Although a more scientific poll conducted by Gallup “finds Sen. Hillary Clinton with a slim but not statistically significant advantage over both former Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Sen. John McCain in head-to-head matchups for the 2008 general election for president,” as well as with “much more substantial leads over former Sen. Fred Thompson and former Gov. Mitt Romney, and polling better against Giuliani and McCain than Obama, there is much ado at the moment in response to rather a more dubious online Zogby poll of “individuals who have registered to take part in online polls”:
Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton trails five top Republican presidential contenders in general election match-ups, a drop in support from this summer, according to a poll released on Monday.
Clinton’s top Democratic rivals, Barack Obama and John Edwards, still lead Republicans in hypothetical match-ups ahead of the November 4, 2008, presidential election, the survey by Zogby Interactive showed.
Clinton, a New York senator who has been at the top of the Democratic pack in national polls in the 2008 race, trails Republican candidates Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, John McCain and Mike Huckabee by three to five percentage points in the direct matches.
This is infuriating, indeed, more infuriating than most such polls. The Zogby poll essentially means nothing. It is an unscientific poll of online Zogby users. That is all. The question must be asked: Who are these people? And why do they matter?
The problem, however, is not just the nature of the poll but the dubious conclusions that are already being drawn both by the media and by their puppeteers on the right. And what key conclusion is being drawn? Why, that Clinton is unelectable of course, or at least that her seeming unelectability is a major obstacle both for her and for the Democratic Party heading into next year’s primaries and, should she win, general election campaign.
While it is true that Clinton’s electability — and it’s not quite clear what that even means; it’s become little more than a popular epithet tossed around without much regard for substance — has been an issue, and while it is true that Clinton is opposed by many who will not vote for her no matter what, this is largely a manufactured “problem” for her and her party.
Instead of engaging her on the issues, and on her policy positions, many of her critics are bringing up her supposed unelectability as a reason not to support her. (Remember that one of John Kerry’s supposed virtues was his supposed electability.) Either that, or supposedly-neutral observers are reading far too much into dubious numbers. Take Zogby himelf: “The questions about her electability have always been there, but as we get close this suggests that is a problem.” Really? Is this a real problem? Or just a problem because people like Zogby — and the unelectability meme is parroted everywhere — say it is?
To explain this phenomenon further, let me turn to NMMNB’s Steve M., who puts it well:
The obvious — and wrong — conclusion to draw is that Hillary is the least electable of the three leading Democrats. The correct conclusion to draw is that it’s absurdly easy to drive the supposedly inevitable Democratic nominee, whoever that may turn out to be, into a position where he or she is trailing the Republican — yes, even this year. All it takes is a sustained (even briefly sustained) run of bad press for the Democrat. When something like this happens, it’s inevitably amplified by fellow Democrats in their usual circular-firing-squad mode (and don’t think that’ll stop after the nominee is chosen, because it never does), while the GOP, the right-wing media, and the supposedly neutral but really Democrat-loathing mainstream media seize on the bad press (when they’re not initiating it) and sustain it until the nominee is badly tainted.
It happened to Hillary Clinton over the past few weeks — and if she’s not the nominee, it will happen to whoever beats her.
And, meanwhile, no Democrat is doing an effective job of framing any Republican, or the party as a whole, and no negative story about any Republican candidate has legs — even Giuliani’s Kerik/Regan mess.
I’ll be shocked if a Democrat wins this election — any Democrat.
Actually, I’m not sure I’d go that far. I think “any Democrat” (Clinton or Obama) has a good shot next year. But it won’t be easy.
And it won’t be easy not just because of the Republicans and their dirty tricks but because of pollsters like Zogby and a media establishment that is, in essence, a mouthpiece for the right-wing spin machine.
(Cross-posted from The Reaction.)
Never mind that the media remain largely liberal, and that CNN has already become notorious for becoming the “Clinton News Network” again and behaving as a Clinton campaign organization.
For solid, non-emotional analysis of Zogby’s questionable survey, check out Pollster.
Oddly enough, I’ve only seen articles about the Zogby poll decrying its methods as opposed to anyone latching onto it as proof that Hillary can’t win. And most of the places where it has been mentioned either completely write off the poll, like you did, or they make several caveats regarding the methodology and cite other polls as well.
Also, I do take issue with one thing you said about people going after Hillary’s electablility instead of her stance on a variety of issues. I think you’re just plain wrong here. Just in the last debate, several candidates pointed out differences between their plans for Iraq, Education, Healthcare, etc., and those of Senator Clinton. Obviously the mainstream media ignores the meat of these discussions and focuses on their narrative of inevitibility, but I’ve seen a lot of commentary on blogs, news websites, and in newspaper articles that point out her (and the other candidates’) views on specific issues.
Pew has good polls and a good overall view of the candidates and how they are being and have been received to date can be found at Polling Report.
Go here.
Remember folks, these polls typically are NATIONAL polls. Who won the NATIONAL vote in 2000 and who won the actual election? Show me a substantial state by state poll and call back.
Hillary is one of many victims of our desasterously distorted news outlets.
They create the theme of Hillary’s electiability by harping on it at the expense of covering other aspects of the campaign.
Those participating in pols are primed and ready to reflect back what the news has drilled into them.
Surprise! The polls do reflect what the distorted news coverage has created.
Then the news gurus are free to flap on about about poll results.
This is a circular power play, beginning and ending with those in control of news coverage.
Those trying to think for themselves are outnumbered by far, They’re losing. All they can do is protest from the sidleines, but they can never do other than to watch the world evelve as dictated by those in control of disbursing distored informaation, masquerading as news.
If Hillary was the only victim, it wouldn’t be so bad.
She is, however, just the tip of an iceberg.
Fear not! Hillary has loosed her magic weapon, Barbra Streisand.
Rather, I think that it the failure of ALL the candidates to engage in any meaningful policy debate that leads to the questions of electibility.
“the failure of ALL the candidates to engage in any meaningful policy debate ”
More than the failure of the politicians, it’s the failure of the host news outlets to provide a meaningful forum for debates.
No candidaate with half of a functioning brain can explain a position on complicated issues in 10 second sound bites or yes/no answers. If he feels can, then that’s the first sign his brain is asleep.
If an observer is satisfied with 10 second answers, then his brain is asleep.
BTW, haragning a candidate into a position where no nuanced answer is possible is not ‘asking tough questions’. It’s createing a a juicy scene for the news cycle to slobber over.
Thank you, domajot!
Anyone looking for some new Hillary video from an SC stop and an interesting commentary on how race is impacting that primary should try: http://goupstate.us/index.php/lanefiller/2007/11/27/hillary_and_the_black_men_of_god