Hillary To Launch Presidential Campaign, Early Polls Clueless

MONDAY UPDATE: It’s official:

—–

Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton.

CNN via FOX 31 reports:

Hillary Clinton is planning to launch her presidential candidacy on Sunday through a video message on social media, a person close to her campaign-in-waiting says, followed immediately by traveling to early-voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire to start making her case to voters.

The trip to Iowa, where a third-place finish in 2008 ultimately led to the collapse of her presidential aspirations, illustrates what aides say is a commitment to not take anything for granted in her second bid for the White House, even though she dominates the likely Democratic field in 2016.

Clinton has already filmed her campaign video, a person close to the campaign said, which outlines the central themes of her second bid for the White House. The message is intended to send a signal to Democrats that she intends to aggressively fight for the party’s presidential nomination.

Here in Colorado, a new poll from Quinnipiac University throws darts at the proverbial wall and comes up with a relatively closely matchup between Hillary Clinton and potential Republican 2016 opponents–the Durango Herald’s Peter Marcus:

Quinnipiac University found that the former secretary of state is losing ground against leading Republicans in Colorado, as well as in Iowa and Virginia, though the election isn’t for another year and seven months.

The only candidates to officially have announced a run for president are U.S. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky and U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas.

Leading the Republican pack in Colorado is Paul, who gets 44 percent to Clinton’s 41.

“These numbers are a boost for U.S. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky as he formally launches his campaign,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.

Other Republicans effectively tie Clinton in Colorado…

As observers have noted today, Quinnipiac’s polling in Colorado last year was erratic but overall heavily tilted toward Republicans for most of the election cycle. But beyond that, it’s simply too early to know how Clinton will match up against whichever Republican emerges with the nomination. As of this writing there’s no major opposition candidate for liberal Democrats to rally around as a Clinton alternative, with Sen. Elizabeth Warren continuing to insist she will not run and feelers by Vice President Joe Biden failing to gain much traction. If that continues to be the case, Clinton will have plenty of time to shore up the base and build momentum while Republicans are busy slugging it out amongst themselves.

Would Hillary carry Colorado in 2016? Take your own wild guess after the jump.

Would Hillary Clinton carry Colorado in 2016?
0 Shares

74 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Davie says:

    Would she carry Colorado in the Primary (are we having one, or just caucuses?)?  Short of a massive campaign implosion, yes.

    Would she carry Colorado if she were the nominee?  Waaay too early to say.  Obviously depends on the GOP nominee and the sanity, interest and/or forbearance of the voters  (Bush/Clinton race would be closest I think, but also filled with ennui)

  2. gertie97 says:

    Polling this early is worthless. Everybody knows it. If it reflects anything at all, it shows dim public awareness that the GOP field (otherwise known as the clown car) is filling up. With little else to do since covering real news is not on the agenda, the cable news nets yammer about little else.

  3. BlueCat says:

    Agree polling this early means little and Quinnipiac has been among the worst but every trend means something. HRC is the biggest most universally recognized name of anyone running and early polls are mainly name rec polls.  Even in Quinnipiac it would be nice if, with all that fame, she was doing better against Rs at this point. Shows a considerable negative streak in that super high name rec. I think HRC will carry Colorado. I’ll vote for her if she’s the Dem pick, maybe not at caucus or in the primary, depending. I’m not at all excited about it. I liked her briefly when she appeared to be a decent loyal SOS. Never before and not since.

  4. Diogenesdemar says:

    An HRC candidacy, if successful through the primaries this time (and, although I think that’s likely, it’s nothing that I’m wishing for), will pretty much force Jebby (or any other GOPer eventual) to have to select a woman VP running mate partner.  1) To try to pull women voters ala McCain 2008, and 2) because the GOPer presidential field looks to be likely to be 100% XY chromosomers. 

    That’ll be a huge problem, because there doesn’t seem to be any wealth of credible and popular GOPer YYers???

    Bush/Fiorina?  Nah!

    Bush/Palin (Bristol)?  Ha ha, nah nah!

    Looks to me like Nikki Haley (Soon-to-be-Kingmaker — South Carolina) won’t have to buy herself another dinner for the foreseeable future — no shortage of suitors.  Watch for her endorsement . . . lady’s choice!

    • FrankUnderwood says:

      But Iowa is a swing state and Jeb will select Joni Ernst, junior senator and accomplished pig castrator.  

    • BlueCat says:

      I don’t know. Against Obama in 2008 they they ran a woman VP. She opposed HRC supporting women on every conceivable issue but had the right lady parts so they were pretty confident of pulling women voters unhappy that the Dems nominated a black man instead of HRC. Who knew women wouldn’t vote for just anybody with the right parts?

      If Dems do run HRC this time, having already successfully run a black man, maybe Rs think they can pull the Latino vote with a VP who has the right kind of surname based on the same kind of assumptions. Of course HRC could beat them to it with a Latino VP of her own. 

    • itlduso says:

      Marcia Blackburn of TN.  Just the right combination of smarmy Chamber of Commerce smile  coupled with right-wing lunacy.

    • FrankUnderwood says:

      Let’s not totally discount the possibility of another Bush/Cheney ticket…..this time with Jebby and Liz Cheney (which would be an olive branch to the next generation of neo-cons)

      Or maybe Bush/Quayle with Marilyn as the VP this time.

      Oh the possibilities……… 

    • cdsmithus says:

      That’ll be a huge problem, because there doesn’t seem to be any wealth of credible and popular GOPer YYers???

      That’s true… because YY is not a viable chromosome pair.  XYY is viable, but aside from making you taller, it has no easily identifiable symptoms, so I wouldn’t want to speculate.

      I’m guessing you meant XX, though. 🙂

      • hawkeye says:

        The Dems have not nominated an XYY candidate in decades, preferring XXY instead … and I do mean both male and female candidates.

      • BlueCat says:

        In case anyone is confused, may I interject that XX makes you female. XY makes you male. That makes gender determined, under usual circumstances, by the X or Y carried by sperm, the egg from mom always carrying X. Extras are rare abnormalities with various conditions resulting. Education about these things isn’t what it used to be.

    • marklane1351 says:

      Is Sarah Palin going to toss her hat in? Tina Fey could reprise her role and we could all use the comic relief.

  5. dustpuppy says:

    She won’t carry Colorado. Bernie will.

    Go Bernie Sanders!

    • Conserv. Head Banger says:

      Bernie Sanders as the Dem nominee??  He’d carry Vermont, Massachusetts, District of Columbia. A wipe out similar to McGovern in 1972. End of discussion.

      • BlueCat says:

        That’s our dustpuppy. I used to think he was a parody creation but I’m afraid he’s a real person who actually believes the ridiculous things he says. BTW, I think you’re being overly generous in your assessment of states in which he’d win the nomination. Massachusetts? Seriously? I’m thinking more along the lines of none. And I like Bernie.

  6. Gilpin Guy says:

    John Kerry 2016 – A Secretary of State that is capable of dealing with the world.  cool

    • mamajama55 says:

      Didn’t John Kerry actually win in 2004? Or am I thinking of Al Gore? There were all the shenanigans with the hanging chads in Florida, massive vote suppression everywhere, and then the Supreme Court called the election for Bush. 

      I don’t have time to look it up right now, but that’s what I remember. 

      • Davie says:

        Al Gore, 2000 — SCOTUS voted for GW Bush, nullifying the election.  Kerry ran a poor campaign in 2004, and lost it on his own

        • Gilpin Guy says:

          Hillary also ran a lackluster campaign in 2008 but nobody is disqualifying her this time around because she did a crappy job back then.

          In terms of experience after he lost in 2004, Kerry has done a ton of work in both the Senate and as SOS.  He has the credentials and experience to be president.  No question.

          • BlueCat says:

            No matter. That will never happen.

            • Gilpin Guy says:

              Never is a long time.  Maybe we can start a Draft Kerry campaign.  I would totally trust the guy on foreign policy.  Cruz not so much.

              • BlueCat says:

                Yes, never is a long time but Kerry is too old to have the time it would take to become viable again. Sorry. Realistically there just is, and I’ll say it again, never going to be a serious draft Kerry campaign. 

                • hawkeye says:

                  Agreed, Kerry is too old.  But he has the kind of hair other candidates would dye for … even women!

                  John Kerry and Elizabeth Warren appear to share the same hair stylist. The unisex look is getting more popular among candidates.

                  • BlueCat says:

                    Kind of refreshing to hear some remarks abut Kerry’s appearance, the kind usually reserved for women. Just the other day I heard a catty remark about how he looks like he’s been hitting the botox too hard. Maybe gender equality is just around the corner after all.wink

          • FrankUnderwood says:

            Hillary ran against and lost to an excellent candidate who ran a flawless campaign in ’08.

            Kerry lost to George W. Bush.  Need I say more……

            • Gilpin Guy says:

              Yes you do.  In 2004, we were in a state of war and 9/11 was used in every other sentence by Republicans.  Kerry was Swift Boated on his war record in a time of war.  Bush was terrible as a president but he had Karl Rove who employed a lot more shenanigans than Hillary every face against Obama.  You’re contention that Kerry lost to a chimpanzee lacks context and understates Hillary’s appeal problems.

              • Davie says:

                Kerry was caught flat-footed by the SwiftBoaters, not knowing how to respond, and also did himself in with his “I actually did vote for [it] before I voted against it” when discussing Iraq and Afghanistan war funding.

                That’s what I meant when I said he lost it all on his own.

                • Gilpin Guy says:

                  I don’t know if flat footed is the right term.  I think everyone underestimated the power blatant lies.  It was an unprecedented strategy of flat out lying.

                  Regardless of how he lost, the Rove machine is still out there and it isn’t too hard to imagine how they are going to go after Clinton.  I think she has an appeal problem that they are going to tear into. I’m going to have to do some research on O’Malloy.

                  Oh and Hillary voted for the authorization also.

                  • BlueCat says:

                    I too worry about the appeal problem. In the age of TV and marketing  Americans don’t elect Presidents they don’t find likable. Kerry did have a problem connecting. This lack of personal appeal compounded his mistake in failing to aggressively crush the Swift Boat lies immediately, which he could easily have done.

                    No records of any kind ever supported a single one of their claims. All available documentation shows the claims to be garbage. They claimed Kerry, a junior officer at the time, got his medals by just writing himself up. Of course that’s not how it works for a lowly junior lieutenant and reports written by his superiors prove that false. Neither the name nor initials of the military doctor they put on TV claiming he saw Kerry and that Kerry didn’t deserve his purple hearts appear on any of Kerry’s medical paperwork. The list goes on and on. All bull.

                    Most of the Swift Boat Vets who signed on as if they were some kind of witnesses to Kerry’s behavior had never been anywhere near Kerry in Vietnam or even in country at the same time. They were just members of a Swift Boat vets association fed a lot of garbage and asked to sign on. My husband, a Swift Boat vet, quit the group in disgust and instead signed on to Swift Boat vets for Kerry. 

                    The real reason they hated Kerry was because he became an outspoken critic of the war. But by the time Kerry responded their lies were too thoroughly entrenched no thanks to the he said she said style with which the media presented them, as if it was just one side’s word against the other instead of unsupported fabrications against documented facts.  

                    Apart from all that, had he been more likable, when his team finally did start pushing back, more of the public would have taken his side. Is HRC likable enough for people to take her side against Rovian attacks? Thinking about that makes my stomach hurt.

                    • Gilpin Guy says:

                      Thanks for the analysis BC.  I have to believe that Ms. Clinton knows what is in store and is building a staff that can take on the blatant lies and nastiness that lie ahead for her.

                      A lot of her appeal is unfortunately going to be based on her opponent.  If a real wacko like Ted Cruz is the Republican nominee then it will be easier than if it is Marco Rubio.  It’s going to be interesting no doubt.

                      From my perspective, the biggest thing she can do to shore up her support on the left is to repeatedly beat her opponents over the head with climate change science and force them to deny it.  It is the biggest issue of our time.

                  • FrankUnderwood says:

                    I don’t believe Rove & Co. went anywhere beyond where their precedessors went. I’m old enough to remember Donald Segretti, the White House Plumbers and CREEP. More recently, there was Lee Atwater, Roger Ailes (he now of Faux News, previously a media consultant to Daddy Bush’s campaign in ’88).

                • FrankUnderwood says:

                  That’s the pattern with Massacusetts Democrats. They don’t know how to run general election campaign because they rarely ever have to.

                  Dukakis allowed himself to get bashed left and right (or is it right and righter) in 1988 while sitting back on his ass refusing to engage. Kerry did something along the same lines in 2004.  (Coincidentally or not, Kerry was Dukakis’ lieutenant governor from 1982 to 1984.)

                  Kerry did lose it all on his own. He should have been prepared for what was done to him. And he said and did some stupid stuff (e.g., “I actually voted for the $89 billion dollars before I voted against it”).

                  And his aloof persona did not help. What did he say his favorite cheese was when asked if he wanted a Philly Cheesesteak sandwich? Bush didn’t just win because of 9/11 (although that was a big factor that helped him); Bush won because he was the kind of guy people could identify with. Kerry, wind surfing and French speaking, was not.

                  I don’t agree that the would-I-want-him-for-my-next-door-neighbor standard should be the criteria for voting for a president, but the fact of the matter is that for many people, that IS the criteria, and we need to work with that. That’s how Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton got elected. That’s also why I’m a little nervous that Scott Walker could be our next president.

                  • mamajama55 says:

                    Scott Walker? Really? Other than the sleazy campaign finance, the voter suppression, and the union-busting, he’s got to be one of the least personally appealing candidates around. Major creep factor.

                    • FrankUnderwood says:

                      Creepier than Ted Cruz? 

                    • BlueCat says:

                      I thought GW came across as an ass hat spoiled frat boy. Different strokes. We’re talking the American public here and my taste, and I suspect yours, probably isn’t a great indication of what lowest common denominator Reality Show Nation likes or is aware of. This is the same public that didn’t notice Reagan was already quite obviously suffering from dementia before it elected him a second time. Still loved all that sunshine and gosh darn feel good stuff.

                      Personal appeal matters more than anything concrete in presidential elections. As much as the right hated and still hates Obama, that was a special case. It was never about his personality. It was about the thought of that N word in the White House. With the rest of the public, he was liked and easily defeated get off my lawn McCain, and disconnected elitist Romney. Even as his job approval numbers dipped his likability numbers remained stronger.

                      HRC needs to get people to like her personally in order to make her our first female president as we made Obama our first non-white president. Considering that I’m a strong partisan Dem and I can’t bring myself to like her much, I’d say she has some work to do there.

        • notaskinnycook says:

          Kerry ran a positively idiotic campaign. He’d been in Washington so long that he forgot there’s more to the U.S. than the Beltway. People outside his circle tried to help out in ways they knew worked where they lived, but The People Who Knew Best shut them all down. For example, he definitely did not understand the importance of yard signs in the West. He got exactly what he deserved. Unfortunately, we all got what he deserved. 

      • BlueCat says:

        It was Gore who really won in 2000 though he was a bad enough candidate that it was close enough to steal which team Bush did in Florida with the help of a partisan Supreme Court who were so aware of the bullshit nature of their bloodless coup decision that they stipulated it not be used to set any precedents.  Kerry lost. There were the same voter suppression and other dirty tricks in both but, as Obama’s two elections demonstrate, that stuff by itself can’t decide elections. Elections can only be tipped by such method by a point or two one way or the other. An election still has to be very close to be stolen or, trust me, they would certainly have stolen Obama’s.

        • mamajama55 says:

          I remember hearing OFA organizers saying that the margin of victory had to be large just to prevent such election theft. So OFA out-organized Mcain, running volunteer shifts 3X/day, registering thousands, tracking outreach.  And there’s some evidence that the anonymous collective prevented the theft of Ohio in 2012.

          I just don’t think that Hillary will inspie that same kind of devotion in 2016.

          • BlueCat says:

            Naturally OFA would say you need a large lead to prevent stealing. Orgs always send out hysterical messages to pump up contributions. Really, you just have to avoid a very small lead. But better safe than sorry.

      • Voyageur says:

        Mamajama, it was Gore who won the popular vote and lost the electoral with the help of a partisan Supreme Court.   Kerry almost reversed that — he lost the popular vote but with a few more votes in Ohio, he would have won the electoral.  

        What I hated most about 2000 was that the court got into it at all.  If they had stayed out, the Florida legislature would have awarded the electoral votes to Bush — brother jeb had called them back for that purpose and they have the clear constitutional power to do it.   The result would have been the same — President George Bush — but the high Court wouldn’t have had to muddy its record with this outrageous decision.

        Incidentally, the vote against the Florida high court decision giving the election to Gore was originally 7-2.   It was only on deciding on the remedy that they split 5-4.  The proper remedy would have been to send it back to Florida and let the constitution work.  

        • BlueCat says:

          Florida SOS at the the time, Katherine Harris, publicly stated, even gleefully bragged, that if the Gore people hadn’t attempted to improve their chances by cherry picking which counties to recount but had asked for a complete statewide recount the results would have been a Gore win. It was because she felt she deserved a lot of the credit for delivering Florida to Bush that she felt justified in demanding the nomination to the congressional seat she managed to get. Of course she may have been claiming a little too much credit considering that brother Jeb was Governor at the time. It was a stolen election. Period But it was inept choices on the part of team Gore and Gore’s lack of personal appeal that allowed it to be close enough to steal.

  7. BlueCat says:

    Oh and it’s not just Quinnipiac. Check out the PPPs

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

  8. mamajama55 says:

    Hillary, Finally.

    Well, all rightie then. Nice diverse crowd of people? Check. Positive economic message? Check. Good visuals? Check.

    Hillary’s “I’m running for President” video:

  9. davebarnes says:

    Hopefully, Barry Sotero will take executive action and cancel elections and declare himself President for the duration of the War on Drugs.

  10. hawkeye says:

    Hillary is a shoe in for President if the economy takes a dive.  Colorado will eventually become as Democrat at Massachusetts as the Millennials and their progeny, as well as enfranchised immigrants, take to the polls. The Peoples Republic of Boulder will expand to the entire state.

  11. mamajama55 says:

    Hillary Clinton laid a clever trap for Republicans, says the “Gay Blade” on Kos. Astute analysis, methinks.

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.