CNN Poll: Hillary's favorables increasing , leads Dems and Repubs

[SaveElmer]

Dem Nomination

Hillary 46%
Obama 23%
Edwards 16%

Head to Head

Clinton 50, Giuliani 46 (49-48 in last poll, 6/22-24)
Clinton 55, Thompson 42 (50-46)
Obama 45, Guliani 49 (46-48)
Obama 53, Thompson 41 (52-40)

Favorables

Clinton 53% favorable/39% unfavorable (51%/44% in last survey, 6/22-24)
Obama 49/27 (47/24)
Edwards 49/30 (47/32)
Richardson 23/20 (27/18)

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/09/new_cnn_poll_reading_favunfavs.html

[David Zephyr]

1. The GOP, aside from all the bravura, fears her...and her husband.

Hillary's campaign thus far is miles ahead of any of the GOP candidates in discipline, money-raising, and the fact is that she keeps lowering her unfavorables. That's impressing.

[Bucky]

55. Yep. And me, too.

[ananda]

2. Hillary has already been chosen.

I guess I'll vote for her, but I really prefer
Kucinich and then Edwards.

[superkia]

67. In the primaries, dont throw away your vote!

Vote for the candidate that you believe in, otherwise your throwing away your vote to the candidate that supposedly already won anyways. So make your individual vote mean something to you and if Clinton represents the party, then you can vote for her. Unless that is what you meant?

Kucinich has been constantly standing up and speaking out against the corruptness in Washington. Constantly talking about trying to save our constitution, and our rights as Americans. Without our rights, we have no say about anything, health care, war, anything. Until I see some other candidates speaking out directly about the abuses to the constitution and our rights like Kucinich, he gets my vote. I think it shows that he is PRESIDENTIAL and stands up for the people and what he believes in. I think it is COWARDLY and just typical politics to dodge issues as important as our rights and use smiles and talking points as a campaign, its certainly not presidential.

[PATRICK]

70. Propping

The particular polls and MSM that have been extremely busty this season interfering negatively in dem party politics with examples too numerous to mention have jumped on a new bandwagon that might have been crafted by the Clinton campaign itself except it does nothing to deal with the substance of "negative" feelings held by a large number of the electorate.

In magazines the pollsters are researching the "appeal" factor not so much as to delve WHY it is growing but to create it out of thin air. We have all seen it before. Positive shifts like this occur when inevitability resigns people to falling in line with a necessary and hopeful choice. As such it is NOT and impressive showing simply because no votes have even been cast. Dean melted down, Kerry upsurged almost unnoticed. That was drama, this is teatime. Just as they pushed Bush's popularity for the sake of terrible lies so too they ignored and gamed his slide to national hatred and disgrace. The same oblique process is dancing around, trying to affect the truth, trying to get the democratic voters to submit to Hillary and the GOP to be absolutely convinced they must do miracles to stop her. Or- to prepare her for the same continuous trashing and "downslide" that Bill was fully capable of defeating by starting her off on a false position of perceived support.

My people at work are more disheartened the closer she gets to this "inevitability" crap. Tell me where the favorables are going up? Among the sheeple swing voters? Among those who automatically kowtow to any president, elected, selected or crown prince?

She has not actually done a single thing to substantively enthuse or win over the fixed opinions. It is sidereal and passive and evades and avoids the charismatic challenges and substantive offerings of her rivals. American admire cruise control and winning. They don't follow party functionaries or the media or the enthusiasm of candidate enthusiasts. On the outside looking in how do they view favorably the inaudible, convivial, private feast inside?

As a complaint this is 75% directed at those disingenuously pushing Hillary and 25% at the campaign for
letting the poisoned aid stand in place of their lack of dealing with the real negatvity issues.

[snowbear]

3. People who have to keep plastering polls have to be WORRIED about something..

I seriously those type of people fear the "electile dysfunction" they'll be encountering in months to come.

Just sayin' --

[William769]

4. You have a country album coming out soon don't you?

[snowbear]

6. No Billy... I don't do country music..

Sorry..

[William769]

9. Going by your postings, you sure sound like a country music singer.

:rofl:

[depakid]

5. Anyone who believes that her negatives aren't set in stone by now

is engaging in wishful thinking.

The far right didn't spend billions demonizing her for nothing- they got their ROI- and her conduct as a Senator has already cemented opinions about her with the base and independent voters.

Not only would she lose the general election- she'd take countless other dems on the state and local level right down with her- though in typical Clinton fashion, that prospect doesn't seem to bother her.

[rinsd]

7. Wishful thinking? How about demonstrated right in front of you?

Yeah her negatives are set in stone which is why they shifted in this poll.

The mind boggles.

[depakid]

22. The mind really does boggle

Despite what everyone should (and if they took basic quatitative methods would know) about cheap media polls- many still jump to the tune as if they had validity.

Hillary Rodham Clinton has been a national public figure for over 15 years- and the vast majority of people have already formed a solid opinion- which isn't going to change much if at all. Whether the hatchet job done on her by the far right is fair or not is pretty much irrelevant.

On the other hand, in typical Clinton fashion, she still panders to the very sorts of people who are NEVER going to vote for her- while at the same time, alienating those who might have.

That sort of thing may have won a 3 way race in 1992, but it's not going to fly in 2008....

[rinsd]

31. We have a 15 year tracking record of polls showing HIllary's numbers going up and down.

One statistics class doesn't make you more qualified to comment especially when asserting things contrary to all available evidence.

[MonkeyFunk]

41. she picked up

12% of the vote between 2000 and 2006.

That's a lot of New Yorkers. And when she started campaigning in 2000, she polled at about 44%.

And she got 67% of the vote in 2006.

So evidently New Yorkers DID change their opinion of her.

[depakid]

48. Bogus use of statistics

Who was she running against?

Think that might account for the difference? :think:

[MonkeyFunk]

50. I'm sure it accounts for some

but it's silly for you to deny that her numbers are capable of changing. In fact, it's been shown to you again and again that not only is it possible, it's happening.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

13. Why is HRC singled out on electability? She wins PA, FL, and OH. Obama does NOT

If anyone should be scrutinized on electability it is Obama...

[snowbear]

15. Depakid, you are ABSOLUTELY correct ...

And it's funny. We have people on here bitching and moaning about anti-Clinton threads; yet if you look at all of the other progressive/liberal sites, this is the only one that is out pushing these bogus MSM polls on their readers!! (Aside from HRC supporter sites of course)

I asked one of these poll fanatics the other night if she did somehow win the nomination, which I don't believe she will (Democrats know it's TOO risky) if they would promise to stick around here when we lose our ass in the General.

I never did get a response from them.

[rinsd]

17. "if they would promise to stick around here when we lose our ass in the General."

I'll be here to watch people like yourself gloat and pat themselves on the back for undermining the Democratic nominee should that come to pass.

[PurityOfEssence]

61. And bellyache that we didn't sell our houses and work around the clock

for the unelectable candidate you rammed down our throats.

This isn't a scientific poll, is it?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

18. HRC is unelectable when she wins FL, PA, and OH but BO is electable when he loses these states?

Tell me, how does Obama win if he loses PA, FL, and OH and flips 0 red states? "Faith" and "hope" will not mean anything on Election Day.

Bogus polls? What evidence is there of this? I noticed that BO fans loved the polls during the halycon days of Obamamania when he led in the Rass, Gallup polls and was close to HRC consistently. Now that he is 20+ behind the polls are a fraud? :wtf:

[rinsd]

19. "bogus" scientific polls vs DUer scoop from Inner Rectum News.

I'll take science over madness.

[depakid]

25. "scientific" polls are only as good as their methodology

Any grad student worth their salt can give you a "scientific" poll that tells you pretty much anything you want to hear. Gallup for example is quite adept at that- and often held up as an example of how NOT to do research.

Accurate research- that reflects public opinion, rather than trying to []influence it is difficult and time consuming. That's why the campaigns spend so much money on "internals" and why they keep those results very close to their chests.

[rinsd]

28. So would any grad student worth their salt claim someone's negatives are stuck in stone?

When a 15 year poll tracking record says otherwise?

Campaigns spend so much money on internal polling because they need to know more than simply who is ahead at the given moment.

Polling is done to test positions and gauge everything from a candidate's perceived strengths to whether they are thought of as attractive. It also reveals demographic strengths.

[depakid]

33. Again- that's just basic psychology

any undergrad should be able to see that at work.

Will a few people change long felt opinions? Sure- but not very many. The vast majority will be so resistant to change that no amount of clever marketing is going to make much if any diference.

[rinsd]

40. IOW, her negatives aren't set in stone.

I'm not talking 10 point swings. I'm talking small increments.

If she can keep her negatives in the low 40's as opposed to high 40's that could make the difference in the election.

[depakid]

46. Very small changes aren't going to be enough

to overcome the innate problems of so many people having made up their minds already.

Despite the right wing of the party's hopes- Hillary will turn out to be a disaster if she wins the nomination, because she can't make inroads to the very people she's pandering to- and she (and Bill) will turn away the base and independent voters.

Essentially- that's worst of both worlds.

[William769]

51. And your proof of your assertion you just made?

I won't hold my breath because I know it won't be coming.

[emilyg]

57. haHa!!!!!

[CoffeeCat]

68. Hillary numbers are a lie...

All of us at DU understand very well that the corporatist media is in bought
and paid for by its corporate owners who are loyal to the power elite from
Washington. This includes Dems and Reps.

Hillary is the media's candidate. Just like John Kerry WASN'T the media's
candidate. He was for deregulation. Look what that got him. Hillary is
in the pocket of big media (and other corporate crooks) and they are leveraging
her with everything they have.

Does anyone actually believe that it's beneath our corrupt, corporate-centered
country---to fix and widely disseminate numerous polls in order to prop up a candidate who will kow
to its corporate interests??? That's not tin foil folks, that's just more of the
same. It's peanuts compared to the other crimes this gang has committed against
the American people.

At least half of the Dem party hates Hillary. AT least 80 percent of Republicans
can't stand her. I don't believe these polls for one second. Not one.

These polls only serve to further cement the notion that Hillary has friends in
high places who are willing to lie to the American public to get her elected.

[rinsd]

73. LOL. I love the aboslute heights of madness Hillary Clinton drives some people to.

Numerous polls?

Try every single national poll by every single polling organization. As well as a slew of state polls from many different polling orgs.

"At least half of the Dem party hates Hillar"

LOL. Not even half of DU hates Hillary.

[MonkeyFunk]

11. so posting

polls on a political discussion board is a sign of being worried?

Or do you just have a need to disparage people who post news you don't like?

[ronnykmarshall]

20. Not if it's a favorable poll about Obama

Then it's falling on the floor and talking in tongues.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

21. Yeah, but we don't see much of those these days for some reason

Of course, that reason is because the polls are suddenly rigged against the media darling Obama. ;)

[ronnykmarshall]

24. There's always Oprah.

I'll have to say I was pretty put off with the shitty things said about La Oprah. Ok, she's a diva! But I like her.

What's SO ironic is that the many of the same Obama supporters that poo-poo'd on ANY celb endorsement of Hillary, were falling all over themselves with Oprah.

One of my favorite bits of talking out of both sides of ones mouth.

Magic Johnson's endorsement of Hillary: "Oh, just another of yesterday's stars."

That Entertainment GIANT Jasmine Guy's endorsement of Hillary: "I can see that she's grown up to be an intelligent woman."

You can't make this shit up!

[draft_mario_cuomo]

36. Oprah is "the savior."

Yes, the Magic bashing and Guy hype is funny! :rofl:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

12. Some of us are worried about the future of America and the world nt

[durrrty libby]

42. I adore all the polls. They are very enjoyable

But you are free to ignore poll threads if they upset you

[madfloridian]

49. And people who love polls are free to ignore those of us who don't.

It is just that simple.

[durrrty libby]

58. Yes indeed, what would we do without 20 cries of conspiracy

and all the other hate Hillary and her supporters ruminations in every poll thread?:eyes:

[Moochy]

65. In your perfect world

thats where we'd be, if there were no opposition to her nomination.

[ElizabethDC]

52. People who keep complaining about the polls have to be WORRIED about something.

Just sayin.'

[draft_mario_cuomo]

8. Clinton beats Ghoul by 4, Obama loses by 4 to him... nt

[draft_mario_cuomo]

10. My, my, how Obama has fallen...

4/10-4/12 CNN poll

Clinton 30%
Obama 26%
Edwards 12%

Obama -4

Today

Clinton 46% (+16)
Obama 23% (-3)
Edwards 16% (+4)

Obama -23

[durrrty libby]

62. That is huge and puzzling. It must me the shine has rubbed off, because

I haven't witnessed any horrible gaffes

[ecstatic]

14. was it her appearance on Letterman? nt

[madfloridian]

16. Well, then, we know the outcome of the primaries and general election already

so why bother?

[MonkeyFunk]

32. so you prefer

that no polls be posted?

Or should we ban only polls that show Clinton doing well?

[madfloridian]

38. I think there must be a way to do without the implied gloating.

Don't you?

[MonkeyFunk]

43. implied gloating?

You, of all people, have a lot of nerve criticizing others for enthusiastically supporting a candidate.

[madfloridian]

47. I don't have a candidate.

And the one I did have has now been silenced in the role he has.

So I don't give a you know what.

The right wing controls our Democrats now.

[madfloridian]

23. Vinod Gupta

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/14/us/politics/14gupta.html?ex=1189656000&en=6083bb7c966cee20&ei=5070

Is he still a CNN pollster? Is he still involved with her compaign? And her chief strategist Mark Penn has a polling company also, doesn't he?

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/779

If she is winning so hands down more and more, then I see no reason for anyone else to waste their time and money politicking.

:shrug:

[rinsd]

26. Sigh...polls are a snap shot of this time. Currently Hillary is doing very well.

That could change or it could remain the same.

And the CNN poll is but one of a dozen or so polling firms showing Hillary doing very well.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

27. Were the polls rigged when CNN had Obama only 4 points behind HRC?

I don't recall any complaints during the halycon days of the "hope" and a "new kind of politics"...

[madfloridian]

30. Don't know....I have not paid attention.

?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

35. Obama fans loved polls during the halycon days of Obamamania

Yes, I know you are not a BO fan but I am just making a general point. They then fell in love with polls again briefly in July when ARG had Obama leading in SC, tied for the lead in NH. Many of the very same people dismissed the next ARG poll in August because Obama fell 14 points in NH to 2nd (within the MoE of Edwards for 3rd) and 12 points in SC to 3rd.

[madfloridian]

37. I think you just insulted Obama supporters.

Clinton folks are good at that.

They don't need to insult. Hillary has a machine with no rivals even touching it.

No need to be a sore winner.

[SaveElmer]

29. You're like Captain Queeg...

Screaming about the Wardroom key...!

[madfloridian]

34. Now that's a new one. Never been called that before.

[durrrty libby]

39. Wiki has a a compilation of polls. Do they all work for Hillary?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29_presidential_primaries%2C_2008

[madfloridian]

44. Probably not.

:shrug:

Look, we all know Hillary will be the nominee. The others are just running and hoping for VP.

Sad but true.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

45. Gallup and Rassmussen are clearly in the tank for Clinton!

Look at these past results that surely were straight from Clinton HQ:

Rasmussen 4/26

Obama 32%
Clinton 30%
Edwards 17%

Gallup 6/3

Obama 30%
Clinton 29%
Gore 17%
Edwards 11%

[Broke Dad]

53. If money can't buy you love . . .

At least it can buy you pretty photo ops . . . and you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time.

[William769]

60. Apparently it can't buy Obama love.

He's out raising them all in fund raising. :shrug:

[rinsd]

74. "you can fool some of the people all of the time,"

John Edwards continued candidacy in which he pretends his Senate career did not happen proves this.

[Lucinda]

54. The reality seems to be

that people, in general, after hearing her and meeting with her, come away with a better POV.
They still may not agree with all of her views, but they arent afraid shes going to eat their babies anymore.

This of course doesnt apply to the rabid righ AND left, who despise her regardless. :)

[The River]

56. CNN??

Isn't that whats commonly known around DU as the Corporate News Network?

very reliable!

How is then that Edwards AND Obama each out-polled Queen Hillary
in a Texas Dem E-vote poll?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3513037

[durrrty libby]

59. Oooooh E-Votes. They are very special scientific polls

[The River]

63. Some One Has A Real Heart-On

for Hillary!

[Dawgs]

64. Interesting. 100% of the people I know can't stand her.

Who in the hell are they polling?

[MonkeyFunk]

66. I see people say that here a lot...

and I have to wonder what the sub-text is. Do you believe that ALL the polls are not just slightly fudging the numbers, but totally and entirely making the numbers up?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

69. Interesting. 100% of the people I know love her.

Who in the hell are they polling?

[wyldwolf]

71. maybe you are your buddies are next to the phone when they call?

[windbreeze]

72. I don't care about polls...really...because...

they can and are manipulated....

I would rather have someone convince me...that her "popularity" IS hers alone...that people can and DO separate her from Bill...(maybe I can't be convinced, because when I think of her being in the WH...I automatically think of NAFTA and media deregulation along with Bilderbergers and the CFR)...I will say this...she IS shrewd, it's obvious that she's been planning on running for a long time...and that she has lots of very powerful people behind her, including some well known media moguls...

...wb

[DemocratSinceBirth]

75. Other Than Polls What Reliable Evidence Do We Have How People Feel At Any Given Moment

eom

[windbreeze]

76. hmmmm

I don't see polls as truly indicative of what people think and feel...I have taken lots of polls...when the answers did not reflect my thoughts at all...but I had to choose the answer closest...so does a poll like that end up being a true indication of how people are thinking?...I don't think so...too generic in nature..if everyone else wants to believe they are a true reflection, fine...I don't have to believe what others do...right? I sure remember a lot of polls before Iowa in 2004...that ended up very very wrong...so I guess if you want to know what people are thinking...talk to them in person..polls can be and are manipulated..reliable is NOT what I call or consider them...wb jmo