HRC's unfavorables surpass her favorable rating. Do the math...

[draft_mario_cuomo]

==Hillary Clinton is now viewed favorably by 49% of likely voters, unfavorably by 51%. That includes 22% with a Very Favorable opinion and 35% with a Very Unfavorable opinion.==

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/clinton_holds_single_digit_leads_over_huckabee_brownback

In other words, she is unelectable...

[aquart]

1. Gosh, you're repetitious.

I, personally, am going to vote on character, history, and policy...not some idiot unknown statistician's best guess.

[buff2]

2. That's a right wing website

Nuff said.

[rinsd]

3. The mantra of Edwards fans...its all they got with their guy sucking in the polls

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/2008_democratic_presidential_primary

Your boy is back down to 14% after threatening to crack 20% for the 1st time this year.

[Forkboy]

5. That's not exactly a defense of the poll,just that you don't like the OP himself.

If your numbers are correct than one should assume the OP's are as well,and you didn't address that at all.All you did was give a reason to dislike another Dem instead of defending your own.How will that appeal to non Edwards supporters? Do they matter? :shrug:

[rinsd]

6. No, I do not like the OP.

And yes her negatives are high.

But the translation to unelectable ignores that 2 candidates have overcome high negatives to go on to win the GE in the last 4 elections.

[SaveElmer]

9. He does exactly what I am told time and time again polls don't do...

And with which I agree...that is predict final outcome...

Polls are not predictive of final outcome, as I am told time and time again every time a poll shows Hillary trouncing someone...

There is a small contingent here that seems to believe how a candidate polls in theoretical general election matchups is the most important thing in picking a candidate. Yet these same people will poo poo numbers showing her trouncing the Democratic field because "it's just name recognition" or "people are not yet focused on the election." Well if that is true, if Democrats are not truly focused on the primaries which are only 9 months away and that's what explains Hillary's lead in priimary polls, why should we think that the electorate as a whole is engaged 18 months away? Yet it is this last set of numbers that we are told are the most important.

Rasmussen's numbers are consistently quite different from most other pollsters...which means they are both consistent in their methodology, and they use a different formula for deciding whom to poll. Nothing wrong with that, but like any set of polls you need to look at trends. Comparing Rassmussen to Rasmussen, Hillary has been trending up, against both the Democratic field and against Republicans. In fact, if you did deeper she outpolls every Republican with the exception of Guiliani with whom she is tied...

This trend is mirrored in other polls as well...

Now, by Mario's logic then, since Hillary is unelectable in the general election because she doesn't beat Republicans by enough, surely one must conclude that Edwards cannot win the nomination. His numbers are abysmal...and are showing little signs of movement...so hopefully he will see the light and throw his support to someone else!

[Forkboy]

12. Well,you wont find in me a defender of any polls.

They're used as a form of manipulation and peer pressure ("See how popular my candidate is? You don't want to be the LOSER'S side do you?").

My point was that you can't discredit a poll by using another poll from the same pollsters.Either both examples would be wrong,or both would be right,in which case the OP's poll should be taken as seriously as the other provided.

It seemed to me that the intent was to knock Edwards and not defend Hillary.For someone like me who isn't in either camp I don't see how that does anything to further one or the other.Pointing out how badly one might do doesn't change the other set of numbers either.The argument then just becomes who will do bad and who will do worse.Hardly encouraging either way to me.

Or people can do the smart thing and not play the poll game at all. :)

[Clark2008]

14. Another thing to consider is that national polls don't mean crap.

We don't elect a president via popular vote (oh, how I wish we did, but we don't).

What we'd need to look at is how each of our candidates stacks up against their candidates in state-by-state polls because it's their Electoral College votes that decide the president. And I haven't seen any of those (or not enough to matter).

If Hillary, Obama and/or Edwards can't beat the Republican in swing states, then it doesn't quite matter, does it?

[Czolgosz]

4. Yeah, but she beats Huckabee head-to-head 48% to 43%!

[jefferson_dem]

7. Neck and neck with both Huckleberry and Brownbrokeback. Let's face it....lots and lots of folks

would turn out just to vote against her, regardless of which knuckle-dragger the repukes put up.

[rinsd]

8. True but simply being against something is not always enough, see 2004 (nt)

[Tellurian]

10. Nah, I don't believe people are that small minded..

Let's face it- this country is in a peck of trouble. It needs straightening out as quickly as possible by experienced people who know what the heck they are doing...Time is of the essence..no on the job training for newbies.

We're in rescue mode, thats how bad things are. When a company is in dire straits, they send in the big guns to straighten out the mess the inexperienced or over paid dummies have made to the bottom line. The USofA is the largest companys' in the world and Bush has just about bled every resource and treasury dry..We need the best, simply the best candidate that can hit the ground running doing a 180, turning this country around onto the right track - within 3 mos.

Theres only one candidate for the job, you may not like hearing it, buts it true... and that is Hillary!

[draft_mario_cuomo]

16. Exactly. She just doesn't appeal to swing voters and is a boon for conservatives nt

[Tellurian]

17. So why all the attacks on Hillary Rodham Clinton?

we can depend on you to start a Hillary attack thread...eh- Mario?

Obama is failing and he's failing of his own accord..so why pick on Hillary?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

15. Imagine what the numbers would be if Huckabee actually had name ID

Of course, we all know HRC is going to sweep 100% of the 49% of the public that views her favorably and thereby lose the electoral vote but win in enough key states with 100% backing from that 49% to win the electoral college. Have faith!

[Buck Rabbit]

11. Hilary isnt my first or second choice but this is misleading.

Hilary's negatives are established because she has been hammered by the right for 15 years and the left for 6 or so. They have hit her with the kitchen sink.

Candidates like Edwards and Obama have not been hit with the GOPs "A" game mudslinging. If Edwards were nominated I image a 510 with 20 million dollars to run "North Carolina Obstetricians For Truth" ads would send Edward's negatives towards Hilary's numbers rather rapidly. We won't see this in the primary just like we didn't see Kerry's service record questioned in the 2004 primaries. His supposed War Hero sure fire "electability" was a bomb with the group it was supposed to play to in the general but it was his supposed big strength in the primaries among the ABB folks.

[seasat]

19. That is true. Al Gore has a 47% unfavorable rating.

That is according to Rasmussen. No one on DU, including myself, thinks Gore is unelectable. Hillary will have some major work to overcome the negatives if she is our nominee but she also has the best experience of all our candidates in combating negatives.

Anyone that thinks that Edwards or Obama won't face similar attacks and increases in negatives once the general election campaign gets going is kidding themselves. We're up against a big experienced Repug attack machine that could make Ghandi look like a scoundrel by the time they finish with him. Hillary's negatives right now look large but can be overcome with the right campaign.

[LBJDemocrat]

24. I think Gore is unelectable.

I also think HRC and Obama are unelectable. Edwards might be electable if he stops making PR mistakes; and Clark would be pretty electable if he ran.

I just think this election is going to be a repeat of 2004 and 2000. People don't vote GOP because they necessarily agree with the GOP but because it's a cool thing to do. If you vote for the Democrats, you're either poor, gay, or a woman - in many people's eyes. In short, you're a loser. As much as I like ALL of the candidates (except Obama, on whom I'm skeptical), I'm pessimistic.

The Democratic candidate and everyone involved on that side need to change that. And it won't be changed by doing photo-ops while hunting. We can change it by BRINGING UP FDR, JFK, AND LBJ THE SAME F**KING WAY THE GOP BRINGS UP REAGAN.

[MonkeyFunk]

13. nonsense

pure nonsense.

[zulchzulu]

18. I wanna give Senator Clinton a big hug...

...after Obama becomes President and she gets a gig in his administration. That will happen.

[MGKrebs]

20. Might be significant if the election were tomorrow.

I stress "might".

[draft_mario_cuomo]

22. How do you win when most people don't like you?

And how is she going to magically turn around 16 years of people forming an opinion of her 16 days before Election Day?

[illinoisprogressive]

21. She is not electable. her negs stay in the 50% range constant.

[smalll]

23. I don't worry -

It's all old news. It's all 90s stuff. Whitewater and impeachment. Cattle futures and Eleanor Roosevelt. But you know what? Ever since Clinton left the White House and Hillary entered the Senate, there has been No New Scandal. She has high negatives, because everyone KNOWS them - and they're all pretty stale. I ask you this. How many Americans yet KNOW that Obama's middle name his Hussein, for example? You can't blame Obama for that, he's been saddled with that since birth. But how many Americans also yet know that, not only does John Edwards spend $400 on haircuts, but he also worked for a hedge fund to learn about poverty, and his 28,000 square-foot house includes a big red "recreation barn?" He made all those Einstein-class moves since the last election! Very, very few know about those things. So when the Repub sludge machine starts up, I'd much rather them be throwing dessicated old cow-pies at Hillary rather than juicy-fresh new waste at either of the golden boys of the Democratic Party, the No-Experience Duo.