Yikes! Even by the standards of the last year, pro-abortion Hillary Clinton’s favorability ratings are taking a tremendous hit.
First, there was the 55% unfavorable rating in last week’s Associated Press/GfK poll. Late last month, in the most recent Gallup poll, only 42% viewed the pro-abortion former Secretary of State favorably, compared to 53% who did not.
And then there is the lead paragraph from today’s story in The Hill–“Clinton’s dismal approval ratings prompt Dem fears.”
Niall Stanage and Amie Parnes write of her “historically low” approval ratings which are “increasingly a concern for her supporters”:
Clinton is now viewed unfavorably by 55 percent of the electorate, according to the HuffPost Pollster average, which tracks findings from 42 different polling outfits. Only 40.2 percent of people view her favorably, according to that average.
Democratic strategist Brad Bannon conceded to The Hill, “They’re pretty bad.” But it’s the “why” that makes the dismal numbers unlikely to rebound.
“The No. 1 reason that her favorability is so bad is that you have large numbers of Americans who say they don’t trust her,” he said. “I could make it sound more complicated than that, but that’s really what it is. Voters see her as the ultimate politician, who will do or say anything to get elected.”
Stanage and Parnes offer a historical comparison.
At this point in the 2008 presidential cycle, then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) was seen favorably by 62 percent of voters and unfavorably by just 33 percent. …
In March 2000, then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush (R) was viewed favorably by 63 percent of respondents in the Gallup poll and unfavorably by 32 percent.
But beyond the question of trustworthiness, the other explanations for Clinton’s down-in-the-dumps approval ratings are no less fascinating.
One insider brushed it off as a function of “her sheer longevity in public life.” But others “in Clinton’s circle” were more candid:
[T]hey also acknowledge that some issues in the recent past — the spotlight on her earnings after leaving the State Department or the long-running controversy over her private email server — may have sapped public sympathy for her.
The article wraps up with an obviously true generalization: “Clinton’s favorability ratings have fluctuated wildly during her quarter-century at the forefront of public life”–as Secretary of State and before that as First Lady, in particular.
But then there’s “her solo political career” where “the picture has never been as sympathetic.” Stanage and Parnes end their story with this revealing paragraph, quoting Grant Reeher, a professor of political science at Syracuse University:
“The political impression that I think she leaves strikes a lot of people as inauthentic, as something they can’t quite trust,” said Reeher. “The fact that she has been in the game so long contributes to that. And her impressions are pretty cemented right now.”
Editor’s note. If you want to peruse stories all day long, go directly to nationalrighttolifenews.org.
Daniel Miller is responsible for nearly all of National Right to Life News' political writing.
With the election of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency, Daniel Miller developed a deep obsession with U.S. politics that has never let go of the political scientist. Whether it's the election of Joe Biden, the midterm elections in Congress, the abortion rights debate in the Supreme Court or the mudslinging in the primaries - Daniel Miller is happy to stay up late for you.
Daniel was born and raised in New York. After living in China, working for a news agency and another stint at a major news network, he now lives in Arizona with his two daughters.
