In the latest NBC/WSJ poll, the Hillary free-fall continues:
Hillary 48, Bush 40
Hillary 50, Rubio 40
Hillary 51, Walker 37
You beat me to that NBC/WSJ poll, iiandyiiii, but I have a few things to add.
They removed Joe Biden from the dem primary poll. Here’s what happened:
Hillary Clinton 75
Bernie Sanders 15
Jim Webb 4
Martin O’Malley 2
Lincoln Chafee 0
Poor Martin just can’t get no love.
Yeah I don’t like that poll.
What a shock.
I didn’t accuse the poll of being skewed, so that’s something. But it could be an outlier. We’ll see. Every double digit lead poll has been followed by 2-3 that show a very close race.
At the current rate of free fall, her numbers could plummet 2-3 points by 2053.
Polling this early doesn’t tell us much. McCain seemed to nose-dive among Republicans in '07, IIRC, only to come back to win handily. Any talk of a “free-fall” for any major candidate is just silly at this point, so you should stop. Hillary’s not a shoe-in, and she’s certainly not in free-fall. I think she has an advantage right now, but certainly not an overwhelming one, and I’m not sure if an advantage this early means much in the long run.
Of course that poll is an outlier. What do you think outlier means?
Now that we have seen the results of a poll without Biden and after after a couple of weeks of O’Malley officially running is anyone still thinking, “I don’t know. Anything can happen. She lost before.” Or are you willing to come around to the view that Clinton has this in the bag barring some black swan event like a serious medical issue?
223 days until Iowa.
I maintain that the person who poses the biggest threat to Clinton is the same person who scuppered her 2008 campaign: Clinton herself. If she can stay on point and avoid any stupid “landing under fire” type gaffes she’ll win the primary handily and give the GOP candidate a run for his money. Nobody is going to take this from her unless she gives it up herself.
Still its more controversial than the idea that any of Clinton’s opponents can win with their much lower approval ratings.
While it may be the case that Clinton is not exactly the best candidate we’ve seen in the last several decades, she can’t lose unless someone out there can beat her.
Even a tortoise can win the hundred yard dash if all her opponents are snails.
Their approval ratings are not lower. They are mostly unknown.
And the more we know about them the more their disapproval ratings will go up. Except for Trump, who really can’t get any worse.
That’s possible, but I doubt it’s true for every single one. Rubio, Kasich, and Paul in particular have a good chance of gaining a 50%+ rating once they are well known enough.
I don’t see why. Not that it’s impossible, I just see no reason in particular that they have a “good chance” of getting to 50% or higher.
I’m willing to grant that Rubio could get to 50% favorable since he’s trending positively, but I think it’s more likely that people who don’t know him now will get to know him via republican primary attacks.
I’ve seen nothing to indicate that either Paul or Kasich has a shot at the nomination (especially Kasich) so I don’t think it matters how favorably they are viewed.
For what it’s worth Paul is trending poorly, and they haven’t asked about Kasich enough for anyone to bother making a page.
No accurately put, their approval ratings are low. And for most, so are their disapproval ratings. And the “don’t know enough” ratings are fairly high.
One can speculate that there is a chance that their approval ratings will go up substantially as people know them but that is not a speculation supported by any evidence. See Sam Wang’s analysis already cited.
Wang’s record of predicting things far out is rather poor.
His analysis is not making a prediction … just stating what the evidence currently supports. Such as the evidence is.
The odds of any of them shifting the “no opinions” more into favorable than unfavorable as they become known is not high.
