Memories are short. The Beltway talk these days about how unpopular she is as if this is a metaphysical quality. But she has been in national politics for 25 years and has seen a number of ebbs and flows.
Not long ago, her favorability was at 64 percent. Then she was Obama's Secretary of State. One of the laws of American politics is that when you are seen as nonpartisan and above the fray you are more popular.
When you are both a known quantity and running for partisan office then your numbers go down. The big advantage Obama had in 2008 is that he was able to run as a post partisan candidate. Back then he didn't have a record of partisan fighting.
As has been observed, in American politics, a record is a rap sheet. So Richard Nixon always believed. He always believed that he was at a major disadvantage in 1960, having to represent the previous Administration-even if Ike was very popular.
So part of why Hillary's numbers have deflated is she became a partisan figure again. Even so, it's interesting how low her numbers have gotten this time as opposed to back in 2008. That is remembered as a pretty divisive primary, yet even at her lowest ebb, her popularity never dipped beneath 48 percent.
Not long ago, her favorability was at 64 percent. Then she was Obama's Secretary of State. One of the laws of American politics is that when you are seen as nonpartisan and above the fray you are more popular.
When you are both a known quantity and running for partisan office then your numbers go down. The big advantage Obama had in 2008 is that he was able to run as a post partisan candidate. Back then he didn't have a record of partisan fighting.
As has been observed, in American politics, a record is a rap sheet. So Richard Nixon always believed. He always believed that he was at a major disadvantage in 1960, having to represent the previous Administration-even if Ike was very popular.
So part of why Hillary's numbers have deflated is she became a partisan figure again. Even so, it's interesting how low her numbers have gotten this time as opposed to back in 2008. That is remembered as a pretty divisive primary, yet even at her lowest ebb, her popularity never dipped beneath 48 percent.
Why has her numbers sunk considerably more than that this time?
Actually, part of that is due to the fact that we are a much more partisan nation in 2016 than we were in 2008. Which is saying something as we were pretty partisan then.
But now, no partisan figure gets huge numbers. Obama's approval rating is back over 50 percent this last year partly because he's a lame duck and partly because voters after seeing Trump are beginning to appreciate what they have had.
Even so, note that they're in the low 50s and not the low 70s. If this were 20 years ago, he'd be in the low 70s.
So part of Hilary's mediocre favorability is that this is a more partisan era and partisan figures are always less popular than those with an above the fray image.
One more important factor in her dropping numbers has been: Citizens' United. This is rather ironic.
The Berners talk in fire and brimstone language about CU and yet they repeat and believe the orchestrated and choreographed CU attacks on Hillary.
This Daily Kos piece by Kindler makes this point well:
"Conditioned response is what caused Pavlov’s dog to drool. The great Russian physiologist famously found that he could get his dog to salivate just by ringing a bell, by teaching the dog to associate the sound of the bell with the serving of food."
"Since then, the idea of conditioning the public to make desired associations has proven a commercial and political goldmine. Take for example the political value of associating the name Hillary Clinton with such descriptors as “untrustworthy”, “criminal”, etc. Once that conditioned response has been achieved, one has only to mention her name to provoke well-trained audiences to drooling fury."
"A phalanx of right-wing organizations has made a career of keeping such associations alive. Sadly, these carefully cultivated cons have taken in some progressives in the process. That’s why it is so important to expose these practitioners and their smear campaigns, which the media – happily mining their propaganda for clickbait – rarely bothers to do."
"I began my focus on such groups with a previous diary about the professional Clinton-hunters of Judicial Watch. I continue today with the equally determined anti-Clinton group known as Citizens United. "
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/6/19/1540275/-The-People-Who-Conditioned-You-to-Hate-Hillary-Part-II-Citizens-United
Remember that all those FOIA requests for Hillary's emails originate with CU and Judicial Watch.
It's ironic that the Berners talk as if Hillary is in bed with CU. Bernie himself often made that inference. Yet, CU started with an attack on Hillary back in 2008.
"This group has become best known for the Supreme Court case it inspired, leading to the removal of nearly all constraints on corporate funding of political campaigns. Hillary Clinton has commented that this case was about her – which is true, as it revolved around Citizens United’s determination to air a film smearing her in 2008, “Hillary: the Movie,” in violation of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law."
"In fact, Citizens United has done more to initiate and spread so-called “Clinton scandals” than nearly anyone. Journalists Joe Conason and Gene Lyons did a superb job documenting the work of the Clinton scandal-mongering industry in their 2001 book, “The Hunting of the President: The Ten-Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton” (with the parts most relevant to Hillary now condensed into a free e-book,"The Hunting of Hillary.")
"Floyd Brown, the group’s founder, first left his distinctive stain on national politics with the notorious Willie Horton ad he created against Mike Dukakis in 1988 via a group called Americans for Bush. That same year, he founded Citizens United and hired a guy named David Bossie as “chief investigator”. Brown and Bossie banded together starting in 1991 to tar the most promising Democratic challenger to President George H.W. Bush, the young governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton."
So for any so-called liberal who repeats these lies, remember where they originate.
Actually, part of that is due to the fact that we are a much more partisan nation in 2016 than we were in 2008. Which is saying something as we were pretty partisan then.
But now, no partisan figure gets huge numbers. Obama's approval rating is back over 50 percent this last year partly because he's a lame duck and partly because voters after seeing Trump are beginning to appreciate what they have had.
Even so, note that they're in the low 50s and not the low 70s. If this were 20 years ago, he'd be in the low 70s.
So part of Hilary's mediocre favorability is that this is a more partisan era and partisan figures are always less popular than those with an above the fray image.
One more important factor in her dropping numbers has been: Citizens' United. This is rather ironic.
The Berners talk in fire and brimstone language about CU and yet they repeat and believe the orchestrated and choreographed CU attacks on Hillary.
This Daily Kos piece by Kindler makes this point well:
"Conditioned response is what caused Pavlov’s dog to drool. The great Russian physiologist famously found that he could get his dog to salivate just by ringing a bell, by teaching the dog to associate the sound of the bell with the serving of food."
"Since then, the idea of conditioning the public to make desired associations has proven a commercial and political goldmine. Take for example the political value of associating the name Hillary Clinton with such descriptors as “untrustworthy”, “criminal”, etc. Once that conditioned response has been achieved, one has only to mention her name to provoke well-trained audiences to drooling fury."
"A phalanx of right-wing organizations has made a career of keeping such associations alive. Sadly, these carefully cultivated cons have taken in some progressives in the process. That’s why it is so important to expose these practitioners and their smear campaigns, which the media – happily mining their propaganda for clickbait – rarely bothers to do."
"I began my focus on such groups with a previous diary about the professional Clinton-hunters of Judicial Watch. I continue today with the equally determined anti-Clinton group known as Citizens United. "
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/6/19/1540275/-The-People-Who-Conditioned-You-to-Hate-Hillary-Part-II-Citizens-United
Remember that all those FOIA requests for Hillary's emails originate with CU and Judicial Watch.
It's ironic that the Berners talk as if Hillary is in bed with CU. Bernie himself often made that inference. Yet, CU started with an attack on Hillary back in 2008.
"This group has become best known for the Supreme Court case it inspired, leading to the removal of nearly all constraints on corporate funding of political campaigns. Hillary Clinton has commented that this case was about her – which is true, as it revolved around Citizens United’s determination to air a film smearing her in 2008, “Hillary: the Movie,” in violation of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law."
"In fact, Citizens United has done more to initiate and spread so-called “Clinton scandals” than nearly anyone. Journalists Joe Conason and Gene Lyons did a superb job documenting the work of the Clinton scandal-mongering industry in their 2001 book, “The Hunting of the President: The Ten-Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton” (with the parts most relevant to Hillary now condensed into a free e-book,"The Hunting of Hillary.")
"Floyd Brown, the group’s founder, first left his distinctive stain on national politics with the notorious Willie Horton ad he created against Mike Dukakis in 1988 via a group called Americans for Bush. That same year, he founded Citizens United and hired a guy named David Bossie as “chief investigator”. Brown and Bossie banded together starting in 1991 to tar the most promising Democratic challenger to President George H.W. Bush, the young governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton."
So for any so-called liberal who repeats these lies, remember where they originate.
No comments:
Post a Comment