Clinton’s campaign has just been ridiculous so far. Starting with the fact that she seems to think that she can decide what will be talked about and what won’t.
Anyway, another trial heat poll showing CLinton actually trailing Bush, but I won’t even bother to crow because it’s Quinnipiac again. We still don’t know if Quinnipiac has found a collapse in Clinton’s support first, or if they are seeing something no one else is. But they did make an apples to apples comparison between Clinton, Biden, and Sanders on electability and Biden is just as electable as she is. So if Biden does get in the race, do Clinton supporters have any reason whatsoever to choose her anymore? I think that if Biden gets in all she’ll have left is her PUMAs.
I assume this is the one you’re referring to? It was “Why Voters Don’t Trust Bill Clinton” but you were close.
No, it was from 1991 and it showed Bill with a big smile and a his hands out. Maybe it was Newsweek and I’m conflating two different covers.
Image gone there - here you go: http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1992/1101920420_400.jpg
I am throwing this latest McClatchy-Marist poll in here for its toplines - Clinton bests the GOP field in a general including Bush by 6 with Rubio and Paul the only ones doing better losing by 5 - but the interesting bits are in the details. Another poll that means little at this point but part of an aggregate pattern that shows her at least less unpreferred than these choices so far but those details are interesting.
Tea Partier for example are less unified against against Hillary than the GOP is in general? For example in a Clinton/Rubio match the GOP vote overall goes 87 to 6 but the TP vote goes 72 to 19. For Bush GOP in general is 92 to 2 but for TPers it’s 77 to 19. So on. She wins moderates almost always and loses independents in most match ups. Party ID 33% D; 40% Independent; 25% R. And more D is strong D than R is strong R (21 to 13%). 32% are “moderate” and more are a version of conservative than liberal. Lots of other interesting stats that I am not sure what to make of …
I don’t know that it would result in votes for Clinton, but the hatred for Rubio and Bush amongst freepers is rampant, and there are a number of posts of people saying they would vote for Clinton over either one. Of course, the caveats are: They are posting, not voting; Talk is cheap; Why wouldn’t they vote 3rd party?; and They may jut be trying to scare the other posters into thinking there’s some there there.
Many Tea Partiers don’t really follow politics very closely. I’d suspect it’s just name recognition there. Once the nominee is chosen on the GOP side, TPers should vote more strongly Republican than non-TP Republicans.
I’m starting to think the Quinnipiac polls were skewed. They have Jeb and Scott Walker both with net positive approval. They must have oversampled Republicans.
Even if that is the case Hillary should be alarmed at the gap between her and Biden on some crucial questions. On honest and trustworthy she is 37-57 versus 58-34 for Biden. On cares about our needs she is 45-52 to 57-35. Jeb also beats her on both questions.
When asked what will influence their vote, these two qualities rank above strong leadership where Hillary does well.
It’s not surprising that Biden is seriously considering a run. Anyone who wishes the Democrats well should hope that he does jump in. Hillary is a mediocre candidate and she should not be handed the nomination without a serious fight.
Oh, Clinton is still in free fall. We haven’t seen the bottom yet. She’s now as underwater on approval as the Republican candidates and the trial heat polls are way too close given her nearly 2-1 name recognition advantage on most of the candidates.
Now we’ve got the Huma Abedin story. Not a bombshell, but just further solidifies the view of Clinton as a cronyist.
Y’know, technically, the New Horizons probe, which is and always will be moving away from the Earth at great speed, is also in freefall.
Considering that the Biden speculation is mainly fueled by Maureen Dowd … whose previous Clinton related editorials included “Granny get your gun”, which is part of a long-standing 21 year pattern of anti-Hillary by Dowd, well, I take it as a a Dowd of salt.
That said, yes, Biden in the contest would be a good thing in my mind. Hillary would of course still win but it would make for a more interesting process which could give the media something real to report on. Hillary winning, even handily, in a real fight for the nomination, would serve the party (and her general campaign) better than the entire primary basically being a victory lap.
Pfffff, don’t unfork her just yet.
November 26, 2007, Hilary assured Katie Couric that she *would * be the nominee.
We all remember how that turned out.
You’re forgetting something about Biden. Isn’t it traditional for Presidents to endorse their VPs? I would think that Obama would issue a quick endorsement of Biden if he jumped in, which should matter a lot among Democratic voters.
Obama isn’t about to endorse either Biden or Clinton until they get the nomination. There’s way too much smoke about a Biden bid for there not to be a fire, this is more than one columnist’s speculation. I think Joe runs. I’m not so sure he wouldn’t win.
Is failing to endorse your VP something that has a precedent? Clinton endorsed Gore, Reagan endorsed Bush.
But did they do so during the primary battle? I’m thinking not but I’m not sure. I’ll have to dig into it.
Actually, Clinton endorsed Gore in December 1999. The endorsement appears sincere.
On the other hand, Reagan waited till Bush had the nomination wrapped up to endorse him. The endorsement was about as sincere as Christie’s keynote for Romney in 2012.