To quote from The New Republic's "The Stump" blog:
Democrat Hillary Clinton would lose to all major Republican White House candidates, according to a hypothetical election matchup poll Monday, reversing her months of dominance over potential 2008 challengers.
In the new survey, Clinton trailed Senator John McCain 42 percent to 38 percent, former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani by 43 percent to 40 percent and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney by 43 percent to 40 percent.
She also lagged behind former Arkansas Republican governor Mike Huckabee by 44 to 39 percent, and former Senator Fred Thompson by 44 to 40 percent in hypothetical general election matchups.
Clinton's top Democratic challengers Barack Obama and John Edwards however would still beat their hypothetical Republican rivals in potential 2008 contests.
This agrees with one of my major concerns about Hilary Clinton as a candidate from the beginning: she has, by far, the most negatives + fewest positives of any of the Democratic candidates. Or, to put it another way, she fires up the GOP to beat her more than she fires up Democrats to support her.
So, why the headlong rush to hand her the nomination? I've said all along that Obama is, far and away, the best candidate to make a clean break from the disasters of the Bush years, and this Zogby poll suggests as much. But, just as in 2000, it appears that the Democrats are ready to snatch defeat from the threatening jaws of victory. Or, if you prefer another cliche, they're going to miss another 6" putt.
Considering that the GOP has already stolen two straight elections, + you have to wonder why the Democrats seem to eager to do their work for them.
-Z
Oops, it was a faulty poll
In a bizarre lapse in judgement for a major polling organization (even one that had a famously bad day at the last presidential election), Zogby released the results of an internet poll, a mistake you can read about here, with a dunning academic pollster's screed about the practice attached. The New Republic site is already linking to the criticism of the poll.
A far more traditional Gallup poll was released just yesterday, with results far more in line with all of the other polls we've seen:
I urge you, and everyone else who is interested in the very important electability factor in next year's critical presidential race, to check out sites like PollingReport.com that collect a large number of polls over a long period of time.
So, yes, Clinton took a hit after the Philadelphia debate, but not so much that she is behind any of the Republicans.
Myself, I'm an impatient Edwards guy who is starting to lean towards Obama. Of the three or four who actually have a shot at the nomination, Hillary is like my third or fourth choice. But I'll happily vote for the Democrat pushing universal healthcare and universal pre-school over the Republican pushing terrorizing Mexicans and the happy perpetual continuance of War in the Middle East.
As Paul Krugman points out in his latest book, historically there has not been a greater difference between Democratic and Republican candidates since the era of the New Deal.
I apologize to everybody about the national politics on the local site, but I hate when people get worked up over nothing.
Some men see things as they are and say, “Why”? I dream of things that never were and say, “Why not”?
Robert Kennedy, 1968
National vs. local politics
Re: a seeming disconnect between national + local politics, I would like to quote former Speaker of the US House of Representatives Tip O'Neil: "All politics is local." If you don't think that the President of the US has an effect on local politics in Philly, well, I feel kind of sorry for you.
.
-Z.,.
Agreed, but a forum
is a forum.
If Philadelphia progressives want a space to talk about the universe of poltics in City Hall, and even in Harrisburg, they should have it.
There're lots of other places to post about the presidential.
Some men see things as they are and say, “Why”? I dream of things that never were and say, “Why not”?
Robert Kennedy, 1968
No longer any concern about the Clinton campaign!
Well, I know that external conditions need to be adjusted, but insofar as the functionality of the Clinton campaign itself, I am no longer the slightest bit worried.
Any campaign that in one week a. survives a five-hour hostage standoff crisis in an crucial primary location while b. sneaking a campaign team member into the Republican presidential debate (SO HILARIOUS, I am definitely copying that)
...well, I figure that campaign is pretty good to go!