Most Democrats Give Hillary Good Marks So Far, but Only 42% Want Her to Be Obama’s VP

[Hope And Change]

Most Democrats Give Hillary Good Marks So Far, but Only 42% Want Her to Be Obama’s Running Mate

Wednesday, August 06, 2008

With Hillary Clinton scheduled to make her first solo campaign appearance for Barack Obama this Friday, more than seven out of 10 Democrats (72%) rate her conduct as good or excellent since dropping out of the presidential race. Sixty percent (60%) of all voters agree.

But a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 43% of Democrats still say Obama should not pick Clinton to be his vice presidential running mate, although nearly the same number (42%) think she should be on the ticket. When likely Obama voters are asked, 40% favor choosing her, but 46% are opposed.

Voters overall say no to a Clinton vice presidential selection 50% to 31%.

In early June, just after Obama secured enough delegates to get his party’s nomination, 51% of Democrats polled by Rasmussen Reports thought Obama should choose her as his running mate.

The new survey also finds that 63% of Democrats – and 62% of all voters -- think it is likely that Clinton will run for president in 2012 if Obama loses this November.


more...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/most_democrats_give_hillary_good_marks_so_far_but_only_43_want_her_to_be_obama_s_running_mate

[writes3000]

1. Those numbers aren't good. But I don't trust Rasmussen at all.

It's all about what Obama's insider polling numbers say.

[highplainsdem]

2. And other polls have shown a majority of Dems wanting her on the ticket.

But even when you find a poll showing a bit less than half of Dems wanting her to be Obama's VP, I think it's a safe bet that no other possible VP choice is even close to being as popular.


The new survey also finds that 63% of Democrats – and 62% of all voters -- think it is likely that Clinton will run for president in 2012 if Obama loses this November.


I would hope so!

Especially since he's most likely to lose if he DOESN'T put her on the ticket -- he'll have chosen a path that led to defeat in the GE.

Why shouldn't she run again, if he chooses not to unite the party this year and that costs us the election?

[writes3000]

4. Do you intend to sound like you're cheerleading defeat for our nominee?

Cause that's what it feels like you're doing.

You post the same thing everyday. Cool. But it's getting starting to sound more and more like threats and wishful thinking (that Obama will lose.)

You want Clinton to be VP. Got it. If he doesn't pick Clinton, it is your speculation he could lose. Understood. It would be nice to feel like you wouldn't HOPE for that outcome.

It is indeed possible that Obama picks someone else for VP and he wins.

I just want him to win. The country and the world need it.

[highplainsdem]

7. I want Obama to win. I think his best chance of winning, the only close-to-certain chance, is with

Clinton as his VP. I believe that not just because she's a great politician but because of the polls.

FWIW, I'm not entirely sure her time wouldn't be better spent in the Senate than as his VP.

But I don't think we can be at all certain of winning without a unity ticket. I'd've wanted him as her VP if she'd been the nominee. It's been clear for months that we need a unity ticket. That was clear before the primaries ended.

[BklynChick]

5. lots of assumptions in there: he's choosing not to unite the party, he will lose if she's not on the

ticket. my god, let it go.

[highplainsdem]

9. Obama has seen the same polls we have, and he knows the party isn't united behind him.

Today's PPP Florida poll shows he's no longer leading McCain in Florida, is instead trailing by three points. He's lost support among Hispanics and older white females. Clinton's supporters.

Yesterday's Zogby poll was bad news, too, showing Obama's support among Democrats slipping to only 74%:

http://www.zogby.com/templates/printnews.cfm?id=1535

If Obama were consistently leading McCain by double-digits in the polls, he might be able to afford to ignore the edge that having Clinton on the ticket will give him. He might be able to ignore losing some of the Democrats who preferred her, in the hope of gaining more independents. But Zogby shows McCain now tied with Obama for the independent vote, and other polls have shown McCain getting more independents. Zogby shows Obama losing support among young voters, his most reliable bloc of support besides AA votes. And worse, young voters typically don't vote as reliably as the older voters whose support for the Democratic ticket would increase if Clinton were Obama's running mate.

If you want to pretend she didn't get approximately as many votes in the primaries as he did (supposedly more votes from registered Democrats, according to what I've read), and that the polls don't show she'd help him, go ahead and pretend. But closing your eyes and chanting about hope and change and affirming that you believe in Obama will NOT win this election for the Democrats.

A unity ticket will.

[writes3000]

10. "You can pretend that your point of view is valid. But it isn't. Only mine is." n/t

[highplainsdem]

14. The polls support what I'm saying. I would not be pointing out again and again that HRC would help

Obama win in November if there wasn't any data, both from the primaries and the polls, to back that up.

Even though he isn't the candidate I'd have wanted to be our nominee, I still want our party to win. If there was overwhelming evidence that another VP choice would help him more than Clinton, I'd be saying he should choose that person.

But the primary results and the polls suggest very strongly that the only VP pick who can unite the party is Clinton. They also suggest that Obama can't win if the party isn't united. There are more Democrats than Republicans, but that doesn't help if we aren't united.

I don't want to lose another election to a Republican we should have beaten.

[CakeGrrl]

13. If Democrats don't have the good sense to vote for the Democrat given what's at stake

That's not Obama's problem. It's stubborn voter stupidity.

There's nothing in his platform for a Democrat to oppose. So what's their problem?

[BklynChick]

3. I'm not concerned about Democrats, I'd be concerned about Republicans and Independents who would

otherwise vote for Obama but who wouldn't if she was on the ticket, not to mention how many more straight-up Republicans who would come out in droves to vote against a ticket with her on it (who might otherwise stay home).

[MonkeyFunk]

6. What do other potential vp candidates poll at?

[highplainsdem]

11. Divvy up the 43% of Dems who say they don't want HRC to be VP among ALL the other choices.

I'd be surprised if any of them would poll even 10%, compared to 42% for her.

No contest, if Obama wants to choose a VP who can unite a party that the polls are showing isn't united.

[rucky]

8. Is she a dealbreaker? Is any VP pick?

Not for me.

[Major Hogwash]

12. No doubt.

It seems that while they talk about unity and supporting Obama, Hillary says one thing, and Bubba says another.

But, that's the way those 2 have been for quite some time.

[CakeGrrl]

15. Overall voters say no 50% to 31%, which means

The Independents and crossover Repubs feel even more strongly about it. Those voters will be lost with Hillary on the ticket.

Personally, I think between she and Bill that they're fine with the perception of disunity and discord, despite what's being said.

They have the werewithal to suck it up and present a show of unity for the Dem nominee. There's nothing stopping them from leading by example. But they are not doing it. What's the holdup?

2012, in my opinion. They're trying to hold the Obama campaign by the short hairs. I think he should just name his non-Hillary VP pick, lance the wound, and press on with it.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

17. I want McCain to pick Jeffrey Dahmer. Should he factor in my view?

The poll includes at least 40% people who would not vote for Obama if he were running unopposed, and their views are irrelevant. Republicans are being polled as to whether they want someone they want to LOSE to pick Hillary.

It's not a poll of "would you be more likely to vote for...?"

It's a poll of "Do you want Obama to pick...?"

Since McCain plans to milk Hillary voters he obviously doesn't want her to be picked, so McCain would have voted "no."

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

16. What a strange poll.

An either/or question about a competition with a dozen candidates isn't very meaningful. It's like either-or polling in a crowded primary. Did Obama get most primary votes? I don't know. It was close and Edwards got a few, so it's possible nobody got 50% of all primary votes. But it wouldn't follow from that to say, "Most Dems don't want a candidate."

Half of Dems with an opinion think Clinton should be the VP. That has to be about the highest level of support a VP prospect has ever had. It also might be the highest level of antipathy a VP prospect has ever had.

It's not an easy thing to poll. If you offer a choice of five potentials Clinton would romp, but ask whether people don't want Clinton and it's 50-50. It's all in how you structure the poll.

And since she least popular with the strongest Obama supporters, the group that doesn't like her is the most likely to vote for Obama no matter who he picks. So among voters to whom the pick makes a practical voting difference she's way ahead.

Put another way, if you polled only Democrats who are not 100% CERTAIN to vote for Obama, Clinton would win that poll handily.

It's all about what you are trying to measure.

The only way a VP poll could be spot-on relevant would be if Obama announced, "It is down to these two people," then poll head-to-head.

[writes3000]

18. Thank you! You make several good points. I do not trust Rasmussen's framing of their questions.

You're absolutely right about needing to knock out those who will never vote for Obama.