Megan McArdle’s post at Bloomberg on Hillary Clinton’s favorability rating has the provocative title “Clinton Support Has Nowhere to Go But Down”. I think that’s nonsense and to back up my belief I would happily bet a shiny new dime that at some point between now and November 2016 Hillary Clinton’s favorability rating as measured by the Washington Post/ABC News poll will be above the 45% that has everybody in such a twitter.
Quite the opposite of the “nowhere to go” view, I think that Sec. Clinton’s favorability and unfavorability ratings have both floors and ceilings. I would also happily bet a shiny new dime that at no time between now and November 2016 will Hillary Clinton’s favorability rating go over 60% or under 35%. If you gave me odds, I might be willing to tighten those margins a bit (but just a bit).
I assume that the title for that post was dreamed up by some unthinking editor because it really doesn’t match the post very well so I probably don’t have anybody to bet with. Nonetheless I wanted to put my marker down.
I found a slightly older set of polls from Gallup on Hillary, which suggest her losses have been from Republicans:
Unfavorability (3/3/15 to 5/8/15):
All Adults: 39% to 46%
Republicans: 75% to 88%
Independents: 40% to 43%
Democrats: 10% to 13%
Good news is that the Republicans weren’t going to vote for her anyway. The bad news is that her overall unfavorables aren’t likely to reverse much anyway.
Looking at the historical trends report available from my link, Hillary’s favorable/unfavorable/no opinion results are almost exactly the same at this point in the election cycle eight years ago:
5/8/15: 50/46/4
5/5/07: 50/47/3
Hillary’s favorable/unfavorable/no opinion results are almost exactly the same at this point in the election cycle eight years ago:
You mean back when she was the unstoppable front-runner?
Yes, back before the first “Black” President was called-out as a racist. Yes, I’m talking about Bill Clinton. His numbers look eerily similar as well:
5/8/15: 59/38/2
3/24/07: 60/38/2
He’s not being polled as much, but his trajectory was down 10 points over the next year, and then it rose 20 points after the election was over.
What’s keeping Hillary Clinton afloat, in only mildly dipping numbers, is simply her party affiliation. Were the letter after her name an “R” rather than a “D” she would be hooted off the public stage, first by the opposing dems who relish harsh character assassination, then the liberally oriented media, and finally the republican party itself who has little tolerance for anyone breeching or staining their political brand. However, with all the greed, lies, obfuscation, nuanced quid pro quo international deals, small percentage of funds (9%) actually going to Clinton’s global charity, etc., Hillary and Bill have retained a front row seat on the national stage, as a power couple seemingly immune from accountability or correction when it’s related to their political hubris, personal scruples, conflict of interest charges and ties to corruption. Instead Hillary continues to waltz her way to the democratic nomination for POTUS, unobstructed by hard, probing questions as she attempts to positively choreograph a campaign meant to artificially cajole people into voting for the “first woman president”
Basically, identity politics is alive and well, once again on the front burner of a general election, and with a more than good chance of trumping other serious candidacies who are vying for a job effecting us all.
” Were the letter after her name an “R†rather than a “D†she would be hooted off the public stage”
This from the people who gave us Sarah Palin. Think before writing. Hillary will get positive ratings from Dems. Palin (as well as Bachmann, Trump, Cain and i am sure I am forgetting a few other clowns) got positive ratings from Republicans.
“small percentage of funds (9%) actually going to Clinton’s global charity”
This has been explained several times, but with all of the lies, obfuscations, blah, blah from the right, I guess you don’t know. The Clinton Foundation hires a lot of its own workers. So, of the amount of money it collects, about 80% goes to charitable work.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/29/rush-limbaugh/rush-limbaugh-says-clinton-foundation-spends-just-/
Steve
So, Steve, the perfect disinfectant to buffer Hillary Clinton’s plethora of “issues” is to drag out Sarah Palin? Were you ever aware how many republicans and independents did not vote for the McCain/Palin ticket because they were unimpressed with her credentials and background?
As for the true percentages derived from the Clinton’s charity, that one politifact post responding to Limbaugh’s assertion, puts all such claims to rest? Who really knows what goes on in the convoluted, confusing and very secret world of the Clinton couple! However, I would hazard to say Limbaugh has little to do with it, other than being a strident voice box. Rather, questions about this global charity, and the financial gains the Clintons have personally derived from it, have arisen via researched documentation and the efforts of some curious, investigative media sources.
jan- Nope. Your claim was that Hillary gets a pass only because she is a D. I pointed out that Palin got a pass just because she was an R. Some Republicans did not approve of her, but most did, the same as with Hillary. And Trump, Bachmann and Cain were alluding candidates at one time. All Rs and all certifiably whacko.
As to the Clinton charity i just chose one out of many documenting how it spends its money. You choose, for whatever reason,to believe the lies using the 15% number.
Steve
The notion that “favorability” has something to do with voting is probably in doubt for 2016.
Point 1: Hilary is a woman, and large numbers of people will feel that God Himself requires them to vote against her, no matter how much they appreciate her or the policies she expounds. We can’t yet guess how many, but we all know in advance that such people exist, just as we know that some people will not vote for candidates with black skin, even if it’s not polite to say so.
Point 2: Hilary is a woman, and large numbers of people, many but not all of them women, are going to feel strongly that it’s simply basic fairness to vote for a woman President after 230 years or so of male Presidents. Likely some number of people will argue that a basic appearance of competence on her part is all that’s necessary — after all, some of the males in the Presidential apple barrel haven’t been all that wonderful, Y-chromosome or not. Again, we can’t guess the number of such voters.
Point 3: Democrats have not fared well across the nation in recent elections, so they’re screwed to the wall if Hillary doesn’t win. They’ll have fewer governors than they do today, fewer senators, fewer representatives, perhaps even fewer friendly bloggers on the Inner Tubes. This will not bode well for their future. Republicans, on the other hand, face eradication if Hillary does win, especially if she wins two terms, and doubly so if census demographics cause Red States to lose electoral votes to Blue States after 2020. The selection of Supreme Court Justices who might be sympathetic to various franchise-limiting tactics that Republicans might pursue is going to be a big big thing in the next 6 years. For both sides, 2016 will look like a life-or-death matter.
So, my bet is that we’re looking at a very bitter, very expensive, very dishonest election campaign, and I don’t think conventional polling is going to give any useful info until the votes are actually counted.
I don’t think it will affect how they vote. I think it will affect whether they vote.
I don’t think it’s that dire for either party. What I think is likely to happen in either event is a continuation of the trend that has been ongoing for some time: both parties increasingly are regional parties.