Parsing the Polls: Clinton and the Electability Factor

[DeepModem Mom]

WP political blog, "The Fix," by Chris Cillizza
09/19/2007
Parsing the Polls: Clinton and the Electability Factor

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....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. 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....

***

What's changed? It's hard to pinpoint any one factor as responsible for the increased perception that Clinton is the strongest Democratic general election nominee. Our guess would be that the collective weight of her strong and consistent performances in the televised debates to date and the slew of national polls that have shown her as the frontrunner have a lot to do with her changing image in the minds of some Democratic voters. (One caveat worth noting -- especially if you're Obama or Edwards: In head to head general election matchups, Clinton, Obama and Edwards all tend to run ahead of the three most likely Republican nominees. Under that logic, Democrats hold a structural advantage over Republicans that has little to do with Clinton and a lot to do with the war in Iraq and President Bush's unpopularity.)...

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/?hpid=topnews

[Radical Activist]

1. Are we going to make the same mistake we did with Kerry?

Are we going to nominate a candidate based on guesswork about who will be the most electable? Are we going to nominate someone that almost no one really likes or gets excited about because we think that's the safe choice?
A few momentary shifts in the polls don't make Hillary electable.

[patrioticintellect]

2. Go ahead and vote for Hillary

This party will be divided tremendously if that happens because there are a significant number of people who do not want anything to do with corporate powered Democrats like Hillary anymore. Forget electability. Americans want better health care and she won't take on the interests. That point alone splits the party.

[The River]

3. She Is The Perfect Cover Story

for the GOP theft of the 08 election.....

[Benhurst]

4. Unfortunately, so is Obama. Can't you just hear the corporate media whores

intoning, "America wasn't ready for an African American president." Pure bullshit; but what wonderful cover for a stolen election.

All the more reason for paper ballots. A paper ballot with only the federal offices on it (president, vice president, U.S. representative, and U.S. Senator in those precincts where a senate seat is contested.)

Canada votes that way, and its elections are counted faster and more efficiently than our electronic monstrosities. And they have a paper trail.