In order to make the thread relevant , how much higher are the other top tier democratic contenders favorability ratings than Rudy?. Without that comparison this thread is simply another shameless promotion of Hillary as the inevitable nominee instead of a balanced look at the FIELD of candidates that Democrats have to choose from.

You are not in the minority there are lots of Democrats and lots of voters who do not want Hillary shoved down their throats nor Bill back in the WH, despite his popularity.  Unfortunately, the media and sites like this continually push the Hillary talking points, without giving fair balance to her extraordinary negatives and their baggage from the 90's.

It is quite sad and unAmerican frankly.

Hey be polite to Eric and the host TPM. If you don't like their postings, don't come here.

I was polite and critical.

That's why this is a democracy we get to criticize the press, politicians and leaders.

Among the leading Democrats, Obama and

John Edwards have higher overall favorability ratings

than Clinton (64% and 61% respectively, among

voters who could rate them). Each of these

candidates also has far greater political crossover

appeal than does Clinton. Two-thirds of independent

voters who were able to rate Obama (67%) have a

positive impression of

of him; 64% of independent

voters express a favorable view of Edwards. That

compares with Clinton’s 53% positive rating among

independent voters able to rate her.

Clinton also draws by far the lowest rating

from voters from the opposing party of any of the

candidates tested. Just 19% of GOP voters who can

rate Clinton express a favorable view of the New

York senator, while four times as many (81%)

express a negative opinion. Roughly four-in-ten

Republican voters (39%) able to rate Obama have a

favorable opinion of him, while Edwards gets a 33% rating among GOP voters.

Even Josh on the front page of  TPM got the right message on this Pew Survey. Kleefeld needs to bone up on his political analysis and offer up balanced commentary. If you don't like that criticism...tough.

JS, Eric is not the host of TPM...JoshMarshall is. It is presumptuous of you to tell a longstanding member what to post or where to go based on your short tenure as a member, not to mention it being rude.

It is acceptable at the site to make valid criticisms of any posts, including those of writers at Election Central.

On balance, WRB made a good point about the Pew Survey and it was in line with what Josh said on the front page of TPM.

shameless ? what do you call that? so what if you or anyone has been here longer. I am saying if you don't like their postings, go somewhere else.

It is a good comparison because both of them have national name recognition. Hillary being on the scene for 15 years is just as polarizing nationally as Rudy is in NY...so that is a wash.

A one point higher favorable rating over a slimeball still makes you slime.

You are not attacking people? you and others are attacking Hillary daily on this forum and recycling the same old talking points. You should be ashamed of yourself. I am no fan of her but everyday you and others recycle the same garbages.

We are getting free polling results here okay if you don't like the poll numbers don't attack Eric or Greg because they posted them for us to read.

Hillary if you have not noticed is the thread topic, not other posters.

Posters are making comments on poll results. You aren't. You are criticizing the poster and take issue with their factual rebuttals. You can read the polls whether others provide analysis or not. If everyone agreed there would be no need to have political sites on the left and right.

You,however, are making yourself an issue and corrupting the thread with a personal vent, that has nothing to do with the thread focus.

Engage the thread topic. Not some personal tangent. Stop corrupting the thread that is troll behavior. Poll numbers are generally attacked because they are not absolutes.

Hillary is the topic in numerous threads, and she is a politician. Americans are free to criticize politicians, their policies, their utterances, their personal behavior. That is what people do on a political site.

If you do not like how politics and a democracy works you might want to leave the country and go to a monarchy or dictatorship where criticism of views and leaders is not allowed.

Please focus on the thread topic and the content of the posts. Troll behavior is intolerable.

This favorable/unfavorable stuff is really not that hard to understand. The better known you are, the fewer respondents say "never heard of him" (which is not an answer a Presidential candidate wants). Thus, national icon type name recognition (like Clinton and Gore have) will have higher total favorables and unfavorables.

The favorables for Democrats are almost exclusively from Democrats respondentes. The unfavorables are almost exclusively from Republicans. Thus, Clinton has the highest favorables among Democrats and the highest unfavorables among Republicans. This means that she will always be somewhere around 50%/50%.

The difference for an Obama is that his somewhat lower favorables are offset by bylower unfavorables among Republicans, either because they "haven't heard of him" or because he hasn't been sliced and diced by the attacks.In either case, so what? Favorables from Republicans aren't going to translate to votes. Any Democrat counting on Republican votes to win the general election is simply naive.

I would put a finer distinction on the assumption you make that all Clinton's past has been scrutized [sic], investigated, slimed......

With respect to the years before she was a Senator, maybe your assumption is true. But, for the important years since she has been a Senator, that record is usually only mentioned in terms of her AUMF vote. There is lots of material to be brought into the sunshine about her past 6+ years......2.2 billion in earmarks, taking industry money to do 'fact-finding trips', to mention just two areas ripe for scrutiny.

Whether you are for Hillary or not, the real point that comes out of the Pew survey is that she starts out with a very, very large and clear weakness in the electorate as a whole as well as a clear appeal amongst Democrats. It's unclear whether or not the Rethugs can exploit that weakness effectively and thus steal the Presidency for the third time in as many such elections, but you can be damn sure they will do their best to exploit it and morph the existing negativity into a smoldering, stinking pile of filth big enough to get voters to dislike her more than their own candidate. Remember, that is how they win all their elections anyway--not by running a strong campaign of their own but by emphasizing the destruction of the Democrat, driving their negatives as high as possible to create cover for an inferior but seemingly less objectionable Republican candidate to win.

Strategically speaking, I think unless the Democrats blunder a great deal more than usual, the next President will be a Democrat so it is unlikely (but possible) that if nominated, Hillary might lose in November. But with a candidate who has so little room for growth in the electorate given the staunch Republican hatred of her and the reluctance of a large number of Independents toward her candidacy from the start, it means that nominating Hillary could mean that while we likely will have a successful year in 08, with another nominee, without the heavy baggage she carries with her, 08 could be 1964 redux. The Pew Poll seems to indicate that Edwards is the candidate best suited to lead to certain victory and perhaps a massive victory for Democrats in November 08.

Remember, that is how they win all their elections anyway--not by running a strong campaign of their own but by emphasizing the destruction of the Democrat, driving their negatives as high as possible to create cover for an inferior but seemingly less objectionable Republican candidate to win.

Agree. But what makes people think Obama or some other Democrat will be immune to the GOP slime machine? What makes them think after millions in attack ads and swiftboat dirty tricks some other Dem candidate will come up smelling roses with low negatives? Both Gore and Kerry ended up with high negatives on election day.

Obama supporters seem to think he has some mystical  powers that will make him immune to GOP attacks. It is nothing more than wishful thinking.

But what makes people think Obama or some other Democrat will be immune to the GOP slime machine?

Edwards would get clobbered by the Republican Noise Machine. We already know their game plan, because the RNC uses the attack points every day in their press releases. Their campaign will be to paint the Democrat as:

1) Big government
2) Higher taxes
3) Waving the white flag in the global war on terror

Not only has Edwards done nothing to innoculate himself against this framing, he's walked right into it leading with his chin.

A good fighter studies his or her opponent, understands what kind of punches to expect, and tailors the strategy to defend and counter those attacks.

But . . . But . . . But . . .

Guliani in a dress is more popular the Clinton outta drag . . .

Corporate media types are reportting the sound bites that they want us to hear/read AND TPM is warning us so smart folks can be aware and have info to counter act the corporate media nonsense.

AND YES . . . TPM needs to report the statistical facts that Clinton may not be the best Democratic candidate (although it can be argued that she is the best Republican in the race).

Edwards and Kucinich (and Obama too after he chimes in two to five days later) all are better choices.

Clinton, the DLC and the RNC are attacking us daily . . . Turn about is fair play . . . No matter what Bill O'Reily says.

Eric actually raises an interesting question, is it more relavent to count only those who offer an opinion or to compare the entire data set. I mean the 11% of people who have still never heard of John McCain or Rudy Giuliani aren't likely to vote.

If I had the raw data, I'd throw out those respondents for every candidate just to see what the apples to apples numbers look like.

That's a kind of unique way of looking at it. I hope you're right. The problem is that there is a huge block against Hillary from the jump. That means Republican victory could (theoretically) be built upon simply convincing the requisite small number of voters required to defeat her that she is actually the greater of two evils. If I were a Republican consultant or strategist, I would choose to go up against her if I could simply because of that strategic consideration. Also, the Herculean battle to fend off the Republican onslaught potentially causes a major distraction away from attacking the Republican record of corruption and misrule to defense of Hillary, thus reducing Republican losses even in the event of her election. All this should, I think, at least give our side pause before leaping out in front for Hillary. But, as I said above, our team is likely to be victorious in any event even if they screw it up as usual. I'd just like to see our side smash them to bits for once instead of eeking out a victory. But, c'est la vie, eh?

Dear Eric,

Boring headline. Boring topic.

True enough.

Maybe Eric could be induced to put forward a more meaningful question.

Should the two leading candidates for Democratic and Republican nominations succeed, which will be the doppleganger?

In solidarity with the Clintonoids, I vote for Julie but it is a close call that could use philosophical discussion.

Best, Terry