"more stronger"

She's just the bestest!

Way to bury that Iowa poll.

The sun shines when it isn't cloudy. Why is this stuff a continued headline here? Just link to SurveyUSA and use the extra space to...I don't know...maybe cover the elections?

The positive spin for Obama would be that voters in Iowa know him better, the negative would be that they "know" him through five million dollars worth of tv ads.

Beyond that, I do wonder if there are real regional differences in candidate appeal, which I suspect there are, but can't prove.

I'm glad the commentators want TPM to only report numbers when they favor Obama. And that polls usually favor Clinton because she is the frontrunner does not seem to concern you.

Another interesting poll out today is one from Indiana's governor's race. The Democratic challengers lead the incumbent!

After checking out that link, I'll say Obama does better than Hillary in Iowa. He's over 50% in every matchup! She isn't in a single one. Nice to see that little footnote in the NM article. But why is it not the headline as opposed to NM results? Hmmm.

HRC is indeed within the MOE in the polls from NM, as well as those from KY, in matchups against Giuliani and McCain. (She beats the others handily.) OTOH, Obama is way behind against Giuliani and McCain in both of those states. In WA, HRC beats everyone handily, while Obama is within the MOE against Giuliani and McCain.

If you look at the vast majority of state polls, HRC is a much stronger candidate than Obama against Giuliani. Any Dem candidate would do well against Romney or Huckabee in current state polls, but arguably those polls are not that reliable as these candidates are not that well-known outside the early primary states. It is very possible that they would pick up steam in a GE matchup, though IA polls suggest Obama would gain more than they would as each becomes better known to the rank and file voters.

McCain, ironically, is the strongest GOP candidate, and if nominated, appears likely to grab enough swing states to win the election. Sadly, for the idiot repugs, he has been written off. But we progressives should not be as idiotic ourselves. If Obama lasts long enough in the race to start putting major time and effort into states where he is currently way behind HRC, we will start to see more reliable polls on how he would fare in Ge matchups in those states. If he continues to fall outside the MOE in matchups against Giuliani, his electability will be seriously in question, IMO.

This is interesting, I knew that I had seen that poll before... In order to preempt the inevitable charge that the site is biased in favor of Clinton, TPM-EC has just recycled an old poll that shows Obama to be stronger against the Repubs in one state: IA. But, of course, the "natives" did not understand this was a "favor" and have been agitating, as expected...

Just shows you that No good goes unpunished!

arks wrote on November 25, 2007 5:12 PM:

The posts seem to form a concensus that headlining such polls is a waste of space at this point in the campaign process. That it reflects a ridiculous slant toward Hillary by the contributor in his failing to acknowledge the name-recognition and presumptive front-runner effect in states where campaigning hasn't yet begun is secondary. In fact, taking that into consideration, Obama is doing extremely well at this point. Hillary is as known as she's likely to get in those states, and if trends in early states are any indication, she's heading down from there and Obama is heading up.

Y'know, name-recognition is not necessarily a Good Thing, especially if it is your opponents who are spreading it around! ALso, considering Clinton's purported "high negatives", wouldn't her universal name-recognition be disadvantageous for her? We had tossed this one around in another thread, and if TPM-EC can recycle posts, so can I.

"There is this trip down memory lane. Just one week before the 1992 GE, a NYT/CBS poll found:"

Mr. Clinton was acquiring a more negative image, reflecting Republican attempts to raise doubts about his character and suitability as a potential President: 33 percent now view him favorably, 39 percent unfavorably. And the proportion who say he is not telling the truth about the draft is rising.

Beware your wish for a better name recognition for your candidate for it generally comes at the expense of higher negatives. The fact that Clinton is universally known accounts for her higher negs, but that she has been leadig in the polls for so long suggests that her negs will not have the dire consequences that the MSM and leftwingnut cases keep harping about. In fact, barring some catastrophic event that could further increase her negs, I do not consider her current unfavorables to be of any consequence. On the other hand, a sharp rise in the negs of any other candidate to where Clinton's currently stand [that would come with better name-recognition], could be devastating...It is why I believe that Clinton is the Dems' strongest GE candidate. Most attacks by the Repub smear machine would just illicit a collective yawn, if not outright irritation.

dcshungu:

In-deed!

LOL

colonpowwow wrote on November 25, 2007 8:49 PM:

dcshungu:

In-deed!

LOL

LOL, IN-DEED :-)

things like "did" and "deed" do cause trouble to French speakers...!

colonpowwow wrote on November 25, 2007 8:58 PM:

Gosh, I remember the good old days when positive news re a Democratic Party likely nominee's chances in New Mexico, Iowa, Virginia, Florida, and Ohio was considered a good thing, even by the progressiver-than-thou, circular-firing-squad wing of the Democratic Party.

(sigh)

Sigh, indeed...

What changed was the emergence of a relatively rare ailment known as the Clinton Derangement Syndrome (CDS) that has gripped the "progressiver-than-thou, circular-firing-squad wing of the Democratic Party" for the past 15 years, and this despite the fact that their only success in presidential election politics in nearly three decades was made possible by a guy named Clinton!

I know, I know! Hillary is NOT Bill and that might be a good thing because many insiders actually believe that she is smarter and more focused than he is! Of course, there is no comparison when it comes to sheer political acumen. He wins hands down. If "diplomacy" is the art of telling someone to go to hell in such a way that s/he would be looking forward to trip, then Bill Clinton was America's top 20th Century "diplomat"...and that is not an oblique compliment.

(sigh)

SurveyUSA polls [of states not even in campaign focus] seem to be part of a strategy of 'drilling into one's head' of assumptions about inevitability as is the strategy of using the overworked mantra of 'stong and experienced'.

Both do seem a part of Hillary's endeavor to try to slide through to a nomination on name recognition and repetitive words.

Trouble is that on the ground where voters are paying attention, these strategies not only do not work, they seem to be backfiring. I just read today's Des Moines Register article on Bill stumping for Hillary in Iowa. There were some 74 comments which seemed to be preponderantly negative toward Hillary and even Bill.

CalD:

Have there been negative ads that "draw distinctions" with Hillary run by any of the Dems? I haven't seen any yet that doing anything in any detail (I have seen, Obama, for example, say he was against the war.) Since I live outside of Iowa and New Hampshire I only get glimpses of the real campaign and am curious as to how the candidates are running . . . Have we had the ads that show the opposition with the scary music that suggest they hate children?

I'm not in Iowa either, NamelessFaceless. I only know what the internet can tell us. I have seen news reports of 527s running ads and of course the FEC just ruled they can mention candidates' names again. So there's likely someone out there with the scary music and grainy B&W imagery claiming Hillary Clinton wants to eat your baby. Romney I know has done at least one pure attack ad on Clinton and has been saturating the Iowa airwaves in general. Giuliani and the others have not been bashful about attacking Clinton in general but I haven't see their ads. I have not seen any direct attack ads from Obama on the web so far. Some of his ads do say things like he's not the kind politician who takes money from PACs or sticks his finger in the wind to see what the polls say and presumably hope you will fill in the blanks. Edwards as I said has apparently just made his first major TV time buy of the season so it remains to be seen what he's got up his sleeve. With Joe Trippi doing his media though, we may not have to wait long.

Of course no one really reports on what they're running on the radio or what their robo-calls are saying and we get only infrequent specimens of direct mail and print ads. I just kind of assume each candidate's media and mail should generally be reinforcing the same messaging they're out there pushing in speeches and interviews, where both Democrats and Republicans have been ramping up their rhetoric on Clinton -- that should be a fairly safe assumption but it is an assumption. We do know something has been driving up Clinton's negatives in Iowa lately and I doubt it's all just from that one rough week or so in the press she had. So like astrophysicists, we can kind of infer the presence of some kind of dark energy even if we can't see from out here.

Hillary's attack dogs DCshunga and CalD will soon need some help. The Times of London is running a "no holds barred" series on Hillary the Hypocrite. It is putting into print all the concerns people are discussing but that the American media is too intemidated by Billary Inc. to print.

For example, it is the first time I have seen in print the observation about the relationship between Hillary and her stunningly beautiful aide/constant companion Huma Abedin.

Does America really need Hillary and all her baggage in the White House?

Anyone who would like a small taste of what is waiting for Hillary, the Democrats and the nation, if she nominated should read these TIMES of LONDON reports.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2917646.ece

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1434239.ece

Thanksfor the London Times links. On quick read, those articles are HILLARYous. I hope the U.S. papers pick up on them. The Clinon machine will go bizzerk. It will be fun to see how they handle a REAL attack.

Oops! Too early in the morning... I am "dcshungu" and I take full responsibility for the preceding post, including the typos, omitted words, etc...

This might yet turn out to be a great day...

The progressives do not want another Clinton in the White House.

Do we really need the Clintons and all their baggage in the White House?

(I'm paraphrasing recent Chertoffian gut pronouncements from the progressiver-than-thou, circular-firing-squad wing of the Democratic Party here.)

Me and my fellow progressives do, indeed, want another Clinton in the White House. Since many of us actively work with the local Democrats in our counties, I don't feel the anti-Hillary mood you feel typing on here in your basements. Most Democrats (yes, progressives), I encounter think that it's a great field of candidates, will support whoever is chosen in open primaries, and like Hillary just fine.

And my Chertoffian gut feeling tells me that Bill Clinton is one of the most popular political figures around and he would win in a freakin' landslide today if he could run, especially given the anti-Republican mood of the country and the quality of the GOP nominee, whoever it turns out to be.

Hillary Clinton will do nearly as well if she's the nominee, and I think she'll make a better President. The polls keep on supporting this position.

Name one state Kerry took that Hillary won't bring home, and then consider the polls in Ohio, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Iowa, New Mexico, West Virginia, and other states that went for Bush in 2004 by a close margin.

If she picks someone like Wesley Clark as her running mate and has Bill out stumping with her, I don't see how she can lose.

But that's just IMHO.

GRRRRRRRRRRR. Attack dogs for Hillary out early and ferocious.

CalD, colonpowwow, and dcshungu: pplit up the talking points today. Too much repitition. But, you give us so much to laugh about. Too bad, Hillary as president is too scary a prospect to find any humor in it.

colonpowwow said: "If [Hillary] picks someone like Wesley Clark as her running mate and has Bill out stumping with her, I don't see how she can lose."

Yep, it's all about winning, not about governing. Hillary may win, but America loses. We need president who can lead a strong majority of the nation, not a tepid plurality or less. Hillary's presidency would be doomed to strife, grid-lock and tabloid headlines.

Why not nominate someone who is qualified to lead instead of just nominating Bill's wife because it feels good? The nation can't afford Hillary as the nominee, and, heaven help us, the president.

Hey, anonymous!

Tell Al Gore and John Kerry and the majority of Americans who voted for them, that it's not all about winning.

Win first. Govern later. My point is that most Democrats, including most of the progressive wing of the Democrats (to which I've belonged to since 1968), think Hillary is a great candidate who's made some wrong votes IMO (Iraq War Authorization, Patriot Act), but whose voting record on liberal, progressive issues in the Senate is a sparkling 95% plus as rated by the ADA.

That's not even getting into her lifelong history as an activist advocate for social progress in women's issues, children's issues, poverty issues, labor issues, and healthcare issues.

We are also most excited to elect the first woman President in our nation's history.

If you have a problem with all that, most Americans don't feel your pain. It's just as much fun for us to watch you losers commiserate and overstate your impact and importance. Don't change.

Robo-pollster Rasmussen has a new poll out of the Feb 5 primary states. Looks a lot like recent national polls. Big surprise.

Mich:

Leaving aside the fact that I listed 6 legitimate reasons for voting for Clinton for President, and that I said that me and her supporters are excited about voting for the first woman president (as I hope you will be ;-) - your post is right on target.

Although voting for her just because she's the first viable woman candidate would still beat 98% of the laughable reasons the left-behinds here make up for not voting for her.

LOL