|
|
January 25, 2006This Hillary Poll will be quietly buried, natchDrudge gives the heads up on it and it’s a good thing because even Googling the story doesn’t make it easy to find: CNNGALLUP SHOCK POLL: ONLY 16% FIRM ON HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT Most voters now say there’s no way they’d vote for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton if she runs for president in 2008 - while just 16 percent are firmly in her camp, a stunning new poll shows. CNN -GALLUP found that 51 percent say they definitely won’t vote for Clinton (D-N.Y.) in 2008, another 32 percent might consider it, and only 16 percent vow to back her. That means committed anti-Hillary voters outnumber pro-Hillary voters by 3-1. The poll suggests she can forget about crossover votes - 90 percent of Republicans and 75 percent of conservatives say there’s no way they’d back her. Meanwhile, 46% said they would oppose Secretary of State Rice if she ran for President - a step Rice has repeatedly said she won’t take. That’s pretty interesting, isn’t it, when you consider that the press has all but claimed the Oval Office for Hillary in 2008. Seems like under those circumstances - such startling numbers on so very famous and controversial a woman - the story would be all over the place, doesn’t it? Good luck finding anything being written on it. There is nothing about it on Gallup’s home page. In fact, the only site I can find - at this point - reporting on the poll is here at Polling Report, and even then, it’s kept short and sweet. A Google search brings up nothing on it, but does turn up two reports from CNN, one in December of ‘05 and on in May of ‘05. Now, what is interesting is that in both of the CNN pieces, the focus is immediately on Hillary Clinton and the chances for the White House…so this MUST be a subject that the press finds interesting and newsworthy. And yet…so far…no coverage of these poll numbers. Interesting. If you go to Yahoo news, it’s the same thing. Oh, they have a headline about Hillary blasting the president (what’s new?) on “illegal eavesdropping” and the press is obediently covering her intellectually dishonest (and rather hypocritical, considering her often “far-fetched” explanations of missing documents and cattle-future profits, but I digress) remarks. But nowhere are these poll numbers mentioned. Not even in passing. Not even buried at the end of the coverage of her “blasting” of Bush. You just know if the numbers showed that 51% said they would “definately” vote for Hillary, it would be the lead story, everywhere. Instead - the “damage control” speech will be played up, especially since it serves the dual purpose of promoting Hillary and casting doubt upon the President. I know I’m not the only one who is just totally sick of how overt the press is in their unquestioning and starry-eyed adulation of this woman. I’m not the only one who believes it is rather dangerous for the press to be so deeply committed to a politician - any politician - that they are incapable of reporting negatively on her, or asking her a difficult question. A press that has so given itself over to anyone as to be rendered impotent in his or her presence, useless except as a delivery system, is a press that can do greivous harm to the nation. It is the sort of press only a tyrant could love. As poisoned as the press is against President Bush, as unfair and disgracefully disrespectful as they are to him, I would much rather see them behave that way - with cynicism and distrust and even hatred, if they must hate - because at least one can read beyond the hate and spin, still get a sense of what is going on, even if they are hiding good news, or downplaying it. A press of slobbering and slavish devotion is one that will hide the bad news, and that is much, much worse. Pravda, I am sure, would have hidden bad numbers re the Kremlin, had anyone dared to opine against it. I am ashamed, once again, of the press. UPDATE: Days later, you still can’t find this story on the search engines. UPDATE: IBD has a hard-hitting piece and a graph of the poll. The NY Sun suggests Democrats are worried about a Hillary candidacy for several reasons. Gateway Pundit looks at Hillary’s shock and revulsion at what she calls President Bush’s “far-fetched” responses. http://theanchoressonline.com/2006/01/25/this-hillary-poll-will-be-quietly-buried-natch/trackback/ 12 Responses to “This Hillary Poll will be quietly buried, natch” |
January 25th, 2006 at 4:24 pm
Anchoress, thanks for digging this up. Not to invite mean comments or anything, but I’m a lapsed Democrat. I haven’t backed a Democratic presidential candidate since Paul Tsongas. I get ill thinking that the party might consider Hilary even as a VICE-presidential candidate…
As for the inability of political reporters to ask a sharp question (or expect a clear answer), I have my suspicions based on my time in journalism during Clinton’s early presidency. Some of my collegues found that for all his “aw-shucks” charisma, you did NOT perturb Mr. Clinton or his mate. The general saying went thus: “Don’t sh** where you eat.”
January 25th, 2006 at 4:33 pm
Oops, got cut off.
If you’re a political reporter and suddenly you can’t get acknowledged at press conferences, that’s bad. If you have an interview with a party leader or a chairman on an important committee and he suddenly can’t make it - and never allows you to reschedule - that’s even worse.
My hope is that maybe the poll will encourage reporters to see that Mrs. Clinton doesn’t have as much weight to swing around anymore.
January 25th, 2006 at 4:56 pm
I hope the Republicans take heed of the Canadian elections. Corruption cost the Liberals the leadership and election. The perception of corruption and/or actual corruption of the congressional republicans needs to be aggressively addressed. The Congressional leaders must be out front on this. They must address “Earmarking”, ethics and lobbying. If they do not, the majority Party in Congress will no longer be Republican. The War on Terror is too important to leave to the Dems.
January 25th, 2006 at 5:10 pm
My dear Anchoress,
I did a Google News search on “illary poll”, and one of the hits was, of all thngs, Arianna Huffington’s Monday column, where she cites a straw poll showing Sen. Clinton seventh among likely Democratic canmdidates:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20060124/cm_huffpost/014330
I’m surprised drudge missed that one.
On a compltely unrelated subject, I just got an E-mail from my Representive that the Massachusetts bill requiring churches to have the same financial reporting and audut requirements as secular charities was defeated in the House this Afternoon. Halleluia!!
Have a Blessed day,
oddball
January 25th, 2006 at 5:16 pm
OOPS-I somehow got the ‘H’ out of ‘Hillary’ in my last post….I’m not going any farther down that road.
oddball
January 25th, 2006 at 5:37 pm
Don’t worry, Anchoress. Rush just talked about it on his show today. That should be plenty.
January 25th, 2006 at 5:41 pm
The pro Hillary mantra:
“If you want to inspire confidence, give plenty of statistics. It does not matter that they should be accurate, or even intelligible, as long as there is enough of them.”
Lewis Carrol, author of Alice in Wonderland
January 25th, 2006 at 7:10 pm
DD#1, who is 19 and most definitely raised in a “women can do anything” environment, stated categorically Sunday night that she WILL NOT be voting for Hillary b/c she doesn’t think a woman can BE president. As in can’t do the job.
Her attitude makes me wonder how many other young women feel similarly. If there are many (and, let’s face it, who are their examples? Most are too young to remember Mrs. Thatcher.), that means Hillary & the Dems might be counting on a base that isn’t there…
January 26th, 2006 at 6:48 am
Wow, do I find that truly sad. Not that people won’t vote for Hilary- While I havfe an open mind, I’m certainly not ready to give her the keys to the nation, so to speak. But not being willing to vote for Condi? Not thinking that a woman can do the job? Why not? Taking politics aside, here are two smart, competent women. How sad that the majority think neither of them could make a president, just because of their gender. Shows me how far we, as women, still have to go.
Full disclosure- I would vote for Condi.
January 26th, 2006 at 11:41 am
As long as she’s the front-runner during the run-up to ‘08, and the Dems ignore the truth, Hitlary hsa a good chance to win the nomination. Then she has the chance to garner the lowest election numbers in the history of the USA.
Fine by me! Keep the poll secret!
January 26th, 2006 at 11:51 am
Voting for Condi is a good thing…A very good thing indeed. I would like Condi to replace Vice President Cheney some time soon. And I would like President Bush to step down before the Republican National Convention in 2008 so that Condi becomes the incumbent going into the election. Might as well make the Dem and the MSM play all their cards. And watch the hillarity ensue.
February 14th, 2006 at 9:40 am
[...] Everyone in politics just assumes Hillary is running. Maybe she won’t? After all, her poll numbers are pretty weak. [...]