Very late edition today; was uninspired in the AM and been off having a life since.
Any survey can be inaccurate or misleading. And 55 percent of ARG’s sample was either neutral or positive about Sen. Clinton. Thirty-two percent currently say they plan to vote for her in the primary.
But Bennett says he’s never before seen so many N.H. voters show so much hatred toward a member of their own party. He’s never even seen anything close.
“Forty-five percent of the Democrats are just as negative about her as Republicans are. More Republicans dislike her, but the Democrats dislike her in the same way.”
Hillary’s growing brain trust in the party’s upper reaches already knows she has high “negatives” among ordinary Democrats. They think she can win those voters over with the right strategy and message.
But we’re not talking about “soft” negatives like, say, “out of touch” or “arrogant.”
We’re talking: “Criminal . . . megalomaniac . . . fraud . . . dangerous . . . devil incarnate . . . satanic . . . power freak.”
Granted the Herald is the Murdoch tabloid of the Boston market. But somethig is real here. Voter sexism? Would another viable Democratic woman get the same reaction?
Mathew Gross predicts: "Hillary will have a hard time breaking above 35% of the white Democratic electorate, and, in the current calendar, is most likely to come in only second in Iowa, Nevada, and New Hampshire. South Carolina is another matter, and the string of southern states that follow will be Hillary's chance for a comeback if the high reverance for her husband among African Americans can be converted into support for her. That, of course, is a big IF."
My theory remains the contest quickly winnows to Clinton and the anti-Hillary, and what's underway now is the posturing to be the Not Hillary. WHich leaves self-proclaimed centrists (paging Mr. Vilsack) at a disadvantage.
No comments:
Post a Comment