« Another Iraq Vet Steps Up To Challenge GOP Rep. Roskam | Home | GOP Candidates Flaunt Their Family Values Today Before Tough Audience »
Poll: Hillary Does Okay In Ohio, But It Could Be Close
A new SurveyUSA poll of Ohio shows Hillary Clinton generally doing well against the Republicans, but also that a race against either Rudy Giuliani or John McCain could be very close:
Clinton (D) 47%, Giuliani (R) 45%
Clinton (D) 49%, Thompson (R) 43%
Clinton (D) 50%, Romney (R) 41%
Clinton (D) 53%, Huckabee (R) 37%
Clinton (D) 46%, McCain (R) 46%
Clinton (D) 52%, Paul (R) 35%
Gore (D) 49%, Giuliani (R) 45%
Advertisement
I suspect this is another of those inconclusive Rorschach polls, i.e., Hillary's detractors will say this is proof that she's "unelectable" while her supporters will say it's better than any other Dem candidate would do.
October 19, 2007 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see where Al Gore does even better then Hilalry against Giuliani. Sure think he needs to get into the race. Give Hillary some competetion.
Coonsey's View is looking for one or two folks to volunteer articles/columns once in awhile to it's site.
If interested go to http://www.freewebs.com/coonsey/ and SEND POST. Be sure to give a title and name (at this time - your real name or a fake handle) for the column.
You can also create your own Forum under already specified Topics.
We welcome you all.
October 19, 2007 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
It says little about "electability" but a lot about the fact that the Dems will need to unite to avoid another heart-breaking defeat, no matter who they nominate. I do not know how the other candidates do in head-to-head match ups, but if HRC does better than they do, then it would be foolish to try to make the case that she is unelectability...my sense is we're now way beyond that with HRC. It is Obama , in particular, who needs to make a case for his electability in 2007-2008 America...
October 19, 2007 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Clinton Experience
1. Sponsor Great Health Care Debacle 1993
2. Co-Sponsor Greatest Strategic Disaster in US History 2002-2006
3. Madam, Lincoln Bedroom 1993-2001
An unlikely treasure-trove of donors for Clinton
Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-donors19oct19,0,4231217.story?coll=la-home-center
The candidate's unparalleled fundraising success relies largely on the least-affluent residents of New York's Chinatown -- some of whom can't be tracked down. >>
October 19, 2007 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was wondering where the mrs. bill staffers were. What is her position on immunity for telecon companies for violating our civil rights? Does she have a position? Or is it more mush.
October 19, 2007 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just another waste of time...
The race hasn't even been run yet, so these polls are pointless.
October 19, 2007 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
As usual, the truth is that these polls aren't strongly predictive of what would happen in Ohio in November of 2008 given these various purely hypothetical matchups, so they really don't provide much useful information about the candidate's "electability".
Of course that cuts both ways: it is entirely possible Huckabee would beat Clinton, but also that Clinton would win handily against Giuliani. Again, people who try to make predictions using these polls are just deceiving themselves.
October 19, 2007 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Remember that a poll from Kentucky two days ago had Clinton up against Giuliani and McCain! So anything could happen, and Clinton looks good.
October 19, 2007 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Paul and Huckabee both have a name recognition problem. Glad to see this poll is treating them equally.
October 19, 2007 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ohio is the dems to lose. the state made a wild swing from a slightly republican state in 2004, to a slightly dem state in 2006. a large part of that was the african american vote which tends to vote republican more than other states aside from the obvious republican scandals ... Hillary should strengthen that vote which would make it very difficult for a republican to carry the now light blue state.
also in Arkansas she has a 30 point lead among women. that is montrous. with those 2 states locked up the republicans have virtually no way of winning in '08.
unless they somehow manage to win in the upper midwest (which wont happen)
October 19, 2007 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
disagree with DTM. these polls are important.
it shows that people want a change and they are much more likely to vote democratic this time around.
Hillary's approval rating is now +12 according to gallup.. a year ago they were -2.
she is doing a good job of molding herself as a very strong candidate and a winner. and once she starts winning primaries handily dems and indies will start lineing up behind her.
October 19, 2007 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
That Familiar Clinton Stench
Krugman
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/opinion/19krugman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
October 19, 2007 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have an honest question. I am an Obama supporter and I have been less than thrilled with his recent campaigning- I wish he would get out there and do more. He is up against the "inevitability" of Hillary- but I honestly don't get it. I don't know ANYONE who is for Hillary. Not a soul. I don't know any women who like her or who do not find something abrasive about her (I am a woman). Yet every poll seems to suggest she has tons of supporters. But who are they? And is there something odd or off with the polling? Is this still name recognition? Or has she really shed all the baggage? I will campaign and vote for whomever wins the nomination- I just really don't want it to be Hillary.
October 19, 2007 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Golux:
What circles do you travel in? If as I do you hang with liberal white families with small children, heavy on academes, you'll find very few Hillary supporters (I'm the only Hillary supporter in my circle, the rest are all Obama fans).
Bottom line, people who spend a lot of time on political blogs are not the Clinton campaign's target market at all. It is, however, Obama's.
Which numbers would you take in a fight?
October 19, 2007 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this survey is entirely meaningless. 500 registered voters???? C'mon !! Dissecting this survey is just a mind exercise for political wonks. Ohio is nowhere near decided. You will get radical swings in polling data from one county to the next here in this state. It is very fragmented politically. This state is very winnable for Democrats, especially given the current political climate. The Republican brand name is withering in much of rural Ohio. And that is what the Republicans depend on for their victories here.
October 19, 2007 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jim:
I am actually not interested in a fight- and I know enough about surveys to assume that this many surveys are probably on to something (being a white liberal woman heavy on the academes myself). Still, there was polling data not too many years ago with incredibly high negatives for her and I am surprised they have disappeared. Out of curiosity- why do you back her? I think she is smart and capable and would make a good president- but I think Obama would be better and would be better for the country (would he happy to elaborate as to why) but I am interested in why she has your loyalty.
-
October 19, 2007 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
demwinger, I respectfully disagree. Hillary has a shot at the nomination, but it's a shot and not an overwhelming crush of her opponents. We don't even know if past history can be a guide since voters may want to choose in their own primary and not just follow the conclusions reached in the first four primary elections.
I'm simply not finding the level of support these polls indicate as I knock the doors in my neighborhood. My ward went for Bush twice; and McCaskill, a Dem, by 56% in November 2006. The winds have changed but I find few Hillary supporters, slightly more Obama supporters, and a whole big batch of undecideds. My neighborhood is a good mix of age groups and economic levels.
I simply cannot find the Hillary support that these polls suggest--even here in Missouri. Shrug.
Just some advice--take these polls with a HUGE grain of salt.
October 19, 2007 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
demwinger,
It is important to distinguish what polls in general can do (which is report information about what people are thinking right now) and what they in general cannot do (which is predict the future months in advance). So it is not that these polls are unimportant or meaningless. It is just that they cannot do what so many people want them to be able to do, which is predict what will happen in November of 2008.
TheGolux,
Generally polls at this stage of the campaign cycle are subject to a strong bandwagon effect, meaning they tend to reflect people's general impression of who is likely to win. Most people will not actually make up their mind about who to support until a few days before the relevant caucus or primary (and early results will affect later primaries).
October 19, 2007 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Golux --
I support Hillary for two main reasons:
1) I have two daughters and I think it would be fantastic for them to see a woman, a woman Democrat specifically, be elected president. I realize this is considered a laughably juvenile opinion in the blogosphere, but I guarantee you millions of other people feel the way I do(which goes back to your original question of who supports Hillary). Many, many more people in fact than the number who regularly post on political blogs of any viewpoint.
2) I honestly think she's the strongest candidate in the entire field of either party. By "strongest" I don't mean "most likely to win" but actually the strongest, most confident and capable leader who knows not only why she wants the job but also knows the limitations of the job.
I understand the allegations of her being too close to shady funders, big corporations, etc. I don't discount any of that, but the historical record shows that the Kennedys also fought dirty, and I (and possibly many people here) still admire them greatly.
I guess I have a more cynical attitude toward the inside baseball of politics; I'm not asking for a saint. Like boxing or show biz, it's really not a profession for the saintly at any level.
October 19, 2007 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post. Short, no fluff and to the point.
Th fact that you are not looking for a "Saint" makes you a realist. Those who rant about Hillary and everything under the sun in these forums believe in ideological "purity"... I just have a word of caution for them: Beware what you ask for because you might get it: It is called George W. Bush. Remember him? He was the upstanding guy, who would clean up Washington... and look at what we got... An ideologically pure POTUS would have to government from outside of the mainstream of America and would thus very polarizing: That is GWB for ya. For all the talk about HRC being "polarizing", it is hogwash: The so-called 'polarization' can be attributed to the great divide between, one hand, a minority that makes up the "vast far right wing conspiracy" that's been after HRC forever, and the the far left's quest for ideological "purity" that makes them view HRC as a Republican Fifth Column among the 'Progressives' and can never be trusted. But HRC is a solid left of center Dem who has espoused 'progressive' ideals for a long time and this does not deserve the venom that is directed at her by her detractors. She'll govern from the center and, as a result, will be an effective POTUS, a true "uniter and not a divider"...
October 19, 2007 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jim:
I too, have a daughter. I also remember my parents waking me to see Geraldine Ferraro get the VP nomination. I want all doors open to my daughter. Still, I must confess, there is a part of my feminist soul that would rather see a woman like Madeline Albright, Barabara Boxer or even Condoleeza Rice as the first woman president- a woman who devoted her life to the public sector and got the nomination on her own merit and not because of who her husband was- and the truth is- there would never have been a Senator Hillary Clinton or a presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, had it not been for her husband Bill. Which is not to say that I don't think she is smart and capable and good at her job- it's the way she got it that irks me...
I worry about Hillary's judgment- I think she has made terrible choices in the past and she, like the current president, has been unable to admit her mistakes. I would like her to trust the American public enough that we could handle an adult- "I made a mistake" response.
I also must say that I think the part of me that resonates with her rhetoric is not my better part. I think both she and Obama will compromise in office- that they know it is part of the job- and I believe that to be true and important. What bothers me is that Hillary can come out with the same proposal as Obama and yet she sounds angry and he strikes a note of unity. I think we might as a country be able to become less polarized if our rhetoric were not so polarizing (note: I do not think that Obama and HRC will govern in substantially different ways- I just think he brings something new and a new tenor, and I feel we need that.)
I do think that politics can be dirty and that saints need not apply (I have been frustrated that Obama will not play a little harder_ I am from the great state of MA and we know that the Kennedy's can get things done. But I also know the danger of political dynasties- I'd like some new blood- before the pool gets to shallow Jenna runs for president!
But thanks for your input. I know the Blogosphere does not represent the world accurately- so it is great to hear rational discourse as a corrective.
October 19, 2007 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink