Clinton Drags Down Swing-State Dems

Opponents of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign have suggested that she may be too polarizing and would in fact carry negative coattails, dragging down our Democratic candidates in swing congressional districts.

Now, a study conducted by a former Clinton pollster, Celinda lake, gives credence to those fears.  From the Washington Post article on the study:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2007/09/22/AR2007092201024_ pf.html

A recent survey by Democratic pollster Celinda Lake, however, showed Clinton and Obama trailing former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani (R) in the 31 Democratic-held House districts regarded as most imperiled in 2008, and even potentially serving as a drag on those lawmakers' reelection chances.

How badly does Clinton impact the Congressional races?

While the average lead of Democratic House members stands at 19 percentage points in the 31 vulnerable districts -- all but two of which are part of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's incumbent-protection program known as Frontline -- that number sinks considerably when the lawmakers are linked to either front-runner.

"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," the poll stated, before asking respondents whether they would still vote for their incumbent or choose a Republican candidate.

Clinton has a "very polarized image" in the districts

With Clinton at the top of the ticket, the Democratic incumbents in swing districts go from a large lead to a very narrow lead.

This study is just another thing to give us pause before nominating Hillary Clinton as our Presidential candidate.  As Giuliani, Huckabee, and several other Republican candidates have made clear, they intend on running against Hillary Clinton.  She is the one person who can excite Republican voters like none of their candidates can.  Democrats, we cannot risk that.  Our Congress is at risk if we do.

Tags: coattails, Hillary Clinton, swing states (all tags)

Comments

124 Comments

Re: Clinton Drags Down Swing-State Dems

"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?

by RJEvans 2007-09-23 10:52AM | 0 recs
BINGO!!!

You hit the nail on the head!

It is a disgusting push poll that good Democrats should reject.  Desperate candidates and their supporters should shun it.  But somehow I don't suspect they will.  

by dpANDREWS 2007-09-23 11:02AM | 0 recs
yes, let's perpetuate the "democrats are...

stupid" meme.  after all, why should we use standard survey research or opposition research -- we don't care if we win!

you express moral outrage for a message test but not the jena 6?  that's disgusting...

by bored now 2007-09-24 03:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Drags Down Swing-State Dems

You might want to read the article.  They were asked first if they would vote for the Democratic incumbent.  Then they linked the incumbent to the presidential candidate, much like would happen in a campaign.

Those are the type of ads that will be run against our incumbents and challengers.  Clinton is unpopular in those districts and will drag them down.

by Vox Populi 2007-09-23 11:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Drags Down Swing-State Dems

So you agree, it was a push poll.

"liberal"
"big government"
"higher taxes"

Which Republican or Independent won't run away from those words?

by RJEvans 2007-09-23 11:21AM | 0 recs
actually, no -- it wasn't...

but the facts won't stop you from believing that, so what's the point?  i mean, besides from your ignorance of survey research techniques???

by bored now 2007-09-24 03:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Drags Down Swing-State Dems

the premise of the whole diary is wrong.  is this all you got?

by jgarcia 2007-09-24 12:54PM | 0 recs
Utter B.S. being pushed by opponents

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.

by dpANDREWS 2007-09-23 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Utter B.S. being pushed by opponents

Coattails do exist.  Bush's coattails (lack of coattails) brought down the Republicans in 2006.  Clinton will do the same to Democrats.

by Vox Populi 2007-09-23 11:05AM | 0 recs
You don't address the points made in my post.

You don't come back with a weak assertion.

Again, 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.

This is a b.s. push poll hatchet job cooked up by a pollster who does work for Joe Biden.

by dpANDREWS 2007-09-23 11:08AM | 0 recs
Re: You don't address the points made in my post.

It's about an intensity gap.  Right now that favors Democrats.  Republicans are demoralized.  Clinton can excite them and give them a reason to go to the polls for their candidates.

by Vox Populi 2007-09-23 11:12AM | 0 recs
Re: You don't address the points made in my post.

I think what might happen is that there are many voters who are completely fed up with the Rep party. No surprise there. However, they aren't going to vote for Hillary, no matter what, and could stay home on election day.

I'm not so sure about negative coattails either.

by misscee 2007-09-23 11:17AM | 0 recs
John Kerry got more Democratic votes ...

Than anyone in history.

The - according to the Republicans and their media trumphets - MA limo liberal, Jane Fonda loving, fake purple heart wearing, guy who looked french and whose wife was french, got more votes than any Democratic candidate in history.

Hillary Clinton will get more than him.

by dpANDREWS 2007-09-23 11:57AM | 0 recs
the analogy to 2004 is perfect...

and it's exactly what i would like to prevent.  but i am not surprised that you would be comfortable re-creating the outcome of that presidential election.  i know this is about history, and not about winning, because hillary's centrist strategy is not a smart strategy for such a polarizing candidate...

by bored now 2007-09-24 03:57AM | 0 recs
The outcome? No.

Clinton will get 300 + electoral votes.

by dpANDREWS 2007-09-24 04:11AM | 0 recs
Re: You don't address the points made in my post.

The most recent empirical evidence suggests coat-tails do exist, but the effect is relatively small unless the seat is open.  Recent GOPer retirements have increased the number of open seats.

The reason there are fewer Democrats elected than we would like in Michigan is because of the absolute worst gerrymandering anywhere in the nation.  The worst.

by Trond Jacobsen 2007-09-23 02:56PM | 0 recs
I have read the same thing

It has been posted on here before.

The effect is so small and so scattered with no real logic behng (why it effects on race and not others) that is to the point of being meaningless.

By the way the poll is useless as well because it doesn't take into account an opponent.  Who will Hillary's opponent be?  How will he be viewed in these swing distrists compared to her?

by dpANDREWS 2007-09-24 04:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Utter B.S. being pushed by opponents

Can it be "coattails" if the candidate isn't even on the ballot?

BTW:

I agree with you that there's nothing wrong with the poll. Yes, it is a push-poll but it is reflecting exactly how the Repubs are going to be framing Hillary and trying to use her image for down-ticket advantage.

At the very least, the Clintonites should take this as a cautionary tale and have ready not only a good defense, but a preemptive offense--punch them in the face as soon as the campaign starts and keep punching until after the election.

by Bush Bites 2007-09-23 11:36AM | 0 recs
How do you contrast it with numbers

Numbers showing voters more opt to support CLinton after learning more about her candidacy?

by dpANDREWS 2007-09-24 04:16AM | 0 recs
that's easy...

when hillary's campaign is effective in framing the choice, she does better.  when her opponents are more effective, she does worse.

even a third grader should have known that!

by bored now 2007-09-24 04:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Utter B.S. being pushed by opponents

Bush was not on the ballot in 2006. So throwing out the GOP Congress made sense.

by nkpolitics 2007-09-23 11:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Utter B.S. being pushed by opponents

And don't forget it helped them in 2002.  

by yitbos96bb 2007-09-24 09:22AM | 0 recs
you've already demonstrated your ignorance...

of standard survey research techniques (used by every single major presidential candidate), and now you want to demonstrate your ignorance of the effectiveness of campaigns?  perhaps you should quit while you're ahead.

or, as i mentioned last time you brought up this canard, provide us with recognized, well-regarded research that supports your rather unorthodox and non-mainstream view.  as i recall, you were unable to support this bogus contention last time...

by bored now 2007-09-24 03:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Drags Down Swing-State Dems

The concern is there.  

by benny06 2007-09-23 11:05AM | 0 recs
Celinda Lake works for Joe Biden

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

by dpANDREWS 2007-09-23 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Celinda Lake works for Joe Biden

She may have Biden as a client now, but she has worked for Clinton in the past.  How many times are you going to post the same thing in this diary?  You're amusing me. :)

by Vox Populi 2007-09-23 11:07AM | 0 recs
Until you deal with the substance of it.

Asertions with nothing to back them up get you a flunking mark as early as 7th grade.

by dpANDREWS 2007-09-23 11:59AM | 0 recs
sayeth the student who hasn't gotten out of third.

grade yet...

by bored now 2007-09-24 03:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Drags Down Swing-State Dems

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.

by silver spring 2007-09-23 11:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Drags Down Swing-State Dems

A push [INSERT NAME HERE] poll on any potential Democratic nominee will have the same results.

by robliberal 2007-09-23 03:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Drags Down Swing-State Dems

Edwards did not connect with those voters in 2004 and he is not connecting for 2008.

by robliberal 2007-09-23 03:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Drags Down Swing-State Dems

Who has voted in the 2008 election?

by Rooktoven 2007-09-24 12:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Drags Down Swing-State Dems

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.

by lori 2007-09-23 11:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Drags Down Swing-State Dems

Note :

Even in the absence of an Edwards push poll , we can substitute Obama with Edwards because I don't see how Edwards will have better favorable : unfavorable considering the he has even gone more further to the left than any other candidates .

What this poll seems to tell me is that people react more negatively to the agenda which they think is being forced on their district not the candidate . Or else how do you explain Obama with good favorables dropping the same percentage points as Clinton.

by lori 2007-09-23 11:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Drags Down Swing-State Dems

Obama has a Favorable : Unfavorable rating of

48 : 30 in those districts I don't see Edwards having  it better than that .

If you push a poll with leading statements like higher taxes , big government etc like the poll does , Edwards himself will likely drop a couple of percentage points like Clinton did .

However I am not putting much credence on a push poll done by Celinda Lake who works for Joe Biden even though the poll actually proves she is not much of a drag than Obama will be.

by lori 2007-09-23 04:55PM | 0 recs
This is so stupid

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

by areyouready 2007-09-23 11:33AM | 0 recs
Re: This is so stupid

But Chris Bowers is a Clinton supporter.

by 12345 2007-09-23 11:51AM | 0 recs
Re: This is so stupid

Exactly...Bowers and Stoller hate Obama beyond passion so i really don't take their analysis seriously.

by JaeHood 2007-09-23 12:03PM | 0 recs
Re: This is so stupid

I am sure you can do your own analysis , at least I hope so.

The fact that Bowers has been critical of whoever Clinton/Obama/Edwards/dodd etc doesn't take away from the fact that he is right in his analysis.

It is a little trivial to say because he is critical of your candidate you would ignore his findings even if it turns out to be the truth .

And in this case it is.

by lori 2007-09-23 12:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Drags Down Swing-State Dems

I think if Gore hadn't gone so Washington it would have been a much larger win for him.  He was succesfully portrayed as the ultimate DC insider in that election.  The Clinton fatigue brought him down.

Every time we have nominated a northern candidate since 1960, we have lost.  We know that Southern Democrats can win.  All three former Democratic Presidents to win since 1960 have been from the South.  Let's stick with what works.

by Vox Populi 2007-09-23 11:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Drags Down Swing-State Dems

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...

by JaeHood 2007-09-23 11:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Drags Down Swing-State Dems

Did you have blinders on when you read the poll

This was how the numbers came out for

Obama/Clinton :

Clinton :

Republican  : 41

Democrat    : 47

           + 6

Obama :

Republican : 38

Democratic : 44  

          + 6

So if She is a drag , then Obama too is , right ? But I know you like ignoring realities , I bet you are hearing " Rumors " again.

by lori 2007-09-23 11:56AM | 0 recs
They think Obama will part the Mississippi

And lead us all to the promised land.

by dpANDREWS 2007-09-24 04:17AM | 0 recs
yeah, because betting on surge voters...

females, often head of households, who rarely vote, is a much better strategy than relying on the proven surge from black voters who turn out when a black candidate is running for a major office.  the facts just suck for you...

by bored now 2007-09-24 04:21AM | 0 recs
I am comfortable with the facts

I don't think any group is prone to surge either.

by dpANDREWS 2007-09-24 05:01AM | 0 recs
Re: I am comfortable with the facts

then you are really in denial.  

by Edna Howard 2007-09-24 05:35AM | 0 recs
Hispanics are a stronger bloc

Why are they not "surging" for Richardson.  By the "surge" logic Richardson would formidable in the primaries and the general.

If African Americans are prone to "surge", why would they "surge" for Obama and not "surge for Ford? Or Swann?

Trying to sell Obama based on some mythical surge that doesn't exist reaks of desperation spin to me.  

by dpANDREWS 2007-09-24 04:49PM | 0 recs
once again, campaign 101 for dpa...

i haven't yet seen a poll that said that hispanics recognize that richardson is one of them.  so it would be hard to expect for hispanics to surge for him.

i was unaware that ford made special efforts, like those done by other black candidates who reaped the benefit of the black vote.  turning out more black voters -- a proven technique (unlike hillary's idealistic turning out non-voting women) -- seems to be part of obama's strategy.  if you have evidence that it was part of ford's strategy, i'd certainly like to see it.

same thing for swann.  have you ever followed campaigns before?

the problem with having confidence in your conclusions is that they generally are based on faulty premises...

by bored now 2007-09-24 06:40PM | 0 recs
I have followed campaigns

Ford was from Memphis and was well tied into the African American community there.  He cris-crossed every black church in the state speaking to their issues, and his record on them.  He had the endorsement of just about every state and national African American that you could expect.

Still no surge.

by dpANDREWS 2007-09-25 04:36AM | 0 recs
i'll repeat myself...

in case you miss it:

i was unaware that ford made special efforts, like those done by other black candidates who reaped the benefit of the black vote.

do you know otherwise?  (every candidate chases endorsements, which rarely matter in the scheme of things.  obviously, that's not what i meant.)

by bored now 2007-09-25 06:05AM | 0 recs
I am not surprised that you were unaware.

by dpANDREWS 2007-09-25 12:04PM | 0 recs
right...

the difference is i'm talking about historical evidence and you're talking about what you think.  i'll stick by the evidence every time...

by bored now 2007-09-24 06:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Drags Down Swing-State Dems

This push poll (even though it's BS) says that Obama hurts the Dems. as much as Clinton ...

"... the news gets worse for Obama and Clinton as one delves deeper into the survey .... whether the question named Clinton or Obama, the Democratic incumbent's lead shrank to an average of six points: 47 percent ...."

did you even read it, or are you just going by the misleading title of this diary ?

(It's all BS, ofcourse, as the poll asked "Some people say (YOUR DEMOCRATIC INCUMBENT) is a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama and will support her/his liberal agenda of big government and higher taxes if she/he becomes President. If we re-elect (YOUR DEMOCRATIC INCUMBENT) they will be a rubber stamp for Clinton/Obama and will forget the values of our district.")

by silver spring 2007-09-23 12:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Drags Down Swing-State Dems

I don't believe Obama would lose in a landslide.

by Vox Populi 2007-09-23 03:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Drags Down Swing-State Dems

Obama only polls in the 30s in many states compared to 45% to 50% for Clinton and Edwards. It would be extremely difficult for Obama to get enough electoral votes to win.

by robliberal 2007-09-23 03:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Drags Down Swing-State Dems

Few support Edwards more than I do, and your assertion that Obama can't win because he's black offends me.

by Vox Populi 2007-09-23 06:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Drags Down Swing-State Dems

Wow Vox so you do have a sense of decency , I wonder where it disappeared to when you called Hillary Rodham Clinton a ,

  Harpie !!!

It would be nice to restrain yourself when you use offensive words or you are in danger of being hypocritical.

by lori 2007-09-23 06:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Drags Down Swing-State Dems

I'll refrain from using Harpie or other personal insults against Clinton in the future.

by Vox Populi 2007-09-23 07:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Drags Down Swing-State Dems

Thank You very much .

by lori 2007-09-23 07:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Drags Down Swing-State Dems

Even if they are true?

by yitbos96bb 2007-09-24 09:24AM | 0 recs
hahahahahaha!

I love it when the underinformed feign indignation.

So you are now offended by racism directed at Sen Obama, correct? Does that mean you have stopped making a point of adding the "Husayn" between his name?

Your diary is pointless, by the way. This issue has been discussed ad nauseum, and the myth has been debunked very recently on OpenLeft, so I suggest you do your research. Also, if you actually read your own poll, assuming an open mind, you would come to different conclusions.

I don't care anyway, I'm not behind Hillary, but your argument only makes her look better.

by alipi 2007-09-24 03:35AM | 0 recs
i'm not impressed by your conclusions...

highly theoretical and they pretend that all the candidates are equal -- that conditions will remain the same.  kinda amateurish, but you have a right to your opinion, and the right to express your opinion as often as you like!

by bored now 2007-09-24 04:24AM | 0 recs
Re: hahahahahaha!

huh? First off, who are you? I responded to Vox Populi not framecop - are you using multiple accounts?

Second off - what "ficticious poll numbers" are you referring to? I did not introduce any poll numbers that were not already in the diary. Are you disputing me or the diary? If you are disputing the diary (ie the "ficticious poll numbers") then you are closer to my position. If you are disputing me, you must not be able to read, because I introduced no new numbers.

Thirdly - I don't know what your race is. Is there a reason why I ought to? What message inside the message are you "detecting", exactly?

by alipi 2007-09-24 07:50AM | 0 recs
Re: hahahahahaha!

For god's sake man, WHAT are you talking about?? Please go back, read my original comment. Then read the comment above it. You will find that my response was directed at the comment above mine, written by another member who is not you, or a previous manifestation of you.

You took my comment as if it were a)pro poll (its not), b)about your race (its not), c)about you (its not) - unless if you wrote the diary.

You are behaving as if you have thought disorder of some variety. Please just STOP, take a breath, go back and READ.

by alipi 2007-09-25 06:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Drags Down Swing-State Dems

As a historical note Mississippi has had more black United States Senators than any other state. There have been two black U.S. Senators from Mississippi, they were Blanche Kelso Bruce and  Hiram Rhodes Revels.

by robliberal 2007-09-23 07:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Drags Down Swing-State Dems

Both were appointed by reconstruction legislatures, right?

Illinois has had two elected black senators.

by Vox Populi 2007-09-24 02:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Drags Down Swing-State Dems

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%.

by JaeHood 2007-09-23 11:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Drags Down Swing-State Dems

Again you are the only one I have met that will use a poll to justify whatever opinion you have and ignore the findings of what the poll set out to do ,

Even with the matchup thing you referred to and his favorable : Unfavorable numbers which are way better than Clinton's , the percentage point drop is the same +6 , this clearly disproves the arguments that her unfavorables will drag down the ticket ( i.e. the claim you make ) .

Obama has way better unfavorables and still drops to the same % point , this is clearly what the poll shows .

So if you continue to ignore reality , then I'll just leave you to your delusions.

by lori 2007-09-23 12:13PM | 0 recs
the problem with your theory is that hillary...

has universal name recognition and people are very comfortable with the opinions that have of her.  those opinions are strongly held.

the same is not true for obama, even among democrats.  so while this is a good benchmark for barack, it is a true test for hillary.  obama has a much better chance of changing the results of a poll like this than hillary.  dramatically better...

by bored now 2007-09-24 04:03AM | 0 recs
Re: the problem with your theory is that hillary..

Sorry, but that's just wrong.  Obama has a name recognition in the 90's, just a couple of points behind Clinton, according to Gallup.

by Denny Crane 2007-09-24 07:13AM | 0 recs
you missed the AND???

or do you not understand what it meant?

here's the latest from polling report:

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Sept. 7-9, 2007. N=1,017 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"We'd like to get your overall opinion of some people in the news. As I read each name, please say if you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of these people -- or if you have never heard of them. Illinois Senator Barack Obama." "Illinois Senator" omitted prior to June 2007.

Date    Fav    Unfav    NevHear    Unsure
9/7-9/07 49     27     10     13

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by Schulman, Ronca & Bucuvalas. Aug. 1-18, 2007. N=3,002 adults nationwide. MoE ± 2.

"Now I'd like your views on some people. Would you say your overall opinion of Barack Obama is very favorable, mostly favorable, mostly unfavorable, or very unfavorable?"

Date    VFav    MoFav    MoUnf    VUnf    NevHear    Can't Rate(vol.)
8/1-18/07 14    34    16    10    13    13

and, for comparison, hillary:

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Sept. 7-9, 2007. N=1,017 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"We'd like to get your overall opinion of some people in the news. As I read each name, please say if you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of these people -- or if you have never heard of them. New York Senator Hillary Clinton." "New York Senator" omitted prior to June 2007.

Date    Fav    Unfav    NevHear    Unsure
9/7-9/07     53     39     1     7

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by Schulman, Ronca & Bucuvalas. Aug. 1-18, 2007. N=3,002 adults nationwide. MoE ± 2. December 2006 and earlier surveys conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International.

"Now I'd like your views on some people. Would you say your overall opinion of Hillary Clinton is very favorable, mostly favorable, mostly unfavorable, or very unfavorable?"

Date    VFav    MoFav    MoUnf    VUnf    NevHear    Can't Rate(vol.)
8/1-18/07     21     34     18     21     6

i can't help you if you don't see the difference in these numbers.  but they support what i said...

by bored now 2007-09-24 02:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Drags Down Swing-State Dems

No, because the Repugs. will run very nasty attack ads against whoever the Dem. nominee is.  This poll (counter-intuitively) actually hints that  Clinton may be more resilient to such attacks from Repugs.  Whereas, at the beginning of the poll Obama was in relatively better shape than Clinton (what you're referencing above), once they ran the nasty push poll stuff, the difference of having Clinton OR Obama on top of the ticket was shrunk to 0% (no difference).

by silver spring 2007-09-23 12:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Drags Down Swing-State Dems

Did the diariest even bother noting that this propaganda poll or whatever you want to call it was done by Celinda Lake who works for Joe Biden , this should be duly noted and the washington post is running a propaganda poll by a rival campaign leaked to the post as news.    

So why is "Democratic pollster" Celinda Lake running propaganda polls about Obama and Clinton? Why is Cillizza running them as news? More importantly, why isn't Cillizza telling us that Celinda Lake works for the rival Biden campaign.

This is just bizarre.

by lori 2007-09-23 12:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Drags Down Swing-State Dems

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

by Justify My Vote 2007-09-23 12:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Drags Down Swing-State Dems
What I want to see is a poll without the push questions.  The greater question is Clinton's
electability.
by mikelow1885 2007-09-23 12:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Drags Down Swing-State Dems

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

by Toddwell 2007-09-23 12:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Drags Down Swing-State Dems

I wouldn't come to that conclusion.

First of all, out of the 31 districts, Kerry only carried 11 (and 8 of those by 53% or less).  Bush carried the other 20 districts, many by very large margins -- Lampson (64% Bush); Ellsworth (62% Bush);  Carney (60% Bush); Hill (59% Bush); Boyda (59% Bush); etc.

So these may be "swing" districts in terms of House races, but they are not exactly "swing" districts in terms of the the Presidential vote (Chris Bowers points this out in his Open Left diary).  

Second, this is just one poll (taken July 21 - Aug. 5, btw) out of many ... a national Battleground poll released on July 27 had Giuliani up on Clinton by 6 points, while Obama was beating Giuliani by 10 points.  If you look at other polls since then (and the RCP average), Clinton is now doing relatively better than Obama (it's always better to average polls; and look at the most recent ones available).

The Battleground poll I cited above, was interestingly enough, done by Celinda Lake/Lake Research Partners, the same pollster who did the one that's subject of this diary:

http://www.tarrance.com/11363-Battlegrou nd-Poll-2008.pdf

by silver spring 2007-09-23 01:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Drags Down Swing-State Dems

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.

by JaeHood 2007-09-23 12:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Drags Down Swing-State Dems

Clinton has been endorsed by 4 members in the "swing" districts cited in this poll; 2 have endorsed Obama and 1 Edwards.

http://thehill.com/endorsements-2008.htm l

by silver spring 2007-09-23 01:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Drags Down Swing-State Dems

two(Gillibrand and Hall) are in her home state and Joe Sestak is in a very blue district.  Hooley I dont know about.  

by Toddwell 2007-09-23 01:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Drags Down Swing-State Dems

Hooley is not one of the "endangered freshmen".

Obama's 2 endorsers from this list of 31, are Hodes (Kerry 52% in district) and Patrick Murphy (Kerry 51%).  Sestak's district went for Kerry by 53%, btw.

by silver spring 2007-09-23 01:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Drags Down Swing-State Dems

53% for Kerry means that a district is pretty blue, thats five points more than the national average.

by Toddwell 2007-09-23 02:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Drags Down Swing-State Dems

If you're looking at overall endorsements from candidates running in seats Bush won in 2004 (but not including home-state endorsements) the list is as follows:

Clinton (6):
Rep. Marion Berry (D-Ark.)
Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas)
Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (D-Texas)
Rep. Darlene Hooley (D-Ore.)
Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.)
Rep. Vic Snyder (D-Ark.)

Obama (1):
Rep. Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.)

Edwards (2):
Rep. Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin (D-S.D.)
Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.)

by silver spring 2007-09-23 02:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Drags Down Swing-State Dems

btw, as 4 of these candidates (out of 31) have already outright endorsed Clinton, it's now mathematically impossible that "90% of those members will ask Hillary to not come campaign in their district ..."  lol

by silver spring 2007-09-23 01:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Drags Down Swing-State Dems

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.

by frankies 2007-09-23 12:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Drags Down Swing-State Dems

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.  

by Toddwell 2007-09-23 12:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Drags Down Swing-State Dems

Exactly...Expect some democrats to warn her to not come to their district.

by JaeHood 2007-09-23 01:01PM | 0 recs
Hillary=Dukakis

I think some conservative may run anti-Hillary ads in their district just to make it clear they also dislike her.

by JaeHood 2007-09-23 01:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary=Dukakis

I met "conservative democrats"

by JaeHood 2007-09-23 01:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary=Dukakis

Did your John Edwards crystal ball tell you that? How mcuh is he selling those for again?

by RJEvans 2007-09-23 01:05PM | 0 recs
Then Support Richardson

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.

by Stephen Cassidy 2007-09-23 01:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Then Support Richardson

The MSM believes it is a race between HRC and Obama.

by Stephen Cassidy 2007-09-23 06:42PM | 0 recs
edwards isn't competitive...

he can't raise real money -- he's stuck in a pre-2003 world...

by bored now 2007-09-24 04:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Drags Down Swing-State Dems

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

by truthteller2007 2007-09-23 01:37PM | 0 recs
your hatred of obama is never surprising...

if you hated republicans as much as you hate democrats, we'd have a party!

by bored now 2007-09-24 04:06AM | 0 recs
in a mythical world...

by bored now 2007-09-24 04:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Drags Down Swing-State Dems

Gore and Kerry were victims of Bush-Cheney-Rove Smear campaign.
Gore- The Invention of the Internet. No Control Legal Authority.
Kerry- The Swift Boat Ads.

Hillary may be a polarizing figure but she has gained respect from Republican who had doubts about her. She will do an excellent job fighting back against Republican smear machine. Hillary has the best War Room Strategy. Hillary wins by a comfortable margin.

Edwards will lose in a close election. Edwards is currently being a victim of a Republican Smear. Republicans are bringing up the Expensive Haircuts. Driving SUVS. They are portraying Edwards as an elitist.
Edwards is less likely to fight back against Republican smear. HE SUCKED During the VP Debate against Darth VADER.

by nkpolitics 2007-09-24 08:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Drags Down Swing-State Dems

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.  

by Ryan Anderson 2007-09-23 02:02PM | 0 recs
ummm nope

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.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2007-09-23 03:56PM | 0 recs
buy a clue

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.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2007-09-23 04:05PM | 0 recs
Re: buy a clue

Email me with your address, I have a few more Clinton caps remaining. :)

by Vox Populi 2007-09-23 04:12PM | 0 recs
it's not a push poll...

i don't think you'd incorporate the facts, so i won't say more...  

by bored now 2007-09-24 04:13AM | 0 recs
Yes, it's a push poll

"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," the poll stated, before asking respondents whether they would still vote for their incumbent or choose a Republican candidate.

It's the very definition of a push poll. No reputable polling organization would ever ask a question like that. With wording like that, I think this poll is actually very good news for both Clinton and Obama.  Even when you include nonsense about "big government" and "higher taxes", they still have a six point advantage.

by Denny Crane 2007-09-24 07:41AM | 0 recs
i'm sorry you don't understand what a push poll is

the asking of a negative question is not the definition of a push poll.  it's not even close.  we have an accepted definition of pushing polling:

A "Push Poll" is a telemarketing technique in which telephone calls are used to canvass vast numbers of potential voters, feeding them false and damaging "information" about a candidate under the guise of taking a poll to see how this "information" effects voter preferences. In fact, the intent is to "push" the voters away from one candidate and toward the opposing candidate. This is clearly political telemarketing, using innuendo and, in many cases, clearly false information to influence voters; there is no intent to conduct research.

push polls are defined by three primary characteristics:

1. instead of a sample, push polls seek to contact a very large universe of the electorate, thus the push poll is a form of telemarketing masquerading as a poll.more akin to telemarketing techniques than survey research techniques.

2. push polls occur within the context of an imminently approaching election.  they seek to influence not merely the respondent's answer, but the conversation and the election itself.  Push-polls are designed to shape, rather than measure, public opinion.

3. push polls are short (20-60 seconds long), very pointed, and will not include any demographic questions.

people like yourself, people not really acquainted with the needs and demands of a political campaign, may not wish to understand that the term is also sometimes used inaccurately to refer to legitimate polls which test political messages, some of which may be negative.

cbs has a more detailed explanation:

Not all questions that seem negative are part of push polls. Candidate organizations sometimes do actual polls that contain negative information about the opposing candidate. These polls, which are not push polls, are conducted for the same reasons market and advertising researchers do their work: to see what kinds of themes and packages move the public.

In the advertisers' case, they want to figure out the best way to reach buyers; candidate pollsters need to motivate voters. Polls done for campaign research are full-length, with more topics than just questions about the opponent, and include demographic questions that allow researchers to categorize respondents. Interviewers won't ask to speak to anyone by name, but are calling a sample of randomly selected telephone numbers.

A lot of the push poll complaints that come to the attention of organizations like the National Council on Public Polls and the American Association for Public Opinion Research [national associations of survey researchers who try to uphold standards in their fields] are complaints about real candidate polls. The complaints are about the tone and the truthfulness of the questions that are asked.

The polls they complain of are real, although sometimes the questions may include the sort of negative information that are common in push polls and other advocacy telemarketing. The researchers ask hypothetical questions about a person's vote should they learn particular things about an opposing candidate.

instead, people are complaining about a survey on message.  testing message is not only an accepted practice -- even when it includes negative questions -- it is absolutely essential to the revision of any serious campaign.  if a campaign is not testing negative messages on their opponents, it's highly unlikely they are a serious candidacy in a competitive environment.  legitimate pollsters are banned from doing push polling, and no pollster would admit that they did one.  celinda lake, just by identifying herself and her firm -- including to poll respondents -- did not conduct a push poll.

only people who don't understand campaigns, polling and standard tactics would argue that this is a push poll...

by bored now 2007-09-24 03:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Drags Down Swing-State Dems

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

by Toddwell 2007-09-23 04:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Drags Down Swing-State Dems

She is the 1984 candidate in so many ways:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h3G-lMZx jo

Let's pray she doesn't do as poorly as Mondale.

by Vox Populi 2007-09-23 05:13PM | 0 recs
Hillary=Dukakis+Mondale

If she wins the nomination , we'll all be doomed but i'm confident she wont win it...Obama will win the nomination.

by JaeHood 2007-09-23 06:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Drags Down Swing-State Dems

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.

by georgep 2007-09-23 05:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Drags Down Swing-State Dems

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.

by georgep 2007-09-23 05:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Drags Down Swing-State Dems
I don't mind diaries like this- though it's critical of Clinton- because it does seem like it could be a legitimate concern- I think it's a reasonable discussion to want to bring up even if the intent may be questionable. But I don't think it's conclusive that she will have the effect that is being drawn. And I think that republican candidates are so lackluster, many are not going to be hyped up to want to vote. Religious ones, especially, are going to be conflicted about Rudy's pro-abortion views he has held. It's an issue so important to some, they will hesitate to vote at all.
by reasonwarrior 2007-09-23 05:36PM | 0 recs
oh, yeah, i remember that line...

when president carter was delighting over the republican's leaning towards ronald reagan...

by bored now 2007-09-24 04:15AM | 0 recs
Clinton Helps Down Swing-State Dems

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.

by Judeling 2007-09-23 05:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Helps Down Swing-State Dems

We should be trying to build up the Democratic brand, not finding a way to fracture it and force Democrats to run against their presidential candidate.  That's insanity.

by Vox Populi 2007-09-23 06:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Helps Down Swing-State Dems

shiiiit , i'd run against Hillary too if i was sitting on a swing district in Georgia.

We have 2 Georgia house member that are always in a tough fight for their political life every 2 years and although both of them held on by a few % in a democratic wave year, i expect both of those congressmen to lose their seat next year.

I just cant see how those 2 geogian keeps their seats with Hillary topping the democratic ticket.

Just think about it...During one of the strongest democratic year where Democrat swept everything around , those 2 guys in georgia had to duel it out with their GOP opponent...This time around , they better pray Hillary doesn't win the nomination or they're dead

by JaeHood 2007-09-23 07:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Helps Down Swing-State Dems

I think Baron won his re-election bid by a few hundred votes...With Hillary on top , he's definately a "GONER!!"

by JaeHood 2007-09-23 07:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Drags Down Swing-State Dems

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

by silver spring 2007-09-23 06:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Drags Down Swing-State Dems

i don't think anyone would pick Bayh as their VP pick because this would guaaranty the GOP a senate seat in INDY...I dont think Schumer would be too please by that since he wants to win as many senate seat as possible without losing any.

If Hillary wins , i think he may pick the governor in Ohio or the Florida senator.

If Obama wins , he'll go for the Virginia governor or even John Edwards if he wants to do it again.

Edwards will probably have a minority on his list since he's weak there and this group will need someone to energize them...I see Edwards going for Richardson or Obama.

by JaeHood 2007-09-23 07:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Drags Down Swing-State Dems

Vilsack's co-chairing of her campaign, Bayh's predicatable endorsement of Clinton--each of these do indeed point to the greater influence of the DLC over the Democratic Party, if Clinton is the nominee.

by justinh 2007-09-24 08:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Drags Down Swing-State Dems

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

by lordmikethegreat 2007-09-23 08:25PM | 0 recs
Good news for Clinton fans

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.

by JaeHood 2007-09-24 12:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Good news for Clinton fans

As much crap as I got from them for posting this "hit diary" as they call it, seems as though about half of the MyDD community has rec'd it.

by Vox Populi 2007-09-24 02:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Good news for Clinton fans

Of course, Hit diaries always perform well. Especially if they're anti Clinton. There is nothing new about that, infact there is nothing good about that.

The fact that you selectively quote the article and ignore the data that didn't conform to your message make it a hit diary. That so many people rec it says that it's a popular subject.

You wrote a incorrect yet popular diary. You weren't the first, you won't be the last. But popularity doesn't make your diary true. I'm not sure how correct Bower is over at open left, but his analysis is a lot more accurate. Now it might not be a hit diary, I'm fully willing to believe you didn't purposely excluded the important bits, the resulting analysis is still false.

by Ernst 2007-09-24 07:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Drags Down Swing-State Dems

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.

by Denny Crane 2007-09-24 07:25AM | 0 recs
What a stupid poll

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

by kingsbridge77 2007-09-24 09:22AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads