Why Does Hillary Do Well In National Polls But Not Here?

It seems odd to me that the MSM touts Hillary as the presumed candidate of the Democratic Party and always has her 'in the lead' by this or that percentage. Although the numbers bounce around its always a tie between her, Edwards, and Obama with the three of them capturing about 70% in the polls and the 'lower tier' splitting the remaining points.

Then you come here and look for people's opinions. No matter how you word a poll here the result will be a clear disdain for Hillary, against a box of rocks she will only capture about 15% of the poll. What is even more interesting is that here the lower tier candidates fare much better too. Kucinich is adored and in a poll posted this morning Joe Biden beats Hillary 4 to 1.

So what is it about the people here that causes them to so imperfectly reflect the reported mood of the nation? I have a guess to make, I think its because the MSM polls really don't measure much more than name recognition at a point in time. Here you get informed opinions and for the most part an appreciation for the role politics has to play in one's personal selection as well. Add the two together and candidates other than Hillary are more attractive. Just my guess.

There is a certain amount of group-think around here.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

only here, right?

I certainly haven't found a place where it wasn't present to some degree - there are certainly places that are a lot worse than DU.

Why would you think it would be only here? You must have a very low opinion of DU.

Bryant

The national average pay very little attention to ANYTHING politics. Often, when they vote, they vote the name they've heard the most, barring a major,sexy scandal.

nothing more...

That is it in a nutshell.

as well as recognition. But you're wrong about Clinton being in a three way tie in national polls. She's actually far ahead of Obama and Edwards in all of them. Should she not place well in Iowa, expect the national polls to reflect that fairly quickly.

As for DU, it simply doesn't reflect dem opinion as a whole particularly well. And I'd like to add that I know plenty of well informed dems who don't post online.

Also add in that the DC punditry knows what it will get with Hillary (corporatism, the party goes on, snide inuendo about Bill ;-) ) plus the punditry is basically the dumbass nerdy types who can't play ball or do anything else of real substance so they write the gossip column in the high school newspaper.

... qualifications and have a much better "Profile" on each person running for office.

In short..We're better informed.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Frankly, for all of the self-congratulatory posts here by DUers claiming how well-informed they are, a lot of posts on DU reveal a shocking lack of knowledge about, or naievete regarding, the legislative and political processes.

They may not be more informed but just by being here they have shown more interest than others. With interest will come better information over time so at least its a start but more germain to the question at point, its a difference. Interest.

but one can't rule out those people who evidently come to DU less for the information available and more for the GD fireworks and name-calling, the "gotcha"s and the "wins".

You see a lot of that. You'd think that the posting numbers would be some sort of give-away that it was coming. I mean that I expect those sorts of folks to fade away pretty quickly. Maybe that is a stupid thing for me to say, I sure can't think of any good evidence to support it right off hand.

You know, maybe that is one unspoken things about freedom of the press in a way. When anyone and everyone can have a say on a matter you have to dig through a lot of bullshit to find relevant material. Its generally worth digging though and maybe we should think of it this way, by digging through the bullshit we build a compost in which a fertile mind flourishes.

The folks at Free Republic and Little Green Footballs certainly show a lot of interest. Does that mean they'll get better information over time?

While you can still find some pretty good discussions here, often they're drowned out by vapid cheerleading for the candidates which is no more sophisticated than "my candidate rocks, yours sucks."

But poseters over in freeperland are more interested in politics than the average voter, but that doesn't make them better informed or wiser.

While there are intelligent Posts occasionally that are based on fact and a knowledge of the candidate's positions, their plans and their actual histories, oftentimes the Responses one gets are driven by an emotional, heavily-partisan "my Candidate is better and your Candidate sucks" mentality.

And, quite frankly, there are some Posters I've just given up on ever having a reasonable, intelligent conversation with. There seem to be people who can't just for the life of them agree to disagree with someone. It has to become bitter, it has to become derogatory and hurtful and spiteful and -- of course, this is my favorite -- they have to light a huge bonfire of anger and name-calling and then, quite innocently, of course, publicly wonder "why is everyone so mad at me?".

DUers as a whole are not always as informed and intelligent as we'd like to believe. I hope that changes, of course, but I'm not holding my breath.

Regular people who look to become properly informed.

onenote, maybe you could help to inform others, rather than condescend to others about their lack of knowledge.

about the legislative and political processes. It would be nice if when I did so it triggered an intelligent, reasoned back and forth discussion, but often all I see in response is name calling and stubbon, unexplained disagreement.

The ones who DO know.... they keep me coming back time and again because I always learn something new from them.

Many people don't know who's running, don't know when elections are, couldn't name a current cabinet member, or even a cabinet office.

A lot of people don't watch any news,many only watch their local news. Elections are won by name recognition. It is the "independents", their vote blows with the popular wind.

It is how we've been stuck with dipshit for 7 years. I'm not claiming superiority. I just enjoy politics as a hobby.

Witness the chatter surrowunding Ron Paul from some of the most uninformed and politically naive who support him not knowing his history as a politician.

Name recognition is it. It's a damn shame, but that's it. Hell, even Kleenex advertises still. That should tell us something.

roughly 123k. Candidates that want to win the presidency try to cater to that bigger pool of people. If HRC just ran on DU issues she would have the same numbers a Kucinich nationally and be no where near the national contender she is. Like it or not, a candidate MUST get the vote of not only DU but as many of the Independents and opposition as they can. But of course everyone here knows that DU is the voice of America.:crazy:

Healthcare, clean environment, good jobs in the US, to name three.

The corporate media confuses these issues and make them seem out of the "mainstream"

it's usually negative. I didn't know who Joe Biden and Dennis Kucinich were until DU. However, I did know that I had valid reasons for strongly disliking the choices they've been shoving down our throats for the past two years. Corporate sponsorship of the WH and Congress needs to end and that won't happen with the front-runners from either party.

Non-DU voters are uninformed because the MSM doesn't bother to mention the names or platforms of those candidates who would act in the interests of the people. The game is rigged, but the rubes haven't caught on. Yet.

brainwashed by their party leaders into hot button issues. Oh the glorious blind masses.

or just some of the moonbats that inhabit this board?

I believe that Coulter, Hannity and the freaks at free(k)republic frequently use that term for anyone who is less vicious than they and who is further to the left than their hardassed rightwing idols. :thumbsdown:

it describes some posters on here to a T

they can't stand anyone who isn't as ideologically pure as them

they would have fit in very well during the Stalinist purges

Doesn't matter that this board is populated by all age groups and walks of life, well except for too many republicans maybe.

and to some extent, a desire that people have to go back to the 90's when there was peace and relative prosperity. Some think Bill would in effect be the shadow president.

90% of the public don't pay attention to policy issues and so really have trouble developing an opinion on which candidate holds what position

While 70 percent of Americans (eventually) were a-ok with the invasion?

Maybe DUers pay closer attention and read more than the average citizen, they view things within history, not set alone without context.

DUers Less easy to manipulate?

And also, the name-recognition factor is also very well known. It is not a fantasy.

:shrug:

I know this is a bastion of information if ones wants to use it as such. When I first came here I was asking questions like why whats wrong with the hill well as soon as I started to quit worrying about why and just read it wasn't long until I realized that she is not the person we need either, I woke up. I will vote for her but only if I have no other choice as our worst democrat is head and shoulders above all the repukes stacked on top of each other and then some. I also thought back then that Bill was the greatest thing to hit the pike but now I realized he fucked up but good on several fronts, smiling the whole time. I finish by saying that the best 8 years of my life were during the Clinton administration but some of that good time are coming back to bite us all in the ass now though. nafta comes readily to mind, need I say more.

hillary clinton is not our friend
add:IMHO

But we all want to learn, and get enough info to make our own decisions.

We are a cross-section of the true Democrat base. None of us are running out to become Dobbs Democrats by registering as independent. And I agree with the poster who commented on the pre-Iraq disbelief - perhaps because many of us are so firmly entrenched in leftist principles . . . we even THOUGHT to question that BS? Just my two cents for what it's worth.

What kind of questions are asked? What kind of "correction factors" are used?

However I think it's safe to say that when put on a traditional politcal compass that DU would fall quite a bit further left than the average person who considers themselves a democrat. People here tend to have very strong politcal leanings while the more mainstream dems, while probably agreeing on most issues, are not as...passionate (not sure if thats the right word or not, but lets go with it) as DU.

and their projection onto any Democrat of their own worst faults.

I don't consider anyone I've "met" here to be a leftist. The basics of social and fiscal responsibility, equal rights, adherence to the Constitution and truly Christian principles (even the athiests) seems to run pretty much throughout the crowd. Those same things the hypocritical, pedophile, closet-case, diaper wearing, serial adulterer, wife-beating sociopathic Repukes spout, but never practice in real life.

DU is the very left side of the party, the more involved in the anti-war movement, more passionate about topics and more up to date on current events. DU also has a large amount of 3rd party people who may or may not factor into those polls. And then you have a big group of one issue voters, Dems and otherwise, who are mainly on DU because of the war.

Seriously, your post makes no sense in relation to mine.

"DU is the very left side of the party, the more involved in the anti-war movement" ... "And then you have a big group of one issue voters, Dems and otherwise, who are mainly on DU because of the war."

The '06 election was in large part a win for Dems to do something about ending the war.

That anti-war view may not reflect the desires of the "heads" of the Democratic Party, but it does reflect the people within the democratic party.

I'm disagreeing with your view that anti-war is "very left". It is "mainstream" as regards Iraq.

Instead of anti-war I will say anti-war activist. Also those people who want the war to end are not one issue voters and nor are they as well educated on this topic as your average Duer.

The difference comes in the amount of thought, action and passion that goes into whatever cause you are talking about.


If you truly believe DU represents the Democratic party as a whole then I really don't know what else to say.

That, and out there in Voterland, lots of people just do the recognition thing rather than look into real things like who has been bought by whom.

The people who haven't made up their minds, mostly sheep, are going to pick the "leading" horse so they feel winners.
But the thing is at this point the "leading" horse is a fabrication of the corporate interests.

level in states outside of the first few. I'm in a Super Tuesday state and there is virtually nothing here, on news or in paper. National polls are measuring name recognition, as most people don't really pay attention or know who is running and what the difference is between any of them.

I think national polls do, to a certain extent, measure name recognition, but the names are often determined by the MSM in the interest of ratings or the "horserace" aspect of an election. Edwards and Clinton already had name recognition because they'd been on the national stage. Obama, on the other hand, was initially elevated into the first tier by the media, IMO.

I was talking to my Mom the other day - she's 89 and lives in upstate NY - she asked who I was interested in for President and when I mentioned Biden as my 2nd choice (behind HRC), she had no idea who I was talking about. Had never heard of him. I gave her some info and she promised to investigate him. Still, I was shocked - my Mom does pay more attention to politics than most of the rest of my family, but she gets all of her info from the television - and, like you say - there's almost nothing on the tv about the 2nd tier candidates.

center today when I dropped off some winter coats. She knew I was involved in activism and asked "when the elections are". I told her about Iowa and that WE would be voting Feb 5. She asked who was running, besides "Clinton's wife". I mentioned a few names and she said, "Which one of those is the black lady?"

Now.. here's the thing. This is not a STUPID woman ! She's the head of a major city community shelter/food bank. But she's busy.. she rarely listens to the news. Her life is working with, fighting for and giving to the poor. She wanted more info on Obama and Edwards before Feb 5th, and I promised I'd bring her some. She had already decided if "Bill's wife is my only option I just won't vote".

Just sayin...

and for most of the Dems here...we are left-wing democrats...

OF course I am speaking generally... but I guess that would be my answer

I'm an issues voter which probably explains why I'm undecided as yet. In fact, I'm guessing most DUers are undecided largely for the same reason.

Without that, she would have nothing except for name recognition. The truth is, the "left" is the middle and always represented the Democratic Party and it's long fought for principles. The conservatives, who have polluted and dilluted those principles plague the party now and are a fairly new phenomena(DLC). They have proven themselves irrelevent in keeping the right wing at bay and protecting us all from the criminality of the Bush Administration. Today THEY ARE CO-CONPIRATORS for enabling the right wing fascists in the GOP.

It is the corporate types who run both parties right now... these so-called national polls reflect that BS. It's a grand illusion spread by this corporate MSM and it's BS punditry(Carville, etc.). Most I talk to are sick of it, so I do even doubt the MSM's polling. It's why we see such a desperate minority of phony conservative dems here on DU who act just like Rove himself in calling us "fringe" and tell us constantly that impeaching Bush is "futile".

These corporate types are just that. And their insistance that the "left" is fringe tells me they are scared of the fact that most in this country might believe it is they who are really fringe and could give two shits about the average American.

I like calling them corpocrats. They are fringe seelouts to the highest bidders who use doubletalk to fool the average Americans. But, that too is changing....

who get their information solely from the corporate media.

average person on the street who is responding to a poll based more likely on name recognition than anything else. That's my guess.

pan out differently.

Everyone knows who Hillary Clinton is. How many people ever heard of Joe Biden?

her chief rivals. The rest of the country it's mainly name recognition.

the typical person who gets all their "news" from CNN.

They fix the polls then they fix the election.

WE are the ones that have been paying attention. We are the ones that will attend the primaries. WE are THE ONES who will decide this election if we FIGHT!

liberal vote in her quest for the White House. It's an open secret. She calculated that the combination of disgruntled Republicans coupled with the Independents was the cache of votes she wanted to reign in. If this were to happen, mustering an appeal to those two groups, she would have to cut the liberals loose. By her math, it was a no-brainer, since the former combined voting groups greatly outnumber the mere liberal vote. Bye-bye liberals.

Thus, there is no mystery why on this website, the majority of which members are liberals/progressives, many are totally aloof from the Hillary campaign. It was her design, her decision, from the inception of her campaign to risk the loss of the liberals in exchange for the Independents and disgruntled Republicans. What is a mystery is the fact this often discussed at DU with the implication there is something wrong with our perception of her....

Go figure.

because they know she's the most beatable; or,
they have paid the MSM to hype her because of all candidates she embraces their ideology the most; or,
oh yeah, name recognition.

online polls are not scientific, therefore meaningless.