Clinton crushes Obama: Electability: 69% to 10%, Tough enough to beat GOP: 50% to 13%

“Which Democrat candidate do you think is most likely to win the Democrat nomination?”
“Which Democrat candidate do you think is tough enough to stand up to the Republicans?”

----------- Win Nomination -- Tough Enough
Clinton --- 69% ------------- 50%
Obama ------10% ------------- 13%

From the University of New Hampshire "Likely Democratic Primary Voters" poll released today.
http://www.unh.edu/survey-center/news/pdf/primary2008_demprim112007.pdf

Vote for me, I am Hillary I am

by Theodor Seuss Geisel



Vote for me, I am Hillary I am.

Sorry I can not do that ... no way I can.

support me, 'cause I get lots of press?

No sorry because you are part of "the insider's mess"

love me? "cause I gots lots of dough."

Sorry taking all the money from insurance companies
was really low.

Come on you old liberal .... don't cha' know it is a done deal?

No because I think you are one slippery eel.

Vote for me Hillary, because my campaign is a non stop train

But Ms. C. your votes on Iraq and Iran are hard to explain.

Look I am Hillary ... hear me roar ... my poll #s are to big to ignore

Sorry but I like Edwards and loves me some Al Gore.

Get w/ the program and support me, Ms. Hillary now!

Do we have royalty? Here is queen Hillary .... take a bow.

Come on support me .... remember my husband Bill?

Yes and President Edwards can put him in the U.N. .... that would be a thrill.

Why oh why will you not give me your vote?

Gee, Hillary I guess i am just a stubborn old goat.

:rofl: Who knew you were also a poet! :hi:

and I never approve of negatively portrait photoshopped pictures of Democratic candidates....not even in gest! :thumbsdown:

I think it is very appropriate.

.... last year. $500.00 and about 300 hours of what ever I was asked to
do by the campaign.

Her name is Mary Jo Kilroy.

n/t

and I agree, it's low.

Also, these questions are about what people think OTHER voters will do. Since pdf takes a year to load, can you tell me what the answers were to questions about their own preferences?

:dem:

Because that means the election can change simply by the "least likely" getting off their asses and turning out. 18 year olds have a power they never imagined and barely bother to use.

Sick of that concept.

That's "elect-ability"!

You must be confident you're doing the right thing, not merely hopeful that you are.

"Obama was not been unable to cut significantly into Clinton’s lead and he has had the support of one in five voters since February."

I'm guessing that you don't want to post the answer to that.

The link was right there, so you didn't have to guess at all, Manny.

and is now descendant. But I should have read the link - sorry.

a poll of what the likely democratic primary voters think electability is does not mean jack shit. This thing has pages and pages of stats on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The OP misleads: the 69 to 10 is "which is more likely to win the nomination", NOT which is more "electable." Plenty of people who don't want Clinton to be the nominee and who would vote for roadkill rather than her would STILL respond that she is most likely to win the nomination. Not happy about it, but that is what looks likely. And only 50% think she's tough enough; practically nobody thinks any of the others are. Whoopee! If that's how NH dems feel about the candidate field, we're in a world of hurt. So they publish these meaningless numbers and then a DUer distorts them to say she is the most "electable". Shhheee-ut, Chris Matthews is more trustworthy when he describes Al Gore!


A poll pitting each dem candidate one-on-one vs each rep candidate with a representative sampling of probable general election voters is the only way to measure "electability."

Everything else is supposition.

Get back to me after Iowa, as the numbers in NH are always in flux and don't clarify until after then. I would expect Hillary to have high numbers in a state she visited more than any other destination the past two years.

And actually, the Iwoa debate happened while the poll was being taken, so "pre Iowa" as you put it isn't quite accurate.

I was about to write a post about how the opinion of Democratic primary voters means virtually nothing about how any candidate of any party will do in the general, but I scrolled down and saw you did a nice job explaining it already. Thanks.

:)

22% Clinton
22% Obama
22% Edwards


Sounds like everybody more or less likes everybody in New Hampshire and the much vaunted anti-whoever vote is an equal burden among the three.

... I'm surprised her "anti" is so low. Imagine how low the Edwards and Obama would be if 10 other candidates focused their entire campaigns into attacks against the two of them. Would they still be at only 22% "anti"?

I find it interesting that Obama is considered more "honest" while Hillary is considered "tough."

Thanks for sharing. :hi:

It's really saying something when the voters look at Obama and Edwards and don't see toughness.

edit: Clinton 50%, Obama 13%, Edwards 11%.

If she wins, that will be one reason I expect?

it doesn't say anything, actually.

The question was "which Democratic candidate do you think is tough enough to..."

So 50% pick HRC as their first choice for "tough enough" and the rest are distributed. That does NOT - I repeat NOT mean that only 13% think Edwards or Obama is also tough enough. It just means that half of the people pick her, when given the opportunity to pick only one. They very well might think Obama is a very close second - so close as to be a near tossup.


Your interpretation that the voters look at the others and "don't see toughness" is a pathetic effort to build a story out of a bullshit poorly done poll. There are plenty of good things to say about HRC. Why not say them, instead of trying to cook up propaganda?

This poll and your presentation of it as supposedly persuasive are exactly what is wrong with our political system. Bullshit efforts to con, bilk, deceive rather than actual competition for hearts and minds.

Your slam that my quoting the data is "Bullshit efforts to con, bilk, deceive" isn't accurate.
I give the people in NH more credit than some, I guess.

"It's really saying something when the voters look at Obama and Edwards and don't see toughness."

It is mischaracterizing the data, ascribing a conclusion unsupportable by the facts at hand.

If there were separate yes/no questions as to "toughness" for each and 90% said "no" for a given individual, THEN you could say "voters don't see toughness"

But all you have to work with is that they didn't rank those people as "most tough" when compared to HRC. You cannot make the leap you did based on the facts presented. Your efforts to make your candidate look great are not unlike the efforts to "prove" wmd's existed. That you want it to be so, or firmly believe it to be so does not make accurately interpreting data unimportant.


I guess true believers cannot see reality.

"It's really saying something when the voters look at Obama and Edwards and don't see toughness."
The people polled were asked which candidate was tough enough to beat the GOP.
I they saw toughness in Obama or Edwards, the numbers would've shown that, but I guess true believers cannot see reality.

If it were "Most likely to beat the Republicans," that's would be "electable."

(The "tough enough" numbers are closer)

Sounds good for Obama to me!

FIRE IT UP!

:woohoo:

You see:



Additionally, even your touted 69% includes supporters of other candidates:



It doesn't look to me as if this poll tells us much at all.

And yet you cite the results in your rebuttal?
OK.

refers to the actual poll as a predictor of who will win in NH. Sorry, didn't think I had to spell it out for you.

47% do not yet know who they will vote for.

The Republicans are licking their chops and firing up the Swiftboats. They can hardly contain themselves. Somebody's got something and they can't wait to use it.

HILLARY!!!

That's what scares the Republican base the most.

We're jumping ship for Hillary.

:hi:

Glad to read comments like yours.

:hi:

Hillary in 08.

Always good to hear it. Welcome.

Doesn't it depend who the repuke candidate is? If it's Rudy, lord only knows the skeletons in his closet are far greater than her exposed skeletons- and they're brand new to the American people. Don't think she'll swiftboat him? I do. And I completely doubt they have anything new. No two people in history have been as investigated and examined as Bill and Hillary Clinton. If the candidate is Romney, I think she has a tougher time, but he's not impervious either. Never has such a flip flopper run for president. She can win alright. Any of the top three can, though JE would definitely have the toughest time. He's accepted public financing, and he'll be silenced for months while the repukes pound him. Even the 527s won't be enough to really help.

for nefarious reasons....

turkey a lil' better today knowing that out of all the polls, ( I use 12 as the example ) Obama has a 4% point lead...If he were a field goal kicker and had 1 out of 12 I would fire him. If he were a basketball player and shot 1 of 12 I would bench him. If he were a baseball player and batter 1 for 12 I would send him back to minors, and that is what HRC will do to Obama. Send him back to the minors to mature and understand the presidency is not some lil job where one can strut around and not take it all seriously...oh I forgot we have a president now that enjoys strutting around and takes nothing serious and look at the world of chit we all are in.

Ben David

Here's a thread with details:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3748755&mesg_id=3748755

using the exact same rhetoric Hillary is using. Now that's an impartial poll. :eyes:

Shouldn't be hard for you to find, since it's "the exact same rhetoric Hillary is using"

After months of Clinton supporters CONSTANTLY posting Rasmussen polls, it'll be interesting to see how this is handled.

I didn't know Rasmussen polled NH specifically. Link please?