Type to search

2016 Republican Race Up For Grabs, Democrats Back Clinton, Poll Finds

Politics Top News Tribune News Service

2016 Republican Race Up For Grabs, Democrats Back Clinton, Poll Finds

Share

By David Lauter, Tribune Washington Bureau (TNS)

WASHINGTON — Jeb Bush may be the establishment favorite for the Republican presidential nomination, but he still has a lot of work to do to persuade GOP voters to back him, a new poll finds.

By contrast, Democrats seem overwhelmingly willing to support Hillary Rodham Clinton as their party’s nominee, despite unhappiness on the part of some liberal activists and the current controversy over her use of a personal email account while she was secretary of State.

The Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, released Monday, found that 49 percent of likely Republican primary voters said they could see supporting Bush, the former governor of Florida, while 42 percent said they could not.

Two of Bush’s rivals, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida and Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin, were more widely acceptable. Just over half (53 percent) of people who expect to vote in the GOP primaries said they could see backing Walker, compared with only 17 percent who said they could not. Rubio drew a similarly one-sided response, 56 percent to 26 percent.

By contrast, the poll delivered harsh news to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie: 57 percent of the likely GOP voters said they could not see supporting him, compared with 32 percent who said they could.

Of 14 GOP figures polled, the only one who did worse than Christie was Donald Trump, the developer and casino owner, whose occasional declarations that he plans to run are usually dismissed as self-promotional stunts.

Among other major GOP figures, former Texas Governor Rick Perry and Kentucky Senator Rand Paul had ratings similar to Bush’s.

On the Democratic side, 86 percent of likely primary voters said they could see supporting Clinton. The poll was conducted Sunday to Thursday of last week, as the controversy over her email use began to bubble.

Voters overall had a positive image of Clinton, with 44 percent viewing her favorably and 36 percent negatively. Bush is less well known, with 23 percent seeing him positively and 34 percent negatively.

The poll does point to one significant area of potential weakness for Clinton: By 51 percent to 44 percent, voters overall said she would represent “a return to policies of the past” rather than “new ideas and vision for the future.”

That could be a liability at a time when 59 percent of voters say they would prefer to see a candidate “who will bring greater changes” than one who is “more experienced and tested.”

But Clinton’s liability on that question is notably less than Bush’s. In his case, 60 percent see him as representing the past, and 27 percent say he would represent the future.

The poll, conducted by a team of pollsters from each party, Bill McInturff from the GOP and Fred Yang from the Democrats, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points for the full sample.

Photo: Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks at the Lead On Watermark Silicon Valley Conference for Women on Tuesday, Feb. 24, 2015, in Santa Clara, Calif. (Karl Mondon/Bay Area News Group/TNS)

Tags:

56 Comments

  1. Dominick Vila March 10, 2015

    I am a Democrat, and I plan to vote for Hillary Clinton if she is our nominee. However, I believe she should explain why and to what extent she used a non-government medium to communicate with her colleagues and subordinates while she was Secretary of State. Otherwise, questions about her judgment are likely to cloud her candidacy and may inflict unnecessary damage to her and to Democrats at large.
    I find the poll finding about most Americans wanting change, rather than the policies of the past, perplexing considering the, alleged, opposition to change we have heard during the last six years. Does that mean that almost half of our population support change dependent on who the changer is and what the changes entail?

    Reply
    1. itsfun March 10, 2015

      Yep, she has to come clean and the emails in the Benghazi era have to come out. The emails belong to us, not her.

      Reply
      1. Dominick Vila March 10, 2015

        Where were you after 9/11 and the eleven terrorist attacks against U.S. diplomatic facilities in the Bush-Republican Congress era? I sure don’t recall anybody asking for e-mails…perhaps we should. It is never too late to learn the truth.

        Reply
        1. itsfun March 10, 2015

          I was in a business meeting on 9/11. I am talking about today not more than 10 years ago. All emails having to do with any government business belong to us (the people) not the politician. Hillary broke a law written in 1950. She thinks she is above the law. She will use her old excuses and blame her actions on a right wing conspiracy. We the people want a transparent government not a secretive one. We will never see all of her (ours) e-mails because she is in charge of what we will see. She can and probably has destroyed her server. By using her own server, she can hide or destroy any backups. Nothing will become of this because no one will ever know what was done on her personal server.

          Reply
          1. FireBaron March 10, 2015

            Yep. In fact, Hillary broke the same law that Colin Powell and Condi Rice did. Yep. Check and see, and you will note that they used personal e-mail addresses for Department of State business, too!

            Reply
          2. itsfun March 10, 2015

            right, but Powell and Rice didn’t have their own personal server in their basement or whatever. They couldn’t hide or destroy them.

            Reply
          3. Eleanore Whitaker March 10, 2015

            oh puhlease….personal server…Is this anything like the WhiteWater minutiae that Starr tried desperately to use? So what if she had a personal server? She would have being the Secy of State. And since you don’t know for certain that Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush or Rove didn’t also have personal servers, you can stow the petty hair splitting you are desperate to do.

            Reply
          4. itsfun March 10, 2015

            You have no clue how the IT business works also. She would not a have personal server just because of her job. Do you even know what a personal server is? You are the desperate one here.

            Reply
          5. JPHALL March 10, 2015

            You do not have a personal server? You use public servers for personal email? You are the one who is clueless!

            Reply
          6. itsfun March 11, 2015

            I don’t have a personal server, however I worked for 32 years as a computer programmer, system analyst, it security officer. I also spent 2 years as the email administrator for my company and I designed and installed the server farm for my company. How much experience do you have?

            Reply
          7. JPHALL March 11, 2015

            I see you still refuse to answer a question. I have enough experience to have set up my own private server for important Emails. Subject: Re: Comment on 2016 Republican Race Up For Grabs, Democrats Back Clinton, Poll Finds

            Reply
          8. itsfun March 12, 2015

            Are you talking about the federal reports law?

            Reply
          9. JPHALL March 12, 2015

            No, I was talking about using a personal server for personal Email. I could care less about the latest Republican scandal of the day. Subject: Re: Comment on 2016 Republican Race Up For Grabs, Democrats Back Clinton, Poll Finds

            Reply
          10. Eleanore Whitaker March 10, 2015

            Good…I’m glad you think that…Now…where the hell are all those emails and documents GWB burned regarding Big Daddy’s Iran ContraGate?

            Reply
          11. itsfun March 10, 2015

            don’t know and don’t care. Who is big daddy?

            Reply
          12. Eleanore Whitaker March 10, 2015

            You don’t “WANT” to know…that’s always the coward’s way out. Walk out the door when you can’t stand the truth. Play “ignernt” when you don’t to face the truth.

            In January 2001, George W. Bush made certain he got rid of all of the IranContraGate documents that involved his father…Big Daddy Bush. Why? What was Sonny Boy’s big hurry?

            Was it that the evidence of wrongdoing was so strong that Daddy Bush would have had to face an investigation?

            And how about the unnamed Italian “informant” who magically appeared when Cheney and Bush got caught in their massive lies about WMDs in Iraq. Even the 9/11 Commission knew that Bush and Cheney masterminded that lie and not Rice.

            Reply
          13. itsfun March 10, 2015

            In case you missed the last 14 years, this is 2015. You have no idea what happened to any “irancontragate documents”. This isn’t about Bush, its about Hillary. You trying to defend her by bringing up old history is going to work. You have no ideal what the 9/11 commission knew. Like you love to say, show the evidence that can be proven in court. Don’t spend so much time worrying about big daddy and sonny boy little lady.

            Reply
        2. itsfun March 10, 2015

          Aren’t you the one that said Americans want change and not the policies of the past? Why are you bringing up the Bush era?

          Reply
          1. Eleanore Whitaker March 10, 2015

            Because Bush is part of US history you chumps and Mutton Chops can’t erase…Why? WE won’t let YOU.

            Reply
          2. itsfun March 10, 2015

            I would rather worry about the present and the future. By the way, what color was the dress worn by Monica? Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

            Reply
          3. Dominick Vila March 10, 2015

            I am willing to bet that the color of Monica’s dress was different than those of the female slaves that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson sired. It is probably different than those worn by Ike’s Ms. Mercer. Buchanan’s friends, and JFK’s harem. The only difference, is that the Congresses that were in place when those indiscretions happened had too much respect for the Office of the Presidency to make any of those mentioned above swear under oath that they had not engaged in an adulterous relationship. Fast forward to the not too distant past and the present, and what we find is a political party that will stop at nothing to score political points, a former President that is today one of our most popular presidents in spite of the personal attacks carried out by his detractors, and congressmen that correspond with radicals to undermine the effectiveness and ability to govern of an incumbent President. Yes, we should all take a close look at what is happening now, and it is a lot more than e-mails. It includes traitors.

            Reply
          4. itsfun March 12, 2015

            We trade prisoners of war for traitors, then let the traitor go back to work.

            Reply
          5. Dominick Vila March 12, 2015

            One of our oldest traditions has been to bring Americans home, regardless of what they did. If we let them go back to work, that’s our privilege to do so. In most cases, such as Pvt. Manning’s, they end up in places like Ft. Leavenworth. In other cases, such as our beloved Mr. Snowden, we cannot get them, and they do spend the rest of their miserable lives plotting and acting against us. In the case of elected official aiding and abetting our, alleged, enemies I doubt much will be done against them, even when they deserve a firing squad. In the case of the latter, we prefer to focus on things like someone using personal accounts to send e-mails, or a private server to handle communications, apparently because such endeavors are much more juicy and worthy of public attention than the more mundane evidence of treason. It remains to be seen whether or not the issue of treason surfaces during the 2016 campaign. What we can bet on is that Hillary-gate, which is likely to grow in scope, and may include nefarious things as hair spray and the brand of feminine wash, will dominate the news the moment Hillary announces her candidacy. In the interim, Republicans are suing her for her “outrageous” behavior, while using their cell phones and BlackBerries to send texts and e-mails via AT&T, COMCAST, or local service providers servers. You could not become more cynical if you were getting pay to be the Pinocchio of the 21st century.

            Reply
          6. itsfun March 12, 2015

            If those emails contain classified material, we should be concerned. Who knows who has seen them? If they contained any official business, they become the property of the government, not personal property. I haven’t seen or heard anyone talk about getting hair spray, of anything else like that. All the Benghazi era emails are missing. Do you believe she never sent a email during that period? You can keep changing the subject, but this won’t go away just because you want it to.

            Reply
          7. Dominick Vila March 12, 2015

            I don’t expect this to go away. In fact, I expect it to be the center piece of the GOP campaign strategy. BTW, I am as concerned as most people about this. Not because I believe Hillary broke any laws, other than WH and SD directives, or because using personal e-mail accounts and non-government servers is unprecedented, but because she has given the GOP the ammunition they needed to attack her relentlessly.
            I have no idea what she did when our consulate in Benghazi was attacked by terrorists. Probably the same thing Condoleeza Rice did when 11 U.S. diplomatic facilities were attached during W’s tenure.

            Reply
          8. itsfun March 13, 2015

            Yep; Just change the subject to someone else about something else.

            Reply
          9. Dominick Vila March 10, 2015

            I can only speak for myself and, yes, I want change. I would love to see a tax system that is fair, I would like a justice system that is fair, I would love to live in a society where the rights and opinions of all citizens are respected, I would love to see effective and enforceable regulation, I would love to see constructive changes made to the ACA to make it more cost-effective and efficient. But that does not mean we should forget what happened in the not too distant past.

            Reply
          10. itsfun March 11, 2015

            I agree with you 100% on what we all want. I believe we should learn from the past, but not beat it to death.

            Reply
        3. FireBaron March 10, 2015

          Dominick, I have been beating that drum since BEFORE Benghazi, and the conservative bloggers keep saying things like “collateral damage” and “unavoidable consequences of our actions” in reply. So a definite double standard exists between the 60+ lives lost in the 11 embassy/consulate attacks that occurred between 2002 and 2008 and the four lives lost in the one attack in the entirety of President Obama’s administration. Until they are able of recognizing their own blindness, they are still going to go after anyone or anything associated with the Clinton and Rodham families.

          Reply
          1. Eleanore Whitaker March 10, 2015

            How very appropriate that the GOP boys only know military terms used in war….collateral damage? That was their boy …Cheney. Unavoidable consequences of our actions? That would be the dipshit Bush.

            Reply
    2. mike March 10, 2015

      How she does today will determine her future as a presidential candidate. What the left must concern themselves with is how the Independents will vote. The majority walked away from Obama and could do the same against Hillary.
      You seem to forget the Trust Factor as to Obama is very low. His constant lying has cost him dearly with the American people.

      Reply
  2. Eleanore Whitaker March 10, 2015

    I’m a new Democrat (since 2004) prior to that? 33 years as a Republican. I left the GOP because I got fed up with their bully tactics to “force” others to do what they and only they want.

    I’m voting for Hillary and I am hoping she puts Elizabeth Warren in as her VP. That would be a double whammy slap in the face to the GOP.

    As for the GOP, their sole prayer is that Scott Walker will win. This only goes to show how out of touch the southern and midwestern politicians are.

    Who in the northeast would vote for a Governor of WI when WI has not a single thing in common with the most heavily populated states on the East and West coasts?

    This is how the GOP thinks: Give ’em a midwestern or southern white male middle aged, with some name distinction and we’ll buy him enough votes to make him president…come hell or high water.

    OH really? Is that why President Obama won hands down in 2 elections and Hillary is a shoo in?

    Reply
    1. itsfun March 10, 2015

      Are you saying states like Wisconsin, Minnesota , Michigan, Missouri don’t count and shouldn’t have a say in the national elections? Sure is lucky for the smaller states, we have the electoral college.

      Reply
      1. Eleanore Whitaker March 10, 2015

        No…I am saying WI, MN, MI and MO don’t count MORE than our states. They have a say in national elections…and EQUAL say. Not a GREATER say.

        We have an electoral college that voted GWB in by using his brother JEB’s influence in Florida. Is that the electoral advantage YOU advocate? Swinging an election the way the GOP wants it by using the electoral college to override popular vote?

        It is long past time for the electoral college to be reformed. When red states get more electoral votes for no real reason other than land mass or population, that’s not a reason for the electoral college to override popular vote.

        Reply
        1. itsfun March 10, 2015

          Getting rid of the electoral college would mean the smaller states would have no say in national elections. The largest states would elect the President. How much federal aid do you think the smaller states would get when the politicians know their bread is buttered by the big states.

          Reply
          1. Eleanore Whitaker March 10, 2015

            Which then would these “smaller” states be? The ones already costing the “bigger” states the most in federal taxes? Size does matter. But when you review which states today take the most of our federal tax revenues, it is always the same states: Alaska No. 1 at $1.87 return for every $1 they pay in federal taxes. TX? No. 2 at $1.72…Aren’t these the Biggest states in the Union? How about the smaller states like NJ? 62 cents in return for every dollar paid. NY? 64 cents….CT? 65 cents…Are these the smaller states to which you refer?

            Their bread isn’t “buttered” by the big states. Alaska, Texas, Wyoming, North Dakota, Montana and Oklahoma are all BIG states who share in the $14 billion their oil and fracking industries TAKE from the smaller states. For all the proof you’ll EVER need, go to the GAO website. You’ll find that these BIG states cause the BIG deficits by taking more than they pay in federal taxes.

            Reply
          2. itsfun March 10, 2015

            The electoral college number of votes is not decided by the physical size of the state, but by the population. States like New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, California have more votes than Alaska, Wyoming, the Dakotas.

            Reply
          3. Eleanore Whitaker March 10, 2015

            I see…so then NJ which is the most densely populated state per square mile should be a BIG state? That was the evidence of population size according to the last US Census.

            Why don’t you admit what you are too chicken livered to really say? That the redistricting and gerrymandering games the GOP has played since Tom DeLay lost his House seat because of it is the real determination of who is BIG in electoral votes?

            Reply
          4. itsfun March 10, 2015

            Its total population. That determines how many US Representatives your state has. Population per square mile or square inch or square foot has nothing to do with it. Both political parties have use redistricting and will continue to do so when they can.

            Reply
          5. Eleanore Whitaker March 10, 2015

            Keep trying…You might one day arrive at an explanation you can prove in a court of law. Since when are dead people counted in TX? FL? OK? Both political parties have redistricting but ONLY the GOP does it every year. Why?

            Reply
          6. itsfun March 10, 2015

            You have no clue about our electoral process. You come up with made up “facts”. You believe all Republicans are terrible people that want to kill poor people, hate kids, and anything bad you can make up. Now you say dead people vote in TX,FL,. How about Chicago? You say Jeb Bush influenced the electoral vote in FL. Don’t you know that each party has delegates that are sworn to vote in the electoral college. If a Democrat wins the popular vote the sworn Democrat delegates vote for the Democratic candidate, if the Republican wins the popular vote in the state then the sworn Republican delegates vote in the electoral college. You need a class in how our government works.

            Reply
          7. dpaano March 26, 2015

            Itsfun: Unfortunately, that’s not totally true….just because you’re a delegate doesn’t mean you HAVE to vote the way your state votes. There have been many times when delegates have voted for the opposite candidate. There’s no law that says they can’t,and I think there should be.

            Reply
          8. itsfun March 26, 2015

            Thats right. They do have to take a oath to vote for their party, but there is no law to enforce the oath.

            Reply
        2. itsfun March 10, 2015

          Getting rid of the electoral college would mean the smaller states would have no say in national elections. The largest states would elect the President. How much federal aid do you think the smaller states would get when the politicians know their bread is buttered by the big states.

          Reply
    2. mike March 10, 2015

      What a load of baloney!!
      Keep it up, I enjoy laughing at ridiculous comments like yours.

      Reply
      1. Eleanore Whitaker March 10, 2015

        The only baloney is your perverse ideas that you have ANY control over me or my state. Sorry Joy Boy…get your laughs from your own DogPatch state …Lil Abner is a hoot and you can gape and geegaw at Daisy Mae all day like all lazy When Johnny Comes Marching Home rebels do.

        Reply
        1. mike March 10, 2015

          You are still full of baloney, that won’t change.

          Reply
          1. Eleanore Whitaker March 10, 2015

            Sorry lazy butt…for a man (and here that’s a term I use loosely) with NO job, NO life, NO future and Nothing but a big mouth and NO brain, you would be the expert on baloney wouldn’t you?

            Reply
  3. itsfun March 10, 2015

    We need both parties to run someone that many people don’t automatically hate. I think this will happen with both Clinton and Bush. The new President will need support from both sides of the aisle. We are also going to need a foreign policy expert. The world has become a very dangerous place.

    Reply
  4. pmbalele March 10, 2015

    Hillary has my backing. As I have pointed before, I do not trust any of the GOP candidates. Here is what I have written:The present GOP line-up are either ugly, fat or without charisma as leaders. I would never vote for Chris- too fat; I would never vote for Jindal smart but-too ugly; I would never Herman Cain- he is a white-women underwear groper; I would never vote for Dr. Carson-the guy is smart but, like John McCain, does not brush his teeth; I would never vote for Rand Paul-the guy is too short; I would never vote for Santorum-the guy wants to be an American little pope; I would never vote for Romney; the guy is a Mormon wants polygamy in the WH; I would not vote for Sarah Palin-too violent and full of wrinkles; I would never vote for Scott Walker-is a high-school drop-out; squints his eyes; and wants Sharia law in this Country. Last year Walker wanted Wisconsin out of the Union. I just wondered how he could be the president of the Union when he will be a foreigner. I would never vote for Ted Cruz-he is Cuban-Canadian and therefore not eligible for the WH job; I would never vote for Giuliani, the guy is so ugly. We ran out piggies for GOP candidates before the 2016 election. As an alternative let us all vote for Hillary or Biden in 2016 as candidates. In fact FoxNews is already campaigning for Hillary.

    Reply
  5. terry b March 10, 2015

    As usual, the GOP does not have any impressive candidate(s). The reason for that seems to be rather obvious. If not a follower of the right wing beliefs that permeate the party a good candidate is denied any chance of winning the nomination. Clinton can simply be herself and not have to swing to the left to appeal to them. They have no choice but to back Clinton as to the simple fact is that she cares about everyone not just certain factions of the democrat party. I like Elizabeth Warrant the best but she does not have the experience or name recognition that Clinton does have. The GOP will only nominate someone who is too far to the right for American’s to accept as their leader. Should one of their ilk win the presidency then the nation will be catapulted into a true nightmare. Should that ever happen Canada would look like a good place to move to. Hopefully the ignorant will not triumph over the intelligent and allow such a horrible thing to happen to our country!

    Reply
  6. Linda March 10, 2015

    Why is the media trying to shove Hillary Clinton down our throats ? We don’t need to keep recycling Democrats and Republicans ,that will just keep the same status quo we want to be rid of ? Bernie Sanders is our best bet to move the party left where it once was before it became right of center .

    Reply
    1. JPHALL March 10, 2015

      because it is a story someone wants to hear. It sells.

      Reply
  7. Wolfeman March 11, 2015

    Unlike the science fiction of man-made global-warming, legitimate science recognizes the serious limitations of the scientific method.

    Reply
  8. Daniel Jones March 12, 2015

    The thing about Mrs. Clinton representing the past is this–HER part of the past *worked* and the Bush League policy does not.

    Reply
  9. dpaano March 26, 2015

    With all the bozos that the GOP has in the running….the Democrats could run Rin Tin Tin against them and win by a landslide!!!

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.