Independent voter views on our top three: Hillary 37%, Obama 33%, Edwards 23%

[Czolgosz]

Hillary's lead among independents is smaller as contrasted with her lead among Democratic primary voters:

42% - Hillary
32% - Obama
20% - Edwards

Clearly, Hillary does better among Democrats than among independents.

Does this explain Hillary's persistent relative weakness head-to-head with Republicans?

49% to 39% - Hillary loses to Giuliani
45% to 41% - Hillary loses to McCain
43% to 41% - Hillary loses to Romney

46% to 43% - Edwards beats Giuliani
45% to 40% - Edwards loses to McCain
46% to 32% - Edwards beats Romney

by 5% lead - Obama beats Giuliani
47% to 35% - Obama beats McCain
50% to 34% - Obama beats Romney

Complete LA Times/Bloomberg polling report: http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2007-06/30445335.pdf

I put little faith in early polling and even less faith in national polling in states where the candidates' campaigns are not even running yet. Still, there is an early warning to be heeded in the fact that Hillary polls strongest in most national polls of likely Democratic primary voters (which admittedly skew toward candidates with better name identification) while she simultaneously polls weakest among our top tier candidates in head-to-head matches with Republican top tier candidates.

Whether you support Hillary, Obama, Edwards (or even Kucinich, like I do), we all have an interest in making sure that our nominee is electable in the general election.

We all have an interest in diminishing the chronic discrepancy between our potential candidates' polling numbers and their head-to-head numbers against likely Republicans.

What can we do to make Hillary's head-to-head numbers come in line with her polling preference numbers or to get Obama's or Edwards's primary support numbers up to a level where they have a better chance at the nomination?.

[HockeyMom]

1. As a former Independent for 30 years

(joined Democrat Party last November), my two choices right now are Obama and Edwards.

[davidwparker]

4. mine too. with all these people who support Edwards and Obama, I find

it difficult to believe Hillary wins "the polls." It's like the corporatocracy and the media are doing whatever they can to get Hillary and McCain as the nominees.

The only polls I'm believing are the exit polls on primary day.

[Czolgosz]

7. This is the LA Times polling among the top tier only. If you put Gore and the rest in the mix, they

take 9% from Hillary, 10% from Obama, and 12% from Edwards.

This tells me the race should tighten up if (when?) Gore clarifies that he won't run and when the field winnows.

[rinsd]

2. Question,,,,why would name recognition be a factor in primary polls but not head to head?

[Czolgosz]

8. I think it may be Hillary's high negatives more than the high name identification which is sinking

her head-to-head numbers.

I don't think we can fix those negatives among Republicans but they aren't going to vote for us anyway, but we should be able to fix those numbers to some degree among independents.

[geoffisdem]

3. We need to get more people to support hilliary.

Lets get out there and help her win.

[davidwparker]

5. Welcome to DU.

[emilyg]

9. Welcome to du

I support her 1000%

[Czolgosz]

14. welcome to DU

[illinoisprogressive]

6. many are not paying attention to primaries yet so alot of polling is name right now.

[MGKrebs]

12. Probably true. How does that affect how we look at those numbers?

Who is benefitting now from name recognition?
Who is likely to improve as they becomes more well known?

[Czolgosz]

13. The name identification levels would be comparable in the horse-race poll and the head-to-head poll

so the discrepancy is real.

What are we to do about it?

[MGKrebs]

15. But as far as Clinton is concerned, in polls in which she is

behind it is attributed to what is essentially negative name recognition, and in polls in which she is ahead, it is "only" because of (positive) name recognition.

It's all very confusing.

[OHdem10]

10. The White Male vote is showing its head in these polls.

We have to make a consistent effort in all states
to remind people that we have had a likeable president.
Look what happened. Challenges are so great we need competence
We must make an effort to make the average working person
feel sure they would not feel uncomfortable if they had
to approach our candidate.

I want a President who carries the respect of the American
people. We will never be having a beer or a glass of wine
with a President. We just want to know he.she is nice to
all people and she/he will repect the people no matter
their station in life. A President who will look out
for the average Americans Inteest.

We have to convince people that being smart does not make
you a pointy head. The Challenges America faces require
a smart experienced person.

We need someone who will LISTEN to the American People.

Watch out for these "daddy will take of you" Republicans
Do not let their "created" tough images fool you. They
will continue "selling you a pig in a poke. They are
authoritarian. We Americans are sick of this Authoritarian
attack we have survived under for the past 6 years.

We need for a change someone with a Heart and a Head and
can be tough as nails when it is appropriste.

Out here in the HinterLands--call ins--REPUBLICAN and
DEMOCRATS daily complain about all of our money going
overseas. Nothing is being done at home. This is why
people are upset over Immigration. They have directed
all their anger at the Immigrants. As Americans they
believe they do not count and no one cares about our
country. Red State Males as well as Females.
Money is being spent on Iraqis and not on Americans.
Perception is reality in politics. They have caught on
to how Congress sells out to Business and they are
mad as hell. These are not all Democrats.

[Czolgosz]

11. Agreed

[wyldwolf]

16. Hillary leads among Independents, Democrats, Moderate Democrats, Liberal Democrats

Obama scores highest among Republicans and conservatives.

The question that asks "if the Dem primary were held in your state today, who would you vote for?" reveals these gems:

Dem Primary Voters:

Clinton: 33%
Obama: 22%
Gore: 15%
Edwards: 8%

Liberal Democrats:

Clinton: 40%
Obama: 21%
Gore: 18%
Edwards 10%

Independents:

Clinton: 25%
Obama: 19%
Gore: 19%
Edwards: 12%

Clinton also leads all GOP candidates in a major poll from yesterday:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3314720&mesg_id=3314720

[Czolgosz]

17. No question: Hillary is the front runner. The problem is she leads (by far) in negative numbers too

[wyldwolf]

18. it was explained on MyDD yesterday that that has to do with her near-universal name recognition

If Obama or Edwards became the nominee, their negatives would skyrocket based on sheer partisanship.

[Czolgosz]

19. It wasn't explained persuasively (or accurately). I'll break it down for you:

Here are some current favorable-unfavorable poll numbers (CBS News/New York Times Poll, data collected May 18-23, 2007):

Hillary's favorable/unfavorable/undecided/unknown numbers are 38% / 42% / 19% / 2% (http://www.pollingreport.com/C.htm)
Obama's favorable/unfavorable/undecided/unknown numbers are 34% / 21% / 25% / 20% (http://www.pollingreport.com/l-o.htm)
Edwards's favorable/unfavorable/undecided/unknown numbers are 30% / 28% / 27% / 14% (http://www.pollingreport.com/E-F.htm)

It is true (as you say endlessly) that Hillary's unfavorable numbers are boosted by her high name identification numbers. Only 2% of the population sees Hillary as an unknown quantity (not to be confused with the 19% who haven't made up their mind about her). In contrast 20% see Obama as an unknown quantity.

As compared to Hillary, an additional 18% of the population don't know Obama. If the "extra 18%" who don't know enough about Obama to rate him got to know him better, and if they are typical, we could expect that about 21% of that 18% (or not quite 4%) would have an unfavorable rating of Obama.

It is true that Hillary's unfavorable numbers are "boosted" by almost 4% as compared to Obama's because more people know her.

However, the MyDD analysis is facile (and inaccurate) because if the "extra 18%" who don't know enough about Obama to rate him got to know him better, and if they are typical, we could expect that about 35% of that 18% (or just over 6%) would have a favorable rating of Obama.

Just as Hillary's "negative" poll numbers are boosted less than 4% (relative to Obama's) by her high name identification, her favorable ratings are also boosted relative to Obama's by more than 6%.

The main problem isn't Hillary's raw unfavorability numbers (42% in the CBS News/New York Times Poll). Her main problem is the ratio of favorable (38% favorable to 42% unfavorable).

The raw number which is troubling is the low unknown factor (just 2%) and the low undecided number (just 19%). This means that Hillary does not have a huge population of potential new supporters who have not tentatively made their minds up about her. In contrast, both Obama and Edwards have a population MORE THAN TWICE AS BIG of potential new supporters who have not tentatively made their minds up about them.

I AM NOT ONE WHO THINKS THIS CANNOT BE FIXED, BUT IT IS AN ISSUE THAT WE SHOULD BE WORKING ON BECAUSE HILLARY IS THE FRONT-RUNNER AND WE WANT HER TO WIN THE GENERAL ELECTION EVEN IF WE ARE SUPPORTING ANOTHER PRIMARY CANDIDATE. That part in bold, that's the take home message. Don't put your head in the sand about this polling data because it is still early and not too late to address the situation.

Here is some additional reading on the general topic: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-burnett/good-bill-bad-hillary_b_51925.html http://www.vindy.com/content/local_regional/288904365315258.php http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/04/a-breakdown-on-clinton-ratings/ http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/25/2008-timescbs-news-poll-results/