Clinton Hits Record Low In Poll With 61 Percent Unpopularity

Hillary_Clinton_Testimony_to_House_Select_Committee_on_BenghaziThere is an interesting Gallup poll out that shows that, after an active speaking tour promoting her book and her retrospective on her loss to Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton has actually become even more unpopular.  We have previously noted that polls have shown Trump would still beat Clinton in a head-to-head election (and here).  While Trump is also facing declining polls, he is at the same level or even higher than Clinton. Clinton posted the lowest polling numbers yet with only 36% popularity and an unfavorable rating of 61%. Polls are showing Trump at 38 percent.  While a new poll shows that half of people feel Trump should resign, it is clear that they want Clinton even less — the very same position held by many in the campaign.

Before the establishment all but anointed Clinton as their candidate in the primary, polls clearly showed that the voters did not want an establishment figure so the DNC worked to guarantee the nomination to the ultimate establishment figure. However, it clearly goes deeper than that.  Even against one of the most unpopular figures in history (Trump was even worse at 63 percent unfavorable), Clinton could not even maintain a majority of women with favorability ratings.

What is interesting is that the Clinton have converted their impressive network of media and political allies into an all-out rehabilitation campaign with her book as the focus.  The clear effort to is insist that it was not Clinton who is responsible for the Trump election and that, once again, forces gathered to block her from succeeding,  It was a continuation of the mixed campaign themes. On issues ranging from her still undisclosed Wall Street speeches to her past legal controversies to her email scandal, Clinton continually changed her rationales and deflected responsibility. After the election, Clinton alternatively blamed sexismracismself-hating womendomineering boyfriendsRussian hackersBernie Sanders, and of course, James Comey.

It has been interesting to watch that, like Trump’s core of 30 percent, Clinton’s core still shows up at events and show no diminishment in their adoration for one of the most flawed politicians in presidential history.  Adoring crowds applaud her every statement and excuse.  Yet, for the rest of the country, the continued exposure to Clinton has only reinforced their apparent visceral dislike for the former candidate.

Clinton’s low favorability ratings were previously at 38% in late August/early September 2016 during the presidential campaign. Notably this really did not move from April 1992 when she also registered a 38% favorable rating.  What is different is not just the dip of popularity but the significant increase in unpopular figures.

Trump is doing little better.  One CNN poll actually shows him at 35 percent popularity. The lowest level of popularity of any modern president (since Eisenhower) in December of their first year was 49 percent.  Other polls show 38 percent popularity and 56.8 percent unpopularity.

As discussed earlier, Trump’s polling numbers have actually been better than some international figures like Macron.  Angela Merkel is polling as low as 29 percent.

Update: Trump has cited a poll showing him at 48 percent at the end of the year, but that poll has been criticized as an outlier. Of course , some polls are better than others when there are no choices but a range from “great” to “good” to “okay” to “other.”

 

161 thoughts on “Clinton Hits Record Low In Poll With 61 Percent Unpopularity”

    1. The Dem PRIMARY was definitely fixed in favor of Clinton, in my opinion. Inasmuch as DWS will not be around to control the Dem PRIMARY process, I believe Clinton is through politically.

  1. There are 3 associations, one for psychiatrists and 2 for clinical psychologists. Only one of the later states nothing about pronouncements of mental health based on other than interviews.

    That is just for the USA, as far as I know. Oxford dons are free to state whatever they wish.

  2. And you’re f’in point is? Is she president? I didn’t know she won. Oh, so the person that lost is at the same approval rating as the piece of crap running the country.

      1. David Benson – Trump’s numbers depend on how many Democrats they over-sampled in their effort to unseat him. In at least one poll he is as high as 43% and after the tax bill, it is going to go higher. If he can get DACA through, he could be in the 50% next year, that makes him very re-electable. And that is with a negative press of 93%. If Hillary had that, she would be in the teens.

        BTW, keep an eye out for Nikki Haley as the first female President of the United States. She is a rock star at the UN. She is kicking butt and taking names. Literally.

        1. Nikki Haley? The woman that had a 20 minute conversation with a Russian comedian, that she thought was the Polish Prime Minister, about a nation named Binomo which the comedian made up? Yeah, nothing says rock star like bs-ing about a fictional nation because she was too afraid she’d sound dumb if she admitted she’d never heard of the nation. She’s super on top of things.

            1. Paul C. Schulte…
              -One of the funniest episodes of The “Dick van Dyke Show” was “The Impractical Joke”.
              It can be seen on youtube….after more than 50 years, the episode still holds up well.

    1. “I didn’t know she won.”

      and Hillary doesn’t know she lost. She still thinks her ignorant opinions matter, and she still keeps shooting her mouth off about Trump, and the media still covers her moronic statements — like she’s still campaigning.
      If she’s shut up, she wouldn’t be in the news, and she wouldn’t be in the polls, and Turley would write about something else in this place — maybe about how some democrats want Hillary’s daughter to run?

      1. Oh how I wish chelsea would run! PRESIDENT TRUMP would steam roll her like he did the OLD GAL who can’t not fall down when she is intoxicated which is usually every day between 6 AM and 3 PM according to “unnamed sources” . Like cnn! Omg I’m having fun!

    2. the point is that she still wants to pedal influence and remain relevant. She is a disaster for the Democrats going forward. If you don’t want Trump around for a second term she would help by disappearing. She brings nothing to the political table but anger and whining. No party wants her anywhere near them.

    3. the point is that she still wants to pedal influence and remain relevant. She is a disaster for the Democrats going forward. If you don’t want Trump around for a second term she would help by disappearing. She brings nothing to the political table but anger and whining. No party wants her anywhere near them.

    4. Simple logic is that his point is that Hillary would still lose to trump.

      I am not sure why you think writers are obligated to make or have a larger point.

      Perhaps you should start a blog and then you can satisfy yourself.

  3. Nothing remotely surprising about Hillary’s poll numbers dropping. For the entirety of her public life, the farther out of the picture she’s been, the more popular she’s been, and the more she’s been in the spotlight, the less popular she’s been. That’s a significant vulnerability when it comes to running for public office, where a person more or less HAS to try to be in the spotlight.

    Add to that the fact that people (sick to death of the sound of her voice) probably expected her to drop out of sight after the election. Compare that expectation with her pass-the-buck blame tour, and the unprosecuted multiple felon formerly known as “Hillary in a landslide” has turned herself into a sci-fi critter known as The Thing That Wouldn’t Go Away.

    Another way of looking at it is that, without power or political prospects, Hillary is just a sub-par has-been with a personality like fingernails on a chalkboard.

  4. Description of Trump by mental health experts- very little inhibition, high levels of impulsivity, loose grip on reality, fragile inability to cope with basic criticism or unflaterrring news,…

    1. An Oxford University shrink placed Hillary’s personality traits as somewhere between Nero and Napoleon.
      With all of the long distance pop psychology diagnoses out there, we need to consult and quote these clairvoyant experts opinions on all prospective candidates.

    2. Legitimate “mental health experts” have licenses to practice medicine or clinical psychology — and they know two things definitively: (1) they need to actually interview a person and can’t perform diagnoses based upon seeing someone on TV, and (2) if they even attempt to perform mental health diagnoses based purely upon seeing someone on TV, there would be a sonic boom resulting from their licenses being revoked faster than the speed of sound.

      1. William Bayer,…
        – “Metal health experts” should have learned something from the 1964 Goldwater incident.
        Whatever was learned from that has been forgotten and/ or discarded by some in the field who now want to revive the “art” of pop political psychoanalysis.

        1. I was approximately 10 years old when the “1964 Goldwater incident” happened. Not sure I know what you’re referring to. Could you briefly elaborate, please? The context of my reply was contemporaneous awareness that CNN and MSNBC are almost continuously accusing the President of being mentally “unfit” (and that’s the most polite way they put it), but the accusations come from “journalists” such as Don Lemon, and the likes of former DNI James Clapper — notorious unprosecuted multiple felon and mass-violator of the 4th Amendment who, I’m pretty sure, doesn’t possess any sort of “expertise” related to mental health.

          1. William Bayer,..
            Shortly before the 1964 LBJ-Goldwater election, Ralph Ginsberg’s FACT magazine ran a lengthy article about the “1189 psychiatrists who find Goldwater nentally unfit to be president”.
            I’m paraphrasing the title of the article, but that’s pretty close to the actual title, and these 1189 psychiatrists’
            “diagnoses” of Goldwater were detailed.
            Goldwater successfully sued Ginsberg….I think Goldwater v. Ginsberg went all the way to the Supreme Court.
            The “Goldwater Rule” became part of the code of ethics for at least one major association of psychiatrists.
            Basically, the rule strongly recommended that mental health diagnoses should not be made without actually evaluating the “patient” in person.
            For the most part, psychiatrists stopped making “sight unseen” decisions about political candidates.
            Until very recently.
            About 85% of psychiatrists are are Democrats.
            Their dislike of Trump probably equals or exceeds their animosity toward Goldwater back in 1964.
            So the “experts” who now dish out their “evaluations” of Trump don’t feel bound by the Goldwater Rule.
            The 1964 fiasco did some harm to Goldwater, but probably a lot more harm to the image of psychiatrists.
            This renewed “shrink talk” could tarnish their profession in the same way.

            1. Tom Nash – just remind them that it was not that long ago that they thought that homosexuals were mentally ill. That usually stops them in their tracks. 😉

              1. Paul C. Schulte…,
                Also, the speculating shrinks in 1964 could have come up with some interesting conclusions about LBJ had they decided to “diagnos” him.

            2. Thanks for the reply. I sort of thought I had a dim memory of what you were referring to, but it was nowhere near as detailed as the information you provided. Actually, what you cited is probably the basis of my understanding that interviews need to be conducted prior to pronouncing diagnoses — however in later life I became involved in civil litigation where the expert opinion of a licensed psychologist became necessary, so there’s the possibility that my knowledge in that area is derived from numerous conversations with him.
              Anyway, it sounds like we’re in total agreement about the requirements related to bona fide “mental health experts” and the deviation from proper practice when it comes to democrats psychoanalyzing the President for political smear purposes.

              I think what they all miss (or are pretending to miss) is that Trump’s ulterior public personality might be comprised of no small element of façade — pretending to be something stupider and more reckless than he actually is — as a strategic maneuver. I’ve been aware for some time of the similarities in the title of his book, The Art of the Deal, and the ancient Chinese classic, The Art of War, by Sun Tzu, which might well explain both Trump’s manner and method of dealing with all things political as if they are battles fought in war — as per one notable quote from The Art of War, “All warfare is based on deception.”

              On that basis alone, I think it would be foolish to try to analyze Trump based upon public statements, actions, or mannerism. It wouldn’t surprise me one bit if he’s a completely different person in person than we see when he’s on TV — not the result of him attempting to fool his supporters, but as a result of the necessity of keeping his “enemies” (for lack of a better word) off balance and guessing.

              Most of Trump’s enemies appear to me to be ignorant, arrogant, and dishonest, so I wouldn’t guess which of those “qualities” lead them to make their outrageous statements about Trump’s mentality.

                1. Thanks. I wish there were an up-vote mechanism to express agreement or thanks — but that mechanism also has the downside of turning a discussion into a popularity contest, so maybe it’s absence is best. Anyway, thanks again.

        2. No degrees are necessary to observe the 4 behaviors that the comment describes as characteristic of Trump. Supporting examples are plentiful.

          1. Trump has actually been a public figure longer than Hillary.
            So his personality traits have been on display for decades.
            Not every voter who has taken Psych. 101 agrees with the conclusions drawn by, or the methodology of, ” observing the 4 behaviors”, or the plentiful ” supporting examples”.

            1. Trump’s speech, e.g. variation in vocab., sentence complexity, etc., contrasting the past with the present, has been reviewed and the conclusion published. It’s available on-line.

              1. There is also plenty of material online speculating about Hillary’s “cognitive decline”.
                I don’t think the the specualtion about either Trump or Hillary “moved the needle” as far as influencing voters.

              2. And if you were to analyze the people that analyze Trump, you might discover that they bear a remarkable resemblance to Captain Ahab in his relationship with the White Whale:

                “To the last, I grapple with thee; From Hell’s heart, I stab at thee; For hate’s sake, I spit my last breath at thee.”

                Maybe you should ask yourself WHY you and these people are analyzing Trump? — or maybe Why are you and these people OBSESSED with Trump such that, again with respect to Ahab and his relationship with the White Whale, it appears to be a mission of pure hatred:

                “Aye, aye! and I’ll chase him round Good Hope, and round the Horn, and round the Norway Maelstrom, and round perdition’s flames before I give him up.”

    1. This blog isn’t really policed or censored, James. I would love to have the blocking option offered on Disqus.

    2. Why is Turley posting about the popularity of an opponent of Trump’s from more than a year ago?
      Turley didn’t post about the elimination of net neutrality- hard to explain from a guy who claims an interest in free speech- my take- the speech and censorship of the richest 0.1% is sacrosanct.
      Turley didn’t post about unqualified Trump appointments to district courts but, polling about Clinton piques his interest. (Did McCain’s and Romney’s polling numbers interest anyone 12 mos. after the elections?)
      The “ongoing headline” is a partisan tactic similar to the Kremlin’s playbook of tactics that includes “what about…ism”.

      1. “Why is Turley posting about the popularity of an opponent of Trump’s from more than a year ago?”

        Maybe:

        (1) Because it’s in the news TODAY, per a poll published all across the web at liberal and conservative websites alike.

        (2) Because the unprosecuted multiple felon formerly known as “Hillary in a landslide” won’t fade away to go play with her grandchild like most SANE people would, but continues to shoot off her loud and ignorant mouth about Trump and is therefore STILL an “opponent of Trump” despite the fact that the election happened more than a year ago.

        (3) Because Hillary has escaped a basic principle of law which most people (not you, apparently, but most people) understand at some fundamental level regardless of their knowledge of law:

        “*** Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperilled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. ***” Justice Brandeis, OLMSTEAD v. UNITED STATES 277 U.S. 438 (1928)

        1. So, you were opposed to Trump pardoning the convicted sheriff? And, you think he’s wrong to hold out the possibility of pardoning Flynn?

          1. I would have to know the circumstances of the sheriff’s conviction. My understanding is that there was a Due Process issue. The point is the sheriff was held accountable under the law. He was charged, tried, convicted, and pardoned — all according to LAW.
            Hillary got a cover-up instead of an investigation, was not charged or tried.
            The Flynn issue is still in the balance.
            You’re just a hardcore democrat, trolling with zero comprehension and a basketful of DNC talking points.

              1. I was opposed to the pardon of Nixon which didn’t even specify the conduct for which he was being pardoned but merely gave Nixon a pardon for all conduct he might have engaged in during a specified time period. Ford should have identified exactly what conduct Nixon was being pardoned for having engaged in.
                That was the gross irregularity of that pardon. Most or all other pardons I’ve ever heard of specify the unlawful conduct for which the pardon applies.

                Back to your original question — “Why is Turley posting about the popularity of an opponent of Trump’s from more than a year ago?”

                There’s an article in the news TODAY, published by The Hill and titled “Clinton mulls role in 2018 midterms.”
                http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/365839-clinton-mulls-role-in-2018-midterms

                That should answer your question about the continuing relevance of the popularity of the unprosecuted multiple felon formerly known as “Hillary in a landslide” and why Turley was correct in deciding Hillary’s sinking poll numbers are worthy of comment.

                Troll on, DNC troll.

                1. If Hillary had said the things that Trump said about his GOP competitors during the campaign, if she had said what Trump said on the Access Hollywood bus, if she had shoved a foreign leader to get in front of him, if Chelsea had arranged a meeting between a known, unregistered Kremlin agent and top WH officials, if Hillary had refused to release her tax returns, if Hillary had fleeced students at a real estate school she operated, if she had praised Putin, if she had ignored the human rights violations of nations, if she had children with 3 different men, if she had a hunk in her inner circle (PR) who appeared with her everywhere she went, if she had a severely limited vocabulary, if she had an employee-churning administration, if she undermined the Attorney General she appointed, if she had appointed a compromised national security advisor who had failed to register as a foreign agent, if she had sicked a man like Schaife on a Republican politician in a vendetta, if she had said the things about POW’s like McCain, that Trump said, if Chelsea’s husband had tried to set up a back channel to the Kremlin, in the Russian embassy, if she had championed the election of Roy Moore, with all of his ugly baggage, if she selected an advisor like the rheumy-eyed, unkempt, race-baiting Breitbart founder, Bannon, if she forbid government departments from the use of certain words, if she ordered 4 soldiers into an operation where they were killed in an ambush and it received as much scrutiny as Benghazi , if she nominated unqualified men for judicial positions, if she had appointed a socialite to run the Dept. of Ed., if she had encouraged the passage of legislation opposed by 67% of Americans AND THEN, you found her objectionable, the proof of a double standard wouldn’t exist.

                    1. Paul C. Schulte, – Did you ever nark down a students grade for using 200+ words in a sentence?

                    2. Tom Nash – I bought the “red pen of death” by the caseload. 😉 My students were not writing Moby Dick. BTW, I still have several boxes of red pens going to waste. 🙂

                  1. I think The Elements of Style is still in print.
                    It provides good pointers on sentence structure, how to use puncuations like periods, and how and where paragraphs should be used.

              2. I forgot to mention that in 1866 the Supreme Court weighed in on the issue of whether a pardon can be issued prior to trial, and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution is that the president can pardon someone at any time after an offense has occurred, even prior to trial:

                “*** 9. The power of pardon conferred by the Constitution upon the President is unlimited except in cases of impeachment. It extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment. ***” Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. 4 Wall. 333 333 (1866).

                That was probably in keeping with Lincoln’s second inaugural address argument that the nation needed to move on from the Civil War and not try to relitigate the war in court by holding southerns accountable for war crimes — it being in the best interests of the nation to heal the nation and not reopen the wounds of war:

                “With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds ***”

                I believe that’s what Ford indicated he was thinking about when he pardoned Nixon — that in this specific instance it was in the best interests of the nation to just move on. After all, Nixon did resign — and Ford was not reelected, most probably because he pardoned Nixon as much as any other reason.

                But compare the actual Supreme Court authority cited above with what the ALLEGED Constitutional scholar, Obama, represented as the law when asked whether he would pardon Edward Snowden by Der Spiegel, as referenced in a November 20, 2016, article in Ars Technica titled “Obama says he can’t pardon Snowden”:

                “Are you going to pardon Edward Snowden?” Obama was asked, and he answered, “I can’t pardon somebody who hasn’t gone before a court and presented themselves, so that’s not something that I would comment on at this point.”

                How odd it is that a “Constitutional scholar” (LOL) would not be familiar with actual Constitutional LAW concerning a question he had been repeatedly asked, both with respect to Snowden and concerning the possible indictment of Hillary.

                1. For the first time, Trump used his power to commute prison sentences. The money laundering case from 2008 involved federal authorities raiding the guy’s plant where they found “389 illegal immigrants”.
                  The guy’s family are big Republican donors.

                  Trump’s campaign rhetoric- all hat, no cattle.

                  1. And Obama commuted the sentences of thousands of drug dealers. And Bill Clinton made a few notorious pardons and commutations. Too bad neither those nor your comment here have anything to do with this thread.
                    You’re so blinded by hatred that you just post blind-hatred comments anywhere, regardless of whether they have anything to do with the subject at hand.

        2. I’m enjoying your commentary William. 🙂

          If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.

          I like to reference Frederic Bastiat as his pamphlet The Law breaks down the purpose, practice and failures of law in civil society. The portion of the quote from Justice Brandeis I copied from you is similar to the following from Bastiat:

          No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them.

          The nature of law is to maintain justice. This is so much the case that, in the minds of the people, law and justice are one and the same thing. There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are “just” because law makes them so. Thus, in order to make plunder appear just and sacred to many consciences, it is only necessary for the law to decree and sanction it.

          1. Brandeis is preferable to Bastiat who inherited his grandfather’s family estate, thereby voiding any need for Bastiat heirs to contribute to GDP.

            Why haven’t oligarch defenders shown outrage for the injustice of carried interest? Or, for the state of Washington which has the most regressive tax system in the U.S.? Why no outrage when income earned by waitresses is taxed more heavily than income from capital gains?

              1. Ivanka writes a speech about budgeting for middle class and poor families. And in the paper, she refers to food as an investment. There may be disagreement about the value of Ivanka’s paper but, what is certain is that there’s no reason to expect her treatise to have merit.
                Louise Litton writes a book she believes describes the people of an African nation that she visited. The book is withdrawn because it is ridiculous. There’s no reason to think it wouldn’t be.
                Bastiat wrote workers are lazy. Why select for quotation among what, may be his other expressions of ignorance?

                1. Again, you ignore the full context and pretend you’re making a good argument. If anything, your arguments are lazy. I’ve already proven to you the full context of Ivanka’s statement had nothing to do with families doing nothing more than considering all costs associated with budgeting. Regarding Bastiat, give me the citation where he said workers are lazy. Here is one example of Bastiat’s philosophy regarding human nature and labor:

                  But, generally, the law is made by one man or one class of men. And since law cannot operate without the sanction and support of a dominating force, this force must be entrusted to those who make the laws.

                  This fact, combined with the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least possible effort, explains the almost universal perversion of the law. Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds.

                  Of course a socialist would deny that fatal tendency, but history has proven that tendency to be true. That’s not laziness, that’s human nature. If it weren’t true, then the political class would have zero success bribing their constituents with other people’s money.

                  1. “If anything, your arguments are lazy.”

                    Linda’s “arguments” are contortions twisted to fit her democrat agenda. She does not make intellectually honest arguments.

      2. HRC is still the face of the Democratic party… and her book and book tour suggest to me she wants it that way.

        Bernie is still too much of a maverick / black sheep (I think he went back to being an “independent” officially) and nobody else is stepping up to take the bull by the horns. Even party leadership avoided the customary “purge” after losing an election, which means with one high-profile exception (Wasserman-Schultz) it’s still packed with her loyalists and folks of her exact political stripe.

    3. Because even the childish and idiotic among us have a voice that should be heard! Do you posit that SJW’s, for example, should not be heard? For what more childish and idiotic statements are there than their, “There are nooo illegal people!”???

      No, I say unto you that if the childish and idiotic were banned, then only conservative, right wing voices would be heard far and wide across the land.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

  5. (music to the tune of Camp Town Racers Sing This Song..)

    Clinton is an ugly Rat…
    Do Da! Do Da!
    Clinton is an ugly Rat!
    All the do da day!

    etc

Leave a Reply