Subject: 4 poll numbers that should unnerve Hillary Clinton - The Washington Post
From: "Eric Schwerin" <[email-masked]>
To: "Hunter Biden" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 22:33:06 -0400

4 poll numbers that should unnerve Hillary Clinton - The Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/07/27/four-poll-numbers-to-make-hillary-clinton-sweat/?postshare=691438045119161

4 poll numbers that should unnerve Hillary Clinton

Four poll numbers came out over the weekend that are decidedly sobering for
Hillary Clinton's presidential prospects in 2016.

The first two come from NBC/Marist College polls conducted in Iowa and New
Hampshire
<http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/nbc-marist-polls-show-donald-trump-running-strong-iowa-nh-n398401>.
In Iowa, 23 percent more people saw Clinton in an unfavorable light than a
favorable one; in New Hampshire, that gap is 20 points.

Then there are these numbers from two national polls released over the
weekend. Here's Clinton long-term favorable/unfavorable trend line in Gallup
<http://www.gallup.com/poll/184346/sanders-surges-clinton-sags-favorability.aspx?utm_source=Politics&utm_medium=newsfeed&utm_campaign=tiles>
:

<http://www.gallup.com/poll/184346/sanders-surges-clinton-sags-favorability.aspx?utm_source=Politics&utm_medium=newsfeed&utm_campaign=tiles>

<http://www.gallup.com/poll/184346/sanders-surges-clinton-sags-favorability.aspx?utm_source=Politics&utm_medium=newsfeed&utm_campaign=tiles>
[image:
Screen Shot 2015-07-26 at 10.14.37 AM]

And here it is in CNN polling
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/26/politics/cnn-poll-presidential-race/>:

<http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/26/politics/cnn-poll-presidential-race/>
 <http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/26/politics/cnn-poll-presidential-race/>

As Philip Bump noted in this space over the weekend
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/07/26/why-is-hillary-clinton-viewed-so-unfavorably-in-early-primary-states/>,
some of Clinton's poll erosion is to be expected. Clinton (and every
politician) is always more popular when she is either out of politics or in
a job (like secretary of state) that is regarded by many people as
non-political. If you thought Hillary Clinton was going to have favorable
ratings in the high 60s for the entirety of her 2016 presidential bid, then
you know nothing about modern-day U.S. politics.

But, if Clinton's sinking poll numbers were to be expected as she
re-entered the arena, the pace of their drop and the depths to which they
have fallen *are* surprising. Looking at the national numbers, Clinton's
favorable numbers have come close to collapsing over the past eight months
or so; her unfavorable numbers in Iowa and New Hampshire are, without
exaggeration, near Trump-ian levels -- and that's a very bad thing
considering they are the first two states that will cast votes in the
primaries and two key swing states in the general election.

So, what is going on here? And how much does it matter to Clinton's overall
chances of a) being the Democratic nominee and b) being elected president
next November?

From a technical perspective, as Bump explained, Clinton's falling numbers
are attributable to two things: 1) She has returned to being extremely
unpopular among Republicans, and 2) independents have taken an increasingly
dim view of her.

 But why? My working theory is that Clinton not only returned to the
political world but also did so in the least desirable way possible for
people who were already predisposed not to like her: Riding a series of
stories about her e-mails and the Clinton Foundation donors.

Clinton has had a remarkably bad run of press since she officially became a
candidate -- punctuated by the now-almost-a-week-long focus on the
investigations into whether or not she sent classified materials from her
private e-mail address
<http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/26/clinton-denies-sending-classified-information-from-private-email-server/>.
To date there have only really been two storylines surrounding Clinton in
the presidential contest: 1) How she is inevitable as the Democratic
nominee, and 2) How her past dealings at the State Department (and after
it) are problematic for her presidential campaign.

Neither of those storylines work in Clinton's favor when it comes to the
Republicans and independents with whom she has lost ground. The lack of a
series primary fight drives the coronation idea which independents blanch
at, and the focus on her e-mails and donations to the Clinton Foundation
remind unaffiliated voters and Republicans of all the things they didn't
like about the Clintons back in the 1990s. One thing that isn't problematic
for Clinton is her standing among Democrats, which, as the chart above
shows, have stayed not only consistent but consistently high not only
nationally but in early states too.

Which leads to the question: How much does Clinton's unpopularity really
matter?

It has been noted ad nauseam that the same polls that show Clinton's
unfavorable ratings on the rise tell a similar story for the Republicans
who she seems most likely to face off against. Jeb Bush, for, example, is
viewed more negatively than positively by voters in both Iowa and New
Hampshire.

The depth of unpopularity for basically all politicians could well lower
the bar for what it takes to get elected president. As in, it's possible we
are in the midst of a sea change in public opinion where our markers of 50
percent support as a sign of good/bad political standing could well be
antiquated. Maybe politicians don't need to be liked by half of Americans
in order to win. It's possible competency has replaced likability in terms
of what voters care about or want.

Emphasis on "maybe" and "possible."  Presidential politics tends to be
dominated by personality and how people perceive their candidate choices.
These are the races least decided on paper; if they were, Mitt Romney would
have beaten President Obama in 2012 and John Kerry would have defeated
George W. Bush in 2004.

For Clinton, these polls argue that she may be hard pressed to win a
traditional presidential election in which likability matters most. To get
to the White House, Clinton almost certainly needs to turn the choice into
one about experience and readiness to do the job at hand. If it's a
popularity contest, these early returns suggest she will lose.

Eric D. Schwerin
[email-masked]

Sent from my iPhon