Hillary has a 53% national approval rating?

It's 53/42, a much higher positive number and better net than I would have projected. Such a well known and polarizing figure only 5% have no opinion of her. That may be the lowest no opinion number I've ever seen, this far from an election. It's even lower than the 8% who claim no opinion of Al Gore.

I'm taking these numbers from a link on atrios, supposedly part of the current Newsweek poll, although I didn't see these numbers on Newsweek's site: http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_05_07_atrios_archive.html#114753744115542351

Favorable/unfavorable ratings of national dems:

Hillary 53/42
Dean 33/36
Edwards 49/24
Gore 49/43
Kennedy 43/45
Kerry 49/40

I have no idea why Kennedy would be listed. Especially minus names like Warner and Feingold. They would undoubtedly have massive no opinion figures.

John Edwards' ratio is astounding, better than 2/1 and only 24% negatives. Somehow with 27% no opinion despite running for VP.

Although I would remind everyone that the Hillary haters hate her a lot more than the people who like her like her.

A national figure for 16 years come 2008. That's the reason for the 5% no opinion. I think we're dramatically overstating how much impact the GOP attack mode would have on her numbers. There would be tons of ho hum, we already know this.

I'm much more concerned with the basic question; is it too soon for a woman to be elected nationally?

Many will vote for Hillary because they will believe they will be voting for Bill. And I have no doubt whatsoever that this will be used by the Clintons in the campaign. Despite the scandal, he is an extremely popular guy.

P.S. I heard the song "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow" in the drug store the other day and I got goosebumps. I tend to believe that they will use the song and all the other prompts to remind people how hopeful and positive things were back in the Bill and Hill days.

Not bad at all. I guess she does start the race with maybe half a Y chromosone, if I'm allowed to say that:)

though it won't stop them from trying. She has had mostly positive press for at least 4 years. For this reason, I think that the fact that Kerry and Gore are nearly in the same place after years of negative press is good news for them. (Gore has had significant positive press lately, though it may have been too recent to counter tha bad. Kerry's numbers are very good considering the media has been very tough on him, suggesting the debates and maybe his convention have some lasting value for him.

Edwards' number are excellent, but he has not been swift boated. If he can become better known without the negatives increasing significantly he would be in good shape. But, compared to the other 3, his numbers are pre-swiftboat.

They would try to savage him. But charisma and looks are a natural teflon.

The sad part is that Bill and Hillary Clinton deserve some sort of dispensation, a get out of jail free card, something, for the shitty way they were treated through the 1990s. I REALLY hate seeing them pilloried here by people allegedly in their own party. I think Hillary takes the brunt of the yes on the IWR opposition, and that is truly unfair.

There is an allegiance to them that some underestimate, and the fires of hatred fanned for her here at DU are misleading. There is a very vocal but still a minority of Dem voters than share this negativity towards Hillary, although I'm certain people will vehemently deny that.

Insight is elusive in a crowd.

But my immediate reaction to seeing the 53% was, "what?" so I left it in.

I'm bigtime pro-Bill and pro-Hillary, even if I'm not convinced she's our strongest potential nominee. All the negative threads here regarding Hillary probably contributed to my dismay at the 53% number. That's a higher approval figure than Democrats receive as a generic brand.

There is just too much Rove-inspired shit floating around in the atmosphere still. Stuff that was stirred up to perpetuate a negative aura for years to come. That's why I don't want her to run. It would be Clinton bashing redux, and we need to see some daylight after the Bush-Clinton dynasties.

Of course, I am hugely prejudiced as a Gore devotee.

But there actually hasn't been a Clinton dynasty yet! ;-)

I read so much about the dreaded, horrible, catastrophic Bush-Clinton dynasty here, it just fell out.
Proof positive that there's a lot of trash talk here on DU.

she's taken more hits in her career than ANYONE can imagine. Repubs are scared of Hillary because they've thrown everything they have (and made up tons more!) at her for 15 YEARS, and she's still kickin, still getting more popular. They know there's no way to sink her ship in a mere 6-month presidential campaign season. They won't even be able to put a dent in her. Her fundraising is second-to-none. I really think she's our next president. So does Rupert Murdoch, too, evidently.

Especially after GW!

hillary/edwards

she has the strongest favorable and he combines his very strong favorable with the lowest negative.

if hillary gets the nom..edwards-feingold or vice versa

I have not compared the two sources but these are quite different.

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/04/hotlinediageo_p_4.html

Fav/Unfav --All-- --Lib-- --Prg-- --Mod-- --Con-- Non

H.Clinton 78 /13 84 / 8 80 /14 77 /13 73 /19 87 /

Dean 48 /20 58 /19 59 /17 45 /19 26 /30 40 /13

McCain 54%/22% 56%/24% 56%/33% 57%/19% 54%/16% 44%/17

Reid 23 / 7 25 / 7 30 / 6 23 / 7 16 / 9 16 /

Pelosi 33 / 8 43 / 6 50 / 5 31 / 8 13 /13 29 /

The last number is covered by an ad in some cases. I don't see a category given for these. It is not the presidential race category, not sure why McCain is listed. The presidential poll is listed there also.

n/t

is that the Republicans work really hard to drive them down, where as Democrats allow Republicans to stew in their own corruption. Sometimes I wish Democrats could be assholes too. There is just so much material to utilize.

I can't believe Hotline posted it without applying common sense. No chance on this or any other planet that Hillary Clinton has a 73/19 positive approval rating among conservatives. That's almost 20 points higher than McCain's numbers in the same group.

The bad number screws up the entire result, putting Hillary at 78% approval. The 73/19 number was probably reversed from actual.

On edit; OK, it was a poll of Democrats only, as someone else pointed out. Makes more sense.

Thanks. No one could be that high. And why would they include McCain? And why would Hillary be listed in a list with just those? Confusing.

candidates. I'm sick of that same old right-wing spin!!!

Gee....is Bush, Fisk,McCain, Falwell, Robertson POLARIZING!!!! And we could go on forever.....

There's alot more POLARIZING people on the right than on the left!!

When I ask people who I know well, "why they don't like Hillary" I always get the same answer....."she's too polarizing."

Can we please give it a rest?

I think America yearns for the good old days when we were respected around the world and we were optimistic about the future.

He's not my absolute first choice (General Clark's foreign policy/security profile is unbeatable), but I would have NO problem backing him 100%.

"nobody likes a know-it-all"

Focus groups are interesting and fun to read about, but they need to be taken with a grain of salt. A strong articulate person in the group can easily become an opinion leader, dictating the results. The reponses are in the open - so the opinions of the people in the group aren't really independent.

I think Focus groups are interesting is hearing about issues that people have with something, or as a source for qualitative information that is hard to get otherwise. Projecting the results to the entire population is problematic. I have viewed focus groups on a project where I was involved on a more analytical piece - they were valuable in deciding what the issues were.

My dissing this result, is not because I disagree with the groups results. The results are a Kerry fan's dream; Kerry's clips scored highest, Hillary was a disapointment and they liked Edwards less after seeing him. If they wanted to examine Tweety's comment, they would need to use a different technque to measure it.

hopefully much higher), but I don't regard Newsweek as reliable at this point.

These early polls are mostly name recognition contests-- I remember how much Lieberman dominated the polls going into 2004, for example. In fact, with the exception of Edwards (who had the best numbers, high positives and very low negatives), it looks as though the top Dems all had about the same figures-- Hillary, Gore and Kerry were all within the margin of error of each other on both positive and negative figures. (I've seen other polls with much higher negatives for Hillary and Kerry-- one poll had shown something like 53% of voters would not vote for Hillary at all.)

But all this really reflects right now, is the vague general perception of the candidates. Edwards, for example, probably still has a glow from '04 as a sunny, cheery fellow who (overall at least) doesn't leave a bad taste in people's mouths. Problem is, Edwards and Hillary have been among the most vociferous supporters of Bush's war policies in Iraq, and now Hillary is even pushing for military action against Iran. Those sorts of things haunt prospective candidates when the primaries actually start (let alone the general election), as they did to Lieberman in 2004. I'd say of this group, Al Gore probably has the strongest fundamentals (name recognition but also tremendous respect among the base, a fiery speaking style recently, and genuinely profound policy ideas). Also, it's hard to say at this point how Clark and Warner will shape out-- Bill Clinton was somewhat of a dark horse before 1992 as well, but these two, and Warner in particular due to his executive experience and tremendous popularity in a Red State, may be quite formidable when primary season starts and attention gets cast about. Gore would be my favorite of the group-- if he does decide to run, he would be an overwhelming force. Frankly, he would be a great President as well.

as a front runner. They would love her to be the nominee. I doubt she eventually is, but I could be wrong. As a side note, I am still holding out hope that the new Al Gore steps into the field and totally dominates.

KOS quotes a Newsweek poll showing Hillary Clinton has a higher national approval rating than several further left Democrats (Like Howard Dean and Ted Kennedy) and it's suddenly Republican spin?

This sets up the premise that she is a strong contender, that they fear her, which is exactly the opposite of what they beleive. They relish the thought of another Clinton running. Gore beat * once and he deserves the chance to be the nominee.

Can some Hillary supporter explain why they'd support Clinton over Gore? How about a Gore/Clinton ticket? I'd probably go along with that, although I'd prefer someone like Warner (win VA) or Clark for VP.

We're discussing the KOS-quoted Newsweek poll.

Why would you prefer to discuss Repub spin in such a limited context?

I predict Gore will run. I strongly support Hillary at this time, But I admit, if Gore runs it will be a tough choice for me and I'm not sure which one I would choose.

It's still a long way to go till 2008, I'll have to see......

With a good running mate, i.e, Edwards or Feingold, I think she could win.

She is a marvelous campaigner, and her numbers will just go up when the campaigning starts.

The 53% of the total means 75-80% of Dems, so there is good reason to suggest she is the frontrunner for the nomination, too.

Things look GREAT for Hillary.

Honestly, she's moved so far right, even if she does come back to center ... IMO she's a shoe in for re-election to the NY State Senate but TOAST should she seek the Presidency.

I just don't get her popularity ... she has something that I don't get - what is it?

I had all the well-worn beliefs about her unelectability, etc., etc., but after a look at Susan Estrich's The Case for Hillary Clinton, I've begun to think she might be just fine. Estrich's arguments are pretty compelling.

that she has lost the Liberals. IMO she's still warmongering and in all good conscious I could NOT vote for her as President.

Perhaps she'll move to the center, but now, she's way out there to the right. :(

I can think of a whole lot of folks I'd rather see nominated than HRC, but since the alternative would be McCain or Frist or whatever other GOP lunatic gets their nomination, no further information would be needed. Republicanism must be eradicated by whatever means necessary. Even if that means HRC.

She has a lifetime ADA rating of 95%.

She essentially picks Hillary by eliminating everyone else - in very snarky not packed up ways. She seems to enjoy using every RW charge against each opponent - repeated as truth. It honestly doesn't matter who you support, they were trashed. I scanned it for about 15 miutes in Borders - but it is what you would expect from her.

The liklihood is that shw simply wants to be involved in Hillary's campaign. She works for Fox news and had a reputation from when she ran the Dukakis campaign.

I think he's great! I am sort of in a quandry though. I can back Gore, but I simply love Edwards.... I'd probably have to go with Gore/Edwards!

NOT HILLARY! Edwards negatives are VERY low!

They are eager to return to folks who know how to run the nation.

27% no opinion for Edwards? How is that possible?