Posted on 08/04/2015 7:35:07 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Democrats like to argue that demographics are destiny. If so, they’re headed for disaster, as long as Hillary Clinton remains the front-runner for the nomination. A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows her favorability ratings shrinking, most significantly among two demographics considered key to Democratic turnout. The WSJ report focuses on one particular subgroup:
Many Democrats have long hoped that Hillary Clinton might expand Barack Obama‘s electoral coalition by drawing in more white women voters.
A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll suggests she may have a tough time pulling it off. Mrs. Clinton is losing ground with white women and many other important slices of the electorate, the poll shows, amid a spate of reports about her email practices, speaking fees and foreigndonations to the Clinton Foundation.
In June, 44% of white women had a favorable view of Mrs. Clinton, compared to 43% who didn’t. In July, those numbers moved in the wrong direction for Mrs. Clinton: Only 34% of white women saw her in a positive light, compared to 53% who had a negative impression of her, the poll found.
That’s a problem, but one that Democrats have had in the past, too. As Peter Nicholas points out, Mitt Romney won that subgroup by 14 points in 2012. The scope of the problem is what should worry Democrats, especially since one of the main premises of the Hillary Clinton campaign is the opportunity for women to make history by electing the first woman President. Either that message isn’t as compelling as Democrats thought, or Hillary herself isn’t.
That’s not the big story, though — this graph is:
Look at the slide in these key demos within the Democratic coalition. In just one month, Hillary has lost nearly 10 points among all women, and is now underwater. Her negatives have jumped significantly among independents to a majority (27/52), and close to a plurality among younger voters. In all three cases, the number of neutrals declined at the same time, which means less opportunity to correct the trend. Even among black voters, a constituency that Democrats must have both engaged and enthusiastic in order to win, a significant drop in favorability has taken place. She went from 81/3 to 66/15 in thirty days.
It’s not just the suburban-mom vote. It’s across the board in almost every demo that matters. And this collapse is happening fast, suggesting once again that the more people see Hillary Clinton, the less they like her.
Nichols offers Democrats one lifeline at the end:
If Mrs. Clinton wants some comfort in the latest poll numbers, she can look to history. Back in 1992, a Democratic candidate named Bill Clinton also grappled with a poor negative image. In the summer before the presidential election that year, only 30% had a positive view of Mr. Clinton; 38% saw him in a negative light.
He went on to become the nation’s 42nd president.
Yeah, but. In 1992, people hardly knew Bill Clinton, and the exposure of his infidelity did some damage. At 30/38, though, Bill had plenty of upside left and a lot of political talent with which to woo the neutrals and the soft opposition, and his peccadilloes were seen as personal. Hillary Clinton has had 23 years in the spotlight since that time, and the scandals in which she’s mired are related to public corruption, not private relationships. Even if there were people who don’t know Hillary well enough to be persuaded, she clearly lacks the natural political talent that Bill has, or her favorables wouldn’t be collapsing, especially among otherwise loyal Democratic constituencies.
Harpy-phobes
I wonder if the bar graph used a log scale, would it be more helpful? /serious question
HRC has a serious problem as a candidate. The more of her people see or hear, the less they like her. She seems to be trying to stay under the radar with her campaign. I don’t know how they think they can continue to do this. Eventually, she will have to speak to the populace that she wants to “rule”.
Mrs. Clinton has always been a cause of shrinkage.
I’m melting, melting, melting, what a world, what a world...
Another day and she can’t get her broom lit.
I don’t know about all of you out there, but my best idea for a TV series is a full 23 episode extravaganza about the “Taking of Hillary Clinton”.
Imagine the lead ups of Benghazi, The Clinton Family Foundation Corruption. The manipulation, the lying, the extortion, the threats and who knows what all evil that could be shown over the series.
In the end times, a new administration and a new Attorney General just say “let’s just end this.”
They issue an arrest warrant and proceed to take her at her Chapawhatever Castle. You could make a whole episode about the submission of the guard (those poor SS goons who have to protect her) and the final takedown and perp walk. It would be explosive. Much drama - much outrage.
The article’s ‘yeah but’ about Bill’s similar numbers in 92 is worthless. Bill won with only 42% of the vote. Ross Perot gave him the presidency. If Hillary gets the same 42%, she will lose in the biggest landslide since since McGovern. Bill never got 50% of the vote, even in reelection. It is a media myth that he was a popular president.
One of the pundits said "she wants here campaign to be a silent movie."
In the past, in the mindset of the Left, they could do no wrong. The Clinton Scandals, FAR worse than those of any other U.S. President--and notably Richard Nixon--were covered up by a corrupt Pretorian Press, the Democrat Party, and other corrupt and dishonest supporters.
Now the Clintons are suddenly personal non grata. Nothing about them has changed. Nothing is new.
Somebody BIG wants them out of the way.
Who?
Why?
What's going on?
I’m melting, melting, melting, what a world, what a world...
Reminds me that recently, somebody put up the picture of the scene in the Wizard of Oz where the witch is melting. But the face of Hillary was superimposed on the Wicked Witch of the West.
Hillary is a bizarre candidate. She has a history of losing support the more she campaigns for office. She becomes less popular the more people see of her.
And this was true even before the email investigations and the suspicions of what’s going on with money at the Clinton foundation.
The more we know you..the less we like you....
I see what you did there.
Not to be too graphic or improper, but some snarky people have suggested that this helps explains Bill Clinton seeking out female “companionship” outside his marriage..
Hillary has lost her Gravitas. Being a wife of a President is not considered Leadership. We are not 1950’s’ Argentina. BTW, do you notice any leadership type bearing? I don’t, she is also very boring when you come to think about it. The only problem is the brains of mush are lockstep for her regardless, so long as she has a “D”. She is dangerous only because if elected, she’s going to appoint all her friends to positions. I don’t think either Trump or Cruz would, but the other 14 are so politically connected, we are going to end up getting more of the same DC politics as usual.
When Bill said “I did not have sex with that woman,” he meant Hillary.
Bill Clinton was a natural politician. He had a certain charisma, enjoyed the give and take of politics, giving speeches, meeting people, going to debates, going on TV interview shows, etc.
Hillary has no good skills in any of these areas.
The political skills of Bill never rubbed off on Hillary. As much as she has dreamed of being the first woman president, she just doesn’t have the political skills. If she wins election it will be in spite of all of this, not because of her political gifts.
She’s melting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.