Most Democrats have a favorable opinion of Hillary Clinton

[quinnox]

she is very popular among Democrats (currently, 84% of Democrats have a favorable opinion of the former First Lady).

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


I'm not sure Democrats will like Hillary Clinton compared to Bush and Cheney, I just don't see this as helping Obama, instead I can see this kind of name calling backfiring and helping Hillary.

Bush is probably the most hated Republican for Democrats right now so it is an insult for any candidate to try and score points by calling an opponent a Bush-Cheney lite.

[robinlynne]

1. They forgot to interview me.

[Breeze54]

4. LMAO! Me too!!

:rofl:

[ronnykmarshall]

48. Or the Jefferson County Fair.

Now THAT is voice of the Democratic party.

[Blue_In_AK]

52. Likewise.

[babylonsister]

57. Ditto. nt

[Dread Pirate KR Read]

63. well, apparently, you're not a "Modern Progressive" Democrat

[trueblue2007]

2. I DO !!!

I'm not a dem who is busy putting all dems down. I'm keeping my mind open. ANY Dem is better than a Repuke anyday!!!

I'm recommending this post also.

[emilyg]

41. I do, too.

[proud2BlibKansan]

3. They didn't ask me

:)

[onehandle]

5. There aren't a lot of Democrats at Democratic Underground.

We're hardly a reflection of the real world.

[Like It Is]

26. Are you serious!

If there are Republicans here I haven't heard them. Your problem is that you think any Democrat is qualified to be president. They're not, only a select few are. Shillary and Obama are not among the few. Neither are Gravel, Kucinich, Edwards or Richardson.

[ronnykmarshall]

47. Shillary?

And you're asking if someone is serious?

[robinlynne]

54. you joking baby? 80,000 dems right here.

[ginnyinWI]

6. I have to say, though, that her chief comm. dir. is a jerk

I saw Howard Wolfson talking on Hardball along with David Axelrod who is Obama's senior strategist. Wolfson was acting really snotty and constantly interrupting and talking over Axelrod. Is this the kind of representation Hillary really wants? The whole think just turned me off! Coming on TV and attacking and dividing Democrats is not the way to win.

[durrrty libby]

16. Well I thought BOTH of those guys acted jerky

Howard and David tried to out shout one another

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

7. God, I Hate What This Country Has Become

Our Next ANNOINTED Leader.

We're SCREWED. I don't see how we last as a nation too much longer.

[Like It Is]

60. The voters have to overcome the money!

Normally, money talks and bullsh1t walks. We, the voters have to somehow overcome this. We shouldn't be voting for the first woman or the first bi-racial candidate. We should be voting for the candidate best qualified to lead us out of this hole that George W. Bush has put us in. We are just about in the most vulnerable position we have ever been worldwide. The person with the best Foreign Relations experience and leadership ability is Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware. We made a mistake or were robbed in 2000, and more of the same in 2004. We can't miss in 2008. We can't afford to!

[beastieboy]

8. Except on DU, about 95% here are haters.

[Darth_Kitten]

10. Gee, you just got here.

:eyes:

[beastieboy]

11. I read alot. Am I wrong?

[dmallind]

29. Nope you're not.

It's understandable that venue that draws heavily from the left-most wing of the party would not be inoridinately fond of Hillary. What is less realistic is that too many of them have the silly tendency of assuming that means everybody else outside DU thinks the same way.

[durrrty libby]

14. beatieboy you are correct. There are a lot of haters here

I don't give 2 shits about them. They are a minority
in the US and the mirror image of the far right loons

And Welcome :toast: :hi:

[sandnsea]

19. And informed n/t

[robinlynne]

55. haters, no not really. just progressives. ready for some change.

[Alexander]

9. Gore scores higher in every favorability poll.

I'll take someone I know can win.

Even Hillary admitted in the YouTube debate that Gore won in 2000.

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. But has she ever said anything about investigating election fraud?

Diebold? Anything?

[Alexander]

27. Not a word.

[rinsd]

13. Favorability with Democrats or voters in general?

[Alexander]

24. All Democrats. He's beating Hillary in NH and is only 6 points behind her in CA.

"New Hampshire Poll puts Gore over Clinton"

http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070627/NATION/106270092/1001

"Poll Finds Bay Area Democrats Like Gore Best"

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/03/MNGISP0I4C1.DTL&hw=field+poll&sn=001&sc=1000

In Pennsylvania, Gore performs better than any Democrat against the Republican front-runners.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1327.xml?ReleaseId=1070&ss=print

Maybe Hillary's nomination isn't so inevitable after all.

[rinsd]

34. Response: Gore is not running.

"New Hampshire Poll puts Gore over Clinton"

Its one poll. Usually he struggles to hit double digits when included in NH polling.

"In Pennsylvania, Gore performs better than any Democrat against the Republican front-runners."

Quinnipiac for some reason makes it confusing to find their latest poll data on PA. It was under the swing state section

# Pennsylvania - Giuliani and Clinton are tied 45 - 45 percent, compared to a 47 - 43 percent Giuliani lead May 31.

* Giuliani gets 44 percent to Obama's 43 percent;
* Giuliani edges Gore 46 - 44 percent;
* Clinton beats McCain 46 - 42 percent;
* Clinton tops Thompson 49 - 38 percent;
* Obama beats McCain 44 - 39 percent;
* Obama beats Thompson 50 - 33 percent;
* Gore tops McCain 48 - 41 percent;
* Gore beats Thompson 50 - 37 percent.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1079

[Alexander]

38. Bill Clinton wasn't running at this point in 1991, either.

He waited until October.

I'll give Gore the same courtesy before I count him out.

Why won't you?

Oh right, I forgot. He'd crush your candidate and you're afraid of that. :eyes:

[rinsd]

42. Psssst its 2007 not 1991 and politics have changed slightly in the past 16 years.

Gore would have announced by now if he were running or at least would have been dropping hints that he was considering a run. In contrast he has done as much as possible to dissuade talk of his running.

"Oh right, I forgot. He'd crush your candidate and you're afraid of that"

Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn't. Since he's not running it does not matter.

[Alexander]

44. Psst - the early campaigning has made people sick of the candidates.

I know, I know, don't believe the facts because they make St. Hillary look bad. :eyes:

"Gore would have announced by now if he were running or at least would have been dropping hints that he was considering a run. In contrast he has done as much as possible to dissuade talk of his running."

1. He was quite clear in 2002 when he said "I won't run in 2004".

2. He has not been as clear about 2008.

3. He has until October/November to start filing the paperwork.

4. He is more popular than Hillary Clinton.

Nice to see you can read his mind, though. Can you tell me what he had for breakfast, too? :eyes:

"Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn't. Since he's not running it does not matter."

Hagel and Gore will win, because the voters won't be sick of them.

I'd look forward to rubbing the primary results in your face next year, but I suspect you'll mysteriously disappear when Hillary drops out.

[BeyondGeography]

18. Oh, how she cried that night, sniff

it only paved the way for her run to the White House...

Those sure looked like crocodile tears to me at the debate. Actually, I marvelled at the sure-footed cynicism of the woman. Using Gore as a way to avoid the question of two families controlling the White House over a quarter century. She's a force alright.

[Alexander]

25. While I did like her answer...

If she really thought Gore was elected and not Bush, why not contest the counting of the electoral votes like Barbara Boxer did?

[Larkspur]

15. I wasn't polled

[SaveElmer]

17. Neither was I...should have been higher...nt

[Broke Dad]

20. Apparently they skipped Iowa with this poll . . .

Research 2000/KCCI
7/26/2007

See poll details

A new poll from KCCI in Des Moines shows John Edwards and Mitt Romney leading their respective parties.

Edwards was tops among Dems, favored by 27 percent of respondents. He was followed by Hillary Clinton (22 percent), Barack Obama (16 percent) and Bill Richardson (11 percent). Clinton and Obama both saw their numbers drop by 6 percentage points compared to the same poll in May, while Richardson for a boost of 4 percentage points.

On the Republican side, Mitt Romney was favored by 25 percent of respondents, followed by Fred Thompson at 14 percent, Rudy Giuliani at 13 percent and John McCain at 10 percent. Romney saw his numbers jump by 9 percentage points since the May poll, while Giuliani dropped by 4 percentage points and McCain dropped by 8 percentage points.

The telephone poll of 600 likely voters was conducted July 23-25 by Research 2000 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

www.iowapolitics.com/index.iml?Article=101148

[dmallind]

23. Different question

One asks favorable opinion, one asks favorITE candidate.

I have a favorable opinion of, say, Obama (and Hillary for that matter) but am unlikely to vote for either of them in the primary.

It's like asking if you if like french fries and then when you say "yes", trying to refute that with "but your favorite food is ice cream so that must be bad data!" It's not only possible, but very likely, a large number of people have both a favorable opinion of Hillary and an intention to vote for someone else in the primaries.

[windbreeze]

56. Which just goes to prove...that the polls are manipulated

by the questions...and the answers you are allowed to give...you know..yes/no....when something else really fits, or when there are multiple choice answers...none of which fit for you..

I have taken polls...where I caught the poll taker completely off guard by telling them, that none of their answers fit, and why..then they say...you have to answer with one of the answers we have provided you with...so once again, it's an anybody but kinda thing....and that skews the poll...
wb

[dmallind]

22. Funny how that never comes up

I probably would have only answered "somewhat favorable", but the silly idea that DU is reflective of the larger Democratic population, let alone the population as a whole, and that really everyone outside the DLC and their paid shills is frothing at the mouth with Hillary-hate is a deceptively popular meme on a forum that is normally so keen on links and cites and objective evidence. Frankly, outside the echo chamber there IS no evidence that Hillary is unpopular with most Democrats, and even her overall negatives aren't hugely out of sync with teh other candidates and explained best by 15 years of constant hammering by the RW smear machine.

Can't recall exactly but I believe the number of LVs who consider her the MOST liberal candidate is about that 84% too. Obviously the clear fact that she is an avatar of Cheney which is taken as more than gospel truth on DU hasn't got too much credence outside it.

What other polls are attacked so routinely with the facile "argument" that "I was never asked". It's not like sample size and margin of error are esoteric concepts unknown to the world at large after all - just for some reason they don't matter when Hillary is the subject.

[Larkspur]

36. I only know of 2 people in my DTC who support Hillary

There may be a couple more, but those that I thought would support her, don't.

There are about 40 people in my DTC.

[dmallind]

39. Well again this is a favorability poll

Since she is actually supported by usually somewhere around 35% of Democrats as their choice you would expect a random sample of 40 (a very small one of course) to have about 14 Hillary voters. NOw is your DTC a random sample? Not at all. It's a self selected sample skewed towards no doubt politically dedicated activists. Not relevant for even primary voters let alone general voters.

I'm not picking on you here. NOBODY's circle of friends or acquaintances is a valid sample for such a poll. Even if you know enough people from enough different deomgraphics, by definition a circle of friends or colleagues or acquaintances or co-volunteers is self-selected not random.

[Larkspur]

51. None of the DTC members in my DTC are professional activists

including me. We come from the community at large. We hold non-political jobs, like our community does. Some are members of the Town Council, but the council does not get paid a salary from the town.

And it's DTC folks who staff phone banks and do canvassing during elections, so DTC members are usually aware of the community's sentiment about candidates.

[dmallind]

53. still a self selected sample

And since when did activists have to be paid? In fact to me the implication is the reverse - if you were paid you'd normally be called staffers not activists. The fact remains that you cannot possibly hope to cover all the variation in a large national random sample. Now if you spoecifically asked all the people you call and tabulated the results you would get much closer, but even then you'd only have a local sample not a national one.

[Like It Is]

21. Where was that poll conducted, in Shillary's backyard?

I don't know anyone who likes her other than my wife!

[dmallind]

28. What other polls with small MOEs do you doubt because of anecdotes?

Heck I can go hang out at the vegetarian restaurant and extrapolate that Nebraska is 90% left of center, but that doesn't make it true,

Unless you know several hundred randomly selected people cutting across all demographic lines and unless you have asked them all anonymously if they have a favorable opinion of Hillary then it's not really all that relevant is it?

[Like It Is]

31. At this early stage of the game, I suspect all polls.

Most people don't make up their mind until a week before they vote.

[rinsd]

35. This is favorability poll not an election poll.

So try another rationalization for dismissing results you don't like.

[RaleighNCDUer]

45. You're right, it is a favorability poll, not election poll.

and it may be a surprise to some I've gone back and forth with, but I do see Hillary favorably, for the most part - because she is a Democrat, and she is good on certain issues as a Senator. I think she'd be a terrible mistake as a presidential candidate, her foreign relations policies are straight out of the DLC/AIPAC playbook and she'd look a hell of a lot sillier wearing a helmet than Dukakis did; but for women's issues, civil rights, some poverty issues she's pretty good.

but she won't do anything to upset the insurance industry, as far as national health is concerned; she's much to willing to buy into the neocon take on terror (despite her husband's more reasoned policies on the same); and she has never addressed republican electoral fraud. So while my views may be favorable toward her as a whole, I absolutely oppose her as a presidential candidate.

Favorability poll = meaningless poll.

[Like It Is]

59. I know what it is.

I don't need your explanation.

[madmom]

32. personal attack is a repuke mo...just saying!

[durrrty libby]

33. "Where was that poll conducted, in Shillary's backyard?"

Tell me, Do all the BO sniffers fit in the same tub?

[ProgressiveAmPatriot]

30. The same page also has 48% of the electorate pledging that they will absolutely not vote for her

I know we are talking Democrats, but I have a feeling they all have similar approval ratings among Democrats. The problem is once we get to the general if Clinton is the nominee we are going to have to win a razor thin election which we wouldn't have with any other Democratic candidate. 48% already say they are absolutely set that they will vote against her, while only 30% say they will absolutely vote for her in the general. This is a huge problem.

[dmallind]

37. What are those numbers for other Dem candidates?

After all you pretty much start off with a floor of 40% who would never vote for any Dem. Add in name recognition (which works for bad vibes as well as good of course) and 15 years of non stop hatemongering and yep that's not unreasonable.

If anyone else gets the nomination what do you think their never vote for numbers will look like after the Scaife funded attack groups and Fox gets done with them? Remember Hillary has alreday been through that, non stop, since 92. They're not going to convince anybody else to hate her who doesn;t already. All the skeletons are out. The same cannot be said for any other candidate.

[quinnox]

43. true enough

Hillary would have a bigger challenge to win a general election than an Edwards in my opinion. But I believe she can win! Could she lose? I'm not going to say it isn't possible. The ultimate result will remain unknown until the results come in.

[dmallind]

46. This piece of conventional wisdom I have never understood

On the face of it it makes SOME sense. Hillary has been used as the demon specter of liberalism run amok by the RW for so long that she would indeed energize the base to vote against her.

However the assumption falls down when we ask "And what will they do to the eventual nominee even if it isn't Hillary?"

I mean let's say it's Richardson - generally I think seen as one of if not the least "progressive liberal" candidates.

We'll get Chinese secret selling 24/7 even though that program started under Reagan and was actually decreased when he was Secretary.

We'll get lost nuclear plans 24/7 even though it turned out to be much ado about nothing and of course not his fault.

We'll get rumor of inappropriate conduct to female staffers 24/7 even though he has never been proven to have done anything wrong.

We'll get innuendo about his weight 24/7 even though he is a large man rather than a particularly obese one and has no major health issues.

We'll get innuendo about his ethnicity and immigration stance suggesting he's more loyal to Mexico than the US 24/7, regardless of how flatout stupid that is.

AND all of a sudden HE will be the poster child for liberalism run amok, 24/7, for months. Even though everybody and his dog knows he's a moderate DLC type, every single bill he ever signed or speech he ever made will be scoured looking for any single line that implies he thinks gays are human, that people should get a helping hand and that rich folks might need to pay a but more in taxes than burger flippers and they'll turn him into a gay-marriage pushing welfare-queen supporting tax-raising pinko commie subversive who's so far left he can see Stalin on his starboard side.

And HE will energize their base to vote against him. It's what the swiftboat crowd do. When they can turn John Kerry into a deserting coward and Bush into a war hero, what the hell makes you think they can't energize their base against ANYBODY we put up. We could even nominate Zell Miller and they'd do that! I'm not going to insult anyone's intelligence by pointing out how easy this would be if we nominate Obama - we have already seen a small taste of what that would be like, as we have with Edwards and his cheaper-than-Romney's-makeup-sessions haircuts and big house.

In summary "energizing the right" is a moot point and a red herring. The right will be energized against whoever gets the nod, and Clinton will be neither more nor less useful there. The only reason she looks that way NOW is because they have already used her as a whipping boy for years.

[zulchzulu]

40. You just don't see this as helping Obama...since you're a Clinton supporter

:crazy:

Wow. How can that be?

[ronnykmarshall]

49. Don't worry ..

That Johnson County Fair thing is going great for yous kids!

[LittleClarkie]

50. Having a favorable opinion and wanting someone for president are two different things nm

.

[glowing]

58. As a first lady she was ok, as a senator from not my state, I guess

ok, as president--no way. She is too mid-stream for my taste.

[MrSlayer]

61. I keep hearing things like this.

Yet I don't know a single person who supports her or even likes her, not one, and I know a lot of people. I can't find a shred of support for her among my union brethren on the job, in the bars I hang in or the stores I shop in. Who and where are these people? I can't find any of them in Philadelphia and I'm actively looking.

[Dread Pirate KR Read]

62. HAHAha- aHaHahHAa! ... ....ahHAH HAH HAAH Hah HaaHH.

HAHAha- aHaHahHAa! ...(DeeEP BreAth)...ahHAH-ahHAH-ahHAAH ..HAAH-HaaHH...HAhaaaaaH

OMG! Get real! Seriously, find me a anyone who has 8.4 of their 10 DEM friends who favor HRC!

HAHAha- aHaHahHAa! ...(DeeEP BreAth)...ahHAH-ahHAH-ahHAAH ..HAAH-HaaHH...HAhaaaaaH

[FreeStateDemocrat]

64. Bullshit!