Pro-Abortion Hillary

 

Even though Mrs. Clinton’s numbers are tumbling, political analysts still convince themselves she will likely be the next President

By Dave Andrusko

Pro-abortion Hillary Clinton

Political prognostications can usually be said to fall into two broad categories. “Givens” that are virtually impenetrable to change and those “givens” which over time (and given enough evidence) will begin to shift.

Since most reporters (to put it politely) lean liberal and pro-abortion, one of the givens that will be most resistant to change is that there are too many pro-life Republicans running for President, thus making it more difficult for one to emerge early enough as the clear leader to run an effective campaign.

But, on second thought, there is a third category: givens that come full circle. First they are conventional wisdom on steroids, then they need a temporary re-evaluation, but then they reestablish themselves as gospel truth.

In that category I would place the presidential fortunes of pro-abortion former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Almost since Barack Obama was re-elected, “everybody knew” she would be the Democrats’ nominee in 2016.

But anyone who has followed her career with even the slightest skepticism knew that her popularity would take a swoon once she officially entered the race. She is not a particularly likable human being and she hates the media with a passion, even when she is treated a hundred times better than a Republican, with the same baggage, would be treated.

So that brings us to two recent stories. The first is by Charlie Cook, writing in the National Journal.
Cook looks at some of the numbers rolling in and the seemingly nonstop controversy over (take your pick, there are many). He asks now that “the USS HRod” may be beginning to take on water, what is “Plan B” for Democrats?
Or as Cook puts it more colorfully,

Is there an emergency “break the glass” option if real questions of Clinton’s electability arise? It seems extremely unlikely that any one issue could bring Clinton down, but what if she begins to suffer ‘death by a thousand cuts’?

  Cook then peruses the Democrats’ bench (hint, it is very thin) yet comes to the conclusion that , short of some national security catastrophe, Hillary is still the odds on favorite to win. (Cook belongs to the demography is destiny camp.)

The headline on Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza’s column is “4 poll numbers that should unnerve Hillary Clinton.” Her popularity numbers in Iowa and New Hampshire are extraordinarily low. Her favorable/unfavorable is down 23% in Iowa and 20% in New Hampshire.
Then there are the two national polls. Gallup’s lead paragraph includes this:

Hillary Clinton’s rating has slipped to 43% from 48% in April. At the same time, Clinton’s unfavorable rating increased to 46%, tilting her image negative and producing her worst net favorable score since December 2007.

  CNN’s poll results are no better. Clinton’s “favorability rating is net negative among registered voters nationally: 49% have an unfavorable view while 44% have a positive impression.”
Cillizza goes through a host of explanations why Clinton’s numbers have tumbled only to conclude that she’s likely to prevail anyway. Why? Because all politicians these days are unpopular so in the end traditional measures of popularity (that at least half the electorate has a favorable impression of you) may not matter.

If so, they might choose “experience and readiness to do the job at hand,” which, in Cillizza’s eyes, is Hillary Clinton’s calling card.

Without going through Mrs. Clinton’s eight years in the U.S. Senate and her role as Secretary of State, is it really so obvious (or obvious at all) that she has the “experience and readiness” to do the job better than a host of Republicans who have served much longer in public office and/or have executive experience as well? Really?
What am I missing? Oh, that most reporters and columnists will always want a pro-abortion Democrat to be President.

Source: NRLC News