-15, 2007, more Americans say they have an unfavorable (52%) than a favorable view (45%) of Clinton. As recently as February, her favorable rating was 58%.

Sen. Obama and Sen. Edwards each have favorable ratings of 52% and unfavorable ratings of just 30%.

[Horse with no Name]

1. I don't believe that polls serve any purpose this early in the game

But hey, that's just me!

[William769]

2. Me either.

But I'm glad this happened. When the time comes the bar won't be set to high.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

13. I agree for the unknown candidates - their numbers will change

as more and more people get to know them. But, she is a known entity among many. How do you think she could get 58% of the people to start liking her enough to vote for her?

[acmavm]

3. Anybody surprised? You can't play both sides of the fence like

she does and expect to remain a viable candidate (which I never thought she was anyway).

[SaveElmer]

4. Not disputing the poll itself...

Although I do have trouble believing such a large drop occurred in a matter of days...a few more showing the same trend will need to be released to see if it is real..

However I am struck by two things...

First, the glee that so many supposed Democrats have that a fellow Democrat is possibly being viewed negatively...

And Two, how so many folks who up until now have consistently avowed the meaningless of polls, particularly national polls, are now all of a sudden avid poll believers...

[Laura PourMeADrink]

12. I hear what you are saying, but disagree on the glee - From

my perspective, I think she would be a great president. But, I have serious practical reservations about getting her in. I think it is idiotic to start with someone that is already so polarizing right out of the gate. Repukes will throw a mess of slime as it is - better off starting with someone who is closer to ground zero in the negative ratings.

As for polls - yes some are skewed - but if you look in the middle - I think they mean a lot. The only time I ever hear anyone slamming polls is when Repukes are trying to justify their stupid actions - like pushing the war when the majority is against it. Refrain: I don't lead by polls.

[SaveElmer]

14. Well I don't think there is any eviidence...

That negative ratings are immutable...previous candidates (Clinton and Gore) overcame very high negatives to win...it's a matter of effective campaigning...

I do see glee among some here at DU over this which I find a bit hard to understand...I don't experience glee when any of our candidates are unfairly attacked and defend them...even though Hillary is my candidate...

No matter who is nominated we certainly don't want to aid and abet the right wing noise machine...which some around here seem ok with...

[Laura PourMeADrink]

16. Maybe it's because many progressives think she is not

progressive enough. But this will pass - if she wins - we will all support her and vote for her - and she will make a great president. Guess I am more about looking at the big picture - all our dems are good and would be infinitely better than DimWit but - who is the most likely to win? I think a Gore/Clark ticket would be perfection for two reasons - Gore can win = he already won once and Clark has the intellectual background on foreign affairs to steer us out of Iraq.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

15. CNN for close to same period (right number last period)

"Please tell me which of the following people you would be most likely to support for the Democratic nomination for president in the year 2008 . . . ." Names rotated

.

4/10-12/07 3/9-11/07
% %
Hillary Rodham Clinton
30 37

Barack Obama
26 22

Al Gore
15 14

John Edwards
12 12

[rinsd]

17. Are we looking at the same poll?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/16/poll.2008/

[Laura PourMeADrink]

19. How weird - looks like Polling report is different - they show the

Cnn poll on hrc from march to april going from 37 to 30.

[rinsd]

21. I use polling report alot. But I googled to find the CNN poll

I could not link to the CNN poll from their page.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm

It would seem the most recent polls back a drop in her support(though of varying degrees) which was expected after Obama's fundraising show.

[SaveElmer]

20. Well I was more talking about...

The favs/unfavs...anything on CNN about that ?

[LSK]

5. psst: Its HRC

:hi:

[Captain Hilts]

6. Gallup isn't skewed, just sloppy, hence the 16 point shifts btwn Gore/Bush in 2000.

they don't employ a consistent survey population compared to other firms.

[WiseButAngrySara]

7. HRC? ....n/t

[WI_DEM]

8. What would cause such a sudden decline?

[Captain Hilts]

9. She hasn't been in the news at all. It makes no sense. nt

[MadBadger]

11. The only thing I have heard really recently is:

her announcing a trip to Rutgers where shed speak to the Women's basketball team. To me it seemed like it was for a nice photo-op. Maybe other people were turned off about that. Otherwise, I have no clue.

[Captain Hilts]

22. No one understands better than HRC what it's like to have Imus insult you...nt

[Hidden Stillness]

10. If This Poll is Real, It is Because of Health Care

This could either be another example of Gallup skewing results with a Republican sampling, as they often do nowadays, or, if real, and it actually does measure general/Democratic opinion, I would think it is a growing fear of what she and the corporate "D"LC will do to their health care coverage, given their background. I remember the "Clinton Health Care 'Plan' " which forced people from traditional coverage to HMOs where their premiums increased and they were denied coverage on things that had always been covered before, forced to go to only doctors on the HMO's list, etc. I remember a lot of anger and fear from many older people who had been lied to by people getting commissions on every "sale," that being, the older person themselves. Recall all the many, many pro-corporate Clinton Admin. decisions, from NAFTA to GATT, to tax cuts, to welfare cuts, to deregulating the media and everything else, to their close ties to Wal-Mart, etc., etc., and I think, if this poll is real, that it may be more and more middle class people worrying what will happen to them if the Republican/lobbyist/"D"LC comes back--it will be as bad as Bush and Cheney.

[bouwob1]

18. dont forget about al

If al continues on as he says and does not run, the people voting favorably towards gore will overwhelmingly turn to Hillary.

And since the majority of Hillary’s loss has gone to gore and Edwards this will make a big difference in the primaries.

[Alexander]

24. Al Gore gets 15% of the vote, and he isn't even running. Yet.

If he runs, it seems that he'll drain support from just about everyone else.

"If al continues on as he says and does not run, the people voting favorably towards gore will overwhelmingly turn to Hillary."

You have no way of verifying that. I call bullshit.

[Alexander]

23. Ahh, the irony.

I distinctly remember various DUers who are now pro-Hillary chastising others in the past for calling bullshit on polls they didn't like.

I wonder what they think of that now. :eyes: