June 2, 2015

Hillary leads Rand Paul by only 1 percentage point now... and leads Rubio and Walker by only 3 points.

According to a new CNN poll. PDF.

Just last month — on the CNN poll — she led Paul by 9 percentage points, Rubio by 14 points, and Walker by 22 points!

Hillary's favorability/unfavorability numbers are down to 46/50, from 53/44 in March. I'm looking at numbers going back to September 2006, and in that whole time, she'd never been less favored than unfavored.

Ah, there's a second page of favorability/unfavorability. The fine print. This goes all the way back to 1992. You have to go back to March 2003 to get to negative favorability, 45/46.

Hillary is even in the negatives for the Democrat's favorite question "Cares about people like you": 47/52.

Those Clinton Foundation reports seem to be eroding her "honest and trustworthy" numbers, down to 42% think she is and 57% think she is, down from 50/49 in March.

People tend to think the emails to be released by the State Department will not show wrongdoing — 61% (compared to 35%) who think they will show wrongdoing. CNN doesn't break down the 61%, so there's no way to distinguish those who believe she did no wrong, those who believe she never participated in emails that evinced wrongdoing, and those who think the State Department didn't get the email that would show wrongdoing. It also, of course, doesn't define wrongdoing.

The numbers on Benghazi have worsened in the last year. Only 38% are "satisfied" with the way Clinton handled it. 58% are dissatisfied. A year ago, it was 43% satisfied, 55% dissatisfied. On whether Republicans have "gone too far" with their Benghazi hearings, 41% say they have, compared to 44% a year ago. 51% say the Republicans have handled the hearings "appropriately," up from 48% a year ago. 

Hillary has also lost 9 percentage points in a month in support from Democrats and independents — 60%, down from 69%. (Biden and Sanders are gaining, up to 14% and 10%, respectively.)

There's a question about whether the various candidates "represent the past" or "represent the future." Hillary is at 51% "future," up from 50% in February. Jeb has terrible numbers here — 62% past, 34% future. Paul has good numbers, 53% future, 41% past. Rubio has the best numbers, 58% future, 32% past. Scott Walker was 39% future back in February, and he's soared to 52% for some reason (probably that he's become more well known).

Are people less likely to vote for Jeb because he's George's brother (and elder Bush's son)? 56% say yes. What about Hillary being the wife of Bill? The more likely/less likely numbers cancel each other out (at 39%) and 22% don't care. 

70 comments:

MPH said...

They want her out of the race. She already served her purpose.

tim maguire said...

Hillary has already peaked. If she is the Democratic nominee, she'll get the votes of people who would rather cut their arm off than vote Republican, but that's about it. I'm surprised she formally declared, I will not be surprised when she withdraws.

trumpetdaddy said...

Nothing in those numbers is good for Hillary Clinton. Digging into them beyond the headline numbers is even worse. She's at her worst ratings in some tabs for several years, and the trend-line in all of them is negative for her.

Two things jumped out for me: a strong majority of Democratic voters want a primary process with many, strong candidates rather than one with a clear front-runner. Secondly, all the Republican candidates (other than Bush and Christie) are viewed by stronger numbers as "candidates of the future" than is Clinton.

She is underwater on the "favorable/unfavorable" numbers in in all regions of the country other than the northeast and all age demos except the youngest. She should run for the Senate from New York again, not president.

Michael McClain said...

Must be that Vast Right Wing Conspiracy at work.

Michael K said...

There are some ruminations in conservative circles that Democrats are in panic mode about a GOP sweep after 2016 with all three branches in GOP hands and this is driving the support for Hillary as she is seen as the only viable candidate.

Nobody, except radical feminists probably, really wants her but they will do anything to prevent a GOP takeover.

trumpetdaddy said...

That desire to have a multiple-candidate primary process is a big one. For all the spinning that the Clinton propaganda machine has been doing in the press about the "clown car" list of Republican candidates, the fact of the matter is that most Americans of both parties believe in competition producing a winner. Moreover, if you read a list of the Republican candidates' credentials, without the names or political party attached to normal, apolitical American voters, the Dems know that it is a very impressive list. The list of Dem candidates is not so much, mostly because of being composed of five people, if you include Joe Biden and Jim Webb.

Honestly, if you listed the Dem candidates' CVs without names, Hillary Clinton is the next-to-least qualified of those five people, with only Sen. Sanders being less qualified. Despite what Clinton flacks might say in the MSM, Dem power-brokers behind the scenes are seriously worried about these numbers and how weak Clinton really is.

mezzrow said...

Someone has to take the hit for the disaster that will be the post-Obama reckoning. I have about decided that Hillary is grimly taking the bullet for the party - first, to maximize her profit building opportunities, yet mostly because that's what she is.

She was born for this and no one will stop her from doing it, no matter how much she hates what she's doing while she is within the actual reality of running for President. The only way she can keep her hand to the plow is to insulate herself within the shell she has lived in since 1992. No questions, please. Yet, in her heart she knows that she is about as likely to win this as George H.W. was in 1992. Obama stole her moment, and "progressivism" peaked while he was in charge. How she will hate him in years to come, left with only the soiled remainder of his indiscipline. Even more than today. Even more than the right hates him, really. For this and more, the party will not be able to take this from her when they are looking the disaster in the face. She will take the whole thing down with her, if they try.

Poor Hillary.

Bobber Fleck said...

Here are some areas where I think Hillary is in trouble:

She will lose the ephemeral "cool vote". She is 67 years old, bottom heavy with wrinkles they can't hide. I know that is purely superficial, but so are many voters.

She has a record, but no accomplishments. She can't point to a list and say "I did this stuff that made your life better and made America stronger."

The Middle East is in chaos, and she helped create the mess as Secretary of State. Hillary's strength should be foreign policy. But properly spun it is a boat anchor.

Hillary has a prickly personality. She has been wise to stay out of view in her campaign. She's not a natural on the stump who warms hearts and creates happy vibes.

She's rolling in money. Like Denny Hastert, you want to know where it came from. For many, she is a despicable "one-percenter".

Brando said...

The Clinton strategy has been to keep her hidden from the public eye--no interviews, no talking to reporters, and public appearances only for dead-ender activists, because they realize the more people see of her the less they like her. But that means that the only press she's getting right now is the negative stuff--unanswered questions about her scandals so no wonder her "trust" ratings are dropping. And this before the GOP has a chance to air negative ads and turn up the heat.

Hillary's a poor candidate--not good on the stump, or in interviews, or in adopting strategy. She's strong in some ways--tons of money, name recognition, and a party willing to part the sea for her--but vulnerable. The right opponent could take her down with relative ease. All that remains now is "who?"

tim in vermont said...

Wait 'til the "youngest" finally digest that it was not all about a willing blowjob.

Brando said...

"She's rolling in money. Like Denny Hastert, you want to know where it came from. For many, she is a despicable "one-percenter"."

There is potential for that to become a serious problem for her. With Romney, the big target for the Left was the idea that his money was made unscrupulously by raiding companies and laying people off (and some morons on the Right didn't help--remember "vulture capitalism"? Thanks Newt, with allies like you...). He never produced an effective counterargument--smart people can understand the value of the sort of work he did, but it's not easily understood like owning a factory. And while John Kerry got plenty of flack for marrying into money, voters can at least understand how that's done (even if it seems less than admirable).

But Hillary--the idea of lifelong public servants raking in that sort of money-- we're not talking a few million for writing memoirs, but hundreds of millions through a "charity" and mostly paid by wealthy connected people who obviously want something in return. It's sticky, and messy--and an opponent who can deftly exploit that will take a lot of air from her sails, especially in these days of "99 percenters".

tim in vermont said...

Remember when her husband, Dr Feelgood, recklessly launched cruise missiles at Afghanistan, leading us into a spiral or war?

Imagine the meeting of bin Laden and Mullah Omar where bin Laden asks for permission to launch the attack in response to American aggression on Afghanistan's sovereign soil. "They launch a missile attack on us and hit multiple targets, we will turn their planes into missiles and attack multiple targets in America!"

Remember when the press thought it was a great thing that the president had the power to "change the subject" from accusations of serial sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape?

Somebody should ask Hillary if those missile attacks were really a good idea.

Brando said...

Hillary's biggest legacy as Secretary of State was the idiotic decision to support the rebels in Libya. A smart GOP candidate could take her to task for it, noting that while Gadaffi was no saint he had in recent years been moving toward the West and was no threat to us--if anything, he might have been an obstacle for the militant Islamists that are a more serious danger to us in that region. The problem is, most of the GOP candidates seem to be arguing that our only mistake in Libya was not going all in.

Hillary's a thoughtless warmonger and an incompetent--it'd be a shame to not exploit this.

tim in vermont said...

We should abide by "The Prime Directive" in the Arab world. It's hard to watch what they do to each other, but we can't change it. If we want to do some good overseas, fight poverty in Africa. We can probably help more people.

Rand Paul is right on that.

traditionalguy said...

Wait, wait. Now who is going to give us a thrill by being our first woman President.

But why not Caitlyn Jenner. She is the most popular woman now and she has a manly leadership style.

I want us to consider the first midget President as a transitional figure from Obama the Weak.

Ok, we compromise on Juia Louis-Dreyfus. She has done a great job as Veep. It's all about acting, don't you know.



Michael K said...

"The problem is, most of the GOP candidates seem to be arguing that our only mistake in Libya was not going all in."

I disagree. The Democrats (Democrats with bylines, that is.) tried to get them on record early on Iraq in 2003 but I don't recall much support for Libya in the GOP.

The House committee looking into Libya would do well to focus on the reason why Stevens was in Benghazi and the arms shipments to Syria.

Bob Boyd said...

Go to the back of the line, Hillary.
You want the nomination? OK.
Go to the back of the line.

Scott said...

When Hillary wins the nomination, she can win the presidency against any GOP candidate except Fiorina by running an extremely negative campaign to suppress the overall turnout. That's when the Estrogen Factor comes into play. Clinton will turn out women who have never voted before, just because of gender identification and women's deep desire to engage tit-for-tat against male political dominance. And since women already vote more than men, it will look like a landslide.

However, if Fiorina is the GOP candidate, the Estrogen Factor goes out the window. It will look more like a normal campaign, with occasional amusing flareups of cattiness. And Hillary may have a chance of losing.

But against a male GOP candidate, no way.

tim in vermont said...

I disagree with you Scott, in your analysis, but I support Fiorina at this point.

And, FWIW, while HP's acquisition of Compaq may not have pleased the markets in the short run, and cost her her job, in the long run, it was the right thing to do to keep HP relevant and a competitor to IBM.

Matthew Sablan said...

Scott: Going negative early, hard and often worked for Obama in his elections. It won't be some new Hillary plan. They lied about McCain having an affair and lied about Romney not paying taxes. Not were wrong, flat out lied about these things.

The GOP needs a plan to fight character assassination. If they don't, they're just repeating history.

Scott said...

The GOP field is a half-dozen Bob Doles, a Barry Goldwater, and Carly Fiorina.

cubanbob said...

Its a CNN poll and yet it doesn't look good for Hillary. Not a good sign for the Democrats. Obviously all of the commentators here are well versed in details of the candidates and the current events unlike the majority of the voters so I wouldn't put to much stock in all of this insider baseball observations. Its too premature to write Hillary off and lets not forget a national capable of electing Obama twice is quite capable of electing a Hillary. Sanders I believe has no chance and at best (or worst depending on one's views) can only drive the nominee more left during the primaries. Biden simply isn't credible as a president and at this time with his personal tragedy I doubt he really is even thinking about campaigning. So who do the Democrats really have besides Hillary as a candidate? Again its a bit too early to make predictions but it is starting to appear that Hillary who was once a Goldwater girls may yet suffer a Goldwater style loss next year.

Brando said...

"I disagree. The Democrats (Democrats with bylines, that is.) tried to get them on record early on Iraq in 2003 but I don't recall much support for Libya in the GOP."

Well, if GOPers (besides Rand Paul) were opposed to going into Libya at all, they haven't been making much noise about it--I don't mean the Benghazi stuff, which to the average viewer sounds like terrorists killed a few of our people there and the White House tried unsuccessfully to spin it as a spontaneous protest. The bigger and more lasting issue is the fact that Libya was undergoing a civil war that we unwisely took a side in, and the result has been several years of chaos and misery, if anything giving a foothold to a much worse option than Gadaffi was by 2011. The incompetence to my mind is the far more effective charge, particularly as this was Hillary's biggest legacy.

Overall, there's a significant number of swing voters who are wary of blundering interventionists. The GOP can take advantage of that if they don't end up favoring more intervention themselves.

Scott said...

@Matthew Sablan: Perhaps we can look at the way George W. Bush ran against Ann Richards in 1994 for a strategy. She engaged him with complete nastiness and denigration, calling Bush "shrub," etc. Bush responded by calling her "Mrs. Richards," stating the facts, and treating her and her office with respect. And Bush won.

Obama sort of did it both ways by affecting a professorial tone in his own rhetoric and letting his proxies to do the mud slinging. I think Clinton will be doing this as well. It's a very hard strategy to counter.

In any case, Clinton will win against any male challenger. Can't beat hormones.

traditionalguy said...

Hillary can claim experience performing in the White House. But so can Monica Lewinsky and Barbara Streisand. Hillary needs her revenge but should not use the USA as her tool to get it.

trumpetdaddy said...

O'Malley is the only one of the Dems who is even under 65. Clinton is 67, Webb is 69, and Biden and Sanders are in their 70s.

These people are old, white, and rich.

Amongst the Republican candidates, the "60 and over crowd" is Fiorina, Carson, Bush, Perry, and Pataki. Half of them look younger than that. Everybody else is under 60 and several are under 50 (Walker, Rubio, Jindal).

Appearances matter. The Republicans are younger, more ethnically diverse, and more vigorous-looking.

I believe the Republicans will end up with a Walker/Martinez or Walker/Rubio ticket, either of which will be a generation younger than any ticket likely to emerge from the Democrats.

That video of Clinton telling an autograph/photo seeker to "go to the back of the line" exemplifies in 4 seconds everything wrong about her as a candidate. that kind of optic played in ads against a young, open, and vigorous Republican candidate is a nightmare for Democrats.

trumpetdaddy said...

Ted Cruz, also under 50.

tim in vermont said...

HP still commands the server market, but IBM is dropping fast, and ODMs may soon rule the roost

Would HP be the dominant player in servers without the acquisition of Compaq, or would they be one more "Data General" all but forgotten computer maker of the past?

cubanbob said...

@mezzrow very astute observation.

@scott do you really believe woman will just vote for woman simply because she is a woman, no matter how disastrous a candidate she is?

Scott said...

"@scott do you really believe woman will just vote for woman simply because she is a woman, no matter how disastrous a candidate she is?"

Yes. Absolutely.

trumpetdaddy said...

The polling numbers don't support the idea that "gender trumps all."

Even the numbers in the poll that is the subject of this Althouse post don't support that idea.

Brando said...

Gender doesn't trump all--if that were the case, GOP female candidates would have eliminated the gender gap when running against Democratic men.

The bigger issue is women tend to vote in favor of more economic security, while men tend to vote more for economic liberty. To the extent that a female candidate (or some male candidates) can appeal more to women it's because they give the impression of being more sympathetic to such views.

Hillary may have that advantage, but I don't think she's going to be moving female voters the way Obama moved black voters. For the latter, that had a greater impact as most blacks know a relative who lived under segregation and could never have dreamed of a black president. While we still haven't had a female president, most people believe we'll see one soon, so Hillary isn't so much a "now or never" candidate.

trumpetdaddy said...

The numbers for Clinton in the WaPo/ABC poll that also dropped this morning are just as bad and in some cases, even worse, than the CNN poll.

AprilApple said...

Hillary used her stint at State to funnel huge international dollars to "the foundation"... and we are supposed to ignore it.

Kyzernick said...

My wife hates Hillary. According to her, Hilldawg "seems like a nasty old scold" and "not someone I'd want to drink wine with".

Her uber-liberal friend is on the fence, but has said nice things about Carly (and Jeb Bush for some reason, probably since he's really Democrat-Lite-with-maybe-a-pinch-of-supply-side-savvy-and-some-balls). Frankly, I'm very glad we had his brother in office, and not Al Gore, when 9/11 happened. I dunno, but thinking women will be as monolithic in this election as blacks were in 2012 and 2008 is way off base.

Kyzernick said...

@April Apple
Hillary used her stint at State to funnel huge international dollars to "the foundation"... and we are supposed to ignore it.

Honestly, this infuriates me. My wife ain't political, but she's heard my grumbles and read some of the stories (I do my best to show her a mix of articles and sources - mostly biased my way, but I'm fairer than MSNBC). She's smart, and I know she sees the same corruption in Hillary that I do.

AprilApple said...

Kyzernick - As Tim M said above... "she'll get the votes of people who would rather cut their arm off than vote Republican, but that's about it."

I'm a female and my female intuition tells me Hillary is evil. She is a power-seeking money-grubbing fraud. Actually read about her, and her corruption gels into a solid.

Only die-hard bad faith democrats will follow her over the cliff.,, with noses plugged.

Big Mike said...

Shorter version: the more people see of Hillary Clinton, the more they despise her. Depending on the polls one looks at, somewhere between 52% and 60% actively despise her. Not dislike. Not have questions about. Despise. Can she hide for the entire 17 months between now and the election? Or will the percentage who despise her keep climbing?

Bruce Hayden said...

Just wait until the debates. We were just talking about Libya, and that it is now a failed state, with so many of its people trying to get to Europe for some safety, enough that a bunch of them are dying along the way. Europe's Cuban boat people. How does Hillary! respond when asked about it? The problem, for her, is that when she tries to blame the GOP, etc., her opponent just needs to whip out the emails from Sid Vicious (Blumenthal) and his partner in crime, who were making money there, that she sent to the State Department people involved. More and more it is looking like the disaster in Libya, and, the subsequent deaths of the 4 Americans in Benghazi, were the direct result of the sort of influence peddling that the Clintons are such masters of. Millions are suffering, so that Sid Vicious, one of the Clintons' most loyal hatchet men, could make some money.

Hillary!s problem there though, above and beyond her complicity, is that she has not shown herself that good at keeping her temper and arrogance in check, and esp. when under attack. What her opponent needs to do is to just keep from appearing to bully her. (This is the sort of thing that Ted Cruz, in particular, is a prime master at, with his respectful debate style). How is she going to defend herself? Indeed, much of what she has done is undefendable. When she says that there weren't any incriminating emails, she just needs to be asked about why she violated federal laws and policies in running her own email server, and how can anyone know whether there was anything incriminating in her email, with her lawyers (who most likely didn't have the proper security clearances) deleting any emails that they thought might be a problem? Her problem is that she doesn't seem to do well when confronted with her hand in the cookie jar.

Sebastian said...

It's not about polls or popular vote but the Electoral College. If Hillary! gets the old folks vote in FL and women in OH, the GOP candidate is doomed.

Only a few GOP combos will counter it.

Brando said...

"I'm a female and my female intuition tells me Hillary is evil. She is a power-seeking money-grubbing fraud. Actually read about her, and her corruption gels into a solid."

I'm not a female, and I can see a lot of women being turned off by her--working women who have been trying to make ends meet feeling insulted by her "dead broke" comments and attempts to play down to the masses, genuine feminists who consider a woman who latched onto a serial creep just to gain power to be a terrible example for women, and women who would like to see the first female president not be such an incompetent disaster.

Where the GOP can slip up is (a) if they appear to bully her (Hillary thrives as the put upon victim, which should be a knock against her but does humanize her) or (b) they nominate someone so noxious to Leftists that they're willing to turn out in big numbers and to middleroaders that will vote for Hillary out of default. But a good candidate already--in mid 2015!--has plenty of ammunition to beat her.

Brando said...

"It's not about polls or popular vote but the Electoral College. If Hillary! gets the old folks vote in FL and women in OH, the GOP candidate is doomed."

I think the Hispanic vote will prove key here. If Hillary doesn't keep her opponent under say 35%, she's toast.

AprilApple said...

Without the hack press to promote her and pimp her with their vapidity, she craters. She is naturally unlikable, and she used her time at State as a money making operation. and yes, that money making operation left Libya in ruins, and all she and her bad faith fan-club can do is laugh. She's repulsive.

Bay Area Guy said...

I'm not a huge fan of Hillary, so these poor numbers put a momentary smile on my face. But I do question the significance of these numbers at this early stage.

As AA is fond of saying, in effect, "there is a 100% chance that somebody will win."

Hillary, whether you like her or not, is not only a formidable candidate, but, probably the most likely to become our next president. That could change. But, as I see it, the Democrat nominee starts with a 50% shot at winning the Electoral College (nice to have NY & Cal in the bag), and Hillary has a 90% shot of becoming the Dem Nominee.

More so, she has a phanlynx of liberal media types to protect her, either by digging deep into her opponents backgrounds to exploit problems or by not asking her any tough questions.

And, finally, she has a lot of $$.

And, even more finally, the GOP has been known to screw things up.

So, I'm not gonna discount Ms. Clinton, until 1 of 2 things happen. She withdraws from the race for health reasons or she loses to O'Malley (which is highly unlikely).

I don't like her, but I believe she is a tough cookie, with immense power and clout.



Brando said...

Bay Area Guy nails it. Much as I can't stand the Clintons, and much as Hillary's weaknesses are glaring, we can't fall into the same mindset of Nixon's critics who couldn't understand why anyone would vote for him. The Dems have some natural electoral advantages, and a fairly united party while the GOP is as divided as ever and has a long history of hobbling its nominees and alienating the middle. If Hillary spends the campaign making the GOP look like cave-dwellers and positioning herself closer to the middle, she, like Nixon, will have lots of people voting for her instead of the uglier alternative.

The main thing to watch is what emerges out of the GOP fight. With over 20 likely candidates it's hard to predict how that'll turn out.

Scott said...

For those who believe that women will line up to vote for Hillary the way blacks of supported Obama, I offer the following observation:

Women are astonishingly backbiting and competitive, and have a tendency to destroy one another with amazing regularity. Anyone who has worked in work a significant number of women (particularly I they have some authority) has seen this dynamic in action. I wouldn't bet a single groat that Hillary can run the 'sisterhood is powerful' schtick into the Oval Office, though I have little doubt that she will try.

AprilApple said...

Clinton's real world screw ups don't count. Only Republican gaffes count as screw ups.

Amazing.

Kyzernick said...

I think some of y'all are crazy. Bay Area Guy, Brando - what on earth makes her a "formidable" candidate, aside from the media love? Nothing.

Not her gender. Women will not be that monolithic.

Not her policies. We can only guess what they are at this point. This is a "listening" campaign, remember?

Not her personality. She's as unlikable as a plague rat in a kitchen.

Not her accomplishments. What accomplishments?

Not her field crew. 90's castoffs and lifelong Clintonistas, many with their own scandals and skeletons to boot.

Not her relatability. "Dead broke when we left the White House." Oh really?

Not her past. Which is as shady as a cave.

Not her party. Do you think all the independents and moderates will be rushing to support the same policies that have brought us negative growth, unending racial strife, diminished respect and nonexistent world power, and emboldened and invigorated enemies and geopolitical foes?

Hillar doesn't scare me. Not a bit. Wait and see.

Bay Area Guy said...

@ Scott:

I don't have the numbers at hand, and don't feel like googling them. But, as I recall, the Dem advantage with women voters is limited to single women, but not married women.

Single women, aside from blacks, are the most loyal stalwart of Dem votes. They will put aside the backbiting to vote for Hillary, no doubt.

Bay Area Guy said...

@ Kyzernick -- heh, God I hope you are right!

I guess living in a blue, blue, blue city and state all my life has colored my perspective. But, nonetheless, that's what I'm seein'

Kyzernick said...

Admittedly anecdotal, but several of my old FB friends from high school are now single moms, either accidentally (via divorce or death) or by carelessness (which is EXACTLY what it is when you have a baby with no intention of a relationship with the father).

Only about half of them are political, and of those, exactly none are supportive of Hillary. Granted, this probably means the other half will either not vote at all, or will just mindlessly pull the lever for the "D" (giggety). But the engaged ones are not Ready for Hillary, and I don't see that changing given how many of my pro-GOP/anti-Dem postings and article shares they "Like" or comment on. Yet another reason why FB is not just for morons - intelligent (I'm not smart, but I play a smart guy at work) people can connect and share ideas in a very convenient and friendly format. I was surprised at the level of support for the philosophy I hold so dear, especially among that crowd.

Kyzernick said...

Dude, I'm from Albany, NY, and now live in the outskirts of Chicagoland. I feel ya, cuz I know Blue too, and it is depressing. But I find hope in unlikely places, and I always look for ways to get the message out and either win converts or find common ground.

MartyH said...

Hillary Clinton will be the 2016's Martha Coakley. Who will play the role of Scott Brown?

tim in vermont said...

If Hillary! gets the old folks vote in FL

FDR Democrats are dead.

trumpetdaddy said...

If she can't crack 50% against any Republican candidate (aside from Jeb Bush, and that has a lot more to do with his last name than anything else), with universal name recognition and the near total backing of the Dem establishment, then what do we expect will be the result after the Republican nominee is chosen and actually spends money and is known to people?

The image of Scott Walker (or Marco Rubio) on a stage with her, both 20+ years younger, taller, far less strident speaking voices, will be devastating. Neither of them even have to "attack" her in a debate. They just have to sound reasonable, calm, and younger. Compared with her short, dumpy, wrinkled visage with it's nasty, nasal voice squawking about who knows what.

The "watch the man abuse me" shtick she played in the NY Senate race years ago isn't going to fly. Mostly because neither Walker nor Rubio are stupid enough to play into the same traps that Lazio did. And the country as a whole isn't NY State.

Brando said...

"I think some of y'all are crazy. Bay Area Guy, Brando - what on earth makes her a "formidable" candidate, aside from the media love? Nothing."

I do agree that she's vulnerable--I've noted before that she's a terrible politician and turns people off. But we'd be foolish to ignore her advantages, just as Democrats once ignored the advantages of another awkward, uncharismatic politician--Richard Nixon.

The Dems do have an electoral advantage--they start with nearly 240 electoral votes "in the bag" due to the GOP simply not being competitive in CA, NY, PA, and several other states. (If the GOP WERE competitive in those states, we'd be talking 1984 or 1972 style landslide territory). That's due to big cities and inner suburbs where the GOP is as weak as Dems are in the countryside. And while the economy isn't great, the trend (at least right now) is toward growth, and voters still have nasty memories of what it was like when the GOP left the White House last. It's not fair of course (presidents control the economy as much as they do the weather) but it is how voters react. And there are large pockets of voters the GOP can't seem to make inroads with, though Hispanics may be reachable by the right candidate.

Hillary also has loads of cash, and no real primary--she won't be getting attacked from the Left and will have the luxury of running to the middle much earlier than the GOP. Sure, she's clunky at it, but it's also not rocket science. As I noted Leftists don't like her, but they may see her as the only thing keeping Scott Walker (who will look like, or be made to look like, a trogladyte by late 2016) out of power.

And finally, the GOP--they have a tendency to turn their primaries into a contest of "who can make the most outrageous and funny quip and get a Fox News gig" and unlike the Dems are excellent at tearing each other down (Romney emerged from the primaries hobbled--Obama didn't have to do much to him after that). What goes on on the GOP side for the next year will be telling.

So while I hope your optimism bears fruit and my pessimism does not, I can't ignore the severe obstacles for any Hillary opponent. She has huge weaknesses, but it will take skill and luck to take advantage of them.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

There's a real possibility that more than 40% of people consider H. Clinton to be honest & trustworthy today.

Anthony said...

If the R candidate is someone sexually appealing to women, the way Bill Clinton was, that will neutralize Hillary's advantage with low-information female voters. If the R candidate has the sexual charisma of Dukakis, low-information female voters will go entirely to Hillary. I don't know if that's enough to tip the election, but it is a consideration.

Brando said...

"The image of Scott Walker (or Marco Rubio) on a stage with her, both 20+ years younger, taller, far less strident speaking voices, will be devastating. Neither of them even have to "attack" her in a debate. They just have to sound reasonable, calm, and younger. Compared with her short, dumpy, wrinkled visage with it's nasty, nasal voice squawking about who knows what."

That's my hope--that say Rubio avoids the "bully" trap (should be easy enough--avoid what Lazio did) and presents himself in a way that belies the "womanhating tool of the rich" image the Clintons will try to paint. Show a self-deprecating sense of humor, thoughtfulness, and compassion. Hillary needs to make the GOP nominee a monster, and if she can't do that the battle is half won.

Brando said...

"FDR Democrats are dead."

They are, but remember most old people in FL are blue state transplants who bring their blue state politics. My parents are among them.

Interestingly although they are both lifelong Democrats, neither of them plans to vote for Hillary as they're sick of the Clinton crap. They just don't know of any other candidates. When push comes to shove, they may vote for her if they find the GOP nominee nasty enough, but I'm hoping they represent a large enough bloc among Democrats that could be peeled away from the Hillary camp (or at least decide to not vote).

Kyzernick said...

I dunno Brando. You make some good points. Maybe I'm too optimistic, but I can't see this election shaking out in her favor unless we nominate someone like McCain or Huckabee.

Kyzernick said...

Brando @ 12:05

Exactly what I'm talking about. I think a Hillary nomination would redraw the electoral map, however temporarily, against the Dems in a way that even Reagan would be proud of.

Brando said...

"Maybe I'm too optimistic, but I can't see this election shaking out in her favor unless we nominate someone like McCain or Huckabee."

I'm watching the GOP primaries for just that reason (as well as the entertainment of such a wide open race--more wide open than I remember for either party). Out of that bunch I'd assume a strong candidate can emerge, who can fire up the base while still appealing to moderates and breaking the 50% mark. But the last cycle was disheartening--Santorum, Gingrich, Bachmann, Cain? And each having their burst in the polls (perhaps a sign that Romney was having real trouble pulling the party together). Hopefully no deja vu this time, though there are a lot of long shots (particularly ones who never held any public office before).

Clinton's strength I'd say is a mile wide and an inch deep. But there's a specific roadmap to defeating her, if only someone would use it.

Jack Wayne said...

Après moi, le deluge. Does anyone really think that 8 years of Obama results in a Hillary win?

Brando said...

"Après moi, le deluge. Does anyone really think that 8 years of Obama results in a Hillary win?"

The "8 year itch" does work in the GOP's favor--it's rare for a party to get a third term in the White House post-WWII. But whether that may be countered by the pro-Democrat advantages (including the fact that the public usually prefers balanced government, and the GOP controls Congress) remains to be seen.

Also, Obama's numbers aren't that low right now, and if the economy continues improving (albeit at a snail's pace) and he stays above the election fray next year, he may not be as much of a liability as the GOP is banking on. More of a factor might be a split between him and Hillary--I get the sense they really dislike each other.

The Cracker Emcee said...

"Après moi, le deluge. Does anyone really think that 8 years of Obama results in a Hillary win?"

The lesson of 2012 is that the merit of the candidate is irrelevant. Democrats give out free stuff. A significant percentage of the electorate wants free stuff. Therefore they'll vote Democrat regardless of the candidate.

Unknown said...

Let's not kid ourselves. All the media has to do is make sure the republican nominee has higher negatives than Hillary. Can anyone name one positive TV report or news paper article about any of the republican candidates coming out of the MSM. They will propagate anything they can, even if the have to make it up out of whole cloth (see Mitt Romney binders full of women and not paying taxes in 10 years)to make anyone who is watching/listening believe the republican nominee is a greedy, self-centered, minority/women/gay hating pederast.

Kirk Parker said...

Kyzernick,

"I think some of y'all are crazy. Bay Area Guy, Brando - what on earth makes her a "formidable" candidate, aside from the media love [emphasis added]"

You might want to read what you just wrote. For the low-information voter, "media love" trumps everything else, by a huge margin.

AprilApple said...

the "formidable" meme is a media creation. She's corrupt. She used State to rake in millions.

Birkel said...

Scott:

Your attempt at concern trolling with sexism has been noted.
You take a dim view of women.
We get it.