"Some people say [your Democratic incumbent] is a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton and will support her liberal agenda of big government and higher taxes if she becomes president."

What the hell? They said that before conducting the poll? Was this a push poll?

So as a voter all of a sudden I am not going to vote against the Republican incumbant in the House that I detest, and not vote for the Democratic challenger I have come to like,  because I don't like the Democrats pick for President?

Voters are going to vote against the Democrat incumbant they have voted for before and are satisfied with because they don't like who the incumbant's party chose to run for President?

Neither scenerio makes a bit of sense.

There are no such things as coattails.

If coattails existed a blue state like Michigan that has in recent years voted for Gore, Kerry, and Granholm twice, wouldn't send 8 Republicans to the House out of 11 seats.

If coattails existed a red state like North Carolina wouldn't have both chambers of its state legislature controlled by Democrats.  Kerry and Gore didn't exactly compete in North Carolina and the state went for Bush, Dole, and Burr.

The concern is there.  

The poll is just a b.s push poll hatchet job.

You conveniently ignore the fact that this push poll's conclusion was that both Clinton AND Obama equally drag down these Democratic candidates.  It's a push poll, so it's mostly BS, but at least give us the courtesy of accuracy in your diary title and summary.  

Furthermore, nothing is mentioned re. Edwards in this push poll, so he can't be compared to Clinton or Obama, and therefore it would be hard to draw any conlusion that Clinton (or Obama) is somehow a  "drag" while Edwards is not.

From your past diaries, you obviously support Edwards.  You have sometimes written diaries where Obama is praised, as well as Edwards; and sometimes where Obama is bashed alongside of Clinton -- but no matter what, Clinton is always disparaged.

As a supporter, you are not really doing Edwards justice by citing push polls such as these.

Did you guys even bother reading the poll at all , it actually proves the opposite , even after pushing the whole liberal agenda , this was how it panned out ,

Clinton :

Republican  : 41

Democrat    : 47

            + 6

Obama :

Republican : 38

Democratic : 44  

           + 6

Even after Clinton is named at the top of the ticket and they are pushed with the liberal agenda in this swing district her numbers fall exactly to the same percentage point that Obama's fell and this was their favourable/ unfavourable ration :
45 : 48 for Clinton and  48 : 30 for Obama , so even though Obama's favourable's are way better than Clintons which some use to argue that she would be a drag the number of percentage points dropped is the same , what this shows to me is that it is the " Liberal Agenda " that might drag down the percentage points not Clinton at the top of the ticket .

If Edwards was polled I bet you he would drop the same percentage points .

This poll actual helps Hillary Rodham Clinton in making her case because Obama's unfavourables are way better on those districts and when this crappy poll was done pushing the nasty stuff , he fell to the same point as Clinton.

Vox I am surprised you titled the diary the way you did because it is just not true , if you push poll the way this poll did even Edwards will drop about the same point , so with her unfavorables she still manages to drop the same point as Obama who has way better favourables ( I don't see how edwards has a better one than Obama ) .

This poll actually disproves your diary .

Chris Bowers , the one a lot of Edwards / Obama supporters use to push a lot has a diary I recommend you read about it .

It is titled :

Polls show Clinton will not hurt downstream ticket ;
 http://www.openleft.com/frontPage.do

Here is a link to the poll itself

http://www.latinopolicycoalition.org/Acc ountability%20Survey%20Results.pdf

Now I am not saying there is any conclusive proof for or against that argument , all I am saying is that this poll clearly shows the opposite of what your title says , in my opinion.

When Hillary Clinton barnstormed the national stage this morning, it's just another lose-lose situation for all the other candidates.

No wonder we are seeing more desperation. LOL. I'm pleased.

Even the most leftist blog 'openleft', which has usually been an Edward ally, is mocking this blatant partisan article.

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?dia ryId=1509

Chris Bowers
Poll Shows Clinton Would Not Hurt Democrats Down Ballot

Hillary will definately hurt the downticket.

This article clearly shows you that people do not like her in those swing districts...You'd be a fool to think that her presence on top of the ticket would have similar effect to Obama/Edwards topping the democratic ticket.

There was another article on CBSNEWS website stating that Hillary Clinton was as unpopular as Illegal immigrants in those swing districts...Now , i support legalizing illegal immigrants that've been working here for years but one must understand how unpopular illegal immigrants are in those swing district to understand the quote of "Hillary as unpopular as illeghal immigrants".

Obama and Edwards would help the downticket in a much positive way then Hillary...

Giuliani takes 49 percent to Clinton's 39 percent, while the former mayor's lead over Obama is far smaller, 41 percent to 40 percent.

While Giuliani beats Clinton by 10 ,he barely beats out Obama and since the MoE would most likely be higher then 1% , an Obama vs Giuliani race in those 31 swing districts will probably be very tight.

This means that if Obama topples the ticket , those democrats sitting on them would not have to worry about getting dragged down and their race would all come down to how good of a race they run.

In Hillary's case , those democrats could run good campaign but still lose because Hillary will probably lose them about 3% points and because those race are all expected to be tight , getting dragged by %3 is way too much considering the fact that many of them barely survived their 2006 election by winning by 1,2,3%.

Damn Chris Bowers for stating facts and conviently including the poll results.

If Hillary is trailing in these districts, it means that she probably cant win nationally.  

Hillary will murder the down ticket...Is it any reason why those members sitting on those swing districs would not endorse her anytime soon eventhough she's clearly the establisment's candidate??

I 'll say 90% of those members will ask Hillary to not come campaign in their district just like they did in 2006...Hillary will fuck up their chances of getting re-elected.

This poll is TOTALLY meaningless because of one very important fact: voters are not 'taunted' by what the Republicans will do.  Not only does this not show Clinton performing worse than Obama, it doesn't show either of them performing badly for the downticket races to start with.

If Hillary is the nominee, many down ticket Democrats are going to have to actually run against her like they did to Dukakis in '88.  

I wrote a diary on this topic:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/9/14/31528/8580

If you want a progressive agenda adopted by the next Congress, we need a Democrat at the top of the ticket than can help (not hurt) Dems running for Congress in Red States.

Interesting is the finding that Obama drags down Democrats.  I am not surprised.

It's not just that this is a "push poll", obviously this kind of push is provided in the course of a campaign anyway.  It's that the relevant "push"  isn't -as reported- "associating the candidate with Clinton/Obama", it's associating the local candidate with the unenviable position of a lap dog.  I like my local Democratic candidates,  I also like my party's likely presidential nominees.  That doesn't mean I expect one to be wholly subservient to the other.  I want and expect my local representatives to represent local interests and local concerns as well as their own opinions and concerns.  It would bother me if my Congressman was constantly waiting on marching orders from the president, be that president a Republican or a Democrat.  

That's the relevant push, and as a result this poll tells me nothing about Clinton or Obama.  

1.  It is a push poll done by some one who works for Biden.

2.  The poll doesn't prove what the diarist says it does. Read many good explanations above.

3. Lots of those swing state congress critters have already endorsed Clinton.

it is a push poll.  A push poll is never to be trusted.

As for the rest of what you said, excuse me while I go find my tin foil hat.

For us to lose the House, Hillary would have to lose in a 1984 style Walter Mondale disaster.  

You fell for this Biden campaign trick?  Are you not aware that Biden still thinks that he has a chance to win the nomination?  Why would we take for face value (aside from partisan value) what people like Axelrod, Celinda Lake, Plouffe, etc. have to say?  I assume you would not take at face value what Mark Penn has to say, right?  There is a reason these people are employed by CAMPAIGNS.  They work FOR someone.   Celinda Lake works FOR Biden's campaign.  Her "assertion" is partisan to the hilt, as it should be.  Nothing wrong with that.  Just with you trying to sell it as some impartial "analysis," which it clearly is not.

Edwards is clearly not a loser.  He is just behind Clinton by 25% to 30% nationally and 20% + in every polls (aside from Iowa.)  That does not make him a loser.  Clinton is a formidable candidate, after all.

Let's keep in mind that against Giuliani, the highest-profile GOPer, Edwards does not do quite as well as Clinton:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/national.html

McCain always does very well against Democrats.  In some surveys he actually BEATS almost all of our candidates (Obama, Edwards) and is extremely close to Clinton.  He looks like a matchup problem for us, in many ways more so than Giuliani, Romney, Thompson.  Yet, GOPers don't clamor for him, despite his strong showing against Democrats.  He is clearly not a strong candidate, as he is currently in 4th place and badly lags in the money race.  His chances at the GOP nomination are very, very low.

 The lesson here is that just because one candidate does reasonably well in head to heads against the other party does not mean that people are even thinking or talking about switching their allegiances to him.  McCain is not popular enough with the people who make up the primary voters, Republicans and Republican-leaning Independents.  Ergo, his good showing against Democrats goes for naught.   The same with Edwards.  He simply does not have the backing of enough Democrats to make his relatively decent head-to-head showing count for anything.  Until he seriously moves up in the polls, that will not change.   So, I look at head-to-heads from the Clinton-Obama perspective.  Clinton does very, very well against GOPers.  Obama not quite that well.   In the end, if it is between Clinton and Obama, her better showing against GOPers may make a difference to voters, although I suspect head-to-heads against GOPers 13 months before the election would probably be less important than a host of other considerations before it comes down to that.

But not necessarily directly.

First those congresscritters who must can run against her with no hard feelings.

Even more importantly her nomination frees the NetRoots. The Clinton campaign is only hoping for grudging acceptance from the NetRoots. No other candidate would be in that position.

The more I think about the probable shape of the campaign with Hillary at the top, the more I see the possibility of a big win down ticket. The Anti-Clinton rabid base will not only expect but demand a scorched earth campaign and direct their funding so. This of course is going to not only make the national election a referendum on Hillary and the Clintons in general but is the least cost effective campaign they can run. The all that type of campaign can hope to achieve is to maintain her negatives, because it certainly isn't going to raise them. So Clinton is forced to run positive as her surrogates and media truth squads respond to historical accusations with off the shelf talking points. Meanwhile the local democratic candidates are running local campaigns looking to the future, while their opponents are disassociating themselves from both Bush and the rightwing 527 hit campaigns.

So we have a national referendum on the Clinton years with the rough edges worn by time to a certain golden glow, while the negative wealth effect of falling home prices is just finishing shaking out in the suburbs, an unpopular war dragging on, with one side mired in the past and the other looking to the future, and finally with a large active and effective portion of the base targeting local and state races. I really don't see Hillary hurting the down ticket in general.

Sen. Evan Bayh (from very, very red Indiana which hasn't voted Democratic for President since 1964) is set to endorse Clinton tomorrow:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/090 7/5978.html

I think it is waaaaayyy too early to be fretting about this stuff.  Hillary is running and incredible campaign...  I absolutely hated her going into this thing, and I've totally done a 180.. I still have a lot of concerns about her, but the so-called "negatives" that exist now, will be aggressively worked on as time goes on...

I am convinced that, in time her image will become more positive and her popularity will rise... She has nowhere to go but up, and she's been doing so much right so far...

I've never, in my lifetime, seen a Democrat run such a competant, coordinated, campaign... (and that includes her husband)...

She can win... and win big...  I think that, in time, even Larry Sabato will change his tune about her...  She's not the 90's Clinton... and it shows...

I still would rather have another candidate, but the other two legitimate choices do not impress me.  Edwards does not know how to fight the right wing noise machine.  Obama doesn't seem to really need to... they don't get good hits on him, but he's basically not even campaigning, and is so wishy-washy....

We shouldn't presuppose what will happen in the future..  for all we know, people could end up loving her like they have her husband.. don't forget he was quite vilified in his first two years, but, then turned his image around...

I'm willing to give her a chance to prove me right and Larry Sabato wrong...

Thanks,

Mike

Isnt it great that this diary has been on top of the rec' list for a while now?.....Rec'ing this diary would help Hillary identify her huge flaw...She's very polarizing human being that half the country hates and hope she fixes that but i doubt she can do that.

The Hillary supporters should think us for bringing this to their attention.

This never ceases to amaze me.. Do you actually believe that there's some sort of conspiracy to keep Edwards from looking better than Clinton and Obama?  If you do, then nothing I (or anyone else) can say will convince you.

Edwards doesn't get included in a lot of head to head polls for a very simple reason:  he's a distant third in this race so far. His national poll numbers are in the low teens, and haven't moved from there in the last 6 months. The only place he's doing well is in Iowa, where he was leading for months but has been passed by Clinton in every single poll.

If he closes the gap on Obama and makes a real run for this race, you can bet that the polling organizations will start taking notice and conducting new polls.  Until then, they'll ignore him just as they ignore Richardson and all the rest.  It's not a conspiracy. The available evidence we have suggests that he has a very small chance of winning the nomination right now.  That could certainly change, but so far it hasn't.

It's like saying, "John Smith, leading scorer in the NBA with 30 ppg, scores just 19.8 in games in which he sucks".