Should Hillary Clinton be farther ahead?
Just thinking about the national Presidential polling this morning. Non-specifically, Hillary Clinton leads Rudy Giuliani in the national '08 polls by something like 5%, but if you look at the generic polls, "would you rather have a Democratic or Republican as the next president," the spread is generally larger than that.
Now, we're yet to see any anti-Republican ads, "do you want 4 more years of this?," but still, is the gap between the generic polling and the candidate specific polling something we should be talking about?
(I think that as Clinton becomes more "inevitable" in the public mind, the generic and the specific polls will begin to align.)
Now, we're yet to see any anti-Republican ads, "do you want 4 more years of this?," but still, is the gap between the generic polling and the candidate specific polling something we should be talking about?
(I think that as Clinton becomes more "inevitable" in the public mind, the generic and the specific polls will begin to align.)
posted by mikevotes at
7:49 AM
2 Comments:
Most of these polls are national poll. This is near meaningless during the the primary season, particularly the early primary season. The more informative polls are the state polls -- Iowa, NH, SC etc. In these polls Sen. Clinton is not a rock star.
What I find interesting about Clinton's numbers in the national polls is that her "high negatives" seem to be the stuff of urban legend and the echo chamber we call the traditional media.
By
-epm, at 11:47 AM
Oh, very true. And poll watching as such at this point anywhere but the nearest primaries is fun but foolish.
My main point was to ask if the generic vs. specific gap really represented anything. There is frequently a generic vs. specific gap.
By
mikevotes, at 1:36 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home