Poll: Hillary Way, Way Ahead In Florida Primary
Hillary Clinton might be facing a tough race in Iowa, but it's not even close in Florida. A new CNN poll shows Hillary with 51% — more than half of respondents — with Barack Obama way behind at 21%, and John Edwards with 11%. And even though the DNC has stripped the primary of any actual delegates, there is bound to be a boost from the popular win here.
Hillary has been consistently leading in almost every state other than Iowa. With results this overwhelming, the other Democrats won't have a chance unless they can throw her momentum off in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Comments (77)
Liberal Larry wrote on November 29, 2007 5:26 PM:TPM bias anyone?
DTM wrote on November 29, 2007 5:27 PM:I could still do with a lot less spin and speculation from Eric.
Andrew wrote on November 29, 2007 5:30 PM:"Clinton has this thing locked up. Thats the MSM meme and I am sticking with it." ~E. Kleefeld
cleter wrote on November 29, 2007 5:33 PM:A more accurate headline would be:
"Candidate with famous name leads meaningless name-recognition contest"
Michael wrote on November 29, 2007 5:34 PM:rah, rah, rah. Go clinton II. Who's your girl? You go girl!!!! rah, rah, rah. Anybody out there not supporting HRH clinton II is an anti-american, commie sympathizer. rah, rah, rah.
james wrote on November 29, 2007 5:39 PM:It's one month out. To call the poll meaningless and to say that people aren't familiar with the candidates now is dumb. Eric is right. Iowa is slowly becoming do or die for Obama as much as it has been for Edwards.
loki wrote on November 29, 2007 5:52 PM:Please Eric, more automatous. Less personality.
Oh, and could ya say somethin' nice about Barack?
Thanks! ;^}
BlueDog wrote on November 29, 2007 6:03 PM:Hey Michael: I think we have many great candidates. I just think HRC is the best candidate. I don't call Obama corrupt (those some have). Oh, no she voted to for the war! Did you vote for John Kerry? So did he. Like Edwards? he did too. Saying I told you so is not a forward looking way to run a campaign and is the reason, I believe, why Obama's campaign hasn't taken off the way many predicted or hoped, and the reason she is crushing him in national polls.
rssrai wrote on November 29, 2007 6:07 PM:Not in the north of Florida. JRE is a winner there.
Zueda wrote on November 29, 2007 6:22 PM:After seeing the conduct from CNN over the last several weeks I don't give this poll very much credence.
Michael wrote on November 29, 2007 6:22 PM:Hey bluedog, I like our candidates other than clinton II for a host of reasons, not just the war. The point on the war is not I told you so. The point is the death and destruction rained down on innocent people for politics. I'm sure you've seen some of my other comments. That NIE issue is really, really troubling.
On kerry, yeah I voted for him holding my nose. I'm glad he's not running. On edwards, I'm not real hot on him. He is too much like a pi lawyer and I hated the whole thing that he did with his poor wife at that press conference. I thought that was really slimy.
I'm not that concerned about the polls. What matters is when people vote and obama is doing well in iowa and new hampshire.
People want change and clinton II doesn't offer it. I don't want to relive the 90's and dems are looking at the 90's through rose colored glasses due to the disasterous last 7 years. She just offers more of the same and I think that she is the weakest of all the dems running. She will enflame the republican base like no tomorrow to vote against her, which puts a host of purple and light blue states at risk, which she needs to win.
On polls and the republican base I will quote again one of my favorite polls from gallup. 39% of republicans would vote for obama, 43% against and 18% undecided. Clinton II, a whopping 78% against her and would never vote for her. Obama could unite the country and get rid of the divisive politics that we have been experiencing. I really believe it. As a result, he could get things done.
Clinton II offers just more grid lock and stagnation.
Also, everyone should check out that npr interview of robert reich. It was incredible and explained alot in clear terms of the problems with our government and economy. It also emphasize, not intentionally by any means, why we need to turn the page from the last 27 years and move forward for the good of our country, which means no clinton II.
Daniel wrote on November 29, 2007 6:35 PM:The same thing will probably happen that happened in Michigan though; once the filing deadline comes around, Obama and Edwards will likely withdraw, leaving Clinton the only major candidate in the race (btw for those who missed it, Michigan Democrats tried and failed two days ago to get all candidates back on the primary ballot).
LJ wrote on November 29, 2007 6:35 PM:The Democratic National Committee stripped Florida of its national convention delegates on Saturday, rendering the state's Democratic presidential primary officially meaningless...
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/19227.html
51% of zero. That's quite a score for the Clinton campaign in a state where there's little incentive to campaign.
The biggest impact may be on Democratic candidates' decisions whether to campaign in Florida, the nation's fourth largest state.With no delegates at stake, the primary would become an essentially meaningless "beauty contest,'' and candidates might prefer to spend their time and money in states that could affect the outcome of a close race.
Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois... told McClatchy Newspapers that he'd still campaign in Florida, but that a delegate-less primary would be a "consideration'' in deciding how much time to spend in the state.
Mo Elliethee, a spokesman for Sen. Hillary Clinton... said the campaign "has always said we intend to compete in any state that holds a primary or a caucus."
BlueDog wrote on November 29, 2007 6:37 PM:
Michael: I couldn't find the NPR interview with Bob Reich. Can you post the link?
NamelessFaceless wrote on November 29, 2007 6:44 PM:http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14321590
I think this is the Robert Reich interview Michael referenced . . . link for audio is at the top of the page.
I am really bad with this internets thing. I can explain it though. It is at www.whyy.org/91fm/radiotimes.html. I just looked it up. It was under a heading "Radio Times with Marty Moss-Coane" and you can listen to it from the web. It was an awesome interview. I heard it this morning on the way to the office it was around 10 and I didn't get to hear it all. I will when I get home tonight.
Michael wrote on November 29, 2007 6:47 PM:Thanks namelessfaceless.
NamelessFaceless wrote on November 29, 2007 6:50 PM:Just make sure its the right thing!
Anonymous wrote on November 29, 2007 6:58 PM:Wow. Sad news for Democrats. She may well get the nomination.
But, can she win the general election without dividing the nation beyond repair?
Recent Mason-Dixon poll shows Bill's wife losing in Florida 50 to 43 percent to Guiliani, and loser margins to Romney AND Thompson as well.
http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2007/11/giuliani-beats.html
stemper wrote on November 29, 2007 7:12 PM:But if Clinton wins the same states Kerry did (arguably possible) PLUS Ohio where the GOP is still toxic, does she really need Florida to go over the top in the electoral college?
Michael wrote on November 29, 2007 7:42 PM:I have seen several polls from florida and they all say the same thing. Clinton II loses big, which is a problem at this point. It can only get worse for her.
Stemper, the point is not to squeak by in the electoral college. In this climate the dems should crush the republican nominee and the fact that we are talking about her squeaking by reveals how weak of a candidate she is. These types of polls also reveal how she will hurt down ticket dems as well.
She also is trailing in virginia and is having trouble in other light blue and purple states. It is a huge concern which is ignored by TPM and the clinton II supporters. Add in the rabid republican dislike of her and out of all the dems, she is the most likely to lose.
NamelessFaceless wrote on November 29, 2007 8:22 PM:I don't think it makes a lot of sense to put a lot of stock in any of the polls in states where the candidates haven't campaigned. Sure, people may be becoming more aware, but the candidates haven't made their cases to them and I doubt the population at large pays much attention as of yet.
That goes for the polls reflecting the head to head match-ups showing Hillary's weakness against Republicans in various states (though perhaps less so because she is a known commodity, so everyone says). Just because she is down now doesn't mean she can't or won't win.
Even so, I don't think it is wise to nominate a candidate based on their perceived electability. I think our chances in the primary will be much greater if we choose a candidate we really like and will be motivated to fight for rather than someone we acquiesce to because of their supposed appeal to someone who does not share our values. To boot, we will also get someone we like in the White House.
NamelessFaceless wrote on November 29, 2007 8:23 PM:**Correction**
Better chance in the GENERAL election.
Derek wrote on November 29, 2007 8:28 PM:Wow...she has it locked up in a state that nobody is campaigning in.
GJ Hill!
DemAC wrote on November 29, 2007 8:46 PM:Michael wrote at 6:22 PM: I'm not that concerned about the polls. What matters is when people vote and obama is doing well in iowa and new hampshire.
OK. So polls don’t matter much… OK.
Michael wrote (still) at 6:22 PM: I will quote again one of my favorite polls from gallup. 39% of republicans would vote for obama, 43% against and 18% undecided. Clinton II, a whopping 78% against her and would never vote for her. Obama could unite the country and get rid of the divisive politics that we have been experiencing. I really believe it. As a result, he could get things done.
Aha… OK. So now polls actually do matter?
Michael wrote at 7:42 PM: I have seen several polls from florida and they all say the same thing. Clinton II loses big, which is a problem at this point. It can only get worse for her.
Wow. Now polls do not only matter. They are also an excellent way of telling the future. Kind of like tea leaves and such.
Michael wrote: Lots and lots of tiresome Hillary-hating rants.
DemAC writes: You’re hatred of Hillary is disturbing (to say the least) and your intellectual dishonesty on polls is disturbing too, but, no matter. It’s a free country and the right to bore people to near death with anti-Hillary-rants is after all constitutional.
Richard L. Adlof wrote on November 29, 2007 9:15 PM:You all shoulda read the drill-down on this poll . . . Apparently, the Miami-Dade folk thought they were voting for Buchanan and hit the Clinton button by misstake.
DemAC wrote on November 29, 2007 9:26 PM:Richard L. Adlof,
Are you judging good and honest Floridians by your own intelligence?
It's pretty heavy lifting out here---just little old Iowa trying to stave off a Republican win in '08 which, as remote as that may look at the moment, gains some traction if another Clinton is on the ballot.
There is no disrespect to Sen. Clinton; it's just that she energizes, mobilizes, terrifies the right like no other candidate in the Democratic field. For the life of me, I do not understand the suicide pact that so many Democrats are signing.
Iowan,
You need not to worry. When all is said and done her negs won’t be any more of a factor than would Obama’s or Edwards’s – should they capture the nomination.
It’s true that Hillary Clinton is a more energizing candidate than the two gentlemen, but fortunately that works both ways. As there are more Democrats than Repubs a greater number of people will be positively energized than will be negatively so.
Besides, if Hillary Clinton is the nominee her negs will decrease. When voters connect with Hillary Clinton and get to know her and to see her and to listen to her ideas, her negatives go down, down, down. In state after state, starting of course with NY at the end of the nineties, her negatives steadily decrease when voters start paying attention. This pattern is consistent and will continue.
Again: you need not worry. The Hillary-haters are not nearly as many as their hatred-infested imaginations would have them think.
votenic wrote on November 29, 2007 11:42 PM:2008 Presidential Candidate Weekly Poll
The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Weekly Tuesday Night at Midnight.
People write disapproving things about BushCo. The response from the BushCo sycophants: You're a Bush-hater, writing anti-Bush rants.
People write disapproving things about Hillary Clinton. The response from DemAC: You're Hillary-haters, publishing anti-Hillary rants.
QED.
quasar wrote on November 29, 2007 11:54 PM:a. C.N.N. poll. ...ok
Anonymous wrote on November 30, 2007 12:03 AM:There is no disrespect to Sen. Clinton; it's just that she energizes, mobilizes, terrifies the right like no other candidate in the Democratic field. For the life of me, I do not understand the suicide pact that so many Democrats are signing.
One last time: This rant is mindless. Could you please tell us what is the proportion of the electorate that identifies itself as Republicans? Well, I'll tell you. Based on the latest Rasmussen survey there are currently 32.7% and 37.3% people in the US who identify themselves as Republicans or Democrats, respectively. This means that even if every self-identified Republican is "energized, mobilized, terrified" into turning out to vote against Hillary, it won't matter. In fact, none of these self-identified Repubs would cross the line a vote for a Democrat. These are the same folks who are still supporting Bush despite the mess that he's made of every facet of the American social, political and economic life that he's touched. Sp, here the most likely scenariofor you: Just by virtue of being their party's nominees, the Republican and Democratic candidates will start with roughly 30-40% support going into the GE. Taking the extreme case, this would leave about 20% of the electorate, called "swing voters", to decide this election. But guess what? These voters are called "swing voters" precisely because of their political indepedence or centrist politics, which is exactly where Hillary's politics are! another thing is that these centrist voters do not have the visceral reaction to Clinton that left- or right-wing nut cases do.
Clearly, the notion that Hillary would "energize" the Republicans, even if true, is immaterial to whether or not she would win the election. Those Republicans would not vote for Hillary or any Dem, anyway, so that it would be foolish to depend on their vote! Let them do whatever the hell they want to do. There aren't that many of them to make a difference. What we need to do to win is to ensure that our side turns out in large numbers on election to vote for out candidate, and then to try to court as many "swing voters" as possible into our camp. The latter task is, in fact, what the GE campaigns are usually about...
If you are going to rant about how nominating Clinton would "energize" the Republicans, then please also tell us in concrete terms why anyone should give a shit about it. I certainly don't because I know it is immaterial...
jwb81 wrote on November 30, 2007 12:06 AM:Falsely apodeitic statements like these--HRC can only be brought down if she loses in IA or NH--are precisely the reason I stopped trusting the NYT, Wapo, CNN, etc... PLEASE, PLEASE avoid this type of reporting. It is incredibly frustrating to those of us who come here for information and transparent commentary--not blind reliance on received wisdom.
Jim Martin wrote on November 30, 2007 12:09 AM:Latest Zogby nationwide poll (2007-11-27):
"A new Zogby Interactive survey shows Democrat Hillary Clinton of New York would lose to every one of the top five Republican presidential contenders, representing a reversal of fortune for the national Democratic front–runner who had led against all prospective GOP opponents earlier this year.
Meanwhile, fellow Democrats Barack Obama of Illinois and John Edwards of North Carolina would defeat or tie every one of the Republicans, this latest survey shows."
Numbers here:
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1393
You want a Republican in the White House in 2009 -- by all means, support Hillary in the primaries.
Meanwhile, Clinton crony and head pollster, Mark Penn, of pro-corporate, union-busting PR firm Burson-Marsteller, defender of Procter & Gamble, ChevronTexaco, Monsanto, Royal Dutch Shell, and Union Carbide (this combines Penn's resume with B-M's), is running scared, and lying to boot:
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1394
More on Penn and B-M at TPMCafe, the Nation, and the American Prospect:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/may/09/the_real_case_against_mark_penn
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070521/berman
http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=penn_inc
Ah, but I forgot. We're all just Hillary-haters.
Facts are stupid things, aren't they, DemAC?
DemAC wrote on November 30, 2007 12:10 AM:People write disapproving things about BushCo. The response from the BushCo sycophants: You're a Bush-hater, writing anti-Bush rants.People write disapproving things about Hillary Clinton. The response from DemAC: You're Hillary-haters, publishing anti-Hillary rants.
QED.
No. Not really demonstrated at all. It’s not a question of not accepting a political debate. Is mainly a question of style, nuance and tone. If anyone dared write even a smidgeon about, for example, Obama the way a lot of people here write about Hillary Clinton, all hell would break loose. And probably rightly so. When it comes to Hillary Clinton however, it’s a free-for-all. There is no level of argument to low not be surpassed a minute later.
That presumed Democrats drag their own leaders in the gutter can favor nothing and nobody if not the Repubs. If some of us Democrats are getting a tad bit annoyed about outrageous and unsubstantiated accusations, I believe we should be forgiven. Consider it a community service.
dcshungu wrote on November 30, 2007 12:11 AM:I am "dcshungu" and I authored and approved the preceding "Anonymous" post, which elaborates on something that I have now said repeatedly and is in general agreement with DemAC's November 29, 2007 11:26 PM post...
Jim Martin wrote on November 30, 2007 12:13 AM:Anonymous writes:
"If you are going to rant about how nominating Clinton would "energize" the Republicans, then please also tell us in concrete terms why anyone should give a shit about it. I certainly don't because I know it is immaterial..."
Zogby isn't polling only Republicans, Anon. (See my previous post on the Zogby poll.) These are the voters I'm worried about, and if you don't want a Republican in the White House come January 21, 2009, I imagine you ought to be as well.
DemAC wrote on November 30, 2007 12:14 AM:Jim Martin,
If you’re suddenly so into facts then I recommend you read up on that phony Zogby poll.
DemAC wrote on November 30, 2007 12:10 AM:
"No. Not really demonstrated at all...."
Facts really are stupid things, aren't they, dcshungu and DemAC?
Just like the Clinton camp itself, you simply can't brook criticism, and you resort to the GOP playbook of calling your critics "haters." The accusations are neither outrageous, nor unsubstantiated, at least if you bother to check the links in my and others' posts.
But... but... facts are stupid things.
DemAC wrote on November 30, 2007 12:24 AM:Jim Martin,
You are, apparently, a Mark Penn-hater. Since he’s not running for anything that’s not particularly interesting and, to be frank, I couldn’t care less.
Now, on the topic of Hillary Clinton, what (allegedly stupid) facts exactly are you referring to???
dcshungu wrote on November 30, 2007 12:27 AM:Jim Martin wrote on November 30, 2007 12:09 AM:Latest Zogby nationwide poll (2007-11-27):
"A new Zogby Interactive survey shows Democrat Hillary Clinton of New York would lose to every one of the top five Republican presidential contenders, representing a reversal of fortune for the national Democratic front–runner who had led against all prospective GOP opponents earlier this year."
Another uncritical Hillary detractor who comes here to rant and pontificate without first informing himself. Jimbo, please go get informed about this bogus Zogby interactive "poll", and then go hide under a rock in shame if that is the basis for pushing the canard that Hillary cannot win while she is winning in just about every credible poll!!...
dcshungu wrote on November 30, 2007 12:38 AM:Jim Martin sez on November 30, 2007 12:17 AM:
But... but... facts are stupid things.
You apparently think as suggested by your use of a thoroughly discredited** poll to make an equally bogus point...
** Link is different from the one provided that just duplicated DemAC's.
Jim Martin wrote on November 30, 2007 12:40 AM:Oh, and "presumed Democrats," DemAC?
Accusations of treason too?
Really?
Any other GOP plays you want to try out here?
The DLC and the GOP are getting closer and closer, and shriller and shriller, all the time.
Jim Martin wrote on November 30, 2007 12:42 AM:You are, apparently, a Mark Penn-hater.
Same old, same old.
Jim Martin wrote on November 30, 2007 12:57 AM:Another uncritical Hillary detractor who comes here to rant and pontificate
Pot, what color did you say that kettle was?
A comment like this, coming from an obvious and consistent Hillary partisan, both here and on other sites like Pollster.com, who uses the same tactics there of smearing anyone who disagrees with you, or posts even the mildest criticism of you or your Anointed Candidate, as a "Hillary dectractor [sic]", really doesn't hold a whole lot of water.
dcshungu wrote on November 30, 2007 1:09 AM:Jim Martin wrote on November 30, 2007 12:57 AM:DemAC wrote on November 30, 2007 1:19 AM:What does peddling bogus polls to try to make equally bogus points make you if not a clueless "partisan", detractor or hack?
Speaking of water, whose water are you carrying anyway, or are you just a Hillary-hater for kicks?
Educate thyself and maybe you won't quite be such a clueless hack...
Same old, same old.
blah blah blah who uses the same tactics there of smearing anyone who disagrees with you, or posts even the mildest criticism of you or your Anointed Candidate, blah blah blah
And, what exactly would that mild criticism be??? Pray tell…
Some people in this conversation are dismissing the importance of cross-over voters, but there are always some, and they can prove crucial.
In fact, a while back I looked at the last three elections, and Clinton, Bush, and Bush again all won their cross-over battles with Dole, Gore, and Kerry respectively. 2000 is particularly interesting to me because conventional wisdom is that Nader cost Gore that election. It turns out that the net effect of Gore losing the cross-over battle was much more significant than the net effect of Nader. In other words, the fact that more Democrats voted for Bush than Republicans voted for Gore was much more significant than the fact that some Democrats (and in fact some Republicans) voted for Nader.
Applying these lessons to 2008, it is true that the likely advantage in party identification in 2008 will give the Democratic candidate a systematic advantage. Conversely, however, that means the only plausible way for the Democratic candidate to lose would be to lose the cross-over battle and independents by a large enough margin to overcome this systematic party ID advantage.
DemAC wrote on November 30, 2007 1:43 AM:DTM,
Well, I have a real hard time seeing that actually happen, save maybe with Edwards. However, if any of the left-nuttish bullshit about Hillary Clinton would be true then she would presumably do extremely well among Repubs, so with Hillary it’s a win/win for Democrats. :-)
DemAC,
I think perhaps it would be useful to look at some actual numbers.
In 1996, the Democratic vote went 84% Bill Clinton, 10% Dole, 5% Perot. The Republican vote went 13% Clinton, 80% Dole, 6% Perot.
In 2000, the Democratic vote went 86% Gore, 11% Bush, 2% Nader. The Republican vote went 8% Gore, 91% Bush, 1% Nader.
In 2004, the Democrats went 89% Kerry, 11% Bush, 0% Nader. The Republicans went 6% Kerry, 93% Bush, 0% Nader.
So one obvious point is that the number of cross-overs is usually pretty low. But an equally obvious point is that the number is not zero. And the only slightly less obvious point is the one I made above: in all these cases, including 1996 and 2000, the difference in the cross-over numbers were much more significant than any third party effects.
OK, so in 2008, I think it is likely we will once again see a small but non-zero number of cross-overs. As these examples show, though, the exact numbers can be crucial. Indeed, in 2004 Kerry actually won independents 49-48. So the fact he lost his cross-over battle 11-6 is why he lost the election.
And I really think this complicates things when people think about electability issues. Yes, any Democratic nominee is likely to get the vast majority of the Democratic vote, and not get the vast majority of the Republican vote. But as these numbers show, for example, there is a big difference between getting as much as 13% of the Republican vote (like Bill Clinton), or as little as 6% of Republican vote (like John Kerry). And seemingly little difference like that have determined the outcome of the last two elections.
Anonymous wrote on November 30, 2007 5:50 AM:Watching this thread and Election Central postings generally, I have come to understand why so many thinking Democrats, progressives and independents are SO turnedoff by Hillary and particularly by her campaign.
As DemAC and dcshungu so vividly demonstrate EVERYDAY, ALLDAY, in their long and frequet posts: To support Hillary you must be as dishonest and mean-spirited as she is.
I've never seen more divisive, dirty, disrespectful, dishonest postings on a political comment board than those from confessed "HILLARY LOVERS."
Attack dogs like DemAC and dcshungu who resort quickly to highly offensive name-calling and personal attacks when their heavily biased and distorted views are challenged, are the reason public discourse and respectful debate on substance have become impossible in American politics.
They succeed because they keep the discussion away from substance, where Hillary is so weak. If they quickly dismiss any criticism as an attack, and any critic as a hater, moran or idiot, they drag the discussion down into the dirt, where Hillary is strong. Just review the threads and look for an instance when Hillary supporters are thoughtful about, engaging with, and respectful of other views. [Hint, it's a wild goose chase].
Hillary may well appreciate what she gets from hiring attack dogs, but once again the evidence is clear: what is good for Hillary, is bad for America.
dcshungu wrote on November 30, 2007 8:12 AM:DTM wrote on November 30, 2007 2:32 AM:DemAC,
I think perhaps it would be useful to look at some actual numbers.
In 1996, the Democratic vote went 84% Bill Clinton, 10% Dole, 5% Perot. The Republican vote went 13% Clinton, 80% Dole, 6% Perot.
In 2000, the Democratic vote went 86% Gore, 11% Bush, 2% Nader. The Republican vote went 8% Gore, 91% Bush, 1% Nader.
In 2004, the Democrats went 89% Kerry, 11% Bush, 0% Nader. The Republicans went 6% Kerry, 93% Bush, 0% Nader.
[...]And I really think this complicates things when people think about electability issues. Yes, any Democratic nominee is likely to get the vast majority of the Democratic vote, and not get the vast majority of the Republican vote. But as these numbers show, for example, there is a big difference between getting as much as 13% of the Republican vote (like Bill Clinton), or as little as 6% of Republican vote (like John Kerry). And seemingly little difference like that have determined the outcome of the last two elections.
Simplistic analysis that does not show the purported effect of "energizing" the Republican base if Hillary is the Dem nominee:
First, remember that Gore won and, arguably, so did Kerry. But note that in both cases, the flux of cross-over votes was higher in the opposite [wrong] direction: More Dems voted for the GOP candidate than Repubs who voted for the Dem candidate. The danger is not so much that Hillary would "energize" the Repubs, but rather that "Democratic" Hillary-haters would "sit this one out" or vote Republican. Gore "lost" by ~500 votes in FL because of the 2% of "Dems" [13% altogether as 11% of Dems had also voted for Bush]that had voted for Nader, costing him an outright win and the election. A vote for Nader was a vote for Bush. And for those Dems who would "sit this one out", you should know that your vote would still count as a vote for the GOP candidate! In conclusion what I had said still holds and so does the Dems' formula for winning this election outright:
loki wrote on November 30, 2007 8:14 AM:
Clearly, the notion that Hillary would "energize" the Republicans, even if true, is immaterial to whether or not she would win the election. Those Republicans would not vote for Hillary or any Dem, anyway, so that it would be foolish to depend on their vote! Let them do whatever the hell they want to do. There aren't that many of them to make a difference [more true now than in 1992 or in 2000, as there more self-identified Dems now]. What we need to do to win is to ensure that our side turns out in large numbers on election day to vote for our candidate, and then to try to court as many "swing voters" as possible into our camp. The latter task is, in fact, what the GE campaigns are usually about...
DTM,
What is the source for your numbers?
If Perot (third party candidate) were not in the race what would have been the outcome?
In 2000 Gore actually got more votes nation-wide and in the state of Florida. What were Nader's numbers in the state of Florida?
In any race crossover votes vary due to the mood of the country. It is not a stable voting block. The state of the country in 2004...after months of color coded threats and constant talk from Republicans in power, and the pliant media following their lead, about terrorists and Iraq and Saddam and Osama...etc, well things are not quite that way these days...at least I hope not.
Anyway, I think you give far too much credit to your favorite talking point.
demAC wrote on November 30, 2007 8:25 AM:Anonymous at 5:50 AM,
Yes, of course. Every supporter of Hillary Clinton is an “attack dog” and is “divisive, dirty, disrespectful, dishonest” etc. It goes without saying that we are “as dishonest and mean-spirited as she is.”
Thank God then that we have you, anonymous person, to carry on the discussion in such a dignified manner.
Dear Dissembler:
I am sure you would come back and pontificate some more but let me give you credit for at least trying to "quantify" your analysis, as simplistic and flawed as it was...
There just are not that many self-identified Republicans now to where the fear of "energizing" them should be the basis for the Dems not to nominate their best and one candidate, Hillary, that scares the bejesus out of the Repubs. As of now, Hillary would win comfortably by electoral vote calculus, since she would just need to win only the states carried by Kerry [very feasible]and AR, even if she loses Ohio and Florida.
DTM wrote on November 30, 2007 8:36 AM:dcshungu,
I agree my post was not about "energizing" Republicans (to me, at least, that would be a turnout issue). And I further would agree that the cross-over issue is quite complicated, insofar as winning the cross-over battle involves both holding onto your own party's voters and attracting voters from the other party.
Interestingly, though, in the last three elections the big differences have been on the Republican side, meaning there has been a lot more variability in how many Republicans cross over than how many Democrats cross over. I'm not sure why that is the case, and so I wouldn't predict with much confidence that it will continue in 2008, but it would be something to consider.
By the way, I don't have a handy 2000 Florida exit poll, but if Florida was anything like the rest of the nation, it would again be the case that the cross-over voting was actually much more significant than the Nader effect. But again, some cross-overs are going to happen, so it is a bad idea to only be thinking about minimizing your own party's cross-overs (without also thinking about how to maximize compensating cross-overs in the other direction).
loki,
CNN exit polls. Here they are:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.epolls.html
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/elections/natl.exit.poll/index1.html
loki,
Sorry, I didn't finish that post.
Nader got 2% of the vote in Florida. But I don't have an exit poll with cross-tabs for Florida in 2000, so I can't tell you anything about where those votes came from or what else was going on as far as cross-overs.
As for Perot, you can see in 1996 at least he again did not have a significant effect on the outcome because he drew almost as much from Democrats as he did from Republicans. Again, it was Bill Clinton's cross-over numbers (plus independents, which we have not yet discussed) that allowed him to beat Dole handily.
Finally, I agree cross-over voting is very complicated. But I also think it is obviously important. So, for example, I agree that the likely mood of the country matters in determining cross-over voting, but the obvious conclusion is then to try to find a nominee who can capture the likely mood of the country, thus giving them the best chance to attract the sort of broad appeal that wins elections.
DTM wrote on November 30, 2007 8:47 AM:dcshungu,
As always, the problem with counting on the Kerry states is that Kerry barely won some states, like PA, MI, WI, and MN. Of course Kerry was a weak candidate, but in many ways Bush was too by that point.
So, for example, we are looking elsewhere at McCain's appeal among independents and Democrats. If someone like him ends up the Republican nominee, the Democrats cannot afford to assume that the close Kerry states are automatically in the win column.
dcshungu wrote on November 30, 2007 8:58 AM:HTML tutorial for doing a link without having to provide the URL explicitly:
SHIFT-comma letter-a href="http://...."SHIFT-period your-clickable-link-keyword-here letter-a SHIFT-period
SHIFT-comma is the "greater than" sign
SHIRT-period is the "less than" sign
Letter-a is just the first leter of the alphabet.
You can then keep your comments neat.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/elections/natl.exit.poll/index1.html can simply be a clickable link like this
Anonymous wrote on November 30, 2007 9:17 AM:DTM wrote on November 30, 2007 8:47 AM:dcshungu,
As always, the problem with counting on the Kerry states is that Kerry barely won some states, like PA, MI, WI, and MN. Of course Kerry was a weak candidate, but in many ways Bush was too by that point.
So, for example, we are looking elsewhere at McCain's appeal among independents and Democrats. If someone like him ends up the Republican nominee, the Democrats cannot afford to assume that the close Kerry states are automatically in the win column.
That Kerry lost against a very weak Bush just says what a weak candidate he really was. He ran an inept campaign, waffled and did not effectively counter or waited too long to counter the attacks on him by the GOP smear machine [watch for Rove to be part of the version of this machine when it is booted up for the 2008 election]. From that angle and many other angles, Clinton would be a much more formidable candidate than Kerry was, and would win most purple states which Kerry had barely carried. I had noted before that McCain would be the toughest candidate that the Repub could field in the GE against Hillary or any other Dem due to his appeal to Independent and many Dems [heck, I had liked the guy in 2000, tough would still have voted Dem]. I had also said that Huckabee would be tough (and he is turning out to be in the GOP field) in the GE because he looks "normal", sounds reasonable, almost soothing compared to likes of Rudy...
I do not underestimate the degree of difficult for winning the "Kerry States" but I think that Hillary could do it relatively easily...At least at present time it would appear so.
dcshungu wrote on November 30, 2007 9:26 AM:Sorry, there was an error on my HTML tutorial
SHIFT-comma letter-a href="http://...."SHIFT-period your-clickable-link-keyword-here letter-a SHIFT-period
the final "letter-a" should be
SHIFT-comma /letter-a SHIFT-period
Tough to explain HTML as the browser interprets any HTML tags and provides the translated text.
dcshungu wrote on November 30, 2007 9:29 AM:Anonymous wrote on November 30, 2007 9:17 AM == dcshungu
Michael wrote on November 30, 2007 10:00 AM:dc, you keep either intentionally avoiding or unintentionally missing the point with clinton II energizing the republican base. That will put into major jeapordy light blue and purple states, like Florida, which she is losing by a large margin, pennsylvania, virginia, etc. You keep citing to national numbers which are skewed by big states dem states like new york and california. It's the smaller swing states that will be put into jeapordy or lost due to her being the nominee and which alot of people are concerned about regardless of your blind love. You're argument holds no water.
signed traitorous, commie, pinko, ocd, left-wing, wacko, lunatic, completely uninformed, moron, hillary-hater, ocd, lmnop
DTM wrote on November 30, 2007 10:10 AM:dcshungu,
I agree it is important to consider why Kerry lost.
As I demonstrated once to loki, tracking polls at the time showed at least a few things. At the beginning of August, Kerry was trusted more by voters to deal with Iraq (which ended up the most important issue in the election), he was outscoring Bush on honesty.
By mid-September, after all the attacks on his representations about his military record, waffling on his Iraq vote, and so on, voters trusted Bush more on Iraq and Bush was way ahead on honesty.
And it seems quite likely the Iraq War will remain the top issue in 2008, and voters always consider honesty and ethics to be very important. So I agree the Democrats should try very hard to avoid nominating someone like Kerry, which would be someone who has the appearance of waffling on Iraq and otherwise is vulnerable to attacks on his or her honesty and ethics.
Michael wrote on November 30, 2007 10:21 AM:dc, two other points. It is debatable whether she is the "best" nominee. That is your opinion, others may differ. I obviously don't think that she is the best nominee. Also, she doesn't "scare the bejesus" out of republicans. Why would she? Alot of her policies are republican (see iraq war, iran resolution, etc.), like Mr. Bill's were. They aren't scared, they just want to beat the clintons for a host of reasons, including they still want to fight the political wars of the 90's, which I am not particularly interested in, as are many.
Anonymous wrote on November 30, 2007 11:35 AM:Michael wrote on November 30, 2007 10:00 AM:dc, you keep either intentionally avoiding or unintentionally missing the point with clinton II energizing the republican base. That will put into major jeapordy light blue and purple states, like Florida, which she is losing by a large margin, pennsylvania, virginia, etc. You keep citing to national numbers which are skewed by big states dem states like new york and california. It's the smaller swing states that will be put into jeapordy or lost due to her being the nominee and which alot of people are concerned about regardless of your blind love. You're argument holds no water.
OCD, indeed. Do you actually think before your post your comments? How could I possibly be "avoiding" or "missing" the purported point about Hillary "energizing" the Republican base while there are several of my posts which deal with nothing BUT that, and use the latest actual availabe numbers of self-identified Dem or Repub party affiliation to make my point? The Repubs can be energized all they want, there just aren't enough of them to make a difference, if Dems (including YOU) would just turn out to support our candidate on election day! And, even if Hillary does not win Florida, as you keep obsessing, there is still a clear path for her to take to the White House with no need to win FL, or Virginia or Ohio. If she loses Pennsylvania, there could be trouble but I am not sure which poll your are citing (it must me one of those bogus Zogby internet "polls") that show her losing PA or any of the Battlegound state that Kerry had won. I have done the work for you and anyone who think that Clinton cannot win.
Go here and looked at the table that shows average by month head-to-head poll numbers for Clinton v. Giuliani (update: 11/26/07) in PA, and tell me where you see Clinton in trouble there. In fact, she started out trailing Rudy 40.5% to 50% in Feb, and as of the last entry dated October, she was leading him 48% to 42%. That is a swing of 15.5% point for HRC in the state! And here are the LATEST AVAILABLE average by month head-to-head poll numbers for Clinton v. Giuliani (update: 11/26/07) for ALL the "Battleground" or Purple States:
FL: Rudy 49.5% Clinton 44%
OH: Clinton 49% Rudy 44%
PA: Clinton 48% Rudy 42%
NV: Rudy 47% Clinton 46%
MI: Clinton 49% Rudy 46%
NH: Clinton 47% Rudy 45%
CO: Rudy 50% Clinton 44%
OR: Clinton 46% Rudy 45%
NJ: Clinton 46.5% Rudy 41.5%
WA: Clinton 50% Rudy 43%
IA: Clinton 47.5% Rudy 41.5%
WI: Clinton 49% Rudy 42%
MN: Clinton 49% Rudy 43%
TN: Clinton 43% Rudy 43%
OR: Clinton 46% Rudy 45%
VA: Clinton 45% Rudy 45%
MO: Clinton 45.5% Rudy 42%
NM: Clinton 48% Rudy 44%
Michael, other than FL which we could do without, where is Hillary's GE weakness that you keep obsessing about?[I am sure that even after seeing the evidence you would continue with this obsession until another one takes it place].
Now: go do the same comparison with your favorite and then go have a stiff Johnny Walker Black as you realize that Clinton is by far the strongest candidate that the Dems could field in the GE against Rudy or McCain or Huckabee or anyone. Heck, the latest MA poll just showed McCain beating Obama and Rudy tying him there. MA, isn't that scary! Clinton would win EVERY blue states easily.
If your anxiety about a Hillary nomination is that she cannot with because she would energize the Repubs, then you must read this and all the preceding posts because they are well researched. It just took me about an hour researching this one. It is all based on available data. Hillary does not have an electability problem. She has a wingnut problem. The Dems' best chance to win next November is for them to nominate Hillary Clinton.
Provided not just as a Clinton supporter but also as a loyal Democrat, who would take to the polls on election to support our standard bearer whoever s/he turns out to be.
DTM wrote on November 30, 2007 11:45 AM:As always, the problem with all head-to-head polls at this point is that there is no active campaign going on between the hypothetical nominees in question. And even then, things can easily change: at one point polls showed Kerry beating Bush, and Dukakis famously had a 17 point lead over another Bush.
stemper wrote on November 30, 2007 12:02 PM:Dcshungu, thank you for researching that latest post. I find the numbers very affirming.
I've read Audacity of Hope, have even give $$ to Obama, but the steady stream of poll #s like the ones above have helped turned the tide for me and I now support Clinton. Of course I think all the Dem candidates would be fine, judging by their voting records and debate answers, but I think she has the best chance in the general election.
[I recall listening to Al Franken's Air America show right after the Nov. '06 elections, and he asked his regular guest Lawrence O'Donnell (ie the West Wing producer) how he got his high # of Congressional predictions right. His basic answer was, Sorry if it's boring, but I followed the polls. 8-) You may quibble about some of Emmanuel and Schumer's House and Senate candidate picks in '06 (I did at the time; I thought, how can they be pushing Paul Hackett out in Ohio), but they obviously knew how to count and I think Clinton does too. I want us to win!]
Michael wrote on November 30, 2007 12:02 PM:dc, thanks for the effort going through the polls. First time I saw you do that. Generally, you go to the gross national number. Also, I agree with DTM's point.
In addition, at this point she is within the margin of error on virtually all of these polls. The last one I saw from virginia she was losing and obviously she is losing in florida. I want a candidate that will unite the country and win a landslide, not a candidate that will further divide the country and just squeak by in the general, which she very well might not do. If she squeaks by she won't accomplish anything and the senate, possibly majority republicans, will block everything she tries to do, except keep the war in iraq going on, and on, and on, and on.
Obviously, you just want to ignore the fact that she is polorizing and that she will rally the republican base. You believe what you want with your blind love for clinton II. I really don't get how anyone as intelligent as you obviously are has blinders on to this fact. How can you not see it? Maybe you need some of the medication that you keep spouting about.
Finally, I submit that any dem, any, would win any of the blue states easily. The fact that clinton II does is meaningless. Massachusetts??? You actually believe that Massachusetts would go for a republican? You obviiously can't believe that!!!! The issue is the swing states where the rabid republican, ant-clinton base could easily swing the election for mitt the flip or the huckster. If that's what you want, then keep supporting clinton II.
DTM wrote on November 30, 2007 12:10 PM:By the way, the other obvious point is that Giuliani may not be the nominee.
And how does one guess at the electability of someone like Huckabee? People here may be familiar with him, and Republicans in Iowa may be familiar with him, but the vast majority of likely voters in most states are just starting to become aware of him.
That is just a somewhat obvious illustration of why head-to-head numbers at this point are of limited value.
audit the polls wrote on November 30, 2007 1:29 PM:They stole the elections in Florida, but the polls, they're completely honest.
audit the polls wrote on November 30, 2007 1:32 PM:anybody searched this site for Kucinich? Don't bother, he's not here.
Jim Martin wrote on December 2, 2007 3:07 AM:You win the point on the Zogby Interactive poll, dcshungu.
I was unaware of the controversy surrounding the poll's methodology until you "noted" it. I checked your links and various others as well, and as far as I can tell the methodology is widely criticized, and just about the only defenders of the methodology that I could find, outside of a few comments on the Kos diary, was.... Zogby. I won't be citing those polls any more, or relying on them to make any of my own decisions, unless and until the methodology is reviewed and considered by qualified people to be scientifically accurate.
I, of course, won't be "crawling under a rock in shame." Grownups don't do that. Grownups admit error, amend their thinking, and move on. Grownups also, generally, don't ask others to crawl under rocks in shame, even in political debates.
Jim Martin wrote on December 2, 2007 3:08 AM:dcshungu, do you consider Zogby to be a credible/reputable pollster?
Jim Martin wrote on December 2, 2007 3:15 AM:I should add that DemAC also pointed out the flaws in the Zogby poll with at least one link (to Kos).
None of this, of course, excuses in the least excuses either DemAC's or dcshungu's over-the-top attacks on people who prefer other candidates to HRC, which include insinuations of disloyalty, accusations of hackery, and hysterical rants about "whose water" we might be carrying.
If that's the way you want to play the game...
Jim wrote on December 3, 2007 6:08 PM:DemAC wrote:
That presumed Democrats drag their own leaders in the gutter can favor nothing and nobody if not the Repubs.
Show me some of that gutter-dragging, DemAC. As you once counseled JenJen, perhaps you (and your candidate) simply need to grow a thicker skin. Your candidate does not have an absolute right to the Democratic nomination, nor does she have an absolute right to immunity from criticism, nor is all criticism of your candidate automatically "dragging [her] in the gutter". It's your burden to substantiate that it is. It's also your burden to substantiate your claim that "If anyone dared write even a smidgeon about, for example, Obama the way a lot of people here write about Hillary Clinton, all hell would break loose." I have already shown you (in this thread that all hell did not break loose there, despite really vicious stuff being written. So show me when it's happened, or take your own advice and grow a thicker skin.
