I liked the comment I left on Doug Mataconis’s post on the recent decline in Hillary Clinton’s favorability rating enough that I think I’ll resurrect it and expand on it a bit here.
I’m actually surprised at this. She has 100% name recognition (within the margin of error). That means that some people are changing their minds about her. Who?
There are many possibilities as to what might happen. She might already have seen her highest favorable rating. She could bounce back. Her favorability rating could drift ever lower right now through election day. She could push back through her previous high favorability rating. I doubt it but anything could happen. Which of those is the most likely? BTSOM.
If I had to put money on it, I think I would bet that her highest favorability rating is already behind her and that it will go somewhat lower over time. However, don’t construe that as her being in free fall. I think she pretty clearly has a cadre of supporters who will buoy her favorability rating come what may, regardless of revelations, scandals, or self-mutilation. I’d estimate that her favorability rating will never go below right around 40%.
Whether that’s enough to whisk her into a White House coronation or not is beyond me. It depends on distribution. One thing is for sure: she can’t be elected president just by taking California, New York, and Massachusetts.
She had worse poll numbers seven years ago, with 100% name recognition, so you might as well ask what changed since then? Has she returned to a prior state?
It looks to me like she became favorably viewed as Secretary of State, where she held an elder stateswoman role that was largely above partisan politics. She is not as favorably viewed as a politician.
And despite some of the theories in that thread, the more liberal the responder, the more favorably they view Hillary.
Net Unfavorability:
Liberal Democrats = 12%
Moderate/Conservative Democrats = 23%
Independents = 55%
Republicans = 80%
Conservative Republicans= 88%
Your comment was a piker, Dave. Only two thumbs up, and one of those was mine.
You should have noted her brilliance, victimization by the vast right wing conspiracy and the fact that Republicans are mysogonist, stupid, homophobic racists……..and you would have cleared at least 15.
Those thumbs are the gold standard arbiters, you know.
OT
Courtesy of a Mark Zandi and ZH.
“I think the economy is doing much better than the data shows and when it is all revised will show strong growth.”
Well there you go. One is left only to ask “single, double or triple adjusted?”
Years ago I read a great article on smoothing data. I don’t remember the precise language but it described three different approaches: modifying the data to approximate reality, modifying reality to approximate the data, and neither modifying the data nor the reality but making the data look better, e.g. like blurring the focus when taking a photo of an elderly woman.
Based on your quote it sounds like Mr. Zandi is desperate enough for the data to resemble reality more closely that he’s mentally re-ordered reality to do so.
From Zero Hedge: The Global Economy As Seen From “The Man In The Moon” (The link to part 1 is at the beginning.) I guess he will be getting a Nobel Prize also. (I differ with him on several points, but we are in the same ballpark.)
I really thought she had so many obvious weaknesses that someone would knock her out of the race fairly early. Not looking good at this point. ITOH the GOP candidates are looking worse than I hoped. Aside from Paul it looks as though maximum hawkishness is the norm. Gonna be a sucky election, again.
Steve
(Still waiting for that massive inflation ZH has been predicting for 6 years.)
As I’ve said before the folks at ZeroHedge are gold bugs so everything you see there should be taken accordingly.
I would tell the story of the world economy a bit differently. The United States, the other developed countries, and a lot of the undeveloped ones are all participants in a global economy and politicians and central bankers in the various countries do not fully appreciate that yet. Main implication: even the best most knowledgeable policy in the United States isn’t enough to get the global economy off its knees. And, of course, we don’t have the best most knowledgeable policy. Several of the major players (China, Germany, and Japan) are completely committed to the idea that this economy is zero sum and until they abandon that view as long as we remain a participant in the global economy, we’re screwed.
Update to a comment
Note that of the world’s four largest economies, one is committed to exports to an absurd degree (Germany), another derives most of its economic growth from exports (China), while the third has a healthier balance but has had phlegmatic growth for decades (Japan). Of those three we defeated two in war and the other is committed to a war with us.
Poll today showing George W. Bush more popular than Obama. My prediction is that if George W. became more involved in politics, his favorability numbers would drop below 50%.
Yes, maintaining a low profile has been a winning strategy for the former president. I think it would be a better strategy for sitting presidents, too, but that’s another story.
That means that some people are changing their minds about her. Who?
Perhaps the young and youngish people that don’t really remember the Clinton years. As PD pointed out, she became more favorably viewed when seen as above the fray, and I imagine that would have really impacted those under 30. Now that she’s running again, all the old Clinton crap is coming to light again, and that’s letting the younger folks see how they operated. (I’m guessing about half the younger folks are even more aware of how much BS is involved in her email server story than older folks.)
You should have noted her brilliance, victimization by the vast right wing conspiracy and the fact that Republicans are mysogonist, stupid, homophobic racists……..and you would have cleared at least 15.
You left out transphobic, Drew. That’s all the rage these days now that 65 year-old men are getting favorable reviews for their efforts to look like 1940s pin-ups.
Most of the time I disagree with Steve’s posts. However, his view of the candidate field in the upcoming general election is disappointing — so far. As for Hillary Clinton, I see her as a disgrace, especially to women, as her words and actions are far more self-serving than serving the public good as a capable, honest woman attempting to break the glass ceiling of becoming the 1st female president.
Are you willing to apply the same standard to Obama’s campaign and subsequent claims and promises, steve? If I recall he set his own standard on the economy which would have resulted in a one term presidency. Have the seas stopped rising and the earth started healing? Maybe next week. At least every metric you can think of on the economy is sailing – growth, wages, debt capacity, full time employment,health care costs and insurance coverage and costs………. And of course race relations are sparkling. Or not.
Looking at PD’s posted stats – 55% unfavorability among independents could be a really bad sign. Of course all that depends on how bad the GoP guy/girl is.
@Andy, if I recall correctly, it’s also 51% unfavorability rating among registered voters in that poll.
Dave had several posts on Hillary’s divisive polling numbers eight years ago; he might be able to dial it in and republish some of these.
Drew- Sure, but I won’t use conservative talking points since no one on the left made those claims. I just wanted someone who would kick most of the neocons out of govt and keep us from invading another country resulting in thousands of our soldiers dead and trillions of dollars lost of Arno good reason. I also hoped he wouldn’t be a total sell out to the finance sector. I am pretty disappointed in that area.
Steve
I feel confident in predicting that the choice in November 2016 will be between a neo-conservative and a liberal interventionist (the neo-cons’ cousins) or between a “national greatness conservative” and a liberal interventionist.
Steve,
Unfortunately for you and me and everyone, pretty much any President that will get elected will be an interventionist and beholden to the financial sector.