As Jim Geraghty put it this morning, "Americans are starting to remember why they never liked Hillary Clinton":
Hillary Rodham Clinton’s standing is falling among Democrats, and voters view her as less decisive and inspiring than when she launched her presidential campaign just three months ago, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll.
The survey offers a series of warning signs for the leading Democrat candidate. Most troubling, perhaps, for her prospects are questions about her compassion for average Americans, a quality that fueled Barack Obama’s two White House victories.
Just 39% of all Americans have a favorable view of [Mrs.] Clinton, compared to nearly half who say they have a negative opinion of her. That’s an eight-point increase in her unfavorable rating from an AP-GfK poll conducted at the end of April.
The drop in [Mrs.] Clinton’s numbers extends into the Democrat Party. Seven in ten Democrats gave [Mrs.] Clinton positive marks, an eleven-point drop from the April survey. Nearly a quarter of Democrats now say they see [Mrs.] Clinton in an unfavorable light.
Which is meaningless, as unlike Tea Partiers, Dems are not stupid enough to commit electoral suicide by "staying home" on Election Day. They may have to plug up their noses with bedsheets to keep from vomiting all over the polling places, but they'll show up for her. Assuming she ever attains the Democrat nomination, of course.
What her cratering approval numbers highlight (and since the poll was of "adults," and not registered or likely voters, these numbers overstate her public approval as it is) is her huge unpopularity with "independents"/low-information voters (since unified GOP opposition is a given). A terrible harbinger for next year's general campaign, and a reinforcement of what I've always said about Hillary Clinton being the diametric opposite personality type from her husband - arrogant, abrasive, imperious, stiff, wooden, a charisma sinkhole, and a worse actor than David Hasselhoff - as well as being the opposite skin color from her ex-boss.
The polling freefall goes right across the board:
Decisive: 47/50 (56/42 in April)
Compassionate: 40/58 (no previous rating)
Honest: 31/66 (37/61 in April)
Inspiring: 37/61 (44/53 in April)
Likable: 41/58 (44/54 in April)
Competent: 48/49 (no previous rating)
Consider also that with her 39/52 overall favorables with only 9% undecided, her universal name recognition now becomes an anchor around her jowly neck because rather than being able to make up ground by duping "undecideds" with a crock of propaganda BS, she has to actually and actively change the minds of a whole lotta people. But given that the more visible she is and the more she talks, the more Americans are alienated and turned off....well, you can see her basic conundrum. Second look at a front porch campaign?
No, gentlebeings, Hillary's will not, CANNOT be the "uplifting, inspiring" campaign of Mr. Bill and Red Barry, full of "aw, shucks" geniality and faux soaring rhetoric. Hers of necessity will be a 100% negative, scorched earth, nuclear political war against the GOP designed to so nauseate the electorate that turnout will be driven as low as humanly possible in order to enable base turnout to eke her out a narrow plurality victory. Which is why Donald Trump will be playing the Ross Perot "spoiler" role.
It should be pointed out, however, that another survey this week in six "battleground" States shows the Empress losing handily - to a "generic Republican":
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would lose to a generic Republican presidential candidate in six battleground states if the election were held today, a new poll has found.
The poll, commissioned by the conservative super PAC American Crossroads, was conducted by Vox Populi from July 7th-8th of 1,670 registered voters. It found that in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, Ohio and Virginia, a Republican candidate would win with 50% of the vote while [Mrs.] Clinton would draw 42%.
The same survey in May found that in a matchup with a Republican, [Mrs.] Clinton would lose by a ten-point margin at 41% compared to 51%.
Flip those six States, all twice carried by Barack Obama, against Hillary with every other State outcome the same, and she goes down, 287 Electoral Votes to 251 (the National Popular Vote InterState Compact notwithstanding, of course).
The problem? This metric is just another version of, "We don't like Hillary Clinton"; it does NOT say that voters can't be persuaded by her reputed $2.5 billion warchest to dislike her eventual GOP opponent even more. Which is another way of saying that candidates don't run against "generic" opponents, but against actual ones, actual human beings whom the low-information majority can be bamboozled into hating with a fiery passion.
And this gets me back to the row I've been having with some Tea Partiers over the Donald Trump deception: Anger and being a bombastic loudmouth may make for great radio (I have a blast doing so six days a week), but not winning elections for Republicans. The path to electoral victory is wide for Democrats and narrow as a tightrope for us. This is why our guys and gals have to be smart; not change our positions and principles and ideology and philosophy, but in how we present them to low-information voters who've had their pea brains poisoned against what we believe and against us. And also in not saying stupid things, a la Christine O'Donnell in 2010 (Delaware Senate race that elected Democrat and Lenin lookalike Chris Coons) and Todd Aiken and Richard Mourdock in 2012 (Missouri and Indiana Senate races that elected Democrats Claire McCaskill and Joe Donnelly), all three seats low-hanging fruit for the GOP that were kicked away by moronic Pacyderms more concerned with playing to the red-meat choir through anger and easily caricatured bombast than actually doing what it took to win. Contrast those horrible examples with the nine-seat Senate pickup the GOP made last fall, propelled by outstanding, professional candidates who didn't compromise their principles but successfully persuaded voters through upbeat, sunny optimism and skilled, articulate arguments in the greatest Ronald Reagan tradition.
Which brings me to the only two relevant Republicans' national approval numbers in this latest Associated Press-GfK poll:
Jeb Bush: 31/46 with 23% undecided
Scott Walker: 17/22 with a whopping 61% undecided.
Put another way, Mrs. Clinton's "favorable" ceiling is 48%, Bush III's is 54%, and Governor Walker's is 78%.
Picture how easy - effortless, even - it would be for the Ugly Dutchess to absolutely vaporize Jeb with months of nuclear carpeting-bombing of attack ads at the same time that the GOP base most definitely would not "have his back". Then picture this scenario with the sunny, optimistic, can-do, everyman Scott Walker, a huge gust of fresh air after a quarter century of Democrat tyranny and collaborating House Bush hegemony, vastly more decisive, compassionate, honest, inspiring, likable, and confident than any Democrat, much less Hillary Clinton, will ever be, and having survived three such atomic political wars over the past four and a half years in a powder "blue" State.
How does Walker 50%, Rodham 41%, Trump 9% sound?
I'd wager Walk would even get in a, "Well, there you go again" in any debate that Her Nib was foolish enough to agree to.
Bottom line: With Hillary as the Democrat nominee, the window of opportunity for a conservative comeback and constitutional resurrection will be wide open. But we've got to send the right person through it, or else La Clinton Nostra will close it on us like a guillotine.
No comments:
Post a Comment