Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)New Poll Reveals Serious Liabilities for Hillary [View all]
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]
A new national poll has just been released and it should cause supporters of Hillary Clinton to be very concerned about the popularity of Clintons ideas and her ability to win the Presidency. The poll was completed January 20-21, 2014 by Public Policy Polling, which, in the November 2014 elections, was the countrys most accurate pollster.
Hillary long has promoted the interests of Wall Street, as did Bill, and Bills 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 doesnt 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 theyd 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 its a good thing to keep electing Presidents from the same family, 20% say it is a good thing and 46% say its 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 dont 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 Warrens 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.
Hillary long has promoted the interests of Wall Street, as did Bill, and Bills 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 doesnt 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 theyd 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 its a good thing to keep electing Presidents from the same family, 20% say it is a good thing and 46% say its 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 dont 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 Warrens 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
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
122 replies, 10241 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (65)
ReplyReply to this post
122 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Actually, I think the "2014" date in the text is a typo & should be 2015.
Jackpine Radical
Feb 2015
#7
I'm realizing a LOT that's funny about this poll. See my Post 71 for my current view.
Jackpine Radical
Feb 2015
#76
Interesting reading. Thanks for posting. Should give heart to the Sanders
KingCharlemagne
Feb 2015
#4
That's a good point about how a lot of people come to the interent to seek out
KingCharlemagne
Feb 2015
#29
At this point, I'll settle for just turning away from where we're going.
Jackpine Radical
Feb 2015
#100
This is a push poll/test of attack themes, not a legitimate measure of public opinion
geek tragedy
Feb 2015
#12
Have to wait for what 2016 looks like. (Werewolf reminded me how Julian Bond said BO was to
appalachiablue
Feb 2015
#35
What I thought also. I am fairly neutral on Hillary but she is the candidate to beat.
yellowcanine
Feb 2015
#15
In your defense the Politico article is not very well written at best and biased at worse.
rhett o rick
Feb 2015
#115
The poll is most likely a piece of trash. That's not the main question. Politico,
rhett o rick
Feb 2015
#120
Polls should not make statements about candidates as part of the questioning.
geek tragedy
Feb 2015
#64
These are the push poll questions the Republicans will ask, and they won't just ask them
JDPriestly
Feb 2015
#30
I got that vibe too, but still, HRC appears to be very friendly toward the banks and Wall Street. nt
ZombieHorde
Feb 2015
#33
That rhetoric belongs in a political campaign, NOT a poll trying to measure public opinion
geek tragedy
Feb 2015
#67
LMAO. You can't even admit this crap poll was commissioned by the Hillary Haters
geek tragedy
Feb 2015
#74
The fact that someone told Politico that rich Sen Warren donors funded the poll is
rhett o rick
Feb 2015
#116
It does show how opinions change about a politicians when a voter is informed about the politician.
Autumn
Feb 2015
#105
And this covers just domestic issues. Her negatives on her foreign policy record are far worse.
leveymg
Feb 2015
#14
Nope, not concerned. This is like all those polls that say that folks prefer progressive policies.
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#24
that's because of things like guns . it's "safer" to vote on a specific issue such as minimum wage
JI7
Feb 2015
#77
The article is some of the worst reporting jobs I've seen. They substantiate nothing.
rhett o rick
Feb 2015
#118
I would like to see the actual questions and also see if they were "loaded" (i.e., biased)
George II
Feb 2015
#37
It's impossible to say what parts are inaccurate since the writer has only paraphrased....
George II
Feb 2015
#50
Poll or no poll, I will vote for the candidate that pushes reigning in Wall Street the most.
Kablooie
Feb 2015
#42
Considering Obama won BOTH of his Presidential elections by the two largest popular vote counts....
George II
Feb 2015
#51
It certainly offers a lot of specifics for anyone to the left of her that decides to run.
raindaddy
Feb 2015
#59
Actually this Poll Reveals Serious Liabilities for the idiots that commissioned it. nt
William769
Feb 2015
#75
Her liabilities are the baggage she's accumulated and her failed attempts to deodorize it.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Feb 2015
#78
thanks for the edit. but even 'warrenistas' have a right to do polling and they all have an angel.
TheNutcracker
Feb 2015
#80
Funny how some get their hopes up with push polls like this, part of which was done ONLINE
wyldwolf
Feb 2015
#94
Well, maybe Hillary can use this poll to her advantage in preparing for running. nt
kelliekat44
Feb 2015
#104
Perhaps the poll should have indicated where the candidates poll on national security.
Thinkingabout
Feb 2015
#106
I'll bet the numbers favor Warren even more a year later, especially after taking on congress!
TheNutcracker
Feb 2015
#119