Hillary trails top 2008 GOP Candidates in new polls

[TitanTiger 20,511]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton trails five top Republican presidential contenders in general election match-ups, a drop in support from this summer, according to a poll released on Monday.

Clinton's top Democratic rivals, Barack Obama and John Edwards, still lead Republicans in hypothetical match-ups ahead of the November 4, 2008, presidential election, the survey by Zogby Interactive showed.

Clinton, a New York senator who has been at the top of the Democratic pack in national polls in the 2008 race, trails Republican candidates Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, John McCain and Mike Huckabee by three to five percentage points in the direct matches.

In July, Clinton narrowly led McCain, an Arizona senator, and held a five-point lead over former New York Mayor Giuliani, a six-point lead over former Tennessee Sen. Thompson and a 10-point lead over former Massachusetts Gov. Romney...

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNew...=22&sp=true

Did she peak too early? I'm beginning to think so.

[otterinbham 0]

Well, the problem with interminable presidential campaigns is that nobody was paying attention to them until now. So all those polls taken last spring and summer really weren't accurate. Maybe that will show politicians to quit running four-year-long campaigns.

Now, ordinary people are beginning to take the campaign seriously, and are therefore begin to get serious about expressing their preferences. With that in mind, they look at Hillary and don't like what they see:

1) A campaign that seems to not be driven by ideals, but by opinion polls.

2) An inauthentic candidate who seems to have exploited her husband's political career to be in this position.

3) A vague sense that her actual policies will not match her centrist rhetoric, a "wolf in sheep's clothing" so to speak.

4) A growing awareness that two Bush presidencies and two Clinton presidencies simply cannot be good for the country.

5) The baggage of Whitewater, missing FBI files, etc. etc., whether proven or not.

6) The slavish devotion of the press. The press continues to throw her softballs, fearing retribution from Bill.

I ultimately think the nod could go to Obama, who would then choose Richardson or Dodd as his logical running mate. Mind you, Obama has some pretty leftist ideas, but he is also the anti-Hillary in terms of personality, openness, and sincerity.

[TexasTiger 13,029]

I suspect there is some merit to both of your assessments (although not Otter's #6), but not based on this half-assed Zogby poll. In fact, the play this on-line poll got at the expense of a more reliable Gallup poll with opposite findings, runs counter to assertion #6.

Media Lavishes Attention On Bogus Internet Poll Showing Hillary Losing To Repubs -- And Ignores Reputable Poll Finding Opposite

November 27, 2007 -- 11:03 AM EST // link //

Ladies and gentlemen, a tale of two polls.

Yesterday two polling firms -- Zogby and Gallup -- released surveys of the presidential race that offered strikingly different conclusions. The Zogby poll found that Hillary is trailing five leading GOP candidates in general election matchups. The Gallup Poll, by contrast, found that Hillary, and to a lesser degree Obama, has a slight to sizable lead over the top GOP contenders.

A couple of other things that distinguish these two polls: The Zogby one is an online poll, a notoriously unreliable method, while the Gallup one is a telephone poll. And, as Charles Franklin of Pollster.com observed yesterday, the Zogby poll is completely out of sync with multiple other national polls finding Hillary with a lead over the GOP candidates. The Zogby poll actually found that Mike Huckabee is leading Hillary in a national matchup. The Gallup findings were in line with most other surveys.

I don't need to tell you which poll got all the media attention. Do I?

The Zogby survey was covered repeatedly on CNN, earned coverage from MSNBC, Fox News, and Reuters and was covered by multiple other smaller outlets.

By contrast, I can't find a single example of any reporter or commentator on the major networks or news outlets referring to the Gallup poll at all, with the lone exception of UPI. While the Zogby poll was mentioned by multiple reporters and pundits, the only mentions the Gallup poll got on TV were from Hillary advisers who had to bring it up themselves on the air in order to inject it into the conversation.

You could argue that the Zogby poll got all the coverage it did precisely because it is out of sync with multiple other polls, and thus is news. But the truth is that the reporters and editors at the major nets know full well that the Zogby poll is bunk -- yet they breathlessly covered it anyway.

Worse, the Zogby poll was covered with few mentions either of its dubious methodology or of the degree to which its findings don't jibe with other surveys. Bottom line: The Zogby poll was considered big news because many in the political press are heavily invested in the Hillary-is-unelectable narrative for all kinds of reasons that have little to do with a desire to, you know, practice journalism.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Zogby is a pretty reputable polling firm. Has anyone compared Zogby's online polling methodology and results against actual election returns to see if it's so unreliable.

Whatever weighting and methodology he uses, his sample size was rather large and has a very small margin of error:

The poll of 9,355 people had a margin of error of plus or minus one percentage point. The interactive poll surveys individuals who have registered to take part in online polls.

And the result is not far off from a Rasmussen telephone poll from 4 days ago and Rasmussen is one of the most accurate pollsters around:

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content...uliani_thompson

[TexasTiger 13,029]

Zogby was reputable in 2000 when he telephone polled, blew it badly in 2004 when he on-line polled. Once he polled me once, he kept asking over and over. I just don't trust his methods. On-line polls don't tend to include those with the least resources and the less educated. I think she is definitely trending downward, but not as much as Zogby indicates.

[otterinbham 0]

See, TT, I respectfully disagree with you on my assertion #6. Sure, there are the conservative cranks who stand ready to blast away at Hillary on the flimsiest of excuses, however I think they are typically discounted. Overall, the main media outlets in this country can't seem to decide whether they should go after her or treat her with the deference normally reserved for a former first lady. After all, Vanity Fair had a major negative piece about to go to press on her when Bill Clinton threatened the entire Condé Nast magazine chain with lack of access to him in future interviews. And when do you see Giuliani or McCain getting a major puff piece in the pages of Vogue? And the Clintons rather crudely threatened Wolf Blitzer prior to the previous debate, leading him to ask what I thought were softball questions. Up until the last month or so, the press has simply reported the Democratic nomination as her fait accompli, without really putting her through the mill. After all, if Giuliani had faked a Southern Black accent on the stump, do you think his candidacy would have survived? Hillary just took a few perfunctory lumps from the press for a couple of days and moved on.

[TexasTiger 13,029]

You may find isolated incidents of it-- Vanity Fair is hardly respresentative of the political news industry, though. Also, the Bush family has exerted similar influence over the years and the may impact a particular story here and there or the play Kitty Kelly gets for her book, but that doesn't mean its pervasive.

Russert was tough on her, Wolf was easy on her. Again, you can find examples of both. I just think you overstated it in your original post.

See, TT, I respectfully disagree with you on my assertion #6. Sure, there are the conservative cranks who stand ready to blast away at Hillary on the flimsiest of excuses, however I think they are typically discounted. Overall, the main media outlets in this country can't seem to decide whether they should go after her or treat her with the deference normally reserved for a former first lady. After all, Vanity Fair had a major negative piece about to go to press on her when Bill Clinton threatened the entire Condé Nast magazine chain with lack of access to him in future interviews. And when do you see Giuliani or McCain getting a major puff piece in the pages of Vogue? And the Clintons rather crudely threatened Wolf Blitzer prior to the previous debate, leading him to ask what I thought were softball questions. Up until the last month or so, the press has simply reported the Democratic nomination as her fait accompli, without really putting her through the mill. After all, if Giuliani had faked a Southern Black accent on the stump, do you think his candidacy would have survived? Hillary just took a few perfunctory lumps from the press for a couple of days and moved on.

[otterinbham 0]

Well, Vanity Fair is one publication, and an influential one at that, embracing a wide and educated readership. However, to punish an entire publishing corporation across all its mastheads is something entirely. Sure, Gourmet, Golf for Women and Architectural Digest won't influence anybody's vote. But The New Yorker and Wired sure as heck will.

And you're right about Russert. He was probably over the top, in my opinion. However, would any other candidate get away with the post-debate complaining?

You may find isolated incidents of it-- Vanity Fair is hardly respresentative of the political news industry, though. Also, the Bush family has exerted similar influence over the years and the may impact a particular story here and there or the play Kitty Kelly gets for her book, but that doesn't mean its pervasive.

Russert was tough on her, Wolf was easy on her. Again, you can find examples of both. I just think you overstated it in your original post.

See, TT, I respectfully disagree with you on my assertion #6. Sure, there are the conservative cranks who stand ready to blast away at Hillary on the flimsiest of excuses, however I think they are typically discounted. Overall, the main media outlets in this country can't seem to decide whether they should go after her or treat her with the deference normally reserved for a former first lady. After all, Vanity Fair had a major negative piece about to go to press on her when Bill Clinton threatened the entire Condé Nast magazine chain with lack of access to him in future interviews. And when do you see Giuliani or McCain getting a major puff piece in the pages of Vogue? And the Clintons rather crudely threatened Wolf Blitzer prior to the previous debate, leading him to ask what I thought were softball questions. Up until the last month or so, the press has simply reported the Democratic nomination as her fait accompli, without really putting her through the mill. After all, if Giuliani had faked a Southern Black accent on the stump, do you think his candidacy would have survived? Hillary just took a few perfunctory lumps from the press for a couple of days and moved on.

[BamaGrad03 0]

I think, until the Dems select who is going to ultimately be their representative, the polling really should focus on how she fares against other Dems.

[otterinbham 0]

I think, until the Dems select who is going to ultimately be their representative, the polling really should focus on how she fares against other Dems.

Actually, you just hit the nail on the head. The Clinton camp isn't about communicating a vision. It's all about getting elected. So they keep rejiggering their positioning in hopes of picking up a few points in the polls. Meanwhile, the Obama camp seems to just be merrily steaming ahead with a fairly constant message to the electorate.