...rule of thumb?
How about index finger???
Posted on 09/03/2006 11:32:38 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
by Mark Finkelstein
September 3, 2006 - 14:13
The general rule of thumb among political consultants is that a disapproval rating of 40% spells a candidate's near-certain defeat. Virtually no one who disapproves of a candidate will vote for him, while approving of someone is no guarantee of a vote.
Hillary Clinton's disapproval rating of 44% in a recent Time magazine poll thus bodes very ill for her presidential prospects. Yet the Sunday Times of London has managed to put a rosy gloss on what would have most politicians looking for another line of work. Says the Times of the poll results:
"Only 44% viewed her negatively, figures that President George W Bush can only dream of at the moment."
Maybe so. There's just one little problem. Hillary won't be running against W. Her opponent will be someone who, at least for now, surely has negatives much lower than Hilary's 44%.
The Times sunny-side up take came in the course of an article passing along alleged speculation from "some of her closest [but unnamed] advisers" that Hillary might not run for president in favor of taking over from Harry Reid as Senate minority/majority leader.
A "leading Democratic party insider" is quoted as claiming: "I would not be surprised if she were to decide that the best contribution she can make to her country is to forget about being president and become a consensus-maker in the Senate."
Hillary, the most divisive woman in America, a consensus builder? Please.
I'm with another "close friend," quoted as saying “there is no way she won’t run for president.” If advisers are floating the notion Hillary won't run, I'd say it's just a way of softening her image, making her look less the ambitious Lady Macbeth.
Toss in some fluff about Hillary wanting to be a "consensus builder" and the picture emerges of a centrist, altruistic figure. Say - isn't that just the kind of person many would like . . . to run for president?
Londont Times/NewsBusters Hillary-the-altruist ping to Today show list.
That ignores the fact that she couldn't care less about this country.
Wouldn't matter if he had a 100% disapproval rating- he's already in.
"the Sunday Times of London has managed to put a rosy gloss on what would have most politicians looking for another line of work"
Maybe the author should have read the article!
Firstly it is titled 'Friends of Hillary hint she may pull out of presidential race'. Rosy gloss?
And the part that the author selectively quotes from reads:
"A recent poll for Time magazine showed that 53% of the electorate said they had a favourable impression of Clinton and only 44% viewed her negatively, figures that President George W Bush can only dream of at the moment. Even so, 53% of independent voters said they would not vote for her.
“The prospect of a Hillary for President campaign has put much of the Democratic establishment in a bind,” Time concluded. “The early line is that Hillary would be unstoppable in a Democratic primary but unelectable in a general election.” "
Hardly a rosy gloss for a potential Presidential candidate!
There is no way that Hillary doesn't run...her ego couldn't sit out that election.
Plus, I am sure that Soros and gang are telling her that they will pay her way in.
And, who knows, they may be right...ugh.
I did hear a "silver lining" type opinion this morning...
Karen Hanretty was debating some lib on Fox News..and the dem was all excited about how it is pretty much a "given" that the dems will get the majority in the House and maybe the Senate...
Hanretty disputed it...BUT, did say that if that did happen, it would probably help the GOP..because having 2 years of the DEMS in charge..would for SURE, make people know not to vote for a dem for POTUS in 2008.
I guess if we have to end up looking for that silver lining...that one is as good as any...but, please PRAY, everyone for our children's sakes...that we never have to find out.
If she gets elected, 44% of the nation requires a huge network of re-education camps.
"Only 44% viewed her negatively, figures that President George W Bush can only dream of at the moment."
I guess some writers in the UK are unaware that we can only elect presidents for two terms here.
***"I would not be surprised if she were to decide that the best contribution she can make to her country is to forget about being president and become a consensus-maker in the Senate."***
Or, or IN OTHER WORDS, she's playing it both ways. She's trying to fool people into thinking that she should be re-elected to the Senate, so that she'll be in a position to run for president in two years.
As the author, I can assure you I did read the article. If you'll read mine, you'll note I quote from the insiders who claim Hillary is considering not running.
I'm not saying the entire article is a rosy gloss, but calling her disapproval rating "only" 44% certainly is.
"Only 44% viewed her negatively, figures that President George W Bush can only dream of at the moment."And not only that, W is already in. It's one thing to have low ratings once you're in. Another when you're on the outside looking in. All the W-hating in the world can't get the hildabeast inside that WH front door! (And thank god for that!)Maybe so. There's just one little problem. Hillary won't be running against W. Her opponent will be someone who, at least for now, surely has negatives much lower than Hilary's 44%
Since when?
| "Hillary Clinton, a leading opponent of DP World's takeover of some US port operations, was this week forced to admit that she did not know her husband had advised Dubai leaders on how to handle the growing dispute. But former President Bill Clinton's ties to Dubai and the United Arab Emirates should not have come as a surprise to his New York senator wife. Mrs Clinton's own senatorial financial disclosure forms reveal that her husband earned $450,000 giving speeches in Dubai in 2002. Officials from the UAE also donated between $500,000 and $1m to fund Mr Clinton's presidential library in Arkansas." -- Stephanie Kirchgaessner, Financial Times, March 4, 2006 |
| "A Capitol Hill police officer was ordered to inform the Clintons that everyone was ready and waiting [for the 1993 inaugural festivities]. The policeman knocked and opened the door of the holding room. He immediately shut it, beating a hasty retreat. Hillary Clinton was screaming at her husband in what was described as 'uncontrolled and unbridled fury.' ... The Capitol Hill police and the Secret Service quickly conferred about intervening if it appeared the president's life might be threatened by the first lady!" -- former FBI Special Agent Gary Aldrich, Unlimited Access |
If she gets elected I'd say that those who voted for her need their heads examined. Her record below:
I have personally heard more than one political consultant say that. Doesn't it make sense to you? Remember, we're not talking about Hillary having a 53/44 edge in terms of people voting for her, we're talking about people approving/disapproving of her. I think it's fair to assume that the overwhelming majority of disapprovers won't vote for a candidate, whereas approval by no means translates into a guaranteed vote. That being so, imagine how hard it would be for a candidate with a 40% disapproval rating to get to 50%+ of the vote.
To be honest then I don't really see what your point is. You wrote an entire article because a journalist used the word 'only' in a particular sentence?
I think you miss some context here - this is printed in a British newspaper and so written for that audience, most of whom won't have very much background knowledge on American politics.
It's not unreasonable for the journalist to consider that the only other context in which the average British reader might have seen 'disapproval ratings' in terms of American politics would be for the President. The article makes it clear that, while the reader may have seen lower ratings there, for a candidate at this stage such numbers make the candidate 'unelectable'.
Whereas the "only 44%" is the article's jumping off point, that is by no means its only subject matter. In addition to describing the views of insiders of varying opinions, I also pass along my own speculation as to what might be in play here - an attempt to fashion a softer, more altruistic image for Hillary.
Since when?
I don't know. I didn't write that or post the story.
"Rule of thumb" - It probably came from a very different part of their anatomy.
...rule of thumb?
How about index finger???
"... Hillary would be unstoppable in a Democratic primary but unelectable in a general election.”
Sounds kinda like Katherine Harris for U.S. Senate. Even Jeb Bush said she can't win the general election, but she can't lose the primary no matter how unstable she appears to be. I like Katherine Harris. I don't like Hillary. Hillary has more potential for doing damage than Harris has for doing good, so I'd be happy to accept a Harris loss, if the same cirumstances guarantee a Hillary loss.
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.