New Poll Reveals Serious Liabilities for Hillary
Last edited Mon Feb 2, 2015, 02:31 PM - Edit history (1)
I hadn't seen this posted. Please forgive if a dup.
[font color=red]
It has been brought to my attention that this poll was commissioned by Warrenistas, and that some of the items have a sort of push-poll or attack-testing flavor. So proceed with caution.[/font]
Hillary long has promoted the interests of Wall Street, as did Bill, and Bill’s Presidency delivered big-time for them, deregulating banks, deregulating the telecom industry and passing NAFTA. Those gifts to the financial industry have brought the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation millions from Wall Street, but it turns out this comes at a serious price to Mrs. Clinton: The public doesn’t like it. When voters are asked whether her past support of deregulation of the big banks would make them more or less likely to vote for her, 19% say More Likely and 49% say Less Likely. Hillary has defended bonuses for bank managers in the bailed-out banks and when asked if they would be more or less likely to support a candidate who supported bank bonuses, 13% say More Likely and 57% say Less Likely. When told that Hillary has accepted speaking fees up to $200,000 per speech from Wall Street banks and has failed to demand accountability from banks for the 2008 financial collapse, 14% say they’d be More Likely to support such a candidate and 57% say Less Likely. When asked if they would be more or less likely to support a candidate for President who had supported NAFTA, as had the Clintons, 21% say More Likely and 51% say Less Likely. When asked if they would be more or less likely to support a candidate who supports loaning money to college students at the same low interest rates the U.S. loans money to banks, as Elizabeth Warren has, or a candidate like Hillary who has remained silent on this issue, 58% support low interest rates for students and 24% favor a candidate who has stayed silent about this.
Other subjects polled almost as badly for Mrs. Clinton. When asked if it’s a good thing to keep electing Presidents from the same family, 20% say it is a good thing and 46% say it’s better to have a fresher face in the White House. When asked if Hillary Clinton should be a candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2016, 37% say Yes and 43% say No. When asked, “Some people say Hillary Clinton is a strong leader with a lot of great experience, and that she would bring the right balance of views to the Presidency, while others think she is too beholden to special interests like Wall Street and defense contractors,” 36% say she would bring the right balance of views to the Presidency, while 48% say “Clinton is too beholden to wealthy special interests.” When asked if Hillary as the Democratic candidate for President would make them more or less likely to support Democratic candidates for other offices, only 25% say More Likely and 40% say Less Likely. I don’t recall ever seeing a poll showing that a Presidential candidate would drag the ticket down by 15 points and I certainly hope all Democratic office holders who will be running for re-election in 2016 and donors who are working to take back the Senate and House from Republican control pay attention to that finding!
By contrast, Elizabeth Warren’s positions on these important economic issues polled extremely well with voters. When asked, “U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren has said that special interests like Wall Street have rigged the system in their favor, while working and middle class wages have stagnated,” 49% say they would be More Likely to support a candidate “who wanted to bring the big banks under control,” while only 23% disagreed. When asked if they would be more or less likely to support a candidate who has criticized bank bonuses, as had Elizabeth Warren, 54% say More Likely and 20% say Less Likely. When asked if they would be more or less likely to support a candidate for President, like Elizabeth Warren, who thinks Wall Street should be held accountable for the financial speculation, which contributed to the collapse of the economy, 59% say More Likely and only 16% say Less Likely.
With the collapse of the middle class, the American public increasingly is turning populist, but tone-deaf Hillary is still preaching 1990s values and economic policies, which are not likely to play well in 2016. If she tries to change stripes now, she risks the most fatal of all political afflictions: Inauthenticity.
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/new-national-poll-reveals-serious-liabilities-hillary?akid=12744.187861.zCmQfy&rd=1&src=newsletter1031225&t=11
= new reply since forum marked as read
validation for positions they already hold (aka: "confirmation bias"
.
I think a head-to-head matchup between Sanders and HRC would be the best thing for the Democratic Party since at least 2008 and maybe have the prospect of being as significant as the Lincoln-Douglas debates in terms of gravitas, when compared to the fascists' looming spectacle. I could see a civil but spirited debate between Sanders and HRC vastly expanding the ranks of the party and placing the Republicans once and for all into the "dustbin of history" where they've belonged, imo, since at least 1981, if not 1933.
What's wrong with the question?
If people don't care about Hillary's actions
then the poll will tell us what voters think.
Don't seen any reason why it's "not legitimate"?
If pointing out Hillary takes money from Wall st
is a liability then maybe it is Hillary shouldn't
take such money...
OR
Not be ashamed or act like it's an attack against her.
i don't know quite what is going on, but first, PPP is hardly a slouch outfit. go here to see their latest poll:
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2014/PPP_Release_National_13015.pdf
this poll is almost entirely about the republican bench; you have to scroll all the way down to the bottom to find anything on the dems. and those results sure don't show problems for hillary; she has 60% likelihood of support, and warren has 49%.
second, i cannot figure out what is going on with the alternet post, as the numbers there don't match the numbers on the PPP poll itself. that's a fail, for sure, but i don't know what to make of it, and cannot figure it out.
given the writer is 'staff,' might well have been a novice flunky who was looking at an old poll or something.
whatev'. in any case, best to investigate before you conflagrate.
Maybe worse, because she has an even longer past cuddling up to multinationals and Wall Street.
That is that die in the wool Republicans will never vote for her. But she also will lose votes from the Democratic (I'm not even going to say "left" side of of the Democratic Party. If traditional Democrats were sick and tired of holding their noses to vote for the self-proclaimed "moderate Republican" in Obama, what new impetus is there to get out and vote for a further right Republican in Dem clothing? And of course Fox News will trumpet the exit numbers as ALL the opposition coming from one side, and "proving" that Americans are really all conservative right wing.
IMO Warren would be the perfect candidate because she could straddle in the opposite way. She'd have all the Democratic votes, plus that segment on the libertarian right that also thinks Wall Street and Government are too cosey, and are sick of the warmongering. And it also doesn't hurt that she is a former Republican who "saw the light".
of Polling results are only as reliable as the person/group who pays for them is honest.
I'd suggest This is a rather blatant example of How Public Opinion (all of us) is manipulated/managed/steered toward the end goals they, not us, hold dear.
Be aware. Take care. Do your own research. Make an independent determination based upon Your opinion/experiences...not what we're told it is supposed to be.
Another really good reason to shut off, shut out, shut down MSM. I can't speak for anyone else..but I'm Already 2016 campaign Season Weary-since last summer when they only really focused on 2016, even then...with the mid-terms right around the corner. Nice distraction, eh? And It Worked...folks that really could have changed what DC Politics are to something better-stayed home.
And: "The reported results warmed my cockles (whatever the hell cockles are)." I don't know What they are..but I understand they are "in your heart"
Other periods in the party's history have lasted at least as long. Some periods longer.
This whole hoo-hoo 'progressives' push about 'real Democrats' and 'traditional Democrats' is a joke.
Then they'll be like the Romney camp in 2012 who were shocked and outraged when their internal polls proved very inaccurate.
