Democratic support for Clinton at lowest since 2012: Reuters poll
Source: Reuters
Fri Aug 28, 2015 3:21pm EDT
Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's support among Democrats has dropped to its lowest point since Reuters/Ipsos began polling on her chances of winning the party's nomination for the 2016 election almost three years ago.
But the former secretary of state still has a lead of more than 20 percentage points over her nearest rival, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, the online survey showed on Friday.
Clinton has suffered a steady erosion in the number of people in opinion polls who see her as trustworthy as
controversy has grown over her use of a private email account when she served as America's top diplomat.
The Reuters/Ipsos survey, a rolling poll taken over the previous five days, put Clinton at 45 percent, with Sanders at 25 percent.
Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/28/us-usa-election-democrats-idUSKCN0QX2B020150828
randys1
(16,286 posts)NYCButterfinger
(755 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)finds its way here to DU.
The cons HATE her, they know she is much more liberal than they are in every way, and they dont want a Woman calling the shots.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)just like they didn't say a word against Obama until he won the primary.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)and end this. Poor politics are coming home to roost. It doesn't matter what others do. She has to act and she didn't.
Remarks that she likes snapchat or whatever it was because 'the emails disappear on their own' is assinine to say.
navarth
(5,927 posts)I read the NYT hit piece on Hillary today. Not only did they 'hold off on any smears' of Bernie....in fact they never MENTIONED him.
What's worse, smearing or pretending you don't exist? You be the judge.
The NYT frothed about Sec. Clinton's 'problem' and talked about how it creates openings for BIDEN.
Bernie was TOTALLY left out.
Which is worse?
And in case there is any question about it, I am not flaming you.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)She just is not made to be a candidate. It just isn't in her.
George II
(67,782 posts)...a population of 20 million people. THAT is impressive!
Is there any other candidate who can say the same?
mpcamb
(2,854 posts)NY State is a 50-50. NYC all dem; Upstate all Rep. (overstatement, but accurate for statewide elections). She needed NYC and 5 upstate cities to carry the state and name recognition, womanhood and no Trump-like gaffs to get a win. So, she did by a wide margin.
That said, it's not a great feat. Still, she's a strong candidate. And in 2012 ( date of the comparison) she was virtually unopposed. Now with opposition, she, and let me say here, naturally, looks less strong with Biden and Sanders in the fray.
I'm not a fan of hers. And the Vice Presidency looks like a door prize, but I don't see her as the strongest candidate.
George II
(67,782 posts)....she wasn't a candidate for anything. She was already serving as Secretary of State in Obama's cabinet.
Why anyone is comparing her support in a non-election campaign year (for her) and today is beyond me and basically irrelevant.
But she does have an esoteric benefit in New York - there were two Governors named Clinton (George and DeWitt)
lbrtbell
(2,389 posts)NYC is so solidly blue, even the rednecks in other parts of the state can't override them.
Even with the corporate media doing its level best to crown her as Queen, and a near blackout on Bernie Sanders, she's still losing ground to him at an astounding rate. And it's only August.
There's a reason she's scared to debate. She knows that, as soon as Dems hear what Sanders and O'Malley have to say, that her already diminishing numbers will nosedive.
George II
(67,782 posts)You may recall that Clinton was elected with 55% of the vote. Two years earlier Pataki was elected Governor with 54% of the vote, and he was elected again two years after Clinton was elected.
On top of that, DiBlasio is the first Democratic mayor of NYC in 20 years (1993).
So much for "solid blue" New York State.
As far as the so-called "near blackout on Bernie Sanders", I don't know what news stations you watch or newspapers you read, but Sanders has been getting equal or more attention, and she's not lost ground "at an astounding rate". How do you define "astounding"?
cali
(114,904 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)Reter
(2,188 posts)Let's see her do it in Arkansas.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)jalan48
(13,797 posts)Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)From 3% when virtually no one knew him, and Hillary had retained a steady 60% or more until people began to listen to Sanders.
And he is still a virtual unknown to half the country. As that changes, his numbers are likely to rise even more. Because he is talking about issues, doesn't avoid the media or the people, has a long, actual progressive record showing he isn't just talking and more and more people are joining his campaign.
And we are not seeing any polls on Bernie's biggest support groups. Independents, non-voters now becoming energized again, two of the biggest blocs of potential voters now, since both major parties have lost membership.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)I've never seen anything like this and even though dirt IS older than me I've still been around the political block a whole bunch of times. Anyone who says he doesn't have a chance REALLY isn't paying attention. As in, you have to actively WORK to be that clueless.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Saw some of the Kornacki show this morning, and one of his panel was again saying that Bernie doesn't have any real chance at winning the nomination.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)were very different. Just hearing someone who was talking about progressive issues AFTER the horrific Bush era, was enough to get people excited.
At that time, I would have supported Hillary had Obama lost, though reluctantly due to her record on the wars, on Welfare Reform and a few other major issues, plus, while Obama opposed Mandated Ins (at that time) Hillary supported it.
This is very different. It's a totally different time, we have seen the results of money in politics, eg, something we were willing to overlook wrt to Dems so long as we could beat Republicans, even if we didn't like it.
AND we've seen the collapse of the economy, and the unforgivable bailouts of people who should have been prosecuted, a collapse that was directly related to deregulation during the Clinton years. Something again we didn't like, but overlooked because 'the other guys were worse'.
I think we're past that now, past compromising in order to 'win'.
Now the people want to take the lead, to ignore all the old scare tactics that 'we have to hold our noses' or 'they will win'. No the WON'T because it's up to US. No more self-fulling prophecies. Now we are in the driver's seat, the people.
What happens in the end, no one knows. We know they will do everything to deny the people the choice they want. But if enough of us are involved, as Bernie (and Joe Biden btw) have said, they cannot beat us.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)Remember those? The Republicans still have them (sort of). The Democrats ought to think about putting on something like that.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)Bet Joe and Mika can't wait to kiss President Jeb Bush's ass on day one.
BeyondGeography
(39,276 posts)and more than capable of creating some good news for herself coming out of them. Without them, she's in a mostly reactive mode. I'm not seeing the strategic brilliance of this debating schedule from her POV.
karynnj
(59,474 posts)The reason it is a negative for her to have many debates is two fold: 1) It helps prevent anyone else from getting much airtime seen on an equal platform with her. and 2) She is not so good that nothing negative ever happens. Witness - Philadelphia debate 2007. I actually mark this as the first major change point in the 2008 election. It was a tough debate and every one of the other candidates came at HRC because she was the front runner. She slipped badly on the question of giving drivers licenses to illegal aliens - actually saying both no and yes within a minute or two and Chris Dodd called her on it. This was the first bad point that I saw in her campaign -- and I was looking! Then she made it worse by having Bill Clinton and Wes Clark go on the war path calling it swiftboating -- and HRC, at a scheduled stop at Wellesley speaking of it being the "guys ganging up on the gal" --- ignoring that it was the pack attacking the frontrunner. That comment was not just playing the gender card, it was diminishing herself - she was the front runner.
HRC is a very risk adverse candidate. As a very solid front runner, she wants as little as possible to happen. She does not need the notice a debate brings and she prefers to avoid the risks.
NYC Liberal
(20,132 posts)They desperately want a horse-race.
demwing
(16,916 posts)a single poll is just a snapshot. There's an old adage: "The trend is your friend." The story is about the trend, and the trend is on a downward trajectory.
Having said that, I gotta say that I don't find this email business a compelling scandal. Hillary made a bad call, but she didn't do something illicit or unethical.
NYC Liberal
(20,132 posts)She was removed from partisan politics for the last 5-6 years. Most people who are have very high approval ratings -- like Laura Bush or Michelle Obama, for example.
And all the while, everyone assumed she was going to run; so, polls were being taken the entire time. The fact that she's had no competition until only months ago, combined with her only just returning to partisan politics, means that of course her poll numbers are going to drop. She was never going to stay at 70% of the vote once two or three other candidates entered the race.
Dropping from 60-70% to 45-50% because you're no longer the only candidate -- and still leading by 20-25 points -- isn't that newsworthy.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)I used to drag race on the street in my teens and early 20s.
I usually got beat off the line (small tires), but after the spinning stopped and the tires bit, and the motor started talking, the gap started closing, and I knew I would win from behind,.... that is when I felt the feeling that I can't describe.
Watching Bernie come from behind reminds me of that feeling.
George II
(67,782 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)onehandle
(51,122 posts)Bookmark this.
Zealot77
(1 post)Bernie signs will be on every main drag asap.
All we can do since we don't have 100 million to spend on tv commercials saying Bernie has been working for families for 40 years and not Wall Street.
Maybe it will help.
cali
(114,904 posts)Response to cali (Reply #39)
Name removed Message auto-removed
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)I don't want it to happen. Doesn't help that the DNC/DWS behavior IMO is unDemocratic and pissing off a lot of us.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)He's an idea, personality guy, like Reagan, or Hitler. She is more level-headed, has ideas about growth, makes sense.
That's a hard one to win against, unless he keeps making enemies and narrowing his support. It sounds a bit like Reagan vs. Carter, except Reagan didn't act like such a buffoon.
I still am not sure Evilhair is really running. I think he just wants to drag things to the right. If he finds himself on top he will deal with it, but I think this is a dangerous marketing game to make himself more visible and wealthier, that he might accidentally win.
Makes him more dangerous, because he is providing cover for whoever the real candidate is.
He really doesn't like the country, anyone else, or himself enough to be president. Ruler, perhaps. But not president.
Exultant Democracy
(6,594 posts)They even did a few studies on her with focus groups if I recall and over and over again they found that regular voters tired of her very quickly.
marble falls
(56,353 posts)minimum sentences, three strike laws, NSA intercepts, the Patriot Act, Homeland Security...........
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)There is Bush burnout...there is Cllinton burnout...but Hillary burnout is deep.
left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)Not enough voters who want to bring back the 1990s;
and not enough voters who will vote for her just because she's a woman and it's a woman's turn.
How about it being time for a progressive socialist Democratic guy with fluffy white hair?
StoneCarver
(249 posts)I agree with her on many of the issues. Intellectually I know I should support her, but emotionally I just don't trust her -at all. It's sort of the job interview "gut" reaction. I don't want to relive the 90's either. I could live a happy life and never hear the word Clinton or Bush again -ever.
Stonecarver