Poll: Hillary Over 50% Against Rudy

Comments (45)

Daniel wrote on October 31, 2007 6:29 PM:

Make sure to check the polls internal numbers for they is a ton of fascinating stuff.

Seth H. wrote on October 31, 2007 6:44 PM:

Those sure are some interesting numbers. I'm not surprised at the percentage of female supporters, though I am surprised at those that "support Hillary" versus those that would be voting against a Republican president.

Allsburg wrote on October 31, 2007 6:53 PM:

The problem isn't Clinton's electability. The problem is a Clinton presidency.

Uh oh...I said something bad about Clinton. I better run away before dcshungu comes to ridicule me!

Seth H. wrote on October 31, 2007 6:57 PM:

I'm an Obama supporter but a Clinton attacker. If Clinton's on my ballot in a year, I'm voting for her. Admittedly, too, my lack of enthusiasm about Clinton is a large part of what surprised me about the polling numbers. Who are these people that are sooo passionate about Clinton? I don't think I know any personally.

Jake D. wrote on October 31, 2007 6:59 PM:

If President Bush's approval rating of 30% is "lousy" what is Speaker Pelosi's 35%?

dcshungu wrote on October 31, 2007 7:07 PM:

Daniel wrote on October 31, 2007 6:29 PM:

Make sure to check the polls internal numbers for they is a ton of fascinating stuff.

This Pew polls' "internals" do indeed paint a picture that's likely to further disturb Hillary's detractors, who hyperventilate daily about how she would be a "drag" on all the Dem candidates this election cycle because of her "high negatives." I have contended from Day One that that story line was a myth that has been perpetuated by a very small but very vocal and "polarizing" minority: the netroots, the wingnuts (left and right) and the MSM, who are very "passionate" folks and think that the whole world must surely feel and think the way they do. Daniel, I hope you do not mind my posting the following bullet point from Campaign Dairies that captures Hillary's strength:

Another very interesting finding is that 76% of Clinton backers say they are voting "for Hillary" rather than against the Republican (only 20). This is the highest affirmative vote a Democrats has obtained since Pew first asked the question in 1988. The previous high was 66% for Clinton in 1996. As a comparison, only 43% of Kerry voters were voting "for Kerry" in 2004. The reverse holds among Giuliani backers, where 46% are voting "for Giuliani" and 50% "against Clinton" -- once again a record of negative voting for GOPers since 1988. This underscores how much this race is about Hillary Clinton.

I think that it is Alka-Seltzer time for Hillary's detractors, especially since the Pew Polls are among the most credible. Note how their numbers for the nomination are almost identical to those in today's Q-poll.

Pew:
Clinton 45% Obama 24% Edwards 12%
Q-poll:
Clinton 47% Obama 21% Edwards 12%

The national numbers are different and I trying figure out why by looking for methodological differences and potential flaws, especially since the MOEs are about the same.

MonaL wrote on October 31, 2007 7:33 PM:

Allsburg:

You'd prefer a Rudy over a Hillary presidency?

Seth H.:

See that's the difference between us. I'm a Hillary supporter, but I don't have to attack any of the others. I love Obama, read both of his books, he's from my home state! But is he electable in the general? I don't think so...maybe in 2016. I'm sure Hillary is, and I didn't decide on her until very recently.

Congratulations on being able to vote for HRC come 11/08 though.

All of my dem friends are voting for HRC. And we all came to our decisions independently.

Anonymous wrote on October 31, 2007 7:37 PM:

What part of national polls are useless a year before a national election don't you understand, Eric?

Poll Tracker Central is pointless. Stop being like the MSM. You are supposed to be better than that.

Orwell's Intuition wrote on October 31, 2007 7:39 PM:

"Jake D. wrote on October 31, 2007 6:59 PM:

If President Bush's approval rating of 30% is "lousy" what is Speaker Pelosi's 35%?"

A reflection of her refusal to put impeachment on the table.

merryll wrote on October 31, 2007 7:41 PM:

How did Kucinich poll against Rudy?

Richard L. Adlof wrote on October 31, 2007 7:58 PM:

Clinton's numbers over Guiliani are no surprise . . . Clinton remains the single best Republican in their field. Add to that the fact that the corpse of Terry Schivo would make a better President than the next best Republican candidate (Guiliani).

The part of this that confounds me is Clinton's numbers against Democrats. Who are they asking about this? Where do these folk live?

The circles I run consistantly place Clinton as their third or fourth choice at best. I haven't had a conversation in four months were anyone chose her as their number one. Everyone states that they'll vote for her in November if she's the candidte, but . . .

Is the San Fernando Valley/Los Angeles that far outta whack with the nation? I'm saying that this is beyond two standard deviations . . .

audit the polls wrote on October 31, 2007 8:16 PM:

The Republicans OWN the polls.

dcshungu wrote on October 31, 2007 8:29 PM:

The part of this that confounds me is Clinton's numbers against Democrats. Who are they asking about this? Where do these folk live?

You just need to get out more, don't ya? Just going to the same local bar, where your ideological con padres hang out ain't gonna offer you a broad perspective of things, I'm sure of that. Who knows, you might even have a "revelation" out there about Clinton :-)

Jan wrote on October 31, 2007 8:40 PM:

Seth H, you said: "Who are these people that are sooo passionate about Clinton? I don't think I know any personally."

I want you to do an experiment. I want you to go somewhere where they talk casual politics and pretend to be an enthusiastic Clinton supporter. I think you will be shocked.

(If you can't act, don't try. But if you can pull it off, you will get the answer to your question.)

Most Clinton supporters just don't get into it with people who have already decided against her. The people who can't stand her are usually extremely irritating, nevermind uninformed, nevermind repeating the Rightwing Slime Machine Talking Points ad nauseum.

I think I literally speak for millions when I say that most of the time it's just a complete waste of our time to discuss our support of Senator Clinton with a Clinton Hater. If you can't stop being a Clinton Hater long enough to do this experiment, you will never be able to get an answer to your question. But if you can, imho, you will be enlightened.

gqmartinez wrote on October 31, 2007 8:40 PM:

I agree with dcshungu's last comment. Besides a few activist patches, at least half the people I know are supporting Clinton. Even in the activist patches, there is a groundswell of Clinton support. It's not hard at all to find a Clinton supporter.

I'll admit, Clinton was my second choice (to Wes Clark), but even then I had a hard time not supporting Clinton. She's been advocating for children and repressed and abused women her entire adult life and that demonstrates a commitment that is at least as great as any other candidate--I believe more so. Really, before microcreditors won Nobel Peace Prizes, Hillary Clinton was pushing microcredit to help women escape horrendous circumstances.

But whatever. Irrational Hillary Hating is not something that can be reasoned with.

Allsburg wrote on October 31, 2007 8:43 PM:

MonaL:

Of course I would prefer a Clinton presidency over a Giuliani presidency. I would also:

-Prefer being shot in the head to being electrocuted;

-Prefer losing my right leg to my right arm;

-Prefer that my son have diabetes than that he have polio;

-Prefer eating maggot-infested beef to eating well prepared human flesh.

Among the horrible things that could happen to me, my country, or this planet, I would clearly and definitively prefer a Clinton presidency over a Giuliani one.

But oh, what I would give for a President Richardson. Or even an Edwards or Obama.

Jan wrote on October 31, 2007 8:50 PM:

I see upon returning that my fellow Clinton supporters are saying the same thing...
If you openly support Senator Clinton, her supporters seem, to me at least, to be everywhere. I hardly know anyone, especially women, who are NOT supporting her.

I came back to say:
Seth H, I want to apologize for possibly implying that you are a Clinton Hater.
YOU seem like you want to know an honest answer.
I was explaining why Clinton supporters don't always speak up in a crowd.
Peace.

audiophileguy wrote on October 31, 2007 8:50 PM:

As time goes by and the electorate get a much more complete picture of Hillary, the polls will change considerably. There is still (fortunately) plenty of time for our nation to become familiar with the real Hillary. As the voting public begins to recognize that this is a poll-driven, triangulating, automaton responding without any genuine values, her poll numbers will begin to drop. America voted for change in 2006, but has been blocked at every juncture by the Bush/Cheney Administration and the pathetic Dem "leadership". In 2008, America will demand an authentic candidate who will work to change the many problems in Washington; Hillary is the least authentic of any candidate (with the possible exception of Romney, who could possibly tie Hillary in an inauthenticity contest).

Seth H. wrote on October 31, 2007 9:00 PM:

I just realized I made a pretty bad typo. I wrote "I'm an Obama supporter but a Clinton attacker." There should have, however, been a "not" behind "a Clinton attacker." I have no ill will toward her. My apologies and I hope that clarifies my perspective for those that read my comments with criticism of what I admittedly did write.

dcshungu wrote on October 31, 2007 9:06 PM:

audiophileguy wrote on October 31, 2007 8:50 PM:

As time goes by and the electorate get a much more complete picture of Hillary, the polls will change considerably. There is still (fortunately) plenty of time for our nation to become familiar with the real Hillary.

That is just it, my friend. The electorate does already know about Clinton. Have you noticed that in most head-t-head match up polls in which she sis one of the candidates, the % of undecided voters is usually in single digits (typically 6% in most SUSA polls)? Well, that is because people already do have an opinion about Clinton. Since she's already a known quantity, those who decide to support her do so in spite of her purported "high negatives." Their support is thus firmer, which we have seen in poll after poll. It is why I suspect that her poll numbers won't be adversely affected by whatever happened last night that seems to give her detractors hope for unhinging the juggernaut.

Blair Zarubick wrote on October 31, 2007 9:12 PM:

Hey Richard,
I live in Lynn Woolsey country and I don't know any Clinton supporters either. On the other hand, I know an un-naturally high # of Kucinich supporters and I have a close friend who has jumped on the Dodd "bandwagon".
I like Clinton best amongst the Republicans running this year,

fercryinoutloud wrote on October 31, 2007 9:18 PM:

One of the many reasons why I support Hillary is because she has enormous international standing. Bush & Cheney have gutted America's standing in the world exactly when we need to lead on global warming and to combat the rise of fundamentalist international terrorism. I like all of the Dem field quite a bit (except for Gravel, who is simply a crank), but none of them has the international experience and the world-wide respect that Hillary commands.

loki wrote on October 31, 2007 9:27 PM:

"But oh, what I would give for a President Richardson."

Allsburg,

What about Richardson is so desirable? His confusion over UFOs? His confusion over gays? His defense of Clinton in the debate?

loki wrote on October 31, 2007 9:28 PM:

dcshunga,

How do you get those solid boxes around your quotes?

Democrats Against Hillary wrote on October 31, 2007 9:31 PM:

Hillary was wrong on the #1 issue of our generation. She botched healthcare and Democrats haven't been able to touch it since because she basically threw salt into the field.

Her only asset is her last name. I will support her ENTHUSASTICALLY in the general election if she's nominated, but I find this coronation (of the spouse of the 2nd to last president, no less!) quite revolting.

None of the major candidates (edwards, Clinton, Obama) have any notable experience to mention. So we have to look at their judgement, their positions, and their political savvy to make up our minds. I just don't see it there for Clinton. She's an average to below average politician, a horrendous speaker/communicator, and she drives many Democrats AND many Republicans bonkers. She might be able to win, but she can't govern. It's not her fault - but it's the truth.

dcshungu wrote on October 31, 2007 9:43 PM:

I like Clinton best amongst the Republicans running this year,

This is no trick question: How do you recognize a left-wing-nut case in these forums. Simple: S/he is the one who constantly refers to Senator Clinton as a Republican or, to borrow a term from the Spanish Civil War, a Republic Fifth Column (a "plant") among the Dems. Why do I say this? Well, because only someone who is way out in the far fringes of American politics can possibly refer to a center-left Dem like Senator Clinton, with the best progressive record of the top Dem candidates, as a Repub. The way I see it is that from your vantage point, way out there on the left, anyone to your right, just center-left of the American politics, might as well be a Repub. By that definition, I am Repub, and GWB, the Village Idiot, is my standard-bearer.

Jan wrote on October 31, 2007 9:56 PM:

Not to belabor a point, but, again, I'm an Independent. Why do Democrats post posts like the one from Democrats Against Hillary above?

Why this, for example:
"Her only asset is her last name."

What an idiotic comment. She's been elected twice to the U.S. Senate, this last time by hefty margins.

This is a woman who is a DEMOCRAT. And, to a fellow Democrat, her only asset is her last name????

Also, I never voted for Bill Clinton. But I've come to realize who/what he was fighting for eight years. I now think he will go down as one of the best Presidents ever.

I don't understand how you can be a Democrat and be so loathsome towards the Clinton name?? The Clinton name is actually about the only salvation the Democrats have as a significant party leader.

Also, the fact that Hillary Clinton drives Republicans bonkers should be considered an ASSET.

The idea that she drives Democrats bonkers drives me a little bonkers. I cannot imagine a Republican voter treating ANY Republican the way Democrats treat their candidates, and especially their frontrunner. If it wasn't so sad, it would actually be hysterical, in a Keystone Kops sort of way.

Sorry, I just don't get Democrats. You are some very weird team players. Re-read the post from Democrats Against Hillary and tell me if that's what Democrats are proud of their fellow Democrats posting.

p.s. re; Clinton screwing up healthcare? that's a GOP meme. Democrats were corrupt in 1994. THAT'S how you lost the election. Not the Contract with America. Not Hillarycare. The Democrats were CORRUPT. The democrats were a bunch of check-kiters who got caught right before the election. The re-writing of history came AFTER the GOP won in 1994. Don't help them re-write your own history.
(Don't let them pick your candidate either.)

dcshungu wrote on October 31, 2007 9:56 PM:

oki wrote on October 31, 2007 9:28 PM:

dcshunga,

How do you get those solid boxes around your quotes?

Simple. The HTML tag for it is "blockquote". As you might know HTML tags must be contained within ">" and terminated with "" (I am not sure this would show because it might interpret it as html tags!). But let's do it by example:

The way you use the "blockquote" tag is (below please replace "(" with since if I use the correct syntax it will just give me the "box"

"("blockquote")"

put your text here

"("/blockquote")"

Note the / in front of the second "blockquote". That terminates the "box"

If tagged properly the preceding will produce

put your text here

Give it a shot.

Anonymous wrote on October 31, 2007 9:59 PM:

Hmmmm...

test...

\

dcshungu wrote on October 31, 2007 10:03 PM:

It is touch to show so let me say it in words.

Let's define the "less than" key on your keyboard as LT
and the "greater than" key as GT

So you would write

LTblockquoteGT
put your text here...
LT/blockquoteGT.

Got it? I will know if you got it when I see a blockquote!

Cheers!

dcshungu wrote on October 31, 2007 10:21 PM:

She's an average to below average politician, a horrendous speaker/communicator, and she drives many Democrats AND many Republicans bonkers.

She drives wingnut cases bonkers because of her centrist politics, which are in tune with those of most Americans. Ideologically, Clinton is where most Americans are and where elections are won. It is why her husband won the election, was re-elected, and still enjoys a 60+% approval rating. Kucinich is a great guy but he will never be elected POTUS because of his ideologically "pure" liberalism (they used call them "Northeastern liberals"). Poppy Bush tried like hell to pin the label of "liberal" on Bill Clinton but it never stuck. As a result he was elected and became one of our more successful presidents (and Hillary will be too). The wingnuts (left and right) hated him too, but most people liked and still like him.

If Hillary drives you bonkers, then you are definitely a wingnut case...

audit the polls wrote on October 31, 2007 10:54 PM:

deshengu, people who don't think this country should be for sale aren't wingnuts. She's not a centrist she's a warmonger. Why are the defense industries and the bankers who finance them giving all this money to her? You want to get us all killed? Nominate her.

She'll probably surrender to the Republicans anyway.

audit the polls wrote on October 31, 2007 10:55 PM:

Why does every TPM page have a picture of Clinton on it?

audit the polls wrote on October 31, 2007 11:04 PM:

actually, there are 3 of them on this page alone. Is this where TPM is getting its money?

Imelda Blahnik wrote on October 31, 2007 11:24 PM:

Jan, Deshungu, you're right on target.

I'm a Dem. And a liberal. And a feminist. And I really really like Hillary. It's not that I don't like the other Dem candidates too - I just like her better. Do I like everything she does and says? No. Do I understand that she is simultaneously running against the Rethugs and her Dem opponents, and has to do things like make it clear she'll be tough on Iran? Yes. I like that she's complicated, and, shall we say, "impure," insofar as her positions and votes don't fully match up with progressives' dream ticket. Politics is impure, and the last thing I want is some politician pretending to be pure, 'cause then you know he's lying.

Also, she's pretty f-ing smart, organized, and savvy. Oh, did I mention that many of the policies she has proposed would make life better for a hell of a lot of people?

WarrenP wrote on October 31, 2007 11:53 PM:

So you prefer impure to say Kucinich?

Steve wrote on November 1, 2007 1:49 AM:

This poll wildly overcompensates for the Dems, giving them a 12 point advantage over the GOP, thus inflating Hillary's lead over Rudy. Don't forget this poll directly contradicts a poll just released by both Rasmussen and Quinnipiac.

DTM wrote on November 1, 2007 8:00 AM:

Unfortunately, once again dcshungu is completely wrong about what factors actually drive presidential elections.

Bill Clinton did not win in 1992 by running as a centrist (I won't go into all the history, but I'll just note that Bill made a very concious choice to move toward the center AFTER he was first elected, in response to subsequent events like the 1994 GOP takeover of Congress and on the advice of Dick Morris). Bill Clinton won in 1992 by being very likeable.

In general, some Democrats have an odd habit of thinking that their problems in recent presidential elections have something to do with their ideology not appealing to the American people. That is odd because usually the Democrats actually have the most popular position on most of the important issues of the day.

So ideology is not the problem for Democrats. The problem for Democrats is that they keep nominating people the American people don't particularly like--Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry--and it turns out that the American people have a strong preference for Presidents they will actually like. So when the Democrats package their ideology together with someone the American people do like, such as Bill Clinton in 1992, they win. But when they package their ideology with someone the American people don't like, they lose. And trying to move to the ideological center won't fix that problem--indeed, it just further weakens the candidate because the American people actually like most Democratic policies.

And why all this is so hard for some Democrats to understand is a bit of a puzzle to me. But there is no doubt they keep making this mistake, as the unfortunate litany of Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry itself demonstrates.

demwinger wrote on November 1, 2007 8:31 AM:

Hillary crushes republicans among women and that is why she will steam roll to a huge win next year.

i also saw one that had her winning by 30% among women in Arkansas. women in the south love her much more than they like Bill mostly cause she stuck with her man after he did her wrong.. that happens a lot in the south where the husband cheats or beats his wife and the wife forgives him.

Liberal Larry wrote on November 1, 2007 9:20 AM:

The right wing of the Democratic party wants more deregulation.

stlounick wrote on November 1, 2007 9:32 AM:

Tsk...tsk...Hillary supporters are trying very hard to cover the fact that Hillary did badly in the last debate. So her campaign shuffles out the Hillary or no one folks as well as our closet independent who swaggers out to tell all of us real Democrats how we should behave (the lesson apparently being that we'll lose all independents if we don't heed the words of this one).

If Hillary can't take these very minor lobs from her primary opposition, then she will have hell to pay in the general. Anyone wavering should pause and rethink their choice of candidate.

Michael wrote on November 1, 2007 10:13 AM:

dc, too funny. I keep asking this and you keep ignoring it. How is your boss "centrist" on the iraq debacle? She wants to keep us there indefinitely and 70% of the population want us out yesterday? How is her warmongering position possibly centrist? How is 70% of the population left-wing, wacko peacenicks, who are out of the "mainstream." You just love polls, so how do you rectify this? She is playing to the repuke base with her war position, why? I don't get it.

Allsburg wrote on November 1, 2007 12:10 PM:

DTM, I think you are right on. The GOOD thing is that all three of the top Democratic candidates this cycle are very likable: Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. Quite frankly, all three seem like appealing people to me, and any of the three could win in a general election against a Republican.

The problem is, the most "likable" candidate is the one with the most repugnant ideology (at least among the Democrats). People keep failing to see that, because, as always, they illogically vote for likability over ideology. Either that, or they overlook it (like Jan and dcshungu) for the paycheck.

DTM wrote on November 1, 2007 1:04 PM:

Allsburg,

I think it is important not to use intuition to determine who is most likeable in the political sense. Fortunately, people have been developing a lot of techniques for doing this in a more scientific way.

MonaL wrote on November 1, 2007 1:36 PM:

"If Hillary drives you bonkers, then you are definitely a wingnut case..."

Here, here!

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)