It disturbs me that polls, which could be useful if they were actually just taking the pulse of a selection of voters, are, instead having the (often intentional) effect of swaying people in the tried and true bandwagon method, argumentum ad populum.
I, for one, don't care if 99% of polled whatevers love Hil to death - I will never ever vote for her. I don't like her (for president), don't trust her, and don't for a minute mistake raw determined ambition for potential leadership skills.
Sorry, had to get that off my chest. Carry on.
The debate opened a new chapter in the race. Edwards got a lot of play and Obama actually narrowed the gap quite a bit from the most recent polls (by 10% with Hillary falling under 50%). I'd say let's see how this continues to play out over the next few weeks before jumping to conclusions. Hopefully, the voters will see what a disaster a Hillary candidacy will be for the Democrats.
Posted by downtownla at November 4, 2007 11:16 PMI agree with dus7. I'd add that poll numbers are bad enough, but now we are being asked to swallow polls on who average Democrats think is most electable. Excuse me, but the average Dem is barely able to wrap their mind around who they personally support. Now I'm supposed to believe that average voters are electoral experts?
Incidentally, I too think the 1996 race is instructive -- although not for reasons that the Clintons would like. Bob Dole proved that Presidential candidates who lack a clearly articulated purpose for their candidacy -- and "it's my time" is not sufficient -- will not inspire voters. A recurring complaint about Hillary is that nobody knows why she is running other than that she wants to be President.
I suppose the debate is whether (as I argue) the lack of a core message by the 1996 GOP candidate was self-inflicted by Dole and the GOP or whether (as Steve Soto argues) Clinton "set the negatives and the narrative against Dole a year before the race".
Posted by space at November 4, 2007 11:55 PMThe GOP and the media has wanted Hillary to be the Democratic nominee from the start. Is this coincidence? I think not.
Even a Progressive like me, who would vote for her if she got the nomination, thinks she is beatable. She is a polarizing figure for the right. And she will certainly get the fundies to simply vote against her, regardless of the GOP nominee. It will not be a vote for the GOP nominee, it will a vote against Hillary.
Furthermore, I don't think Obama stands a chance against a GOP candidate. Unfortunately, race and misogyny will be an issue. Not from Progressives, Democrats or most Independents but there are still enough rednecks in this country to deny the Presidency to a Woman or a Black man (or Hispanic).
So let the Dems nominate Hillary, it will be close but she will lose to a white, christian male.
Posted by Seven of Six at November 5, 2007 05:35 AM
She will lose to the loathsome Jeb Bush/St. Petraeus ticket. I think they will draft Jeb.
Posted by via at November 5, 2007 06:00 AMRudy=Bush. plain and simple.
Posted by T2 at November 5, 2007 06:04 AMHillary is obviously greatly benefitting from Obama's decision to enter the race, thus splitting the "anti-Hillary" Dems. By the time either Obama or Edwards are exhausted, she'll probabably be unbeatable for the nomination.
Electability? Doesn't Hillary have the 35% extreme negatives, higher than any other candidate? Didn't we observe attempts to determine "electability" as one of the reasons the party chose Kerry, as though it's some "objective" independent quality? And then it turned out that the crucial voters who decide these elections just didn't like his "personality", the same thing we're hearing about Hillary (and will hear ad infinitum by the MSM).
She's a bad choice. The "independent" voters who decide these things will decide they "don't like" her.
And inexperienced national campaigner Obama would certainly be savaged when he's not putting his foot in his mouth. Remember, Dem mistakes are ruthlessly repeated and magnified compared to Repub ones.
Posted by euzoius at November 5, 2007 08:22 AMMark Blumenthal (of pollster.com) seems to disagree with your conclusions regarding the ABC/Washington Post poll--at least vis-a-vis the question of whether the debate had any impact. Also, didn't the gap between Obama and Clinton close by 10 points (or am I misreading the poll)?
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/three_campaigns.php
Posted by Keith at November 5, 2007 01:30 PM