We have an electability problem

[Loudestlib]

Sanders has a net favorability of +9 and Clinton is at -8. In the past, only candidates with a favorable or neutral rating have won. No candidate in modern history has won the election with such a low net favorability as Clinton.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2311

Look at this chart:

https://plus.google.com/+OleOlson/posts/K7DNVUJwYd4

Bernie Sanders is our only hope for November.

[TSIAS]

1. The Democrats' saving grace

Clinton could win because the GOP nominee might have even worse favorable numbers.

[Loudestlib]

2. That's true.

The problem is that it's a trend. Bernie is trending up while Clinton continues to trend down. Also, Rubio is +9 and Cruz 2. So not all of the republicans are worse off.

Take a look.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/bernie-sanders-favorable-rating

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating

[Buzz Clik]

21. The Sanders campaign has been engaged in an endless, Rove-styled smear campaign against HRC.

And her numbers are trending down slightly. Hm.

What might happen if they quit slinging shit??

[Bubzer]

25. The Hillary campaign has been engaged in an endless, Rove-styled smear campaign against Bernie.

And his numbers are trending up. Hm.

What might happen if they quit slinging shit??

There's no end to these statements that play both ways.

[Buzz Clik]

26. Do I hear an echo?

By the way, your post was brilliantly phrased and makes an excellent point.

You can thank me later.

[Enthusiast]

37. Huge +1!

[CBGLuthier]

77. I find that when I clean a window and it smears it is because there is already crap on it

[stupidicus]

30. then they should be easy to list and cite no?

Last edited Fri Jan 8, 2016, 09:35 PM - Edit history (1)

oh that's right, your more than likely exaggerated nonsense isn't worth the efrfort, particularly in the defense of it.

when Bernie's camp plays the sexist, racist, etc, card, let us know.

And no, her being a warmonger doesn't trump any of that

[Babel_17]

46. I don't think the Clinton campaign has forgotten just how ugly Rovian tactics can get

And they are under no illusion that the tough love from the Sanders campaign is of the same family.

They even thought ahead and enlisted one of the true kings of sleazy "journalism".

Any campaign using him likely has a good idea of what true attacks look like.

[Loudestlib]

40. Slightly?

She went from 43% unfavorable (an already high number) to 52% in one year. That's a 9% increase on a high number.

[Buzz Clik]

49. Congrats. Proud?

I support Sanders, but this is bullshit. Crapping this hard on a fellow Dem is beyond the pale.

WTF are you people thinking?

(I'm not reading your answer, so say whatever or ignore)

[SoLeftIAmRight]

60. I am thinking that during my whole life both parties have move toward the right

no more

any vote for more of the same is a gift to the right

they have it all now and Hillary will do nothing to change that

[earthside]

52. Clinton's problem isn't a few Sanders supporters on DU.

Clinton's problem is Clinton.

I hate to break it to you, but people mostly just don't like her or trust her very much.

Mrs. Clinton has been around the national political scene for nearly 30 years. We went through the Gennifer Flowers scandal; the whole Clinton health care controversies; we went through White Water and we went though Travelgate and Filegate with her; we went through Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky with Bill and Hillary.

Americans know her and the idea of her as President makes a lot of people very tired of her.

Clinton supporters just don't get it -- her unfavorables are high because we all know her. The more she campaigns the more we are all reminded that we don't want Clintonism again.

We want new and progressive and interesting; we want to move forward -- we don't want to move back to 1992!

[CorporatistNation]

73. Well Said and Fairly Polite As well... Bravo!

Not even a mention about fibbing or being owned by Wall Street, Corporate America and the American Oligarchy... America is not "buying" any more Clinton Inc.

[Duval]

57. What on earth are you talking about? Yes, her numbers are trending down

as more and more information gets out about her policy decisions, and Bill Clinton's, too.

[Krytan11c]

3. +1

And it goes to show what a sad state of affairs we have in this country In regards to politics.

Feel the Bern.

[Loudestlib]

4. The republicans have way more potential candidates

It could change once they select a nominee. If Rubio or Cruz win the nomination the republicans would have a more favorable candidate.


Sanders 9
Rubio 9
Cruz 2
Kasich 1
Carson -2
Fiorina -8
Clinton -8
Christie -12
Paul -18
Trump -26
Bush -28

[Krytan11c]

5. Which is why I support Bernie

I believe he is the country's best option. He truly cares for the 99%. It's an added bonus that he polls better against the clown car.

[Loudestlib]

7. +8

[merrily]

27. Not a gamble I wish to make.

[avebury]

47. And that is a pretty sad statement. nt

Victory by being the candidate that is viewed as the lesser of evils is not know for providing the winner with much of a mandate.

[CorporatistNation]

72. Wow, That's What we Want, The Least Despised Wins The Election?

[brooklynite]

6. Bernie's favorability won't be +8 once the Republicans start to target him...

That's the problem with these comparisons; the Republicans are focusing all their attacks on Clinton.

[Loudestlib]

9. Bernie is trending up

Hillary's problems are innate and it's not like republicans are going to stop attacking after the primaries.

[brooklynite]

13. But that's the point...

...DESPITE the attacks and the "baggage" she's ahead of the Republicans in most polling; at worst she's within a few points which is all you can expect at this point.

Whereas Bernie hasn't been subjected to the attacks the Republicans are no doubt preparing just in case.

[Loudestlib]

17. Did you check the links?

She not ahead of Rubio or Cruz.

"worst she's within a few points"

She's behind Rubio by 17. That's not a few.

n/t

[Ferd Berfel]

22. Bernie will Continue to trend up as more people hear him. AS THE REICH TARGET HIM He will only

Trend UP even more.

Feel the Bern.

[sufrommich]

11. You will never get them to question why the

Republicans stay mum when it comes to Sanders. There's a very good reason for their hands off approach to Sanders and it's not because they fear him.

[tecelote]

18. Maybe it's because he has won more elections than any of them?

He's good at winning elections.

[stupidicus]

32. oh you forgot to list what they'd target him with

and especially those things that could be worse than the "dirty socailist" idiocy that the Hillary camp has what, encouraged or discouraged

[TheProgressive]

34. Senator Sanders has nothing to 'target'

He is and has been a statesperson all his life.

Unlike Clinton, who is a corporatist and caters to the rich. Oh,
that's right - you are a self proclaimed rich person. Any connection there?

[brooklynite]

43. Am I corporatist who caters to the rich you mean?

No, I'm a professional who works for the government improving transit for everyone. And I've said before I have no problem with any of Sanders' policies. But I'm also politically saavy enough from working on campaigns for 35 years to know what Sanders is likely to encounter if he's seen as a serious prospective nominee. As much as the voting public likes Social Security and Fire Departments and Libraries, they DON'T see those as "socialism" and the DON'T like "socialists", especially self-acknowledged ones. He'll be hit on that as well as being a "tax and spender", and "weak on defense" and a number of other policy items, that have nothing to do with his ethics and integrity. And his favorables WILL take a hit. They shouldn't, but they will.

[TheProgressive]

64. 35 years - 'politically savvy'? Your postings suggest otherwise..

You should know that Clinton has ZERO chance winning the presidency...

[brooklynite]

66. Well, I can believe you...

...or I can believe my personal experience on political campaigns which won and lost, AND my contacts with political leaders, candidates and elected officials ("if Sanders win, we're in trouble&quot .

A candidate with "zero chance winning the presidency" isn't a candidate who's given $100 M in cash and hundreds of political endorsements from people who's political future is also on the line if she loses.

[daleanime]

50. So let's start lower and hope we don't fall from there?

Too bad that I'm basing my vote on things like voting histories.

[MADem]

51. Really. I shudder to think how they'll hit some of the stuff that has been politely overlooked to

this point.

They'll turn the "stealing electricity" thing during his poverty years writing all that horrible "five cents a word" dreck in the duplex into a crime against humanity! It won't take much and they won't hesitate, either.

[Fawke Em]

8. I think Hillary would lose Ohio, North Carolina, Florida and Colorado.

Bernie wouldn't lose all of those.

And, without them, the Dems lose.

[Proserpina]

12. She'd lose Michigan, too

[Loudestlib]

14. +8

Bernie definitely inspires voters. He brings a lot more support for the down ticket candidates.

[earthside]

54. I'm a Coloradan and I agree.

Democrats are experiencing a bit of a backlash from electoral success here over the last decade.

Hillary Clinton is a Mark Udall type Democrat and Udall got creamed here in 2014.

I doubt Hillary would win Colorado.

Now, Sanders I think could reinvigorate the Obama voters of 2008; they are by far the most active and visible in Colorado right now in anticipation of the March caucuses. Young folks I've encountered like Sanders; Hillary ... meh.

[firebrand80]

10. I'm assuming those favoribility numbers were

at the time of the election. So this is not an apples-to-apples comparison

[Loudestlib]

15. Without a time machine no one can do an apples-to-apples comparison

It does show a trend. A trend that only looks good for one candidate.

Edit If you do happen to have a time machine I could really use those power-ball numbers

[firebrand80]

16. True, which is why

graphics of this nature, which tend to present things in absolute terms, are misleading.

They're great for Facebook likes and Internet flame wars, but these things are more nuanced than a graphic can possibly portray.

[merrily]

28. Unless they're in Hillary's favor, in which case, let's don't mention nuance or

anything else.

[firebrand80]

33. I'd love to have rational, unbiased discussions

about issues of flaws in candidates, electability, future predictions, etc. Unfortunately, it's tough to get past "hooray for my side, your side sucks" on DU.

[merrily]

74. I seem to have a low tolerance for hypocrisy, double standards, dissembling, etc. and I am likely

to call them as and when I see them.

When posts have been about polls or data favor Hillary, I have not noticed any of Hillary's supporters (or those who've been unconvincingly claiming neutrality or even support for Sanders), throwing shade at them or dissecting them or speculating why they may be misleading or unnuanced. Let just one post be about data that favors Sanders, however, and Katie bar the door. So, yeah, that can get in the way of discussion of comments by a Hillary supporter about the negative "nuances" of data that otherwise favor Sanders. And none of that is one me, thank you.

If you link me to past posts of yours that took that same "unbiased" approach to data that favored Hillary, I will apologize on the board as to you personally, though not to DU's Hillary supporters as a whole. If you can't do that, then I call bs.

[Loudestlib]

35. Facts

The facts don't always agree with us but we always have to agree with the facts.

If you choose to ignore it "please......proceed."

n/t

[Phlem]

67. Really Thirdway?

Cause that's about all you're going to get. The Third Way have gotten us into this mess yet you wear it like a badge of honor. How can anyone have unbiased conversation with you.

You can't follow basic facts.

Remember how we lost the midterms. Thirdway all the way.

we have had 3 corporate friendly Presidents and you want more?

Notice how bankers have not been prosecuted under Obama. This makes you happy?

I also lost a perfectly fine job because of NAFTA and haven't recovered since. That make you happy?

[Martin Eden]

19. +5 Favorable for GW in 2004

-5,000,000 for the intelligence of the American voting public

[merrily]

29. He won by a razor thin margin. Kerry did a bad job, plus

America has never once voted out an incumbent CIC during war time.

[demwing]

45. I think LBJ counts

Incumbent CIC during Vietnam, he couldn't even grab enough votes to win his party nomination.

[merrily]

55. He was not voted out of office.

I don't know all the details and I am not up for getting up to speed right now. Didn't LBJ drop out of the primary?

In any event, that you cannot win a primary does not mean you would not have won the general, if you had made it to the general. Then again, at that time, Vietnam was a different kind of war in the minds of Americans than anything that had preceded it. Bottom line: we don't know if he would have won the general or not.

[demwing]

59. Not arguing, just seemed like an interesting point

Though we'll never know, I think Vietnam would have buried LBJ in the GE

[merrily]

71. It is and interesting point! You may well be right about the general because Humphrey

sure got burned by association with the war. Again, though, there is a difference between an incumbent President and a Vice President.

In 2004, I heard the following while riding a bus. Someone said he had seen a show about how we'd been lied into the Iraq War--so he wasn't voting for anyone. Another man said he was voting for Bush because Bush was the only one who knew where each one of the terrorists was.

[Buzz Clik]

20. Hm. 24% of those asked apparently don't even know who Sanders is.

What will happen when they get to know him better? His numbers could get better or get worse than Hillary's.

[merrily]

31. As people have gotten to know him and his message, his numbers have risen.

So, let's assume the last 24% will behave differently from everyone else?

[modestybl]

23. We don't have an electabilty issue if we nominate the right person...

... we only have an inevitability problem ... the whole media and political power structure assuming the coronation of HRC...

[in_cog_ni_to]

24. Great graphic! Saved!

Go Bernie!

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

[George II]

36. When did "favorability = electability" become the defining criteria?

[firebrand80]

39. Same reason Millenials are the holy grail nt

[George II]

41. We old folks....

....are still among the largest voting blocs in America, and we have the highest turnout, too!

[leftofcool]

63. +1

[leftofcool]

62. You mean those who won't stop texting long enough to go vote?

[Loudestlib]

42. Why is it not?

[MADem]

53. When polls show a candidate losing by a serious margin! nt

[Babel_17]

44. I think this issue will be a thing

I'm guessing Clinton's negatives won't improve, and are likely to get a tad worse.

But realistically I think Sanders will suffer a little bit of erosion as well. Lots of people react badly to hearing about more governmental outlays, and Sanders will be getting portrayed as being about that. He'll become more polarizing. The upside is that a lot of people will become more positive about Sanders.

I see Clinton as possibly benefiting from the Republican clown show. She could come off looking like a gift from heaven, in contrast to what they'll be seen as selling. The contrasts matter.

I have no crystal ball as to how the FBI investigation, when finalized and released, will be spun by the media. Nor can I intuit how Big Dog Clinton's campaigning for Secretary Clinton will play out under the spotlight of today's sensibilities.

I think a lot will be learned from Iowa. Will Sanders be taken as a plausible alternative to Clinton, or do the voters overwhelmingly embrace Clinton, controversies and all. A lot of responsibility on Iowa's shoulders.

Then, in South Carolina, there's an opportunity for Clinton to look overpowering, and have the media call the primaries all but over, or for the Sanders campaign to look like a true phenomenon. If they soundly beat current expectations (the last major polling) then, as the saying goes, it will be a whole new ball game.

[leveymg]

68. When I pointed out high HRC negatives 6 months ago, everyone scratched their heads.

Jeb appears to be the most vulnerable victim of high candidate negatives. Looks like folks are catching on. See, http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251452687

The “I would never vote for him/her” factor: Candidate Negatives - the race was never tighter.

The fact is, Americans rarely get to vote for their favorite candidate – when Election Day rolls around, it’s usually a matter of the least un-favorite name on the ballot takes all the chips on the table. That’s often the case as political parties tend to nominate candidates that a lot of people intensely dislike.

We are all used to seeing polls that measure favorables, and that is exactly that leading candidates in nominating battles put forward as proof of their ability to win the General Election. We have been shown a lot of those polls here in recent months. It goes along with the “inevitability” meme. But, what the leading candidate may not want you to realize is that a wide variety of polls show that the frontrunner’s negatives are as high or higher than her positives. In other words, more people say they won’t vote for Hillary than will vote for her.

This is nothing new – it was that way in 2008, and – fortunately -- the Democratic Party was prepared to put forward another candidate. As candidate Obama observed in February, 2008: "I think Sen. Clinton starts off with 47 percent of the country against her. That's a hard place to start if you want to win the election," he said.

Will we be so wise and fortunate, again?

HRC: A recent AP poll shows that nearly half of all Americans have a negative opinion of her.

http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-poll-favorability-2015-7#ixzz3g3iJCena

Just 39% of all Americans have a favorable view of Clinton, compared to nearly half who say they have a negative opinion of her. That's an eight-point increase in her unfavorable rating from an AP-GfK poll conducted at the end of April.

The drop in Clinton's numbers extends into the Democratic Party. Seven in 10 Democrats gave Clinton positive marks, an 11-point drop from the April survey. Nearly one-quarter of Democrats now say they see Clinton in an unfavorable light.

"I used to like her, but I don't trust her," said Donald Walters of Louisville, Kentucky. "Ever since she's announced her candidacy for the presidency I just haven't liked the way she's handled things. She doesn't answer questions directly."

And,

http://www.gallup.com/poll/183158/hillary-clinton-unfavorable-score-ticks.aspx

May 1, 2015

PRINCETON, N.J. -- Hillary Clinton's favorable rating from the American people has been steady -- near 50% -- all spring, but her unfavorable rating has inched higher and is now 46%, up from 39% in March. At the same time, the percentage of Americans with no impression of the former first lady, U.S. senator and secretary of state has gone down.

These high HRC unfavorables are almost exactly where they were eight years ago, as numerous polls have shown. This from 2008:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/feb/11/barack-obama/clintons-negatives-are-higher-than-obamas-/

We looked at the times the USA Today /Gallup Poll asked voters whether they had a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Hillary Clinton, going back to January 2007. Her negative percentage fluctuated between 40 and 52, but the average of 21 polls came out to 47.

ABC News and the Washington Post have asked the question at least four times since January 2007. Her unfavorable ratings on that poll came in between 48 and 40, with an average of 44.5. CNN polled four times and found unfavorables between 39 and 44, with an average of 41.5.

Obama's unfavorable ratings tend to be well under 40 percent. In several polls, his unfavorable ratings are in the 20s.

Not every poll rates her unfavorables consistently as high as 47 percent, and poll numbers are always a little bit squishy. But, the USA Today /Gallup Poll has polled often on Clinton's unfavorables, and the average of 21 polls puts her negatives at 47 percent. We find that to be about as solid a poll figure as you can have, so we find Obama's statement True.

JEB BUSH: This does not necessarily play into the GOP’s hands. Jeb Bush is afflicted with the same problem as Hillary:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/02/25/the-idea-that-jeb-bush-is-going-to-run-away-with-the-republican-nomination-makes-no-sense/

(T)he topline numbers aren't even the thing that should scare Bush the most in that poll. It's that he is both well known (fewer than one in five voters didn't offer an opinion of him) and not all that well liked (41 percent favorable/40 percent unfavorable.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/02/25/the-idea-that-jeb-bush-is-going-to-run-away-with-the-republican-nomination-makes-no-sense/

BERNIE SANDERS: But, what about Sanders? Where is he in this Anybody But the Above race?

He has his own problem with 60 years of Cold War labeling.

http://inthesetimes.com/article/18106/americans-socialism-bernie-sanders
A new Gallup poll shows that 47 percent of Americans would consider voting for a socialist candidate. Gallup has been polling Americans on their voting preferences for candidates of different backgrounds since 1937, but this year was the first time they inquired about socialism.

When broken down on party lines, a socialist candidate would earn the consideration of 59 percent of Democrats, 49 percent of Independents, and only 26 percent of Republicans. Overall, socialism charted the lowest of all the backgrounds referenced in the poll. Atheist and Muslim candidates ranked second- and third-lowest among the American populace, at 58 and 60 percent respectively.

Bottom Line: It’s a Virtual Three-Way Tie

Right out of the box, about half would never vote for Hillary or Jeb, while roughly the same percent wouldn’t vote for a Socialist. We know that the first two are long-term disabilities.

Bernie Sanders has the lowest personal negatives, as he has been in the national spotlight for just a few months - it is largely up to him to define himself and his own legacy. And, he probably is the only one who isn’t permanently, personally disliked by so many. Advantage Bernie.

They're all a lot closer to each other than you may think, when you factor in the negatives.

[Babel_17]

69. Jeb! thought he could brush off the destruction of Iraq

His campaign was/is out of sync with all audiences.

[leveymg]

70. Shrub is the stink he can't brush off. Blood, once it's dry, is almost impossible to remove.

Jeb's comment a couple days ago about loving his mother more than his father tells me he's just about ready to throw in the bloody towel. That Poppy and his handlers keep Jeb staggering around in the ring, when he so clearly isn't fit to be there, also says something about his lack of cajones.

There is something severely emotionally dysfunctional about that family going back generations.

[Plucketeer]

48. Denial is a river

that's cresting above flood stage in Hillary-land.

[Duval]

56. K&R!

[NurseJackie]

58. Vote for Obi-Wan Kenobi, he's our "only hope"! :0

[lewebley3]

61. No we don't: we have propaganda problem coming from the Sanders

Last edited Fri Jan 8, 2016, 05:03 PM - Edit history (1)

people against Hillary the leading Dem.

[ucrdem]

76. Seriously.

This is getting silly.

[Uncle Joe]

65. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Loudestlib.

[mhatrw]

75. and, unfortunately, HRC = Holy Republican Congress