Gallup finally polls on Hillary and her effect on GOP turnout!

Would Clinton's presence on the ballot next fall as the Democratic nominee for president trigger a Republican stampede to the polls? Recent Gallup data addressing this don't provide a clear answer.

One question on the new poll asks registered voters, directly, whether -- assuming circumstances arose that would make it difficult for them to get to the polls -- they would make a greater effort to vote next fall if Clinton or, alternatively, Barack Obama were the Democratic nominee for president.

Most voters say they would make the same effort regardless. Among the rest, twice as many say they would make a greater effort to vote if Clinton were the nominee than if it were Obama, 16% vs. 7%. However, given the responses by party ID, the possible effect on the election outcome appears to be nil. With Clinton as the nominee, Democrats are about as likely to be energized to get to the polls (presumably to support her) as Republicans are (presumably to support her opponent).



http://www.gallup.com/poll/103396/Hillary-Clinton-Electable.aspx#1

Our "majority" would shrink.

NM Senate seat? No. NH? No. I'm not saying that she has or hasn't coattails, I'm just saying that we are not going to see the dem majority shrink next year if she is the candidate.

According to the numbers above, it would be 3% more republicans. That would affect many races. Then add the fact that she does poorly with indies, we're looking at catastrophe.

I'm referring to the house more than the senate, though I bet there will be some tight races in the Senate too.

House and 4 seats in the Senate- regardless of who runs.

That's the high end of anything I've seen on the internets. Where is that coming from? Retirements?

Looks like she brings out twice as many Democrats too. So if both Republicans and Democrats would be more likely to vote with HRC on the ticket, and since we know Democrats outnumber Republicans........

And Hillary does worse with independents.

I'm possibly just been dense but what are you comparing?

And what do we know about the intent of the independents who would be more likely to vote? For HRC or against?

Republicans are 19% and Democrats are 16%. That's a net negative. Also, polling that's out shows that Obama does better with indies than Hillary.

Remember the question is who would make a greater effort. If no greater effort is required, the whole question is moot. The question is not "more likely to vote".

Even if it were it's not a 3% difference as in going from winning 52-48 to losing 49-51. It's 3% more Republicans. We know for a start there are far more registered Dmeocrats than Republicans. Even if again this were not true, it's 3% of that (in my example just above) initial 48% who voted for the Republican loser. So If the vote was 5200 to 4800 and 3% more Republicans came out that would be 5200 to 4940 and still a comfy win (yes I probably should have corrected for 16% vs 19% increases but it would come out the same way as a win - in fact it would be a slightly wider win since this example posits 3% on the already inflated number).

Whether Obama is doing better with Indies or not (and I've seen it both ways) again that's not the question here - the question is greater difficulties faced and still maikng the effort to vote. To know which way that group of Indies breaks is impossible with the data we have. The best thing we could do is scale up the 19 and 16% boosts to the percentage of Indiea who are for or against either.

vote for HRC under any circumstance. Some will not vote for
Obama under any circumstance.

Heck, I would not vote for Huckabee under any circumstance.

If someone likes their Senator or Congressman, they are going
to vote for no matter who is at the top of the ticket.

Will the GOP do slimy tricks to try to win. Sure, but these
people have a responsibity to convince their constituents To
vote for them and ignore dirty tricks.

And if you count that she does worse than Obama with indies, Hillary would be a disaster. :nuke:

I'm not scared of republicans. I'm scared of republicans being motivated to vote.

Hillary still motivates the Republicans more than two times as much as obama is what I see.

The meme that she will cause a surge in GOP turnout has been accepted fact with no evidence for far too long. This is a measure of that effect.

And we can see that effect is likely marginal.

Out of those who would make more of an effort, the Dems nearly cancel out the GOP.

Hillary would lead to a few 1 term Democratic congress people and the loss of a few close races.

Especially when coupled with the GOP's fondness of racist voter suppression/fear mongering.

But I think this poll kills the meme that the GOP will be storming the barricades to vote against Hillary.

Most simply do not care.

37% of the electorate was republican in 2004. That's around 44.9 million people. 9% is 4 million more republicans. Spread that out across 435 congressional districts. That 9300 more republican votes.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/president

So that would be 10000 more Dem votes vs 9300 more GOP votes.

Hillary's got coattails! :evilgrin:

if she is the pick, you will see this 3% grow

Thanks!

BTW, you may not have noticed but Hillary's numbers are up in IA, NH and in nat heats.

Hmmm and just last week someone on this board declared there was no reversing the TREND.

:rofl:

Before, I was against Hillary because she is bad for the US and its People.

Now, I can add spiting a petty little man named Rind to that list of reasons.

You know that a trend supercedes a handful of polls. That is the definition of a trend.
It exists regardless of spikes or outliers.

If you want a graphic, take a gander at Cap'n Sunshine's thread.

Just because your candidate was able to effect a handful of polls with her recent Dirty Tricks campaign does not mean it will be a successful strategy in the long run.

Fully half the country will be screaming "Not the Clintons again," especially when they see it's just an older, more dispiriting version of the original model.

go next year. If we get the recession they are predicting, we will win. If the war starts going south, we will win. If the scandals deepen, we will win.

Not me incidentally - I'll vote happily for either and nothing short of physical restraint will prevent me - but you can't just look at one side of the equation.

Especially when you consider she does worse with Independents. The problem would compound.

"Taking the results of trial-heat general election questions at face value, Clinton looks as electable as anyone running for president today, if not more so. She appeared particularly strong vis-à-vis the Republicans in November, beating Giuliani and other Republican candidates by significant margins. In more recent polling, she does no worse than tie Giuliani. Additional assurances about her electability can be found in Gallup data showing that while Republicans may be more motivated to get out and vote on Election Day with Clinton -- rather than Obama -- on the ticket, Democrats are as well, thus nullifying any likely effect on the outcome.

Still, the 62% of Republicans who are fearful of a Clinton presidency is a startling figure. Without an equal proportion of Democrats counterbalancing that somehow, there is at least the potential for a substantial Republican effort in the general election to keep Clinton out of office, whether that means unprecedented levels of donations, volunteer work, or turnout on Election Day."

jllj

all these little negatives don't mean much on their own - but they start adding up.

... not ANOTHER one of these corpo-media polls where the try yet again to narrow the field to the TWO most Corporate-friendly candidates. Last I checked, Edwards was looking more and more likely to win Iowa. Damn they must be scared of him and his agenda . Like ousting Kucinich from the last debate, they just are doing everything they can to make us think that these progressives do NOT EVEN EXIST !

whatever