Recent Bloomberg polling in the presidential race is showing that Republican nominee Donald Trump is up by 5 points in Ohio, while the Denver Post reports that he is up by 2 points in Colorado. The latter state is one where the campaign of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton made a big show of pulling their advertising in July. That was supposed to be an indication that Democrats thought that a win there was assured. Cynics can be forgiven for believing that it was a false signal of confidence for media consumption masking very deep concerns.
Wednesday morning on Fox News, Chris Stirewalt said what the establishment press won’t say about Mrs. Clinton: Democrats don’t like her — and further, she’s “a walking enthusiasm suppressant.” I’m sure that the dwindling number of people who trust the mainstream press, of which Fox is a non-member, will see what Stirewalt has said as biased and partisan. But the comeback question for those people is: Well, why has it been so hard for Mrs. Clinton to get people to show up at her rallies, while Trump rallies are so often standing-room-only affairs?
Many leftist pundits are huge fans of Mrs. Clinton, despite her scandals and self-dealing. They also believe that rank-and-file Democrats do too:
Stirewalt appeared on American’s Newsroom this morning with host Bill Hemmer and countered that still-popular press assertion, and had this to say about the state of the race and Hillary Clinton’s enthusiasm gap:
Transcript (bolds are mine):
BILL HEMMER: Analysis now with Fox News digital policy editor Chris Stirewalt. Good morning to you. Tie it all together now, you’ve got the polling, the e-mails, the health of both, go!
CHRIS STIREWALT: So you can see how as the new polling from Bloomberg in Ohio showed, there is a way Donald Trump can win this election.
And the way that he can win the election is you intensify support in your base, you make yourself broadly acceptable to suburban women, so that you quit getting killed out there, but you intensify your base with the kind of language and the rhetoric that you’re hearing and the “deplorable” stuff. And “She says we are disgusting, let’s show her how disgusting by beating her at the polls.” Da da da da dah.
And at the same time you suppress Democratic enthusiasm. Hillary Clinton is a walking enthusiasm suppressant for Democrats. As she goes about, and whether it’s the health or whether it’s the e-mails or whether it’s the Foundation, she continues to reminds Democrats why they don’t like her. That’s why she’s going to have to rely on the president, Joe Biden and others to go out there and say “You got to do this, you got to do this, you got to do this.”
No other candidate, certainly since World War II, has felt it necessary to have the sitting President and Vice-President actively campaigning on her behalf. Bill Clinton wasn’t out there for Al Gore in 2000, nor was Ronald Reagan for George. H.W. Bush in 1988. Why should Hillary Clinton, perhaps the most recognizable Democratic politician on earth besides Barack Obama, even need them?
The answer is simple, as so many have observed for so long during her quarter-century of national visibility: The more the American people see of her, the more they dislike her. After the Democratic Convention through the end of August, even before her “deplorables” remark and her mishandled “medical episode,” the Washington Post reported that her favorables, even among those who have traditionally liked (or tolerated) her, dropped precipitously:
Interestingly, Clinton’s numbers appear to have dropped since that early August poll mostly in groups that have been very supportive of her:
- Her favorable rating among women dropped from 54 percent to just 45 percent.
- Among Hispanics, it went from 71 percent to 55 percent.
- Among liberals, it went from 76 percent to 63 percent.
That’s a lot of liberals who have left the plantation — and that doesn’t include those who are so invested in their “anybody but Trump” mindset that they won’t admit that they don’t like Mrs. Clinton.
It’s highly unlikely that the Post put this information into its print edition. Additionally, one will surely have to search long and hard at the Associated Press and the New York Times (with the exception of Maureen Dowd, and even with her you need to go back to early July) for indications that the left doesn’t like her and is unenthusiastic about her candidacy. Instead, the press, even after being effectively kept away from her for over 9 months, is still fired up about her candidacy and, at least based on this photo of fawning faces, still seems to hold her in awe, demonstrating how out of touch with most of the rest of the nation they really are: