Parsing the Polls: Clinton and the Electabilty Factor

[William769]

In handicapping her chances for the nomination, there is perhaps no stronger argument in Sen. Hillary Clinton's (D-N.Y.) favor than the fact that most Democrats believe she represents their best chance of getting the White House back in 2008.

With their party out of power in the Oval Office for the past seven years, the priority for many Democrats appears to be winning -- no matter what that entails or who they have to nominate to make it happen.

The newest NBC/WSJ poll provides some intriguing numbers that suggest that the power of Clinton's electability has grown in recent months and may well provide a key to understanding her continued lead in national surveys.

Let's Parse the Polls!

We start with the horse race numbers in the NBC/WSJ poll. Clinton led with 44 percent followed by Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) at 23 percent, and former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) at 16 percent. No other candidate received more than four percent of the vote. That poll, in the field from Sept. 7-10, mirrored the results of the previous NBC/WSJ poll in July that had Clinton at 43 percent, Obama at 22 percent and Edwards at 13 percent.

But, the NBC/WSJ survey conducted in April showed a far different race, with Clinton narrowly leading Obama, 36 percent to 31 percent, while Edwards took 20 percent.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/09/parsing_the_polls_clinton_and.html

[William769]

1. No takers?

:wow:

[William769]

2. I guess you just can't argure with facts.

[Carrieyazel]

3. Only problem is, Dems are NOT the only ones who vote in generals

and Independents and Repukes are NOT constituencies that are voting for Hillary. They're not voting for her.

Also many Dems out there are still afraid she's unelectable, and can't win enough of the swing-voting sheep.

[rinsd]

4. Actually polling shows Democrats consider Hillary the most electable.

Which is why one should read all of the article in an OP and not just the 4 paragraphs allowed by fair use practices.

A look further inside the numbers suggest electability may have something to do with that change.

When Democrats (or those who said they would vote in a Democratic primary) were asked in April "Which candidate has the best chance to defeat the Republican candidate and win back the White House," 39 percent said Clinton while 32 percent said Obama and 22 percent named Edwards.

Five months later, 54 percent said Clinton was the Democrat best able to beat a Republican in the general election, a gain of 15 points over that time. Obama, meanwhile, dropped 14 points down to 18 percent while Edwards fell seven points to 15 percent.

Those numbers jibe with two surveys conducted by the Washington Post over the summer -- one a national poll, the other of Iowa Democrats.

[William769]

6. Another meme shot all to hell.

I am starting to feel bad for the Hillary haters, no matter what they do or say, it backfires.

[rinsd]

7. Yet another example of how good a campaigner she is.

Look how the numbers changed in terms of perception of her electability.

[William769]

8. Not only is it her campaigning, it's also

Her experience.

[Armstead]

5. Deja Vu All over Again

"With their party out of power in the Oval Office for the past seven years, the priority for many Democrats appears to be winning -- no matter what that entails or who they have to nominate to make it happen."

(From the article cited above.)

This is the same pablum that brought such resounding victories in 2000 and 2004.

In 2000 and 2004 Democrats fell into lockstep and were steamrolled by the Political/Corporate/Media Complex intoi supporting canmdidates they were not enthusiastic about because the message that the only way to "electability" is to be as plain vanilla as possible.

There's always an excuse for this kind of copping out and making the nomination process a coronation rather than a contest. Eitehr we have to "keep power" or "we have to regain power."

God forbid we should actually be given a choice beyond who the Elite tells us over and over is the inevitable "electable candidate."

Hillary has so much more legislative experience and experience with national issues than Chris Dodd or Joe Biden. Hillary speaks much more clearly for the true aspirations of grassroots Democrats than John Edwards or Dennis Kucinich....She's much more dynamic and charismatic than Barak Obama.....blah,blah,blah


If this pattern of people having to be force fed weak gruel because it's necessaru to "hold your nose and vote" yet again, the GOp won;t be in the political wilderness for very long. And the electoral process will continue to become more and more vapid and irrelevant to more and more people.

[madfloridian]

9. The old "electability" thingy again.

Forget passion, forget concern about where the country is headed...just "fall in line".

The media will define the electability and we will supposedly fall in line again.

So much happened in the last primary. There were placeholders to keep the race viable for 08...at least many think that. There were consultants running to their consultant wives with inside info on the election.

There were consultants, Democratic ones, running an ad about a candidate and Osama.

08 is here, and the main theme again? ELECTABILITY

[wyldwolf]

10. sure. I suppose you want to nominate the passionate but UNELECTABLE one!

[Armstead]

12. Yep -- With one modification

The passionate and "electable" one....Who would be eminantly electable if the Media/Political/Corporate Complex actually allowed him to gainb access to the airwaves and voters ears.

[MonkeyFunk]

16. That sums it up

[William769]

11. I only posted this piece to balance out the umpteen million posts

saying she is unelectable.

[Armstead]

13. Oh, she's electable....Maybe

But that's not the point.

It's like a stale ham sandwich that's "edible." But if it's next to a nice hot fresh meal, it would not be the first choice of many people.

[William769]

14. You say maybe with nothing to back it up, just like all the rest.

And yes it is the point, it's what the thread is about.

[Armstead]

15. I backed it up with that article....

If given a choice between a candidate who has been endlessly trumpted for years as the "inevitable" nominee, and anotehr who you may have never heard of -- or at which you know little about -- most would tend to answer with the known commodity over the unknown one.

[William769]

18. If anyone still runiing for President is still unheard of by now.

They deserve to lose.

[Armstead]

19. yes, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, are terrible candidates

They just happen to live in states and districts where the people have been stupid enough to elect them over and over again

[William769]

20. Who said anything about stupid?

They are terrible candidates if they can't get their message out though.

[Armstead]

21. Stupid was meant ironically

My point was that if you have the national media and corporate pooh-bahs and the politicval elite in your corner, it tends to shut out everyone else in a race, whether they are great, good or bad politicians.

The fact that the other candidates I mentioned have been repeatedly re-elected when voters have a chance to actually see and hear them means that they must have something going for them politically.

Thus, the shut-out -- or marginalization -- of them by the media, reinforces my point that this so-called "electibility" mantra is a canard.

[ericgtr]

17. Facts are facts

and this post cites them and as much as I may not like it, at least we are seeing some data instead of biased opinions based on 3rd hand info (quoting the Hillary has code pink - Medea booted from rally post).

As much as I hate to beat the dead horse of Dean it does make one believe this can go either way at any time. As for being electable, I believe Hillary has that about her to an extent. What's sad is someone like Kucinich who really stands for everything I believe in and is a good and decent guy who unfortunately doesn't have any electability. At this point though, he will get my vote.