Pew Research: "an overwhelming share of liberals (87%) want to see Hillary Clinton run"

[Cali_Democrat]

<...>

The survey finds that about half of Americans (51%) want to see Hillary Clinton run for president in 2016, while 43% say they would not want to see her run. If Clinton decides to run, however, most say they would consider voting for her. Nearly six-in-ten say there is a good chance (35%) or some chance (24%) they would vote for Clinton. About four-in-ten adults (38%) – including 74% of Republicans – say there is no chance they would vote for her.

Among Democrats, an overwhelming share of liberals (87%) want to see Hillary Clinton run and nearly as many (83%) say there is a good chance they would vote for her. Fewer conservative and moderate Democrats want Clinton to run (69%); 60% say there is a good chance they would vote for he

So it appears liberals support Clinton more than conservative and moderate Democrats.

http://www.people-press.org/2014/03/04/hillary-clintons-strengths-record-at-state-toughness-honesty/

[NCTraveler]

1. Add me to the list. I want to see Hillary run. nt.

[RufusTFirefly]

15. Me too! Away!

And, besides, what the Hell is a "liberal" these days when our President is considered by many to be a socialist?

Liberal: (n) Someone who watches the liberal media instead of Fox News.

[NCTraveler]

24. 1) I have never met someone who thought Obama is a socialist.

Maybe we travel in different circles.


2) I remember seeing a republican cartoon that said "want to see Hillary run, throw rocks at her". Cute sentiment you have there.

I simply said I want to see her run. Sorry you take issue with that. I take issue with rw rhetoric.

[RufusTFirefly]

26. The plural of anecdote isn't data

According to 2010 poll by James Carville's Democracy Corps (quoted in The Atlantic), 55 percent of likely voters said the President was a socialist.

As for your cheap shot, hamfisted attempt to lump me together with some violent, artless Republican cartoon that I have never seen or heard of until you mentioned it, shame on you.

As for your suggestion that I'm taking issue with your desire to see Hillary Clinton run, stop playing the victim. You and the defense industry can vote for Clinton if you want. I have no intentions of stopping you.

[NCTraveler]

27. Never played the victim in any way.

Never met someone who thought Obama is a socialist. Never. As I said, we seem to travel in different circles.

Absolute classic if you follow your own link. Too funny.

[Logical]

2. She had a 27 point lead over Obama and lost it! You want her???? nt

[Cali_Democrat]

3. I don't know who I want

But facts are facts.

Liberals like Hillary and want to see her run. This is also consistent with other polling Gallup has done that shows liberals have a higher approval rating of Obama than conservative and moderate Dems.

So it appears liberals like Obama, Hillary and Warren.

There is no real divide.

[Tarheel_Dem]

4. The Democrats don't have another Obama waiting in the wings. And for those still waiting for....

Warren or Sanders, should probably get over it.

[totodeinhere]

40. I like Clinton, but I don't want a Clinton coronation. It would be better for the party and

the country IMO if she gets major opposition for the nomination and is forced to fight for it. The primary campaign in 2008 made Barack Obama a tougher candidate. And the American people deserve more choices. And what I would really hate to see is another Clinton vs Bush election.

[Tarheel_Dem]

46. I like HRC much more than in '08. I'm with you re: coronations. However, Hillary rehabed herself..

for me personally. I would now support her without reservation. Of course, I'm in that minority that would support Joe Biden should he choose to run.

[msanthrope]

6. Yes. nt

[tarheelsunc]

10. She didn't lose the lead so much as Obama took it.

The Obama campaign in 2007-2008 probably did the best job in history. For most people, he came out of nowhere. Even after the 2004 DNC, not many average people knew who he was.

[JoePhilly]

13. Think she'll overlook the caucuses again?

I don't.

She lost the nomination to Obama by a tiny margin. If she had won by that same margin, the folks who voted for Obama in the primary would have voted for her just as enthusiastically.

Complaining about Hillary isn't going to generate a better alternative candidate all by itself.

[Beacool]

35. Yes, I do.

Obama was a blank slate and people were willing to give him a chance. Right now, Hillary has the highest ratings of any non incumbent Democrat in the history of the party. 2016 won't be like 2008.

[gcomeau]

51. Losing a lead... *In A Primary* ... *To Obama*...

...is not something I consider to be a terribly problematic indicator. Why do you?

[truebrit71]

5. Ah yes, these mythical 'self-proclaimed' "liberals"...

...still not buying...

[msanthrope]

7. The No True Scotsman? I'm surprised at you, truebrit. nt

[Cali_Democrat]

12. Republicans hated the 2012 polls...

so they ended up creating their own 'unskewed' polls.

Don't live in a bubble like them.

Open your eyes to the facts.

[truebrit71]

14. Yup....

....without exception, the liberals that I know will NOT support her in the primary, because she isn't a liberal, but would support her in the general....just like it was with Obama...

[RoccoR5955]

38. Exactly

my thoughts. She would never be my choice in the primary, but if it was up to Hillary, and some dirtbag teabagger CONservative, I would once again have to hold my nose and vote for Clinton!

[davidpdx]

75. My mom and I would do the same

Both of us will probably support an alternative in the primary and support her in the general election if she were to win the nomination.

[JoePhilly]

16. Maybe you should distribute "certified liberal" ID cards.

I mean, we don't want people claiming to be liberal without the proper documentation.

[Beacool]

41. This.......

[Tarheel_Dem]

47. Always wondered where I could get one of those! Are they kept in some super secret vault somewhere?

[Cali_Democrat]

53. hahahaha. nt

[m-lekktor]

19. this must be the same crowd

of liberal dems who 85% of approve of Obama!

[snooper2]

21. well, there is a difference between a Democratic Liberal and a Socialist

[Spider Jerusalem]

8. My takeaway from that?

"Four in ten say there is no chance they would vote for her."

You probably don't want a candidate with negatives that high two years before a general election. She was the inevitable candidate in 2008...until a credible challenger came along. And how did that turn out?

[hobbit709]

9. LoZo, is that you?

[closeupready]

11. lol, +1.

[laundry_queen]

32. hahaha. nt

[Cali_Democrat]

42. The great thing about polls like the one I posted in the OP...

is that they completely shatter the bubble that some folks live in. There are folks, especially here on DU, who are CONVINCED liberals hate Obama and Hillary.

The statistical evidence proves that just isn't the case. Polls from Pew to PPP and Gallup come to the same conclusions. Liberals like Hillary and Obama.

There are folks who live in a bubble similar to the the one Republicans lived in during the 2012 election. They were convinced the polls were wrong and Obama would get shellacked. That couldn't be further from the truth. They even created their own polls to reinforce their point of view. It was rather pathetic.

My goal is to shatter the bubble on the left with actual facts and numbers. Some people won't like it but they will just have to deal.

[Tarheel_Dem]

50. Careful, CaliDem, or you'll be labeled "an authoritarian", and you know what that means.

You'll get a disapproving pouty face.....

[Cali_Democrat]

52. LOL!

[rhett o rick]

60. The problem is that some people think that anyone left of Paul Ryan is a liberal. nm

[laundry_queen]

67. Americans think anyone to the left of the tea turds is a liberal

I can call myself a doctor but that doesn't make me one.

[Cali_Democrat]

68. Polls are always inaccurate when they don't fit your narrative.

Political polls are conducted using self-identification. Look how accurate it was in 2012 and before that. The science of accurate polling cannot be disputed, just ask Nate Silver.

There are some pollsters like Rasmussen that suck ass, but Nate Silver exposed them for what they are. Rasmussen is a well known GOP hack who raised money for GOPers in the past.

People who reject polls remind me of GOPers in 2012 who decided to create their own 'unskewed' polls.

Since you're so smart, how would you implement your polling methodology?

[laundry_queen]

69. I wouldn't allow people to self-report as liberals for starters. nt

[Cali_Democrat]

70. Well...

Do you know why Republicans thought the 2012 polls were skewed toward Dems? It's because if you drilled down into nearly every sample, there were more Dems polled than Republicans. Republicans felt this was unfair and decided to 'unskew' the polls to create an equal number of Dems and Republicans.

What those idiots completely failed to comprehend was that polling is done using self-identification. Pollsters didn't seek out more Dems than Republicans. The pollsters simply conducted random polling and it just so happened that more people self-identified as Democratic voters. In other words, there were more self-identified Dems in the country.

Guess what? The polls turned out to be spot on. The few polls that weighted, like Rasmussen, were way off.

The science of polling cannot be denied. It's always amusing to me when I see people on DU dispute the science behind polling.

So feel free to develop your own methodology and good luck to you....

[laundry_queen]

71. I'm sure you're the expert. nt

[Number23]

72. And a heap of us applaud you for it.

My goal is to shatter the bubble on the left with actual facts and numbers. Some people won't like it but they will just have to deal.

[Cali_Democrat]

73. Thanks!

[winter is coming]

17. Then let them vote for her. I'll pass. n/t

[m-lekktor]

18. low info voters everywhere out there.

very unlike the hi info political junkies here on DU!

[Beacool]

44. Who uses that term all the time?

Oh yeah, Rush Limbaugh.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

20. She lost once already. nt

[totodeinhere]

36. In our history several presidents tried and lost the first time, only to come back

and win in a future election. Trying once and losing should not disqualify her.

[Bluenorthwest]

22. Everything else aside, what's with the 4% gap between 'liberals who want her to run'

and those who say there is a good chance they'd vote for her? Who are these people who say they are liberals, want her to run but would not consider voting for her? Where is the sense in that? Are they the 4% who are pulling someone's leg, or do they want her as competition to their preferred candidate?
That's just a weird bit of statistic there. 'I want her to run, but I'd never vote for her' sounds like something a Republican would say.

[sufrommich]

23. The lesson to be learned here: DU isn't really

a good barometer for the democratic base or democratic voters.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

29. I have yet to find a Dem blog that is.

People who hang out on political blogs are more likely to be better informed and therefore more critical of all politicians, even those of their own party, although there are always a contingent of 'party trumps all' types as well.

If you want a barometer of actual voters, you have to ask voters who don't hang on blogs, and are less likely to know when the party machinery is serving them up candidates with clay feet.

[Beacool]

45. Ain't that the truth.

And thank goodness for it.

[Enrique]

25. more proof that we are thinking wrong

we should brace ourselves for a lot more of this over the next couple of years: If your'e not on the Hillary bandwagon, here is an unending list of reasons why there is something wrong with you.

[bunnies]

28. Repubs have been calling her "liberal" for decades.

Guess the branding stuck.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

30. Hmmm. They kept calling Obama a socialist,

and now 'socialist' isn't a dirty term anymore to young people.

I wonder what other words they've spent decades demonizing that we can get them to undo in the span of a few years.

[bunnies]

65. lol. I never thought of it like that.

Theyre doing our dirty work for us. Win!

[iandhr]

31. But but but...

She is a right wing sellout. DU tells me so everyday.

[Vashta Nerada]

33. Yeah, I'll pass on that.

[Leith]

34. I'll Vote for Her If She Is the Nominee

But she isn't my first choice. I still don't like her "yes" vote that got the US into Iraq.

But, I'll just have to get over it. If she's the nominee, I'll certainly vote for her.

The biggest problem with H Clinton is the rethugs. You think they were bad in the 1990s? You think they treat Obama like dirt? You ain't seen nuttin' yet. They are going to drag her in the mud they create, throw crap at her like we've never heard, and be worse than we can imagine. Being "a lesbian, Vince Foster's lover, and his murderer" are tame compared to what's coming.

I apologize for the above language, but most of you have been around long enough to remember what they've done to her before. They were just warming up.

[byronius]

37. "You think they treat Obama like dirt? You ain't seen nuttin' yet." -- best reason to support her.

Drives them crazy. Me, I'm angry enough that it makes me feel better about her.

If they liked her and treated her with respect, I'd hesitate.

F*ck the haters.

That being said, I kind of agree with your first statement. She is probably the most electable within the insane confines of our destroyed election system. But there are people I think would be awesome leaders, folks that would actually have a chance in a publically-financed election, and it's a shame they're not going to be given a chance.

Elections are supposed to be about seeking the most effective leadership. Too bad primate routines left over from our origins on the savannah are still cursing us with the cult of personality. 'Cause Bernie Sanders would rock as a leader.

[Beacool]

48. Yes, but there's a plus side to that.

She knows how to handle them after so many years of their vitriol. Frankly, I think the Left has treated her only a tad better than the Right. So I think that she can handle incoming fire from both sides. At this point, I can't think of one candidate who is more prepared to be president. She has already seen it it all in the WH, Congress and in the international arena.

[Beacool]

39. Now you did it!!!

87% of liberals want her to run and 83% would be willing to vote for her? She's too liberal for the conservative Democrats?

But, but, she's such a RW ogre; according to the denizens of DU.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

43. I've got nothing against Hillary

but the headline is a bit deceiving. When has she ever practiced liberal politics? It probably should read "an overwhelming share of Democrats....."
on edit: I forgot to say, I'm liberal in my politics and I'm fairly certain Hillary isn't.

[Cali_Democrat]

49. The headline is based on statistical evidence conducted by Pew. nt

[rhett o rick]

56. Of course but that's a none answer. Who does PEW call Liberal? Many

here in DU that are as conservative as Nixon call themselves liberal.

[Cali_Democrat]

61. We need Liberal ID cards

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4861397

[rhett o rick]

62. Now that's an interesting response. The PEW poll isnt worth anything unless they

define how they decided people were liberals. I dont understand why non-liberals are trying so hard to paint the picture that liberals like Clinton. You guys seem to be confused whether you hate the lefty-liberals or welcome their support for your conservative candidate.

[Cali_Democrat]

63. The fact that you don't know how political polls are conducted...

reveals your lack of knowledge on the subject.

http://www.people-press.org/methodology/

Political polls are always done using self-identification and most were deadly accurate in 2012.

Just ask Nate Silver.

Also, I don't have candidate for 2016 like you. You've apparently picked a candidate who hasn't declared and says she isn't running. Funny dat.

[rhett o rick]

64. I would hope you'd be above the snark.

I would love to see Sen Warren run in 2016. But I bet the Wall Street run Democratic machine will "strongly" discourage her. Goldman-Sacks-O-Money will probably choose for the Democrats and I bet you fall in line.

[L0oniX]

79. ^^^this^^^

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

76. I'm not convinced PEW

is non-partisan though they say they are. All of this matters not. We are still 2 years from the election and a lot could happen to the political landscape. I try to live one day at a time.

[IDemo]

54. Gallup: Four in 10 Americans Believe in Strict Creationism

We need to begin reconsidering evolution.

[cthulu2016]

55. Really?

It's fine to note that everybody is an idiot, since everybody is an idiot, but you just did so in the context of electoral politics.

Really? That's where someone wants to go?

[IDemo]

57. Idiot, maybe not

But I think a large number of self-identified liberals in the OP poll are clueless as to what constitutes the tenets of actual liberalism. It's further evidence that the Right (and of late, Third Wayers) has succeeded in transferring the political frame of reference rightwards over the past several decades.

A majority or plurality doesn't automatically lend credence to an underlying philosophy or belief. That holds true for elections and polls and was the point of my example. A large percentage may be significant or meaningful in chemistry or accounting. In political polls? Not so much.

[Otelo]

59. What do liberals say about creationism, according to Gallup?

I noticed that you compared a pear to an apple.

[Otelo]

58. What a strange DLC'er, less popular among moderates

Than liberals.

[BlueStater]

66. Proud to be NOT among them. n/t

[MineralMan]

74. I'm sure that polls like this will influence candidates thinking

about running for President in 2016, but I do not expect any declarations of candidacy based on this early polling. In fact, I don't expect any announcements regarding candidacy to occur until after the 2014 mid-term elections. The results of those elections will play a large role in any decisions, I'm certain.

Polling will continue, but it will be the actual polls at the polling places in November that will have the largest impact. If Democratic GOTV efforts result in an unusually large turnout of Democrats, that will also affect decisions by potential candidates.

At this point, I can't get too interested in who will be running for President in 2016. There's just too much to do to ramp up turnout for the 2014 election. 2016 will really come into play once that election is over.

GOTV 2014 and Beyond!

[djean111]

77. Well, my head did not explode. Sorry. Polls are not explosive, they are just polls.

There will be many more.
Our politician don't really give a shit about polls when toadying to big money - why should I feel even a drop of interest in them?
First, there is no poll that would make me, personally, support someone like Hillary who is a Wall Street darling and supports, actually helped write, the TPP. I don't care what ANYBODY else thinks.
Second, if liberals who do not like Hillary are such a tiny worthless segment of Dem voters, why all the knickers in a twist? Is total obeisance required by a certain date or something? Is not caring for Hillary bad ch'i for DU? Are we supposed to be in lockstep? Puzzlement abounds!

Anyway, maybe after people realise just what Hillary's policies are, polls may be different. I sure as hell do not vote based on polls, though.

The determined (unsuccessful, I think!) attacks on DUers who do not like Hillary is kind of strange - is she trying for so much avowed support that those primaries where everyone's deeds and policies are dragged out into the sunlight will be deemed unnecessary?

[L0oniX]

78. I'm only a registered Dem so I can vote local and state. Otherwise I am IDT.

I will never vote for Hillary Clinton ...fucking never! ...and I am not the only Dem who won't ...so go ahead and select her to run ...it's your own shit you are stepping in. Some voters still have integrity.