Poll: Hillary flips another Red state...West Virginia...

[SaveElmer]

A survey of 400 likely voters completed in May by the political consulting firm of Fabrizio, McLaughlin and Associates finds that if the election were held now 46 percent would be more likely to vote for the Democratic candidate, 24 percent for the Republican candidate while 29 percent are unsure.

Sen. Hillary Clinton leads the field in West Virginia for ’08 at this stage of the campaign. Clinton has a favorable rating of 45 percent, more than Rudy Guilianai (40 percent), Barack Obama (39 percent) and John McCain (36 percent).

Clinton does, however, have higher negatives than the other three. Thirty-nine percent say they have an unfavorable opinion of Clinton compared with 33 percent for Giuliani, 31 percent for Obama and 30 percent for McCain.

The research also shows that if the election were held now Clinton would carry West Virginia in a head to head match-up with McCain or Giuliani. Clinton beats McCain 41 percent to 34 percent with 25 percent undecided and beats Giuliani 42 percent to 36 percent with 22 percent undecided.

The Clinton numbers are surprising, especially when you consider how West Virginia voters view themselves. Thirty seven percent of those surveyed describe themselves as conservative while only 22 percent say they are liberal.

Obama against McCain or Obama against Giuliani are dead heats in West Virginia.

http://www.wvmetronews.com/index_forsub.cfm?func=displayfullstory&storyid=19789

[ShortnFiery]

1. FYI the TRUE Headline is: "Research shows West Virginia is tilting back toward blue for the 2008 ...

presidential race." :eyes:

[wyldwolf]

2. FYI - the only forum where DU rules require exact headlines is LBN

:eyes:

[ShortnFiery]

4. There's more to promoting your candidate in good sportsmanship than merely

following the rules. Many smarmy business tycoons who are hopelessly greedy also - follow the rules.

You are already FAR ahead and still you figuratively choose to continue to kick everyone in the ribs when we're down - by forming your own headlines. What will you do if your candidate ever lags behind? :(

[SaveElmer]

5. The queen of irony...

Good Sportsmanship?

In any case the true headline was...

"Hoppy's Commentary For Monday"


This isn't a news service it is an opinion board...I in no way misrepresented the contents of the article...

[ShortnFiery]

8. The Headline was in the next statement down. But hell, don't let the facts trip you up.

Whoa! You're good. :shrug:

[SaveElmer]

11. That was the first line in the article...

But don't let the facts trip you up...

I know you don't like the contents, given that Hillary is the only Dem shown to be flipping this state...

[ShortnFiery]

13. So the first line of the article is not also the headline when it is ONE sentence that concisely ...

summarizes the contents of the article. :crazy: Oh man, I am going to have to put on my waders in order to rise above "the logic."

[SaveElmer]

14. So you don't feel a requirement should be put in...

To use the headline in every article...

The article made two points...generically Democrats are ahead in West Virginia...in reality only one Democrat is ahead...Hillary Clinton...

Given this is a discussion board and not a news service I was more interested in this second bit of information and chose to focus on that. I did not misrepresent the article in any way, stated accurately its conclusions regarding the topic I wanted to talk about, and provided a link to the entire article in case people were interested...

I wonder how often this complaint has come up from you in the hundreds of anti-Hillary threads where the headline of an article is not used...? Something I have never complained about..l.

In any case...a pretty sophomoric attempt at distraction from someone who simply does not like the contents of the article and the conclusion it reaches...

Course if I behaved like Obama supporters my subject would have been "Obama loses to Republicans in West Virginia"...but I chose to accentuate the positive...

[ShortnFiery]

16. I'm sorry that you feel that way. As I stated before, it's not just with those who support HRC.

I don't think you are ever willing to forgive but I'm not being mean-spirited, just making a suggestion. :shrug:

[Forkboy]

7. I think the rule should be brought into this Forum as well.

It's how I post everywhere if I'm posting an actual story and not just my opinion or something.The spin merchants always put their own take on stories posted here,and hopefully enough people see it for it is.

[ShortnFiery]

9. Right and it's not just HRC's people - others do also. We should all try not to burn bridges ...

we may need to reach out to each other in the future.

I'm one of the most egregious sinners and I am turning a new leaf. If I can change and play fair, it seems that most anyone could do the same. It would make for a much more amenable forum.

Just a thought.

[BringBigDogBack]

56. I think I agree with that

as well.

[wyldwolf]

10. GD: Politics is a discussion forum

That is why exact headlines are not necessary. But if the practice of not using exact headlines really offends you, I'm sure you'll also be posting corrective replies in the following threads where the exact headlines were not used:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3364842
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3364164&mesg_id=3364164
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3364103&mesg_id=3364103

[ShortnFiery]

12. I know, I know ... well it is a valid suggestion but it's your choice - that's understood. nt

[SaveElmer]

3. FYI - Yet ANOTHER poll showing Hillary flipping yet ANOTHER Red State...nt

[ShortnFiery]

6. There's an old adage that also applies to Politics: Be careful of who you step on as you are

on your way UP, for you may receive the same treatment IN KIND on your way down. :shrug:

[zulchzulu]

15. When was the election?

I think it starts in about six months...just for your records...

[madrchsod]

17. it was when the media decided she

was better copy than any one else. edwards should quite today and obama maybe allowed to stay a little longer because he is interesting and the writers love the simple dynamics between those two..edwards and others just make things to dam complicated for media. let`s face the fact-the primary is over and clinton won

[jackbourassa]

18. Dukakis led George H.W. Bush by 17%...

...then lost the election by 8%.

[CTyankee]

25. I hope HRC doesn't make the same mistakes the Dukakis people made.

I never really believed that Dukakis was a good candidate. Poppy Bush wasn't so great either but we can remember what he did with Dukakis's record: 1)the "card carrying member of the ACLU" remark, 2)the ride in the tank looking like Charlie Brown and 3)the coldness of his response to the hypothetical "rape of Kitty" question during the debates. Dukakis had a campaign staff that was really "not ready for prime time." And he had a tin ear when it came to the voting public.

HRC seems to have a classy and savvy team going in. She has had the advantage of weathering just about everything the repubs could throw at her, plus some. She was a lesbian, she had Vince Foster murdered and plotted the dumping of his body in Fort Macy park, she altered her billing sheets from her days at the Rose Law Firm, she had shrieking fits of anger and threw a lamp at Bill while in the White HOuse, she was a "carpetbagger" in New York and on and on. So she has the advantage of facing the worst type of garbage any candidate could possibly face. That tends to focus the mind!

So we'll all have to sit tight as the campaign wends its way. Right now she looks unstoppable. However, this WV poll, like all polls this early, are really "snapshots in time." We've got a ways to go, folks.

[Hippo_Tron]

49. Yup, that's something we need to remember in 2008

So that it isn't a repeat of 1988.

[jsamuel]

19. How did Edwards do?

[AlGore-08.com]

20. Just F.Y.I. "46%" is not a flip. Gore got 46% in 2000, Kerry got 43% in 04

Plus, most of these "my candidate would take X state" posts routinely ignore the margin of error and the percentage of undecided voters. The MOE of this poll is 4.9%. That means that the true figure can be anywhere between 43.75% (what Kerry got) 48.25%. Unless there is one or more third party candidates who prevent the Republican candidate from winning 43.76% - 48.26% of the vote, West Virginia stays in the Red column. (As a general rule, the larger the margin of error, the less confidence folks should have that the poll represents the true figures.)

Hypothetical match ups that leave 25% - 22% of the electorate undecided means that the state is still very much in play.

Additionally, folks should be aware of our most recent experience out here in the deep blue state of California. When Gov. Schwarzenegger was up for reelection, poll after poll after poll showed him loosing badly to a generic Democrat. But as soon as the Democratic primary was over and we had a specific Democrat running against Schwarzenegger - - a specific Democrat who polled evenly with Schwarzenegger in hypothetical match ups. But Schwarzenegger eventually won 56% of the vote, with our Democratic candidate winning only 39% of the vote.

All I'm saying is that I think we all would be better served with a more cautious assessment of the electoral landscape. Instead of believing we are going to win in a landslide, we should be looking for ways to persuade undecided voters to vote Democratic.

[Maribelle]

22. But Hillary is leading the republicans - Gore and Kerry lost to them

Does this matter much?

[Hippo_Tron]

51. No, because the undecideds will likely go Republican as it gets closer to the election...

That is, unless we convince them to vote Democratic. West Virginia voters lean conservative (as the article says) and while some of them will vote Democratic just because they are pissed off at Bush, many are sitting on the fence until Democrats convince them to vote for them. If Democrats don't convince them, they will just vote Republican like they always do.

[AlGore-08.com]

61. In both 2000 and 2004 there was similar speculation that Bush would loose WV

Based on similar polls. As I said in the earlier post, Schwarzenegger was loosing all his re-election polls against a generic Democrat, and the actual Dem we ran against him was tying him in early polls.

Basically, there are two things that I would keep in mind about any polls this far out.

The first is you should try to figure out if this shows a change in the base vote - - there's always going to be a certain percentage of people who will vote for a Democrat, regardless of who the Democrat is. If that percentage is less than 51%, you have to figure out whether there are enough truly undecided voters to put a state in play. And you won't know this simply from reading a single poll. For one thing, they won't say "the projected Democratic base is 40; Democrat A is currently polling at 42%". They might suggest this by saying "Democrat A is doing better than previous Democrats", but the MSM is so sloppy I wouldn't assume this is true.

To make up an example - - let's say that the base vote for Democrats in Wisconsin statewide races is 48% and it's also 48% for Republicans. (I don't know that it is or isn't, I'm just making up an example). If a possible Dem candidate is currently polling 43% in Wisconsin, this would mean they have to figure out how to capture the 5% of the base that's currently not supporting them, plus figure out IF they can win at least 2.1% of the undecided vote so they can end up winning at least 50.1% of the overall vote. The fact that 500 days before the election that Dem is polling to win now 43% - 41% won't mean squat if they still have 43% of the vote on election day and your opponent has 57%.

The other big factor to keep in mind is that the primaries haven't really created any meaningful debates yet - - or even any real negative campaigning. (There's been a couple isolated incidents, but nothing major.) Voters are not hearing candidate A's health care plan and thinking "wait a minute, that's not going to work for my family" or hearing candidate A run negative ads about candidate B's past votes. They haven't seen the NRA run millions of dollars of swift boat ads painting candidate A as a dangerous nut who wants to take away their guns. And we haven't even scratched the surface of all the unpredictable campaign mistakes and personally embarrassing stuff that will occur between now and election day 2008 - - revelations about past drug use, pet abuse, sexual misconduct, quid pro quo backroom deals, flip flops, family disgraces, staff members getting arrested for tax evasion or drug use, high profile backers turning out to be racist creeps, and regular old vanilla gaffes that the press loves like Jerry Ford saying Poland was "independent and autonomous" from the Soviet Union or Dan Quayle misspelling "Potatoe".

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Maribelle]

21. In a 22% liberal state, you can safely say Hillary flipped it with 46%

More that double is truly a flip in this dark red state.

It seems Hillary's negatives are trending downward and positives are up throughout the country, as in the latest from Newsweek:

Favorable 53%
Unfavorable 36%

[ShortnFiery]

24. Link please? What date? nt

[wyldwolf]

27. Surely you didn't miss the wailing and gnashing of teeth here last week?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3360028

[ShortnFiery]

28. Thank you, wyldwolf. You're a gentleman and a scholar :-) nt

[quinnox]

26. And they say Hillary can't win?

Well take a look see she is winning West Virginia!

The "Hillary can't win" crowd don't know what they are talking about.

[Clark2008]

29. ROFLMAO!

I have a bridge for sale.

[wyldwolf]

30. In other words, you know in your heart this isn't true.

[progressoid]

31. This early in the game and a poll with a MOE of 5%. Seems a little flimsy.

[Tom Joad]

32. It's not surprising, they always liked reactionaries.

[wyldwolf]

33. how does Clinton even approach the definition of a "reactionary?"

[Tom Joad]

34. We used to call those who support wars of aggression fascists.

i was being nice though.

[wyldwolf]

36. and you're misusing that word, too. But you didn't answer my question

[Tom Joad]

39. hint: supporting the Iraq war was a reactionary thing to do.

and a total disaster for the US and the rest of the planet.

and many other issues i have no time to discuss here... corporate power (telecommunications act), pro-corporate trade agreements, and so on.

[wyldwolf]

40. ok, then, let's just say we run with your definition of "reactionary."

Knee-jerk opposition to the war was "reactionary."

Opposing a woman's right to choose and supporting a flag burning amendment (Kucinich) - reactionary.

Want to go on?

[Tom Joad]

42. opposition to useless war is reactionary (as in rightist)???

you gotta be kidding. and you describe it in a derogatory way. "knee-jerk"-- right.

[wyldwolf]

43. the broader definition of reactionary is "reacting before thinking."

[Tom Joad]

44. What thoughtful person supported Bush's attack on Iraq???

wouldn't that be a contradiction in terms?

[wyldwolf]

48. are we only using Iraq as a basis for the definition of "reactionary?"

[Tom Joad]

60. Supporting the media monopolies is also a right-wing assault on our values

the telecommunication act signed by billy clinton was a disaster.

but i do think that iraq would be enough. nearly one-million dead. It is a holocaust.

[wyldwolf]

62. you're going to continue avoiding the question, huh?

[bvar22]

35. What NONE of the polls consider:

If the Democratic Party choooses another "Centrist" as their candidate, there WILL BE a 3rd Party run by a Populist.

The 3rd Party WILL siphon off a percentage of votes from the Centrist Democratic candidate.
NONE of the polls is factoring in this inevitability.

IMO, if Hillary is the Democratic nominee, the Democratic Party may see mass defections from the Left .
Then the wailers and gnashers of teeth will blame the 3rd Party instead of their own stupidity.

History has a way of repeating itself.

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[wyldwolf]

37. none of the polls consider it because there is no way to measure anything you wrote

And to be completely honest, with independents breaking our way, we can lose 1.3% from the left and be fine, thank you.

[bvar22]

46. "we can lose 1.3% from the left and be fine"

And THAT was the "thinking" that lost 2000 for the Dems.

[wyldwolf]

57. Dems have momentum now. Not so in 2000.

[bread_and_roses]

63. That's good. I can have a restful '08 then. No day after day knocking

doors, calling volunteers for phones, dropping lit, registering voters. No day long trips from NY to PA to do the same. No calling into Florida and arranging bus trips there to do the same. No $$ that I can send instead to ACLU. With such momentum on the side of the Ds I can maybe have a life in '08 instead of working every hour I have free from paid work to elect Democrats, who I don't much like anyway, who are the lesser of two evils, and who often disappoint in even that low standard once in office.

I'm looking forward to a restful '08, thanks!

[Tom Joad]

45. it's not just defections to another candidate, it's the overwhelming number who stay

home each election. No One is the most popular candidate among all eligible voters.

[Hawaii Hiker]

38. West Virgina used to be blue until 2000 election

I'm not sure what brought about the change then, pro-gun crowd, people who couldn't vote for Gore because of Clinton/Lewinsky scandal??....

I think if Democrats do well in the interior west (Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado) we should be able to say :woohoo: :woohoo: the day after election day!!

[benEzra]

64. The 1994 Feinstein ban, and the whole ban-nonhunting-guns issue

West Virgina used to be blue until 2000 election

I'm not sure what brought about the change then, pro-gun crowd, people who couldn't vote for Gore because of Clinton/Lewinsky scandal??....

The 1994 Feinstein ban, and the whole ban-nonhunting-guns issue, buried Gore in WV, TN, and a lot of formerly blue swing states in 2000. Also, don't forget that the House AND Senate were solidly blue in August of 1994, Feinstein et al pushed through a ban on popular guns in September, and both houses were lost that November; it goes beyond the presidency.

Gore was unfortunately taken in by the "gun rights for hunters only" rhetoric being pushed by the gun-control lobby at that time, and it hurt him badly, just as it hurt Kerry in '04. The party's dropping that issue after the '04 loss was a big reason, IMO, for the '06 wins (Webb would have never won in Virginia had the party still been pushing the ban-more message).

Perspective on the issue from DU's own virginiamountainman: Alienated Rural Democrat

And a primer on the issue for non-gunnies, written in '04 and largely vindicated in '06, IMO): Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What?

I think if Democrats do well in the interior west (Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado) we should be able to say :woohoo: :woohoo: the day after election day!!

Stay the hell out of people's gun safes, and it could happen.

[DrDan]

41. I just got back from a week in WVa

if Byrd goes for Hillary, she will win the state.

[rinsd]

47. They are cosponsoring legislation to deauthorize the IWR so who knows

[DrDan]

50. that's right

I forgot about that

[draft_mario_cuomo]

52. HRC is more electable than Obama in West Virginia?

That is very interesting. No wonder this poll has been ignored by the usual suspects who argue against HRC and for BO on electability.

[Adelante]

53. A bit OT, but a question

What is Hillary's view on mountaintop removal mining? Anyone know?

[William769]

54. Hillary flips red States, Obma just flip. NT

[brentspeak]

55. And I have some oil fields in Alaska I'd like to sell you.

[wyldwolf]

58. so, you know in your heart these numbers are not accurate?

[SaveElmer]

59. It's..."The Feeling"...nt

[featherman]

65. The interesting tidbit here is that 22% WV voters are self described liberals

That is pretty high, actually. That number rarely breaks 18% nationally as most Dem and IND voters prefer to describe themselves as "moderate".

The article is a typical backhanded MSM swipe at the Dems in general, ie: only a small minority of voters ("liberals") could possibly support such a "liberal" as (enter DEM candidate name here).

[Placebo]

66. Fantastic.

:)

[rodeodance]

67. i think so also--yet I lean towards Edwards

[Yukari Yakumo]

68. THe main thing this news dies...

...is shoot gaping holes in the "HRC is not electable" theory.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

70. Exactly

About a week ago a group of Obama supporters were posting several threads promoting that meme. Notice the silence from them on the topic this week?

[Like It Is]

69. Hillary is a loser!

She will lose in November if the Dems are dumb enough to nominate her.