It's Karl vs Hillary
What Karl Rove isn't saying about those unfavorable Hillary poll numbers
As Karl Rove leaves the white house with the lowest poll numbers in recent history, he has been making the rounds to the various news talk shows trying to gain momentum for his latest anti-Hillary remarks. He criticizes her by saying "more people have an unfavorable opinion of the NY Senator and former First Lady". She enters the general election campaign with the highest negatives of any candidate in the history of the Gallup poll," Rove said on Face the Nation.
Karl's new favorite anti-Hillary word is "polarizing". The sound-bite goes "Hillary is polarizing, therefore she is unelectable". He claims that any candidate with the high unfavorable ratings that she has cannot win the election.
But what he isn't saying is how the numbers have unfolded over the past few months for the three major candidates in each party. According to a Rasmussen poll that tracks favorable and unfavorable ratings, here are the top 3 candidates in each party (Democrats = Hillary, Barak Obama, John Edwards) and (Republicans = Rudy Guiliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney):
Unfavorable Ratings
April
June
August
Hillary Clinton
52%
Hillary Clinton
50%
Hillary Clinton
47%
down 5%
John Edwards
30%
John Edwards
32%
John McCain
42%
up 16%
Barak Obama
27%
Rudy Guiliani
29%
John Edwards
32%
up 5%
John McCain
26%
Barak Obama
27%
Barak Obama
34%
up 7%
Rudy Guiliani
24%
John McCain
27%
Rudy Guiliani
32%
up 8%
Mitt Romney
21%
Mitt Romney
24%
Mitt Romney
31%
up 10%
Hillary began with a 52% unfavorable rating, which has declined each month as her campaign progresses and she does well in the debates. She is the only candidate who had this rating drop (by 5 points) in 3 months, whereas all the other candidates' unfavorable rating increased. The highest being John McCain who started out at only 26% unfavorable and is now up to 42% (a 16 point jump in the wrong direction). Please note, all three of the Republican candidates unfavorables have increased more than any of the Democrats.
And, Mr. Doughboy also fails to mention the progress Hillary has made in the favorable rating department:
Favorable Ratings
| April | June | August | ||||
| Rudy Guiliani | 61% | Rudy Guiliani | 57% | Rudy Guiliani | 52% | down 9% |
| John McCain | 57% | John McCain | 54% | Hillary Clinton | 50% | up 5% |
| John Edwards | 53% | Barak Obama | 53% | Barak Obama | 48% | down 4% |
| Barak Obama | 52% | John Edwards | 50% | John Edwards | 47% | down 6% |
| Hillary Clinton | 45% | Hillary Clinton | 46% | John McCain | 41% | down 16% |
| Mitt Romney | 25% | Mitt Romney | 25% | Mitt Romney | 22% | down 3% |
Again, Hillary began in April with only a 45% favorable rating and she is now up to 50%, a 5 point gain. Whereas all other candidates' favorable rating has declined. Again, John McCain having the largest decline of 16 points. Please note, John McCain & Rudy had the biggest drop in favorable ratings.
A few other things to note. Hillary went from having the 2nd lowest favorability rating in April to the 2nd highest in August. That is why they are running scared and called in Mr. Doughboy.
Karl Rove and his sheep of hate mongering Hillary bashers claim that Hillary's approval ratings have never been above 50%. But Media Matters (fact checkers) states that Hillary has seen favorable ratings as high as 58% (Feb, Gallup poll).
Karl Rove's use of the word "polarizing" to describe Hillary is intentional to be sure. Every move he makes (and every breathe he takes) is for political gain. But if Hillary is a polarizing figure, then it is because 'they' have made her that way. Hillary has always been a leader, and her role as First Lady clearly came under attack from conservative, right wing critics who prefer women in that role to be like Laura Bush.
But most voters polled use words like "decisive", "leader", "intelligent", "strong", "experienced" when describing Hillary Clinton, their concern about her is they are not sure if she is "nice", "likable", and she appears "cold". This could be in Hillary's favor when they try to claim she's soft on terrorism.
It's important to note that her negative numbers are also a reflection of the fact that she is so well known. Mitt Romney, for example, has the lowest unfavorable numbers because most voters are not familiar with him. Rudy Guiliani's low unfavorable and high favorable numbers (starting out) are because voters know him as "America's Mayor" from 9/11. But as voters learn more about him, then his numbers start to decline. With Hillary, the opposite is happening.
Karl Rove is trying to stop this from happening. The term "polarizing", in political terms means a divider or extremist/extreme views,which actually best describes Karl and George, who have successfully polarized the nation with their extreme views. It's that swift-boat thing again - call the opponent the name that actually best describes you so that the opponent is seen as the polarizing figure, not you. By doing this, you make it look as if the opponent (or Hillary) has the problem, not you or your party (that has no agenda).
But, if Hillary Clinton is such a divider (or polarizer), then the work she has done over the past six years in the Senate doesn't mean a thing. She has successfully co-sponsored legislation with the very men from the Republican party that so outspokenly criticized and voted to impeach her husband: Lindsey Grahm, Trent Lott, Tom Delay, Bill Frist, and Newt Gringrich - the men she worked with over the past six years on a variety of bills that passed in the Senate. Sounds pretty polarizing and dividing to me!!
What Karl Rove hopes to achieve is to mobilize the clinton-bashers so they will get behind any republican candidate and start to care about the election. And, of course, the most important thing that he hopes to accomplish is to not talk about the issues. Because, just like Kerry, and Gore before him, and Ann Richards before him (Gov. of Texas) - if you actually have to debate the issues, Rove, his party and their candidates offer little substance.
Hillary is right when she says that any democrat that "thinks they are going to escape the Republican attack machine and not have high negatives by the time they are through with you is missing what's been going on in politics for the past 20 years."
Democrats unite and get behind "Your Girl" and "fasten your seatbelts, we're in for a bumpy ride".
great analysis
Reply to this