New Zogby Poll: Hillary loses to ALL top Republicans; Obama and Edwards beat all

that is very likely wrong. This poll is counter every other poll out there. Zogby blows it with this one.

if not more accurate. The track record is what I look at. Even if it is off by a few % this shit makes me very nervous of running Hillary.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1393

The online survey included 9,150 likely voters nationwide, and was conducted Nov. 21–26, 2007. It carries a margin of error of +/– 1.0 percentage points.

Come on you bozos. Didn't we go through this elect-ability crap 4 years ago. How's that eminently electable President Kerry doing? Jesus, how easily can you people be duped?

at 1600 today. It wasn't Kerry's "electability," it was rethuglican voter scams. So your point is, well, NOT FUCKING VALID. And 12 whole posts and you're calling people "bozos"?

I voted a dozen times in that Zogby poll.
By cleaning out cookies in between.

You can't just go to their website and take this poll, you have to be contacted by Zogby and sent the poll.

Prepare for 16 years of GOP rule.

the good news is the election is a year away.

I think that Rasmussen and Zogby are right about Hillary's inability to prevail against Republicans right now and in November 2008. How is Hillary going to attract cross-over voters? How is Hillary going to attract majorities in any southern states? in any of the states that are most hotly contested? She has nothing to offer that Kerry and Gore didn't have? Granted, you and I may believe that Kerry and Gore actually won, but their margins of victory were not great enough to allow them to beat the cheating of the Republicans. What does Hillary have that they did not have? For every voter that she will bring to the polls to vote for her, there is a voter who will go to the polls to vote against her. I would hate to see us fall into the trap of choosing a candidate the media wants but who can't win.

lead the dems for sure.

From the carpetbagger report:

It looks like ‘blue’ skies ahead
Posted November 26th, 2007 at 4:15 pm

Share This | Spotlight | Permalink

In light of Congress’ low approval ratings, some have suggested that the wave that washed Republicans out of the congressional majority 12 months ago has already subsided, and both chambers will once again be up for grabs 12 months from now.

CQ’s Bob Benenson and Jonathan Allen took a very thorough look at the landscape and have come to the opposite conclusion.

very traditional indicator of election forecasting — from public opinion polls and issue resonance to candidate recruitment and the “over/under” balance of seats in play — suggests that congressional Democrats have just as much going for them in 2008 as they had in 2006, if not more. They now have the power of incumbency to give them added advantages in raising money, attracting top-tier candidates, controlling the legislative agenda and capturing the political zeitgeist.

All this leads Democrats to profess clear confidence that they’ll retain majority control next fall. And not only that, but they may now harbor realistic visions of emerging with 55 to 58 seats in the Senate (pushing them within arm-twisting distance of the 60 votes needed to bust a filibuster) as well more than 240 seats in the House, a cushion that neither party has enjoyed since the end of the last Democratic era in the House, in 1994. <…>

By early March at the latest, Democrats are likely to have a presumed presidential nominee who will enjoy consensus front-runner status going into the general election campaign. That will give them a titular leader for the first time in seven years and the opportunity to unite behind a single party message throughout the remainder of the year.

Republicans, meanwhile, appear destined for a yearlong internecine battle for the heart and soul of the party. Even if they manage to rally behind a single presidential candidate next spring, it is not at all clear that any of the leading candidates for the nomination can count on the loyal and enthusiastic support of evangelical Christians and other social conservatives who have formed the bedrock of the GOP “base” for more than a quarter-century.

A year, obviously, is a long time, especially in politics. But CQ’s analysis is heartening and persuasive. Put it this way, do you think Republicans would want to switch positions with the Dems right now?

Moreover, practically every measurable standard leans in the Dems’ direction — the public supports their agenda, voters trust them on the issues, the party has more money in the bank, the GOP has more open seats and vulnerable incumbents to defend, etc.

But there’s one intangible that seems to help Dems more than anything else.

It isn’t always necessary for a party to enjoy robust popularity among voters to win majorities in Congress. Sometimes, it’s good enough just to not be the other guy.

Even though the public’s “honeymoon” with the congressional Democratic majorities was brief, there is scant evidence that voters are anxious to rush back to the party they so recently dumped. <…>

he biggest factor working in the Democrats’ favor continues to be that they are not the Republicans. (emphasis added)

Obviously, that doesn’t mean Dems can coast and expect to be rewarded. They still have a policy agenda, and voters still expect progress.

But it does mean that the smart money is on the Democratic majority getting bigger next year.

Consider this your morale boost for the day."

From me: Electability is not an isuue in this presidential election. It's just how they sell campaign ads for money to media. After the horrors of Bush and the present GOP candidates being such a joke electability is not an issue . Whoever wins the democratic primary will be the next president. All of the dem candidates are electable...NONE of the GOP candidates are electable. Get it through your heads and quit letting it influence your thoughts. ELECTABILITY IS NOT AN ISSUE IN THIS PRESIDENTIAL RACE...PERIOD.
Ubest

I won't vote for Hillary, but her losing to a republican? Nice one, Zogby!

If you think a candidate with close-to-50% strong negatives can't lose to a Republican we aren't living in the same world.

From the carpetbagger report:

It looks like ‘blue’ skies ahead
Posted November 26th, 2007 at 4:15 pm

Share This | Spotlight | Permalink

In light of Congress’ low approval ratings, some have suggested that the wave that washed Republicans out of the congressional majority 12 months ago has already subsided, and both chambers will once again be up for grabs 12 months from now.

CQ’s Bob Benenson and Jonathan Allen took a very thorough look at the landscape and have come to the opposite conclusion.

very traditional indicator of election forecasting — from public opinion polls and issue resonance to candidate recruitment and the “over/under” balance of seats in play — suggests that congressional Democrats have just as much going for them in 2008 as they had in 2006, if not more. They now have the power of incumbency to give them added advantages in raising money, attracting top-tier candidates, controlling the legislative agenda and capturing the political zeitgeist.

All this leads Democrats to profess clear confidence that they’ll retain majority control next fall. And not only that, but they may now harbor realistic visions of emerging with 55 to 58 seats in the Senate (pushing them within arm-twisting distance of the 60 votes needed to bust a filibuster) as well more than 240 seats in the House, a cushion that neither party has enjoyed since the end of the last Democratic era in the House, in 1994. <…>

By early March at the latest, Democrats are likely to have a presumed presidential nominee who will enjoy consensus front-runner status going into the general election campaign. That will give them a titular leader for the first time in seven years and the opportunity to unite behind a single party message throughout the remainder of the year.

Republicans, meanwhile, appear destined for a yearlong internecine battle for the heart and soul of the party. Even if they manage to rally behind a single presidential candidate next spring, it is not at all clear that any of the leading candidates for the nomination can count on the loyal and enthusiastic support of evangelical Christians and other social conservatives who have formed the bedrock of the GOP “base” for more than a quarter-century.

A year, obviously, is a long time, especially in politics. But CQ’s analysis is heartening and persuasive. Put it this way, do you think Republicans would want to switch positions with the Dems right now?

Moreover, practically every measurable standard leans in the Dems’ direction — the public supports their agenda, voters trust them on the issues, the party has more money in the bank, the GOP has more open seats and vulnerable incumbents to defend, etc.

But there’s one intangible that seems to help Dems more than anything else.

It isn’t always necessary for a party to enjoy robust popularity among voters to win majorities in Congress. Sometimes, it’s good enough just to not be the other guy.

Even though the public’s “honeymoon” with the congressional Democratic majorities was brief, there is scant evidence that voters are anxious to rush back to the party they so recently dumped. <…>

he biggest factor working in the Democrats’ favor continues to be that they are not the Republicans. (emphasis added)

Obviously, that doesn’t mean Dems can coast and expect to be rewarded. They still have a policy agenda, and voters still expect progress.

But it does mean that the smart money is on the Democratic majority getting bigger next year.

Consider this your morale boost for the day."

From me: Electability is not an isuue in this presidential election. It's just how they sell campaign ads for money to media. After the horrors of Bush and the present GOP candidates being such a joke electability is not an issue . Whoever wins the democratic primary will be the next president. All of the dem candidates are electable...NONE of the GOP candidates are electable. Get it through your heads and quit letting it influence your thoughts. ELECTABILITY IS NOT AN ISSUE IN THIS PRESIDENTIAL RACE...PERIOD.

She needs to get out, but instead it's all about them.

iff Edwards wins the nomination.

An probably the one candidate that can win the general election, out of the three.

They should make flip-flops with his face on them.

You borrow it?

Or is it authentic?

BTW - love how content-filled, insightful and dialog furthering your comment was.

The poll of 9,355 people had a margin of error of plus or minus one percentage point. The interactive poll surveys individuals who have registered to take part in online polls.

she is going south in most if not all the polls, online, offline, whatever. A long way from election day.

The question is, can she win.

:(

She's the same old thing. She's exactly the type of politics we're trying to get away from.

You got to register in his website to become part of his panel, and he emails you the polls. It's credible.

It is not a random sample; the polling organization solicits responses by e-mail.

I don't know Zogby's actual methodology, but I don't see why soliciting by email necessitates a more biased sample than soliciting by phone.

people are self-selecting by signing up for the poll. no other polling uses such a method and Zogby has been way off many times using these methods. Cheaper for him and his outlier results garner him more press attention for less money than if he'd conducted more substantial polling and come up with the same result as the other pollsters.

Do you folks know when you are getting played?

You are so worried that we are getting played by Hillary, yet you fall for this stuff. I dunno...

nor do any of his friends..nor do any of my friends 20,20+ age kids none of them have land lines..so how is polling by phone any more legit..when a whole slice of our voting population is being eliminated by blackberries and cell phones??????

and i would think an online poll would be closer to the truth as these are most likely voters..you know folks who actually go to the polls and vote!

persoanlly, i don't give a shit what someone that doesn't vote thinks in a poll!

does anyone have the straw poll numbers?? how many straw polls has hillary won among dems that vote??????

fly

Thats a pretty universal problem with inferential stats. Randomization is difficult and all or most test samples have some biases. Statisticians and pollsters seem to be doing alright for themselves anyway; there results get more trust than I think is strictly warrented sometimes.

Ive seen zogby's bush approval data arranged with other polls and it seems to be telling the same story everyone else's is. Here, have a look for yourself:





Maybe you can tell me why he is off the mark with Hillary, but able to keep his polling in the mainstream with Bush?

Different methodology, more sound and random.

Got a citation?

from wikipedia:

"John Zogby (born 1948) is a noted Lebanese American political pollster and first senior fellow at The Catholic University of America's Life Cycle Institute. He is the founder and current President/CEO of Zogby International, a polling firm known for BOTH phone polling and interactive, Internet-based polling."

Pollster.com identifies the Zogby approval poll as a telephone survey.

It's by no means universal. Least likely to be online? Older women. Most likely to vote? Older women. Non-probability sample with self-selection via online contact? Problem.

With a sample size of over 9000, one need not have a completely random sample to have statistically valid results. This does not bode well for HRC.

Like burger lovers signing up to be polled on America's favorite food. They want to answer a certain way and are putting themselves in the position to skew the results.

are much less willing to participate that women, most racial minorities are much less willing to participate than non-Hispanic whites, the young are much less willing to participate than the middle aged and older.

The fact that many people now screen their calls with caller id or an answering machine and that an increasingly large percentage of the population has surrendered land-line phone service entirely means that if you did a "random" telephone poll, the responses would be far, far distorted from any truly random selection process.

Just as Zogby corrects for sampling bias in his internet-based polls, so do the telephone pollsters correct for the sampling bias in their phone-based polls.

No one is polling randomly because that GUARANTEES a non-random (heavily skewed toward the middle-aged, white, female in phone polls) polling population.

so it is indicative of the views and opinions of the general population.

You can, for example, find out how many people nationwide enjoy the music of Toby Keith by polling the residents of Wyoming, as long as you adjust the non-representative Wyoming data so it is relevent to the general population. If you have compilations of statistics on Wyoming vs. America at large, you can do that.

Of course, all the nay-sayers on this threat are totally ignoring your post.

I don't know how they choose the people they call, but I know they ask a boatload of questions about you and your beliefs before asking you the poll question. Age, race, gender, income, zip code, education, political affiliation, etc.

demographics or you need to call way more than 600 and then filter to normalize the sample.

Back in 1936, there was a poll with over 2.2 million respondents that was off by over 30 points on the margin. You remember, President Alf Landon?

Those who do not learn from history are condemned, and all that. ;)

by telephone? Exactly how would you get a random sample, let people call or email you saying they want to participate or how?

self-selection means it's not random.

sampling people who sign up for political polls online is fraught with skew.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Obama or Hillary will or won't win next November, I'm just saying this poll is flawed, you'd be inconsistent to accept this poll and doubt the latest Gallup poll, especially when the latter is closer to a random sample of registered voters.

This was done via online polling, which is in no way statistically legitimate as the participants are those who choose to participate. It is not a random sampling.

The track record is what I look at. Even if it is off by a few % this shit makes me nervous as hell about Hillary.

Sure you're not on Cheney's Cherry-Picking Intel staff?

You are the one who wants to run the weakest candidate against the Republicans.

Perhaps your time would be better spent checking out the track record of these polls than making childish comments? You might want to open your mind and learn something in the process.

And how do you argue with this:

Obama, an Illinois senator, and Edwards, a former North Carolina senator, both hold narrow leads over the Republican contenders in the hypothetical 2008 match-ups.

So why take the chance on Hillary?

If the poll is leaning towards Republicans than that makes Edwards and Obama the stronger candidates for sure.

Why is debunking this poll such a big deal to you?

So not being a prolific poster somehow means I should care less?

Dumbest point ever made in the DU, thank you.

Funny how you move in to personal attacks when I ask 'why' this issue is soooo important to YOU.

What you did is avoid the subject of this topic and try to go after my (in your eyes) meager post count. I believe the term for that is argumentum ad hominem.

Some of us have been here for years, but use our posts sparingly and only when they're needed most (note: please do not review the frivolous nature of all my prior posts).

I registered with Zogby a few years ago and they send out polls like this periodically. So the participants are NOT choosing to participate, but are CHOSEN by Zogby from their list of registered participants.

the recipient must still click on the link in the email and do the poll... i.e. choose to participate. The other options include clicking on the trash button and going to the next email.

I have registered with them and they know my age, sex, etc. They chose to ask me to take this poll.

You chose to respond by clicking on the link in the email and then completing the poll. You indicated to them your willingness to participate. They chose you, and then you chose to participate. You chose to participate knowing that it takes some effort to scroll through and click off all the answers. The effort depends on a lot of things from minimal to (in the case of blind people) using the accessibility software to participate. And it also takes an investment of time. If you have the time you participate. You may go back and finish it later. You may not finish it later. You may decide you don't have the time and not participate. These things can be very subtle to some of us, or very large to some of us all depending on our situation.

On the other hand, there little effort involved in a telephone poll except to listen and answer the questions. But you also have to invest time as with the online poll.

All I'm saying is that these things can affect a poll like this. That's probably why Zogby usually has very large samples in these online polls. This one was over 9,000 because a very large sample should negate a lot of the effects of the things I mention above plus others I can't think of. My suspicion derives mainly from this poll being so different in results from every other poll done recently and I'm trying to explain some of the possible reasons why. The main reason I think is that people were more motivated to participate but the big question is why and what did this reason have to do with the results of the poll, if any.

Then again, we may see in the next couple of weeks the Gallups, AP's, CNN's etc polls validating and showing very similar results. That is when we'll know for sure if Zogby nails this one or not.

for a couple years now, but I wasn't asked to participate in this poll.

Go Zogby!

If you aren't going to accept accepted sample metholodology for calculating statistics based on random samples, why don't you check Zogby's poll accuracy before you make your decision to listen to him?

Most of the time when one hears "online poll" it refers to nonrepresentative polls where people self select to vote. But Zogby polls a representative sample from a panel. It's no more or less representative than a telephone poll (compare a telephone poll with a representative sample to people calling in to vote on American Idol -- it isn't the instrument that is the issue)

That said, the fact that the poll is conducted on a representative sample doesn't mean that it is correct. It means that 95% of the time, the results of the sample will reflect the actual population within the margin of error (assuming a 95% confidence interval). 5 times out of 100, polls will reflect wacky results just because of weird random variation. This happens to be a huge sample, so the chances of that are reduced.

But anyway, this poll may be right, or Zogby might have screwed up, or Zogby might be lying, or the poll may be off because of weird randomness. But the fact that people answered the questions online as opposed to on the phone or in a mall or by mail doesn't indicate which is so.

Have you looked at number of people with phone lines vs. those with online access? Now look at the demographics of who is online most - young males - and who votes least - young males vs. the inverse in both cases - older women. Sure grey haired spinsters who never really got comfy with VCRs CAN go to the library, sign up for a Yahoo account, stumble across some political site that is grabbed by one of Zogby's tracking cookies, then get the invite and decide to participate (and NO, anecdotal evidence of your Aunt Sadie being able to debug Vista using her Cray supercomputer do not refute the FACT that fewer older women are online) but how likel;y is it compared to the sample being skewed towards internet savvy politically partisan types who do not, as we can see by a simple review of DU threads, represent the public at large.

This isn't an "online poll" in the sense of "whoever wants to can take it". It's a scientific poll that happens to be conducted over the web rather than over the phone or in person. The same selection process goes in to choosing the participants as any other poll.

It was not statistically reliable by any stretch of the imagination.

What's wrong with the demographic breakdown of the respondents?

over random samples of all people with phone numbers?

which is more random?

we are talking about whether the poll being discussed is random or not.

can you keep up with us here?

There are stochastic elements in the selection, sure, but I can predict that I will not be selected for Gallup with p=1 because I don't have a phone. So, it's not a random sample, which IIRC was the original question here.

:shrug:

No poll is guaranteed to be unbiased (a point some of us never got across to the Exit Poll True Believers). But a poll that starts by inviting people to sign up to be polled is likely to get very different results than one that asks people to participate.

From the carpetbagger report:

It looks like ‘blue’ skies ahead
Posted November 26th, 2007 at 4:15 pm

Share This | Spotlight | Permalink

In light of Congress’ low approval ratings, some have suggested that the wave that washed Republicans out of the congressional majority 12 months ago has already subsided, and both chambers will once again be up for grabs 12 months from now.

CQ’s Bob Benenson and Jonathan Allen took a very thorough look at the landscape and have come to the opposite conclusion.

very traditional indicator of election forecasting — from public opinion polls and issue resonance to candidate recruitment and the “over/under” balance of seats in play — suggests that congressional Democrats have just as much going for them in 2008 as they had in 2006, if not more. They now have the power of incumbency to give them added advantages in raising money, attracting top-tier candidates, controlling the legislative agenda and capturing the political zeitgeist.

All this leads Democrats to profess clear confidence that they’ll retain majority control next fall. And not only that, but they may now harbor realistic visions of emerging with 55 to 58 seats in the Senate (pushing them within arm-twisting distance of the 60 votes needed to bust a filibuster) as well more than 240 seats in the House, a cushion that neither party has enjoyed since the end of the last Democratic era in the House, in 1994. <…>

By early March at the latest, Democrats are likely to have a presumed presidential nominee who will enjoy consensus front-runner status going into the general election campaign. That will give them a titular leader for the first time in seven years and the opportunity to unite behind a single party message throughout the remainder of the year.

Republicans, meanwhile, appear destined for a yearlong internecine battle for the heart and soul of the party. Even if they manage to rally behind a single presidential candidate next spring, it is not at all clear that any of the leading candidates for the nomination can count on the loyal and enthusiastic support of evangelical Christians and other social conservatives who have formed the bedrock of the GOP “base” for more than a quarter-century.

A year, obviously, is a long time, especially in politics. But CQ’s analysis is heartening and persuasive. Put it this way, do you think Republicans would want to switch positions with the Dems right now?

Moreover, practically every measurable standard leans in the Dems’ direction — the public supports their agenda, voters trust them on the issues, the party has more money in the bank, the GOP has more open seats and vulnerable incumbents to defend, etc.

But there’s one intangible that seems to help Dems more than anything else.

It isn’t always necessary for a party to enjoy robust popularity among voters to win majorities in Congress. Sometimes, it’s good enough just to not be the other guy.

Even though the public’s “honeymoon” with the congressional Democratic majorities was brief, there is scant evidence that voters are anxious to rush back to the party they so recently dumped. <…>

he biggest factor working in the Democrats’ favor continues to be that they are not the Republicans. (emphasis added)

Obviously, that doesn’t mean Dems can coast and expect to be rewarded. They still have a policy agenda, and voters still expect progress.

But it does mean that the smart money is on the Democratic majority getting bigger next year.

Consider this your morale boost for the day."

From me: Electability is not an isuue in this presidential election. It's just how they sell campaign ads for money to media. After the horrors of Bush and the present GOP candidates being such a joke electability is not an issue . Whoever wins the democratic primary will be the next president. All of the dem candidates are electable...NONE of the GOP candidates are electable. Get it through your heads and quit letting it influence your thoughts. ELECTABILITY IS NOT AN ISSUE IN THIS PRESIDENTIAL RACE...PERIOD.
Ubest

:popcorn:

I'm not a Hillary supporter but these polls are terribly suspicious.

It's irrelevant that she is not my candidate of choice. Zogby polls are pure crap.

Gallup...an actual poll says just the opposite...

Not if you do not own a landline.

Little better than the online polls CNN and the other networks use...

As to the landline issue...the study you gave me showed that it affected the results very little...

they don't recognize the number.

I never answer the phone when I don't recognize the number but I participate in Zogby's on line polls all the time.

The thing about on line polls is Zogby knows how many are Republicans and how many are Democrats and he can weigh the results using different calculations until he has worked out the bugs. His track record with on line polling is just as good if not better than with phone polling and that is what counts.

you are arguing that Gallup doesn't reach everyone, but Zogby reaches a narrower audience of self-selected people who sign up, who have a computer, have internet access, etc.

you make no sense.

did you ever take a statistics class?

Zogby is a neutral poll, and historically has been the most accurate compared to CBS/NYT, ABC, Gallup, and Reid polls. Like their methodology or not, Zogby is most accurate in terms of predicting election winners.

Zogby does actual scientific polls with selected participants that happen to be conducted online rather than over the phone.

You'll notice at + or - 1% it's actually more accurate than most phone polls.

do you understand why this is a problem?

are you registered to vote? That is followed by how likely are you to vote in a national election, very likely... etc. You intuitively know that if someone is electing to participate in this kind of a poll, they are also going to be very likely to vote in a national election. The nature of electing to participate and participating in these online polls implies a higher level of political participation than simply voting. So a step down in the participation "hierarchy" of participation would be to actually vote in an election.

Zogby's survey methodology on this poll says:



The poll doesn't say anything, nor does it figure in the personal economics (e.g. opportunity costs) involved with a person electing to do the poll and how that could affect the outcome. I don't know how that could be quantified. With me, the next best thing I can be doing is twiddling my thumbs. When I do them it's often late in the evening or maybe Sunday morning when I don't have anything else pressing. But that's just me.

So maybe the only thing that can be said accurately from this poll is that of those that elected to register for the poll, participated in the poll and are most likely to vote in a general election, they don't favor Hillary.

But how many people that will vote (and vote for Hillary), (e.g. the single working moms with 2 kids) in the GE don't have time, make time or even bother to register for an online poll? These polls can routinely take 10 - 20 minutes which for a lot of people can be a lot of time to spend on something like this.

In this particular case, I don't think the poll is overall very accurate.

Is she as egotistical as GW and in as much denial that she would do anything for her ego and let those pigs take the country again?

I'm one of them.

gwb, and was voting for democratic this time & for hillary if given the choice.

so, people should be more respectful of those who are realizing a change towards anti-corp, anti-false-war, anti-spying, civil rights for all, is a good thing. I hope she's not our nominee, however, I believe some current GOP and many ex-GOP will vote for her.

... if you don't think Hillary has the most baggage/negatives of any of the leading candidates. Her getting the nomination is a Right Wing wet dream, and it's ridiculous ( and dangerous ) to think otherwise. She'll energize the Right while simultaneously demoralizing the Left. If she gets the nom, not only will the Repubs likely win the White House ( 8-1 conservative Supreme Court decisions for decades to come ), but also throw the Congress back to the Repubs due to her anti-coattails.

Time to get behind Edwards ... the most electable (and Progressive) of the leaders.

>>>Obama, an Illinois senator, and Edwards, a former North Carolina senator, both hold narrow leads over the Republican contenders in the hypothetical 2008 match-ups.

So why take the chance on Hillary? :shrug:

Bullshit is bullshit, isn't it? New bullshit, old bullshit, and the bullshit between the old and the new. There's one poll that matters, that's the one people participate in when they go to their polls/caucus locations:

Pollster John Zogby: “This is stunning. Dean’s surge seems to be at a heavy cost to Kerry, who led Dean in previous New Hampshire polling. Dean has also taken from Gephardt’s standing, and from the undecideds. His support is really across the board … both Congressional districts, men and women, Democrats and independents, liberals and moderates. He’s the candidate to watch at the top of the scale, while some of those down the line might re-think their candidacy at this point.”

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=729

Of course, this thread will end up on the Greatest Page, "defining" us.

:eyes:

That 'reverse recommend' option would be nice at times like this, when halfassed 'online polls' are taken as gospel.

I'm still undecided, but BS is BS, and this is BS.

uguu

I thought about pasting the questions. They were basically one on one questions between every mainstream candidate combination.

Hillary Vs. McCain
Hillary vs. Guiliani
Hillary vs. Huckabee
Obama vs. McCain
Obama vs. Guiliani

There were 2 other options which are "undecided" and "other."

It was a pretty in depth poll about my background. Asked if I someone in my household was in a union, the military, evangelical, and lots of other things.

questions at the end of every Zogby poll.

They want to know if I shop at Walmart, consider myself a NASCAR fan, and some other funny stuff.

I'd take any Kucinich/Dodd/Biden over any rePuke.

“The Zogby stuff, on scientific grounds, is quite questionable,” says Zukin. “Online, Internet, opt-in polling, where people volunteer to be respondents, doesn’t really have a basis in scientific validity. There are two kinds of samples in the world. There are probability samples, and there are non-probability samples.”


The Zogby interactive polls, says Zukin, clearly fall into the latter camp. “With probability samples, when everybody has a known chance of being selected, you can make pretty valid inferences about the population from which it is drawn,” says Zukin. “You can’t do that at all with self-selected surveys. That’s a problem.”

http://www.cjr.org/politics/how_reliable_is_the_zogbyjourn.php

Interesting results.

becoming the standard to balance out the sampling bias inherent in phone polling. Ideally, it is nice to have a phone-based poll to compare an on0line poll with and vice versa, but both methods are equally accurate and both have deficiencies which need to be accounted for.

:bounce:

even if it was inadvertent.

Let me tell you, this is only the beginning.

When people start looking at the facts and the data, HRC will no longer be an option for a Democratic Party that wants to take back the W.H.

HRC's numbers will only worsen from here

although I do agree that many of them will fall for just about anything that's thrown at them. Half the people here own parcels of land on the side of cliffs.

:spank:

only when he says what you want?

Zogby does do reliable, legitimate polling. This just wasn't one of them.

Your comments lead me to beleive that you evaluate polling by your agreement with the findings. Am I misunderstanding?

and on the other hand, they have online "interactive" polls where the sample isn't a reliable reflection of voters as a whole.

uguu

any polls being accurate and without bias, but one thing that you can say about ALL of the polls is that the point spread between any given dem candidate and any given repug candidate in a one on one comparison is entirely too close for comfort. that any repugnincan candidate does as well as they do is revolting and terrifying.

http://pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

I do have concerns about her electability, but I think we have to look at an overall picture. If this trend continues, we've got a problem.

There were no new polls over the holiday. Now these....

Clinton wins....... Gallup.

www.gallup.com/poll/102862/Democratic-Candidates-Look-G...


Clinton loses.......Zogby

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071126/pl_nm/usa_politics_...


Who ya gonna believe.....?

who point it out.Hillary is not electable for many reasons.It is very sad that some refuse to see and would foist a GE loser on us as the Democratic nominee.Perhaps this will not be the case after all!

Maybe breaking out the tiara was a tad premature. One by one, the rationales for her candidacy have been slipping away. I am so glad that Obama is right there to pick up the slack.

Hillary has a big disadvantage in that she's unpopular with a lot of Americans. Democrats can't afford to gamble on this election and her nomination would be an incredible gamble.

That's one of the reasons I'm supporting Joe Biden for the nomination. If he gets the nomination the Democrats have the next president. He just brings too many attributes to the table for America to turn him down. I just hope the Democrats don't.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1393

She did better in the previous polls. However, Edwards did better than she did. Perhaps people are just getting tired of Hillary.

And beginning to understand that she is corporately owned and a war hawk.

Go Dennis!!!
Kucinich '08!!

Peace,

freefall

Howard Dean, who recently observed "At this point, polls mean nothing."

The lavender diamonds (representing Zogby data) seem generally consistent with other polls but slightly lower than the poll numbers generated by other pollsters and -- significantly -- Bush's lowest poll number ever (last month) was charted by Zogby:



Cool poll graph by pollkatz.com

in the lead, no?

...just sayin'

Before the 1972 election, Muskie was viewed as a frontrunner for the Democratic Presidential nomination. The nation was at war in Vietnam and President Richard Nixon's war policies (and foreign policy, more generally) promised to be a major issue in the campaign.

The 1972 Iowa caucuses, however, significantly altered the race for the Presidential nomination. Left-wing dark horse candidate, South Dakota Senator George McGovern, made a strong showing in the caucuses, giving his campaign national attention. Although Muskie won the Iowa caucuses, McGovern's campaign left Iowa with momentum. Muskie himself had never participated in a primary election campaign, and it is possible that this led to the downfall of his campaign. Although Muskie went on to win the New Hampshire primary, the victory was only by a small margin, and his campaign faltered.

...just sayin'

which would leave us with Edwards.

And just to be clear, I don't have a dog in this fight- and considering the primary dates, I'm pretty well disenfranchised anyway.

It would be so easy for the repukes to bash Hillary. They had to lie with Kerry to bash him. Imagine what they will do with Hillary. People need to rethink this with Hillary so we can take back the WH.

While Clinton lled by much smaller margins and even lost to McCain.

But now she loses to ALL the Republicans?? Wow. Talk about nosediving!

I hope Iowans are hearing about this poll so they can make an informed decision based on electability AND change.

NOT

It looks like ‘blue’ skies ahead
Posted November 26th, 2007 at 4:15 pm

Share This | Spotlight | Permalink

In light of Congress’ low approval ratings, some have suggested that the wave that washed Republicans out of the congressional majority 12 months ago has already subsided, and both chambers will once again be up for grabs 12 months from now.

CQ’s Bob Benenson and Jonathan Allen took a very thorough look at the landscape and have come to the opposite conclusion.

very traditional indicator of election forecasting — from public opinion polls and issue resonance to candidate recruitment and the “over/under” balance of seats in play — suggests that congressional Democrats have just as much going for them in 2008 as they had in 2006, if not more. They now have the power of incumbency to give them added advantages in raising money, attracting top-tier candidates, controlling the legislative agenda and capturing the political zeitgeist.

All this leads Democrats to profess clear confidence that they’ll retain majority control next fall. And not only that, but they may now harbor realistic visions of emerging with 55 to 58 seats in the Senate (pushing them within arm-twisting distance of the 60 votes needed to bust a filibuster) as well more than 240 seats in the House, a cushion that neither party has enjoyed since the end of the last Democratic era in the House, in 1994. <…>

By early March at the latest, Democrats are likely to have a presumed presidential nominee who will enjoy consensus front-runner status going into the general election campaign. That will give them a titular leader for the first time in seven years and the opportunity to unite behind a single party message throughout the remainder of the year.

Republicans, meanwhile, appear destined for a yearlong internecine battle for the heart and soul of the party. Even if they manage to rally behind a single presidential candidate next spring, it is not at all clear that any of the leading candidates for the nomination can count on the loyal and enthusiastic support of evangelical Christians and other social conservatives who have formed the bedrock of the GOP “base” for more than a quarter-century.

A year, obviously, is a long time, especially in politics. But CQ’s analysis is heartening and persuasive. Put it this way, do you think Republicans would want to switch positions with the Dems right now?

Moreover, practically every measurable standard leans in the Dems’ direction — the public supports their agenda, voters trust them on the issues, the party has more money in the bank, the GOP has more open seats and vulnerable incumbents to defend, etc.

But there’s one intangible that seems to help Dems more than anything else.

It isn’t always necessary for a party to enjoy robust popularity among voters to win majorities in Congress. Sometimes, it’s good enough just to not be the other guy.

Even though the public’s “honeymoon” with the congressional Democratic majorities was brief, there is scant evidence that voters are anxious to rush back to the party they so recently dumped. <…>

he biggest factor working in the Democrats’ favor continues to be that they are not the Republicans. (emphasis added)

Obviously, that doesn’t mean Dems can coast and expect to be rewarded. They still have a policy agenda, and voters still expect progress.

But it does mean that the smart money is on the Democratic majority getting bigger next year.

Consider this your morale boost for the day.

This poll is the sort which matters - who has a chance of winning the General - not who Dems like now. The independents will decide the main race.

"This poll is the sort which matters - who has a chance of winning the General - not who Dems like now. The independents will decide the main race."

From the carpetbagger report:

It looks like ‘blue’ skies ahead
Posted November 26th, 2007 at 4:15 pm

Share This | Spotlight | Permalink

In light of Congress’ low approval ratings, some have suggested that the wave that washed Republicans out of the congressional majority 12 months ago has already subsided, and both chambers will once again be up for grabs 12 months from now.

CQ’s Bob Benenson and Jonathan Allen took a very thorough look at the landscape and have come to the opposite conclusion.

very traditional indicator of election forecasting — from public opinion polls and issue resonance to candidate recruitment and the “over/under” balance of seats in play — suggests that congressional Democrats have just as much going for them in 2008 as they had in 2006, if not more. They now have the power of incumbency to give them added advantages in raising money, attracting top-tier candidates, controlling the legislative agenda and capturing the political zeitgeist.

All this leads Democrats to profess clear confidence that they’ll retain majority control next fall. And not only that, but they may now harbor realistic visions of emerging with 55 to 58 seats in the Senate (pushing them within arm-twisting distance of the 60 votes needed to bust a filibuster) as well more than 240 seats in the House, a cushion that neither party has enjoyed since the end of the last Democratic era in the House, in 1994. <…>

By early March at the latest, Democrats are likely to have a presumed presidential nominee who will enjoy consensus front-runner status going into the general election campaign. That will give them a titular leader for the first time in seven years and the opportunity to unite behind a single party message throughout the remainder of the year.

Republicans, meanwhile, appear destined for a yearlong internecine battle for the heart and soul of the party. Even if they manage to rally behind a single presidential candidate next spring, it is not at all clear that any of the leading candidates for the nomination can count on the loyal and enthusiastic support of evangelical Christians and other social conservatives who have formed the bedrock of the GOP “base” for more than a quarter-century.

A year, obviously, is a long time, especially in politics. But CQ’s analysis is heartening and persuasive. Put it this way, do you think Republicans would want to switch positions with the Dems right now?

Moreover, practically every measurable standard leans in the Dems’ direction — the public supports their agenda, voters trust them on the issues, the party has more money in the bank, the GOP has more open seats and vulnerable incumbents to defend, etc.

But there’s one intangible that seems to help Dems more than anything else.

It isn’t always necessary for a party to enjoy robust popularity among voters to win majorities in Congress. Sometimes, it’s good enough just to not be the other guy.

Even though the public’s “honeymoon” with the congressional Democratic majorities was brief, there is scant evidence that voters are anxious to rush back to the party they so recently dumped. <…>

he biggest factor working in the Democrats’ favor continues to be that they are not the Republicans. (emphasis added)

Obviously, that doesn’t mean Dems can coast and expect to be rewarded. They still have a policy agenda, and voters still expect progress.

But it does mean that the smart money is on the Democratic majority getting bigger next year.

Consider this your morale boost for the day."

From me: Electability is not an isuue in this presidential election. It's just how they sell campaign ads for money to media. After the horrors of Bush and the present GOP candidates being such a joke electability is not an issue . Whoever wins the democratic primary will be the next president. All of the dem candidates are electable...NONE of the GOP candidates are electable. Get it through your heads and quit letting it influence your thoughts. ELECTABILITY IS NOT AN ISSUE IN THIS PRESIDENTIAL RACE...PERIOD.
Ubest

How many times are you going to keep posting this article, bot? I make it five IN THE SAME FRIGGING THREAD!

basically, as a woman, I love her; but I've ALWAYS thought she was the LEAST electable candidate we could put up -- other than my own fave, Kucinich.

Most Americans were revulsed by Bill Clinton's sexual perversions--there was nothing "normal" about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Clinton treated her like a sexual object, and shame on the feminists for looking the other way!

Hillary is disliked by women and men alike, not because she is a woman, or a professional woman, but because she is a fraud and a two faced liar.

over 50 of my friends across this nation that belong to the Zogby International in which this poll came from. To our amazement of the 50 I sent and received emails from only 5 reported they had received the zogby polling in their email. I find that rather strange, but I do have a conclusion. In prior polling they ask are you a Democrat? Then they ask are you a strong Democrat? I am under the conclusion they ran this poll with it front loaded with republicans and right leaning independents, and thus you have a bogus poll.

Now I do know there was a Gallup poll out that showed HRC winning over all the republicans and that Obama was tied with Rudy.. I understand how the game is played and I would not be to hyper on this Zogby poll....

But the media will use this poll just like they did the abc poll and repeat it over and over again and disregard all other polling showing hRC in the lead from 2 to 10 points.

I like the game of politics but I do not like to play when the deck is already stacked against your candidate.

Ben David

Why did you assume it was biased to republicans? It could very well be that the sample was constructed to reflect the proportions (dems, rethugs, indy's) of the electorate as accurately as possible? Don't you think that your sample of 50 of David's friends might be a teensy bit more biased than Zogby's poll sample?

Rather than make an unfounded accusation why not simply contact Zogby and ask for an explanation of the methodology of the poll?

It would be much more helpful if DU spread more information rather than spin.

Effin hell.

Earth to Democrats.

I live in Virginia. The right-wing has lined up against Hillary. Many Democrats, too. It's a mistake to pick her for the nomination if we really want to win the general election.

Thanks for carrying water for the Republicans..

Free Republic awaits you!

we are looking at a rethug president,plus gains in the congress will fall off.if thats what y'all want go and nominate her,i'm headed for my cabin.

This is getting tiresome to read posts about polls. Especially the comments by people who really don't understand that polls are manipulated little elections created at the behest of someone looking for good poll results. If Clinton does badly and Richardson wins, despite Gallup and/or with the intersecting analusis of Zogby just what will the polls mean?

I really don't personally know anyone who will vote for her, I have had several life long Democrats tell me that if she gets the nomination, they'll stay home. She will do more to invigorate the republican/conservative voters then any republican could ever do. We have a chance to win the presidency this time, but it won't happen with Hillary.

Before he would vote for Hillary. He would however, consider other Democratic candidates. We need a candidate that will pull Republican voters away from their party, and that candidate is not Hillary.

she's the epitome of evil. She's a lesbian corporate war criminal illuminati poison cookie baking bitch hitler clone.

oh. ok...didn't yall post this yesterday?

Here's the way I see things

Republicans will vote Republican.
Democrats will vote Democrat.

Nothing about that is going to change, that just leaves independents...

Independents have basically said they will vote for ANY Democrat in the GE as long as the democratic nominee is NOT Hillary Clinton.

And given the DNC amazing capacity to lose easy elections by nominating weak candidates, who do you think the DNC is going to nominate as their candidate next year?

For you Hillary supporters. It doesn't matter how great Hillary is. Perhaps its unfair, but the fact remains there is a large population of Americans that will not vote for her under any circumstance, they would rather pick Satan or even Bush. (Yes I rank Satan better than Bush, because at least Satan is competent at what he does).

I don't like Hillary, but I confess that I would love to wipe that arrogant smirk off the GOP face by having Hillary win the GE, but the truth is you put her up in November 2008, the GOP will win.

Hillary needs to take one for the team and drop out. (Not that she ever will).

she'll drag every Democrat in close race down the tubes with her.

Don't forget the all important gem.."DU this poll"

Desperation sure looks foolish at The DU

First of all, Zogby is an anomaly. Most other polls show Hillary still a few points ahead. Second, all polls go up and down like this before an election...just ask poor Kerry! Third, if she really is lagging (as she certainly is in Florida) it represents a growing problem within the democratic party...a loyalty to party ideology rather than to a strong, forthright leader. As a pro-life socialist, I certainly have views that drastically cross party lines, as do about 35% of all Americans. Like it or not, rigid memeplexes like "liberalism" and "conservativism" inevitably won't grab a commanding majority. That's why Bush had to steal the election in 2000, and now that same problem has been passed on to Hillary. It's also an uphill battle against a population that really, really likes its guns, Jesus, and capitalism. There's a reason why Senator Bob Casey won so big in PA...he crossed party lines in a rational manner, and in doing so won by a huge margin.

The solution for Hillary: Remember that she only needs to hold the traditionanl blue states that Kerry held in 2004 (and given that he was a flip-flopping left wing ideologue running during wartime, forgive me if I say that if Hillary can't hold those same states she doesnt deserve to win!!) plus one more heavily populated swing state to take the EC. Right now, that state looks likely to be Ohio. Bill did well in the midwest, so I say most of the money and effort should be poured into campaigning in Ohio and possibly the shaky New Hampshire and Pennsylvania. The 50 state solution worked in 2006...it won't work in 2008. We can't count on revolution this time...Hill's appeal is too narrow for that. To quote an SNL sketch, we need "strategery" of our own. Oh, and to all the people here from Ohio, a little bit of gentle prosyletizing about the need for health care and education (the two places where dems have the most broad appeal) won't hurt either! Don't try to sell the whole party platform...play to things that a vast majority of Americans can agree on!

P.S. The really sad thing is that the democrats don't lack balls, they lack numbers...there just isn't enough of them in congress to pass the legislature that's needed. We really need to stand together right now, or we'll fall separately and it WILL be another 8 years of republican control.

Who would vote for Hillary Clinton. Most tell me that if she is the nominee
that they will either NOT vote for the Presidential candidates or will write in a candidate
that thier heart demands.

This is another disaster waiting to happen for the democratic party as well as the nation.
Another four years of Republican rule will produce the end of liberty and the beginning
of the end for humanity since global climate change has already gone too far.

With these numbers it only highlights the distance between the average democratic voter
and the DLC which should be demolished and replaced with the true base of this party.
Progressive minded individuals who care more about country than party rule and who
detest the elitist policies of the Bush/Clinton dynasty.

That proves dems are as stupid as repukes and act against their own best interest

Happily,I don't know idiots like that

*edit* oh and her monied backers of course...

Suggest freeperville if you do. There you will meet many Hillary fans
The Re-Pukes great white hope. Heck, You migt even run into Rupert Murdoch.

Now that would be really stupid!

This is exactly the kind of thing the GOP wants everyone to do! Personally, I believe that just as a percentage of the population will never vote for Hillary (a Woman) there's also a group who will never vote for Obama (an African American)

was to never trust any of the man's polls.

All I can say is that I can participate in Zogby polls and give my two-cents. No other poll group is interested in what I think and don't contact me. Could it be that I'm not in the right *shocking* demographic that they want input from?

From Rasmussen's most recent national head-to-head poll which shows Hillary losing to Giuliani 42% to 46% and which also mentions his Florida polling which echoes the Zogby poll with Hillary losing to all five main Republican contenders:

In addition to losing ground in the national match-ups with Giuliani and Thompson, Clinton now trails four Republican hopefuls in the pivotal state of Florida.

What scenarios do they win in?

Hillary is a nightmare, agreed. But Richardson has an ace in the hole that Obama and Edwards don't. He's been an executive. No Dem other than JFK in the modern era has pulled off what Obama and Edwards are trying to do. Getting to the White House after being a Senator with no executive experience.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3079800

:rofl:

...after these last seven years ~ how could so many Americans be THAT stupid?!?

Vote Kucinich!