Report: Hillary Is Not "Unelectable," And The Polling Data Prove It

[William769]

Does Hillary really have an "electability" problem? The charge is thrown around with a startling degree of recklessness by our pundits, who more or less base this assessment on little more than the fact that someone else said it before they did.

But now Chris Bowers of OpenLeft.com has taken what may be the most comprehensive look yet at the polling data in an effort to answer this question. His methodology was basically to compare Hillary's performance against Rudy with that of Barack Obama and John Edwards. Bowers' conclusion: While Hillary was outperformed against Rudy by the other two Dems this spring, more recent polling demonstrates conclusively that she's erased this disadvantage and now beats Rudy by slightly larger margins than her Dem rivals.

"Clinton’s deficit in general election matchups against Rudy Giuliani, relative to Obama and Edwards, has entirely disappeared in non-Rasmussen polls," Bowers concludes. "In short, across the broad I don’t think that there is any clear evidence pointing to Hillary Clinton as less electable than Barack Obama and John Edwards at this time."

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/08/report_hillary_is_not_unelectable_and_the_polling_data_prove_it.php

[Alamom]

1. Great news, William. Thanks for posting......

We knew, now, they do.

[William769]

2. Thanks.

Love that emoticon! :hi:

[Perry Logan]

3. How sad that we have to defend her against our own people.

[durrrty libby]

4. "How sad that we have to defend her against our own people."

True...True...People suck. So what else is new?

[Tellurian]

5. Thanks for posting...

We knew it wasn't True-

Funny how desperate her rivals are to grasp onto something...that doesn't exist in the first place!

[Broke Dad]

6. Keep drinking the Kool-aid . . .

And we in Iowa will work to keep Hillary in the Senate!

[William769]

7. Your the one who need to stop drinking the Koo-aid

BTW, her numbers keep getting better in Iowa!

[Tellurian]

11. The Iowans LOVE Hillary..

and realize she is our best chance of having a Democratic White House next election cycle.

I guess, you're the only Iowan drinking the Kool-Aid. The rest of the people in Iowa are too smart for that!

[William769]

8. They do it all the Tellurian.

[saracat]

24. Yeah it "suck"that anyone would DARE to run against her doesn't it?

This is a PRIMARY.

[durrrty libby]

44. Yes, listening to the whiny woo woos can be a tad tiresome

and inconvenient. :nopity:

[saracat]

47. Like the post I am responding too? I agree.Perhaps a mirror would help educate you!

[durrrty libby]

50. Nah...you need it so much more

[saracat]

55. Nah! I can just pull up my profile, unlike some who like to be as invisible as a

vampire in a mirror!

[MaineDem]

20. Unfortunately, that's what happens in primaries

I'm hoping all this gets put aside as we fight for a win in November.

[saracat]

23. All primary candidates have to "defend themselves from their own people"

That is why we have a primary.Or do you think we should just "anoint" Hillary? Sheesh.How is she different from anyone else? Should she be "immune" from criticism or comparison while the others are trashed?

[DURHAM D]

9. Will - you are always posting facts.

This is the DU - don't you know they will be screamingly ignored.

[William769]

10. If I make them look at it long enough.

Maybe just maybe, they will realize they can't ignore their own lies anymore.

[emilyg]

12. Thanks.

[Clark2008]

13. So what?

I don't think HRC, Obama OR Edwards can win.

I'm sorry to say that - but I simply don't see any of them as strong enough to flip some red states.

[SaveElmer]

14. Despite empirical evidence to the contrary...?

eom

[draft_mario_cuomo]

32. The evidence suggests Edwards and Clinton can flip red states

How can you think someone who has never won an election can flip red states but Edwards and Clinton cannot, especially in light of evidence showing that they can do it? Obama is a different story. He apparently not only flips no red states but he loses PA, OH, and FL.

[zulchzulu]

15. Do you really think Rudy is going to be the Repug nominee?

The data and polling comparison is based wholly on a Democrat vs. Giuliani. That's flawed from the start in my view. The results with Clinton are also pretty close with her losing 5 of seven polls. Granted, it's all based on national polls (which are pretty worthless now unless you are of the President Lieberman Fan Club, since he was leading in national polls at about this time in 2003).

Democrats vs. Giuliani
Poll 	        Date 	   Clinton 	Obama 	  Edwards
LA Times 	Jun 10 	   39-49        46-41 	  46-43
Zogby 	        May 20 	   43-48        48-42 	  43-47
Hotline 	May 20 	   43-45        43-41 	  42-43
Newsweek 	May 03 	   49-46        50-43 	  50-44
Marist 	        May 01 	   48-43        41-43 	  49-43
Hotline 	Apr 30 	   43-47        48-39 	  47-41
LA Times 	Apr 09 	   42-48        46-42 	  43-45
Mean 	NA 	       43.9--46.6   46.0--41.6 	  45.7--43.7

Believe what you want to believe...

On edit: Link=http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1019

[rinsd]

17. Why are you depending on data that is at least 2 1/2 months old? We have data from the last 2 months

Hillary is winning 4 out of the latest 7 polls taken by different firms (Rasmussen has updated the most often)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_giuliani_vs_clinton-227.html#polls

Dawgs compiled RCP's latest numbers on another thread. .

Rudy Giuliani (R) vs. Barack Obama (D)
RCP Average 07/15 to 08/21 - 41.8% 45.8% Obama +4.0%
Rudy Giuliani (R) vs. John Edwards (D)
RCP Average 07/12 to 08/23 - 43.0% 45.0% Edwards +2.0%
Rudy Giuliani (R) vs. Hillary Clinton (D)
RCP Average 07/15 to 08/14 - 44.4% 44.6% Clinton +0.2%

Fred Thompson (R) vs. Barack Obama (D)
RCP Average 07/15 to 08/21 - 35.3% 48.8% Obama +13.5%
Fred Thompson (R) vs. John Edwards (D)
RCP Average 07/12 to 08/23 - 35.7% 48.0% Edwards +12.3%
Fred Thompson (R) vs. Hillary Clinton (D)
RCP Average 07/15 to 08/14 - 41.0% 47.3% Clinton +6.3%

John McCain (R) vs. John Edwards (D)
RCP Average 07/12 to 08/13 - 38.7% 46.7% Edwards +8.0%
John McCain (R) vs. Barack Obama (D)
RCP Average 07/17 to 08/13 - 38.7% 45.3% Obama +6.6%
John McCain (R) vs. Hillary Clinton (D)
RCP Average 07/17 to 08/16 - 42.3% 46.0% Clinton +3.7%

Mitt Romney (R) vs. Barack Obama (D)
RCP Average 06/20 to 08/16 - 36.5% 50.0% Obama +13.5%
Mitt Romney (R) vs. John Edwards (D)
RCP Average 06/20 to 07/19 - 37.3% 49.7% Edwards +12.4%
Mitt Romney (R) vs. Hillary Clinton (D)
RCP Average 06/21 to 07/18 - 38.3% 48.0% Clinton +9.7%

[zulchzulu]

18. I used the link from the article posted by the OP

Should I have not used the link in the article that the OP posted to make the point? I did want to read what the link said. Forgive me for being intelligent.

:shrug:

[rinsd]

22. You didn't scroll down far enough.

This is what it said after the charts you posted and some Rasmussen numbers from earlier in the year

"
Now, this is the data that was used through most of the campaign to show that Clinton was less electable than Obama and Edwards."

They then go on to debunk said meme with more recent data.

Very next line - "However, more recent data contradicts these earlier findings"

[zulchzulu]

35. I'm glad you like what you see

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

National polls this early are fun for all of us political junkies, but the political landscape a year from now is nearly impossible to predict.

Using a template of Guiliani as the nominee to compare ANY of the candidates is dubious in my view. It's either going to be Romney or Huckabee... and a lot of Republican races that were left for dead will be mobilized because the Repug base would rather vote for an ostrich to make sure the Clintons don't return. You can believe that or not.

A third-party candidate catering to the Left will have plenty of time to get a campaign going if the nominee is already decided by early February. You can't count that out either.

We'll see how the voters vote. That's the only real way to actually see anything valuable. Work for your candidate and see what happens.

[rinsd]

38. "You can believe that or not."

That must be why Bob Dole kicked Clinton ass in 96 and Hillary lost to Rick Lazio in 2000.

I mean your point was that Hillary will be driving GOP turnout regardless of the GOP nominee right?

"A third-party candidate catering to the Left will have plenty of time to get a campaign going if the nominee is already decided by early February. You can't count that out either."

Sure I can. Look at the traction Nader got in 2004. Who besides Bloomberghas the financial means & name recognition to get on enough ballots to play spoiler?

Hillary has higher approval/favorable ratings from Democrats than either Obama or Edwards.

This blogosphere myth that she is widely disliked in her own party is just that...a myth.

"but the political landscape a year from now is nearly impossible to predict."

Agreed though both of our candidates are doing well at this point.

[zulchzulu]

41. "Hillary has higher approval/favorable ratings from Democrats than either Obama or Edwards. "

Got a link on that little statement...

:popcorn:

[rinsd]

42. Sure. How many you want?

;-)

Here's Gallup & Pew. I can dig up Rasmussen too if you want.

Gallup - "Clinton has the highest net favorable rating among Democrats at +71. Gore's net favorable rating is +56, which isn't much different from Edwards' +53. Obama's is slightly lower, at +45.

among Democrats -- 84% rate Clinton favorably and 13% unfavorably. "

Pew -

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=350

[David Zephyr]

16. Hillary is electable.

I had my doubts last year, but she's run such a "flawless" campaign, reduced her negatives consistently in poll after poll, that she's demonstrated that she is not only electable, but that should she be the nominee, I think she will be the next president.

[cd3dem]

56. Yes, "flawless"

This might be the thing I like about Hillary the most.... her ability to dodge bullets, and fly thru the questions thrown at her... she does not speak without thinking about every word she says.... Bill and Hillary are a partnership.... she has the best person by her side... no mistakes.... the GOP love to attach and Hillary can handle it.... I am not sure about the other candidates... I like them all.... I just think she is more resilient....

the dislikers will lighten up.... many don't like the past scandal brought about from the RW.... when it comes to the bottom line though they will vote for her... my mom said she couldn't vote for her because of the Monica thing... she will get over it... my ex-mother-in-law said she would not vote for a woman... both are older and old fashioned.... both vote democrat... both will realize that their other beliefs are not as important as world peace, health care, fair wages, the environment, and the respect of our nation globally.....

[cobalt1999]

19. Any of the three are electable.

This time electibility (is that even a word?), is just a way of saying you don't like a candidate but can't be bothered to list real reasons why. In 2008, the democrats will win big with any of the three.

Obama and Clinton have great organizations, Hillary has proven she can run a close to flawless campaign so far, Edwards has a good chance to become an alternative to the Obama/Clinton machines.

Any of the three are electable. Slam dunk electable.

[MaineDem]

21. I think she is VERY electable

Thanks for the info.

And, again, I haven't declared a favorite yet.

[bvar22]

25. None of these polls are valid.

None of these polls consider the effect of a 3rd Party AntiWar/ProLABOR challenge.

If the Democratic Party runs a ProWar/Corporatist (Hillary), there WILL BE a 3RD Party challenge that will peel off votes from inside the Democratic Party, and will attract a high percentage of Independent AntiWar voters. At a minimum, this 3rd Party will attract at least as many votes as the Greens in 2000. Looking at Hillary's HIGH unfavorables, a Populist 3rd Party will ensure a Hillary defeat.

Edwards will NOT lose as many votes (if any) to a challenge by a Liberal/Populist 3rd Party.


Voting FOR Hillary is a vote for the Republicans.

[rinsd]

28. Because such a challenge has yet to materialize.

Polling including Bloomberg vs Hillary vs Rudy show a Hillary victory.

"At a minimum, this 3rd Party will attract at least as many votes as the Greens in 2000"

Because everyone remembers how well that worked out.

"Voting FOR Hillary is a vote for the Republicans."

No but 3rd party voting is.

[bvar22]

30. "Because such a challenge has yet to materialize. "

Hillary hasn't been nominated yet.

A 3Rd Party Populist challenge WILL happen if Hillary is the nominee.
It will probably be funded by Republican money (a lot).
The writing is on the wall for those who can read.
History is the teacher.

A vote for Hillary is a vote for the Republicans.

[rinsd]

33. So a 3rd party "populist" funded by GOP dough is gonna derail Clinton?

I've heard that story before.

With a different Clinton though.

[bvar22]

36. You remember wrong.

A 3rd Party challenge from the RIGHT derailed a Bush* election.

I really don't see a AntiWAR/ProLABOR 3rd Party peeling off any Republican votes.
I would LOVE to see a credible poll listing Hillary, Ghouliani, and any 3rd Party AntiWar/ProLABOR candidate.

Make no mistake about it, ALL these polls are counting votes that Hillary WILL NOT get in the General.
You can stick your fingers in your ears, but that won't change the truth.

WHY risk it?

[rinsd]

37. Risk it? So we shouldn't nominate someone because of a paranoid fantasy?

Hillary enjoys excellent approval ratings from Democrats, higher than Obama or Edwards.

"You can stick your fingers in your ears, but that won't change the truth."

When someone calls their dire forecast of events to come the "truth" based on little more than their feelings, I know to stop listening.

[bvar22]

39. "So we shouldn't nominate someone because of a paranoid fantasy"

No. We should learn from history and nomonate someone other than a DLC "Centrist" who represents only the far right wing of the Democratic Party.

Leave an opening on the Center/Left and it WILL be filled by a 3RD Party. Combine that with Hillary's HIGH unfavorables and we have a recipe for another DLC DISASTER. Of course, the people who fund the DLC would be happier with a Republican president than a true Progressive, so a Hillary nomination is a WIN/WIN for them.

[rinsd]

40. Learn from history? Try learning about Hillary Clinton's record.

Because calling her far right is laughable on its face.

"We should learn from history and nomonate someone other than a DLC "Centrist" who represents only the far right wing of the Democratic Party."

So how many times has the DLC candidate been nominated?

Twice?

And we got two wins and were robbed of a 3rd.

Kerry was also robbed though I wouldn't call him a DLC candidate.

[bvar22]

49. Senator Kerry isn't represenative of the DLC, though he IS a member.

The Kerry campaign in 2004 WAS DLC "Centrist".
*WIN the WAR in IRAQ!!!!!!!
*MORE FREE TRADE for EVERYONE!!!!
BUT, that is argument for another thread.

The OP stated that Hillary was "Electable" based on the Heads-Up polls against Republicans.
I AM pointing out that there will be a 3rd Party challenge to a Hillary nomination that will effect her electability.

It would be foolish in the extreme NOT to consider the inevitability of a 3rd Party AntiWar/ProLabor challenge when calculating her "electability". These polls are counting votes that Hillary will NOT get in the General.

Do you disagree?

[rinsd]

53. Yes I disagree because I do not see the challenge as inevitable nor consequential.

While the Green party may have ballot access, they do not have the infrastructure or candidate to run a serious challenge.

Nader is done.

Bloomberg is still a possibility but polling data shows his effect is fairly even when it comes to taking votes from Hillary & Rudy.

[Tejanocrat]

26. Not to piss on the victory parade, BUT ...

Bowers's underlying analysis begins with this doubtful assumption: "Comparing how Clinton, Edwards and Obama all perform against Republicans in the general election in a single public opinion survey is certainly the best, quantifiable means of determining "electability" around."

This is ONE measure of electability, true, but not "certainly the best, quantifiable" measure of electability. This measure has two gaping holes and both (conspicuously) favor Hillary.

The first big hole in this so-called "best, quantifiable" measure of electability is the fact that it is relying on national polling data rather than data from early primary/caucus states. This is dubious because it greatly overemphasizes name identification and concomitantly deemphasizes the opinions of those who know the candidates and their messages best. That is to say that there are 50 times more poll respondents who come from states where the candidates aren't even campaigning yet as compared to respondents from states where the campaigns are already intense. These types of polls underestimate the strength of candidates like Romney and Edwards who do better in early state polls as contrasted with national polls. These polls overestimate the strength of Guiliani and Hillary who have higher name identification and who thus do better in national polls than early state polls.

The second (and larger) big hole in this so-called "best, quantifiable" measure of electability is the fact that it is ignores the candidates' favorable/unfavorable ratings, which are the main basis for most people to conclude that Hillary is unelectable. It is unsurprising that Bowers's numbers purportedly rebut the idea that Hillary is unelectable when he chooses a methodology which selectively ignores the main data which supports the point which he presumes to rebut.

I don't know if Bowers is deliberately skewing his analysis out of partisanship preference for Hillary or if his analysis is just weak, but it's not much of a rebuttal either way.

[rinsd]

27. Except Hillary is beating GOPer head to head in NH.

NH -

Early in the 2008 cycle, New York Senator Hillary Clinton has a modest edge over two Republican hopefuls and a larger lead over two others. She leads former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani 44% to 40% and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney 45% to 40%. The former First Lady holds double digit leads over Arizona Senator John McCain and former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompso

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/clinton_leads_top_republicans_in_new_hampshire

Most of the GE matchups by state have been swing states and Sooper-Dooper Tuesday states.

Her results there are very encouraging.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3483308&mesg_id=3483308

Name recognition at this point interpreted by Gallup



Broken down by familiarity



"The implication of these data is clear: Even as Obama and Edwards build their name identification among Democrats, it would appear unlikely that this increasing public familiarity with Clinton's rivals alone would upset her lead."

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=28486

"The second (and larger) big hole in this so-called "best, quantifiable" measure of electability is the fact that it is ignores the candidates' favorable/unfavorable ratings, which are the main basis for most people to conclude that Hillary is unelectable. It is unsurprising that Bowers's numbers purportedly rebut the idea that Hillary is unelectable when he chooses a methodology which selectively ignores the main data which supports the point which he presumes to rebut."

And clingers to that theory ignore that she beats people with better favorability ratings head to head.

[William769]

51. She is also beating Rudy on terrorism in New York.

So much for 99.9% of his platform.

[mzmolly]

29. ""In short, across the broad" .... Freudian slip?

:P Well that's good news if true, especially given she's likely going to be nominated so that the media can chat about Monica Lewinsky for another eight years.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

31. The question should not be whether HRC is electable but whether Obama is

How can Obama win if he loses FL, PA, OH and flips no red states?

[Stevepol]

34. Any of the Dems is not only electable but will win IF the votes are counted fairly.

But there's the rub. I'm hoping that a lot will happen to make sure the voting machines are well-audited by the time the election rolls around. If they aren't, anything's possible. Kerry won by a near landslide. 06 was a much greater landslide than what the voting machines counted. This next election should be a landslide even greater than 06 for the Dems, but you can bet the machines will be tuned much higher this time than they were in 06.

Your guess is as good as mine.

[illinoisprogressive]

43. no. not unelectable. she'll just loose the general to the republicans.

[durrrty libby]

45. Indeed, she will be loosey goosey and win it all. Woohoo

[Prophet 451]

46. I don't think so

First things first: I don't have a problem with Hillary. She wouldn't be my first choice but I'm sure she'd make a decent president if elected.

That said, I think Hillary would be the best GOTV the Repubs ever had. Not because she's a woman but because she's a Clinton. The Repubs still see Bill as something akin to Satan and their view of Hillary is, if anything, worse. So I can see Repubs coming out to vote against Hillary who might stay home if the nominee were, say, Edwards. I'm not sure if that would be enough to swing the election but combined with the fact that most of the Dem base don't seem all that enthuasiastic about Hillary and the perception (note: perception, not necessarily fact) that she's almost being handed the presidency as a fait accompli, all that taken together, might be enough to swing the election.

Plus, the right will have had eight years to think up new lies about the Clintons since it was widely assumed that Hillary would eventually run even back in 2000.

[PurityOfEssence]

48. Okay, how about just "far, far, far less electable even on a good day with the wind at her back"?

How's that work for ya?

The only reason to run such a risk is if she was head-and-shoulders above the other two chief competitors on policy, and she isn't; she's CONSIDERABLY to the right of either of them.

[cd3dem]

52. Why doesn't the liberal press question Rudy Giuliani's electability?

I am truly baffled, Giuliani doesn't appear to have anything in common with the GOP, yet he spouts out the terrorism fear like no one else and he is GOD. His personal life is a mess, not exactly the family values guy.... dresses in drag... has made no major accomplishments.... yet he is the front runner and the one to beat.....

stack his resume next to any of the dems running and I would ask: Why doesn't the "liberal press" question Rudy Giuliani's electability?

[durrrty libby]

54. Rudy looks truly blissful in that photo. He is in a very happy place there,

and needs to follow that dream.