Hillary Clinton Clear Favorite in Really Early Poll

As our friends at The Washington Post report:

Hillary Rodham Clinton holds a commanding 6 to 1 lead over other Democrats heading into the 2016 presidential campaign, while the Republican field is deeply divided with no clear front-runner, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Clinton trounces her potential primary rivals with 73 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, reinforcing a narrative of inevitability around her nomination if she runs. Vice President Biden is second with 12 percent, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) is third with 8 percent…

…The race for the Republican nomination, in contrast, is wide open, with six prospective candidates registering 10 percent to 20 percent support. No candidate has broad backing from both tea party activists and mainline Republicans, signaling potential fissures when the GOP picks a standard-bearer in 2016.

Yes, this poll is really, really early, but there is some interesting data in the results. The number that jumps out at us is 58 — Hilllary Clinton's favorability rating (compared, for example, to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's 35% favorability). For a politician in the public eye so often, it's impressive that Clinton's favorability ratings are still nearly at 60%. If this trend holds, the "narrative of inevitability" surrounding Hillary will become more than just a storyline.

12 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Urban Snowshoer says:

    A lot of people were suggesting in 2007, if not earlier, that Clinton was the inevitable Presidential nominee, though she ultimately failed to win the Democratic nomination for president.  

    I’m not going to rule Clinton out as the 2016 nominee—she has a lot in favor in terms of experience and political support—but a lot can change between now and 2016.  

    • JeffcoBlueJeffcoBlue says:

      Like BENGHAZI. (Just filling in for the trolls)

    • IndyNinjaIndyNinja says:

      Hillary was mostly just the first lady the last time she ran, in terms of the perception of her. Since then, she has been one of the most kick-ass Secretaries of State ever. She became an internet meme, took care of business, and shut down ciritcs with ease, all while earning favors by campaigning for congressional candidates all over the country. 

      She is not he same person or the same candidate she was 8 years ago. If she runs, she wins. No doubt in my mind. 

  2. JBJK16 says:

    She will be the nominee if she runs. But, excepting real oddity like a Dan Maesian opponent (I would include either Paul) or low probability bizarreness, she will never be President. Warren has a better chance, and that's a low probability too.

    • BlueCatBlueCat says:

      Urban is right. A lot can change. 

      • JBJK16 says:

        Of course. Hey! We agree.  

        But too many people dislike her. And with every birthday, there loads and loads of new voters who don't know her. Either is overcomeable. Together they are too much, and neither are changing. A better campaign strategy this far out woud be Paul16. 

        • BlueCatBlueCat says:

          Any R has a low probability for president. Every year between now and 2016 demographics will continue to make it harder for an R to win nationwide. Every year the the GOTP becomes less and less of a national party.

          As for younger voters not knowing her, those who know her mainly in her more recent roles are more likely to have an unmixed good opinion of her than those of us who've known both Clinton's all along. I'd like to see your evidence that the number of people who dislike her is growing because polls show her to be very popular and admired. 

          The hard feelings Obama supporters held for her in the wake of the 2008 primaries have faded to next to nothing and the youngest voters never went through that in the first place. As for the old scandals, I doubt many 20 or 30 somethings know or care about Whitewater or Travelgate, for instance. They don't care about Lewinsky or Flowers or any of the other "bimbo eruptions" either and those are Bill's, not  HRC's anyway.

          The main reason I'm inclined to suspect it may well not be HRC is that I have little confidence in even the most poll supported predictions for the 2016 presidential this far out. Look what's happening virtually (unlike Sen Graham, I know what "literally" and "virtually" mean) overnight to golden boy Chris Christie. Now those are some flat out plummeting approval numbers, the latest putting him into negative territory.  And a new sleazy revelation every day.

          It was much closer to the 2008 election when all the "experts" were assuring us that Giuliani v HRC was a done deal for 2008. So all of it barely rises above the level of idle speculation at this point. Still fun, though.

        • VoyageurVoyageur says:

          well, more than half of those new voters are of the female persuasion  (women vote in somewhat higher numberes than men.)  And any conceivable Republican will be saddled with an anti-woman platform.  Yes, it's a long way off.   But right now, I cannot imagine the Republican party nominating a sane candidate.   Look at Romney.   By the time he shook his Etch-a-Sketch and asked voters to forget everything he had said in the last six years and accept him as a moderate, he was already saddled with too much right-wing baggage.   If Hillary is nominated, I think she will win.   But at my age, 68, two years older than Hillary, I take nothing for granted.   Health issues, among others, could deter her from running.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.