Ahem. Can someone tell me what year it is?

[MH1]

Okay, that's what I thought.

Sigh.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/5/13/1580/13080

Kerry wasn't included initially, so we have some catching up to do.

[TayTay]

1. Did you see this from Atrios?

Favorable/Unfavorable ratings
Hillary 53/42
Dean 33/36
Edwards 49/24
Gore 49/43
KEnnedy 43/45
Kerry 49/40

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_05_07_atrios_archive.html#114753808362124281

[MH1]

2. Hmmm. Big "undecided" column for Dean.

Which probably means he's doing his job.

[wisteria]

4. Someone explain to me how Senator Clinton can be rated so

favorably? Is is done by not leading or taking a stand on an issue without first checking to see if it's favorable to do so?

[karynnj]

5. Reading the MSM it would be impossible to know that Hillary

is not leading as much as some of the others. The NYT has recently had articles that spoke of what a great job she does for her constituents, and a long article on all the bi-partisan work she has done with Republicans. If you didn't follow CSPAN or forums, you would think that this is unigue. Most of the bills were things like the flag burning amendment and the video games thing. They also point out that she is working with Gingrich on some health care issues - he is not (Thank God) in the Senate so I think this was just the think tank thing. The fact is we could list Republicans Kerry is working with and that list would be as impressive.

Kerry has Santorum as the other sponsor on Kerry's respect religion bill, he's with Isakson (?, R-GA) on the anti- kid pornography bill etc. Kerry's also are all things firmly rooted in his past views - Clinton, I'm not so sure.

These numbers look better than the NYT ones - I suspect the questions may have been better written to make people choose. (possibly just by asking - all things considered are you more negative or positive on this person - creating a lower threshold for saying "favorable". Kerry's numbers here are excellent given over 2 years of negative press. After all that he's only 4% behind Hillary - which is likely in the MOE.

Edwards has unusually low negatives and high unknowns compared to the others - this is good news for him - it's easier to go from don't know to yes, but it also points to the obvious that he is not as completely known as the others. It may even mean he (as Kerry did in 2004) could lose some positives if he becomes a strong enough candidate for someone to point out things they see as negatives.

The good news is that Hillary, Kerry, Edwards and Gore have high enough favorables to win. Some of the undecided are that pool of Americans who likely don't vote - mentally removing them easily gets the 49 to above 50. Obviously, the Republican candidate matters too. For Kerry the interesting thing is that his negatives are the same or slightly lower than in fall 2004 - which is good news. (Given his lack of good press - this is great - it's trending the right way.)

[ProSense]

3. It's the next wave of BS!

Like the Kerry vs Gore poll in GD-P. When the potential candidates' positions on the issues (domestic and foreign) come into play, the field will look at lot different. Many of these people have no clue where the candidates stand.

I guarantee that, with all the bashing Kerry receives for not being progressive enough, many are going to be surprised at the position of everyone on that list, except Feingold.

[karynnj]

6. Note that the Strategic vision poll averages 8 states, including Wisc

Feingold on average is considerably below Kerry - if Wisconsin, where Feingold got 30% - is eliminated. As only 8 states are included - the inclusion of Wisconsin overstates Feingold's estimate.

Gore's numbers likely reflect that this was the height of the publicity on his movie and the pundits suggestions of him as an anti-Hillary. It may well say more for the softness of Hillary's numbers that there is already a strong desire for an anti-Hillary. Kerry, on the other hand has gotten far less positive press. What I'm surprised by is the absence of DU, Dkos etc calls for Gore to state which plan he advocates for Iraq? All of Gore' s publicity is on global warming and Bush's breaking the law.

Edwards' numbers are high here.

[Mass]

7. Strategic vision - a GOP polling firm.

No big surprise here. Just a few states listed. A bunch of people polled who have said they will not be candidate (Boxer, Rendell), or who are very unlikely to run (Vilsack). And anyway, it is way too early to poll people. All we get here is name recognition: Clinton and Gore are well known. So are Edwards (which has toured in these states again and again) and Kerry comes 4th. Feingold does not do that well once you take WI out of the equation(and it is probably that Kerry would fare much better if WI was replaced by another state) and all the other ones are nowhere.

So, what is new. Polls these days poll name recognition (a clear advantage), and nothing else.