Dr. Maddow is now arguing that Hillary looks to be un-electable.

[Motown_Johnny]

Last edited Wed Jan 13, 2016, 11:14 AM - Edit history (1)

Maybe she didn't realize it at the time, but that is what she did. If you watch the first segment of her show last night (1/11/16) she spends a lot of time on JEB's negative net favorable rating. She argues that because his negative numbers keep going up and that his positive numbers keep going down that this is a "fatal disease for politicians". Please note that the numbers she are using are 45% negative and 44% positive among Independents and Republicans nationwide. A total net negative of 1% is enough for her to label this as a "fatal disease".

Link to video: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show (The good stuff starts at about 4:30.)

She goes on to argue that the overall trajectory is stark and therefore it can't be argued that just one "contextual dynamic" is causing this.


Now look at Hillary's chart. These are national numbers so they apply to the General Election, not her winning the nomination.





http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating


If we apply the same standard, which we should, then clearly Hillary is a lost cause. Again, the trajectory is such that it can't be argued that this is simply one contextual dynamic at work. The more she campaigns the worse she does. Her "fatal disease" is killing her candidacy and we should all wake up to that fact.

Or we can apply some double standard to Hillary, although that makes no sense at all.

Or we can argue with Dr. Maddow, which I am not qualified to do.


Your thoughts? I am thinking of sending an email, she says she actually reads them and she will have Sec. Clinton on the show in a couple of days. I would love to see this topic discussed. Given that her campaign has recently released a video showing a bunch of scary scary (R)s and claiming that she is the only one who can beat them (although polls show that Bernie does better against them than she does) it seems reasonable that she address these facts.





Edit to add:

This is not directly related to the OP, but is close enough to be edited in (IMO).

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/iowa/release-detail?ReleaseID=2314

^snip^


Sanders also has a big lead on favorability as likely Democratic Caucus participants give him an 87 - 3 percent favorability rating, compared to Clinton's 74 - 21 percent score.



If favorable ratings are predictive, then this should be a reasonable prediction for who will win the Iowa caucus. If Hillary wins, then favorable ratings are not predictive (assuming the numbers don't change much between now and the caucus).

[floriduck]

1. I follow you but there is a difference.

Jeb is only one of 10 or so candidates. Hill is only running against 2 others. I'm not sure that matters in the overall scheme of things but it might come into play.

[FreakinDJ]

2. Being the Majority party is Independent / Unaffiliated

It matters a lot

[Motown_Johnny]

3. That has nothing to do with net favorably rating.

If her opponent has a net positive rating then the odds are she will lose.


Did you watch the segment I linked to?




Also:

[floriduck]

4. I missed that graphic.

It's hard to argue with history. I stand corrected. Thanks, Mo_J.

[Motown_Johnny]

7. That graphic was on another thread a few days ago.

It stuck in my mind and may be why I thought about Hillary while watching Rachel talk about JEB.

Anyways, I can't take credit for it.

[Art_from_Ark]

13. Gore "lost" only because of the shenanigans in Florida and the US Supreme Court

He won the popular vote by 560,000.

[Motown_Johnny]

14. And his net favorable rating is within the MOE of shrub's

It is not my graphic and I agree with your point completely.

My point still stands. Whenever one candidate has a clear advantage in favorable rating, that candidate wins.


Hillary's numbers make her a bad bet.

[Art_from_Ark]

15. I can't believe that Shrub had such a high favorability rating in both 2000 and 2004

And Kerry had a net negative? The swiftboaters must have been more effective than I thought

[Motown_Johnny]

18. I can't swear to the accuracy of those numbers.

I just found the graphic, I didn't make it.

[Vattel]

19. In 2004 even news outlets like the Washington Post were still very sympathetic to Bush.

Their endorsement of Kerry read more like an endorsement of Bush. Also, Afghanistan still looked pretty positive, and the shit had not quite yet hit the fan in Iraq. If the election had been a year later, I think Kerry would have won, mostly because of Iraq.

[Orsino]

5. I admire the attempt to quantify "electable"...

...but basing conclusions on polls is still very dicey, especially this early.

[Motown_Johnny]

8. reposting graphic

[Orsino]

16. Unfortunately, this just conflating correlation with causation.

A whole lot of factors are in play, namely one big factor in the Obama-Romney example. The big deal this time is likely to be money, with Sanders having deliberately hamstrung his campaign in a way that Clinton had not (alas).

I don't discount the conclusion implied by the graphic, but it would not surprise me to see it be wrong again this year. Sanders is running a great campIgn, I think, but he was until recently still a long shot.

[Motown_Johnny]

17. How has Sanders hamstrung his campaign?

As of the first of the year he had 10 million less in the bank than Hillary. That is pretty impressive given that she is pulling in all the big donors.


If you are talking about his refusal to have a SuperPAC, that could actually be a positive.

People are sick of that shit and distinguishing himself from the Pack (pun intended) may be a winning strategy.


Edit to add, if you assume a reasonable margin of error for those numbers then they have never been wrong. Obama v Romney is a virtual tie in approval as is Shrub v Gore.

Anytime there is a clear advantage, the candidate with the clear advantage wins.

Also, it doesn't matter if this isn't causation. It shows an undeniable pattern and with Hillary's numbers being so terrible, and getting worse all the time, it does predict her loss in the GE. So long as the information can be used as an accurate predictive source, I don't care if it isn't causing the outcome.

[Orsino]

20. By not taking the easy route to funding.

Instead, he's crafted a platform responsive to the needs of individuals, and his record-breaking contributions reflect this.

And yes, the unfavorable-favorable rating theory is conflating causation with correlation, which is why it's been wrong before. But it is certainly interesting.

[grasswire]

6. excellent work, thank you nt

[leveymg]

9. Yes, I know. Been saying this for six months.

Glad to see Dr. Maddow had finally caught on.

[John Poet]

11. Nominating Hillary Clinton is the best way to lose this election,

which demographically the Democrats should win,
if they don't totally fuck it up.

[Betty Karlson]

12. And she isn't the first to reach that conclusion.

(Nor the last, I should think.)