WSJ Poll Shows Risks for GOP; Clinton Support Wanes (Biden matches better against GOP)

[villager]

The Republican Party heads into the 2016 White House race with a negative image and policy stances out of step with those of the broader public, while Democrats are backing a front-runner who continues to lose steam with all parts of the electorate, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll finds.

Election Day is still more than a year away, but the latest survey illustrates the sizable hurdles confronting both parties in a campaign that already has brought continual surprises and defied predictions.

Among Republicans, the primary campaign so far pushed into issues where most GOP voters are out of step with the views of the general public. Republican primary voters, far more than adults overall, are ready to strip funding from Planned Parenthood, see gay-rights legislation as a step in the wrong direction and favor changing the Constitution to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents here illegally, the poll found.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton preserved her lead in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, but she is showing new signs of wear as a general-election candidate. She now runs neck-and-neck with three of the four leading Republican contenders, two months after polling showed her dominating the GOP field. Vice President Joe Biden, who is still weighing a bid, performs much better in test match-ups against potential GOP nominees.

As Mrs. Clinton continues to navigate questions about her use of a personal email system, views of her among the general public are more negative than positive at a time when anger with the political system and continued economic anxiety propel “outsider” candidates, including Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders in the Democratic field and Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina among Republicans.

This unsettled mood that has defined the electorate up to this point shows no signs of abating...

<snip>

http://www.wsj.com/articles/wsj-poll-shows-risks-for-gop-clinton-support-wanes-1443474203

[vadermike]

1. Disturbing

I think if we don't get Bernie or Biden not only will we lose the White House but the GOP will make further gains. We are headed toward defeat if we have HRC. I hope I'm wrong but don't think I am. What a cluster

[Fred Sanders]

3. Disturbing....is how editorials from RW sites distorting anything about Clinton are eaten up on DU.

[Trajan]

6. Frankly, my opinion of Ms. Clinton was formed long ago

I don't need a republican to inform me ...

[Fred Sanders]

7. Good to know that nothing can change your mind and recent history or any discussion is irrelevant.

You are not alone.

[Trajan]

19. Yeah ... It's real good to know ...

Have you reconsidered your objections to Ted Cruz ? ... Maybe you should give him another shot ... He might change your mind ...

Go ahead ... do it ...

[sabrina 1]

9. They are dismissing Bernie who is her biggest challenger, but then as you say, it's a Murdoch rag

now.

I like that they are ignoring him, for now. The smears from the Hillary camp, see Brock, against another Dem Candidate are enough to show that he is just in front of them his old buddies and will most likely join them as he has before, when they are ready to smear another Dem candidate.

Leopards don't change their spots, never thought Brock had, just latching on to the Dem party seeing an opportunity to benefit himself, he'd change sides in a flash for the same reason, if his old buddies would have him back. But no one can trust someone who starts a fire, begs for fogiveness, but continues their old ways, not to start another fire. The Third Way welcomes these 'reformed' right wingers into our party knowing they are so easy to use. THAT is what this election is all about, getting the rot in the form of money OUT of our elections so smear mongers like Brock will be out of business.

[Fred Sanders]

11. Here is something you might want to read from that "smear monger" Brock's site that you lump in

without foundation with the WSJ:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/09/28/washington-posts-weigel-criticizes-media-for-mi/205823

[sabrina 1]

12. I left Media Matters years ago after at first thinking it was a good thing. Then I learned about

Brock being a part of it. I don't encourage people like that even when they are pretending to be decent and behaving themselves for a while.

And now I know I was right.

Has Media Matters corrected the lies told about Bernie BY Media Matters? No thanks, not interested in a now totally discredited publication which never had much influence anyhow. Made Brock quite a bit of money though.

One thing Brock did do though, he helped raises over one million dollars for Bernie in a day. So we thank him for that. Shows how much the American people despise these kinds of tactics.

[Fred Sanders]

13. 100% disagree. Media Matters is a progressive beacon, archenemy of Fox.

Brock does not do all the writing!

Personal grudges aside, do you really not know that, or care?

The article I linked is highly enlightening, it's writer and sourced link is Wiegel form the Washington Post.

So it will not breach your beliefs to read it.

It is enlightening, I assure you. And nothing written by the despised Mr. Brock.

[sabrina 1]

17. Well you asked nicely so I clicked the link, hoping it doesn't benefit that old right wing smear

monger.

The article is good. We know the media twists people's words, and it's good to point that out. But people are not going to take the time to read that, and that's one of the main problems, other than who runs it, I had with Media Matters. Only political junkies will take the time to read their stuff, and they already know about the media.

Far more effective is PEOPLE being able to counter these distortions on Social Media INSTANTLY and far more concisely.

Iow, I never felt MM was having much impact and was more for elite policy wonks and somewhat boring in how it is presented.

Re the article itself, he made good points.

I'm not particularly interested in the email garbage, and tend to agree it's a distraction. Leave it alone until and unless there really is more than what we know already. Dragging it out and constantly talking about it shows all that is wrong with the media.

For me, my reasons for not supporting Hillary, who I once defended fiercely, and for years, against Right Wingers, only to see her form alliances with the 'enemies' we fought on her behalf, is totally because of ISSUES and her stands on issues throughout her public career that are important to those who once supported her.

If I did support her on issues, I would dismiss the email nonsense, but then I do anyhow, as I get bored with repetitious nonsense and would much prefer to hear discussion of policies.

[Motown_Johnny]

18. Please explain what was distorted...

...and please be as specific as possible.

[Fred Sanders]

21. Thanks for asking. Here you go. A very excellent example of distortion exposed, specific as

possible as you demanded...sometimes good questions deserve a good answer:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/09/28/washington-posts-weigel-criticizes-media-for-mi/205823

As the WSJ is the evil print twin of Fox, I am just going to go with the historical experience of their innumerable smears and distortions to assume this is another and leave the specific as possible for folks who get paid to that.

[Motown_Johnny]

22. I didn't demand anything, it was a request.

What you linked to is an opinion piece. Maybe you did not find her dismissive. It is a matter of opinion. Everyone else has the same right to form an opinion as you do. You don't get to dictate what people's impression of that interview was.


I was asking (not demanding) for a fact that was distorted. You do understand what a fact is... right?

Disagreeing with a characterization of an interview does not qualify as a distortion. Claiming that it is "A very excellent example of distortion exposed" is, in itself, a distortion. It is nothing more than an example of differentiating perceptions. That happens all the time. No biggie.

Please provide facts, not opinions.

Again, this is a request. Please do not misrepresent my request as a demand. That is also a distortion.


Thanks.

[99th_Monkey]

2. Someone needs to tell WSJ the REASON Hillary's slipping in the polls: BERNIE SANDERS. HELLO?

[sabrina 1]

10. Lol, Murdoch's rag ignoring the real threat to the Dem front runner. Pushing another establishment

candidate. They are so obvious.

And for Bernie's sake, better they ignore him right now, until it's too late, which it will be soon.

[99th_Monkey]

16. Of course you are right. Thanks for the reminder.

Absolutely nothing to see here.

Democratic Primary is issue-free, all about Hills emails and non-candidte Joe Biden.

[Downwinder]

4. WSJ pushing Biden?

Where will they be when the election rolls around?

[xfundy]

5. Headline should be:

"Right Wing Paper wants Biden In the Race."

[Fred Sanders]

8. "Right winger" wants for the same reason left wingers want....Get Hillary.

But she will not be killed, and you know what they say about those attacked and not killed...Clinton has remarkable strength in the face of this obvious all out mass media blitz and will grow only stronger.

Inevitable is a good thing. Imagine it being inevitable, and unprecedented, of 12 straight years, and then counting, of a Democrat in the WH...how desperate would we be if it was a Republican candidate seen rightly as inevitable to tack onto 8 previous years in the Oval Office?

To me "inevitable" is not a bad word, and repeating that it is too makes no difference to the definition.

[vadermike]

14. How

How does Clinton win with this unfavs???? In the GE?

[Fred Sanders]

15. What....

N/t.

[twii]

20. Biden matches better because he is not a candidate

And because the media is brown-nosing him do he can go against the woman they hate.