What percentage of "very liberal" voters have an unfavorable view of Hillary Clinton?

[DanTex]

The answer...

[font size=7]5%[/font]

Yes, that's right. In fact, the more liberal a voter is, the more favorable the impression of Hillary.

Very liberal: 91% favorable 5% unfavorable
Somewhat liberal: 78% 18%
Moderate: 58% 29%
Somewhat conservative: 21% 69%
Very conservative: 5% 93%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_22515.pdf

Presumably this will end all the talk about "liberals" or "progressives" not liking Hillary. Except maybe among the lurking poll-truthers.

Also, Hillary leads all Republicans in the GE polls, and she's polling 10% better than other potential Dems against the Republican field.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/02/clinton-leads-general-primary.html

[Capt. Obvious]

1. Lozo had more style with these threads

[DanTex]

2. Don't know who that is, but I'm more of a numbers and facts guy.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. Ignore Captain Obvious

He's under orders from his general to make a snarky remark whenever certain Democrats are mentioned.

[KittyWampus]

53. Capt Obvious is referring to LoZoccolo. Someone who was banned as a troll. He's calling you a troll.

Cause he doesn't like the poll and obviously realized he's in the tiny minority of rabid anti-Hillary liberals.

[DanTex]

55. Thanks. I figured that out after the next 10 posts.

Something about the 5% number must have stung. I don't think it's common for a whole big subthread to arise calling the OP a troll just because I posted some poll numbers.

[KittyWampus]

61. Well, I've been reluctant to get drawn into DU drama and arguments for quite a while now-

but Capt Obvious calling you a troll twice cause he doesn't like the poll and its info is nasty.

And that some other BULLIES decide to jump and and egg him on is just as repulsive.

I think that is what draws me in here… the subsequent bullying behavior.

I've been subjected to such on DU and I am SICK OF IT.

Yeah, you can stand up for yourself… but I can also express my objections to it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

59. LoZo is getting defamed here.

He started from the premise," Democrat good, Republican bad", and saw the world through those lens. Now one might say that's an infantile way through which to view the world but I can think of worse ways to see it.

[Rex]

64. LOL! He was a troll. You know why he got shit canned?

He tried to take the host forum hostage! Told Skinner he wanted things done his way! People that believed he was an actual Dem, like to forget that fact. Yeah, lot's of people around here cried when he got TSd.

A great day it was, to watch one of DUs worst trolls meltdown and then get shit canned.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

68. Like you I have a ton of posts.

But I don't/can't/don't want to monitor this board 24/7.

This is news to me...

But I never read one post by him that would indicate his sympathies didn't lie with the Democratic party.

[Rex]

72. Oh I am not saying he was a freeper or anything like that.

It is clear some dems troll this board for their own reasons. He was a master at it. Why he did so I don't know, but after a while I liked looking at the numbers liberals turned out and didn't know we had such solid voting convictions.

So I will thank him for that knowledge.

[whatchamacallit]

137. 'twas great indeed n/t

[sharp_stick]

150. You Better Believe It! n/t

[Buzz Clik]

112. I'm in the same minority, but I don't find the need to be an insufferable jackass.

Well, not all the time anyway.

[Number23]

163. It's funny that Lozo got much hate because all he did was post Gallup threads that proved beyond all

shadow of all doubt that the folks here who scream and bray that they are the only TRUE Democrats and the REAL members of the Dem base but do nothing but shit on and slime Democrats were full of all kinds of caca.

He'd post a Gallup poll, particularly on a day that GD was full of "WE HATE OBAMA!!1one" "WE HATE DEMS1one!!" asshattery that would show that 80% and higher of Democrats supported the president and that would be it. The place would go ape shit.

Was it disruptive? Probably. But I think certain posters real problem with Lozo is that he let it be known that they were the fringe and if there is one thing the fringe doesn't like, it's to be reminded of its own lack of power.

[FSogol]

173. "and if there is one thing the fringe doesn't like, it's to be reminded of its own lack of power."

True dat.

[hobbit709]

3. Beat me to it.

[Cooley Hurd]

4. LoZoccolo?

There's a blast from the past!

[Fumesucker]

7. The OP would have been a LoZo fan club member

[City Lights]

128. Ha! Haven't seen that name in awhile!

Skated close to the edge for a long time before slipping and going over.

[Fumesucker]

10. LoZo was painting the Sistine Chapel of trolldom

Some posters are still stuck on paint by numbers..

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. Whatever happened to him?

All I remember was his animus to Nader and he was a classic yellow dog Democrat. There are certainly less unredeeming qualities.

[hobbit709]

15. He trolled badly.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. Did he get tombstoned?

His zealotry was no different than some of the other denizens of this board, not that is inherently a bad thing, it was just from another direction.

He also had stones...He made a you tube of himself hectoring random strangers on the streets of Chicago about the evils of "Naderism".

[marym625]

32. yikes

From Chicago? Glad he's gone then.

[Fumesucker]

22. Au contraire, LoZo trolled very well indeed

Had a lot of people fooled.

You Better Believe It

[11 Bravo]

159. Fuck that! He trolled BRILLIANTLY! And for quite some time.

But he eventually lost his edge on a downhill schuss, and wound up in the trees. It wasn't pretty.

[Fumesucker]

18. Got a well deservd pizza for being a troll

[KittyWampus]

43. Ah, so this entire subthread is not even subtlety calling Dantex a troll.

Cause a few posters don't like the poll information.

Just making an observation.

[Fumesucker]

57. LoZo was a pragmatic moderate centrist troll

And had a large and enthusiastic fan club here among the pragmatic moderate centrists thanks to posts very much like the OP.

Something about confirmation bias I think.

You Better Believe It!

[KittyWampus]

65. The opposite to pragmatic is ideologue. And so are you now calling Dantex names

since you seem to agree he's just like LoZoccolo?

And not very subtly calling another DU'er names?

Just cause the poll in the OP hurt your wittle feelings?

You are smarter, wittier and better than that.

Grow the heck up. This isn't the 4th grade.

[Fumesucker]

69. I also mentioned an opposite troll who had a large following

You Better Believe It was a troll on the left.

More confirmation bias.

[Bobbie Jo]

161. On the left?

Oh please.

[Fumesucker]

162. YBBI's posts were usually framed that way, attacks on Obama from the left

Just like LoZo's posts were framed as a centrist attacking the left.

[Bobbie Jo]

166. No

BBI was/is a poseur.

They may have "framed" some of their posts from a LW POV, but they also posted a lot of RW "criticism."

If BBI were truly a lefty, the account would still be active. You basically just described 3/4 of DU who do nothing but "attack from the left." Daily...

BBI was a complete phony.

[Fumesucker]

167. Yes, just like LoZoccolo

A complete phony with an amazingly enthusiastic and adoring fan club who cheered his every attack on anyone even slightly to the left of Obama on any given day.

[Bobbie Jo]

168. Many similarities, apparently

right down to the adoring fan club.

"One of our most respected DU'ers."

That one still cracks me up.

[Fumesucker]

169. I appreciate your remarkable memory and subtle wit, DU would not be the same without you

I think you posted in my thread about writing being hard, my memory is not what it used to be, or so I am told.

[FSogol]

174. BBI was the typical GOP Opposition Research type troll.

He attacked Democrats from the left and right, but preferred the left attack. He had a lot of "fans" here.

[KittyWampus]

46. So you are not even subtlety calling Dantex a troll. Cause you don't like the poll.

That says more about you and those replying favorably to your post that it does about Dantex or the poll.

In fact, it just reinforces the information gathered by the poll… that there's only a tiny fraction of liberals who are foam-at-the-mouth anti-Hillary.

I can't stand Hillary and don't want her as POTUS but I choose my attacks on her and all Democrats wisely.

[ColesCountyDem]

102. I can't believe that your post hasn't been removed.

I guess personal attacks are acceptable at DU now.

[Capt. Obvious]

171. What were the jury results?

[ColesCountyDem]

172. I have no idea. n/t

[Bobbie Jo]

154. Were you even around for LoZo?

Thought he bailed long before you showed up a couple of years ago.

As far as your snark, meh....LoZo was better at that too.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. The problem with the denizens of this board...

The problem with the denizens of this board is they mostly only talk to folks who think like themselves and get their own views shouted back at them and consequently think everybody thinks like them.

[DanTex]

12. Being out of touch with reality explains why the Naderites never actually accomplish anything.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. Yes and No

Nader achieved a lot for consumers before he began his vanity campaigns.

[DanTex]

17. That's true. I was referring to 2000 onwards.

His consumer advocacy was great and should be applauded. Too bad he flushed his reputation down the toilet in 2000.

[Capt. Obvious]

24. You really are channeling Lozo

[DanTex]

25. Ooh, a second personal attack. That 5% number must have stung!

[Capt. Obvious]

30. For someone with such a high opinion of his own intelligence

I'm a little stunned you don't understand what a personal attack is.

[DanTex]

51. When I make a personal attack I own up to it...

[KittyWampus]

58. For someone who thinks they understand what a personal attack is, I'm stunned

you don't think calling Dantex LoZoccolo/Troll TWICE doesn't qualify as such.

[William769]

80. You are clearly wrong here.

And we will just leave it at that.

[TreasonousBastard]

19. In this case, I presume they polled...

the general population. 99.999% of which doesn't post on DU.

99.99% of which never even heard of DU.

BTW, last election I knocked on a lot of doors for local Democrats and I did find a fair number of Dems who were just pissed off in general and wouldn't vote at all. I have no idea what the percentages were. Republicans seemed more inclined to vote out of civic responsibility.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. Most folks don't see the world through an ideological lens.

They literally can't afford to. Their thinking is much more now oriented.

[TheKentuckian]

27. Hand to much thinking leads to more hand to mouth situations.

I'd argue people can't afford to think as they are over the long term.

It is simplistic excuse making too because it is a choice not a requirement.

[ReRe]

103. Hey...there's an idea...

Let's do a DU poll and see where everyone stands. I guarantee the OP's poll will flip upside down.

[leftynyc]

26. Amen brother/sister

A fucking Men. They live in the same kind of bubble Bill Maher made a running joke for concerning republicans. Our "true believers" are the same way. 90% of Americans simply don't count with them.

[uponit7771]

97. +1

[Logical]

8. Yet she lost a 30 point lead to obama is 2008!! Amazing! nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. Well, this time her lead is forty five to fifty points so she has a bigger cushion.

No candidate in the history of polling has lost the nomination with that type of lead

[wyldwolf]

36. Who is this election cycle's Obama?

[dembotoz]

9. sooooo i am very conservative--who would have thunk

[bigwillq]

16. 5 Percenter!!! WOO HOO!!!!

[HappyMe]

37. I'm a 5%er also.

I guess we both "failed" the Label of The Day test.

[bigwillq]

39. Labels, smabels.

[HappyMe]

44. lol!

Call me anything you like, just don't call me late for dinner.

[bigwillq]

47. MMM....dinner!

I just had breakfast but could go for dinner already!

[HappyMe]

54. I had the last slice of lemon pound cake and some coffee.

I am going to get started on the sauce for the lasagna I'm making tomorrow. It tastes better after it has a day to sit.

[GoneOffShore]

100. As am I.

Hilary is a liberal? More neo-liberal.

[L0oniX]

145. They are so sure that Hillary is the pick that they have to post this. Right?

[Dawgs]

20. Most people that call themselves "very liberal" are ignorant sheep. n/t

[wyldwolf]

28. I've found that to be the case as well, especially on DU ^^

[KittyWampus]

40. Yes, on DU I have found that to be true. They stick to their confirmation bias, call anyone

who doesn't agree 100% with them "authoritarians" and fall for stupid shit the Republicans throw out if it disparages a Democrat they aren't keen on. They like to put bumper stickers into their signature line for things like electing Elizabeth Warren, even though she isn't running rather than finding a "real" liberal candidate who might actually run.

I agree with you. Most of the people that call themselves "very liberal" on DU are ignorant sheep. Oh, and they are the least tolerant.

[BlueCaliDem]

107. Bing-effing-O! Excellent conclusion, KW.

[zappaman]

109. +1

Nailed it.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

94. I must be one of the few!

What does "very liberal" imply?

[L0oniX]

116. I usually only see attacks on liberals posted on DI. I imagine that same goes for puke sites as well

You do know that DU is a liberal Democratic website?

[OnyxCollie]

119. 2.5% of voters know what "very liberal" actually means.

The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics
http://caracaschronicles.com/2007/10/23/philip-converse-the-nature-of-belief-systems-in-mass-publics/

Ideologues: These respondents relied on “a relatively abstract and far reaching conceptual dimension as a yardstick against which political objects and their shifting political significance over time were evaluated” (p.216).

Near Ideologues: These respondents mentioned the liberal-conservative dimension peripherally, but did not appear to place much emphasis on it, or used it in a way that led the researchers to question their understanding of the issues.

Group Interest: This group did not demonstrate an understanding of the ideological spectrum, but made choices based on which groups they saw the parties representing (e.g. Democrats supporting blacks, Republicans supporting big business or the rich). These people tended to not understand issues that did not clearly benefit the groups they referred to.

Nature of the Times: The members of this group exhibited no understanding of the ideological differences between parties, but made their decisions on the “nature of the times.” Thus, they did not like Republicans because of the Depression, or they didn’t like the Democrats because of the Korean war.

No issue content: This group included the respondents whose evaluation of the political scene had “no shred of policy significance whatever” (p. 217). These people included respondents who identified a party affiliation, but had no idea what the party stood for, as well as people who based their decisions on personal qualities of candidates.

Most people fall into the lower three levels of conceptualization.

Converse found that only about 2.5% of the public (as of 1956) was passably knowledgeable about the meaning of liberalism and conservatism, the “belief systems” that structured, and still structure, most political debate and public-policy making. That would be bad enough; but surely knowing what the dominant belief systems “mean” isn’t sufficient to make well-informed political decisions.

Converse: The nature of belief systems in mass publics
http://wikisum.com/w/Converse:_The_nature_of_belief_systems_in_mass_publics

A great majority of people neither adhere to a full, complete set of beliefs which produces a clear ideology nor do they have a clear grasp of what ideology is. This is measured by a lack of coherence in responses to open-ended questions. Ideology of elites is not mirrored by the masses and voter revolt to a political party does not reflect ideological shifts.

Converse analyzes open-ended interview questions to measure conceptualization of ideology. He concludes that the liberal-conservative continuum is a high level abstraction not typically used by the man in the street because of response instability and lack of connections made between answers. There is no underlying belief structure for most people, just a bunch of random opinions. Even on highly controversial, well-publicized issues, large portions of the electorate do not have coherent opinions. In fact, many simply answer survey questions as though they are flipping a coin.

[Rex]

29. Yet when it is time to beat moral into liberals around here, they are horrible people

that never vote.

THANK YOU for helping pointing out a double standard around here that is just sad.

[DanTex]

33. Well, the Nader debacle shows that the far left can help the Republicans in close elections.

In general, they are pretty powerless, but the one skill they seem to have is getting Republicans elected.

[Rex]

35. Wow, sorry didn't mean to make you mad.

[DanTex]

38. No worries, not mad at all. Cautiously optimistic, based on current polling. This is good news.

[Rex]

41. If only those 100k democrats had voted for their party leader and not Bush in Florida.

Al Gore would have won. But what can you expect out of moderates and centrists? They clearly don't vote like liberals. Too bad we don't have more liberals, I guess they feel left out of the process.

Again, thank you for pointing out the double standard centrists use here on liberals that always vote for the candidate, I really appreciate it.

[DanTex]

48. Hillary seems to have pretty broad appeal though.

Huge support from the liberal base, but also polling pretty will with moderates and the center-left crowd. I actually don't think we'll have another Naderesque sabotage attempt this time around.

But we'll see.

[Rex]

52. I've said she is a shoe in. Nobody is close to touching her polling numbers.

Hopefully no Nader or traitorous dems this time! Fingers crossed!

[DanTex]

62. Shoo-in is putting it too strongly. I'm comfortable with "cautiously optimistic".

But you're right, another Nader debacle would be really bad for the country.

[Rex]

66. I don't think so, looking at all the fear of HRC so far out. I've never seen such in all my years.

She has people terrified and she hasn't even declared she is running yet!

[DanTex]

71. She does elicit strong emotional reactions from teabaggers and Naderites. That is true.

But I don't think that the emotional reactions of highly irrational people are the best way to measure her odds.

[Rex]

75. The highly irrational people you speak of were never going to vote for her.

I think she has a large amount of support from our base and undecided voters. THAT makes her scary to the GOP imo.

[DanTex]

77. The GOP is scared, but it's definitely not a "shoo-in".

Probably a shoo-in for the Democratic nomination, but the GE will be tougher. But I agree that she has a lot of support from the base and also the center-left.

[Rex]

83. I might skip out of here for the primaries.

Wasn't around for the Obama/HRC fight club, didn't care to see all the ugliness. At least we know whoever it is, has the liberal vote locked in. I think even many that say they won't vote for her, will after seeing what monstrosity the GOP finds to run as their candidate.

[winter is coming]

49. Oh snap!

[Rex]

60. I hope they take responsiblity for their vote in Florida.

But you know with people like that, it will never happen. Just making sure we don't forget the largest number of people that helped Bush get elected - surprise! It wasn't the Green party!

Moderates and centrist voted for Bush in 2000 in Florida. Their numbers made the difference.

Fuck up ain't it?

[winter is coming]

63. Shh. Don't overwhelm the narrative with facts. n/t

[Rex]

67. Trickle down knowledge.

You have to do it in tiny bits.

[Marr]

135. +1

[frylock]

117. The Far Left© is both the most irrelevant and the most powerful voting bloc you'll find..

according The Very Sensible People. It's entirely dependent upon current circumstances, of course.

[DanTex]

121. Well, they sure are ineffective at accomplishing anything positive.

So I guess they figure, instead of being totally powerless, better to show their muscle by pushing close elections towards the GOP.

[frylock]

125. another excellent effort at GOTV!

insulting large groups of voters is always such a great motivator.

[DanTex]

127. Well, I wouldn't say "large groups".

But you're right, I'm not a campaign operative. Just someone who can read polls correctly. Good thing Hillary has far more qualified people than me in that position.

[frylock]

131. yes, yes. We're at the irrelevant stage for now..

IF things go sideways, we can gird our loins for the inevitable scapegoating.

[DanTex]

132. That all depends on what the 5%-ers decide to do.

If the work against the Democrats (and, therefore, for the Republicans), like they did in 2000, then they will have earned whatever scorn they receive. I actually see this as an opportunity for the 5%-ers to do something productive, for the first time in many decades.

[frylock]

133. define "work against the Democrats"..

does that include exercising my right to vote for whomever I deem suitable for the office?

[DanTex]

136. Well, in 2000, it meant going around and discouraging people from voting Democratic by

falsely claiming that Bush and Gore were the same, and siphoning votes away from Gore. I'm not sure what the future holds. Like I said, maybe they will do something positive now.

[frylock]

138. you're working under the false assumption that those votes were going to Gore in the first place..

and once again failing to recognize the damage caused by 100,000+ registered Dems in FL that consciously decided to cast their vote for GWB.

[DanTex]

141. There's a lot of blame to go around for 2000. It's not 100% Nader's fault, I agree with you there.

Gore ran a bad campaign. Nader was just one of several factors. But, without a doubt, his actions were very helpful to Bush.

Like I said, maybe the far left will figure out some way to push in the right direction. If not, they will deserve whatever scorn they receive. It's funny, they seem to think that the rest of us liberals should respond to their strategy of threats and helping the GOP with open arms.

[mrdmk]

164. Dislike having to say this to you, most likely Gore won Florida if there were a total recount :-(

Q: When the votes were recounted in Florida, who won the 2000 presidential election?

A: Nobody can say for sure who might have won. A full, official recount of all votes statewide could have gone either way, but one was never conducted.

FULL ANSWER

According to a massive months-long study commissioned by eight news organizations in 2001, George W. Bush probably still would have won even if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a limited statewide recount to go forward as ordered by Florida’s highest court.

Bush also probably would have won had the state conducted the limited recount of only four heavily Democratic counties that Al Gore asked for, the study found.

On the other hand, the study also found that Gore probably would have won, by a range of 42 to 171 votes out of 6 million cast, had there been a broad recount of all disputed ballots statewide. However, Gore never asked for such a recount. The Florida Supreme Court ordered only a recount of so-called "undervotes," about 62,000 ballots where voting machines didn’t detect any vote for a presidential candidate.

None of these findings are certain. County officials were unable to deliver as many as 2,200 problem ballots to the investigators that news organizations hired to conduct the recount. There were also small but measurable differences in the way that the "neutral" investigators counted certain types of ballots, an indication that different counters might have come up with slightly different numbers. So it is possible that either candidate might have emerged the winner of an official recount, and nobody can say with exact certainty what the "true" Florida vote really was.

link: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-florida-recount-of-2000/


The simple fact is, Gore did not win by enough...

Also to mention, there was so much other corruption and other political chicanery from the powers that be (TPTB) in Florida, both Republicans and Democrats alike, Gore was doomed from the start. It was really too bad for this nation as a whole.

[DanTex]

165. I know that. But without Nader, there would be no recount.

This doesn't mean that Nader was the only factor. Nominating Lieberman was dumb. Running a tepid and frightened campaign was dumb. There's plenty of blame to go around. But, without a doubt, Nader shares part of it.

Full disclosure, I was almost a Naderite in 2000. I was even worse, a non-voter. It was my first election. I wasn't politically involved, but if I did vote, probably it would have been Nader. I bought into the whole "both parties are the same" anti-corporate line.

It didn't take very long to figure out how foolish I had been. Even before the IWR. It was a quick and brutal lesson. Elections matter. Honestly, if Gore had won, I don't think there would have been a 9-11, not because of any conspiracy, but because Bush stopped paying attention to Bin Laden and the whole terrorism threat because his advisors told him to focus on Russia and other ideological enemies.

[sabrina 1]

144. So the Dem Party doesn't need the Liberal vote? That is certainly the message that has been

sent since the Third Way gained enough power in the party.

And as a result, they have lost us the House and the Senate.

If slamming Liberals, as the Third Way very publicly did when they slammed Elizabeth Warren in the WSJ is going to be the Dem Party strategy AGAIN, they are once again going to lose.

Let us know when the Dem Party wants the Liberal vote, okay?

DU is turning into an anti-Liberal a site which is probably why so many Liberals have moved on to work on getting Progressive candidates elected locally, which they did in the mid terms AND getting progressive issues on ballots throughout the country, which they also did in the mid terms.

Meantime thanks to the policies of slamming those who helped them win the House, Senate, and the WH in 2008, they are turning our party into the minority.

[DanTex]

146. Well, the overwhelming majority of liberals like Hillary Clinton. So "liberal" is the wrong

word for the argument you are making.

I think it would be great for the far left to mobilize at the grassroots level and get people elected to the senate. But they haven't done that. Why? I don't know. The only senator from the progressive caucus is Bernie Sanders. One total.

If the far left is going to go around lying about how there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans, then they deserve all the scorn that gets heaped upon them. If they instead try to work to improve the political future of the country, that would be great. We'll see what happens.

[sabrina 1]

148. You didn't pay close attention to the mid terms if you think that Liberals didn't 'mobilize'. They

certainly did and as a result, KEPT the Progressive Democratic seats in Congress. And this is what I mean.

Without that mobilization Dems would have lost even more seats.

And what is the 'far left', another Third Way/Republican term for Democrats who support SS NOT being privatized eg, who oppose Cheney's Foreign Policies etc.

To me, as a Progressive Democrat, it means those who opposed the Iraq invasion, who oppose Heritage Foundation policies on the privatization of Social Programs etc. You know, the standard issues most Dems have always supported/opposed.

And the only time I have ever been referred to as 'Far Left' has been when I posted on mixed forums, by the Far Right.

Your post is exactly what I am talking about.

As for polls, I do not support Clinton's support for neocon Foreign Policies, BUT if I was being polled, and have been, I would say 'yes' to any question about supporting any Democrat, and have. You can't qualify your statement in those polls, so the default answer is 'yes' to all Democrats.

[mmonk]

31. That's because they are uninformed concerning connections

such as Rubinomics and the financial sector deregulation and such.

[brooklynite]

34. Gee, you can't trust POLLING.....

Think of all the polls that didn't predict Mitt Romney would win the Presidency...

[Renew Deal]

42. So either we have an abundance of the 5% and moderates or RW disrupters

are here to disrupt. Is it any coincidence that there are people here saying they won't vote for the Democratic nominee? Seems handy.

[Historic NY]

45. Interesting.

[William769]

50. Kick & highly recommended.

[MineralMan]

56. I'm sorry your thread ended up being about

something other than the numbers from the poll. I guess some folks don't have time for information, and would rather attack other DUers. It's a shame. Really it is.

[mountain grammy]

86. Yes, it really is a shame..

[cantbeserious]

70. HRC - An Economic Royalist At Heart

eom

[sendero]

73. I've never heard of...

... "Public Policy Polling".

Just the name sounds like bullshit to me. I can make a poll say any thing I want it to and everyone knows that. Only a handful of pollsters are considered trustworthy, and even them not always.

In any event, I really don't care what other people think, I think for myself.

[DanTex]

74. Public Policy Polling...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Policy_Polling

[sendero]

76. ...

... "In addition to political issues, the company has polled the public on such diverse topics as the approval rating of God,[6] whether Republican voters believe President Obama would be eligible to enter heaven in the event of the Rapture[7] and whether hipsters should be subjected to a special tax for being annoying.[8]"

Yeah, sounds like a serious outfit.

[DanTex]

78. LOL. Poll-trutherism at its finest.

[sendero]

79. Cherry picking..

... results isn't exactly a mark of integrity.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6281485

[DanTex]

82. No cherry picking. That OP is factually wrong.

That 47% "base" refers to the whole population, not the base of the democratic party. Here's the actual chart:

[blue neen]

87. Actually, I've been polled by Public Policy Polling a number of times.

It's usually close to primary or general election time. The questions are very relevant about those particular elections and have nothing to do with the Rapture or hipsters.

PPP is well known.

[blue neen]

90. You left out this quote from Wiki:

"A study by Fordham University found that, of 28 firms studied, PPP had the most accurate poll on the presidential national popular vote, both its independently conducted poll and the one it does in collaboration with Daily Kos and the SEIU.[15] PPP correctly called the winner of the presidential election in all 19 states it polled in the final week of the election, as well as the winners of all the U.S. Senate and gubernatorial races it surveyed."

[BlueCaliDem]

111. Yes, but that one isn't here to promote truth or objectivity, I've noticed.

That pollster is here to attack the (still officially unannounced) Democratic presidential frontrunner. And he's working HARD, too. Just like the one that had gotten a pizza a couple of days ago who had the moniker of an Egyptian pharaoh.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

81. "Before you speak, investigate." - Mao Zedong

Public Policy Polling (PPP) is a U.S. polling firm based in Raleigh, North Carolina. PPP was founded in 2001 by businessman Dean Debnam, the firm's current president and Chief Executive Officer.

PPP is described as one of the "most accurate" polling companies and also as a "Democratic-leaning"[5] polling company because it polls only for Democratic and progressive campaigns and organizations on a private basis.

In addition to political issues, the company has polled the public on such diverse topics as the approval rating of God,[6] whether Republican voters believe President Obama would be eligible to enter heaven in the event of the Rapture[7] and whether hipsters should be subjected to a special tax for being annoying.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Policy_Polling

[sharp_stick]

151. And you've been here since 2002?

Sometimes you've got to pull your head out of...the sand.

They've been around for almost 15 years, one of the largest polling firms in the country.

[libodem]

84. I'm impressed that she is the lead Republican

It's kind of what I thought.

[Bradical79]

85. Interesting poll

Though I can't say it means much to me at this point. I'm still in the "research" stage.

[BrainDrain]

88. Ok..once again..

Here we have a HRC drum beater with some spurious poll showing HRC is "honestly, truly and deeply" loved by all 50 handpicked individuals in the poll.

Sigh...and once again, it is time to point out that these polls are MEANINGLESS..I will go and find 50 "Very Liberal" dems who absolutely HATE HRC and publish that as a "honestly, truly, believable" poll.

Enough already....

[DanTex]

89. That would be poll trutherism.

"All 50 handpicked individuals". Tell me you don't seriously think they are handpicking individuals for the poll.

[BrainDrain]

140. probably not...

but they sure as hell can handpick the results they want....and please...tell me you don't seriously think they don't do that.

[DanTex]

142. They don't handpick the results. They conduct a poll and then publish the numbers.

It's not very complicated. The fact that you don't like the numbers doesn't mean they were handpicked.

[sharp_stick]

152. UNSKEW THAT POLL

I looked out the window this morning and it was snowing. I'm sick to death of snow so I just figured the weather guy this morning was bullshitting me, now it's his fault I didn't bring along the snow brush. Lousy weather guy.

[Badass Liberal]

91. Favored!

...by this liberal.

[GoneFishin]

92. Nonsense. This doesn't pass the smell test. I don't know what analytical or semantic manipulation

was used to pound that square peg into the round hole, but I have to assume some Fox News staff was involved.

[DanTex]

95. Poll trutherism strikes again....

[uponit7771]

98. Do you see anyhing that disputes the result other than your opinion? regards

[Fla Dem]

106. And this is based on what analytic study you have conducted? Please share with us, nt

[GoneFishin]

156. "5% of very liberal voters disapprove of right-leaning corporatist candidate". Like I said,

it does not pass the smell test. I did not say that you don't believe it. I said that I don't believe it.

[blue neen]

93. Oh my.

I don't have my mind made up about the Democratic candidate for 2016. They haven't even presented themselves for candidacy!

I'm going to rec your thread, however, because of the bullying you've had to put up with---how dare you post poll numbers that some do not like! . Some are even attacking Public Policy Polling, a well-known and well-respected firm.

It would be far better to have civil discourse about the 2016 election, but some here do not want that for varying reasons.

K & R.

[Badass Liberal]

99. Amen!

Which candidates have unofficially officially declared? Martin O'Malley and Jim Webb. That's it. I like them both, particularly Webb, but come on. Neither of these guys is going to be the nominee. Just keeping it real.

[blue neen]

143. Exactly.

Welcome to DU!

[uponit7771]

96. Boom goes the dynamite !!!

[whatthehey]

101. Strip out the tedious DU navel-gazing and this raises interesting questions

Hillary is not my preference, but she does not make me throw my hands up in horror either.

But even her most passionate fans and biggest distractors here seem to agree on one thing, with which I in the middle also concur: she is not at the furthest left of the party.

So this makes me wonder why the further left you go in polls, the more favorable her ratings. I've seen this in previous polls and it also echoes Obama's recent ratings, when he has also been disparaged by the further left here. It's not then likely to be sample bias or poor polling, although the MOE in this one is a bit high for my taste.

There are two likely reasons I can think of.

1) The more liberal the respondent, the more keen they are to demonstrate support for any Dem (the inverse seems to be true on DU, but this place very much is a self-selected biased sample on any issue)

2) The general media portrayal of Hillary reflects much RW attack points, which paint her as the avatar of Eugene Debs, and this sticks with the part of the populace who would actually prefer her to be that even though she's basically a center left pragmatist (again in reality not in DU terms).

Other reasons are possible I guess - gender bias? Relativism of self identified liberals such as that anyone in, say, Alabama would be considered a downright socialist if they wanted to tax billionaires a touch more and have internalized this, referring to themselves as more liberal than they really are? It would be interesting to see comparable results for a more obviously and media-portrayed left leaning option.

Would Webb or Manchin or Schweitzer, even less to the left, see similar liberal gradation in their favorables? If so that would lend credence to option 1, but getting big enough national samples would be tricky.

[JohnnyRingo]

104. I can see that

I don't know how "liberal" I am on a scale, but get tagged with the label enough from friends to assume I'm somewhere in that demo. While I'm not a Hillary fan by any stretch and I hope someone else wins the nom, I wouldn't say I have an "unfavorable" view of her. Her and her husband are of good Democratic stock, probably the First Family of the party.

I think we see a lot of dissent for them because some people are very passionate about another candidate, enough to set a torch to anyone who appears to be standing in the way. I guess I'm not quite that liberal, but more mainstream left, like much of the rest of the country as this poll indicates.

Very credible poll I think.

[RedstDem]

105. good god the daily worship of hilliary is nauseating

You hillbots act like Republicans.

[BlueCaliDem]

108. No more than anti-Clinton people act like Teabaggers.

Fair assessment, yes?

[DanTex]

113. Nothing worse than facts and poll numbers...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

126. Blinded them with science

[Buzz Clik]

110. I'm part of the 5%.

I'll vote for her if she's the nominee, but I am not a fan.

[SidDithers]

114. That can't be right. A poster just told us that 47% of the base finds Hillary unfavourable...

Hillary haters wouldn't resort to plain old making-shit-up, would they?

Sid

[L0oniX]

115. What a load of shit.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

118. What percentage of senators voted against the IWR and Bush's war?

42%

Hillary wasn't among them.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

120. They obviously don't spend time on DU. They don't even know what a true liberal is. n/t

[jeff47]

122. Key word: Voters.

Clinton doesn't have a problem with people who reliably vote. Those are the people who get through the voter screen to be in the poll you cite.

The problem is getting people who do not regularly vote to turn out. 'Cause if 2016 comes down to excited base versus excited base, that's not good for us. That's what happened in 2010 and 2016.

Clinton is going to need to attract these "marginally attached voters" like Obama did in 2008. And since Obama got them and Clinton didn't, it's pretty clear that Clinton's going to need to do something different than 2008. What is she doing that is different?

[frylock]

123. again, fantastic news! I can go back to voting my conscience..

rather than voting against the republican.

[raindaddy]

124. You'd think that instead of creating a personality cult..

and rolling out the red carpet, Democrats, especially liberal Democrats would be more interested in exposing Hillary to a challenging primary. Which of course would expose Hillary's "conservative" foreign policy ideology and deep connections to Wall Street. She probably wouldn't poll so well with liberals when they're confronted with actual third way Hillary as opposed to the media's "liberal" Hillary.

There seems to be the desire to protect her from another challenging primary campaign among her fans. Understandable, still remembering her lying about having to duck her head then running for cover in order to dodge sniper fire in Bosnia.

[mmonk]

130. +1

[Agnosticsherbet]

129. The problem with this poll is that it is not a scientific poll of DU members.

I don't think population of DU reflects the Democratic Party of the United States.

I would have been one of the 91% if I had been polled.

[BlueCaliDem]

134. It appears that the "somewhat conservative" and "very conservative" people are anti-Hillary Clinton.

Hm.

And it appears I'm Very Liberal although those who have an almost visceral hatred for Hillary Clinton are labeling me a "third-wayer" and "conservative" when they're pissed off at one of my posts OR, when they're feeling happy and generous, I'm simply "moderate". But according to this poll, I'm more liberal than they are. The irony!

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

139. They must have gone to Teabag City for this poll.

Q7 Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion
of Hillary Clinton?
Favorable........................................................ 45%
Unfavorable .................................................... 47%
Not sure .......................................................... 8%

Q2 Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion
of George W. Bush?
Favorable........................................................ 45%
Unfavorable .................................................... 46%
Not sure .......................................................... 8%

The had a more unfavorable opinion of HRC than GWB!! This poll is meaningless.

[LittleBlue]

147. You are supporting Hillary with a textbook logical fallacy

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people&quot is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

She was not good in 2008, when the polls made her inevitable, and she's no better now. I will never again hold my nose and cast a vote for a corporate Democrat like Hillary, even if I'm the last person on earth to disapprove of her.

[DanTex]

149. I'm not supporting anyone based on anything. Just pointing out that the overwhelming majority of

liberals support Hillary. Some people on DU seem to think that liberals generally don't like Hillary. Obviously, those people are delusional.

[NYC_SKP]

155. Respectfully, "overwhelming" nothing. That poll only included 310 democrats. Even fewer "liberals"

PPP surveyed 691 registered voters, including 310
Democratic primary voters, from February 20th to 22nd.

The margin of error for the overall survey is +/- 3.7%, and for the Democratic primary
component it’s +/-5.6%.

This survey was conducted through automated telephone interviews and
interviews over the internet to voters who don’t have landline phones.

Automated telephone surveys of 691 voters, only 310 of whom were Democratic primary voters.

If your n is 310 or 691 for a national automatic survey, your results are crap.

[DanTex]

157. It has a margin of error of 5.6% among Dems. Which means, yes, overwhelming.

Even if we assume that the entire margin of error goes in the other direction.

[Drale]

153. She's not my first choice but

I would stand behind her if she were to win the nomination.

[Maedhros]

158. All this tells me is:

1. People don't understand what "Liberal" means

2. Liberals are a defeatist lot and will settle for any warm body the Democrats throw in the ring.

[RedstDem]

160. I'm gonna laugh when she loses

Right before I cry

[Scuba]

170. Doesn't matter. What matters is policy, not popularity.