The most hated Presidential Field in modern political history - save one
like history - and the history of polling in particular. It's an odd field - not many worry about getting all of the 1984 Wisconsin Primary polls.
But you find out stuff - stuff no one else really gets. So I was plowing through the recent national numbers: and was actually pretty stunned.
Hillary's numbers on average are actually getting worse - the numbers in this chart are new lows. But Cruz is every bit as hated. And Trump.
Donald Trump's worst number is the same as Richard Nixon's just before he resigned
Of course the only candidate with a positive favorability rating is termed "unelectable". But at the end of the day socialism is more popular than these candidates. And you know that is pretty funny.
And outrageous. Clinton's numbers are terrible. Bernie has been running now for nearly a year, and the public know who he is. Sure, you can run negative attacks against him, and I am sure they would have some effect.
But Hillary's numbers are already awful. Terrible. Worse than Mitt Romney's in 2012. And the GOP hasn't run a national ad campaign that I am sure will feature her speeches To Goldman Sachs.
What is striking is how much more favorable the public's perception is of Obama than Clinton. The gap is sizable.
So the poll historian had to ask: has anyone ever been this bad. Reagan: nope in the summer of 1980 he was 42-30 positive. McGovern? Good question. I went back last night - McGovern was down in September of '72 68-23. He actually trailed among Democrats 44-11. That's right, McGovern actually RALLIED in '72 - and some of the reporting at the time noted his recovery.
Best I could do on favorability was a Gallup poll on October 16, and McGovern was still net positive (54-41, though they used a 5 point + or minus scale)
Since 1972, only 1 candidate had strongly negative favoribility numbers: Bill Clinton.
So here are Clinton's numbers. They were bad - but there was a very high number without an opinion. I think it is fair say the public was not as decided about him as they are about Hillary. Nonetheless is does highlight something important: the conventions and the VP pick CAN have an enormous effect on the perception of a candidate. In Clinton's case the swing was enormous.
I do think there is a very real shot for Clinton to reverse some of her problems with her pick and with a well run convention. Obama will be sure to speak - I have no idea about Sanders - in '92 the Clinton people pretended Brown didn't exist. But I am sure he will.
And she needs him too.
Because the truth is her numbers among the young are terrible. From one poll this week, here are the favorabiity numbers for those 18-34:
Trump 22-53
Clinton 38-52
Sanders 65-23
But the GOP? The pick will be important - but may well be a prisoner of the same right win forces that have brought the GOP to where they are. But if its Cruz (like I think it will be) he is a large enough of an unknown that I wouldn't rule out a bounce.
Still, one looks at these numbers with amazement. There are three candidates whose numbers are just plain flat terrible. And yet the system has effectively worked to prevent anyone else from winning.
This is not going to be a happy electorate.
Unless we can get Democrats to understand these numbers, and that there is a landslide in the offing - because Bernie beats Trump by 20.
Comments
Cruz may be a little less unknown today.
I can't imagine the affairs will have no impact at all on his chances at the nomination.
But your larger point is an incisive one: electing a candidate that is so untrusted, if it's even possible to elect such a person, will mean one swamp of an administration.
It's OK
She's already set up a scapegoat. Or, as the media put it, a "firewall."
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Unless Bernie is the nominee...
Unless Bernie is the Dem nominee, the 2016 presidential race is going to be an unpopularity contest. Voters will be presented with another "lesser evil" choice, which of course is what the Hillary campaign wants. But be careful what you wish for, because in a "lesser evil" scenario lots of voters sit out the election!
"We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty."
I won't sit out the election if Bernie isn't the nominee
but I sure as hell will NOT vote for Clinton!! I'll be writing in Bernie for president if she gets nominated. And if Trump ends up winning the election against her, maybe that's what it will take to wake up the DNC (and the RNC, for that matter). I would like to see a female U.S. president in my lifetime, just not Hillary Clinton. I haven't been a fan of hers since she dropped her maiden name and started using Bill's last name exclusively. That right there told me she had no courage of her convictions.
Life is like Disneyland - if you haven't been on all the rides by the end of the day, you have no one to blame but yourself.
the only thing that will "wake up the DNC" is its end
Hillary wins, they're vindicated. Hillary loses, they blame us. There is no way they'll go "we should have supported the candidate whose views on issues matches the electorate's."
There's also no way the scared Democrats who are voting for Hillary because she's "electable" will think they were wrong. They'll convince themselves that Bernie would have lost worse. And, again, if Hillary wins those people will become super-smugators.
Tipped for
smugators!
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
It will be a
hideous election - negative as hell.
My sense is establishment Dems would rather risk Trump
than join with the grass roots to support Bernie. It's a control thing. Dems and R's take turns holding the reins of power, it's all in the family so to speak.
A successful grass roots campaign that puts a populist democratic socialist in the White House would put an end to the two party system that we have come to know and distrust and put the reins of power in the hands of the people, instead of one party or the other.
“What the herd hates most is the one who thinks differently; it is not so much the opinion itself, but the audacity of wanting to think for themselves, something that they do not know how to do.”
-Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
I hate that I believe that you're right
but I do. Power never cedes power willingly. And, since for all intents and purposes, the top elites really don't much care whether it has a D or an R, as long as it doesn't interfere with business as usual.... we'll get business as usual.
Losing control to the rabble is not an option.
"When the powerless are shut out of the media, we will make the media irrelevant" ~Anonymous~
Lisa
I love your avatar!
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
Obama
I'm going to assume that Kasich polls favorably when Fox News conducts its polls. But it's fun to see that Obama is the only one on their list that has net favorables. Clinton might claim to be battle tested, but damn if that dude in year 8 of abuse from the RW still has a net favorable rating in their poll, respect.