Hillary Clinton’s favorability has fallen to a six-year low, according to a Gallup poll released Wednesday, effectively erasing the gains that she made while serving as Secretary of State. With 2016 preparation on both sides turning Clinton into a purely political figure again, the Gallup poll demonstrates what might be the most fundamental challenge for a Hillary presidential run: Can she stay popular as she becomes political again?
For now, Clinton still enjoys impressive popularity for a public figure: Gallup found that 54 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of her. But that’s down from 59 percent in February and a peak of 66 percent near the end of her tenure at the State Department. It is the lowest recorded mark by Gallup since August 2008.
The poll’s authors offered the obvious explanation for the drop: As Americans begin to view Clinton as a presidential contender, instead of a non-political senior stateswoman, their opinions of her have started to polarize.
“As Democratic elected officials continue to encourage her to run for president, her name has become further politicized, thus making her less favorable to non-Democrats,” Gallup wrote.
And it makes sense: All the pieces for a presidential campaign are already in place — except for an official candidacy. A shadow infrastructure for grassroots organization, big-dollar fundraising and rapid response has already been built. A small army of GOP attack dogs is working full-time to undermine Hillary before she announces. And the political media has developed an insatiable appetite for all things Clinton.
So moving forward toward 2016, that’s the balance — becoming political while maintaining the popularity that makes many view her as inevitable — that Clinton will have to find. The Gallup poll suggests it won’t be easy. And at the start of the book tour that is widely viewed as the unofficial beginning of a campaign, Hillary herself is beginning to talk more like a candidate.
She said she doesn’t believe, as Barbara Bush does, there have been too many Bushes or Clintons in the White House. The controversy over Benghazi is more of a reason to run, she added. Even the title of her book points to that shift.
“The reason I called this book ‘Hard Choices’ is because that’s what any president faces,” Clinton said on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” “I remember very well my husband being in the White House, making some hard choices that were not popular at the time but being able to persevere, and everybody could see the results.”
“I remember very well my husband being in the White House, making some hard choices that were not popular at the time but being able to persevere, and everybody could see the results.”
Choices…like giving America the shaft with NAFTA.
And now she’s very busy pushing the TPP, NAFTA on steroids.
You know who ISN’T all for gutting what is left of America’s economy in the name of “Free Trade”? Elizabeth Warren.
Hillary is a tool of global corporatism. No thanks.
Gee, I hope no right-wing operatives pretending to be far-left radicals take a thread-jacking dump on this story, vomiting out the excess bile generated by their Hillary Derangement Syndrome…yeah, I really hope that doesn’t happen here…
On a related note,
I think it is natural for her approval rating to drop while she does not hold a government office and is not showing up, personally, in the news on a regular basis. I’d expect more respondents to move into the “don’t know” column as they think back, in the very short memory the public has, for some reason to approve or not approve.
I hope when she begins to run, she is very careful how she chooses her words with regard to racial and gender politics. As a strong woman running for President, her job with women will only be to not lose them, most will start out on her side.
Maryland is a blue state, but we had a Republican governor for a while. I blame a lot of that on Kathleen Kennedy Townsend’s stump speech where she went on and on about how she was going to be the champion for women and minorities, leaving the male democrats and the white democrats to wonder, would she also represent them? I think that she left enough democratic voters unmotivated to make Ehrlich governor.
More recently, I got a campaign email from Donna Edwards with a similar line that she would “fight for Women and their families”. So what about the men? I like her. I’ve spoken with her. I think her personal integrity is very high and she will actually represent all her constituents, so I hope she’s so strong in her district that she can win in spite of this slight to half her constituents.
Any politician starts with a home team advantage with the race and gender they are, they need to reach out to what they are not. For Hillary, the people she will need to convince will be men and people of color, the pumas are already on her side and spoiling for a rematch.
Saturday Night Live captured the essence of Hillary very well in this sketch of “Hardball” awhile back::
That’s the conventional wisdom. But remember, she lost the Democratic Primary to Senator Obama.
Rest easy on that. She and her husband have solid reputations and histories on those subjects. There is no reason to believe that she has changed a bit in that respect.
Really? What specific misandrist concerns do you have in regards to a female candidates?
Hillary Clinton is and has been in fine shape with minorities. And, Democratic and Liberal men will vote for her because they either like her as a candidate, or because the GOP is a solidly misogynistic, racist and bigoted group of traditionalists, IMHO.
However, your concern is duly noted.