Posted on 08/13/2006 6:07:12 AM PDT by InfantryMarine
Hatin’ on Hillary: N.H. *** Dems *** lambaste Clinton
Brett Arends -Boston Herald
MANCHESTER, N.H. - Dick Bennett has been polling New Hampshire voters for 30 years. And he’s never seen anything like it.
“Lying b**** . . . shrew . . . Machiavellian . . . evil, power-mad witch . . . the ultimate self-serving politician.”
No prizes for guessing which presidential front-runner drew these remarks in focus groups.
But these weren’t Republicans talking about Hillary Clinton. They weren’t even independents.
These were ordinary, grass-roots Democrats. People who identified themselves as “likely” voters in the pivotal state’s Democratic primary. And, behind closed doors, this is what nearly half of them are saying.
“I was amazed,” says Bennett. “I thought there might be some negatives, but I didn’t know it would be as strong as this. It’s stunning, the similarities between the Republicans and the Democrats, the comments they have about her.”
Bennett runs American Research Group Inc., a highly regarded, independent polling company based in Manchester, N.H. He’s been conducting voter surveys there since 1976. The polls are financed by subscribers and corporate sponsors.
He has so far recruited 410 likely voters in the 2008 Democratic primary, and sat down with them privately in small groups to find out what they really think about the candidates and the issues.
His conclusion? “Forty-five percent of the Democrats are just as negative about her as Republicans are. More Republicans dislike her, but the Democrats dislike her in the same way.”
Hillary’s growing brain trust in the party’s upper reaches already knows she has high “negatives” among ordinary Democrats. They think she can win those voters over with the right strategy and message.
But they should get out of D.C., New York and L.A. more often, and visit grassroots members.
Because we’re not talking about “soft” negatives like, say, “out of touch” or “arrogant.”
We’re talking: “Criminal . . . megalomaniac . . . fraud . . . dangerous . . . devil incarnate . . . satanic . . . power freak.”
Satanic.
And: “Political wh***.”
(Note: I don’t usually like reporting such personal remarks, but in this case you can hardly understand the situation without them. I have no strong personal feelings about the senator.)
There are caveats. Any survey can be inaccurate or misleading. And 55 percent of ARG’s sample was either neutral or positive about Sen. Clinton. Thirty-two percent currently say they plan to vote for her in the primary.
But Bennett says he’s never before seen so many N.H. voters show so much hatred toward a member of their own party. He’s never even seen anything close.
He believes top national Democrats are missing this grassroots intensity. Instead, he suspects, they are blinded by poll numbers, which give Hillary a big early lead based on her name recognition.
Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, agrees.
“There is far more anti-Hillary sentiment in the Democratic Party than the pollsters understand,” he says. In the race for the nomination, “she is ripe for plucking,” he says.
Sen. Clinton’s team could not be reached for comment.
New Hampshire is small, but it’s a bellwether state with clout.
Its primary probably holds the key to the Democratic nomination. And New Hampshire, alone, swung from Bush to Kerry in ’04.
It’s hard to see any Democrat winning the White House without carrying the state in the presidential election. And it’s hard, right now, to see Hillary carrying the state.
Brett Arends
MANCHESTER, N.H. - Dick Bennett has been polling New Hampshire voters for 30 years. And he’s never seen anything like it.
“Lying b**** . . . shrew . . . Machiavellian . . . evil, power-mad witch . . . the ultimate self-serving politician.”
No prizes for guessing which presidential front-runner drew these remarks in focus groups.
But these weren’t Republicans talking about Hillary Clinton. They weren’t even independents.
These were ordinary, grass-roots Democrats. People who identified themselves as “likely” voters in the pivotal state’s Democratic primary. And, behind closed doors, this is what nearly half of them are saying.
“I was amazed,” says Bennett. “I thought there might be some negatives, but I didn’t know it would be as strong as this. It’s stunning, the similarities between the Republicans and the Democrats, the comments they have about her.”
Bennett runs American Research Group Inc., a highly regarded, independent polling company based in Manchester, N.H. He’s been conducting voter surveys there since 1976. The polls are financed by subscribers and corporate sponsors.
He has so far recruited 410 likely voters in the 2008 Democratic primary, and sat down with them privately in small groups to find out what they really think about the candidates and the issues.
His conclusion? “Forty-five percent of the Democrats are just as negative about her as Republicans are. More Republicans dislike her, but the Democrats dislike her in the same way.”
Hillary’s growing brain trust in the party’s upper reaches already knows she has high “negatives” among ordinary Democrats. They think she can win those voters over with the right strategy and message.
But they should get out of D.C., New York and L.A. more often, and visit grassroots members.
Because we’re not talking about “soft” negatives like, say, “out of touch” or “arrogant.”
We’re talking: “Criminal . . . megalomaniac . . . fraud . . . dangerous . . . devil incarnate . . . satanic . . . power freak.”
Satanic.
And: “Political wh***.”
(Note: I don’t usually like reporting such personal remarks, but in this case you can hardly understand the situation without them. I have no strong personal feelings about the senator.)
There are caveats. Any survey can be inaccurate or misleading. And 55 percent of ARG’s sample was either neutral or positive about Sen. Clinton. Thirty-two percent currently say they plan to vote for her in the primary.
But Bennett says he’s never before seen so many N.H. voters show so much hatred toward a member of their own party. He’s never even seen anything close.
He believes top national Democrats are missing this grassroots intensity. Instead, he suspects, they are blinded by poll numbers, which give Hillary a big early lead based on her name recognition.
Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, agrees.
“There is far more anti-Hillary sentiment in the Democratic Party than the pollsters understand,” he says. In the race for the nomination, “she is ripe for plucking,” he says.
Sen. Clinton’s team could not be reached for comment.
New Hampshire is small, but it’s a bellwether state with clout.
Its primary probably holds the key to the Democratic nomination. And New Hampshire, alone, swung from Bush to Kerry in ’04.
It’s hard to see any Democrat winning the White House without carrying the state in the presidential election. And it’s hard, right now, to see Hillary carrying the state.
Link?
If Hillary is elected in 08, will she put her wife in charge of health care???
and they say there is no good news.........
conclusion: the attempted take over of New Hampshire by Massachusetts has failed.
This article makes a delicious breakfast. Thanks!
No, that's the point of the article. The hatred is so intense, these Dems are NOT likely to vote for her.
Nothing like a little good news on a Sunday morning.
"We’re talking: “Criminal . . . megalomaniac . . . fraud . . . dangerous . . . devil incarnate . . . satanic . . . power freak.”
Satanic.
And: “Political wh***.”"
Reality!
"Hillary’s growing brain trust in the party’s upper reaches already knows she has high “negatives” among ordinary Democrats. They think she can win those voters over with the right strategy and message."
UNreality : )
I have been saying for 2 years that the visceral hatred for Hillary goes to the bone. She cannot win.
The Hildabeast will not get elected because of rural New Hampshire voters . It will be the inner city Kool-aid drinking social program misfits it always is .
(Go Israel, Go! Slap 'Em Down Hezbullies.)
I agree something along those lines will happen. The majority of Dems will vote for anyone over a Republican. It is possible that some will simply stay home or vote green or whatever leftist third party we have in 08.
I see it more this way. The Dems cannot win only with a majority of Dems voting for their candidate. They must have extremely heavy turnout along with a sizeable chunk of the wishy washy "moderates" that vacillate between parties. And this needs to be coupled with a less than massive Republican turnout.
Hillary does not have a good shot at the "moderates". The real unknown is whether the Republicans can turn out the vote as they have done in the last few elections. Baring putting out a complete loser candidate, the election will be the Republican's to lose. How comforting is that given the history of the party's skill at turning victory into defeat?
Oh, and one other thing to consider. Without the swiftboat vets participation, Kerry could well have won. The RNC and the Bush campaign did not go after Kerry at all on these huge weaknesses of his. 08 will be VERY ugly, especially if Hillary is the Dem nominee. She will be the press's darling and not be called to task on anything she says. So, the last big variable is, will the Republican candidate's campaign have the backbone to call her on her lies? Or will they suffer them because of fear of the press?
This could set up a terribly bloody and divisive DemonRAT convention in '08.
Won't that be just terrible?
Good point. It's way too early to be dancing on the political grave of the hillary creature. All she has to do is get that hatred down to mere dislike. Then she can play the usual 'rat vicitm crap, and then all she needs is for the 'rats in the trenches to dislike her less than they dislike the GOP candidate, whoever that is. And we cannot count on the Republican dipwads to knock her down and step on her throat, which is what will be required.
OK, here we go with the which Democrat candidate will die of Arkancide before the national and on what date will the party unify behind Hillary?
My bet is John Edwards and October 23. This way there will no time to engage her in a debate.
Good point! We should start a Ghoul Pool.
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.