Clinton leads little-known Brownback by 5 points (10 points worse than Obama)

[draft_mario_cuomo]

Clinton 46%
Brownback 41%

In contrast, Obama leads Brownback by 15%.

How can this be? How can someone with 99% name ID barely be ahead of a little-known, very right-wing Kansas senator? The answer lies in Hillary's unfavorables. She is viewed as unfavorable by 50% of people in this poll and favorable by only 48%, a net deficit of 2 points (another poll found that 50% of Americans rule out ever voting for her). In contrast, Obama is +18 on favorability/unfavorability and Edwards is +22.

How long will we continue to ignore the evidence of Hillary Clinton's weakness in a general election? Will we wait until November of 2009 when we look up at the tv screen and see a sea of red?

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Presidential%20Match-Ups/2008DemocraticPresidentialMatchups.htm

[Deep13]

1. Yeah, I'm afraid that tiny fraction of people undecided about her...

...gives her very little room to manuever. All the cash she is raising will do little to sway people who have made up their minds. After awhile people just stop noticing the ads.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

3. I'm not afraid. Relieved, more like it.

I am glad she is in the race for one reason - she acts like a lighting rod for the GOP candidates who waste time and money wondering how to deal with her, while they ignore the real Dem. candidate.

[mikelgb]

46. bingo

[Mz Pip]

2. Fred Thompson

hasn't even announced yet and he is beating Hillary in this poll.

Still, it's 9 months until the first primary and a lot can change.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

4. Edwards beats him by 14, Obama beats FT by 12

You make a good point. If someome can come straight from TV and beat Hillary Clinton how weak a candidate is she?

Things with HRC will not change. She has been in the spotlight for a decade and a half. The public has seen much of her--and many people have concluded they do not like what they see. She will not be able to convince people who made up their mind about her over 15 years to vote for her in a few months. She is a very weak candidate. Will we realize it in time?

[Mz Pip]

6. It will be interesting to see

if Hillary can change any minds. In the general election she'll have to win over some Republicans, Independents and disgruntled Democrats. She's got her work cut out for her.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[BlueManDude]

5. I'll never forgive her for inclicting herself on the party like this

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

7. First, where is this poll that found that

50% of Americans rule out ever voting for her? Is that likely voters? Registered voters? Or is it "Americans" like you wrote?

Second, this poll by rasmussen has a plus/minus of 4, so it could be Clinton 50 & brownback at 37. That still gives us a total of 87 (same as the original poll) which leaves a hell of a lot undecided.

Third, who knows brownback? When voters/likely voters/Americans get to know him only the extreme right will like what they see.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

8. The poll was posted a few weeks ago

Yes, you are right. No one knows Brownback. That is the point. Even against a blank slate Hillary struggles. You could put HRC up against "John Smith" and she would still struggle to break out of the 40's. The fact is that many people dislike her and will never vote for her. We ignore this at our peril.

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

12. And by the same token, when people get to know

brownback they will dislike him & won't vote for him.

We could go 'round & 'round.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

14. Brownback is irrelevant

He has no shot. This poll is significant because of what it says about Clinton, not Brownback. It is not by any means a show of strength for him. Even a generic "John Smith" could do well against a candidate like Hillary Clinton or Newt Gingrich.

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

20. As I said, we could go 'round & 'round.

A generic "john smith" could do well against Clinton until voters got to know him. Then voters could very well decided that Clinton is the better choice.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

23. Yes, but a generic "John Smith" would not do well against Edwards or Obama

That is the point. There is not as much unshakable opposition to them as there is towards HRC.

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

24. Well, now you're saying that

it's 'unshakable opposition'. I don't find that in this one itty bitty poll.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

26. 46-50% say they will definately vote against HRC

Only Gingrich comes close to that.

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

27. Where is this poll?

Before I buy off on it I want to see at least one poll (preferably two or three) that says that 46 to 50% will not vote for HRC under any circumstances & no matter who the opponent.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

30. Here you go

50%: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=744
47%: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/19/poll.presidential/

Rassmussen's figure is 46%, it is somewhere on the site.

You can probably find other polls via this Google search: http://www.google.com/search?q=poll+would+not+vote+for+Clinton&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

The Harris poll goes further into why so many people dislike HRC.

People, barely, prefer he track record as a Senator 42-38 and as First Lady 48-41 (in stark contrast to the sky high favorable rating Laura Bush has...). Her surprisingly weak rating for her tenure as First Lady, a position whose occupants are almost always popular, suggests she gets a bum rap. The question is why? Harris provides some answers:

"Besides her track records and politics, there are other reasons why so many people do not like Senator Clinton. Fully half (52%) agree that she does not appear to connect with people on a personal level, and this number is even higher among married women (53%), men (56%), Matures (68%), and, of course, Republicans (73%). This may be her big problem.

There is also an issue with things that happened during the Bill Clinton presidency. A plurality (45%) agrees that it is difficult to trust her because of Whitewater and other scandals in the Clinton White House, while 42 percent disagree. Similar numbers (44%) agree that her handling of health care in the White House raises questions about her ability and 34 percent disagree."

She is not trusted by many and has trouble connecting to voters. These are very fundamental problems for a presidential candidate. Anyone who watched her disply in Selma can see why she has trouble connecting with voters. She comes across as fake and scripted without any core principles.

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=744

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

33. The Harris poll is in online survey which makes it

worthless IMO.

This online survey is not based on a probability sample and therefore no theoretical sampling error can be calculated.

The CNN poll was also done by Harris.

Regarding potential Democratic candidates, 47 percent of respondents said they would "definitely not vote for" both Clinton, the junior senator from New York who is running for re-election this year, and Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the party's candidate in 2004.

But in the same poll we have this:

Among all choices, Clinton had the highest positive number; of those polled, 22 percent said they would "definitely vote for" her.

Giuliani was next with 19 percent, followed by Gore with 17 percent, Kerry with 14 percent, McCain with 12 percent and Bush at 9 percent.

This telephone poll of 1,001 adult Americans was conducted June 1-6 by Harris Interactive for CNN. The poll had a sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

35. The other Harris poll was a telephone poll

Is there any poll that shows HRC's "definately not voting for" number lower than the 46-50% range? I am sure HRC fans would find such a poll if one existed showing her competitive with the other major contenders on this measure...

[rinsd]

40. Learn to read your own sources

"Is there any poll that shows HRC's "definately not voting for" number lower than the 46-50% range?"

The total for "I definitely would not vote for her" is 39%. The "I probably will not vote for her" is 11%.

"I am sure HRC fans would find such a poll if one existed showing her competitive with the other major contenders on this measure..."

How about these polls showing Clinton with enormous leads in two very important Super-Tues states?

http://www.catskillsnews.com/News/QuinPoll-06Apr07.html

http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/04/clinton_leads_i.html

[draft_mario_cuomo]

43. Semantics

I made a mistake with word choice but the point remains uncontested by the evidence: the level of hostility to voting for HRC is unrivaled by anyone else running for president. What do you think the comparable numbers are for Edwards, Obama--and more importantly, Giuliani, McCain, Romney, and Thompson?

She may very well win the nomination. That is not disputed. What is in dispute is her chances in a general election. She may be another Dukakis against Giuliani.

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

44. Here's one from rasmussen. FWIW which isn't much IMO, but....

Giuliani has seen his poll numbers decline on several fronts in recent weeks. While he remains the frontrunner in polls for the GOP nomination, his support fell nine percentage points in a week when Fred Thompson’s name was added. Additionally, Giuliani has lost his leads over New York Senator Hillary Clinton and Illinois Senator Barack Obama. His favorables have tumbled from 71% in December to 58% today. Giuliani stumbled in a television interview recently and suggested his wife might be an advisor at Cabinet meetings. He also repeated his support for public funding of abortions, a position not likely to help his cause in a GOP primary.

http://rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Presidential%20Match-Ups/April%202007/Edwardsvs.ThompsonGiuliani20070409.htm

(the same plus/minus 4%)

[Czolgosz]

9. It's way too early for such national polling to have any real meaning, but these numbers ought to

throw a little cold water on all the "Oh My God! That Fred Thompson Guy From 'Curly Sue' Will Kill Us!!!" nonsense:



HILLARY CLINTON

48% Favorable;
50% Unfavorable

Matchup History

Hillary Clinton (D) 46%
Sam Brownback (R) 41%

Hillary Clinton (D) 47%
John McCain (R) 46%

Hillary Clinton (D) 50%
Newt Gingrich (R) 43%

Hillary Clinton (D) 50%
Mitt Romney (R) 41%

Hillary Clinton (D) 47%
Rudy Giuliani (R) 48%

Hillary Clinton (D) 43%
Fred Thompson (R) 44%

Hillary Clinton (D) 48%
Chuck Hagel (R) 40%





JOHN EDWARDS

57% Favorable;
35% Unfavorable

Matchup History

John Edwards (D) 49%
Rudy Giuliani (R) 43%

John Edwards (D) 55%
Mitt Romney (R) 29%

John Edwards (D) 50%
Mike Huckabee (R) 33%

John Edwards (D) 50%
Fred Thompson (R) 36%

John Edwards (D) 47%
John McCain (R) 38%




BARACK OBAMA

54% Favorable;
36% Unfavorable

Matchup History

Barack Obama (D) 49%
Sam Brownback (R) 34%

Barack Obama (D) 52%
Mike Huckabee (R) 32%

Barack Obama (D) 48%
Newt Gingrich (R) 38%

Barack Obama (D) 44%
John McCain (R) 44%

Barack Obama (D) 43%
Rudy Giuliani (R) 44%

Barack Obama (D) 51%
Mitt Romney (R) 36%

Barack Obama (D) 50%
Chuck Hagel (R) 34%

Barack Obama (R) 49%
Fred Thompson (D) 37%

Source: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Presidential%20Match-Ups/2008DemocraticPresidentialMatchups.htm

[Alamom]

10. Survey of 800 Likely Voters

:eyes:

The national telephone survey of 800 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 4 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

11. Poll after poll after poll shows the same thing with HRC

[tritsofme]

13. And?

If a sample is sufficiently random, nothing is wrong with a poll of 800.

[SaveElmer]

15. But, but, but I thought polls didn't matter....

At least this is what I was told time and time again when Hillary was consistently besting all comers...Republican and Democrat...course she still is besting all Democrats...

Now of course when a poll or two goes against her, they are treated like gospel sent from on high...

And, Rassmussen is the only pollster who has polled on this race, this particular poll is over a month old, and given the margin of error could well be 51-37 Hillary...which would make more sense as that is what she consistently beats Romney by about that margin in all the polls I have seen...hard to believe Brownback outpolls Romney...

[draft_mario_cuomo]

17. Romney vs. HRC and Romney vs. Obama, Edwards

You are right, HRC does beat Romney but you left out the rest of the story.

Clinton: 50%
Romney: 41%
Net: Clinton +9

Edwards: 55%
Romney: 29%
Net: Edwards by 26 points

Obama: 51%
Romney: 36%
Net: Obama +15

Different Republican, same story...

According to this, Hillary is a whopping 17 points worse against Romney than John Edwards.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Presidential%20Match-Ups/2008PresidentialMatchups.htm

[SaveElmer]

19. Which bolsters my point...

Rasmussen is way out of line with other polls....and even here Brownback outperforming Romney...?

Doesn't seem likely

[draft_mario_cuomo]

22. Perhaps

Few, if any other, organizations have done head-to-head polls involving Sam Brownback, though. Brownback vs. Clinton is the closet thing we can have to "blank slate John Smith" vs Clinton.

Here are the averages from realclear politics from several polls:

Giuliani: 47.5
Clinton: 43.7

Giuliani: 45.3
Edwards: 44.7

Giuliani: 45.2
Obama: 42.2

McCain: 47
Clinton: 44

Edwards: 43.6
McCain: 43.0

McCain: 44.5
Obama: 43.5

Clinton: 50.3
Romney: 37
Net: +13.3

Edwards: 52
Romney: 30.8
Net: +21.2

Obama: 52.3
Romney: 32
Net: +20.3

Some of the polls included in the RCP average are over a month old. They do not take into account the Edwards and Romney surges, McCain's freefall, and Giuliani's recent troubles. Rassmussen is the latest and gives us the best snapshot of how the race stands given recent events. Still, the totality of polls consistently show HRC as the weakest candidate, Edwards as the strongest, and Obama ping-ponging from being closer to HRC or Edwards depending on the given poll.

The most telling of these averages are the Romney numbers. He is by far the least well-known of the three main Republican contenders. yet he is seven points closer to HRC than Obama and 8 points closer to HRC than Edwards. Against Edwards he barely reaches 30%. What does this say? It lends more credence to the argument that there is more unshakable opposition to HRC than the other major candidates. Romney, who was still virtually unknown when these polls were taken manages to crack 37% against HRC--which suggests that he retains all of the Republican base against her. Against Edwards and Obama more Republicans are willing to contemplate voting Democratic.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

[AX10]

16. 40% of the population will vote Republican and 40% Democratic.

I'm not suprised to see Brownshirt get this much. It's the 40% GOP electoral base.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

18. True

The question is whether we have a candidate that can go beyond the low 40's. We need a candidate who can do well among the 20% of the electorate that will decide the election. We cannot afford four more years of Republican rule.

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

21. And in the mid term elections Independants &

moderate repugs turned away from repugs in record numbers. What make you think they'll go back to a hard-righter (who will most likely be chosen during the primaries)

[draft_mario_cuomo]

25. Two words: Hillary Clinton

For whatever reason, many people simply do not like her. She has the worst unfavorables of anyone who is running for president.

Unfavorables

Clinton II: 50%
Biden: 35%
Clark: 28%
Dodd: 32%
Edwards: 35%
Kucinich: 33%
Obama: 36%
Richardson: 27%

Brownback: 38%
Gingrich: 48%
Giuliani: 38%
Hagel: 37%
Huckabee: 32%
Hunter: 25%
McCain: 39%
Romney: 37%
Tancredo: 26%
F. Thompson: 27%

Obviously some of these candidates have relatively low unfavorables because they are not well known by the general public. However, there are a few candidates who are as well-known as HRC. None of them comse close to HRC, with Giuliani and McCain 12 and 11 points better on this measure respectively than HRC and John Edwards 15 points ahead of her.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Favorables/Favorables.htm
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Favorables/RepublicanPresidentialCandidates.htm

Once again, the same thing is shown: there is more automatic hostility to HRC than any other candidate for president.

[SaveElmer]

28. Diageo pegs her fav/not fav at 52-41...

Here...

http://www.diageohotlinepoll.com/07_Mar_Data.pdf

Also shows her as the favorite among all candidates...

Rasmussen is virtually always the outlier in these polls...


Also useful to point out that in the midst of the 1992 campaign Bill Clinton had negatives at 47% and Gore at 43% in the 2000 campaign...both were lowered significantly as the campaign went forward...

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

29. Thank you.

I wonder what Sen. Clinton's negatives were during first campaign running for Senator. Seems like the word was that she would never be elected. NYC would vote for her, but forget upstate.

[rinsd]

31. Gore's negatives are still rather high which I find strange to say the least (nt)

[KingofNewOrleans]

36. People hate to admit they were wrong

Sure, quite a few people have come to grips with Bush being a total failure, but then to acknowledge that Gore would have been and would be a good President, that's like admitting to a double error.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

32. You left out the rest of the story again: HRC much worse than any other candidate

That poll had her unfavorables at 41%. The same poll showed Edwards' unfavorable rating at 23%, Giuliani and McCain at 27%, Obama at 22%, and Romney at 17% (whose unfavorables are lower due to low name ID).

Once again a poll shows HRC with far higher unfavorables than the rest of the field. Do we want to start at 41% and attempt to reduce that or start at 23% and 22% and seek to lower those already low numbers?

[SaveElmer]

34. Let me ask you a couple questions...

1. Do you believe polls are predictive of final outcome?

2. Why is how she does relative to other candidates relevant to her supporters?

3. Do you believe one should choose their candidate on the basis of polls this far out?


Note: I did not leave out the most important part. To me the most important part was to show a.) her negatives are consistently higher in Rasmussen polls than in virtually all other polls...and b.)Her negatives are not out of line with other candidates who have run and won the Presidency...

[draft_mario_cuomo]

37. What about the other candidates?

Yes, her negatives are higher in the Rassmussen poll than in other polls--but that holds true for every other candidate as well. Why did you leave that fact out? The truth is her unfavorables are substantially higher than anyone running for president. The particular numbers for the candidates vary based on the poll but HRC's high unfavorables relative to the field are shown in poll after poll.

We cannot afford four more years of Republican rule. To conciously cede votes to Republicans by nominating a weak candidate we are taking a risk that will likely come at the price of much pain and suffering under four years of President Giuliani, President Romney, or President Thompson. To ignore the high level of hostility to HRC is very naive and dangerous. We should factor this in when deciding who to nominate next year. Let's look past the last name.

[SaveElmer]

49. Because that was not the point I was trying to make...

My point was that her negatives are well within what has been seen before in winning Presidential candidates....

My questions was...do you believe that polls this far out are predictive of final outcome?

Do you believe people should decide who to support based on polls this far out?

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

38. I think you've got it backwards, with all due respect.

Candidates unfavorables go up the more that is known about them. So the other candidates could only go up.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

39. SaveElmert disagrees

I was simply accepting his or her premise.

Edwards and McCain are as well-known as HRC. Giuliani has similar name ID but people know less about him and his record than they do with the Edwards, McCain, and HRC. The jury is in for these three and substantially more people dislike HRC than Edwards and McCain.

[rinsd]

41. And yet Clinton beats both McCain or Edwards head to head.

Her unfavorable rating is neither a mountain nor a molehill.

[rinsd]

42. And yet Clinton beats both McCain or Edwards head to head.

Her unfavorable rating is neither a mountain nor a molehill.

[jsamuel]

45. not true, in same poll Edwards leads Romney 55% to 29%

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/9/164528/2571

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

47. Welcome to DU. BTW, if you want to "prove" that Sen. Clinton should not be our candidate,

linking to an online poll may not be the most credible appraoch.

:hi: MKJ

[w4rma]

48. I dont understand why anyone on DU is even acting surprised that her polling sucks in the general.nt