Hillary' fading? (In which I go cherrypicking the polls)

We love our polls around here, don't we?

Dropped by Rasmussen today and noted a few polls that showed some chinks in the Clinton armor.  Given that we have a few diligent posters here always ready to share the inevitability - I thought I'd take it upon myself to share some of the numbers not as likely to be reported.

Here we go:

Nationally: Giuliani Now Tops Clinton by Seven Points

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/in_surge_giuliani_now_to ps_clinton_by_seven_points

"After being virtually tied with Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton for several months, Republican contender Rudy Giuliani now leads Clinton up 47% to 40% in the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey."

Oregon: Clinton Struggles in Blue State Against Republican Hopefuls

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/oregon_clinton_struggles in_blue_state_against_republican_hopefu ls

"Oregon has cast its Electoral College votes for the Democrats in five consecutive Presidential Elections. However, even during that stretch, no Democrat has even earned more than 52% support in the state. Three of the five Democratic victories were earned with 47% of the vote or less.

If New York Senator Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee in Election 2008, it may take some work to keep Oregon in the Democratic column--52% of the state's voters currently have an unfavorable opinion of the Democratic frontrunner."

Favorables: Lowest level all year.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/daily_presidential_track ing_poll_1

"Clinton is now viewed favorably by 73% of Democrats, Edwards by 69% and Obama by 67%. Overall, among all voters, Clinton's favorables fell this week to 45%. That's the lowest level recorded all year."

---------------------------------------- -----------------------

Of course these polls are only part of the story.  Clinton had good news in Arkansas and Michigan where she is polling extremely well in a general election.  Her lead in New Hampshire is also growing.  Even in the numbers I presented - Giuliani's lead is likely an outlier.  But pretend you didn't hear that.  This diary is about cherrypicking the bad news.  I do this in a vain attempt to fit in around here.  Hope it works.

The truth of the matter is that Clinton is doing fine.  The nomination is still hers to lose.  But her inevitability is overstated, and there is reason to ask whether she has peaked.

There is still almost 5 months to go.   Don't let the polls fool you - even these.  Fight for your candidate - even if she/he is already inevitable!        

Tags: Democratic Primary, Hillary Clinton, polls, Rasmussen (all tags)

Comments

53 Comments

LOL

Write whatever you want. Looks to me this is an attempt to spin against the shocking Arkansas and CA polling numbers.

LOL.

by areyouready 2007-08-17 09:00AM | 0 recs
Re: LOL

No this is his attempt to mock people that Cherry pick polls to paint a bad picture like the diary by Michael for Edwards claiming she's unelectable and then linking to the "join John Edwards" movement.

by world dictator 2007-08-17 09:09AM | 0 recs
Re: LOL

Or like GeorgeP did earlier this morning and people like AREYOUREADY do on a regular basis as they pimp and sell the soul of the Democratic Party by promoting she-who-must-not-be-named.... Which, knowing his background and who he supports is who this is targeting.

by yitbos96bb 2007-08-17 09:39AM | 0 recs
Re: LOL

No there's a difference. Particularly with George's diaries. There's a difference between cherry picking data to paint together a picture and reporting a poll that benefits your candidate.

If someone released a reliable poll showing Edwards is up in Iowa that wouldn't be cherry picking.

Its kind of hard to report an article about a poll with the title "Hillary up by double digits" without pointing out that Hillary is doing well.

by world dictator 2007-08-17 09:46AM | 0 recs
Re: LOL

Why all the whining?   Polls come out and they will be diaried here.  If they show certain results, that will be discussed.  There is NOTHING cherry picked about the poll I diaried this morning.  NOTHING.  You are basically making stuff up now, which is a crying shame.  As I stated in that diary, with Shaun Appleby gone, there are very few Obama posters left here with decent comments (Korha is one.)  

  The only part I left out of the poll diary this morning were two individual comments, one from a person who stated why she supports Clinton over anyone else and one Republican voter who stated why does not support here.  I felt that anecdotal quotes from 2 individuals were not all that interesting.  

by georgep 2007-08-17 10:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary' fading?

That's right.  It is spin.  I made these numbers up and paid Rasmussen to report them.

You caught me.

by AdamSmithsHand 2007-08-17 09:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary' fading?

Nice diary..Thank you for writing it because this blog had been polluted by bullshit HillaryHub diaries.

by JaeHood 2007-08-17 09:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary' fading?

Thanks,

For the record - I don't believe in candidate attack diaries.  I think they are basically shameful.

I am willing to attack inevitability as a concept because there are so many loud voices here pushing it shamelessly.  But as for Clinton herself - she is a fine Democrat.  I disagree with her on a few issues, but I'd happily have her as President over any Republican, as I would Edwards, Dodd, Richardson, Kucinich and Gravel.

by AdamSmithsHand 2007-08-17 09:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary' fading?

I agree we shouldn't have attack diaries, the reason being, if there is any legitimacy to any of these, it would be on the MSM.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-08-17 10:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary' fading? (In which I )

Rasmussen seems to be suggesting that Obama has been doing much better during the past week or so and he seems to be regaining his soft support that he lost a month ago.

The race is going back to a low teen mid teens lead for Hillary and Obama has to try hard to get it back to the low teens and possibly into the high singles..Maybe 9-8....If he can get it back to the low teens , high singles , that'd be a good thing since he's been down by as much as 20-25 point in those rasmussen polls.

Anyway , i'm seeing some improvement which is good news for all Obama supporters.

by JaeHood 2007-08-17 09:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary' fading? (In which I )

that is the funniest thing i have heard

by lori 2007-08-17 09:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary' fading? (In which I )

Go back to Hillaryhub.

by JaeHood 2007-08-17 09:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary' fading? (In which I )

Go back to second place...oh wait

by world dictator 2007-08-17 09:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary' fading? (In which I )

I can't wait till you pass us on your way there.  It'll be a great great day.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-08-17 10:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary' fading? (In which I )

Actually it's Hillaryis44

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-08-17 10:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary' fading? (In which I )

Don't you mean you are Hoping to see improvement?

by DoIT 2007-08-17 09:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary' fading? (In which I )

Or it's the fact that Hillary is being outfundraised by a large margin, which matters and will show as spending becomes more important?  Yeah.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-08-17 10:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary' fading? (In which I )

Yeah, money.  Money, money, money.  It actually helps Clinton not to be perceived as the "big money" candidate who can buy her way to the nomination.   Thanks, Obama.   :-)

by georgep 2007-08-17 11:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary' fading? (In which I )

Nice try, G-Orge -- or is that OrgY -- oh, nevermind.

by horizonr 2007-08-17 02:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary' fading? (In which I )

Wow.  Getting a bit desperate here?   Typical stuff, though.   I could be as juvenile and find something to concoct with hor-izon, but that would be going to your silly level, which I refuse to descend to.    :-)

by georgep 2007-08-17 03:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary' fading? (In which I )

Touche.

by horizonr 2007-08-17 03:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary' fading? (In which I go cherrypicking

Clinton 'inevitability' is not about writing off Obama/Edwards.  'Inevitability' signals to Republican males, 'she's coming so get used to it.'  It helps Clinton in the general for Obama/Edwards to stay within 'striking distance' now so Republican males can feel, 'well, she's better than those guys.'  All part of the master plan.

Imagine you were a male sexist pig, and you walked into work one day to find your new boss was a woman.  Do you quit?  Say something stupid and get fired?  Make yourself sick with resentment?  No, you get over it.  But it takes a little time.  'Inevitability' helps sexist Republican males 'get over it'.

by Canaan 2007-08-17 09:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary' fading? (In which I go cherrypicking

Much as I'd like to help her with this, I still get a choice as to whether I want her as my nominee.

Some of us resent the implication that our votes don't matter.

by AdamSmithsHand 2007-08-17 09:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary' fading? (In which I go cherrypicking

Ha , You'll get over it.

by lori 2007-08-17 09:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary' fading? (In which I go cherrypicking

The idea that Clinton might be inevitable is mentioned more by Obama/Edwards supporters than it is by Clinton supporters. The number isn't even close. In fact every time I make an argument I explicitly point out that this does not mean Hillary is inevitable. Many other people on here do too.

Being the frontrunner is just that. It's not Clinton's fault she's doing so well at this point.

by world dictator 2007-08-17 09:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary' fading? (In which I go cherrypicking

Right you are, world dictator.  The diarist would have it that none of the polls we are seeing should be discussed here, nor the internals they show (i.e. movement of youth voters, movement of Independents, etc.)  That despite the fact that this site has a strong poll focus, and poll discussion is absolutely encouraged and wanted here.

 He is free to diary whatever it is he wants.  I fully expect to see multiple diaries the next time Obama has a good poll for him (especially national polls, but also state polls, no matter where they may be from.)  It is this constant whining about polls that seems way overboard.    

People hate polls when they show results and internals that don't line up with their preferences.   That does not make them wrong or discussion worthy, only disliked in a sensitive sort of way.    

by georgep 2007-08-17 10:00AM | 0 recs
What is it the diarist would like?

Putting words in my mouth George?

I don't mind polls.  I mind the selective use of them.  

BTW - shall we now revisit our discussion from two weeks ago regarding favorables and unfavorables?  Seems they've moved the direction I suggested they might.

by AdamSmithsHand 2007-08-17 10:05AM | 0 recs
Re: What is it the diarist would like?

Then diary it.  This whining is incessant.  You won't see me whine about a diary you come up with that is based on "good for you" poll numbers.  I might counter it with other recent polls we have seen that say and show the opposite, but you won't see me whine and go all nuclear (as you constantly seem to do) because, god beware, a poster on MyDD writes a non-complimentary diary on Clinton.  

by georgep 2007-08-17 10:11AM | 0 recs
Are you supposed to be my model?

No thanks on that George.

Seems to me that you are the one whining here.  

by AdamSmithsHand 2007-08-17 10:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Are you supposed to be my model?

I am critiquing an excessevily whiny diary, and it is of course seen in the context of several other similarly "annoyed," "whiny," "exasperated" diaries coming from the same source.  

It is like the boy who cried wolf.  Nobody listens, even if you have a legtitimate beef, with all the whining and droning on about how "polls are destroying this place" and "polls showing Clinton ahead is not what we want to see all the time" occurs with such constancy.; It appears, well, like a lot of whining.  

by georgep 2007-08-17 11:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Are you supposed to be my model?

Again...seems like you are doing the whining here.  

I'm all smiles.  

by AdamSmithsHand 2007-08-17 11:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Are you supposed to be my model?

I don't see how this diary is whiney while your comments constitute a critique. The diary has two critical claims: (1) there is too much cherrypicking of favorable polls on this site; and (2) although the incessant posting of favorable polls for Hillary suggests an intent to demoralize Edwards and Obama supporters, we should continue to support the candidate we think is best regardless of suggestions that our support is being wasted on a loser.

These are perfectly legitimate points. It's easy to call any criticism "whining," but that doesn't make the criticism meritless.  

by DPW 2007-08-17 11:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Are you supposed to be my model?

You probably haven't noticed that the same diarist has been diarying about this same exact thing multiple times.   Is this a case where some believe repetition makes a point stronger?  Once a point is made, it is made.  No need to repeat it.  

by georgep 2007-08-17 03:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Are you supposed to be my model?

Funny coming from you.

A few of us have noted some repetition in your work around here as well.

Go figure.  

by AdamSmithsHand 2007-08-17 04:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Are you supposed to be my model?

Nah, you are the repeater king.  I guess you'll write a diary like this everytime you see a poll.  Sad to reduce yourself to stuff like this.  But ok, it's a free web.  

Ever wonder WHY you are reduced to these diaries?  I guess your assertion that polls are "all over the place" is totally wrong, otherwise you should be able to soon talk up a poll that shows Obama with a 15%, 20% lead in any state or national poll.  

by georgep 2007-08-17 06:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Are you supposed to be my model?

"Reduced."  Ha.

Thanks for your concern.  

by AdamSmithsHand 2007-08-17 09:16PM | 0 recs
Wolf

If anyone cries wolf -- or shall I say Wolfson -- in this campaign, it's Hillary Clinton.

"Obama attacked me!" "The Pentagon attacked me!" "The White House attacked me!" "George Bush attacked me!"
"Help me, everyone! Send money! I'm being attacked!"

What a whiner.

by horizonr 2007-08-17 02:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Wolf

Nobody is talking about the campaigns.  I am talking about the repetetiveness from the same diarist about the exact same topic.  

by georgep 2007-08-17 03:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Wolf

I'm not talking about "the campaigns," either -- I'm talking about Hillary Clinton. She's a pathological whiner.

by horizonr 2007-08-17 03:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Wolf

Isn't this post almost an exact copy of your last one?

Try not to be so repetitive George.

by AdamSmithsHand 2007-08-17 04:01PM | 0 recs
Re: What is it the diarist would like?

Quoting our dear friend George:

This whining is incessant. You won't see me whine about a diary you come up with...you won't see me whine and go all nuclear....

May I just say that the "incessant" use of the word "whine," on the part of "Hillary"-philes is more than a little...whiny.

by horizonr 2007-08-17 02:32PM | 0 recs
Re: What is it the diarist would like?

When I see a whiny diary (either about poll diaries or about some imagined screwy conspiracy) I'll call it whiny.  I could care less what you want to call my posts addressing  whiny stuff.   It is a free country.  

by georgep 2007-08-17 03:29PM | 0 recs
Re: What is it the diarist would like?

Okay...now how many times have you repeated this whine today?

People are starting to talk.

by AdamSmithsHand 2007-08-17 04:02PM | 0 recs
Re: What is it the diarist would like?

I'll state my assertion that diaries like this one (pretty much this and all your other repetetive diaries) are nothing but a whine.    Polls are a huge part of this site.  They have been that long before you decided to start posting here.   Don't like it?  Too bad.  Instead of complaining so much, just show where they are wrong, where Obama is really more popular, etc.    

by georgep 2007-08-17 06:56PM | 0 recs
Re: What is it the diarist would like?

I've stated over and over again.  I have not problem with polls.  Just selective use of them.

Now stop whining.

by AdamSmithsHand 2007-08-17 09:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary' fading? (In which I go cherrypicking

I generally agree with you here, but there's still something curious about the frequency of poll citations by Clinton supporters. I'm not referring to diaries so much as gratuitous references to polls in comment threads. There's a taunting quality to much of it, and I don't see any legitimate point to it. These comments are also often accompanied by remarks like "Obama is imploding," indicating nothing more than a desire to destroy morale. That's some tacky shit.

Also, tangentially related, yesterday areyouready suggested than demoinesdem had no credibility to discuss the electoral politics of Iowa because she had always supported losing candidates in the past. The suggestion was that intelligent people only support winning candidates, which is absurd.

by DPW 2007-08-17 10:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary' fading? (In which I go cherrypicking

I generally agree with you here, but there's still something curious about the frequency of poll citations by Clinton supporters. I'm not referring to diaries so much as gratuitous references to polls in comment threads. There's a taunting quality to much of it, and I don't see any legitimate point to it. These comments are also often accompanied by remarks like "Obama is imploding," indicating nothing more than a desire to destroy morale. That's some tacky shit.

I agree sometimes polls are posted in threads when they should not be. I rarely do it and I have no control over others so theres not much I can do.

However there are a good amount of instances where polls cited in diaries are in reference to or response to claims that are not true and often times bs speculation. For example if someone claims that X demographic group refuses to vote for Hillary but several polls show that X demographic group loves Hillary then its definetely appropriate to cite polls

by world dictator 2007-08-17 10:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary' fading? (In which I go cherrypicking

Also, I don't think taunting is good by anyone. But Clinton supporters go through a shit load of crap on this site as well. Except people try and claim its "fair to discuss" and then they just make shit up or say something that they wish were true with no data or analysis to back up the claim.

So I'm just saying it goes both ways, as is the nature of blogs

by world dictator 2007-08-17 10:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary' fading? (In which I go cherrypicking

I love this talking point that opposing campaigns are using now..."we shouldn't nominate Clinton because Republican's will be mean to democrats!"

Do you really think that the Republicans are going to just sit around while John Edwards tries to deconstruct the entire system while pushing for radically, not use pejoratively, progressive policies?

If you really claim that Edwards is going to push a populist agenda then theres no way you can argue that the Republicans would not be going after her as much if not more than Clinton.

by world dictator 2007-08-17 09:41AM | 0 recs
Head to head, D vs R are meaningless

They are meaningless at this point.  The electorate that will decide the general are not tuned in the way primary voters are.   The people that decide the general are the 10% who are still whining after the debates in October "I still haven't heard enough yet."

Furthermore you some at this point who poisen the well.  A Mitt Romney supporter perhaps not voicing support for Giuliani in a head to head poll, even though they would vote for Rudy when the time comes (same on the D side).

At any rate the head to head match ups are meaningless until the two candidates are picked.  I may change my tune on that on a few months if it is totally, 100% clear there a Democrat and a Republicans are clearly going to be the nominee.  But even then, I would give them much weight.

by dpANDREWS 2007-08-17 09:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary' fading? (In which I go cherrypicking

Hee hee.  You're sure right about all the cherrypicking around here.

OMG, have you seen the latest numbers from Utah, which just happen to support my candidate?  How about Saskatchewan and Kazakhstan?  Blah blah blah.

It's hard to imagine that general election numbers mean very much, except in the early states where people are actually campaigning.

by Steve M 2007-08-17 10:04AM | 0 recs
I love the Inevitability­® meme

it just reminds me that no election has really gone quite as expected since Reagan-Mondale 1984. With expectations this high, one Iowa loss and Hillary suffers an awful weeklong news cycle that can seriously put a dent in her already paper-thin armor.

We'll just have to wait and see.

by mihan 2007-08-17 10:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary' fading? (In which I go cherrypicking

This diary is crazy. Hillary isn't losing. Everyone else is.

by Dickweed 2007-08-17 10:57AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads