Had Hillary seen as the most electable by by about 37% of the electorate. My guess it is a significant source of her strength - a third place finish in Iowa might send her in a real free fall in NH.
they haven't seen the latimes poll a few more like that one and only Goerge P and Robliberal will think she's the most electable.
Problem for you, nevadadem, is that the other candidates are showing a ton of cracks and fissures when it comes to their own electability.
Take Obama for instance. According to Rasmussen he fares BY FAR the worst against Giuliani (loses by 12%) than any other Democratic contender. His negatives are, according to that poll, already at 44%, even though his name ID is not at 100% yet. Those are terrible numbers for Obama that undercut any electability argument other polls may show. Continue on that track, and it is not just "a lack of experience" "a lack of leadership" and "he is not really courting Democrats" that provide problems for him.
And the problem for you- is that no matter how many times you repeat this- the reality is that these are present narratives, and not narratives based on 14 years of consistent polling showing a candidate with consistently bad favorable ratings. In other words, they have room to improve, but HRC does not. Her numbers are what they are. You know it. I suspect the campaign knows it. So what's left is pretending like they don't matter or mudding the waters as if Obama or Edwards face anywhere near the level of hardcore unfavorables that Clinton has. I repeat what I said to you another diary. they have the ability to change their narrative. Clinton does not. It's not simply a matter of regurgitating the numbers of the moment. It's a matter of what this diarist did- putting those numbers into meaningful context. What I guess you and her campaign are hoping is that no real understanding of context ever develops amongst the electorate. It's not a bad strategy, but that's what you have to hope for or else she's got so serious problems.
I think all the main candidates have issues.
Hillary, problem with independents, moderates, republican. But, she is counting on low informed women to put her over the top, with the latino and AA vote.
Barack, problem with low informed women, main stream democrats. But he is courting college educated, college bound, youth and independents.
John, problem with the AA and latino vote.
While we have only been looking at one poll, well I have, for these negatives, per Rassmussen, it is a problem. Obama's negatives are primarily from the "unknown factor". Now, once people are informed about him, the negs will either go up or down. Hillary's negatives are primarily from the "known factor". People know her, period. People have made their minds up about her, period. Her push is from people who only know her by the last name of "Clinton". Will that last? We don't know. That is up to Obama and Edwards to fix. Edwards is the best candidate across the board with the "least negative factor", but he lacks the charisma of Obama and the strong name recognition of Clinton.
Now, the negatives. Hillary is pushing it with 50% and it is not good for a candidate to be there at this juncture. It would be one thing if she was an "anamoly", but she it not. So, brace for the numbers to go up as the campaign, goes on. Obama is in the grey area. People still do not know much about him, except his name. Now, as people get to know him and his positions. It will either be up or down in the negative department. Again, Edwards is the best in this department over the board.
Strategy. Clinton is going for the low uninformed woman vote, coupled with the latino and AA vote to push her over. She is not going to court moderates, independents, republicans. She knows the polling and they are more than likely not going to shift. Is this smart? Yes, but as in Obama, this group of uninformed women, need to turn out to vote, more importantly they need to be registered. This is a large untapped market, if successful Clinton can win over the GE Republican. But again, they need to vote. Obama is going for the independents, Republicans, AA, youth, and some dems. Is this smart? Yes, but as with Clinton, the youth vote need to come out strong and also need to register to vote. This is a large segment, that has been growing over the past two election cycles, primarily over the war in Iraq. Obama, need to solidify the AA base and bring more women to his side, if he can he too, can win over the GE Republican. Edwards, has the mainstream democrat, some indies, and some youth vote. For him, he need to concentrate more on women and AA, for him to stay in the game.
Once last tidbit. I read that Clinton is not worried about the fundraising of Barack Obama, that it means "nothing". I did find that somewhat humerous, because if anything he has been giving her a run for her money. If she want to totally take him out, she needs to dry up his purse strings. Again, money is 50% of any campaign, don't fool yourself. These campaigns can not function WITHOUT money. If he raises more than 30M, that does speak volumes. Somebody is donating to him, and I am sure Clinton and Edwards would like to know WHO?
well it wont be spielberg anymore - he just endorsed Clinton
and? What is he supposed to do, get Hollywood in tow? Doesn't work like that. That town is divided between Clinton and Obama and most are maxed already.
How many polls do you have that support this? One? Two? We have a good 5-10 head to head polls and unfavorability polls showing what we are saying. So... You're part of the minority when it comes this idea that "Obama is less electable"
The frontrunner always needs to finish in front -- first -- to avoid falling behind. The margin matters too but anything less than a win for HRC in IA & NH will be like a pin-prick on a tight baloon, it bursts very quickly.
'less educated women?' typical liberal elitists hubris.
This attitude alone will likely get Hillary the nomination. Liberals always ranted many Bush voters were also 'less educated'.
Well to be honest most Bush voters in 2004 were less politically educated. Polling data confirmed that when asked on issues of which they thought their candidate supported which issues- it was interesting to see the amount of cogitive dissonance on the right- for example a majority of voters thinking Bush supported import of drugs from Canada. It maybe "elitist" point out there are low information voters, but it's also true they do exist.
It is really incredible how many times a day there are posts about "low educated, low info" voters especially women. My personal opinion is the vote of every person counts exactly the same and should be valued and respected as such but unfortunately there are many in the netroots who look at "those" voters in a very condescending manner.
I want to understand how people think there aren't low information voters. It may not be PC to say so, but that's hardly the point. whether they are women or not, is also irrelevant. However the idea that Clinton is drawing a lot from those types of voters isn't absurd. We still have a high percentage of the population that believes that Saddam H was behind 9/11. In 2004, you had, as I mention aboved, a large number of voters who thought bush was for importing drugs from Canada. And on and on. What does it get anyone to pretend all voters are equally interested in politics or care beyond simply voting on quick rather than indepth impressions of candidates and what they stand for.
If you study the molecules of a glass so intently that you no longer realize its purpose are you really looking in depth? If you ask these lo-info voters what's important to them they'll tell you they want out of Iraq. If you ask them should Hillary and Barack have made gradiose speeches detailing their reasons for opposing the supplemental bill they'll tell you they want out of Iraq. In many ways I think that's a pretty in depth way of looking at it.
Uhm- so you agree that there are low information voters, but you want us to ignore that in our discussions of how people are making their choices regarding candidate selections. yes, everyone has a right in America to be ignorant. But it shouldn't a) be a virtue or b) something we come to accept even when we know it will happen anyway. THats how again we got into Iraq. That's how we get bad bills that don't allow importing drugs into the US. You can act as much as you want like this is rocket science. It's not. It's called reading even a small amount on the subjects and having a natural curiosity. I have a plenty of apolitical friends who don't- and I don't make excuses for the fact they don't whenever they say something based on a lack of knowldge. It's not being better (Which is what this is really about for some of you). It's about honestly understanding who is voting for whom. Who can be reached. Who can not be. It's not the job of a democracy to teach its voters to want to be involved. The assumption of democratic- small d- processes require that the opposite is true, or else we keep getting what we have gotten thus far. But hey, so long as we make people feel good in their ignorance because somehow that means we win, that's great. Until it bites us in the ass.
The thing is there is a huge portion of our populus that only get info from TV, and it is 45 sec, if that. So, whatever they heard is what they know. Many do not read newspapers, do not surf the net, do not watch Hardball, Keith O, and if you asked them about these two shows, they will respond, "Keith, who"? So, this is good for Clinton. They recognize her name, know she is a woman, and was married to Bill. Now ask them about her positions, they would not be able to tell you squat.
i can assure you i know many low info voters who like Obama i.e. my sister - to assume Hillary is the only person with low info voters is, well, low info in itself.
Look, talk to the Clinton Camp. They are the ones who broke out the numbers and coined the expression of "women in need". They were the ones who pointed to uneducated, high school grad/did not graduate from high school, class of women. Don't hate on me for this expression.
Yeah I saw the thing in USA today where they profiled a "typical" supporter of each candidate. Hillary's supporter said one reason she liked her (besides being a strong woman and standing by Bill) is that "she's for the poor". I mean, I suppose in the abstract she is, but what is she proposing to help low-income Americans? John Edwards blows her away but all this woman probably knows about him is that he's a white guy and he got an expensive haircut.
This is why I'm actually glad IA and NH are first. At least the candidates can introduce themselves in a manner other than a 30 second soundbite.
Some of those "low info" voters have things such as children, 2 or more jobs, and other things to keep them occupied all of the 24 hours a day.
That is what the Clinton Campaign implies. These are women that need tax breaks, affordable day care, Head Start, etc.
Please don't presume to think I don't understand the reasons why people have a hard time. This still doesn't change the fact that they are low information or that they need to understand what's going on (especially because they are the most in need in terms of the impact of any policy) when choosing candidates. You seem to be a) making excuses for their low information based on the fact it's hard (to which I respond yes it is) b) telling us that they aren't low information because you don't like how hearing that terms (to which I respond it doesn't change what they are in the process) and c) that even if a and b are true, HRC isn't using this (to which I respond that's naive. Politicians regardless of who they are use whatever is to their advantage. Obama, Clinton and Edwards will all be doing this. This doesn't mean they will not make good Presidents. It means they want to win.)
Well, tell the Clinton Campaign to stop, they were the ones initially who identified this group, as low income uninformed women. Women who only graduated from HS, or did not. Make less than 30-35K a year. No college. They identified this group, but now call them "women with needs". Which I don't like, either.
Women with needs sounds much better than low info which comes across as offensive and insulting. Hillary Clinton was working pro bono for women like that back when some other candidates were still in elementary school.
They aren't picking these women because of their needs. That's your spin. They are picking them because they know they are low information. My comparator to low information voters in 2004 (which you keep avoiding to make this about being PC) is dead on accurate. I am sorry you have a problem accepting the nature of politics, the fact there are low information voters who are women or that your candidate would idenitify voters she knows will be more likely to not know where she stands with regard to their needs.
It's nice to know what she did for them in her past, but completely irrelevant to whether she's going to actually rep them, whether her campaign has identify them for that purpose and whether they indeed understand the differences between the candidate other than the fact her last name is Clinton. This more than anything else seems to bother HRC's supporter.
Name recongition is one of those cornerstones of politics. HRC knows this. She also know that many voters will not check to find out if she really reps them or not. She counting on the fact that they do not. Hence why low information is important. The more they found out, they less likely they are too support her. She knows this.
It really has nothing to do with the reality of what's going on to pretend this is about 'needs.' That's one of those test group terms that you can find Frank Luntz using on the right being flipped to use it on the left. It's cute, but it's not the underbelly of what's really being said and done. Nor does ths spin above "but these voters need not know whats going on to know whats going on really make sense." If they don't know that a candidate doesn't support universal healthcare, and they are low income women making less than 35k with a limited education, you can be damn sure it will hurt them. This very group is one of the groups which most needs universal healthcare.
Again, "needs' is the spin by campaigns. If it makes you feel better to pretend this language, 'low information', is somehow made up by those here on the blogs who are against your candidate rather than a segment id'ed by your candidate and other politicians as a group that one can either reach or not reach depending on one's strategy, then that's your choice. I just think it's not a very honest conversation because it covers up the crass truth of whats being said and done.
Low information voters = suckers
No it does not. It equals people who as others explain are busy or have other things etc- I don't think of them as suckers, but I do think of them as vunerable to being manipulated by what they dont know.
By the way- this is what frontrunner status is about. Making sure people don't inquire too much into things that will change their perception. Bush in 2004 didn't want people to think too much about his phrases- also market tested- he simply wanted them to vote their 'gut.' Not realizing gut may or may not be against interest depending on what candidates actually said or didn't say. These voters could decide HRC is the best choice for them based on actual information. The point is the strategy is to not give them that info. Hence why as has been pointed out blurring the lines of her record and others. She benefits by making it sound like there are no difference- as Bush 2000 benefited from the same tactic. This is by the way a non partisan point I am making. I am not judging Bush for his strategy. Nor am I blaming HRC. I do have question the idea that we are suppose to pretend a duck isn't a duck if we see it.
She has zeroed into this group for a reason. They are not like you or I. We ask QUESTIONS. These women do not have time for that. When all you know is that a woman is running and the last name is Clinton and you don't have time for positions. You are just going to vote for her. That is what she is counting on.
Some voters just aren't paying attention yet, a lot aren't and it has nothing to do with intelligence. Obviously Hillary does well with people who are not paying attention because everyone knows her name and something significant about her. Also, nothing has yet happened in this campaign, nothing. No ads to speak of. No personal attacks. No campaign shakeups. What is the biggest controversy so far? Edwards' haircut? Clinton's travel arrangements? Edwards' bloggers? C mon!
One thing will be noted. Who supported the war. Who opposed it. And when did they take thier stand?
And if you consider the grammar and spelling of many of these netroots Hillary bashers, it's pretty clear they aren't terribly educated themselves. Nice folks, just the same, I am sure.
"Less Educated" or as Hillary call them "Women with Needs" also havn't begun to pay attention to the race. As were aware, Obama has a slight lead in people paying close attention to the race. The question is, as people's attention goes up do they go with Obama as the other high interest people do?
An anecdotal example is Obama's trip to San Antonio next week - where my mother and several friends are going, some of them are "women with needs" and don't really know anything about Obama. Also, M. Obama is giving a stump speech completely geared toward working women, which is playing really well - Can she get enough coverage in Iowa and N.H. on it?
"Also, M. Obama is giving a stump speech completely geared toward working women,"
It'd be nice if he had some policies or major parts of his campaign geared toward working women as well (e.g. unionization, free college tuition, a public option in a universal health care plan, etc. etc.)
Such as his recent speech on dead beat dads.
There was a poll (the only one so far) that reported the education of women who were in the poll.
The people who were through college were split between Obama and Hillary evenly. The people who have yet to go through college or skipped it were much more for Hillary.
