Posted by: beertap | March 28, 2008

Clinton’s negativity is sinking her campaign according to a new poll

MSNBC reported on a poll two days ago that showed Hillary’s negative attacks having an affect – on her.  The article said:

As expected, one of the two major Democratic candidates saw a downturn in the latest NBC/WSJ poll, but it’s not the candidate that you think. Hillary Clinton is sporting the lowest personal ratings of the campaign. Moreover, her 37 percent positive rating is the lowest the NBC/WSJ poll has recorded since March 2001, two months after she was elected to the U.S. Senate from New York.

Meanwhile the U.S. News & World Report is reporting that Obama now is favored by more people in California than Clinton despite Clinton winning the state on Super Tuesday.  The article goes on to say:

On Super Tuesday, Clinton won the Golden State’s primary by a margin of 52-to-43, surprising political experts with her dominance among Latinos, women, and older voters, in particular. Obama seemed to be unable to break through this electoral firewall. But in a new survey of more than 2,000 California voters, released today by the Public Policy Institute of California, an independent research group based in San Francisco, Obama appears to have experienced a significant bump since then. Over a month after voting in the primary, more Democrats here now say they have a positive view of Obama than of Clinton (78 percent to 74 percent)—a shift, experts say, that may be even larger than it appears, since much of Obama’s support in the primary came from independents. Decline-to-state voters, who represent a sizable voting block in California, continue to flock to his campaign (57 percent have a favorable view of Obama, compared with 47 percent for McCain and only 35 percent for Clinton). Overall, more than 6 in 10 voters of all political stripes say they view Obama favorably, compared with 45 percent for Clinton. If the general election were held today, the poll indicates that Obama, not Clinton, would do better here: He polls at 49-to-40 percent over McCain, while Clinton-McCain is a statistical tie (46 percent of voters say they would support Clinton; 43 percent for McCain).

So it looks like Clinton’s negative campaign is affecting her even in states she won.  Meanwhile, despite the Rev. Wright controversy, Obama is doing well in the polls.  The Los Angeles Times reports that a new Pew poll shows Obama weathering the storm.  The article says:

The controversy over various incendiary remarks by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright has for the most part “not hurt” Democrat Barack Obama’s campaign for president, one of the nation’s top pollsters says, based on his organization’s latest survey.

“Obama’s lead over Hillary Clinton remains as wide as it was in late February,” says Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center, and “both Obama and Clinton continue to run slightly ahead of (John) McCain in a general election matchup.”

In the battle for the Democratic presidential nod, Obama was backed by 49% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters surveyed and Clinton by 39% (the error margin for this part of the poll was plus or minus 5.5 percentage points).

So it looks like Hillary Clinton has torn the party apart only to benefit the Republicans in the general election.  Thanks Hillary.

UPDATE: CNN is reporting that Clinton is receiving the lowest positive rating since 2001.  Bye-bye Hillary.

Share this Beertap post! | Email this Beertap post!<–email this to a friend! ;)


Responses

  1. MSNBC has made no bones about its support for Obama, and political polls are not the same as votes cast. These polls may be correct, but a much better measure is the actual vote. As we know, polls have made mistakes. I think Pennsylvania will be telling.

    It’s hard to believe that Obama hasn’t been hurt by Wright, given what see in the Blogosphere, but I don’t personally find his association with Wright bothersome, so perhaps people are wary of the media blasts.

  2. If there was a re-count in the states that have had their primaries and caucuses, I would put all the money that I have to my name on Obama pulling far ahead of Clinton.

    After all the mud slinging and covert tactics (c’mon, you know she’s behind the supporters’ letter to Pelosi!) her ratings have gone dooooown.

    And if Wright is a detriment to Obama, then we are all doomed. My brother has spewed off comments like him before. If I were running for public office, would the public demand that I “renounce and reject” my BROTHER? C’mon people, that’s been addressed, and addressed head-on. Next distraction?

    Obama 2008 and 2012.
    Si Se Puede. Yes We Can.

  3. The Clintons remind me of the Gollum in “The Lord of the Rings”

    My precious, my precious…

  4. Yes i agree very much! My mother and I are AA who both voted for Bush twice, but even with that republican affiliation we find Hillary digusting. I would prefere McCain over Hillary, not becasue I hate her so much, just because he seems like the second best choice…… i wish Hillary would just crawl in a hole and work for Walmart or something.

  5. Shamaka

    I would not want to admit that I voted for GW Bush who will probably be considered by historians as the our all-time worst President.

    You are very loyal to the GOP for better or worse.

  6. It’s certainly fair to have disagreements about who is the better candidate. But with all the mudslinging (and I don’t say either Dem campaign has been without this) I think it is important to note that Hillary Clinton took the time out of this race to introduce into the Senate the bill to support UNFPA. Neither Sen. Obama nor Sen. McCain, as far as I know, introduced any legislation while on the campaign trail, and this particular legislation demonstrates her genuine commitment to motherhood, to safe health care for everyone (not just in the U.S.), and foreign affairs at the level of real people’s lives.


Leave a response

Your response:

Categories