June 10, 2015

A new PPP poll has Clinton losing Ohio by 7 points to Ohio Governor Kasich and by 3 points to Rand Paul.

Rubio ties her, and Walker, Carson, and Cruz are only one point behind. Bush has 2 points to make up, and Huckabee — a person I see as having no chance at all — trails by a mere 3 points.

(PDF.)

84 comments:

clint said...

How much longer before the Dems drop Hillary?

(If she can't beat the spread against Huckabee, America's just not that in to her.)

Ann Althouse said...

The other Democrats do much worse than Hillary Clinton in this poll (where they are put head to head with the various Republicans).

Who do the Democrats have to put forward?

Big Mike said...

Q1 Do you approve or disapprove of President
Barack Obama’s job performance?

Approve .......................................................... 43%
Disapprove...................................................... 49%
Not sure .......................................................... 8%


Since 43% of the poll respondents are certifiably insane, the poll as a whole is meaningless.

The Drill SGT said...

If she loses in Ohio (a big important state that (D)'s count on) to folks with less name recognition, and with her popularity certain to decrease, she is dead woman walking.

Carson?

wow...

Stay the course (D)'s your minority turnout machine will do as well as the last two elections even if you run an old white woman against a young Hispanic. If that fails, you'll win the youth vote with an old white woman against a young Hispanic. If that fails, the 30 million gays and trans people will suddenly get energized to vote for the mother of DADT and DOMA...



The Drill SGT said...

Who do the Democrats have to put forward?

None of the above...

Sebastian said...

ABC should be core GOP strategy.

Original Mike said...

"How much longer before the Dems drop Hillary?"

They can't dump her if she doesn't want to get dumped. That's the thing with primaries as opposed to smoke filled rooms.

Amichel said...

I'd love to see Bernie Sanders win the Democratic nomination, and go down in righteous flames; a leftwing Goldwater.

clint said...

"Who do the Democrats have to put forward?"

I still like Evan Bayh -- moderate, midwestern, governor and senator. ("Still" because he was my pick for the dems in 2008, when he put together an exploratory committee)

I can't see the current Democratic party nominating a moderate white man, but I think he'd be a much stronger candidate in the general.

Bay Area Guy said...

I get chastized when I say this, but I still think Hillary is a formidable candidate.

It doesn't surprise me she's gonna lag behind Kasich in Ohio -- Kasich is and remains a popular Governor there.

She's almost guaranteed 48% of the popular vote and starts with 240 or so of the electoral vote (thanks NY and Cal!)

So, Yes, I think her roll-out sucked, and she's taken some hits, and various blogs have mocked her collars(!), but, at the end of the day, "somebody" has to win, and she has a 50-50 shot at being that "somebody."

And, Yes, there will be ups and downs, and zigs and zags, but I don't think this Macro dynamic changes, unless something drastic happens or the President's poll numbers tank to the low 40s.

I could be wrong, but that's what I see.

Michael K said...

"I can't see the current Democratic party nominating a moderate white man, but I think he'd be a much stronger candidate in the general."

The Democrats destroyed their party with the 1972, "reforms" that put McGovern up as nominee. They did overthrow Nixon and that let Carter in and Perot elected Clinton but they are a dead party walking, even with Obama capitalizing on elections that no white Democrat would have won. Certainly none with his resume.

It will be interesting to see what they do when Hillary implodes, especially if it is spectacular. I can see her going nuts in a debate. This is the First Lady who ordered that West Wing employees were not allowed to look at her.

Brando said...

Still too early to get my hopes up, and as I believed when she was up by double digits, the final race next November will tighten considerably. The GOP nominee will have name recognition, and both candidates will have suffered a barrage of negative attacks by then, and partisans will line up with their respective sides. The final count will depend on partisan enthusiasm and which way the moderates break.

I'm hoping Hillary's latest plan of veering left backfires. If the GOP wins the moderates, the election is in the bag--the partisan Republicans have all the incentive they need to turn out against Hillary.

Tank said...

AA said:

"Who do the Democrats have to put forward?"


Mike Bloomberg

@Michael K - Hillary managed to make it through several debates last time without "going nuts."

Brando said...

"I can see her going nuts in a debate."

I don't see her "going nuts" so much as trying to stick to a script, and maybe having a testy moment if she can't handle the questions well. The only way she can "win" a debate is if the Republican screws up by seeming to "bully" her. Remember, her biggest strength is in inviting pity (see, Lazio, Rick).

The other big factor is ground operation--if the GOP can replicate Obama's ability to identify and motivate its supporters, it could mean an extra couple points in the key states.

Brando said...

"I get chastized when I say this, but I still think Hillary is a formidable candidate."

I agree that she's hard to beat, simply because she's the Democrat (and they have the natural electoral advantage) and has no primary opposition and a mountain of cash. But as a natural "candidate" she's quite terrible--no people skills, a manner that comes off as cold and fake on TV, a speaking style that irks when it doesn't bore, and awful, awful tactical and strategic decisions. A "neutral" Democrat in Hillary's position would be far more formidable than this particular one.

cubanbob said...

@Micheal K presuming you are right then it would explain the penchant the democrats have for affirmative action candidates-its the novelty factor they need to win an election. First a black man, then a white woman followed by whatever novelty act they think will work.

As for the polls, this far out how reliable can they be when the average voter hasn't a clue on who the candidates are at this time? Hillary has name recognition across the board but the republican candidates are known to who? The few people who are political junkies? Its a ll a bit premature.

Franklin said...

PPP is nothing but push polls. Think about why they want you to think that Hillary is losing?

Brando said...

"I'd love to see Bernie Sanders win the Democratic nomination, and go down in righteous flames; a leftwing Goldwater."

I'd like to see that because (a) it means the Clintons are yet again humiliated by their own party; (b) the Democrats will at least have been honest with themselves and nominated a true Leftist (rather than a cynical opportunist which in some ways is worse because there's nothing they won't do). Then, if he loses badly, the party might realize that the "we only care about our half of the country" is a pretty awful electoral (and governing) strategy.

Original Mike said...

"I can see her going nuts in a debate."

At this point, what difference does it make?

sunsong said...

I like Kasich. He actually responds to the people. Imagine that.

EMD said...

You're forgetting about the inevitable Hillary media resuscitation.

Too early in the game.


EMD said...

I like Kasich but he couldn't even pull a Scott Walker on public unions in a state that is probably more red than Wisconsin.

Original Mike said...

I don't know what it is, but there's something about Kasich that rubs me the wrong way.

tim in vermont said...

Maybe Kasich bought a "speed boat" for Lake Erie?

Mark said...

@Michael K - Hillary managed to make it through several debates last time without "going nuts."

That was before she bamaged her drain.

Bay Area Guy said...

@Brando:

I agree that she's hard to beat, simply because she's the Democrat (and they have the natural electoral advantage) and has no primary opposition and a mountain of cash.

Exactly! You said it better than me. It's almost a structural advantage, not nearly as pronounced as, say, the Democratic candidate for Mayor of Chicago, but similar.


But as a natural "candidate" she's quite terrible--no people skills, a manner that comes off as cold and fake on TV, a speaking style that irks when it doesn't bore, and awful, awful tactical and strategic decisions.

Yes, yes and yes. She's almost the opposite of her husband. No personal skills or magnetism whatsoever. Reminds me of my old elementary school Principal, about to scold me.

A "neutral" Democrat in Hillary's position would be far more formidable than this particular one.

But, there isn't one out there. In 2004, Howard Dean built all this momentum, had all the passion, had all these liberal bloggers, and the establishment Dems simply said, "we can take him down, anytime we want" and they did so in Iowa.

I hope Hillary crashes and burns. But, like many people, the fallacy of "wishful thinking" has burned me in several past elections, so I am trying to force myself not to make those type of mistakes again.

Big Mike said...

@Bay Area Guy, interesting analysis, but I'm still trying to figure out how Hillary will get 48% of the vote when 58% of the likely voters despise her. The math just doesn't quite work out.

traditionalguy said...

If O'Mally had the courage of Jenner she would buy a wig and pretty clothes and begin her transition so she can announce she is running to be the first Woman President. That would leaves Hillary with nothing to left to run on except her husband's record.

Eustace Chilke said...

I hope she melts like the wicked witch. She's toast like McCaskill was in 012 if the stumblebum RINOs don't resurrect her like they did for mama Claire. I never underestimate the perversity of a RINO, or a whole herd of them, so I won't believe it's over until they pound the stake through her heart.

MadisonMan said...

I didn't know Kasich was running.

Should I be paying more attention? Maybe come Halloween.

The Drill SGT said...

traditionalguy said...
If O'Mally had the courage of Jenner she would buy a wig and pretty clothes and begin her transition so she can announce she is running to be the first Woman President. That would leaves Hillary with nothing to left to run on except her husband's record.


Her ovaries....

SteveR said...

When its all said and done, the media will push forward whatever narrative is needed to capture the small percentage that gets her from the guaranteed EC total over the 273. That means by fear, misinformation and the 2016 version of the "Candy Crowley" act.

The Drill SGT said...

<Bay Area Guy said...

She's almost guaranteed 48% of the popular vote and starts with 240 or so of the electoral vote (thanks NY and Cal!)


doesn't that 240 include Ohio? If Ben Carson gets that close, the final GOP candidate should carry Ohio, and if that is the way things break, WI, and PA ought to be in play and VA safely GOP.

Mark said...

I'm still trying to figure out how Hillary will get 48% of the vote when 58% of the likely voters despise her. The math just doesn't quite work out.

I think the assumption is that after the next 18 months of character assassination of every Republican who dares the light of day will suppress Republican turnout and inflame the Democratic base. Personally, I think that strategy has gotten tired, and that the Democratic "base" that didn't squander its educational opportunities on Grievance Studies isn't going to turn out for Madame Turtleneck.

tim in vermont said...

PA ought to be in play

PA is *never* in play. Too much fraud. An AG was just forced to resign for suggesting it be investigated.

tim in vermont said...

Democratic "base" that didn't squander its educational opportunities on Grievance Studies isn't going to turn out for Madame Turtleneck.

Let me tell you, some of those kids are feeling pretty used right now too.

Brando said...

"@Bay Area Guy, interesting analysis, but I'm still trying to figure out how Hillary will get 48% of the vote when 58% of the likely voters despise her. The math just doesn't quite work out."

Of that 58%, a certain percentage of them hate (or will hate) the GOP more. In the heat of the campaign, voters will gravitate towards their respective sides, and a lot of people will pull levers while holding their noses.

This is what Hillary has to depend on. She's already given up on trying to win even moderates (let alone conservatives) and is hoping for a base-energizing strategy to pull out a victory.

Besides not wanting the Clintons back in office, I want to see that strategy fail if only because if it succeeds we are setting an awful precedent. How can anyone lead this country if they have genuine contempt for half of it?

Brando said...

"Personally, I think that strategy has gotten tired, and that the Democratic "base" that didn't squander its educational opportunities on Grievance Studies isn't going to turn out for Madame Turtleneck."

The Obama coalition has seen 8 years of empty promises answered by bank bailouts, a sluggish economy, and cheap pandering. I doubt they'll jump in line for the Democrats to the same degree in 2016.

TosaGuy said...

Polls 18 months out? meh.

Part of Mrs. Clinton's strategy of staying out of the limelight is to leave open space for GOP candidates to beat each other up and for partisans on the right to gorge themselves sick on scandal now (leaving them full and exhausted later) and for the lib progs to have a summer fling with Bernie Sanders to dream about when they tie the knot with Hillary next fall.

Hagar said...

Kasich speaks better English now than the last time he ran, but still not well enough to get nominated.

tim in vermont said...

Part of Mrs. Clinton's strategy of staying out of the limelight is to leave open space for GOP candidates to beat each other up

How's that working out for her?

AJ Lynch said...

Here is a poll for you to consider Althouse. Who would the Dems draft if they see Hillary as a loser:

a- George Clooney
b- Michelle Obama
c- A transgender, mixed race, handicapped person
d- One of the Castro brothers [the American Castros I hope]
e- Jon Stewart
f- Michael Buttinsky Bloomberg

The Drill SGT said...

AJ Lynch said...

We want Chelsea. She's 35 and has a strong track record of public service :)

The Drill SGT said...

did I mention she's a she? has ovaries that work? and a better neck?

AJ Lynch said...

Orig Mike said:

"I don't know what it is, but there's something about Kasich that rubs me the wrong way."

Agreed.
He gives me the impression he feels he has had a stellar Hall of Fame career so far which I fail to see.

AJ Lynch said...

Sgt: I almost included Chelsea!

TosaGuy said...

"How's that working out for her?"

Like a soldier in a WWI trench. Get pounded with artillery for months and then rise out of your hole a bit dazed and dusty and prepare to mow down attacking infantry led by a general who thinks such an attack will work this time.

I do think she is quite beatable and has numerous flaws to exploit, but she hasn't lifted a finger yet and people are forgetting that.

The Drill SGT said...

c- A transgender, mixed race, handicapped person

Tammie Duckworth?

j/k

but she could fill the slot on the right wing of the party. the three votes for

A mixed race, handicapped veteran person

mikee said...

Hillary Clinton is a horrible person, a terrible totalitarian politician, and should not be allowed within a mile of any position of responsibility and authority - unless your goals include government-wide corruption and administrative nepotism and political oppression.

I look forward to Althouse and other good people finally having some straw - out of the bales and bales of straw in the many barns full of straw that are available - that breaks the camel's back regarding Hillary Clinton. Because otherwise we will see a repeat of too-late regret, like happened with our current president.

Brando said...

"I hope Hillary crashes and burns. But, like many people, the fallacy of "wishful thinking" has burned me in several past elections, so I am trying to force myself not to make those type of mistakes again."

Very wise--the GOP has regretted underestimating Bill Clinton and Obama repeatedly, and often failed to see just how poor their own candidates (and the party's standing among voters outside their core base) was viewed. Hillary needs to make the GOP alternative unbearable to a large number of voters who otherwise are turned off by the Clintons or at least won't bother to vote.

Hopefully the GOP has learned something from their recent presidential defeats.

gerry said...

I like Kasich but he couldn't even pull a Scott Walker on public unions in a state that is probably more red than Wisconsin.

Walker exempted public safety unions (Police and Fire) from his effort. Kasich did not.

Bay Area Guy said...

@ Brando

I agree with that, and also think that Conservatives don't seem to appreciate that the voting electorate has changed -- less white, less male, less religious. Reagan, who I did admire (and still do), would not win national landslides with this demography.

I've been in California for decades -- the physical geography remains spectacular. The demography, however, has greatly changed. I'm not saying that as a xenophobe, just as a neutral observation. The left, politically and policy-wise, has seized on this demographic shift.

I think this demographic/political shift has motivated, scared and confused certain elements of the GOP on immigration issues.

EMD said...

Walker exempted public safety unions (Police and Fire) from his effort. Kasich did not.

Which undermined the entire effort. Sure, I'd love to be able to limit the impact on the public safety unions, but you have to start somewhere. Kasich misfired with that.

Chuck said...

PPP is clickbait for the left-leaning media. Their main clients are Democrat-affiliated groups.

The Cracker Emcee said...

"She's almost guaranteed 48% of the popular vote and starts with 240 or so of the electoral vote (thanks NY and Cal!)"

I agree with BAG that Hillary can hardly lose no matter how awful a candidate she may be. But winning on that basis increases the probability that she can hardly govern when she does win. She may as well take up golf.

Bobber Fleck said...

Michael K said: This is the First Lady who ordered that West Wing employees were not allowed to look at her.

Which was, of course, an act of kindness. Hillary is descended from Medusa, and is a Gorgon. Gazing directly into her eyes would turn onlookers to stone.

Sammy Finkelman said...

As is the way things usually happen, the new negative opinion about Hillary Clinton seems to be permeating slowly, as people talk to each other, and more people happen to read something or other about it, or hear a joke.

It doesn't all happen in one day or a week, when the news breaks. This is especially true when the most informed voters already have a low opinion of her.

Anonymous said...

I agree with BAG that Hillary can hardly lose no matter how awful a candidate she may be. But winning on that basis increases the probability that she can hardly govern when she does win. She may as well take up golf.

I can already hear the feminist whining.

The first time a story pops up about Hillary shopping too much, the MSM will come out in full force, "What?! Men get golf but female POTUS can't shop?! Double standards!"

sydney said...

Let's hope Kasich decides against running. You might as well have a democrat.

The Godfather said...

Everybody above who said it's too early for polls to matter is 80% correct. The (20%) extent to which polls may matter in the case of Hillary! is that she is SO well known that negative results at this stage do mean she has a big problem. If she's actually behind Rand Paul in Ohio, she ought to worry.

The Godfather said...

Polls like this remind us that Hillary! in NOT inevitable, either as the Democrats' nominee or as the next President. But those of us who oppose her have our work cut out for us. I don't buy the idea that changing demographics mean that the Republican candidate for President is doomed. Demographics aren't destiny -- if they were, Hillary! would have gotten the nomination (and election)in 2008. The Republicans need to pay attention to the positive and negative characteristics of their potential candidates and choose wisely. We didn't choose wisely in 2008 (when the Democrat candidate was bound to win anyway) or in 2012 (when the worst president since James Buchanan was clearly beatable). I like Walker, but I'm prepared to back the Republican candidate who is most likely to win. That WON'T be a RINO>

garage mahal said...

Who do you think has the best chance to beat Hillary!?

Jeb! Scott! Rand! Marco! John! Mike! Ted! Ben! Carly! Rick! George! Lindsey! Rick! Bobby! Donald! or Chris!

BDNYC said...

The NYT anti-Rubio hit pieces make me like him more. He just seems so normal.

Paddy O said...

"Those people are always so negative!" she says negatively and divisively.

donald said...

Republicans have nothing to offer the country but negativity.

The majority of the country is done with that kind of citizen vs. citizen pitting of each other against another.

That might work for the Republican party, but the country as a whole suffers. The newer demographic rebuilding the country is no longer interested in negative campaigning where nothing gets done.

Hilarious toots.

tim in vermont said...

It's like they have a playbook. Polls against Hillary? Change the subject! Squirrel!

The newer demographic rebuilding the country is no longer interested in negative campaigning where nothing gets done.

They are going to be pretty disappointed by what Hillary has planned then.

Quaestor said...

It wasn't so very long ago that the polls showed Hillary beating everyone by decisive margins, so decisive that the usual suspects on this blog came out with demands that we genuflect before the Heir Apparent.

Name recognition is a powerful thing. The reason why HRC was deemed so inevitable by idiots who should have known better was NAME RECOGNITION, NR for short. There was a time not so very long ago that if "the man in the street" were asked to name three national political figures Hillary would have been among the three while none of the putative Republicans candidates would have be included. That's NR at work; HRC could not be a talking head for the better part of 25 years and not enjoy the benefit of name recognition. The idiots who should have known better deceived themselves when they confused NR with an actual mandate.

Name recognition is also why John Kasich is so dominant over the rest of the GOP field, and it is why the other Democratic hopefuls are such underdogs. Thankfully the NR phenomenon is self-limiting. Once the candidates achieve a near par on name recognition the advantage evaporates. Hillary's problem is her name recognition is in the 80s, which is about as high it it goes (20% of Americans are hopelessly ignorant. They represent the meals the lions would be enjoying if it weren't for the altruism of the more fitted to survive.) If she's losing to or even with any Republican at this stage when their aggregate NR is 50% or less, she's in really deep do-do.

Bay Area Guy said...

@The Godfather

"I don't buy the idea that changing demographics mean that the Republican candidate for President is doomed."

I don't either. I hope I didn't leave that impression. But, figuring out the type of candidate, that appeals to this new demographic is not easy.

Birches said...

I get chastized when I say this, but I still think Hillary is a formidable candidate.

She's almost guaranteed 48% of the popular vote and starts with 240 or so of the electoral vote (thanks NY and Cal!)


While true, the fact that no one really wants to go to the matt for Hillary! means that voter turnout could be low. Black turnout will for sure dip this election term. Hillary! will win NY and California, but the low turnout due to Hillary! fatigue will definitely come into play in battleground states and that is good news for a Republican candidate.

Birches said...

And before I'm accused of being a racist or something for thinking a lower turnout helps Republicans, I will bring up the fact that Romney had a lot of missing voters in 2012 that showed up for McCain in 2008. Sometimes not voting is an act of voting. And I'm perfectly ok with that. If Hillary! fails to inspire people to show up, well, that's on her.

Gahrie said...

The black people know it's not in their interest to elect a white boy Republican who spends their money but does not address their concerns.

But it is in their interest to vote for a bunch of Democratic hacks who spends their money but do not address their concerns?

The best thing that could happen to the Black community politically would be for the Republican candidate to receive at least 50% of the Black vote.

Gahrie said...

Btw, anybody want to talk about Scott Walker's recent call for an amendment potentially denying gay people their civil rights if the majority votes so?

Which rights? Marriage is not a right,either traditional or gay.

jimbino said...

Is Sheryl Sandburg a Democrat?

Phil 3:14 said...

Who's that tromping on my bridge!

Michael K said...

I don't feed trolls.

tim in vermont said...

So the Dems lost both houses of Congress and Hillary's "double digit" lead is gone, but the Democrats are the stronger party?

I don't see it.

But SQUIRREL!!!

clint said...

"AJ Lynch said...
Here is a poll for you to consider Althouse. Who would the Dems draft if they see Hillary as a loser:

a- George Clooney
b- Michelle Obama
c- A transgender, mixed race, handicapped person
d- One of the Castro brothers [the American Castros I hope]
e- Jon Stewart
f- Michael Buttinsky Bloomberg"

Alas, Caitlyn Jenner has announced she's a Republican. Or. Wait. Bruce Jenner was a Republican. But is Caitlyn Jenner still a Republican? There's an 18% gender gap.

If Caitlyn Jenner is a Democrat, she's a shoe-in. As a former-Republican, she's clearly a moderate. And the Republicans -- who would never vote for a woman, the sexist pigs -- will think she's a man, while the right-thinking people will know she's a woman. And she's an Olympic champion and a reality-tv star. Say hello to all the first-time voters getting off their couches for the first time in years. Now if only she'd consider skin pigmentation reassignment surgery...

alan markus said...

I don't feed trolls.

Dang, the troll disappeared just when I was going to ask her what kind of "subsidy" would you call it when an attorney qualifies to have a court-appointed Public Defender on a criminal misdemeanor case?

Rhythm and Balls said...

You say that as if those charisma midgets were actually going to run.

Anthony said...

Hillary Clinton is the Democrat's Bob Dole. She's going to get nominated because it's her turn.

Let's just hope that works as well for the Democrats as it did for the Republicans.

Fen said...

"Republicans have nothing to offer the country but negativity. The majority of the country is done with that kind of citizen vs. citizen pitting of each other against another."

Just wow. 6 years of Team Obama pitting us against each other along class race and gender lines, and you have the nerve to vomit forth this dreck?

Brando said...

"Hillary Clinton is the Democrat's Bob Dole. She's going to get nominated because it's her turn."

Interestingly the Dems have a long history of upending the early front-runner--in all open-seat presidential elections since 1984, the only time the early front-runner won the nomination was Gore in 2000. The GOP on the other hand has given it to whoever came in second in the previous cycle every time since 1976 with the exception of George W Bush.

If Democrats start to see Hillary as genuinely vulnerable in the general election--which she is, despite Dem advantages--they'll have a bunch of new candidates jump into this. I just don't know if there's time to do that. They may be stuck with her. And if they lose with her, good--serves them right for handing this one over.

Rusty said...


I get chastized when I say this, but I still think Hillary is a formidable candidate.

She's almost guaranteed 48% of the popular vote and starts with 240 or so of the electoral vote (thanks NY and Cal!)


I dont think so. Women don't like her.They view her as morally weak and just plain shifty. Not just soccer moms either.

jim murray said...

Stop taking these polls. Too many polls like this and she may not run.