Washington State; Hillary Clinton 33%, Al Gore 17%

From Strategic Vision polling.

http://www.strategicvision.biz/political/washington_poll_042606.htm


Below are the results of a three-day poll in the state of Washington. Results are based on telephone interviews with 800 likely voters in Washington, aged 18+, and conducted Below are the results of a three-day poll in the state of Washington. Results are based on telephone interviews with 800 likely voters in Washington, aged 18+, and conducted April 21-23, 2006. The margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.

17. For the 2008 Democratic Presidential Nomination whom would you support? (Democrats Only)
Hillary Clinton 33%
Al Gore 17%
John Edwards 12%
Russ Feingold 9%
John Kerry 9%
Wesley Clark 2%
Joseph Biden 2%
Bill Richardson 1%
Evan Bayh 1%
Ed Rendell 1%
Tom Vilsak 1%
Barbara Boxer 1%
Mark Warner 1%
Undecided 10%

I really don't want it to be Hillary (or Vilsak, or Warner, or Biden)

poll

Mayor Shirley Franklin (D-Atlanta) tied Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS) for third nationally with 6 percent of the vote, followed closely by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) with five percent, Gov. Janet Napolitano (D-AZ) and Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) with four percent, and Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) with three percent. Clinton beat Rice in 11 of 14 "swing states" represented in the poll.

I want us to win.

If the PEOPLE that will do the voting want her to win, than maybe we need to jump on with a winner.

If CLARK takes the lead or any of the others(-Joey,)I would be thrilled but I WANT TO BEAT the RepubliCONS by any means necessary.

At the DLC, RNC and DCCC??

It's a public secret the rightwingers, and RNC are vying for a Clinton presidential run! That's why this poll data don't smell right.

Everywhere I go (even at the Huffington Post!), liberals and Democratic voters are chanting "Gore/Feingold", "Gore/Kerry", "Gore/Anybody", and I don't read any passionate call for a Hillary Clinton candidacy!

And then to read my liberal Senator, Babs Boxer only got ONE percent while she carried the third highest votes (even among Republicans!) in the 2004 Pres. Election??

Somethin' stinks to high hell with this poll...

I don't know that their polls are rigged. But I would take the results with a major grain of salt.

That said, I'm not surprised that Clinton comes out ahead of Gore, and Boxer is at only 1%. It's almost all a matter of name recognition, and believe it or not, Gore does not have the name recognition Clinton does. And of those who do know him, the VAST majority know him only by the campaign he ran in 2000 and the way the GOP painted him.

Likewise, most of those who know and like Hillary Clinton know ZIP about her voting record in the Senate. They associate her with her husband's record. But without the affairs.

People who read political blogs, even fairly accessible ones like the Huffington Post, are not representative of Democrats in general. In fact, I read in a recent Hotline poll of self-identified Democrats (see my post below for a link) that 65% said they never read political blogs. Never.

Those of us who do, however, are more likely to vote in primaries, as Clark2008 suggested. But there aren't enough of us to determine the nomination. If there were, Dean or Clark would have been the '04 nominee.

I have a problem with the media polls in comparison to online polls freqented by people who I KNOW will vote in the Dem primary - and those people NEVER choose Hillary.

She is repug lite like Dump Joe. They are two birds of the same Israeli pandering feather. We need a candidate for us not Israel.

would you vote for her if she were running in the general election up against a repug?

So one wonders about sample, the timing and the motivation (ie who's paying?) for this poll.

oh and "welcome" to DU.

All good questions. I am a Gore supporter myself, but admire all those standing up to shrub; Feingold, Wes Clark, Boxer, Conyers, etc.

I will work to get the Dem nomination to someone who had the sense to oppose this debacle in Iraq.

I will vote for the Dem nominee,however, even if its Hillary.

for the last year and a half (or more) as THE candidate for 2008, I think Al pulling a 17% is awesome. Lots to build on. Al is my man for 2008 and I know that the "people" will see it too when he retakes the stage.

A lot of shifting in those numbers, there and elsewhere, is likely.

Polling right now is as useless as balls on a priest.

And every one of those who make up the 100% has a concrete opinion about her, pro or against.

I'd say 33% isn't very impressive.

I can't say how much, but it honestly isn't 100%. Especially Gore and Edwards.

It actually says she has 99% name recognition, but there's 4% MoE.

Hillary is popular with rank and file Democrats....

This is not name recognition unless you think Democratic voters are too stupid to remember the last two Presidential nominees of the Party and the last Vice Presidential nominee!

And by stupid, I mean uninformed. Altho, seems to me, it's sort of stupid to remain uninformed given the trouble we're in. But a lot of people just don't see the trouble because they're, well... uninformed.

Anyway... When polls are done of just regular people, a certain percentage don't know who Dick Cheney is, or Condi Rice. I've never heard any simple name recognition survey for John Kerry or Al Gore, but I bet it's not much better in the population at large than Dick Cheney. There was a recent Hotline poll of self-identified Democrats that asked favorability of a number of Democratic leaders. 54% had never heard of Harry Reid. 42% had never heard of Nancy Pelosi. 14% had never heard of Howard Dean. Only 1% had never heard of Hillary Clinton (and I suspect they were lying ;)).
http://www.diageohotlinepoll.com/06_April_Data.pdf

The respondents in polls like the OP are just regular people too, even if they are Democrats. They do not necessarily follow politics. The pollsters select their names randomly out of phone books or similar data sources. Then they ask which party the respondent aligns with and is he/she likely to vote. Usually, they don't specify that they mean the primaries (and the majority of GE voters don't bother with primaries). Most respondents will not admit they don't vote, whether they do or not. Some more sophisticated polls, usually run later on in the cycle, will look at other factors to determine who is a likely voter, but polls like the one in the OP do not.

But all of that, and your post too, miss the point.

So look at it from the point of view of the respondents who hear Clinton's name and a laundry list of of others they do not recognize. I know there aren't many of these, but there are a very few. They pick Clinton, or say undecided (and there's proven self-inflicted psychological pressure not to choose undecided, even among people who really don't have a clue... possibly more from those people).

Then look from the view of the respondents who hear another name they also recognize -- Kerry's, for example. The ones who like Kerry better than Clinton choose him. The ones who don't want Kerry again, for whatever reason, pick Clinton or undecided.

Then add in Gore to the mix. If they recognize Clinton, Kerry and Gore, and like Gore best, they pick him. Otherwise it's Kerry or Clinton or undecided. Then add in Edwards and repeat. And then Biden for the few who watch the Sunday news shows. And so forth.

The bottom line is, they essentially never pick a name they don't know. The default is to pick someone they recognize unless they have a specific reason not to, and the results become heavily weighted by the percentage of recognition. So much so that the poll results end up reflecting almost exactly how well the names are recognized.

I personally think that Clinton has more name recognition that Kerry, who has more name recognition than Gore (some of the respondents are new voters), who in turn has more than Edwards. I might be wrong about that. But what I know for a fact is that ALL four of them have more, lots more, than any one else listed in the survey.

Once the '08 campaign season begins, name recognition will go up for all serious candidates, how much depending on how well they campaign and how much "free media" they get from the corporate powers that be. Name recognition will still be a factor, especially in the primaries, because there are a lot people who vote even when they don't know who everybody is. But for now, it's practically everything and tells us next to nothing about who will be left standing at the 2008 convention.

Hillary would feel a bite our of her hindquarters.

if he jumps in, I would bet his numbers would jump way up.

33% puts her in Bush country when it comes to approval! Considering her name recognition and tons of corporate money she has raised, this 33% could be her high water mark. I wonder how she polls in other states.

All pretty much alike, except for a few names and issues unique to each state.

You can find the most recent ones, going back to the first of March at http://www.strategicvision.biz/political/results.htm

The most recent was released today, and it's for New York state.
Hillary Clinton 40%
Al Gore 14%
John Edwards 12%
John Kerry 10%
Wesley Clark 5%
Joseph Biden 2%
Russ Feingold 2%
Ed Rendell 1%
Evan Bayh 1%
Tom Vilsak 1%
Mark Warner 1%
Bill Richardson 1%
Barbara Boxer 1%
Undecided 9%

When the field is narrowed down, her numbers will go up. She is a very good candidate. I don't know what I'll do if Gore jumps in. I love him lots and lots.

Hillary is no better than a Lieberman or a Biden. Her nomination will spell disaster for the Democrats, it will energize the Republicans, and it will turn off the progressives and the antiwar movement. She will be attacked from both the left and the right, and she will fail to bring independents in enough numbers to compensate for those on the left that won't vote for her.

If there is a G-d, Hillary will be defeated during the primaries and spare us all the fratricide that she will engender.

If the best she can pull is 33%... and more significantly, 40% in New York... well, that's a whole lot of Democrats who prefer someone else. Question remains, do they prefer anyone else? I submit most of them do.

Clinton will have a HUGE money advantage, not to mention all the corporate free media she can stand, and neither of those is anything to sneeze at. But she's a long way from having the nomination in the bag.

2 months ago he was at 2%.

Not too worried.