Consider the Dina Titus (NV gov, 2006) example in regard to Hillary's approval numbers

[Awsi Dooger]

Let me emphasize I'm not anti-Hillary. I consider her least electable among the top tier. Perhaps that won't matter in November 2008 if the country tilts significantly our way in a generic sense, but IMO you can't be sure of that or count on it.

I've read many threads/posts insisting Hillary's overall approval rating is irrelevant since she has vast support among Democrats, and a big lead in primary polls. Bunk. I lived through a similar situation last year in Nevada, the nightmare we could be stuck with a Republican buffoon like Jim Gibbons as governor, via ignoring poll numbers and nominating a woman with high unfavorables. Titus defeated Henderson mayor Jim Gibson in the primary.

Note: To avoid confusion, differentiate the almost identical names, Jim Gibson was the Democratic primary challenger, Jim Gibbons the GOP nominee.

Here were the hints from the final poll of the race before the August 15 primary.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Aug-11-Fri-2006/news/9000710.html

First, the highlight from a Titus perspective:

"...the survey conducted earlier this week by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research Inc., showed Titus with a 19-point lead over Jim Gibson..."

"Herzik said Gibson's campaign was never able to overcome his weaknesses -- his inability to give clear, concise statements of his beliefs, especially about abortion, and his "plodding" demeanor.

Titus has doubled her lead since April's Review-Journal poll, which put her ahead by 41 percent to 31 percent."

***

But now the ominous section at the end of the article. Despite the massive lead in the primary poll, Gibson fared a net 3 points better than Titus in a head-to-head matchup against Jim Gibbons:

"Gibbons would beat Titus with 46 percent of the vote to her 35 percent, while he would beat Gibson 42 percent to 34 percent."

And the reason for that? Check the favorable/unfavorable numbers. Titus was already well known and not exactly beloved. Fewer people knew about Jim Gibson but his approval percentage was even.

"Titus had a 29 percent favorable rating and a 36 percent negative rating. Gibson's rating was 23 percent favorable, 23 percent unfavorable."

***

Trust me, that general election season was an absolute nightmare. The GOP nominee Jim Gibbons had one gaffe and scandal after another but Titus was paralyzed from capitalizing, due to her pathetic approval numbers. Those numbers held and she was still viewed unfavorably in the final polls before election day.

Titus lost by 4 points, 48-44. You can't believe how many times I've wondered about the outcome if we had nominated Jim Gibson, who was less flashy and more moderate, but didn't have Titus' baggage in northern Nevada, nor her negative approval ratings. That Mason-Dixon poll immediately before the primary had Gibson 3 points better than Titus in a head-to-head against Gibbons, but Rasmussen had it even more pronounced, only a 3 point gap instead of 9 for Titus:
http://www.rasmussenresearch.com/2006/State%20Polls/July%202006/nevadaGovernorSenate.htm

"Gibbons is the preferred candidate when pitted in head-to-head match-ups with both Titus and Gibson. In a Gibbons-Titus contest, voters prefer Gibbons 46% to 37%. He also tops Gibson, though by a smaller margin, 42% to 39%."

Very often the polls tell the fundamental story.

[illinoisprogressive]

1. the problem is that a big segment of dems refuse to vote for Hillary. couple that with

not getting indies or crossovers and it's done. You don't win elections with just the base. you need indies and crossovers and your whole party voting for you.
today she crossed the 50 percent line and her negs are now 51%

[Awsi Dooger]

3. Here's the way I think it breaks down

Once you get to the general election, the base will support you. That's why these claims that Hillary is winning among Democrats and therefore she is the best hope for a general election are bizarre. You allocate the guaranteed 40-45% and then see who can pull best from the remainder.

I don't think Hillary's negatives would go up during a long campaign. She's been Swift Boated for 15 years. But I also doubt they would go down significantly. It would be a matter of trying to win a general election with a 50/50 polarizing nominee. She can pull it off but without slightest margin for error, and very dependent on the GOP nominee.

Again, it's like last year in Nevada. I was rooting for wingnut Bob Beers to pull an upset in that primary. Titus could have defeated him because Beers was simply too conservative for this state. But once she faced Gibbons it was always uphill. In Hillary's case, I think Giuliani would defeat her, it would be a struggle but probable win vs. McCain, likely victory over Romney, and probable loss to Thompson.

You can't count on the GOP to identify their most vulnerable nominee so we need to make damn sure we avoid similar.

[ElizabethDC]

4. A big segment of Dems?

I've never, ever met a Democrat who says they wouldn't vote for her in the general. I know a lot of people who won't vote for her in the primary because they're worried she can't win the general, but DU is the only place where I've ever heard anyone say they wouldn't vote for her in the general. (FWIW - I'm not doubting that these people exist, just that there are a lot of them).

I was, however, having lunch with a lifelong Dem (and a big contributor) last week, and he said that if the race was between Giuliani and Obama, he'd vote for Giuliani. To my shock, my mother (who has pretty much told me she'd disinherit me if I ever voted Republican - and I think she was only half joking) agreed with him immediately.

The thing is, there are gonna be Dems who say they won't vote for one of the other Dems in the general election - maybe they won't, but I don't see it being a "large segment" for any of our candidates.

[Awsi Dooger]

6. I agree, that's overrated

I just had to edit my subject line in the post #3. I didn't mean to agree that Democrats wouldn't support Hillary in November.

I'm not worried about the claims here from Democrats who insist they won't vote for Hillary. Once they are faced with the GOP alternative they'll come around.

I worry about the approval rating in terms of vital swing states like Ohio, Florida and Virginia. Those states are somewhat conservative and don't have a history of electing a woman to high statewide office. Right now I'm confident Hillary can win Ohio but I don't like to rely on one state again.

[ElizabethDC]

7. I hear ya

I'm a Hillary supporter, but I know she might have an uphill battle in some quarters. As a Floridian, I'm especially aware of it.

Unfortunately, I think Florida will be red in '08 regardless of the candidate, but it's not a done deal yet, so there's still some hope. I think she (or any of our candidates) can win Ohio. I really don't know about Virginia - in my mind, it automatically goes into the red state column, so I haven't given it a lot of consideration.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

8. One poll found that 1 out of 5 Dems say they would never vote for her. That is a big segment nt

[draft_mario_cuomo]

9. You are correct. The math is obvious

Even if she magically got 100% of those who still have a favorable view of her she would be at 49%. Perhaps under this miracle scenario she could lose the popular vote but win the electoral college. What would happen if she got 90% of the vote of that 49%? She would win 44% of the vote--less than Dukakis in 1988. What if she won only 80% of that 49%? That would put her at 39%. Obviously, most of that remaining 49% is Democratic but even if she got 90% support from that group she would still be drubbed. A vote for HRC is clearly a vote for a President Thompson, President Giuliani, or President Romney. Can we take that risk for someone who is not even a progressive? We might as well nominate Kucinich if we want to lose. At least he stands for something.

[skipos]

2. That kinda reminds me of the CA Gov race

in that Westly ALWAYS polled better against Arnie than Angelides. Angelides got the nomination and was thumped in the general election.

[Awsi Dooger]

5. Right, I almost mentioned that but didn't have the specific numbers

Also, in Florida our candidate Smith often polled better against Crist than Davis did.

But in both California and Florida, it was probably more of the loss being closer, than actually winning the governorship.

IMO, there's very little doubt Jim Gibson would have defeated Jim Gibbons if we had nominated him, assuming the Gibbons scandals would have been the same. Gibson started from better position than Titus to begin with, and no doubt would have picked up more crossover once Gibson started imploding.

Admittedly, in that situation there was a trade off. You were picking a more moderate nominee in Gibson, using electability as an excuse. Here there's no need for that, in fact Hillary obviously can be argued as more moderate than either Edwards or Obama.