Posted on 01/30/2015 12:28:50 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Mitt Romney’s not running for President again, telling supporters that it’s time for the Republican Party to look to other leaders for its future. Democrats may wonder whether they have to tell Hillary Clinton the same thing. In a PPP poll taken this week, Hillary Clinton can’t get to 50% against any Republican challenger paired against her, even Romney:
The automated poll of nearly 900 registered voters, conducted last week by Public Policy Polling, found that 48 percent of respondents had an unfavorable opinion of Clinton, compared to 43 percent who viewed the former secretary of State favorably.
While Clinton — the prospective favorite for the Democratic presidential nomination should she enter the race — holds leads over every major GOP candidate tested in the poll, she doesn’t break 50 percent against any, and some are well within striking distance. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker comes closest, with Clinton leading him by a margin of 45 percent to 42 percent (with 14 percent not sure who they’d vote for) – within the survey’s margin of error of plus or minus 3.3 percent.
It’s worth noting the provenance of this particular survey:
The poll was provided to POLITICO by one of the donors who funded it, who asked to remain anonymous. It does not directly ask respondents to rate Warren’s favorability or to choose between the Massachusetts Senator and Clinton, nor does it pit Warren against any of the prospective GOP candidates. But it appears to be part of a broader effort by liberal Democratic donors and activists to make the case that Warren, who has repeatedly insisted she has no interest in running for president, could defeat Clinton for the Democratic nomination and also would be a more viable general election candidate.
If that’s the case, then Warren supporters have lots of reasons to be disappointed in the results. In the demos, the sample splits 45/44 between Obama and Romney voters in 2012, so it’s relatively close to reality. Most of the questions that follow the candidate matchups look very much like a push poll, with the first one prominently mentioning Warren and her slogan that “the system is rigged” in favor of Wall Street and the big banks. The next eight questions alternate between painting Hillary as the tool of both, and Warren as the savior of the working class. (That’s only a slight exaggeration; read the questions for yourselves.) The next five questions attack Hillary on foreign policy, and then two more go after the idea of a Clinton dynasty and Hillary’s claims of executive experience.
It’s pretty much the Full Progressive Smash on Hillary, and her numbers are accordingly lopsided. She only gets 37/43 for the nomination by question 23, and then a 24/40 on whether her nomination would make voters more/less likely to vote for other Democrats in question 24. Even with all of that push polling and flattery, though, Warren only gets a 25/37 on the same coattail measure in question 25 – almost identical to Hillary. Warren supporters may have outdone themselves with this exercise.
This still doesn’t translate to good news for Hillary, though. Given her high name recognition and her four years in the Obama administration — plus the continuing popularity of Bill Clinton — she should be soaring over the little-known competitors in the GOP. Yet Scott Walker, who has barely engaged national media, comes within three points of Clinton in a D+2, 45/44 2012-Obama/Romney sample and holds her to 45%. That’s a bad sign for someone who’s more or less going to be in an incumbent-like position, and who has proven to be less than adept on a campaign trail in two different iterations — 2008 and her book tour last year.
This is the second poll this week that suggests that Hillary’s support is collapsing. Andrew Malcolm picked up a similar trend from a Zogby poll earlier in the week:
In just the past month, when no one with a real life was thinking about the 2016 presidential race, Hillary Clinton’s massive poll lead over every single potential Republican opponent has collapsed.
In a hypothetical match-up, her margin over Jeb Bush, the closest GOP president, was cut in half to eight points this month, 45%-37%, according to Zogby. That’s down from a whopping 15-point lead in December. Similarly, the former first lady’s 15-point margin over Mitt Romney slid to nine points, 46%-37%.
Still sizable margins, to be sure. But trending uncomfortably in the wrong direction even before an announcement, as Clinton goes to ground to plot her campaign, assemble staff and devise a credible rationale other than gender for why Americans should let her move back into the White House, this time in the West Wing.
Maybe the problem is that no one’s heard why Hillary wants to run for the office, other than to move back into the White House. According to one reporter, even David Axelrod isn’t clear “what are we ready for when people say Ready for Hillary” (via TWS):
Chris Cillizza and Aaron Blake ask another question — if not Hillary, then who?
We are rapidly approaching the point of no return for Clinton. That is, if she were to suddenly take herself out of the race in, say, two months time, there would be a massive sense of doom within the party. The shock of the decision would reverberate for weeks — and maybe even months — making it hard for anyone looking to fill the void she left behind.
Now, that doom would eventually be followed by a wild scramble among the Bidens, Martin O’Malleys and, yes, even Elizabeth Warrens of the party for the donors, activists and staffers that had all been assumed to be part of the Clinton machine. But, doing things in a hurry with what would widely be regarded as Democrats “B” or even “C” team would be deeply problematic.
Simply put: For Clinton to pass on the race — and especially if she waits until summer to make her decision public — would be absolutely disastrous for her party’s chances of holding onto the White House next November. She and her budding team have to know that and it’s hard for me to imagine that she would have let things go this far — there is, literally, an entire campaign and outside group world already in place for her — if she had any serious or lingering doubts about whether she was going to make the race.
Democrats had better start looking for a Plan B, and it had better not be Elizabeth Warren, who can’t even win her own push polls.
Dems will just split the GOP and run a third party candidate. They fund the third party and assure their own victory. Just check out how Bill clinton won election.
Scott Walker the closest? Only 3 behind with Hillary at 45? Closer then the Liberals... Something weird is in the air...
It was found that the more Hillary was covered the more her popularity dropped. It rose when she laid low.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Hillary is the left’s equivalent of Sarah Palin and has as much chance at winning the votes of those that are not her strong supporters.
Except Hillary has no track record.
Just published an under 2 minute video here:
http://youtu.be/8Uey1TiB4XY
Better hurry. Due to the content, no telling how long it will remain up!
“It was found that the more Hillary was covered the more her popularity dropped. It rose when she laid low.”
Corollary: The more Hitlary talks, the worse it gets for her. She’s a terrible stump speaker, and has never had to debate anyone for anything in her life. The RATs are screwed either way.
Now if the GOP “circular firing squad” can just lay down their arms and let the primary process work unfettered ( which I doubt will happen ), we might just win the election.
Bear in mind, if the RATS don’t have someone to vote FOR this go-around, they will definitely be messing in our primaries, so be careful what you wish for.
That 48% unfavorable rating is going to make it tough for Hillary. When you consider that she hasn’t been as much in the public eye lately and her many scandals are not fresh in the minds of the voters, as they will be during the campaign, I have a feeling it will only get worse.
The only way the GOP could lose to her would be to nominate a candidate even less liked, respected and admired than her. Now that Willard is out, that leaves Bush, Huckabee and Christie as the only ones I think could manage to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.
He said the criteria for choosing a candidate are what he calls the "3 Ps" - Principled, Positive and Proven.
If you listen to him explain the judgement necessary and agree, then it becomes obvious that Hillary (along with several of the republican candidates) don't deserve to make the cut.
Two who obviously do make the cut are Walker and Cruz.
Open Borders Walker?
In a PPP poll taken this week, Hillary Clinton can't get to 50% against any Republican challenger paired against her, even Romney... Warren supporters have lots of reasons to be disappointed in the results. In the demos, the sample splits 45/44 between Obama and Romney voters in 2012, so it's relatively close to reality. Most of the questions that follow the candidate matchups look very much like a push poll, with the first one prominently mentioning Warren and her slogan that "the system is rigged" in favor of Wall Street and the big banks. The next eight questions alternate between painting Hillary as the tool of both, and Warren as the savior of the working class. (That’s only a slight exaggeration; read the questions for yourselves.) The next five questions attack Hillary on foreign policy, and then two more go after the idea of a Clinton dynasty and Hillary’s claims of executive experience. It's pretty much the Full Progressive Smash on Hillary, and her numbers are accordingly lopsided. She only gets 37/43 for the nomination by question 23, and then a 24/40 on whether her nomination would make voters more/less likely to vote for other Democrats in question 24. Even with all of that push polling and flattery, though, Warren only gets a 25/37 on the same coattail measure in question 25 -- almost identical to Hillary. Warren supporters may have outdone themselves with this exercise.The press didn't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore, following his 1962 loss in the Cali guvnah race.
“Bear in mind, if the RATS don’t have someone to vote FOR this go-around, they will definitely be messing in our primaries, so be careful what you wish for.”
What I was referring to was the way that the GOPE puts their foot on the scale like they did down in Mississippi. It’s one think for the RATS to try and subvert our elections, but it’s quite another for one part of our party doing it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.