Hillary can be stopped

The inevitability of the Hillary campaign has been the theme for awhile now in the MSM, but a few people are willing to dispute this assertion. Adam Nagourney of the New York Times started the ball rolling:

Yet Mrs. Clinton may be a good example of why the front-runner designation is so ephemeral. Mr. Obama has arguably outpaced her in fund-raising and crowds. Both Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards have held their own in winning endorsements.

Mrs. Clinton may have the lead in national polls and polls in New Hampshire. But most polls show a tight three-way race in Iowa, where many Democrats consider Mr. Edwards the, um, front-runner. Anyway, polls in Iowa and New Hampshire in the fall do not tell you very much about what is going to happen in January.

The truth is, there is no evidence that the Democratic primary voters have fallen head-over-heels for Mrs. Clinton. And any event that reminds Democratic voters of the lingering concerns about her could topple her from her perch.

The Real Clear Politics Blogs took up the issue and kicked it around. Jay Cost says Nagourney fails to realize that the media creates the front runner not voters:

This points to the methodological flaw of using polling data to analyze the state of the race. Polls are valuable to a point – but they really cannot be taken as independent evidence of the state of the race. This is how the media’s echo chamber is created. The media talks up one candidate over another. The polls echo this talking up back to the media. The media believes the polls offer independent evidence that justifies its talking up, and proceeds to talk up the particular candidate all the more.

This is why I refuse to ask the question that Dan Balz asked this week. The manner in which voters make a selection will change – because of all the money that candidates have. That’s when the real campaign begins, you know. It begins when the candidates start their advertising blitzes. That has only begun – and so the campaign has only begun. The fact that the media has nothing better to talk about in August than the “campaign” does not mean that there is a campaign to talk about.

Tom Bevan agrees and adds that a loss in Iowa could derail the Hillary campaign:

So it’s nuts to sit here in September and say Hillary can’t be stopped. We don’t know whether she can be stopped, and we won’t know whether she can be stopped until we get within a couple weeks of the caucuses and watch as voters start getting serious about making their choice.

[. . .]

Now consider how all of this could work against Hillary. She has massive leads in the national polls and in New Hampshire and Florida. But the one place where she’s in a real dog fight is Iowa. A win there would probably clinch the nomination. But if she enters as the national front runner and the prohibitive favorite and suffers an upset in Iowa – especially a bad one – it could cause her entire campaign to unravel. Especially if, as it looks now, the caucuses are held in very close proximity to the New Hampshire primary and she has no time to stanch the bleeding. So for all the talk of other candidates seeing Iowa as a “must win,” it may turn out that Hillary needs a win there most of all.

The doubts about Hillary will come. The question is whether anyone will position themselves to take advantage of those doubts and second guesses when the voting starts.

Hillary and Daily Kos Straw poll

Looks like Hillary continues to struggle with the die hard leftist NetRoots folks. Daily Kos took a straw poll and here are the results:

Barack Obama 22% 3110 votes
John Edwards 39% 5340 votes
Hillary Clinton 11% 1524 votes
Chris Dodd 6% 935 votes
Bill Richardson 2% 275 votes
Dennis Kucinich 7% 982 votes
Mike Gravel 0% 116 votes
Joe Biden 1% 168 votes
No Freakin’ Clue 4% 587 votes
Other 4% 624 votes

Click the link for historical data.

Hillary’s Iraq Straddle

This LA Times article seems to indicate that Hillary Clinton’s straddle on Iraq seems to be working:

A new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll of voters in key early primary states reveals that Moore and McCarthy are hardly alone. They represent a paradox of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination: Although a plurality of Democratic voters considers the Iraq war to be the most pressing issue facing the candidates, the more hawkish Clinton has found a sweet spot in the debate.

Many of those voters who want an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops support her candidacy and consider her best able to end the war, as do many who back a more gradual drawdown.

[. . .]

The poll, which surveyed registered voters who planned to turn out for the primaries or caucuses in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, found that a plurality of Democratic primary or caucus voters in each state thought Clinton would be “the best at ending the war in Iraq” — 33% in Iowa, 32% in New Hampshire and 36% in South Carolina. Clinton holds substantial leads even among voters who listed the war as the top priority facing the candidates.

The article also notes how Hillary campaign is effectively handling the issue:

Analysts said that Clinton’s strength even among war opponents resulted from a perception that, as a senator and a former first lady, she has the best experience to be president — a category she dominated in the three early states surveyed by the Times/Bloomberg poll.

Several respondents said Wednesday that they liked her for other reasons that trumped the war: her husband, the former president; and the idea of electing a woman to the White House.

Also, the survey reflects the Clinton campaign’s efforts over the last six months to refocus the Iraq debate on a future of troop reductions — an area of agreement among the candidates — rather than on her 2002 vote. As a result, the debate over the war has shifted from a potential disadvantage for Clinton to an asset, her advisors say.

Hillary has used her rhetoric to appeal to anti-war voters and yet her more balanced statements in debates and other forums also appeals to more moderate voters. She has successfully portrayed herself as the candidate with the experience to get things done. She seems the most competent and sure footed. Add in her husband’s popularity with some Democrats and the fact that she would be the first women president and you have her advantage.

It all comes down to a mix of electability, campaign discipline, and a desire for a women president. It isn’t really issue based in a pure sense, but rather an impression and assumption based on the candidate’s backgrounds and personas. If her opponents can’t convince voters to reassess these key areas where Hillary has successfully positioned herself, she is unlikely to lose.

The risk is that she will win the primary but face much tougher opposition in the general election. Remember John Kerry was supposed to be the electable one too.

Feelings, nothing more than feelings

According to a Gallup Feeling Thermometer Hillary is a polarizing figure:

Using a “feeling thermometer” rating scale, Gallup recently tested the public images of several of the Republican and Democratic candidates running for president in their respective parties. Of these, only one — Barack Obama — stirs up warm feelings in a majority of Americans. However, Rudy Giuliani, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and John McCain are all close to Obama in favorability. Clinton’s image is the most polarized of this group: nearly as many Americans say she leaves them cold as say they feel warmly toward her. [emphasis mine]

Ya don’t say! Here is the chart:

Interestingly, this doesn’t seem to be a problem within her own party:

Nationally, 82% of Democrats rate her warmly, which is higher than the other most positively rated Democrats: Barack Obama with 72% and John Edwards with 68%. Biden and Richardson receive much lower warm ratings from members of their own party, mostly because a large segment of Democrats says they have never heard of either candidate.

Montanans don’t want Hillary Clinton

Here is shocker: Montanans are not big fans of Hillary. With the exception of all the Hollywood types moving in, Montana has always struck me as a state with reasonable people. Polls have now back me up:

Montana voters would most likely vote for Republican John McCain for president next year, and they are least likely to support Democrat Hillary Clinton, a new Gazette State Poll shows.

The poll, taken June 25-27, didn’t break voters into political parties. Instead, it asked all 625 people surveyed if they would or would not consider voting for each of 13 different announced or likely presidential candidates if those candidates are the nominees of their respective political party. The poll has a margin of error of plus-or-minus four percentage points.

[. . .]

“Montana voters have an open mind on supporting Democrats for president, but they aren’t going to have an open mind when it comes to Hillary Clinton,” Coker said. “For Hillary Clinton to win Montana, she needs a Ross Perot.”

This would be good news for McCain and bad news for Hillary except that Montana simply doesn’t loom that large in either the primary or general election. But they are still wise to distrust Hillary.

Quinnipiac Poll Numbers in Swing States

A new set of polls brings good and bad news for Hillary:

Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani is losing ground in the 2008 general election and Republican primaries in three critical states – Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, according to Quinnipiac University’s Swing State Poll, three simultaneous surveys of voters in states that have been pivotal in presidential elections since 1964.

Head to head match-ups show:

* Ohio – Clinton ties Giuliani 43 – 43 percent, compared to May 16 when Giuliani led
47 – 43 percent;
* Florida – Giuliani beats Clinton 48 – 42 percent, compared to a 47 – 42 percent Giuliani
lead June 7;
* Pennsylvania – Giuliani and Clinton are tied 45 – 45 percent, compared to a 47 – 43
percent Giuliani lead May 31.

As has been frequently noted, however, Hillary’s negatives are high enough to put a cap on her numbers. It seems likely that these numbers reflect Giuliani’s drooping more than any Hillary gain. Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, notes that this may not mean much in the primary but it will have an impact in the general election:

“Sen. Clinton’s numbers are as reliable as a Swiss watch. Her support and lead remain rock solid among the Democrats in these key states.”

“If Sen. Obama is catching Clinton in the primary contest, there is no evidence of it in Florida and Ohio. But in November, the large number of non-Democrats who view her negatively keeps a cap on her showing against Republicans,” Brown added.

Hillary’s Achilles Heel

Nice post over at Real Clear Politics on the danger Hillary’s high unfavorables present to her campaign:

In general election matchups versus the top tier Republicans, Clinton now regularly underperforms Obama. The question then becomes whether a Democratic electorate that is desperate for a Presidential win after two excruciatingly close election losses will begin to care more about Clinton’s underperformance in the general election polls.

[. . .]

This all comes back to Hillary Clinton’s extremely high unfavorables. If these head-to-head matchups with the leading GOP candidates continue to show Senator Obama or other Democratic candidates running significantly better in the general election, it could have a significant impact on Democratic primary voters who are in no mood for another bitter disappointment next November.

Read the whole post to get the LA Times Poll details.

Hillary Struggling to Top GOP Stragglers

Here is a headline that has to give Hillary nightmares: Clinton Holds Single-Digit Leads Over Huckabee, Brownback. That’s gotta hurt.

The Rasmussen report also contains this little nugget (which we have touched on before):

However, in general election match-ups, she typically is outperformed by Illinois Senator Barack Obama (D) and former North Carolina Senator John Edwards (D). That’s largely because voters have such strong opinions—one way or the other—about the former First Lady. Forty-seven percent (47%) of American voters say they will definitely vote against Clinton if she’s on the ballot in 2008.

Hillary Clinton is now viewed favorably by 49% of likely voters, unfavorably by 51%. That includes 22% with a Very Favorable opinion and 35% with a Very Unfavorable opinion.

Maybe Hillary’s charm offensive isn’t working out so well? Maybe people aren’t exactly thrilled about her new economic plan? If she is struggling to out poll two GOP candidates with low name recognition and high negatives she isn’t the juggernaut many believe her to be.

Hillary in the lead in Ohio

But with high negatives

A recently released Quinnipac poll has Hillary Clinton leading the Democratic presidential candidates in Ohio. She has the lead with 38% with Senator Barack Obama in second with 19% while Edwards and Gore lag behind with 11% and 10%.

Interestingly enough, another New Yorker leads on the GOP side as well with former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani leading Senator John McCain 23% to 17%. And Both McCain and Giuliani lead Hillary in a general election match-up; Giuliani 47-43 and McCain 45-44.

What is really interesting, and has to be troubling for Mrs. Clinton, is her high negatives. The former first lady has 45 unfavorable versus 46 favorable with only a net of plus 1. This is the lowest of any of the major candidates of either party.

How could this be? Must be that right-wing conspiracy Hillary is always talking about. How else could so many Americans have an unfavorable opinion about such a public servant? Perhaps they don’t buy attempts to show the Senator’s softer side with video chats and sweet talk. Maybe they remember her machinations in the White House (Health Care, travel office, billing records, etc.). Maybe they have a gut feeling that the velvet covering the iron fist is pretty thin. Maybe they are right . . .