Posted on 03/13/2015 7:10:21 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Plummeting from a great height to be sure, Philip Bump acknowledges, but definitely going in the wrong direction — fast. The initial read off of yesterday’s Gallup poll shows Hillary Clinton in good shape against the rest of the field, albeit a field with low name recognition. Most of her Republican competition has lots of upside in their numbers, but Hillary has reached almost total name recognition saturation … not exactly surprising for someone who has spent the last 22 years in Washington. Accordingly, her favorability/unfavorability gap plus her name recognition puts her almost literally in a class of her own in this survey:
Note that the Republicans who don’t cross the 50% line on familiarity are those with the early GOP buzz — Scott Walker, for instance, and Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal as well. They all have lots of upside, while more well-known potential candidates like Jeb Bush and Chris Christie have less upside thanks to higher name recognition. Based on strictly personal observations, I’d guess that Rick Perry has the greatest chance to move up among the 50%+ crowd, based on his talent for retail politicking, but he’s behind the eight-ball at the moment.
Hillary looks unassailable at the moment — but this is just a moment, Bump reminds us. What happens when we look across almost a quarter of a century of Gallup data on Hillary Clinton? Bump charted the data on Hillary’s favorability since early 1992:
Three dynamics become apparent almost immediately, two of which Bump points out. First, her numbers are almost in a free fall over the last two years since leaving the State Department, and probably since Benghazi. Until then, Hillary had excellent favorability numbers, the best sustained trend in her national public life. Second, Bump points out the sudden jump among those who have no opinion on Hillary’s favorability in the last year. It’s now higher than it was since Bill Clinton’s first year in office, and it’s still going up. That’s not a good trend for a candidate who wants to argue for inevitability, which is really the only argument Hillary has to keep the Democratic process a coronation rather than a competition. That’s usually a transition stage to opposition, as Bump notes.
There is a third trend, more subtle, that Bump almost hints at but never quite points out. Look where the favorability lines trended negative. In every instance, that occurred during electoral campaigns — even in the second presidential campaign for Bill Clinton. In 1992, 1995-6, in her Senate race in 2000, and then when she ran for the Democratic nomination in 2007-8, Hillary Clinton’s favorability tanked. In fact, her negative favorability ratings were more sustained in that national election than at any other time. (The only exception was 2006, a Democratic wave election, when Hillary was mostly off the national radar in an easy re-election bid.)
The lesson? Hillary Clinton is a poor campaigner. She got away with it in 2000 because New York was a safe place for Hillary to run. Her husband is one of the most naturally-gifted politicians of his generation, but Hillary is most decidedly not. Bill feels your pain; Hillary, as I wrote after her press conference on Tuesday, feels her own entitlement — and it shows:
Americans have an affinity for brands, but the current populist trend in both parties makes dynastic politics a risk in national elections.
Now, though, the family brand for establishment politicians may matter less than the sense of entitlement that comes with it. …
Clinton could have defused the issue, or at least mitigated it somewhat, by offering a self-deprecating apology for having imposed standards on others that she didn’t follow for herself, and a pledge to allow an independent authority to vet her e-mail system. Instead, Clinton offered a haughty and imperious sneer to legitimate questions about her actions as a public figure, along with a message that might be most politely translated as pound sand.
At least for the moment, though, the Clinton playbook from the 1990s isn’t working. Her performance in the presser has been widely panned in the media, even with the attack dogs baying. The New York Daily News headline read “YOU’VE GOT FAIL,” while The New York Post’s read “DELETER OF THE FREE WORLD.” USA Today declared itself “troubled” over Clinton’s “penchant for secrecy.” The Washington Post quipped, “The circus is back in town.”
It’s not the circus. It’s a pretender to American royalty, demanding her coronation, and this is exactly what we can expect if Democrats are foolish enough to nominate her in 2016.
As her book tour showed, Hillary is a political mediocrity … at best. That’s why she lost the nomination in 2008 to a one-term Senate backbencher even with Bill trying to pull her across the finish line, and that’s when the Clintons were still culturally relevant. If a reasonably gifted Democrat challenged her, Hillary would likely lose the nomination again. If Democrats move forward with the coronation, those trend lines will have 20 months to develop into yet another electoral disaster for Hillary.
Dems should be panicking right now.
How can Carson be so high..GBeck said that Carson was a loser???!!!</s>
I can envision a situation where HRC is running behind in the polls, and rather than face a humiliating defeat, withdraws due to “heath concerns.”
This would allow the dems to hand pick a Hispanic or woman or rainbow flag waver, who would immediately be embraced by the media 24-7 in a celebration of everything non white, non male and non Pro-American.
Good. the public isn’t as stupid as the (female dog) thinks.
LOL...a few more days, a few more lies, a few more spins, and she’ll be RIGHT BACK AT THE TOP. Count on it.
Wait until the Pantsuited Inevitability Goddess has to slither out from her lair into the bright light of continued scrutiny. I hope I am lucky enough to have DVR’d the eventual meltdown.
Yes, that is about what I was thinking too. I think she will recover nicely from this. I hope I am wrong, but I think she will be fine.
Your question answers itself.
Download and take a look at the following government form, OF-109:
Form OF-109 - Separation from Government Service: Statement
This is a standard form that government employees must sign when they leave government service, and it would be a serious violation for Hillary not to have signed this form. As I say, it is a standard part of the separation process when you leave government service.
If she withheld or did not turn over her emails after leaving service, she is in violation of the law, and could be charged with a felony.
This whole issue of her emails is clear cut.
Due to the Federal Records Act, whose stipulations are covered in US Code 44, Chapter 31, all government employees go through annual Security and records training where all of this is laid out to them. It is required to take that training, and you are automatically reminded of it each year.
Most positions, require disciplinary actions if this training is not taken, and the employee is not recorded as having taken it. The Training is an online course requiring teach employee to enter their name, email, and identifying information so that their compliance can be recorded.
The Records training makes it very clear that every email you send, or any other correspondence, article, paper, etc., which is in any way associated with your position and responsibilities, is by definition and official government record, and that it must be stored by the government.
This is grilled into every employee. Every IT worker in the US government is aware of this and there are servers, backup servers, and offsite storage up the ying-yang that have been created to ensure that the requirement is met.
If Hillary Clinton willing kept those records on her own private server and did not turn them over to the government (and those records are not meant to only be turned over at the end of their employ...they are required to be stored as they occur), then she is in violation of those laws as well...not to mention the laws and penalties spoken of during the separation process.
I hear these liberals talk about this...trying to indicate that it is no big deal. Well, they are wrong...it is a big deal. Those saying it is not are either completely ignorant...or they are intentionally lying to cover for Hillary.
It is some of the former, IMHO, and a lot of the latter.
The only reasons Hillary would have an email server in her own home is:
1) she is a complete computer geek who loves to dabble in all of the settings and permissions so as to be able to play email king.
2) She is going to offer email service to others.
3) She want to ensure that she and her people are completely in charge of her emails and can store them, disseminate them, and/or delete them completely without anyone else's knowledge or interference.
I will let you decide which it is...but if she did this with government emails, which are government records, then she is violating the law.
He wasn't high at all in terms of familiarity. Only 28% of respondents even had an opinion of him.
She may not be able to recover. She just isn’t likeable. The more she talks, the less likeable she becomes. Jeb Bush has that same problem IMO.
I hope you are right. I don't like the wench at all.
Yes, this is a silly poll.
I would give Carson high favorability ratings as well. He seems like a good, decent man.
Doesn't mean I want to see him as President.
I am with you there. Feel the same about Mitt Romney. Decent, honorable, successful family man who has done many good things for charity and for his community.
Just not cut out to be President.
Hillary’s history shows that when she is out of the public eye on a daily basis her ratings go up. When she is forced to be in the news on a daily basis by campaigning or by being point on an issue or news item, her ratings tank.
She cannot run a “front porch” campaign as McKinley did over 100 years ago. She will have to compete on a daily basis at some point. When that happens she will turn off voters in droves. The more she tanks the more shrill she will become and the monster will feed on itself.
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.