Poll: In Key Primary States, Hillary's Campaign Viewed As Most Negative
As we noted below, a new New York Times poll finds that Hillary's campaign is viewed as the most positive one by national Dems.
At least one other survey, however, shows that in the key primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, the opposite appears to be true; hers is viewed as the most negative of the Dem campaigns.
Here's a trend line the Clinton folks might want to worry about, in all three states, she's seen as having run the most negative campaign to date.
Comments (17)
Big Ones wrote on December 10, 2007 4:47 PM:The only one who is totally positive is
Huckabee.
Heck he is so nice he starts off letters to convicted rapists with "Dear"
and then helps free him on early parole
and lets him rape and murder again.
And the apologizes and feels sorry for said rapist because he removed his own testicles.
Well Huckabee has not removed his own testicles because if he thinks we christains are going to put up with that -
then he's got some big ones.
It was that stupid kidergarten move. One stupid move can hurt you big time. She should have surrogates do the attacks, if she is going to attack. However, with obama it may be a mistake in the long run. And her campaign was being run so wonderfully according to the right-wing media. It kind of makes you wonder.
Also, I think her strategy and the clinton strategy is to attack, attack, attack, when attacked. I don't know if its going to fly this time around. I really think people are tired of the politics of the 90's and the king's years. A better strategy would be to anticipate the attacks and defuse their impact.
Bottom line, lets turn the page from this garbage.
Bupalos wrote on December 10, 2007 5:01 PM:Amen to turning the page. I think that any of the polls that deal with states that haven't started paying attention to the race yet are pretty useless. Clinton starts with 30 point leads because she is a recognized name and presumptive nominee. As soon as there is a campaign to run and people look at and listen to the candidates, she tanks pretty quick.
My opinion is that the longer a campaign goes, either national or primary, the more "candidate fatigue" sets in. With Clinton, that is going to be in spades because we've already seen here at the center of a partisan storm for 8 years.
vena wrote on December 10, 2007 5:04 PM:This post shows that this site is relatively fair. Some here are seeing bias where there is none and to a degree it's there own bias that makes them think that way.
Ni Daye wrote on December 10, 2007 5:22 PM:vena wrote on December 10, 2007 5:04 PM:
This post shows that this site is relatively fair. Some here are seeing bias where there is none and to a degree it's there own bias that makes them think that way -
Really? Look how hard they tried to find a poll to counter the one they put out earlier.
Ni Daye,
As an aside, it probably didn't take too much work. In fact, I happen to know at least a couple commentators pointed Greg in this direction, although I have no idea if that had anything to do with this post.
But in any event, these polls actually are not necessarily contradictory, since one polls is about the national impression and the other set of polls is about the impression in the early states. And that discrepancy between the national poll and the early state polls is in fact pretty interesting. So I don't see how pointing all this out indicative of bias on Greg's part.
onceler wrote on December 10, 2007 5:44 PM:hilarious. nationally, Dems think Hillary is the most positive, because of the generally glowing press coverage she gets. but in the places where she is actually campaigning, people find her the most negative. couldn't this all be reported in a much better way? wasn't it here at TPM where I read a bit of an "insider's account" stating that HRC's campaign had been constantly emailing negative stories around about both Obama and Edwards but that neither of their campaigns had been doing the same thing? yes, yes it was. can't all of these things be presented together to create a more full picture?
Michael A wrote on December 10, 2007 5:54 PM:In response to vena and the bias argument. I have been following this site for months and posting. There was clearly a bias in favor of clinton II and it was pretty evident. I have to say in the last three weeks or so, TPMEC has gotten more balanced in that TPMEC has at least been posting things about the other candidates. Whether that was in response to the bias charge or not, who knows. However, I am sure all followers of TPM appreciate getting information on all the candidates, not just favorable stuff for clinton II or unfavorable stuff about the other candidates. Thank you.
Liberal Larry wrote on December 10, 2007 6:46 PM:People outside of the primary states don't know how negative Bush-Lite's campaign has been. I wonder why?
It's the media stupid.
Jeremy wrote on December 10, 2007 7:34 PM:Of course Hillary is perceived as negative. I'm not saying it was intended this way, but she really should have thought through the implications of calling a person such as Obama "inexperienced". All that anyone had to do was look at his track record to see that the claim was completely baseless. I think that a lot of people, especially women and minorities, can empathize with someone as qualified as Obama being told he's too "inexperienced". Especially considering the fact that Obama has connected his experience concretely with his judgment and achievements--including getting more and more significant legislation passed--while Hillary continues to think she can simply pull rank without spelling out the value of her experience in concrete terms, Hillary's central narrative is in shambles.
Michael A wrote on December 10, 2007 7:51 PM:Good points jeremy. The experience thing sounded very condescending and rang hollow coming from clinton II. By doing that, she has raised the issue among voters about her experience, which she probably didn't want to do. The reason why is she throws around glorious conclusions with no substance and people are seeing that. Basically, clinton II and obama probably have enough experience in an abstract sense to be president, edwards I am not that sure about.
The question is what kind of experience and judgment does a voter want. Does a voter want someone like clinton II and to relive the 90's or does a voter want to look to the future. Does a voter want someone with all that alleged experience who voted to invade and destroy a sovereign country and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent americans and iraqis, or does a voter want someone who was against the war.
I think obamas judgment is hands down better than clinton II's and I think that may be the most important thing in this election and it trumps this alleged experience argument. Speaking of experience darth vader and dummy probably had the most experience in the king's administration and look at how they royally f*cked everything up.
anon wrote on December 10, 2007 7:56 PM:It's because people have a negative perception of her and when they pay close attention to her, they are reminded of the fact that they don't really like her all that much. In other words, she's unelectable, an egotistical albatross around the neck of the Democratic Party and for all intents and purposes she's going to jinx us if she were to win. Fortunately, now that people are beginning to pay attention the fact that she is a paper tiger is becoming clearer with each passing day. Don't hear a whole lot of "inevitability" talk these days from the usual Hillary shills do we?
HA!
HA!
HA!
Anonymous wrote on December 10, 2007 8:17 PM:Michael A said "It was that stupid kidergarten move."
I think it is more. Hillary and Bill crying "victim, victim" is also a form on negative campaigning that the public not only rejects but resents. Hillary's operatives on the ground are viewed everywhere I have seen as "arrogant" (with no discernable justification for arrogance) and "mean."
The Clintons run and rule on the politics of division. That is the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton agenda: keep the nation divided so no consensus can threaten the corporate-profiteering status quo.
People are tired of the division and the DC gridlock it causes. Whenever they listen, they respond to Obama's vision, integrity, and capacity to bridge divides. Most people want to leave the partisan wars of the Bush-Clinton years behind.
When it gets down to it not being 7 Dems on 1 and 6 Reps on 1 and 2 National Mods on 1 and the Basic Press on 1 looking at how you dress, if you clap, laugh, cleavege, 1 bad answer in a debate, harping 24/7 about you, the stop Hillary express, giving you no respect, even in the addressing you by your name as Hillary and not Senator Clinton. One would think you would lose somewhat in your polling, but....she will still dig deep and kick your collective butts because none of your candidates could have taken what she has taken and withstood it. Discuss this if you would.
Kefa wrote on December 11, 2007 9:06 AM:ps....all the other camps have been just as negative...the press is letting this go because it's all about getting and attacking HRC.
Jeremy wrote on December 11, 2007 11:27 AM:giving you no respect, even in the addressing you by your name as Hillary and not Senator ClintonIndeed, I keep seeing all of these disrespectful signs reading "Hillary for president" in peoples yards. Haters. The signs should read "Sen Clinton for president". . . or something. Desider wrote on December 11, 2007 12:26 PM:
Oh, poor Obama, called out for being inexperienced when he tried so hard to highlight his age 6-10 experience. He's now got a half a term into the US Senate. Meanwhile, aside from her 7 years in the Senate, what does she have to show for 20 years in the White House/Governor's mansion? Just a few speeches like in China and Pakistan and Denmark and Australia and Prague and the UN and Uzbekistan and Argentina and the Ukraine and Uganda and Tanzania and Capetown and Israel and Palestine and Haiti and Guatemala and El Salvador and Bulgaria and Chile and Puerto Rico and Uruguay and Northern Ireland and Ghana and Senegal and Turkey and Iceland and Italy and Poland and Canada and Macedonia and Morocco and France and The Hague and, well they're just speeches, they don't prove anything. She might as well have stayed home baking cookies.
