Why is Clinton "unfavorable?"

[question everything]

When the networks report the polls, one part is always about "negative" or "unfavorable" impression of the candidates where Clinton's are equal to her "favorable." And this is among Democrats.

And I have to wonder why. I can see why it would be in the general population, left over from Clinton. But why among Democrats? Especially as we know that Clinton is still very popular?

[Perry Logan]

1. Simple: it's disinformation.

One would have to be a fool to believe a single word the media says about Hillary. The Right are psycho about her.

[razors edge]

2. Including Hillary.

[alteredstate]

23. So we were misinformed as to Hillary's vote on the Iraq War?

That's why she's not on my list of favorite Presidential candidates.

[emilyg]

31. Obama voted to fund the war.

[The Ghost]

37. just remember

only an idiot like Hillary could be fooled by someone the likes of George W Bush.

[tabasco]

40. Clinton voted to give madman Bush a loaded gun and start the war.

Big difference.

[StClone]

26. The Right's ideas on Hillary

1 They Hate her (Some Dems do too...but most will vote for if she gets the nod).

2 They believe, or want to project, that she will be easily defeated by a male Republican (because --> see #3).

3 They've been most silent on Hillary. But at the right time they'll swing the Swift boat into high gear. They believe the Dem's WH hopes are doomed with Hillary once the Electorate in bathed in anti-Hillary mash. They believe Patriarchal needs for a protective Father figure will win out over a Matriarch at the gut level.

[question everything]

34. Swift boat her - how?

Except for her vote on Iraq, what is there to trash her?

[StClone]

46. They secretly fear her

And are pinning their strategy on all sources of oldies, and to them, goodies -- she's Liberal, Socialist, she voted for war flips to anti-war, Rose Law Firm Records, her voting record, all sorts of sliming. They will attack Bill as a proxy punch at Hill. Pubs want to push the negatives and drag her down.

I think she's got them figured out and she's on course to be the one to beat of the Dems. Hillary will give any and all Republican nominees a potent campaign run.

[movonne]

3. I think it has to do with the DLC and their repug light politics...google

DLC and that tells you lots of info on the DLC..

[spotbird]

5. Because she takes money from the likes of

Rupert Murdoch. It says so much about her that there is almost no reason for more information, but if you'd like a broader explanation, I'll provide my take.

[mdmc]

4. she supported the popular Iraq war, she supports the drug war

and she seems fake and scripted.

That being said, she is going to be the next President of the US. It is inevitable. We don't like that the race is over, and the race never even started.

[spotbird]

6. I liked the "Bush Lite" line

it summed up why I can't stand her.

[mdmc]

8. she is against gay marriage... but she is a progressive

:eyes:
She is a moderate. God Bless her.

[JBear]

19. A Moderate - Bless Her Heart! (nt)

:bounce:

[rabies1]

9. I'm with you, it seems she's too easily bought.

[MannyGoldstein]

7. Supported Permanent 'Free' Trade With China, The First Bankruptcy Bill. ...

Opposed censuring Bush, wants to keep troops in Iraq, etc.

And she's always on both sides of every issue, e.g., http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyqAR4lJCmw

[Perry Logan]

10. So, are the many people who favor Hillary out to lunch, or stupid, or what?

[spotbird]

11. On the discussion boards,

I'd guess that many are on her campaign. Just a hunch based on the number of favorable Hillary posts as compared to how she polls by members at the various sites.

Again, this is just my guess, but at large I think she polls well because of nostalgia and name recognition. Pretty much the same reason Bush did so well (he almost won) in 2000, people kindly remembered his father at that point.

[dmallind]

16. Alternatively

Since every single poll of of either overall Democrats or overall voters shows her far more accepted than at the "various sites" (and BTW where is the poll of a valid random sample that says her unfavorables equal her favorables among Democrats? Last one I saw had 84% favorable amongst all Democrats) might it, just maybe, instead of a vast conspiracy for her to be media anointed by using polls skewed towards her campaign staff and a huge legion of paid trolls surreptitiously put in place years before, just maybe maybe be that the population of the "various sites" is not representative of Democrats or voters as a whole?

Occam must have a really thick long beard in your world.

[spotbird]

20. Please reread my post,

I carefully distinguished between the two.

[mdmc]

14. oh,no. They are supporting the next President

not stupid, out to lunch, nothing like that.

I live in NY. We are solid Hillary country. Most people prefer Obama, but don't want to get under the HRC train just to see Obama become veep and fall in line with HRC.

While I like Kucinich, I will most likely get behind Hillary. It is local political suicide to oppose HRC in NYS.

[BeyondGeography]

22. The smartest among them support her because they think she's our best bet to beat the Republicans

the more blatantly partisan because she'd be our first woman President (my take at least). They aren't out to lunch or stupid, but they do tend to minimize the resistance she will face in the GE, and, if she gets there, the White House. The same could be said for Obama supporters or anyone else, but Hillary starts with much higher levels of intense opposition than her primary opponents.

[Smarmie Doofus]

30. They like the *idea* of her. They are ignorant of, or prefer to....

... minimize the *reality* of her. Or remain oblivious to it.

[ingac70]

12. Because Charles Krauthammer is a fan of hers.....

She's unfavorable to me.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/26/AR2007072601863.html

[spotbird]

13. I just saw that Ken Blackwell is a fan too. nt

[elizm]

28. THAT'S a red flag if I ever saw one. nt

[Smarmie Doofus]

33. And Murdoch. (Ya lookin' fer red flags?) nt

[bellasgrams]

35. come on, he's playinng you.

krauthammer hates all dems. Stop falling for all the reps tricks.

[ingac70]

39. I don't think so......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEkBzU8q3H8

[question everything]

49. Comparing Clinton to Hitler?

This ad has no credibility.

You can say whatever you want about her and criticize her actions, but comparing any elected official in a democracy - yes, we are as evidenced by the presence of DU - is a demonstration of ignorance and simple flaming with no regard to the truth. That is, even if there are any truth later in that ad, I stopped watching after that "comparison."

[question everything]

48. No, she is not and this is not fair

I read the article - thank you for the link - and Krauthammer certainly is not a supporter of Clinton. Rather, he points to Obama's lack of experience and understanding of foreign issues, including terror ones.

The WP had a link to a Nation article by David Corn

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20070724/cm_thenation/3217102

who expressed a similar opinion:

Clinton, with her years as First Lady and her stint as a member of the Senate armed services committee, and Edwards, with his tenure on the Senate intelligence committee, are steeped in the nuances, language, and minefields of foreign policy. (Among the second-tier candidates, Senator Joe Biden, Senator Chris Dodd, and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson can boast extensive national security experience.) Though Obama was against the Iraq war before he was a senator, he has not developed his foreign policy chops. That's understandable; he's only been on the national scene for two years. (Prior to that, he was doing admirable work as a state legislator, a civil rights attorney, and a community organizer.) So he is more prone to commit mistakes in this area--perhaps stupid mistakes--that can be easily exploited by his opponents. And in the post-9/11 era, there's not much room in national politics for such errors.

[Double T]

15. Senator Clinton is viewed as business as usual in d.c..............

and the masses are looking for a REAL drastic change in direction for this nation. Senator Clinton is very popular, but that is no longer enough to win elections and win voters.

[Capn Sunshine]

51. Woomp

There it is.

Hit the nail on the head, DT.

[zulchzulu]

17. It's not that she is "unfavorable" mostly. It's because the GOP wants her as the nominee

It's common knowledge among Republican operatives that having Clinton as the Democratic nominee would solve the problems they have with unifying their base for 2008. Add that it would be two Clintons that they would run against, the other Republican races where many would sit out otherwise would then be contests again.

If you want to unify the GOP and get out their vote, have Hillary Clinton as the nominee. It's that simple.

[question everything]

36. I somtimes wonder about that

but if true, then Democrats should be against her for practical reasons, not for any "negative" that implies personal qualities.

[OHdem10]

18. Rank and File Democrats do not always see things

in the same way as Activists. People polled are rank and
file citizens. HRC is popular withActivists. We have to
ralize ordinary people do not see things as we do. Rank and
file worry about her being able to win a general election.

It is the same phenoma as Guilliani with GOP only
he confounds people because he stays ahead in spite
of his moderate positions on social issues.

The general public do not have the backgroud knowledge
of Activists.

[dmallind]

24. Another interpretation is that the "general public"

are not as concentrated on the ideological extremes of either party and care much less about purity tests. The plurality of opinion on DU is consistently more leftward than the opinion of Democrats as a whole, and obviously the population as a whole.

One thing to always remember is that the population as a whole is the one that decides elections. If it were the activists we would have a Kucinich vs. Tancredo or Hunter general, and we could predict the winner by counting LW vs RW newsgroup, website and local party activists.

That ain't gonna happen, and there's a much simpler reason than media conspiracies or apathy for it.

[MADem]

21. Gender bias. IMO. nt

[jimshoes]

25. You need look no further than the media

This is the same media that turned a party boy, National Guard deserter, DUI getting, frybrain into the next best thing since sliced bread, sure would love to have a beer with him kind of guy. They could stop all their Hillary bashing and by next week turn her into a Princess Diana if they had a mind to.

[sandnsea]

27. Power hungry, finger in the wind, triangulator

Better than any Republican, but a sad sad substitute for the kind of change just about any other Democrat would bring to the country. The big topic on education at the DLC is extending the school day and year. As opposed to proposals by other candidates to create education innovation districts and teacher residency programs and systemically change how education is delivered in the country. You get a lot of big talk with the Clintons, but mundacity in the actual actions.

[Bitwit1234]

29. Could be the same reason Obama is beginning to become the same.

They are seeing that his campaign is resorting to bashing and republican tatics.

[emilyg]

44. our idols have clay feet.

[gulliver]

32. For Republicans, because she was married to Bill.

They saw her as usurping power. Bill's attempt to allow the "First Lady" to have official government power was a big mistake.

Some Democrats resist her candidacy primarily for (I think) her vote on the IWR. I view that as illegitimate. If the majority of her New York constituents were behind IWR, then Hillary did nothing wrong in supporting it. Bush did the wrong. We don't blame gas station owners when their gas is used to commit arson.

No one (I count myself among these) likes the apparent nepotism. She would not be a candidate but for her spouse. That brings with it a presumption of illegitimacy that requires a very high threshold of counter-argument to dismiss.

Also, there is the matter of electability. Can Hillary win over the ignorant? It is a tall order.

After seeing this last debate and Obama's behavior during and afterward, I have shifted my opinion radically. I now think Hillary can overcome the presumption of illegitimacy from nepotism. It actually helped Bush and Gore. The people don't see nepotism/dynasty's obvious danger. Even Bush, who should be the poster child against political dynasty, has not registered. When it comes to dynasty, I think people are just dumb. In the case of Hillary, it is arguable that she is just as smart as Bill and would make just as good a leader. Therefore, let a bad reason argue for the good.

Thinking about it, I am not sure there is a strictly legitimate/rational way for a woman to rise to the presidency in this country. Perhaps not even a black man can. A whole bunch of our voters are arrogant and willful. We practically need a Bush catastrophe to get the idiots to herd with the wise. We practically need a fluke chain of events like Hillary to break the ice of a female leader. I think there is a glass ceiling between governor's mansions or the Senate and the presidency.

Hillary does have a "national guard type skeleton" or two in her closet WRT her billing records at the Rose Law Firm and association with Web Hubbel. I think Ken Starr sort of cauterized that wound though. (It's sort of like the way the Dan Quayle vice presidency, which hurt Bush Sr., paved the way for Bush Jr. by lowering the IQ entry requirements to presidential power.) Hillary also has Travel-gate, VRWC, and a few other minor peccadillos. However, the lady I saw in the YouTube debate will beat those easily.

[question everything]

50. Interesting perspective

Yes, I, too, often would question of whether she would be where she is were it not for Bill. However, she has proven herself an effective senator and quite knowledgeable in areas of national security that, right or wrong, are the major issue for voters. The opposite, of course, from Bill "it is the economy, stupid."

[Metta]

38. Because she's become a self serving, right wing hack.

She's certainly long ago lost her liberal creds.

[Hobbs]

41. Duped by the Right

After so many repetitions, we've been duped. Those on the left, that bash her haven't even bothered to view her record and public statements.

Some facts in the public record.... Hillary was against the Iraq war. She wrote to Powell and Bush in early '03, that UN inspection enforcement and peaceful means was the way forward. She came out in Oct and Dec of '03 saying Bush had lied to America and had gone to war on failed policy.

I started this with the anything but Hillary mindset. Edwards crumbled with his pro insurance and for profit mandate plan. He is not offering Universal Health. He was a moderate centralist in the Senate, so his recent move to far left is questionable. Edwards recent progressive agenda seems more in coming from Elizabeth than John. And I like Obama but, he does not have a record to verify whether he would make a good President. He doesn't have enough experience. So then I had to do some real investigation into Hillary and found all my prejudices, that came from MSM were just not true. She has consistently been a progressive. Considering the desperate need to take the W.H. and heal Bush's endless fiasco and failures of biblical proprtion, Hillary and her political machine are best able to get the job done and win in the general. And then maybe in 2016 Obama will seasoned and ready to become President.

[seasat]

42. Familiarity breed contempt, the better known the candidate the higher the unfavorables

You can see it if you follow the Rasmussen Polls Favorable/Unfavorable numbers. Clinton has actually improved in her spread of favorable/unfavorable. All the Democratic candidates, that are nationally known have unfavorables, that are around 40%. Hillary's overall numbers are 47%. If you add the two numbers together, you can notice that she only 1% did not express an opinion on her. Edwards and Obama started off at low unfavorable numbers and have steadily increased as they've become better known in the media. A couple of months ago, Obama had unfavorables in the 20's. Now he is at 41%. These numbers are for the general population but I'm sure some of the same thing carries over into our party too.

The more well known a candidate becomes the more likely the opposition party will start attacking them. Hillary has been unfairly attacked by the Repugs for decades. Some of those attacks are bound to influence even folks in our party. The Repugs are now attacking Edwards and Obama, too. They've even launched attacks against Richardson since he's showing some movement in the polls.

Hillary has such a commanding lead in the polls that she is also running a general election campaign instead of a solely primary campaign. Candidates usually appeal to the base in the primary then swing back towards the middle for the general election. That is the other reason that her unfavorables are higher among the Democratic base. Hillary's campaign seems to think that they are far enough ahead that they don't have to do a strong leftward swing to garner support. It'll make her stronger in the general election but could be her undoing if she makes a big slip in the primary campaign.

Finally, the MSM loves a fight. They'll play up any conflict between the candidates. It sells more advertising than actually doing research and reporting on the candidate's positions. Plus, it's much less expensive to bring on talking heads and discuss a disagreement than actually doing objective research into their positions. It's bound to have some affect on the candidate's poll numbers. Look at the number of, "I won't support candidate X because of X threads.

[AtomicKitten]

43. I wonder at what point folks here will come to the terms

with the cosmic realization that the Democratic Party is running against the GOP and the MSM.

[Greyhound]

45. For myself, it was when she so flippantly dismissed the 35,000+ workers in her own (adopted) state

that were fired by IBM in order to make way for the flood of cheap H-1(b)s and, adding insult to injury, followed this up by taking a ton of cash from Tata.

She is totally pro-corporate and therefore is anti-worker. I will vote for her once in the general, should she get the nod, because her SCOTUS nominations will likely be less disastrous than a Republik's would be, but I will have to hold my nose and then hurry home to shower with Ajax and bleach. Then I'll have to find a therapist (that has a sliding payment scale since I now have to live on 25% of what I used to earn) and spend the next few decades to working out the trauma of being forced into such a no-win situation.

[illinoisprogressive]

47. dlc and she is right of center and corporate ties and neocon hawkish

she is not a progressive and leans to the right of center. she is DLC and a very corporate friendly person.
She is neocon hawkish.