This message was self-deleted by its author

[Corruption Inc]

This message was self-deleted by its author (Corruption Inc) on Mon Jul 27, 2015, 11:00 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[Wilms]

1. But, but, but, she's our BESTEST chance......Evah!

Swear I read that a few hundred times.

[brooklynite]

58. She still is...did you look at the Head to Heads with Bernie in the same poll?

[Warren Stupidity]

82. did you?

The differences between the three Democrats were negligible. They all did about the same given a 2.8 moe.

[pocoloco]

71. Bestest chance for the repugs!!

She is a repug wet dream!!

Hell, another one of them just got a woody and threw his hat into the ring the other day!

[kelliekat44]

75. No question, we are doing it to ourselves unless we get behind one candidate and push the positives.

Divide and conquer...ancient strategy. It has to be either Bernie or Hillary...before the split HRC was way out in front. When the opposition can sow seeds of doubt, fear, and indifference they win. I would be satisfied with Bernie but I think he would lose to the GOP candidate unless it was Trump. HrC is a fighter so I won't give up on her. She has been fighting since her college day...not always on the side I would choose but nonetheless she has been a fighter. She has made mistakes along the way but I believe she has learned from all of them and that makes her a better candidate.

Bernie is a fighting voice but without actual public battles. I think he would stack up all the big money and corporate pigs against his economic stances.

Whatever happens, I hope we all can get TOGETHER behind one candidate and work to energize our base and the Independents.

[RBInMaine]

116. But but but right now polls mean NOTHING.

[LonePirate]

2. I wonder why this set of polls is significantly different than pretty much every other previous poll

Until I have the chance to dig into the numbers, I am going to remain highly skeptical of these truly outlier results.

[OKNancy]

8. it's unfavorables, not who would vote for her

although they don't look good, I've noticed that lots of Democratic voters will vote for her anyway when I've seen previous polls.
In her defense:
1. It's early
2. She is being slammed from the media, the right and some on the left.
Re: the media - http://www.vox.com/2015/7/6/8900143/hillary-clinton-reporting-rules
Rules for covering HRC:

1) Everything, no matter how ludicrous-sounding, is worthy of a full investigation by federal agencies, Congress, the "vast right-wing conspiracy," and mainstream media outlets

2) Every allegation, no matter how ludicrous, is believable until it can be proven completely and utterly false. And even then, it keeps a life of its own in the conservative media world.

3) The media assumes that Clinton is acting in bad faith until there's hard evidence otherwise.

4) Everything is newsworthy because the Clintons are the equivalent of America's royal family

5) Everything she does is fake and calculated for maximum political benefit

[LonePirate]

11. Read the entire article. She is trailing in the horse race question. AFAIK, she has never trailed...

In the horse race question.

[karynnj]

65. she is correct that this poll is an aberation

If there are other polls saying the same thing, then it will suggest that there are problems. Note also, she is trailing not one, but several opponents. If this were real, it would suggest that the change was due to her failing -- or the Democratic brand failing.

So, 1) this could be and most likely is a fluke. 2) If not, a really good polling question would be generic Democrat vs generic Republican. There are two possibilities - the problem could be either the population moving to want a Republican President or it could be a problem uniquely related to Clinton. ( There has been no negative story related to Clinton that I know of that just happened. )

Me -- i think the election will be close - more like 2000 than 2008.

[Chasstev365]

46. Execellent Points! However

across the spectrum, I honestly believe that Americans don't want another president Clinton or President Bush. This will be a truly unusual election cycle and I think polls and the talking heads wouldn't get it until the upset loses in the primaries for Clinton and Bush begin.

[lewebley3]

52. I do honestly believe most American's want Hillary, they don't want the GOP

[jeff47]

20. AFAIK, Previous polls did not break out these "swing states".

So giant win in NY masks slight loss in VA.

[Adrahil]

27. There have been previous polls in these states...

Which have favored Clinton. The swing is fairly big, so I suspect an aberration, but it's possible HRC lost a lot of support. WE need more data to say anything meaningful IMO.

[Adrahil]

28. It appears pretty anomalous....

But we can't tell without more data. Never base conclusions on a single poll.

[lewebley3]

69. Hillary needs fight one battle at a time: Get nomination first: They the GOP

[George II]

70. On interesting thing to note is that Biden is doing just about as well as Clinton....

....that shows the quirkiness (inaccuracy?) of this poll.

In fact, all three Democratic candidates are within a point of each other against each of the republican candidates.

Surely you can't tell me that all three would fare just as well/bad as each other?

[BklnDem75]

80. I don't see a breakdown of the totals...

Maybe I'm scanning too fast, but I don't see if cons outnumber Democrats in any of these totals.

From July 9 – 20 Quinnipiac University surveyed:

• 1,231 Colorado voters with a margin of error of +/- 2.8 percentage points;

• 1,236 Iowa voters with a margin of error of +/- 2.8 percentage points;

• 1,209 Virginia voters with a margin of error of +/- 2.8 percentage points.

Live interviewers call land lines and cell phones.


http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/ps/ps07222015_Sg86de.pdf


But if you look at their previous poll, there is a breakdown:

From June 20–29, Quinnipiac University surveyed 666 likely Iowa Republican Caucus participants with a margin of error of +/-3.8 percentage points and 761 likely Iowa Democratic Caucus participants with a margin of error of +/- 3.6 percentage points. Live interviewers call land lines and cell phones.


http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/ia/ia07062015_Ip52rg.pdf

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

3. Shrug.

It's the Achilles heel we've known about for many years. If we're lucky, she won't win the primary, and we won't have to worry about it.

[George II]

68. If someone else wins the nomination we'll have a lot more to worry about.

[pscot]

72. That is highly speculative

[zeemike]

77. Yes because he is a socialist jew.

and they will go after him for that...a sure winner for them.
Other than that what else do they have?

But Hillary has a rich past of scandals to tap into...but there is nothing to worry about because they have all been answered by our side and no one will dare bring it up again.

Our logic is perfect.

[Scootaloo]

78. Like what to wear to Sanders' inauguration event. n/t

[restorefreedom]

98. and which type of beer

to have on hand while watching the festivities

[Fred Sanders]

4. "CNN Trails All TV News in Trust, Except Fox." Which happens to be true. Report on that, CNN, if

you have time between shark attacks and giving Trump oxygen.

Anyone here truly cheerleading - on the basis of one poll in 3 States, and one push poll - for a Democrat to lose the WH?


Without even looking I bet Trump trails Clinton by double digits, but CNN is making a killing in the ratings by supplying Trump with sweet media oxygen - Shark Scare Week was a bust - so will go out on a limb and am guessing there is nothing on that?

Am I on the wrong site again!?

[still_one]

30. Also based on this poll, it indicates that no Democratic candidate would win in those states, so

I don't know why some appear to be so pleased by it.

That is also assuming, and it is a big assumption that the poll is NOT an outlier. Relying on one poll, especially based on what happened in 2012, is not a good idea. In fact for one reason or another it appears that in the last two elections it is getting more and more difficult for polls to provide and accurate measure. Look at Gallop, it was dead last in 2012 out of all the pollsters

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

93. Well, look at the "don't recognize" column. around 9% for HRC, 40% BS. Just wait.....

Haven't heard of the candidate

Colorado - HRC 6% BS 39%
Iowa - HRC 9% BS 39%
Virginia - HRC 7% BS 46%

That gives Bernie a LOT to work with. Hillary is tapped out.

[still_one]

106. Anyone in that poll choosing any of the republicans is not going to vote for any Democrat. I need

to see other polls taken at the same time

[n8dogg83]

5. The poll can be found here.....

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/ps/ps07222015_Sg86de.pdf


Interestingly, the poll says this:

"In several matchups in Iowa and Colorado, another Democratic contender, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, runs as well as, or better than Clinton against Rubio, Bush and Walker. Vice President Joseph Biden does not do as well."

This is also despite the fact that Bernie that almost 40% of voters polled in those states have never heard of him (yet). I think this should dispel the meme that Hilary is more "electable"

[still_one]

13. By this particular poll no Democratic candidate would win in those states

[JaneyVee]

15. Quinnipiac is very unreliable:

They don't even crack the top 28 in accuracy: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/fordham-study-public-policy-polling-deemed-most-accurate-national-pollster-in-2012

[Capt. Obvious]

22. 538 disagrees

http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/pollster-ratings/

[Adrahil]

26. Well 538 DOES show a Republican lean from this pollster...

though their methodology is basically sound.

This poll DOES show a much higher proportion of Undecideds that and Others than other polls, so I am curious about that.

I think we need a few more data points to say anything meaningful, IMO.

[Capt. Obvious]

45. Yes of course

I just generally find it amusing on DU when people slam a poll based mainly on its results and link to a site supporting the slam.

Normally the link I provided is the one that gets linked to so this is extra amusing.

[Adrahil]

48. Yeah, they do.

Most people will read polls to support their point of view. That's one reason I really like Silver. He tries to assess the data honestly, even when it isn't favorable to his desired outcome.

[stevenleser]

18. But most of the matchups he does worse. And Sanders' negatives are high for having so little name

recognition.

Right now, for intents and purposes of this poll, Sanders is a generic Democrat in most of those races. Before I hear a lot of complaints from Sanders supporters about that contention, remember, its all of you who are constantly saying his name recognition is not high.

What we are seeing is that when people really know who Sanders is, he has a huge unfavorable percentage. So the more name recognition he gets, the worse he would do in the head to head polls.

[6chars]

85. not surprising Sanders polls well in Colorado

it has a vermonty feel in some ways.

[leveymg]

6. Still not too late to switch from the inevitable

HRC has the highest negatives of any Democratic candidate going into the General election. Polling going back to 2007 has consistently shown at least as many people strongly dislike her as like her.

This is a massive liability - one which she is not in any danger of overcoming.

Recced for visibility

[stevenleser]

19. And among folks who know him, Sanders has very high unfavorables. nt

[kenn3d]

118. You keep saying this, but... I really don't think it's true.

" The survey, which polled over 1,200 voters in each of three swing states — Colorado, Iowa and Virginia — finds that voters have a much less favorable opinion of Hillary Clinton than they do of Bernie Sanders. The poll also found that Sanders was as competitive as Clinton in head to head match-ups against the top Republican candidates in both Colorado and Iowa."
..."Sanders may be the stronger candidate, because he has more room to grow. Clinton’s favorable to unfavorable ratings in Iowa (33 percent favorable to 56 percent unfavorable) and Colorado (35-56) are troublesome, especially since most voters have already formed an opinion of Clinton, and it isn’t a positive one.

By contrast Sanders is still not well known by 40 percent of voters in both Iowa and Colorado. Voters who have formed an opinion of the Vermont Senator are about evenly divided. With a 32-28 favorable rating in Iowa, and a 29-31 rating in Colorado, Sanders is better liked by voters familiar with him than either Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush are by voters familiar with them."

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/07/22/poll-crucial-swing-states-shows-sanders-electable-clinton.html

and again, read the comments also.
Just don't see how anybody could say he has high unfavorables amongst folks who know him?

[Adrahil]

29. Look at the poll.... Sanders does no better.

I suspect this poll is an outlier.

[SanAntoneRogue]

7. Smear Works

The whole POINT of the Rightwing PHONY Scandal Machine is to create "doubt" and "distrust". It needs no FACTS in order to ask damning questions, about Benghazi, about email records, about contributions to her husband's foundation, about anything. They don't have to show any corruption, illegality, or improper behavior. They just have to rail at how "deceptive" her behavior is, and corruptions that they can IMAGINE might be being "hidden", and their job is done.

Smear is all the rightwing has. Do they have any POLICY that appeals to the American People? Nope. Their only hope is to attack Democrats. And they have 1200 AM rightwing radio stations to do it 24/7, FOX "News", and dozens of blogs and "think tanks" to get that message of distrust out there. And the sad part is, it works, for a while. Once Hillary debates whoever the Republicans put forward, THEN Americans can and will judge whose policies are best for this nation.

[leveymg]

12. Smear means devoid of basis in fact or simple lies. The scandals you reference may not be what Fox

twists them into (diversionary scandals), but there is a rational basis on the record to criticize her actions and policies as Secretary of State.

[candelista]

16. +1. nt

[SanAntoneRogue]

25. I'm new here.

I don't understand the code.

[leveymg]

39. I'll show you an example of a smear

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251465196

You've come at a contentious time here. Welcome to DU. We don't normally eat our own.

[SanAntoneRogue]

94. Well done, as an "anatomy of a smear".

Note that both the rightwing hit pieces quoted were all about attacking Sanders for what THEY though he SHOULD have said, as if they have their fingers on the vital pulse of racial unrest. Gag me with a spoon, these are rightwingers who wouldn't DREAM of holding any of the GOP wanna-bes to any such standard.

Also being employed is the "attack the strength" admonition from Karl Rove's playbook, the one that birthed the "Swift Boat" people to attack Kerry's military record.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/09/1141830/-Karl-Rove-s-Handbook
Sanders has a solid record of civil rights advocacy, he has nothing to apologize for, and ANY Democrat would be nuts to take advice from rightwing hit men. As to disrupting Democrats by hired mobs ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_Brothers_riot

[leveymg]

97. I see you're familiar with the Karl Rove playbook, much of which was really penned by Lee Atwater.

By the way, just one piece of DU inside baseball: there is considerable sensitivity among some here about raising that name or drawing comparisons with Atwater's political tactics. Use caution in approaching the BLM wars - its easy to get Alerted on, and as a new member you'll be closely scrutinized. Expect to be kicked out of one or more forums for any display of independent thinking.

Otherwise, enjoy DU!

[SanAntoneRogue]

102. History is important.

Few remember Atwater, his gleeful dirty tricks, and then his tearful repentance on his deathbed, sorry for all the evil trouble he caused.

Then there was Newt Gingrich, and his guide of "contrast words" to use against opponents.

David Brock actually repented while still alive, and used his knowledge of rightwing tactics to form a very powerful media watchdog outfit, Media Matters.

And then Karl "Turdblossom" Rove, the heir to the underbelly of politics.

I can't imagine that noting the tactics of the right would upset anyone, but I guess I'll learn.

[candelista]

42. "nt" means "no text, just a headline."

And +1 means "I like your post."

[SanAntoneRogue]

95. Thanks for the guide. And the support.

[SanAntoneRogue]

21. Reasonable versus realistic.

As a thinking and concerned American, OF COURSE I believe that allegations of wrongdoing should be investigated. That's reasonable.

It's reasonable that Benghazi got a thorough investigation. It would have been equally reasonable if the 12 embassy attacks that happened on W. Bush's watch, which resulted in over 60 deaths, had been equally investigated. Were they? Of course not. Because reasonable people understand that we live in a dangerous world, and that conducting any kind of business in hostile territory is hazardous.

Realistically, though, we also know that the rightwing will exploit any event at all to try to smear Hillary in particular, or any Democrat. Should I post the list I've been keeping of PHONY scandals, all very carefully investigated, which reasonable people dismissed but which REALISTICALLY were used as rightwing smear fodder? It spans back 20 years, and to this day you will hear about Vince Foster, or the great Travel Office scandal. Neither had the substance the rightwing wrote into them, but all survive to help the "cumulative" effect of saying Hillary can't be trusted.

It's good to be reasonable. But being realistic, try to understand that such reasonableness plays into the hands of smear merchants. Keeping an "open mind" on Benghazi, for example, should stop when? After the second Congressional investigation? After the fifth? After the eighth? You need to realize it will never end. And being reasonable, you should know when you're being a good citizen, and when it lapses into becoming tolerant if not encouraging of the Rightwing PHONY Scandal Machine.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
--Edmund Burke

You need to decide when enough is enough.

[BillZBubb]

37. Hey, Rogue, welcome to DU!

Keep posting, I like your perspective.

[SanAntoneRogue]

84. Thanks...

... for the kind words. Still finding my way around.

[candelista]

44. "Reasonableness plays into the hands of smear merchants."

So what are you saying? "Don't be reasonable"? That's what they say in Scientology, too.

[SanAntoneRogue]

88. My point is, it's not reasonable ...

... to continue being reasonable when the issue has been settled. At some point in a scandalmongering assault ... like say the 6th or 7th Congressional investigation conducted by partisan adversaries into the exact same issue ... it's OK to actually defend the accused, and to realize and point out that no wrongdoing was found, no indictments made, and no corruption exposed.

When the product of the Rightwing PHONY Scandal Machine keeps churning out ZERO substantive and valid support for their allegations, suspicions, and accusations, it's well to remember a basic math formula: No matter how many times you add or multiply ZERO, the sum or product is still ZERO. The rightwing depend on a "cumulative" effect which smears character without ever having "the goods". Deny them that unearned appearance.

[ibegurpard]

73. Hillary ' s problems with Democrats

Aren't because of her trustworthiness over the bogus constant right wing scandals. It's that many don't buy her populist platitudes because her record and fundraising belie them.

[SanAntoneRogue]

91. Those are valid concerns, but ...

... what's the alternative? Her husband was not a wildly Liberal President, but the nation did very well with him at the helm. Night and day better then when W. Bush took over.

Bill Clinton certainly didn't take a "principled stand" against the campaign financing operation in existence, but to do so (I would submit) would be tantamount to throwing the election. With current rules, politicians MUST raise money or they lose. That's the bottom line. It should change, but until it does, we gotta play by the rules competitively.

As to "trustworthiness", you follow by calling her statements "populist platitudes". What is that? It's not trusting her.

Her record of serving Democratic ideals comes greatly from serving the people of New York for two terms as Senator. She got her second term because her record was not made by "populist platitudes", but instead by ACTIONS to serve her constituents.

I certainly don't find Hillary to be the perfect candidate to my liking ... I'm more radically Liberal than pragmatic on issue stances. Bernie Sanders speaks more the way I believe, but I AM pragmatic about American Politics, and if we Democrats run Sanders, we will lose the general election. Ditto Liz Warren, who I admire greatly. Fantastic people, and do great good for the nation. But they're too far left to win nationally (my opinion. My dad was disappointed several times voting for Adelai Stevenson).

Whatever Hillary's shortcomings from Liberal "purity", the alternative would be a Republican, and that is grossly worse in every way. I try not to let the perfect be the enemy of the possible.

[ibegurpard]

107. Yes you're right people on both the right and left

Don't trust her. For very different reasons. The alternative is someone who isn't bound by the corruption influence if corporate money. Even if she actually DOES want to do something about it she cant.

[SanAntoneRogue]

113. In a perfect world.

But, once again, someone walking the walk of not taking corporate money will not have a competitive chance at winning election. Such a principle has the effect of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

[HooptieWagon]

9. I don't think she can win Florida.

Republicans will turn out en mass to vote against her. FDP is lining up their slate of Third Way candidates down ticket.... Progressives are going to sit on their hands, there's no enthusiasm to vote for Republican-lite.

[SanAntoneRogue]

23. Optimism.

Let's hope the Republicans are as optimistic as you are in Florida, and take the state for granted.

[HooptieWagon]

31. The Fl Dem Party does nothing to inspire optimism or confidence.

Leadership is completely out of touch with the base. They block progressives from local committees, and block progressives from appearing on ballots...even resorting to physical threats. They only promote their pet Third Way candidates, who increasingly are former republicans (see Charlie Crist and Patrick Murphy...just two well-known examples, there are more). A former chair of the Party is a GOP lobbyist, fer Christs sake. We've had to hold our nose in the voting booth for 20 years now. Done with that. If there's no Dem candidate I feel good about voting for, I'll look at third parties or write-in. If the Third Way continues losing elections, their corporate sponsors will stop funding them, and there's a chance of the base taking back our party.

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

[BillZBubb]

41. The lesser of two evils is still evil.

Yes, but there are degrees of evil. Do you favor more evil over less?

[HooptieWagon]

56. Like, vote for W because he's not as bad as Pat Buchanon?

Sorry, that's not an option.
I donated generously and voted enthusiastically for Obama in '08. Didn't expect a earthquake of change, but still rather disappointed. Held my nose and voted for him in '12, because hey, he's not as bad as Romney. Been pretty much doing that for 20+ years. After 8 years of Reagan, I bought into DLCs bullshit. Sick and tired of it. Obama calls himself and 80s Republican...WTF? I hated Reagan, why would I want to vote for 2.0? Clinton is even further right than Obama. Granted, not as bad as W, but still far too RW for me. The State and local candidates the Fl Dem Party are lining up are equally repugnant or worse. If we keep voting for Third Way, against our interests, the Dem Party will call it an endorsement to move even further Right. Not going to participate in that.

[SanAntoneRogue]

99. Giving up is not an option.

And supporting people who are as Liberal as you like may make a statement, and feel good, but in our current environment, it will mean that Liberals will not be making policy, because they won't get elected. And we definitely need Liberal policy, for example replacing Trickle Down economics.

The Tea Party's ultimate downfall is that they refuse to compromise. We on the left should definitely not make the same mistake.

This isn't to say you shouldn't find a candidate you like, and support them to the max. Or even run yourself. But if that doesn't work, you might consider that it's a lesser evil to be burned by an iron than to be thrown in a volcano.

[HooptieWagon]

101. I've compromised for over 20 years.

The Party keeps moving further right. Compromise is giving up.

[SanAntoneRogue]

114. It's frustrating, I know.

We had the 14th Amendment in 1868, but a hundred years later Rosa Parks was being arrested for not bowing to white superiority. And now, the Supreme Court tells another group treated badly for all our history, gays, that they CAN get married.

Progress is slow, but I see our nation eventually making the right calls on these issues. Such change shouldn't have to be waited for, but is WORTH waiting for.

Taking the Confederate Flag down. Helping end redlining. Normalizing relations with Cuba. All took MUCH longer than the 20 years you've been waiting. Being patient is not easy. But our nation is worth it.

[SanAntoneRogue]

96. I hear you.

I'm in Texas, and our Republican stranglehold is pretty widespread, but loosening. "Battleground Texas" by the Dems scared heck out of our established GOP monopoly, and demographics are giving them fits. They see the handwriting on the wall, that their constituency is shrinking, while the opposition gains. Won't be long before even gerrymandering won't help them. The problem with rigging elections by redistricting is, when you're already parceling out few voters, and your voting base is shrinking, you've got no place to go.

Also on the plus side, Texas Republicans cannot help themselves from dissing the women's vote. Eliminating all women's health clinics south and west of San Antonio lost them votes, as did Voter ID law which kept women from voting if their maiden name was used on their Drivers' License. Perry refuses Medicaid expansion, so tens of thousands aren't getting health care. Add to that the vocal animosity towards latinos, and the "Old Boy" system is fading. Can't happen too soon.

[angel123]

32. progressives will sit on their hands

If progressives sit on their hands, hell-o to Scott Walker or worse to the White House. Ask Wisconsin how that worked out.

[HooptieWagon]

36. We've had 20 years of those threats.

Republicans still win. We got freaking pRick Scott for Governor. He's barely better than Walker. Dem base is sick and tired of holding our noses and voting for republicans with a (D) following their name. Given the opportunity to vote for a liberal Dem, we'll get an enthusiastic turnout. Otherwise, it's just the same old shit.

[Le Taz Hot]

103. Um, Progressives are activists and they don't sit on their hands.

Where the hell did you get that idea? We may not vote for a Third-Way, corporate-friendly, Wall Street darling, but we'll vote. We don't miss elections. Ever.

[John Poet]

10. OUCH! But, but, but,

"Hillary is more electable, all the polls say so".


Polls can change. The polls are changing.

[still_one]

14. Based on this poll, there is NO Democratic candidate who would win, assuming the poll is not an

outlier

[Proud Liberal Dem]

89. I agree

I also wonder why these Republicans are doing so good in those states? Do the people polled just not know much/anything about them?

[still_one]

105. I would like to see other pols around the same time also

[99Forever]

17. How dare you!!!

Don't you understand that the only polls that are "accurate and true" are those showing Hillary as totally unbeatable?

[ibegurpard]

24. 2004 all over again

[ram2008]

34. Paging Warren

Hillary is one 'scandal' or media gaffe away from having the floor fall out. Don't see how she makes it with her current strategy, she desperately needs to change it up.

What happened to this Hillary?

She needs to let loose and show she's not a robot- that is when she's at her best. Yes, I'm a Sanders supporter, but I wish she would get past this overly cautious, wooden script that she seems to be following. Otherwise she does not deserve to be the nominee.

[BeyondGeography]

35. A dreary set of figures no matter how you look at it

Hopefully a wake-up call for our play-it-safe frontrunner, who punts and waffles far more than she takes a stand. In the last week alone, she has been mushy on Keystone, minimum wage and the Iran deal. Maddening.

[n8dogg83]

38. I think this poll shows why we need to start the debates soon and have more of them....

We need democratic ideas put out there early and often, also it would force the candidates to be more specific on policies and take a stand on issues. DWS (or whoever is in charge of setting the debates) is shooting the Democratic Party in the foot by stifling debate.

[MisterP]

74. problem is losing isn't a big problem for the Beltway types and party honchos:

after 1988 the DLC insisted that party's problem was lack of money and we should be more corporate-friendly (this actually matched a neoliberal wave that made numerous parties--British Labour, French Socialists, every president south of the border)

now they get the same funding at most levels whether they win or lose, that's why Wasserman-Schultz is still in (after their insistence that "winning isn't everything, it's the only thing&quot : in fact, their attitude is that she did GREAT and it's not HER fault the unwashed hordes didn't respond to her brilliant campaigns

voters are just obstacles to getting into power for them--they even set up a literal "veal pen" system in the party to reduce how many policies that Democrats wanted/needed got promoted: they demanded more and more loyalty all while deliberately stringing everyone along indefinitely

[restorefreedom]

100. not gonna happen

dws knows hillary is toast in a debate vs sanders and omalley. she can't throw out applause lines and vague platitues. ws is postponing as long as possible. even if it costs the dems the presidency, that is how devoted she is to her candidate.

[DCBob]

40. The relentless RW media bashing is having an impact.

Also, being the clear front runner, all the focus is on her.. Sanders and the others hardly get mentioned. I wouldn't worry about this.. once the Republican field is narrowed down the Clinton/Democrat attack machine can get in gear.

[Fearless]

43. It's the money.

[DonCoquixote]

47. if she were smart

She would embrace the medical cannabis that has made Colorado happy. She would not even need to say she would do anything federal, just encourage states to have the chance to make the choice.

But many even on the far left in Colorado remember how she and her big dumb husband slammed efforts to legalize it. It's hard to rally around someone when you know that only a few years ago, they were working to send you to jail.

[bigdarryl]

49. These BULLSHIT!!! polls don't mean shit this far out in the race

Most voters aren't even concentrating on the Presidential election.

[ibegurpard]

54. unless they show Hillary ahead by 50 points

Then they're gospel.

[HooptieWagon]

57. LOL, exactly!

[brooklynite]

59. Of course they don't...

...now, when a YEAR's worth of polls show's he 50 points ahead...

[ibegurpard]

63. Keep whistling

It's John Kerry v. 2

[brooklynite]

64. I see -- and Sanders is Howard Dean v. 2

...where large crowds don't equal voters?

[ibegurpard]

66. if you're right we're screwed

[bigdarryl]

62. I don't believe in ANY fucking polls the only thing I go by is this formula

http://seanmunger.com/2014/11/05/the-13-keys-predict-the-presidential-election-of-2016-and-the-winner-is/

[Lil Missy]

50. How does Bernie do against the same Republicans?

[Warren Stupidity]

83. about the same.

[Zorra]

51. It's pretty clear that lots of Democrats don't trust her either. nt

[onehandle]

53. Outlier poll. No other poll says anything like that.

Nice try.

[totodeinhere]

115. Nice try to do what? It's a reputable poll and it may be an outlier, but

considering how inevitable some observers seem to think Clinton is, this poll is of note. And the same poll shows Bernie in the same ballpark as Hillary vs several Republican candidates.

[SoapBox]

55. ...The results offered more indications that Clinton has a problem: Voters say they don't trust her

THAT would be my neighbors, here in SoCal...

There is Bush burnout...but there is even bigger Hillary burnout.

[fbc]

60. unelectable

[fbc]

61. Clinton's problem is that those numbers only get worse the more she speaks

Unless Clinton suddenly learns how to speak without sounding like a huge phoney who gives politically calculated non-answers then her disapproval ratings are going to keep climbing along with her increased exposure.

[George II]

67. This is just three states, two of which...

....although not unimportant, are not critical, either - Iowa and Colorado.

[blackspade]

76. Ouch.

That's not good.

[Scootaloo]

79. What tickles me...

Is all these people in this thread who, just four hours ago were swearing that poll numbers were absolute unquestionable word-of-god...

Who are now talking about how unreliable polling can be and how it means nothing, nothing at all!

[Adrahil]

108. Polls have to be taken in the aggregate.

A single poll is just one data point.

Remember that YouGov poll all the Bernie fans were touting showing with with 24% nationally?

Yeah... no other poll shows that. Every other poll (including one released today) shows in in the mid-teens. That YouGov poll was an outlier.

Now, we don't has much data in the states where this new poll was taken, but it does appear to be very different from the other polls taken. But really, we need more data to say for sure. But the general rule is that if just one poll shows something very different, it's probably the one that is wrong.

We'll have to see how the data plays out of course.

OTOH, the poll wasn't any better for Bernie.....

[Scootaloo]

111. Oh, it's just the sudden sea change

I'm noticing that sort of thing is a constant of DU, though

[Adrahil]

112. Most people.. even people I agree with...

... tend to interpret data through the lens of desired outcome.

Everyone does it to some extent, but critical thinkers TRY and recognize when they are doing it, and take a step back.

I try to be a "data driven" guy, though I am certain I fail on occasion. Many people make no effort at all. I don't think I've ever met a conservative who was a decent critical thinker.

[taught_me_patience]

81. Bad poll for Hillary

I hope she does something to shore up these numbers now and not let the negativity fester.

[brooklynite]

117. 24 hours later...numbers shored up

Clinton is in pretty good shape when it comes to potential general election match ups as well. She leads all of the potential Republican candidates by anywhere from 3 to 13 points, comparable to a month ago when her advantages over them ranged from 3 to 7 points. The Republican who comes closest to Clinton is Rand Paul, who trails by 3 at 45/42. Also coming close are Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and Scott Walker all of whom trail by an identical 5 point margin at 46/41.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/07/trump-still-leads-gop-field-but-descent-may-be-beginning.html#more

Quick enough?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

86. That has GOT to be an outlier

Or the people in Colorado, Iowa, and Virginia are going crazy insane (Republican). People there going to vote for Walker (or Jeb) over Clinton or Sanders? Srsly? Do they even know how insane/intellectually vacant Walker (in particular) is?


I'm going to write this off as an outlier absent further polling. Otherwise, 2016 may not be such a good year for us after all- though how and why it should be looking good for anybody in the Republican Clown Bus I have absolutely no idea.

[Adrahil]

109. I strongly suspect it is. It'll be interesting to see...

.. if Nate Silver has anything to say about it. Maybe they change something in their sample model?

[Victor_c3]

87. I can't blame people for saying they don't trust her

I don't trust her either. On women's issues she could be called "liberal" but her demonstrated support for big corporations and banks lets me know that she really doesn't have the interest of average Americans in mind.

Additionally, her vote and subsequent refusal to apologize for her part of the war on Iraq seriously infuriates me. I'm one of "those disabled vets" produced by that war. My conscience and hands are covered with the blood of dead Iraqis and people who never deserved to be murdered by American forces in the supposed name of freedom.

I've been seriously struggling with psychiatric issues for 10 years and the war continues to destroy every aspect of my life. I've spent roughly 5 months over the last year locked up involuntarily in psych wards because of the war. I've endured two suicide attempts and I constantly feel like I'm one step away from it being final the next time.

My hands shake almost constantly, I see ghosts, I hear things like weapons fire and people calling my name. My marriage is just about over and I have only a skeleton of a relationship with the two people (my daughters) that mean the most me.

Hillary Clinton saying that she has "nothing to be sorry for" when asked if she regretted her war vote in a 2008 interview in an almost matter-of-fact sort of way is hugely offensive. I know most people are quick to forget the war or simply over look it as they have no concept of the violence we unleashed on that country, but I don't get to have those luxuries. I constantly relieve my part of that war in vivid detail when I'm awake and in my dreams. There is no escaping or forgetting about for me.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

90. If they think that they can trust Walker, Bush, or Rubio more

then we are in some serious trouble- but per this poll they don't seem positively inclined toward ANY of the Democrats included either. This has GOT to be an outlier IMHO

[BlueStateLib]

104. Obama at 45% is going to make any democratic nominee

to win the white house a tough road to hoe.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

110. Why?

It's nowhere near George W. Bush's abysmal poll numbers by the end.