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.
