Democrats, "All Voters" Have Highest Confidence in Clinton’s Electability

[wyldwolf]

Three-out-of-four Democrats (75%) believe that if Clinton wins the nomination, she is at least somewhat likely to win the White House in 2008. Seventy-three percent (73%) of Democrats say the same about Edwards and 69% think Obama is at least somewhat likely to win if nominated. However, there is a higher degree of confidence in Clinton than other candidates. Forty-one percent (41%) of Democrats say that Clinton is Very Likely to win the White House if nominated. Just 26% say the same about Obama and 24% have that confidence in Edwards.

When the question is asked of all voters, not just Democrats, a similar pattern emerges. If nominated, Clinton is considered at least somewhat likely to win by 53% of all voters. Fifty-four percent (54%) say the same about Edwards and 55% about Obama. However, 24% of all voters say that if Clinton is nominated, she is Very Likely to win it all. Just 17% say that Obama is Very Likely to win the White House while 16% say a victory in November is Very Likely for Edwards.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/democrats_have_highest_confidence_in_clinton_s_electability

[Lobster Martini]

1. Curious, though, look at the general election matchups...

Not only does Edwards have a better favorable/unfavorable rating than Hillary, he fares better when matched against Giuliani, McCain, and Thompson and he beats Mittens as well, although not by as wide a margin as Hillary. So I'm trying to see how he's less electable than Hillary when he beats most Republican candidates by wider margins. Seems contradictory.

Not expressing a preference, mind you, just mulling over the data.

[flpoljunkie]

2. However, Clinton lags behind both Obama, Edwards among the important, unaffiliated voters

The picture looks much different, however, among unaffiliated voters. Among this important segment of the voting population, 50% say Obama is at least somewhat likely to win if nominated. Forty-eight percent (48%) say the same about Edwards and just 42% see a Clinton victory as Somewhat or Very Likely.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/democrats_have_highest_confidence_in_clinton_s_electability

[wyldwolf]

3. EXCEPT she is ahead with ALL voters, a figure that factors in "unaffiliated voters."

When the question is asked of all voters, not just Democrats, a similar pattern emerges. If nominated, Clinton is considered at least somewhat likely to win by 53% of all voters. Fifty-four percent (54%) say the same about Edwards and 55% about Obama. However, 24% of all voters say that if Clinton is nominated, she is Very Likely to win it all. Just 17% say that Obama is Very Likely to win the White House while 16% say a victory in November is Very Likely for Edwards.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/democrats_have_highest_confidence_in_clinton_s_electability

[karynnj]

6. These are very confusing numbers.

You could also concentrate on the other statistic where the numbers for all voters are essentially the same.

"If nominated, Clinton is considered at least somewhat likely to win by 53% of all voters. Fifty-four percent (54%) say the same about Edwards and 55% about Obama."

None of the numbers for "very likely" are as high as they should logically be - so I suspect there is a fair amount of game playing going on by Democrats - saying no for candidates they prefer not to win. At this point, many think that it is highly likely that the Democrat will win whoever they are.

Another hypothesis is that it shows a very testy unhappy population.

[flpoljunkie]

16. IF she gets the nomination. Otherwise the top three are essentially tied with Obama in the lead here

[SOS]

20. Hillary is ahead of Thompson by only 4 points

You think this is good news?

[wyldwolf]

22. you only have to be ahead one point to win.

[SOS]

25. Al Gore would be interested to know that.

Which 2004 red states will Hillary take from Thompson?

[rinsd]

45. FL, OH, KY, VA, WV, NM.

She's tied with Thompson in CO and only 2 pts behind in AL.

[rinsd]

34. Its more perception of electability

These are measuring who you think could win, 69% is nothing to sneeze at and shows that Democrats are confident in Edwards' ability to win. Democrats just happen to be more confident in Hillary's which is a boon to her.

[ShortnFiery]

4. Gee, no one called me!

However, if HRC scores the democratic nomination, our party can look forward to experiencing "negative coat-tail" defeats in both local and nationwide elections. :(

Buckle yourselves in, for if "the political elite" get their way, it's going to be one big, slow train wreck for the Democratic Party in 08. :scared:

[wyldwolf]

5. As always, you post the "negative coat-tail" line without a single thing to back it up

[ShortnFiery]

7. I know, it's an opinion. Isn't that what you love about me in addition to my leftist ways?

:hug: :hi:

[wyldwolf]

9. usually opinions are at least based on something.

[Totally Committed]

12. Watch out, SnF..........

When it comes to HRC, you're not allowed to have opinions unless you've got 125 links to back them up. ;)

TC

[SaveElmer]

13. One would be nice for a change...nt

[Totally Committed]

18. Even for an OPINION?

Surely, you can't really believe we should have to justify having an OPINION?

TC

[SaveElmer]

19. If an opinion makes an assertion like the one made here...

One would hope it is based on something....

[dionysus]

43. notice that when they run out of bullshit they

demand you provide links... even if you are just expressing an opinion.

A bunch of one string guitars...

[paulk]

57. no - an opinion like the one expressed

should be backed up with at least something - if not a link to polls, then at least a rationale...

otherwise the poster risks a loss of credibility



ed for sp.

[Totally Committed]

11. Me, either.

And, I'm a voter.

I agree with this: "Buckle yourselves in, for if 'the political elite' get their way, it's going to be one big, slow train wreck for the Democratic Party in 08."

Such sweeping generalizations are meant to give/maintain the mirage of "inevitability". I wonder if the people will fall for it?

TC

[AndyTiedye]

8. She Will Look A Lot Less Electable Once the Mighty Slime Machine Starts Up Again

The Repiglickin' media is being nice to Senator Clinton now, because they want her to win the nomination.


But wait until after the Democratic convention…

[wyldwolf]

10. As will ANY Dem.

[Dawgs]

14. That's bullshit and you know it.

The Republicans will say anything(true or not) about Hillary because they HATE her; even more than they hate Bill.

They do not hate Edwards, Obama, or any other candidate like they do Hillary. They will unite to campaign against her and they will unite to vote against her. No other candidate will unite the Republicans if nominated.

What's sad is many that will fight for a Democratic win in 2008 will stay home. They MIGHT vote for her, but they will not campaign for her.

If you don't believe me try listening to right-wing radio for ten minutes. Every chance they get they talk about what Hillary will do if elected. They are scared to death of her, and will do anything to beat her.

[wyldwolf]

15. the only bullshit is what you just spewed.

[SaveElmer]

17. Point to a single instance in the last 16 years...

Where right wing sleaze attacks has hurt either Bill or Hillary Clinton electorally...

Point to any evidence that Democrats "will stay home" if Hillary is the nominee...

Your post is so full of demonstrably false assertions its hard to pick which to respond to..but lets start with these two...

Oh btw, how did the Republicans lack of intense dislike for John Kerry work out eh?

[Dawgs]

32. Are you telling me I don't hear the right-wing fear of Hillary on the radio?

Are you telling me that the polls don't show her high negatives?

Are you telling me that the quotes and statements from Republicans wishing for Hillary aren't true?

Are you telling me that Hillary has won a national election, instead of one in a blue state?

Are you telling me the majority of left-wing bloggers(those most passionate about politics and supporting a Democrat) really do like Hillary, even though most threads, polls, and otherwise all show the opposite.

Are you telling me that Republicans hate Kerry more than Hillary?

"Your post is so full of demonstrably false assertions its hard to pick which to respond to"

Okay, now it's your turn to prove that my assertions are false.

[SaveElmer]

33. ...

Are you telling me that the polls don't show her high negatives?

No higher than most Presidential candidates as they near the general election. Hillary is unique among Presidential candidates given her high name recognition. However, her negatives right now are slightly less than Bill's at the same point in the campaign...even with this one being accelerated. And her negatives have slowly but inexorably dropped as Obama's has risen. In addition, polls show her winning not only the swing states of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ohio, but flipping 8 red states(Florida, Arkansas, Iowa, New Mexico, Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, and Nevada)...up to 10 depending on the Republican...including a lead over Romney in Alabama...


Are you telling me that the quotes and statements from Republicans wishing for Hillary aren't true?

Exactly...this is a meme developed on the left to try and cast doubt on her electability. But even if it were true, a.) why would you care what Republicans think, and b.) the same thing was said about Dean in 2004, so we nominated Kerry on the "electability" argument, who proceeded to be defeated by the most unpopular incumbent to ever win reelection.

Are you telling me that Hillary has won a national election, instead of one in a blue state?

Never said anything of the kind...but Bill who was similarly polarizing has won two. When Hillary won in 2000 for the first time, New York had a Republican Governor, Republican Senator, and a Republican Mayor in New York City. Hillary has not only won in blue areas, but is very popular in Republican upstate counties...so again I ask, point to the place where RW slime tactics have hurt the Clintons electorally.

Are you telling me the majority of left-wing bloggers(those most passionate about politics and supporting a Democrat) really do like Hillary, even though most threads, polls, and otherwise all show the opposite.

Left-wing bloggers not only do not represent the base of the Democratic Party, they don't even represent the base of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. Poll after poll continues to show Hillary...by far...has the highest positive ranking of all the candidates running, and that a higher percentage of her supporters are strongly committed to her than any of the other candidates...

What an example...?

Yesterdays Rasmussen poll...for your reading pleasure

Among Democrats, Clinton is viewed favorably by 81% and unfavorably by 17%. Edwards gets positive reviews from 75% while 19% say the opposite. Obama is viewed favorably by 66% of those in his party, unfavorably by 28%.

Forty-four percent (44%) have a Very Favorable opinion of Clinton while 31% say the same about Obama. Just 22% have a Very Favorable opinion of Edwards.

Are you telling me that Republicans hate Kerry more than Hillary?

They hate all Democrats...but only Hillary (and Bill) have proven they can defeat the slime machine that Kerry proved so inept at opposing...

Okay, now it's your turn to prove that my assertions are false.

Just Did!

[Dawgs]

35. You didn't prove shit!!

Her high negatives will unite the Republicans. I hear it every day. They are scared to death of Obama or Edwards getting the nomination. Try listening to right-wing radio for thirty minutes and you will see.

Republicans wishing to run against her come from the right, not the left. I care that Republicans will unite against her because I'd rather have a Democrat in the WH more than another Bush.

HILLARY IS NOT BILL. Bill is not running. You can wish it all you want, but Bill is much more popular than Hillary will ever hope to be.

Left wing bloggers are not the base, but those most passionate to support a candidate will not necessarily support Hillary. Why not nominate a candidate that will get almost 100% of support from Democrats(like Kerry did), instead of one that will get much less.

In summary, if Hillary gets the nomination the Democrats lose. There is nothing you can say or show me that will change that.

[wyldwolf]

36. you think that because your idea of "truth" has more to do with your feelings...

..than with facts.

Example:

Her high negatives will unite the Republicans. I hear it every day.

From who? Other people in the netroots/echo chamber.

[SaveElmer]

37. ...

Sure I did...you just don't like it...

The FACT is Hillary is the most popular candidate running among Democrats, left, right and middle...

Left wing bloggers are not the base, but those most passionate to support a candidate will not necessarily support Hillary. Why not nominate a candidate that will get almost 100% of support from Democrats(like Kerry did), instead of one that will get much less.

You mean like Obama's 66% or Edwards 64%...how bizarre you don't think the candidate with the strongest support in the party deserves the nomination...

[rinsd]

38. Here's a thought, try not listening to RW radio.

"Left wing bloggers are not the base, but those most passionate to support a candidate will not necessarily support Hillary. Why not nominate a candidate that will get almost 100% of support from Democrats(like Kerry did), instead of one that will get much less."

Her approval ratings with Democrats (around 80%) are better than Obama or Edwards with her negatives in the low teens.

And Kerry did not get 100% backing from Democrats, there was plenty of snipping at him along the way especially on the blogosphere. In fact it got so ugly here that a few Dean supporters left DU and started their own website.

"In summary, if Hillary gets the nomination the Democrats lose. There is nothing you can say or show me that will change that"

Your opinion is solidified even in the face of contradictory evidence?

[CTyankee]

58. I wonder if we are seeing a different "base" for Republicans now than

in 2004? For one thing, I really think it is smaller. The hard core is there but the lesser acolytes have fallen away due to their disgust with the failure of this admin. to produce victory in Iraq.

Republicans in general will throw mud on whomever we nominate. For sure. If we're scared to death of that, we should pack our tents and go home. If not, we should concentrate on how to answer, and defeat, them at their own game.

No matter who is our nominee, we'll have a fight and we all know the rules of engagement by now. The only question is, who can best fight these beasts. That's what this primary, at least for me, will show. Anything else is, well I'm sorry, just not relevant. If you can't win or are unwilling to try, you shouldn't be in this high stakes game. Just my humble opinion...

[karynnj]

44. Bill Clinton did not run against the same slime machine we had in 2004 or in 2000

Just one example:

- GHWB used the government inappropriately to get passport information on Clinon and his mom. The media outrage was INTENSE and it backfired on GHWB

- Bush delegates appearing at the convention wore purple heart band aids and Dole inexplicably said Kerry never bled. The media showed the former as a cute convention tidbit and never called on Dole to apologize.

Clinton won election against a President below 40% for months, who was at 33%. His son's approval was near 50% - so you may think W the weaker President, but he wasn't.

If in 2004, the media was still as friendly and fair as in 1992

OR

Bush was at 40%, much less 33%

OR

if Ohio was not in corrupt hands

then Kerry would clearly have won.

[wyldwolf]

46. no, but he did face the same slime machine who accused him of...

..murder, cocaine running, fathering a black child, rape, etc.

[karynnj]

49. The difference

is that he faced that WHEN he was President - with the platform that gave him. Also, those smears were then limited first to only extremely fringe publications and some radio talk shows. Those stories did not surface to TV, nomal newspapers, nor did RW book publishers seem to have 1/2 the prominently placed books in book stores. Clinton himself said the media of 2006 (when he spoke) was not the media he faced.

The echo chamber Kerry faced was far more advanced and mush bigger - including some media that had previously been reliable.

[wyldwolf]

50. no, there isn't that much of a difference

1. RW radio had already gained prominance. Limbaugh had 5 million listeners by 1988.
2. RW books also gained prominance in the early 90s and held top spots on the bestsellers lists. Just ask David Brock.
3. Mainstream news was full of the Clinton rape allegations and such - ESPECIALLY the draft dodging allegation and the "I loath the military" allegation.

Sure, Gore caught a lot, and Kerry caught more, but that certainly doesn't alter the fact the Clintons caught it first and were the only ones who successfully fought back and won.

They had Bill Clinton on the ropes when they took control of Congress after the 1994 elections. He beat back their revolution. They had him again a few years later when they caught him with his pants down and made his misbehavior a theme of the 1998 midterm elections. Instead, Democrats won seats.

[karynnj]

51. I loathe the military was not an allegation

It was a line in a letter written by Clinton after he got a low lottery number to the man who had gotten him a deferment under the promise he would join ROTC when he returned to the US after Oxford.

As to draft dodging - he did what most guys I knew did in that time frame - he used every means possible to avoid the draft. In his case, he was able to get a ROTC office to prevent him from being drafted when he graduated college and had a Rhodes Scholarship. (This seems justified to me - in fact, being able to get a Rhodes scholarship should have been reason enough to give him the one year deferment.) None of this was technically draft dodging - and the if you remember their was a tall Senator who was a war hero who defended him on that. The only thing I had a problem with was the letter.

I did not see anything in 1992 accusing him of rape - and I read newspapers and news magazines. Gennefer Flowers YES, rape, not yet - and most of that was never in legitimate newspapers. It was tabloid trash - and was perceived as such. It surfaced higher between 1992 and 1996.

[wyldwolf]

52. EVERYTHING was an allegation

[karynnj]

54. Bill Clinton did not deny that that he wrote the letter

that spoke of how he had come to be against the Vietnam War and ended in a paragraph that spoke of how it had driven people like him to loathe the military. This issue came up first in the primaries - when Kerrey attacked him after he had attacked Kerrey for various reasons. He also had to change his story a few times. He at first said he had no help avoiding the draft. He later conceeded that Fullbright's office - where Clinton had worked or interned - had interceded. He made a deal that he would be in ROTC while attending law school in Arkansas after going to Oxford. He then got a good lottery number and wrote the letter saying he was not interested in ROTC. These were NOT allegations - they were facts from Clinton's life. The RW lied about a lot, but not everything. The letter was itself widely reprinted throughout the MSM.

Clinton was helped past this not so much by his war machine, but by Democrats who made the case that this was far in the past and that he had been against the war and was not a draft dodger. A draft dodger is defined as someone who illegally avoids service. Clinton avoided the draft by pulling strings - just like most of the chickenhawks - the key difference is he was adamantly against the war. As soon as Kerrey attacked, his friend Senator Kerry made a plea in the Senate to everyone not to re-ignite the divisiveness of Vietnam. While crediting those that served, he defended those who didn't. (In the general election, he defended Clinton using similar arguments as a surrogate.) I don't think Kerry endorsed anyone in the primary - but if he did it was likely Tsongus. (he was also a friend of Kerrey)

Here is what Kerry said:

Mr. President, I also rise today--and I want to say that I rise reluctantly, but I rise feeling driven by personal reasons of necessity--to express my very deep disappointment over yesterday's turn of events in the Democratic primary in Georgia.

I am saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign, and that it has been inserted in what I feel to be the worst possible way. By that I mean that yesterday, during this Presidential campaign, and even throughout recent times, Vietnam has been discussed and written about without an adequate statement of its full meaning.

What is ignored is the way in which our experience during that period reflected in part a positive affirmation of American values and history, not simply the more obvious negatives of loss and confusion.

What is missing is a recognition that there exists today a generation that has come into its own with powerful lessons learned, with a voice that has been grounded in experiences both of those who went to Vietnam and those who did not.

What is missing and what cries out to be said is that neither one group nor the other from that difficult period of time has cornered the market on virtue or rectitude or love of country.

What saddens me most is that Democrats, above all those who shared the agonies of that generation, should now be refighting the many conflicts of Vietnam in order to win the current political conflict of a Presidential primary.

The race for the White House should be about leadership, and leadership requires that one help heal the wounds of Vietnam , not reopen them; that one help identify the positive things that we learned about ourselves and about our Nation, not play to the divisions and differences of that crucible of our generation.

We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways. Someone who was deeply against the war in 1969 or 1970 may well have served their country with equal passion and patriotism by opposing the war as by fighting in it. Are we

now, 20 years or 30 years later, to forget the difficulties of that time, of families that were literally torn apart, of brothers who ceased to talk to brothers, of fathers who disowned their sons, of people who felt compelled to leave the country and forget their own future and turn against the will of their own aspirations?

Are we now to descend, like latter-day Spiro Agnews, and play, as he did, to the worst instincts of divisiveness and reaction that still haunt America? Are we now going to create a new scarlet letter in the context of Vietnam ?

Certainly, those who went to Vietnam suffered greatly. I have argued for years, since I returned myself in 1969, that they do deserve special affection and gratitude for service. And, indeed, I think everything I have tried to do since then has been to fight for their rights and recognition.

But while those who served are owed special recognition, that recognition should not come at the expense of others; nor does it require that others be victimized or criticized or said to have settled for a lesser standard. To divide our party or our country over this issue today, in 1992, simply does not do justice to what all of us went through during that tragic and turbulent time.

I would like to make a simple and straightforward appeal, an appeal from my heart, as well as from my head. To all those currently pursuing the Presidency in both parties, I would plead that they simply look at America. We are a nation crying out for leadership, for someone who will bring us together and raise our sights. We are a nation looking for someone who will lift our spirits and give us confidence that together we can grow out of this recession and conquer the myriad of social ills we have at home.

We do not need more division. We certainly do not need something as complex and emotional as Vietnam reduced to simple campaign rhetoric. What has been said has been said, Mr. President, but I hope and pray we will put it behind us and go forward in a constructive spirit for the good of our party and the good of our country.

I thank our distinguished manager of the bill and the Senator from Delaware.

[rinsd]

39. Ann Coulter called John Edwards a faggot at CPAC which was then carried by FoxNews

They have repeatedly called Obama Osama, take great delight in saying his middle name and still push the meme that he is a closet Muslim.

Yeah they're gonna be all hugs and kisses with everyone but Hillary.

:eyes:

[Totally Committed]

21. Second nomination today for this weeks' B.O. Award!

TC

[wyldwolf]

23. So, again you deny reality.

[Imagevision]

24. Hillary is like Bush, she can't/won't admit she was wrong voting for the attack on Iraq

Bushlite, Obama has her number!!!

[MethuenProgressive]

55. There was no "Attack Iraq, yes or no," vote.

That's just an Obama Myth.
And Obama and Clinton have identical Senate Iraq voting records, he's been right at her side ever since he got there.

[hughee99]

26. It sounds like "all voters"

think it's more likely that Edwards and Obama would win in the GE than Hillary, but Hillary polled better for die-hard supporters (those sure that their candidate will win).

[cobalt1999]

27. Any of the three will win and win big.

In fact, it is a bad time for any of the republicans to be running as they are doomed. 2008 is a slam dunk for any of the 3 democratic candidates.

[polichick]

28. Don't count your chickens...

That's how it looked after the 2006 election, but the Dems have proven themselves completely ineffective ~ many who are unhappy with Bush will stick with the Reps rather than sign on to a do-nothing party.

[cobalt1999]

29. This is one election I'd bet the morgage on though.

There are no republicans candidates that can compete with any of our three. Slam Dunk win for the Dems in 2008.

Now, what happens after the election is completely unknown. I'm sure not betting on what changes will happen.

[polichick]

30. You're thinking rationally...

Republican voters don't. It didn't matter that Bush was a lame candidate who was unqualified to be prez ~ he was the Republican annointed one, and perceived to be a "strong leader." That's all it takes for Reps. And those in the middle that are fed up with Bush are even more fed up with this do-nothing Congress.

We would have a better chance if all the votes were actually counted ~ but that ain't happening. Dems who have some say in choosing our nominee better think about electability. (My state votes too late to make a difference.)

[2rth2pwr]

31. Clinton will be the nominee. nt

[BigDDem]

40. Well, this cant be true because....

"they didnt call me!"
plus "no one I know" is voting for Hillary
Oh, and everyone in my Course in Miracles class is voting for DK.
So, therefore, this cant be true.

[AtomicKitten]

41. This voter has ZERO confidence in her.

[PATRICK]

42. Wonderfully cruel crafting

of the question. You must wonder if the response is based on the assumption that Hillary will be the nominee and the GOP has no one yet as a designated rallying point. of course that is not the question, but the response is naively conditioned by an overriding assumption. Oh yes, given a respectable GOP candidate(don't laugh yet) the GOP is going to submit to Hillary. And given that Hillary is very highly perceived as beating her rivals for the nomination, without single ballot cast yet, the logic also pushes the point that it means she most electable.

The subtle point being made within a few points of difference rather than the large difference in national polling about Hillary being the candidate is that she is more electable. Why does she not perform much better than the others then? The point suggested by the poll however seems to tout Hillary as "beating" her rivals when one might predict she would do worse.

Unless Dems are totally united that any Dem would beat any GOP the numbers don't really boost her electability perception at all and narrowly boost her in some way on this point, seemingly, over her rivals.

Still, this kind of movement or perception is what she has to do, and hopefully on substance to actually erase the underlying negativity come the real November.

Now if it was "my" candidate getting this boost it would be extraordinary only if the percentage was way ahead of the contrary polling about the presumed frontrunner at this point. I wouldn't seize on them becuas I simply don't trust them or their significance except when so obvious you don't need the professionals in the first place.

On edit the above posting has some of my habitual confusion hallmarks. Simply stated this poll, as presented, doesn't mean much but is doing good work for Hillary on the selling level.

[gorekerrydreamticket]

47. Seems like your headline should be "41% of Democrats, 24% of All Voters" have highest confidence...

based on the article you posted.

[monmouth]

48. Hill comes with Bill, the others have nil......I kill me....

[lojasmo]

53. How'd that "electability" think work for Kerry?

[MethuenProgressive]

56. Not so good after adding Edwards to the ticket.

Should've been Kerry/Clark. That ticket would've won!