New Mason-Dixon Poll: Hillary's High Negatives

[Ethelk2044]

If Hillary Clinton is basking in the glow of the universally rave reviews from last night's debate, this new national survey from Mason-Dixon should bring her back to earth.

The poll doesn't provide any horse race numbers, but it does look at the favorability and electability of the current field of candidates, both of which present major issues for Clinton. First, the favorable ratings:

Favorable/Unfavorable Ratings
Giuliani: 43/17 (+26)
Obama: 36 /21 (+15)
Thompson: 25/12 (+13)
McCain: 33/28 (+5)
Edwards: 32/28 (+4)
Romney: 24/20 (+4)
Richardson: 19/15 (+4)
Huckabee: 16 /12 (+4)
Bloomberg: 20/18 (+2)
Biden: 21/20 (+1)
Clinton: 39/42 (-3)

In addition to being the only candidate registering a negative net fav/unfav rating, Clinton also finished last among those who recognized a candidate's name but had a "neutral" opinion of them (neither favorable nor unfavorable). Only 19% had a neutral opinion of Clinton, while Obama topped the neutral category with 41%. Giuliani & McCain tied for 2nd at 38%.

On the question of electability, Mason-Dixon phrased the question this way:

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/06/new_masondixon_poll_hillarys_h.html

[ShortnFiery]

1. That is obvious here in "my parts" of the good state of Virginia.

I have NOT met one other person, much less a democrat, who's willing to vote for HRC here. :shrug:

[durrrty libby]

5. I reckon the Hatfields and McCoys are too busy feudin to pay

attention to this here political stuff, up there in your "parts"

[ShortnFiery]

10. What a thoughtful thing to add. I always can count on you.

:eyes:

[durrrty libby]

12. Don't mention it. My pleasure

[Morgana LaFey]

46. Eh, wrong state

Try Kentucky

[durrrty libby]

54. Eh ..not quite

"The Hatfields lived on the West Virginia side of the Tug Fork (a tributary of the Big Sandy River), and the McCoys lived on the Kentucky side. Both families were part of the first wave of pioneers to settle the Tug Valley. Both were involved in the manufacture and sale of moonshine."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatfield-McCoy_feud


Must say, I am a little disappointed in you

[SaveElmer]

6. Funny, in my area of the good Commonwealth of Virginia...

I meet Hillary supporters on an almost daily basis...people know I am a Hillary supporter and go out of their way to express their support...

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

11. I have a similar problem

and I live in northwest Arkansas. Mrs. Clinton lived here and is known by many people, but I don't hear much about her at all--just that many here won't vote for her.

Hats off and hello to the Old Dominion. Some of my ancestors sojourned there for a couple of generations before moving west to Illinois.

[ShortnFiery]

14. Sa-lute! Most of Northern Virginia is metropolitan. We live south of there in rural country.

There are little pockets of democratically leaning areas but they are not near as prevalent as IMO, more developed areas of our State. :shrug:

[rinsd]

2. I like that RCP puts poll all in one place but their editorial sucks.

"Hillary Clinton is basking in the glow of the universally rave reviews from last night's debate"

3 debates with Hillary declared the winner in each one.

Her numbers in GE matchups are trending upwards.

Her national and state by state primary numbers are trending upwards.

She just raised a staggering amount of money (though give kudos to Obama for doing even better).

And now "concerned" rwers are warning the Democrats to be wary of Hillary Clinton.

Hmmmmm......

[nickinSTL]

50. From a Kucinich supporter...Clinton did well last night

I'm still skeptical of Clinton, and think that the high degree of animosity that many people (including some Democrats) have toward her may be a real negative in a general election, plus I have problems with her views on the Iraq debacle, but...

She did really well in the debate. It's the first debate I've been able to watch, and Iraq wasn't really touched on, which probably helped, but still, I was surprised at how well she did. For me, Edwards actually did slightly better, but she did impress me on how she answered many of the questions, as well as her presentation - unlike Obama, whose presentation bothered me in some way I can seem to lay my finger on. (note to Obama supporters - he still did well, IMO, and better than I expected, but not as well as Clinton and Edwards)

[illinoisprogressive]

3. those negatives have to make some dems pause. Loosing 2008 would be devastating

[SaveElmer]

7. Yeah the electability argument worked really well in 2004 didn't it?

[NOVA_Dem]

13. Yeah, it could've been worse.

I live in the Northern VA and given Warner's, Kaine's, and Webb's victories in VA I can tell you that Hillary doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning this state in '08.

The '04 loss was about fear(overall)and voter suppression (in OH).

[SaveElmer]

15. I too live in Northern Virginia...

Am very active in the Party...and I can tell you you are mistaken...

Polls show her within MoE of Republicans, and there is significant support for her in my neck of the woods...


The '04 loss was about picking a candidate who didn't know how to deal with RW attacks...

[NOVA_Dem]

17. It doesn't matter what the defense to RW attacks is when

you have already been defined by over 15 years in the national spotlight.

[SaveElmer]

18. Of course it does...

But that is the attitude that brought down Kerry...an acceptance of conventional wisdom...an unwillingness to tackle perceptions head on, instead laying low hoping people would see through the noise....

People are not automatons...campaigns matter...as Hillary has already proven...and I can think of no better candidate to cut through the noise than Hillary Clinton...

[NOVA_Dem]

21. America's opinion of Hillary Clinton is set in STONE...

And no amount of wishing will take it away.

When a significant portion of your own party sees you a fake and willing to take a position based on how it you THINK it will play in the general it won't make nary a bit of difference what she does after the convention.

That's why that SNL skit struck a nerve b/c it was true.

[SaveElmer]

24. Based on what insight...

Hairs on the back of your neck...or is it just "the feeling," you know, "progressive" truths that are just so well known they don't require anything to back them up...

In fact, given that Hillary's negatives fluctuate around quite a bit, I would say your assessment is incorrect...

I especially like this statement: "When a significant portion of your own party sees you a fake and willing to take a position based on how it you THINK it will play in the general it won't make nary a bit of difference what she does after the convention."

Given Hillary's extremely high popularity in the party, the fact that in a field of 8 candidates she is pushing 50% in the polls, and that in head to head matchups she performs even better...exactly what "significant portion of party" sees her as a fake?

[NOVA_Dem]

25. The only poll where she's pushing 50% is in her negatives

You know that Mason Dixon poll that the board is talking about where 52% of Americans won't even CONSIDER her for their vote in '08.
In a field of 8 candidates she came in DEAD LAST in favorability:

Clinton rang up high negatives across the board, with 60 percent of independents, 56 percent of men, 47 percent of women and 88 percent of Republicans saying they wouldn't consider voting for her.

There's no fluctuation in her negatives, only a steady increase.

[SaveElmer]

27. First...you didn't answer the question...

As you stated a significant portion of her own party believed she was a fake...which is clearly not true...

And so you base your entire argument on the basis of one poll...so if I cited polls showing that this one was incorrect, what would you say? Or is this one poll accurate because it shows what you want it to show...

How about if I cited the many recent polls that have her defeating every Republican contender nationally, or polls which show her negatives to be in the low to mid 40's, and that this very same polling organization show's her negatives have drifted into the low 30's at times, or polls which show Obama's negatives into the mid 40's, or polls that show Hillary not only winning in national general election matchups but in state matchups in FLorida, Ohio, Missouri, Iowa, and New Mexico. How about if I showed you polls that showed her within 1% of the Republican contenders in Virginia?

Would you discount all of those in order to stick to the conclusion you have drawn based on the results of this one poll?

[NOVA_Dem]

30. You claimed I didn't have any proof to back up my assertion.

I provided proof, and now you want more proof? Too bad, I backed up my claim that America has already formed an opinion about HRC.

You go find a poll that shows she doesn't have the HIGHEST unfavorables and that most Independents wont even CONSIDER voting for her. And then after you do I'll tell you to find a few more b/c the findings don't look good for my viewpoint.

If you think that HRC is going to win Missouri, Virginia, and f'n Florida you're outta your mind and nothing will convince you that she WON'T win.

[SaveElmer]

31. Rope a dope...

You said...and I quoted..."When a significant portion of your own party sees you a fake and willing to take a position based on how it you THINK it will play in the general it won't make nary a bit of difference what she does after the convention."

I asked you to provide proof for that statement...

You did not...unsurprising since there isn't any...

Now you say..."If you think that HRC is going to win Missouri, Virginia, and f'n Florida you're outta your mind and nothing will convince you that she WON'T win."

I can provide you recent polls that indeed show her winning all of these states...but they don't show what you want them to show, so they aren't valid? Is that what you are saying? I mean either polls are proof or they aren't...which is it?

[NOVA_Dem]

37. I did provide proof

You just won't address it. Address the Mason-Dixon poll.

[SaveElmer]

40. One more time...

The Mason-Dixon poll does not show in your own words that " a significant portion of your own party sees you a fake and willing to take a position based on how it you THINK it will play in the general it won't make nary a bit of difference what she does after the convention."

I asked a very simple question...show me any evidence the above statement is true...

As to the Mason Dixon poll...I addressed it...it is one more poll, no more or less important than any other...and certainly not conclusive enough to base a decision on who to support 18 months from now..

But since you seem to view it as gospel, how about addressing the numerous other polls that show Hillary in a very strong position in the general election...

[Yukari Yakumo]

38. Based on that logic

Allen would have been re-elected as Senator and probably running for President.

[paulk]

49. that's not true

In her term as Senator from New York, her approval ratings went up after people there got a chance to see the real Hillary, as opposed to the one painted by the Republicans (and certain factions of the left).

I expect the same to happen in the national primary/election season.

[ShortnFiery]

23. Beyond all the bickering, Bill was a "nice guy" but Americans are burned-out with both families.

Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush ENOUGH ALREADY! We need someone new - less polarizing - and almost anyone withOUT "Clinton" as their last name would be less controversial.

Dammit, it seems that *us little people* of the USA are ABSOLUTELY burned-out with these two families as well as all the HYPE (both sides) that come along with them: lock, stock and barrel! :( :shrug:

[durrrty libby]

9. Brilliant...heh...heh

Hey Loooosey...Where are you?

[rinsd]

4. And yet when unfavorable Hillary is against favorable Rudy, she wins!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_giuliani_vs_clinton-227.html

Same with favorable Fred Thompson.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_thompson_vs_clinton-266.html

[ShortnFiery]

8. OMG! Is it again "Hillary basking in the glow" TIME? Geeze, not again?!?

With all of HRC's people's hyperbole and people shamelessly *basking in HRC's glow* it seems like you're partying like it's 1995? :eyes: But it's 2007 - and the economy is in the crapper. :(

[TeamJordan23]

19. Not according to the latest Rasmussen Poll...Guilani is ahead of her

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

[rinsd]

22. Wow a pt behind in Ras but winning 6 out of the latest 8 polls taken(also has a tie).

Which is why I provided a link to RCP. And your post does nothing to debunk my point that favorability though nice doesn't seem to matter in head to head matchups.

Though I wish Ras would update his big board, he's still showing that 12 pt deficit to Rudy for Obama even though the latest poll has it at 3 pts.

[zulchzulu]

16. 625 likely general-election voters with a MoE 4%...Obama's numbers look good

It's way too early, but the trend of favorite/negative ratings seem pretty locked so far.

[flpoljunkie]

20. Dems must think long, hard about nominating candidate whom R's would crawl on glass to vote against

Are Democrats really going to put their best opportunity to win the White House in recent memory in the hands of woman who more than half the country says they won't vote for? And if the answer is "no," at what point in the race will that decision begin to manifest itself in the polls with, most likely, the ascension of Barack Obama?

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/06/new_masondixon_poll_hillarys_h.html

More from the McClathy press release...

More than half of Americans won't vote for Clinton, poll shows

Survey provides a snapshot of the senator's challenges as she seeks the Democratic nomination for president
By William Douglas

MCCLATCHY WASHINGTON BUREAU


WASHINGTON -- More than half of Americans say they wouldn't consider voting for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for president if she becomes the Democratic nominee, according to a new national poll made available to McClatchy Newspapers and NBC News.

The poll by Mason-Dixon Polling and Research found that 52 percent of Americans wouldn't consider voting for Clinton, D-N.Y. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, was second in the can't-stand-'em category, with 46 percent saying they wouldn't consider voting for him.

Clinton has long been considered a politically polarizing figure who would be a tough sell to some voters, especially many men, but also Clinton-haters of both genders.

Thursday's survey provides a snapshot of the challenges she faces, according to Larry Harris, a Mason-Dixon principal.

"Hillary's carrying a lot of baggage," he said. "She's the only one that has a majority who say they can't vote for her."

Clinton rang up high negatives across the board, with 60 percent of independents, 56 percent of men, 47 percent of women and 88 percent of Republicans saying they wouldn't consider voting for her.

http://www.contracostatimes.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?articleId=6260144&siteId=571

[snowbear]

26. I think you're right Zulch..

And I agree that it's early .. but if those high negatives don't move - that's pretty damned concerning.

[Ethelk2044]

32. You are correct

[SaveElmer]

39. Loosening your standards I see...ZulchZulu's Greatest Hits...

"Polls with an MoE of over 3.5% with small sampling are like political crack cocaine"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3311058&mesg_id=3311392


"513 past Texas Democratic primary voters polled 6/4. Margin of Error 4.3%"

Otherwise known as a crap poll... small sample, large MoE..."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3311606&mesg_id=3311653

"I work for a media relations company that does political polls occasionally

If you know about polls and how sampling, margins of error and time when the poll was conducted, you know that a small sample with a MoE larger than 3% is not usable by political professionals... I've made the point to Obama supporters who post polls with the same polling data characteristics that the poll is not legit.

If you want to believe in polls with questionable data characteristics, be my guest."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3311606&mesg_id=3311653

"Additionally, the poll data says the margin of error (MOE) is over 4%. A decent poll has a MOE of 3% or less."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1172535#1172690

And my personal favorite!!!

""margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 4 percentage points" = Used toilet paper

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3273886&mesg_id=3273925

I guess high MoE's are only relevent when Hillary is leading!!

[snowbear]

43. Damn..

You actually follow Zulch around memorizing their threads??

You that bored Elmer?

[SaveElmer]

44. Nope...

He makes the exact same argument every time a poll is posted showing Hillary in the lead...not too hard to remember...you know...like the number of times you comment on how often I comment on other people...

You that bored Larissa?

And you know...google isn't that hard to use...

You ought to try it some time...

[snowbear]

45. :o)

How on earth can anyone be bored with you around?

"Always feisty, never boring".. that's our Elmer!

[BenDavid]

28. Well hell! All anyone is

judging her on is the hatred put forth by the right wing haterizers in which we all would agree is nothing new, but what galls me is the hatred on this forum towards HRC.
HRC is the most investigated woman in history (Can you guess who might be Number Two?) is a big mystery. On the matter of these books about HRC and the number one hater A. Huffington all that needs be said is, Bernstein and Huffington both know who's going to be our next president. So, like the vulgar Pigboy watching Big Dog's march to the White House in 1992, they're staking their ground as the most vehement Hillary-haters so they can do the talk shows stating in 2009.
If Bernstein wrote a book "exposing" John Edwards, would anybody buy it?
If Bernstein wrote a book "exposing" Barack Obama, would anybody buy it?
If Arianna wrote a column "exposing" Bill Richardson, would anybody read it?
If Arianna wrote a column "exposing" Mike Gravel, would anybody read it?
The Clintons have always been literary gold, Bernstein and Huffy know that.
This is not about the truth, it's not about left vs right, it's not about patriotism or picking the best candidate to lead us out of the Bush Error - it's about money and much hatred sprinkled in....
I will accept what President William Jefferson Clinton said about his wife and I believe this to be true whereas the other candidates will not. Much like the last two we had, i e Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 04....So, here is what the Big Dawg said: "Hillary will never let a swift boat-style attack go unanswered." Just ask Obama since twice he has tried to go negative against HRC and both times HRC handed him his ass on a platter...
Stay with HRC....After she wins the nomination and she is seen more and what her view of America is, then those negatives now will turn around quickly....So, to all HRC supporters let them who hate her keep on hating and feel sad for them....
I do thank you,
Ben David

[durrrty libby]

56. I think I am in love. Nice post

:loveya: :loveya: :loveya:



The haters of the far left are the mirror image of the wack-jobs on the right

Armed with blinded irrational hate, they can’t even see the tree, never mind the forest through the trees.


So-called democrats showing up where Hillary speaks and booing her, only helps her
Americans, who once dismissed her as too liberal, are giving her another look because of the ugly haters. Maybe her supporters should thank them, but I still find them vile.

[PBass]

29. What were Dean's numbers, in 2004?

What are some examples of Hillary changing positions in order to pander?

First of all, isn't that called being "responsive" to the constituents? (She's just saying that to appeal to voters) Isn't that what a politician is supposed to do?

I don't buy the high negatives, any more than I believe that Gore is "boring" or Kerry is a "flip flopper" or Dean is a "loose cannon". Bill Clinton was one of the most popular presidents of the last century, and a lot of people naturally asssociate Hillary with Bill.

[rucky]

36. Hillaryphobes are a strange breed.

I'm not a fan of her policies, but I'm not a Hillaryphobe.

Some people you talk to have the gut-level HATRED for her. I honestly have no idea why, but for some reason it makes me think of that episode of Seinfeld when Kramer went into convulsions every time he heard Mary Hart from Entertainment Tonight.

[Jed Dilligan]

33. I just want a new presidential surname!

Bush-Clinton-Bush for 20 years and now another Clinton? Does this really present the image of a democracy to the rest of the world?

[creeksneakers2]

48. There's too much Bush

We can get rid of that part. Then it won't look so bad.

[durrrty libby]

57. Why repeat media tripe. Truth..12 years of Bush horror

8 pretty good years(some would say great) of Clinton

Would 4-8 years of guaranteed pretty good to great be something that you don't want?

I don't get people with no common sense. How do their shoes get tied?

[Jed Dilligan]

59. huh?

nt

[durrrty libby]

60. Well then..lucky for you they invented velcro

[Jed Dilligan]

61. I don't understand you at all.

If you're saying anyone who isn't 100% convinced that Hillary is the right candidate, must be too stupid to tie their own shoes...

:crazy:

[durrrty libby]

62. Wow ...jump to illogical conclusions?

Sorry, I don't have the patience tonight

[Jed Dilligan]

63. Fine by me.

Every post I've seen from you indicates that you probably aren't worth the trouble.

[durrrty libby]

64. Boo Hoo..

[Alamom]

34. 625

The Mason-Dixon survey was conducted June 23-25 with 625 likely general-election voters. It has an error margin of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

[rucky]

35. And all the early primary states are North

except for SC, which is largely African-American.

[ButterflyBlood]

41. The most unelectable and the most right wing. Why nominate her?

I've yet to hear one good reason.

[durrrty libby]

58. Well you ask the question with such an open mind, I can't

imagine why someone hasn't jumped at the opportunity to help you out?

:crazy:

[IndyOp]

42. Clinton did NOT get universally rave reviews - Universal only on corporate media...

Edwards Wins the DC Debate...
by Demo37, Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 01:52:08 PM EST

If you missed the latest presidential debate from Washington DC, you should go back and take a look at it right now. IMHO, it was the best one so far. You can see it here.

A poll conducted by the sponsors of the debate confirmed my reading: of the big three, John Edwards did the best by far. With the strongest performance, Edwards more than doubled his support. Here are the results of that poll:

John Edwards: Pre-Debate Support From Audience: 11%, Post-Debate Support From Audience: 24%

Barack Obama: Pre-Debate Support From Audience: 64%, Post-Debate Support From Audience: 46%

Hillary Clinton: Pre-Debate Support From Audience: 19%, Post-Debate Support From Audience: 12%

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3347353

[woo me with science]

47. Hillary consistently beats Republican candidates in polls setting up head to heads.

People have listened to the media mantra that she is too polarizing for months and months and months. That explains the unfavorables. When you put her up against every single Republican running, she is winning hands down!

[bricolage]

51. Hillary will win because her dirty tricks squad is the best.

They can sink Obama without leaving fingerprints. If you think she sounds right wing now, wait until she gets the nomination

[Capn Sunshine]

52. well the good news for Hillary's camp is they aren't getting any larger

so there's that.

Of course most of the public is unaware of the beating she takes in Moore's new movie as yet.

[wyldwolf]

53. ...but when they do, they'll just yawn

Interesting how so-called roadblocks keep turning into very minor, if even noticeable, speed bumps. How did that Bernstein book work out?

Like most movies, Moore's will barely register a *blip* on the radar screen.

[wyldwolf]

55. ... at TPM...

I think this Mason-Dixon data is getting a little too much play. A few days before these results were published, a national Newsweek poll showed Clinton (and other top-tier Dems) with healthy leads over all of the leading Republican presidential hopefuls. In each instance, her support topped 50%. (In a hypothetical match-up against Romney, she's at 55%.) There are other recent polls showing similar results.

Obviously, something is askew. Either a majority of Americans have ruled out backing Clinton under any circumstances, or a majority of Americans are prepared to support her against a GOP rival. It can't be both. And given that there are more polls for the latter than the prior, I'm not necessarily prepared to write her off as a viable general-election candidate quite yet.