New Zogby on Candidates' negatives

[elizm]

New Zogby poll asks voters who would never get their vote—Gingrich, Clinton, Gore, and Romney lead the field

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1263

With the actual voting still a long way into the future, more than half of the American electorate has already made up its mind about who they won’t be casting ballots for in 2008 – 53% said they would never vote for Newt Gingrich, even as the Georgia firebrand continues to mull a jump into the field of Republican presidential candidates, a new Zogby International telephone poll shows.

The leading Democrat in the race can’t feel much solace – nearly half (46%) said they have an aversion to voting for New York Sen. Hillary Clinton. In a national Zogby telephone survey of likely Democratic primary voters in late February, she led the field of Democratic presidential candidates at 33%. It’s no surprise Clinton has been written off by a vast majority of self-described conservative (70%) and very conservative (79%) voters, but even among moderate voters, 42% said they would never cast a vote to put Clinton into the White House....

[BeyondGeography]

1. This poll is consistent with about 14 years of data on Hillary

This comes from Charles H. Franklin a professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin, an expert in the statistical analysis of polls, public opinion and election results:

<Sen. Clinton is often described as an intensly polarizing figure, and there is some evidence for this in the levels of her "unfavorable" ratings. These rose sharply in 1993-94 as she took on non-traditional policy roles while first lady. But having reached 40% unfavorable by 1995, they have rarely dropped below that. Only during the Lewinsky scandal did unfavorable drop to around 30%. Since then it has remained in the ball park of 40%, but at times rising to around 45%. While not a measure of the intensity of these feelings, the data certainly show that Sen. Clinton has been viewed unfavorably by a consistent 40% of the population for the last six years. This of course is one of the difficulties she faces in a race for national office.>

http://politicalarithmetik.blogspot.com/2006/08/hillarys-image-1993-2006.html

[wyldwolf]

2. If we are to believe this poll... and there is no reason not to...

...because polls are a snapshot of the feelings of those polled at the time...

Al Gore is in a statistical dead heat with Clinton in negatives at 43%

Te negatives are consistant with recent Time Poll or USA Today which found surprising large numbers had never heard of Obama or Edwards

More interestingly (if we don't pick and choose which parts we believe), among Democrats, 18% would never cast a vote in Clinton’s favor, 19% would never vote for Obama and 20% would never vote for Edwards. Again, statistically even.

[MannyGoldstein]

4. Strange Results

Given that Gore already won one presidential election, those are odd results, unless people have soured on him since 2000 - which I doubt, but I suppose is possible.

[wyldwolf]

6. strange results, indeed, and further...

... the stat from a previous poll showing lower name recognition for Obama and Edwards just proves to me how polarized voters are over a choice between a Democrat and a Republican and not really one or two Democrats specifically.

[izzie]

3. I really would like to see new blood in the WH.

We have Bush's around for ever and Clinton's long enough. I would so like to see some new thinkers. You must know that I grew up with a Bush a big deal in Congress. I am sick of these same old people and thinking in our face.

[depakid]

5. Hillary actually has high negatives on both sides of the aisle

as the result of "triangulation." People on the right will never vote for her- yet she panders to them anyway.

Sort of like her husband did when he sold all of us out to the corporate media (that never gave him a break).

[elizm]

7. What worries me...

Is that among likely Democratic Primary voters, Hillary has the lowest negatives of the Dem. candidates, but among all voters she has the highest negatives of the Dem. candidates. So as many of us have feared before, she'll get the Dem. nomination but can't win in the general election with negatives that high. We need the moderate/independent votes but her negatives are high with them.

[depakid]

9. That's why I was hoping that she wouldn't run in the first place

[skipos]

10. Yes. Hillary underperforms other Dems in general election polls

I hope she isn't our nominee.

I hope Newt or Romney are the Repub nominee, as they look to be easier to beat than Dame Rudy and Weathervane McCain.

[enough already]

23. Exactly right

These numbers shouldn't be news to anyone. She's the single worst possible candidate we could nominate to win a general. Yet we march like lemmings towards the cliff anyway.

[AshevilleGuy]

27. That 'inevitability' thing again,

just like in 1984 and 1988. I am fairly convinced that she will indeed be our nominee; Bill Clinton can get her nominated, but he can't win the general for her.

I remember in Spring of 1984 when the machine kicked in for Mondale; he just began winning primary after primary and Gary Hart was out. Tip O'Neal jovially told him on camera, "It's all right, Son, it will be your turn next time!". In fairness, maybe no one could have beaten Ronnie, but we will never be certain. It was CERTAIN that MOndale could not!

[job777]

33. Agree

Boy she could be our worst nightmare.

[sampsonblk]

31. Great, then we can finally put this to rest...

She had high negatives when she first ran for the Senate in New York. And anti-Hillary money flooded into NY to try to stop her. She won in a landslide. And many of the people who swore they would never vote for her . . . well 'never' came pretty fast. She is a great campaigner, and she has a lot of advantages.

I hope once she wins, we can go back to nominating who we want, instead of who we think will appeal to others.

[Alcibiades]

13. Bingo

Why Hillary is so right-wing is beyond me. The right has her pegged as a liberal and will never, ever vote for her. I think she adopts these right-wing positions because she actually believes in them. With Hillary, we get all the disadvantages of a liberal president (i.e. a highly mobilized Republican opposition) without the advantages (i.e. policies that are actually liberal).

[papau]

8. In a race that ends 53 to 47 or closer, what is the effect of part of the 47% saying now

that they would never vote for you?

Without some sort of correlation to the final vote from past election, this type of number would appear to be meaningless, reflecting not much more than name recognition and party affilation.

[elizm]

11. How about this...

I prefer a race that is not so close that the Republicans can steal it again. I prefer a candidate who can draw more voters...from Independents to Moderate Republicans. Hillary can't do that. Neither could John Kerry. We need a candidate who has the ability to inspire and draw voters from both sides. If the election is close again in 2008, the Republicans will find a way to steal it. The only reason they weren't able to steal the seats in 2006 is because they UNDERESTIMATED the tidal wave that was going to hit them....and Independents as well as Republicans crossed over to vote for the Democratic candidates. How is that for correlation to past election?

[jcrew2001]

12. yeah

yeah we should misunderestimate the repubs from stealing close elections. Edwards is the Only choice.

[Colobo]

14. Edwards is the Only choice... according to you.

[Alcibiades]

15. I like Edwards, but

that does not mean there are not other credible candidates who also can win. I think Richardson (my preferred candidate of the moment), Obama, or Clark could all win. I like Kucinich, just like everyone else, and wish he could win.

Anyone but Senator Clinton.

[job777]

34. Well I like

Richardson's chances best.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[skipos]

17. There is no difference between the 35% for Edwards and the 33% for Obama

You know how @ 29% of America still approves of Bush? Those nuts are going to NEVER vote for ANY of our candidates. If you included Jesus (D) in this poll, about a third of the voters would say they would never vote for him either.

Edwards and Obama's numbers are about as good as it is ever going to get for us. Hillary on the other hand... well... I just hope she isn't our nominee with crappy numbers like that.

[bigdarryl]

18. These are bullshit polls because a lot of those polled won't vote anyway

[skipos]

19. These kinds of polls are good for assessing general trends

While the numbers may vary a bit, it is very obvious that Hillary has great name recognition, a solid base of supporters, but more haters than any other announced Dem candidate.

[NDP]

25. I agree that it's about as "good as" you are going to get, but I think that Edwards would have

an easier time improving his positives than the others would.

[lostnotforgotten]

21. The House And The Iraq Vote Are Enough For No A From Me.

eom

[Fovea]

24. I mistrust using 'never' questions

to generalize into voter behavior.

Mild aversion and unfamiliarity translate too easily into intractable hatred when asked questions in this sort of framework.

Some of those nevers were more like probably not.

And I think Newt sadly, has more of a chance than that 53% never suggests. Not a winning chance in a clean election. But close enough to Rove.

I think it more important to see the numbers on positives. From what I see in terms of reactons, Obama and Edwards are on top.

No single Pubby blows up the skirts of the neos, theos, paleos, or race baiting segments of the Republic party.

The neos force their candidates to sound like Sharon. They like McCain because he has been annointed by the prince of darkness. When the prince of darkness changes his mind, they will gladly kick him to the curb. Just keep the body count high, and promise them decades of .05 gal gasoline and they will sell not just their souls, but everyone elses they can ID theft.

The theos make John McCain sound like he is appologizing for the theory of the heliocentric solar system. They will not vote for a mormon, or a kink. They want Sam Brownback. I think geico(tm) already beat them to using atavism as a marketing ploy. I think they would go for Newt, if he could apologize for his sins as convincingly as Randy Cunningham.

The paleos desperately want someone with gravitas, and they are forced into Giuliani's camp. While we may not get the first woman president in 08, the paleocons would be ok with the first drag president.

The white power republics aren't sure what kind of name Brownback is, anyway...Or Mitt, for that matter.

It sucks to be them.

[Morgana LaFey]

26. I'd say welcome to DU except

I'm not so happy about your sexist and homophobic rendition of Ann Coulter's name. You might want to look at the expanded rules of DU. Just a thought.

[Learn2Swim]

20. .

ABC

[Egalitarian]

22. Hey, Here's a poll Kucinich could lead!

Unfortunately though, as so few know what he stands for.

[skipos]

28. Surprisingly, Kucinich is the most common "last choice"

in this mydd.com poll I was just looking at.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/3/12/213630/002

[Hawkowl]

36. Born in the wrong time.

Kucinich would actually as chance as a darkhorse candidate back when conventions actually chose are candidates, like Lincoln.

[xchrom]

29. two things come to mind when i read this --

first is that we are still living in the era of political parity -- brought to you by the reagan era and the sales job done over the taxes issue.

and the second is non-voters.
america has an extraordinarily high number of registered voters who will not go to the polls to vote.

if the are given candidates they don't like i'm guessing that number can go up during an election cycle.
give people one candidate who they think might cut their taxes at a time when they are feeling financially vulnerable and you may have the winner when looking at a race where no body loves who is running.

and lastly -- americans are facing a deep, deep crisis when it comes to how they think and feel about government.

what democrats need to learn is that authenticity counts -- americans will warm up to any candidate if believe they in the product they are selling and act accordingly.
there is a NEED to be a real party of the left and not run away from it.

[Greyhound]

30. Yep, the fewer the voters, the more likely the Republiks win.

I believe this is almost exclusively due to the fact that, until recently, people absolutely know where the Republiks stand. Most don't like it, but there is no question about it.

OTOH, we've wasted decades running away from taking a stand on anything for fear of offending someone.

[skipos]

35. The turnout for Nixon vs. McGovern was about the same as Bush vs. Kerry

@ 55%. If you aren't inspired to vote in those elections, I don't know if you are EVER going to be inspired to vote.

[Alamom]

32. ZOGBY;There is still work to be done in perfecting the interactive polling model

-for instance, the interactive survey had Minnesota Democrat Amy Klobuchar leading in the Senate race there by 8%, while she coasted to an easy 20% victory. And in New York, incumbent Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton led by 24% in the poll but actually won with a 36% edge. Some of that can be attributed to the fact that, for a variety of reasons, the larger the advantage one candidate holds over another, the more difficult it is to pinpoint what the exact margin between them will be on Election Day.


Zogby Interactive also correctly identified 16 of 21 winners in races for governor around the country, correctly choosing the winner in six of the nine closest races that ended with single–digit victories. For instance, in Illinois, Zogby had incumbent Democrat Gov. Rod Blagojevich up by 7% heading down the stretch; he ended up winning by 9%. In Maryland, Baltimore Mayor Martin O’Malley was leading in the Zogby Interactive poll by 5%; he won by 7%. Even in the blow–out race for Massachusetts governor, Deval Patrick led in the interactive poll by 25% and ended up winning by 21%.

Again, in the governor’s races, there were misses by the interactive model. In Arkansas, the last poll before Election Day has Republican Asa Hutchinson up by 3%, but he lost to Democrat Mike Beebe by 14%. And in Colorado, where gubernatorial candidates Bob Beauprez, the Republican, and Democrat Bill Ritter were tied in the last interactive survey. When votes were counted, Ritter won by 15%.




Normally, every polling agency gives the number of people they poll, call, etc. They did not in this negative poll (re:OP). I'm very curious if the number was 400, 1000, 2000, or did they talk to every Registered Voting American. If so, that was a lot of work and must have taken months...
Also, I missed my call. :sarcasm:




edit to add link
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1064