There was an article in yesterday's Providence Journal that I'm surprised hasn't gotten more attention -- a reprint of a story Saturday in the Washington Post --
In Swing Districts, Democratic Enthusiasm Is Harder to Come By. It reports on an internal poll taken by Democratic pollsters in August that, until the article by Chris Cillizza and Shailagh Murray, had remained secret:
Conventional wisdom dictates that Democratic voters are thrilled with their choices for president, bursting at the seams to rally behind Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) or whoever gets the party's nod next year. A recent survey by Democratic pollster Celinda Lake, however, showed Clinton and Obama trailing former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani (R) in the 31 Democratic-held House districts regarded as most imperiled in 2008, and even potentially serving as a drag on those lawmakers' reelection chances. A poll found that if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton tops the ticket in 2008, some vulnerable Democratic House incumbents will have reason to worry. The poll was conducted in August but has not been previously reported. It paints a "sobering picture" for Democrats, according to a memo by Lake and Daniel Gotoff that accompanies the poll report.
In those Democratic districts polled, voters were asked to choose between
Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, followed by the same question on
Barack Obama and
Rudy Giuliani. Rudy beats Clinton 49 to 39, and he beats Obama by a surprisingly small 41 to 40. This poll was taken before the losses suffered by the Democrats during the past two weeks on the Iraq War. With the above Presidential poll results, I'm gathering that the districts in question are more conservative than the usual Democrat held district. I'm wondering if the events in Congress over the past two weeks would make the Democrats' problems in those districts even greater.Then the pollsters offered a straight question on each Democrat incumbent vs. whatever challenger had already announced in their district. Those results show that the incumbents have a comfortable lead, averaging 19 points. But when the poll ties the incumbent to either Hillary or Obama, things get interesting:
...that number sinks considerably when the lawmakers are linked to either front-runner. "Some people say [your Democratic incumbent] is a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton and will support her liberal agenda of big government and higher taxes if she becomes president," the poll stated, before asking respondents whether they would still vote for their incumbent or choose a Republican candidate. Whether the question named Clinton or Obama, the Democratic incumbent's lead shrank to an average of six points: 47 percent to 41 percent with Clinton leading the ticket, 44 percent to 38 percent with Obama as the nominee. "The images of the two early favorites are part of the problem," Lake and Gotoff wrote. Clinton has a "very polarized image" in the districts, while Obama's "image is soft, and one-fifth of voters do not have a firm impression of him."
This is the first indication by a
Democrat poll that shows the leading Democratic Presidential candidates being a drag on several critical House races. Could than mean that the House will be in play in 2008, especially if Hillary is the nominee?
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 1)
1. Hillary and Obama appeal far more to the far left than to moderates and independents. Those groups will question Obama's experience to be President and will question Clinton's character.
There is not much Obama will be able to do to combat the not enough experience tag, because it's true. After several rookie mistakes he made regarding comments concerning our enemies, using nukes and invading Pakistan he has confirmed that the concern is real.
Hillary's charater right or wrong will be tied to her husbands. While many Democrats did not buy everything the Republicans tried to pin on Bill, they do know that he cheated on his wife with a 20 year old intern and then lied about it under oath. At the least Democrats were disappointed. Hillary like Obama has confirmed voters fears. The recent fund raising concerns, and not releasing records of her involvement with her husbands administration are just a few examples that don't look good for a candidate trying to defend her character.
The Republicans don't seem 100% pleased with any of their candidates. I think this is a good thing. It allows more time for the candidates to show their differences and qualifications. It provides more time for voters to determine who gets the nod as opposed to letting the media make the pick.
That's the problem for the Democrats. Your poll shows that neither Hillary or Obama are the best pick for a general election. Yet, the media is constantly stating that the nomination is Hillary's. The negative press or truthful, depends on how you look at it, about Edwards and Obama have only provided further fuel for the media to declare Hillary the winner. This is unfortunate because the Democrats have several second tier candidates that I believe are more qualified than Hillary or Obama and would stand a greater chance in the general election. Richardson or Biden in my opinion would stand a better chance in the general election than Hillary.
Clay at 12:11PM on Sep 24th 2007
2. Ok, first thing. This piece identifys this polltaker as a democrat. Says who? Since when do democrats use language (especially when conducting a poll) that are the exact triggers for conservative revulsion of supposed democrat behavior? (and do it when polling conservative districts) The piece offers this quote from the pollster: "Some people say (your democratic incumbent) is a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton and will support her liberal agenda of big government and higher taxes if she becomes president." So check out the key words: Liberal. Big Government.
Higher Taxes. Also "She" and "Her". What happened to Obama? The piece also emphasizes and in fact underlines the "fact" that this is a Democratic pollster and this is the first time they've gotten results like this. Democratic pollster? I think not. This is a republican shill pretending to be a democrat pollster in a piece that is disguised as neutral but is not. This pollster is a member of the Democratic party for real as much as Fake Fox News Democrat Pollster/Strategist/Consultant Pat Cadell is. Pat is wheeled on stage and identified as a Democrat and then proceeds to rip into the party at every point, agreeing with the prevailing republican agenda. It's called fake and it is manipulation of the lowest form. Read and view your news carefully as there is so much lying and manipulation going on. Truth is much harder to come by. If you want a great Democratic candidate, check out Mike Gravel. The news media barely mentions him but you will be surprised at what he has to say. If you are tired of all the news media manipulation (they in effect pick the frontrunner candidates out for you and get rid of anything that actually has an air of authenticity and fresh perspective)then look harder and more carefully of what the media place before you. The media is the true killer of freedom in the US.
Jim at 5:58AM on Sep 25th 2007
3. Rep's say that they are for smaller gov't but in real time--that is a lie--they say the Dem's want more taxes--that is true, because someone has to paid the bills and Rep's believe they can run on credit. But in real time Rep's are the ones that have raise the taxes for middle class and the poor. No people I am tried of Rep's bull crap.
What have Reps done in 7 years besides lie to the American people. Can anyone name three things Rep's have done for the American people?
Dancerpl2 at 3:45AM on Sep 25th 2007