No, Hillary Clinton does not have a ‘liberal’ problem

[sufrommich]

One of the most persistent tropes of the 2016 election is that some large number of liberals are deeply dissatisfied with the centrist approach to politics long championed by Hillary Rodham Clinton and, as a result, are actively engaged in a search for a more progressive alternative.

Persistent -- and wrong. The truth is that scant evidence exists in any poll to suggest that Clinton is anything short of beloved (or, at the very least, be-liked) by the party's liberal base.

Take a new Iowa poll conducted by Quinnipiac University. In it, Clinton stands at 60 percent in a hypothetical caucus vote, with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) running second at 15 percent. Clinton's standing among the base of the party? She gets 61 percent among those who consider themselves "very" liberal and 66 percent among the "somewhat" liberal. Her poorest performing ideological group is "moderate/conservative" Democrats, where she wins only 58 percent.

Take it a step further. It's not just that liberals in Iowa are going to vote for Clinton. They also have an extremely positive view of her. Overall, 83 percent of likely Iowa Democratic caucus-goers told Quinnipiac that they view Clinton favorably. That number jumps to 88 percent among "very" liberal Democrats. So, 9 in 10 of the most liberal voters in Iowa like Clinton. Not exactly a liberal problem, right?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/05/07/no-hillary-clintons-does-not-have-a-liberal-problem/

[jeff47]

1. Yes, Bernie hasn't completely upended the campaign after one week.

So it's time for everyone to line up behind Humphrey.

[okaawhatever]

2. Good information. Thanks for the much needed dose of reality nt

[MattSh]

3. Well she's been in the spotlight since, what...

1992?

You'd certainly think people would have heard of her by now.

[Marr]

4. The DNC doesn't seem to agree.

Why stack the primary deck for a shoe-in?

[winter is coming]

6. +1. Stacking the deck is an admission they're afraid she won't win otherwise. n/t

[BrotherIvan]

5. I guess 2008 didn't happen

[markpkessinger]

7. Because WaPo pundits have SUCH a track record of having their finger on the pulse of the electorate

[sufrommich]

8. How did WaPo get the polling organizations cited in

the article to play along with their ruse?

[markpkessinger]

11. The article represents an interpretation of the poll results . . .

. . . but merely polling current levels of support for Candidate X versus Candidate Y, when Candidate X is a household name whose candidacy had been assumed for years prior to her formal announcement, and Candidate Y has just entered the race and who doesn't have the same name recognition, is not necessarily an indicator of how strong and/or committed the support for Candidate X is. Hell, if I hadn't been following Sanders closely for some time, and were I not all that familiar with him, I probably would have indicated support for Hillary if I had been polled.

[PBass]

9. The idea that Hillary Clinton is widely unpopular among liberals mainly exists on DU

from what I can tell.

[Go Vols]

10. I guess Hillary has more of the Warren supporters now?

The members of the progressive group that grew out of Howard Dean’s presidential campaign are not exactly ready for Hillary.

Democracy for America (DFA) has been asking their roughly one million members whom the group should support in a hypothetical 2016 Democratic presidential primary. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren was the clear favorite, with support from 42% of respondents, according to results shared with msnbc ahead of their release later Thursday.

In second place was Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, who is seriously considering a presidential bid as a Democrat, with 24%. Just one point behind was former secretary of State Hillary Clinton at 23%.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/warren-sanders-beat-hillary-poll-liberal-groups-members