Dangerous Poll Numbers
Rasmussen Reports has some bad polling news - for Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party. She polls at about 48%. What's bad about that, you ask? Well, she polls at 48% even if nobody has heard of who she is matched against.
But, in the general election, Clinton’s role becomes even more significant. Election 2008 is the first time in more than half a century that a U.S. Presidential election has not included an incumbent or a Vice President seeking the top job. Clinton’s candidacy may be filling that void and has assumed many dynamics typically associated with an incumbent. If this continues, the election could come down to a referendum on Hillary Clinton.
Most polling on general election match-ups involving Clinton look like a referendum rather than a choice between Clinton and a particular candidate. Using a three-poll rolling average to quiet any statistical noise, the Clinton effect becomes clear. The former First Lady earns between 46%and 49% of the vote against each of the top five Republican hopefuls. It doesn’t matter if it’s Rudy Giuliani or Mike Huckabee, John McCain or Fred Thompson.
If you average the results of the top five candidates, you find Clinton’s support at 48%. She also attracts 48% support when matched up with the little known Ron Paul. Adding further support to the notion that it’s all about Clinton is this tidbit– among the voters who have never heard of Ron Paul or don’t know enough to have an opinion, Clinton attracts the exact same total–48%. So, whether the candidate is a frontrunner or an also ran—or even if voters have never heard of the candidate, Clinton earns about 48% of the vote. These numbers make sense when you consider that Clinton is by far the best known of all the candidates and that opinions of her are split roughly down the middle.
I suspect these results are directly tied to the highly negative opinions that many people have of Hillary Clinton. The Influence Peddler is asking if Hillary is a sure loser:
These are [ie, look like -- the Editor] the polls of an unpopular incumbent, destined to be defeated for re-election: name ID is huge, voters' opinions are set. When these are the last few polls that you see before election day, you recall that undecideds break against the incumbent by a huge margin. You conclude that it will take a miracle to pull through on election day.
You don't quite draw such a conclusion this far out of course; election day is simply too far off and too much can change. The Republican opponent could be savaged in advertising, so much that he is unelectable. There might be a 3rd party candidate who reduces the threshold for victory. It's even conceivable that you might be able to 'reintroduce' the candidate, and move some of the voters who seem so firmly against you. But a candidate forced to resort to one of these strategies is someone already in trouble.
I agree that it is too far out from the election for this to be anything conclusive. But these numbers are very bad indeed. They literally mean that Clinton cannot make one, single mistake that costs even a few votes. That is a nasty tightrope to be on for a whole year.
Other Links to this Post
-
Blue Crab Boulevard » Throw The Bums Out? — Tuesday, 30 October , 2007 @ 5:56 am
By jpg, Tuesday, 30 October , 2007 @ 2:59 pm
Expect Hillary! and her drones to manuever a third party candidate into the race. It’s the only way a Clinton can win, ala Bill in 92 and 96. Bet on it. And conservatives/libertarians will fall for it.