Hillary and Electablility: Rove was wrong...again!

[SaveElmer]

More on Rove vs. Clinton

By Katharine Q. Seelye

When Karl Rove said yesterday that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s unfavorable rating was in the “high 40s,” maybe he hadn’t seen the most recent CBS News poll. And when he said no one had been elected with negatives as high as hers, he had apparently forgotten some recent history.

The CBS News poll, conducted from Aug. 8 to Aug. 12, showed Mrs. Clinton’s unfavorable rating at 39 percent. That number has been falling bit by bit since its high mark of 46 percent in April.

...

Mr. Rove’s point was this: “There’s nobody who has ever won the presidency who started out in that kind of position.”

In fact, Mrs. Clinton’s husband was in that very position and did win. And Mrs. Clinton’s numbers are better than his were at this point in his first campaign for the White House.

In April 1992, only 26 percent of voters had a favorable view of Bill Clinton, while 40 percent viewed him unfavorably, according to a Times/CBS poll. By June 1992, his favorables had plunged further, so that only 16 percent had a favorable opinion, with 40 percent still unfavorable.

After Mr. Clinton won the nomination and after his convention, his favorable rating began to rise. By October 1992, his ratings had become about even, with 34 percent favorable and 35 percent unfavorable.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/16/more-on-rove-vs-clinton/

[bigdarryl]

1. Are you working for the Clinton campaign JESUS!!!!!!!

[SaveElmer]

3. If it upsets you to be contradicted...

I suggest you get on board here...you can rant to your hearts desire without those pesky facts getting in the way...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3454024

[saracat]

6. Hmmmm.I can say no more.

[ronnykmarshall]

7. Do you question the other supporters with that same line?

[wyldwolf]

10. I'm fairly certain SaveElmer is NOT Jesus.

[SaveElmer]

12. The way I am gaining weight I may be Buddha though...nt

[wyldwolf]

13. you and me both.

[Semper_FiFi]

18. As an undecided voter

I have to say that Hillary seems more and more presidential to me, the more I pay attention. I don't understand the rancor that she seems to incite from some DU'ers, it's as if it is open season on Hillary. What, pray tell, will happen if Hillary does, indeed, win the Democratic nomination? Will DU'ers be allowed to post anti-Hillary rhetoric or question anyone who supports her presidential candidacy as being a paid shill?

:shrug:

[JPettus]

19. Apparently you aren't supposed to post favorable things about

candidates who aren't some people's favorites?

Facts is facts.

[Kagemusha]

2. God that was fast. One poll and All Conventional Wisdom Is Wrong

and behold the new conventional wisdom to be swallowed whole.

[SaveElmer]

4. Not fast at all...

Many of us predicted this months ago...and polling since then has slowly been bearing us out...

[calteacherguy]

5. Not defending Rove, but you (and Seelye) are comparing apples and oranges.

Mr. Clinton was an unknown quantity...note that even in June 1992, 44% of voters had no opinion of him (I'm assuming here that that since the favorable/unfavorables added up to a mere 56%, the rest had no opinon yet).

Also, Mr. Clinton's unfavorables (an unknown) were never as high as Mrs. Clinton's (a known).

[SaveElmer]

8. It's a two edged sword...

Actually I think it was undecided...in any case it is a two edged sword. For politicians with a high undecided total, there is a potential for rapid rise in the neg number...

Hillary has gone as high as she is gonna go...and with the campaign reintroducing her to people who only have the media caricature of her to go on, she is driving that number down...

My guess is if she is the nominee...post convention she will be in the 34-38 range on negatives...assuming she continues to run as effective a campaign as she has so far...

It also demonstrates that negative numbers are not immutable and can be changed...even by someone as well known as Hillary...

[calteacherguy]

9. O.K.

undecided/no opinion is same difference in my opinion.

Hillary's negatives *may* have gone as high as they are gonna ago, but that still does not take away the fact that they were that high, and are still nearly that high. And since as you point out the numbers are not immutable, may go that high again. Perhaps it will be easier for her negatives to go higher since, after all, she's been in that territory before.

Like you said, it's a two-edged sword, but the fact remains that nobody that well-known with those high negative numbers going in has ever won the Presidency.

[SaveElmer]

11. That's not the argument...

Bill Clinton's negatives at this point in the campaign were the same (1 pt higher) than Hillary's and his positives were lower...where Bill started and where Hillary started is irrelevant right now...

Karl Rove was arguing no one with negatives as high as Hillary's has ever won...that is simply not true...

[calteacherguy]

14. What the argument is depends how you spin it.

and interpret the phrase "negatives as high as Hillary's"

Those could be current or historical negatives, or some combination of both.

[William769]

15. I just love looking at all the justifications from people who don't like Hillary.

Who needs comedy Centeral? Thanks! :rofl:

[emilyg]

16. Thank you Buddha - ---er SaveElmer

[SaveElmer]

17. Buddha Provide...nt