Which data falsifies what I said? The polls show pretty overwhelmingly that voters don’t think Clinton is honest.
I’m referring to the data that shows her well out in front anyway. The data that says what *you *think is critically important is *not *important to the electorate in general, most of whom are *not *blindly partisan and looking for excuses to wave their party’s flags.
Well out in front, but falling, with months still to fall, and her opponents not as well known as her.
Did you miss her dropping 30 points in IA and NH to Sanders over the summer, and losing her lead against Republicans in trial heat polls? The state level polling is even uglier for her against Republicans, and these are states Obama won: IA, NH, PA, FL.
Oh, please. Do we have lies, or just the usual level of putting the best spin on things, not disclosing everything, IOW, normal human and political behavior?
First of all, I still don’t see her as being subtantially more duplicitous than any other big-league politician this side of Jimmy Carter. And second, ‘not honest and trustworthy’ is immensely preferable to ‘ignorant, malicious, and batshit crazy.’
What - ignorant, malicious, and batshit crazy? Certainly not! That’s why I’ll be voting for Hillary next fall.
Clinton has less room to get away with it because she already comes off as inauthentic. Although I do believe she lies more than your average politician.
Well sure, if she faces Ted Cruz, she’ll probably win based on that. She won’t be facing Ted Cruz.
She might not even be the nominee at this point. Her historic lead is not so historic anymore. Now there’s a race.
Some terrible numbers for Hillary in the latest CNN poll. Her support among Democrats is down ten points to 37%. Against Republicans she is 48-48 against Trump, 47-49 against Jeb and 46-51 against Carson. Biden is 54-44 , 52-44 and 47-50 against the three.
I wouldn’t take the Carson number too seriously, I think both of them would beat him comfortably in the end but these polls continue to show Hillary’s weakness.
When will Hillary bottom out? She is almost -13 on Huffpo. She has been sliding continuously for 5 months now. I can’t see her falling below -15 so the free fall is probably going to end soon. The debates will give her an opportunity to change the story but she need to grab it and turn around her numbers.
As with all momentum-based arguments, it depends a lot on why you think she was higher and where you think she ought to be.
It seems pretty indisputable to me that Hillary’s numbers were inflated. She has historically high polling for being so early in a primary, and no one actually thinks that come election day she’s gonna beat the Republican by 10 points or even 5 points.
I think it follows that some gravity was in order. What I expect is for her RCP aggregates to stay just a hair above her GOP competitors, which is a slightly conservative-leaning measure because they don’t weight their polls for historical accuracy. I also expect that like any party primary there will be significant support for the less moderate candidate. Something like 40% vs. 30% feels about right to me.
So this feels like gravity taking things about where they will stay going forward. But it’s impossible to know.
The “gravity” argument falls flat when it comes to her favorability. It’s not as if she has come down from +25 to +5. She has now reached a point from which no one has gone on to become President. In fact she has reached a point worse than most losing candidates. Romney had similar numbers at the height of the primary battle in February but much better numbers at this stage.
The problem with that argument is that someone is gonna be President. Only Ben Carson has better favorables on the GOP side. And that evidence is not enough to persuade me that Bernie Sanders or Ben Carson is likely to be sitting in the Oval Office. I think the better explanation is that in 2015 all mainstream politicians running for election have lower favorables than they would have in prior cycles. Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Scott Walker, et al. included.
Rubio and Kasich have better net favorables than Hillary and both are plausible Presidential candidates. I don’t buy the idea that -13 is some kind of new normal in US politics. The obvious benchmark for a national Dem politician is Obama and he is +1. I don’t see any good reason for Hillary to be 14 points worse than he is, other than that she is a lousy candidate.
No they don’t. And Obama isn’t running.
Mostly because they haven’t gotten much attention or support; they haven’t been worth attacking.
If either of them started being the main Establishment alternative to Trump/Carson/Cruz, they’d probably be victims of the Bachmann/Cain Effect from 2011.
It’s really pretty obvious what’s going on. Everybody’s dogpiling on Hillary, so her numbers have gone down. Big surprise! Hardly anyone’s attacking Bernie (Hillary’s not because she doesn’t want to alienate his supporters; conservatives hope he manages to hurt her chances, and would rather run against him than Hillary) so he’s doing great. Nobody’s attacking Biden right now because (a) he’s not running, and (b) conservatives would love it if he added confusion to the Dem race, so his numbers are good.
And similarly on the GOP side. Nobody’s bothering to attack Kasich or Rubio, so their favorability numbers are doing just fine. They have little support, but people have favorable opinions of them.
My advice to the people running Hillary’s campaign would be: don’t panic. In large, friendly letters.
And if you’re saying her support or favorability is at a level “from which no one has gone on to become President” could you link to (a) her favorability ratings, and (b) some evidence that they’re below what any successful candidate has ever had before?
Is everyone really attacking Hillary? Certainly she is not the focus of the Trump campaign and he is now the biggest story on the Republican side. There is some Republican attack on the e-mail issue but overall it’s nowhere close to what Obama was facing in 2011 or what any candidate will face in the general election.
Hillary is now -13 on the Huffington Post aggregator. We don’t have the same kind of detailed numbers a few elections back but from the digging I have done I have yet to find any Presidential winner with such poor numbers. Since favorability numbers were generally higher earlier, I doubt it’s ever happened.
Rubio is -9 or so. So is Kasich.
And those numbers don’t mean much anyway since they aren’t well-known.
Favorability tends to have an inverse relationship to both recognition and proximity to possible nomination. If Biden jumped in, his favorables would drop. As Sanders becomes more well-known, his will too. If Rubio became the frontrunner tomorrow, his numbers would also drop. If Mitch Daniels decided to run, his favorables would drop. That’s the nature of things–the people who get to know you first tend to be the ones most likely to favor you, and people’s opinions become more partisan the closer you get to actual nomination. It’s not an ironclad rule or anything, but it’s a pretty good rule of thumb.
Rubio is -3 and Kasich is -6 on the HuffPo aggregator.
Hillary’s drop from around 0 to -13 in the first 5 months of her campaign is unprecedented as far as I can tell. Can you give me an example of a similar trajectory? It’s not true that favorables invariably drop as you become the front-runner. Romney’s favorables held steady during the comparable period in 2011. Trump’s numbers are actually climbing and are now slightly better than Hillary’s.
Ok. How many polls are there of Kasich favorability to aggregate? How many people know Rubio? It’s a bit like comparing the bench press numbers of a 40-year-old 150 lb. man and a 25-year-old 200 lb. man.
This is a new argument, and it’s even weaker than your old argument. Hillary has history-setting highs in her early polling. So a history-setting return to the mean doesn’t say much.
I didn’t say they invariably did so. In fact, I specifically said the opposite! That said, those are pretty poor counter-examples. The vast majority of people do not think Trump is a serious contender. If they come to think that, his favorables will drop. Happy to place bets.
Hillary didn’t have a “history-setting” high at the start of her campaign. She was around 0. And she has gone from 0 to -13 in just 5 months.
-13 is a terrible number for a Presidential candidate. If you think that is false, show me the candidate who has gone from -13 to win the election.
Not in favorability. In polling to win the nomination. And, as I said, generally there’s an inverse relationship between proximity to the nomination and favorability. No candidate has ever been such a strong front-runner, polling-wise.
I don’t need to bother because this is bad reasoning. If you look around and every serious candidate has negative favorability, you ought to be asking yourself about the political environment, not the candidates.
Or, to put it another way, I’m happy to put my money on the fact that Hillary is still by far the likeliest candidate to win. Given your confidence that no candidate could possibly win with that favorability, you should happily take that bet. Right?
Speaking of bad reasoning, I don’t know what I was trying to say here, but this was not it.
It doesn’t really matter if a candidate has ever gone on from -13 favorability to become president in the past when it is very likely to happen in 2016.
Clinton, Bush, and Trump have all been there this cycle and one them is likely to be the next president (at least according to PredictWise).