Daily Archives: February 21, 2016

Billary’s nationwide favorability is underwater by double digits; yes, lemming, that’s a looming cliff you see

Why Does Hillary Clinton Keep Having Coughing Fits?

A Quinnipiac University poll of more than 1,300 registered voters nationwide that was taken earlier this month found that only 37 percent of American voters favor Billary Clinton while a whopping 58 percent do not favor her — and that 51 percent of American voters favor Bernie Sanders, while only 36 percent do not. Billary’s favorability is underwater by 21 percentage points, whereas Bernie is liked by 15 percentage points more than he is disliked. Billary is popular enough within the calcified Democratic Party establishment, especially within the identity groups that she has pandered to for years, but how in the hell can she win the White House without being favored by even 40 percent of the American electorate?*

Yesterday I saw at least two headlines on Yahoo! News referring to Billary Clinton’s “big” win in Nevada. Um, per Politico, with 95.3 percent reporting, Billary garnered 52.7 percent to Bernie Sanders’ 47.2 percent in the Nevada caucuses yesterday. That’s a whopping difference of 5.5 percent.

I’d call it a fairly definitive win — it was not as close as Iowa was, with a difference of not even 0.5 percent; it was not close enough, as Iowa was, for us to publicly wonder about shenanigans — but a “big” win?

To me, a “big” win would have to be at least in the double digits. Bernie Sanders’ 22-percent victory in New Hampshire, for instance — that was a big win.

But we Amuricans love our presidential horse-race drama and, of course, there are plenty of Billarybots working within the media who are all too happy to spin a 5.5-percent win as a “big” one.

The fact is, Billary was expected to do much better in Nevada than she did, and her nationwide polling numbers continue to drop (gone is her double-digit national lead), no doubt a reflection of the fact that more registered voters dislike her than like her — by double digits.

Real Clear Politics’ average of nationwide polls of Democrats and Democratic leaners gives Billary only a 5.6 percent lead, the lowest lead that she’s ever had over Bernie nationwide, to my knowledge.

(You know, I noted yesterday that Nevada very apparently is pretty representative of the nation, and look — Billary won Nevada by 5.5 percent yesterday and RCP’s average of nationwide polls of Dems and Dem leaners right now has her up by 5.6 percent. Yup. I rest my case.)

If you don’t trust Real Clear Politics (I do — they’re pretty solid and they are widely quoted), know that The Huffington Post’s average of nationwide polling of Dems and Dem leaners right now gives Billary only a 7.4 percent lead over Bernie nationwide.

If 7.4 percent seems pretty good to you, look at the HuffPo’s current graph of the nationwide polling in the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primary battle; look at the trending:

The chart begins on January 12, 2015, at which time Billary’s lead over Bernie was 56.8 percent. Again, now she isn’t even 10 percent ahead of Bernie nationwide.

Nevada was only the third state to weigh in, after Iowa and New Hampshire, and Billary won Nevada narrowly, yet Slate.com’s otherwise thoughtful Jamelle Bouie has claimed that because she won Nevada, “Clinton has the advantage, and barring a catastrophic decline with black voters, she’ll march steadily to the nomination.” (He hedgingly acknowledges that “This doesn’t mean the campaign is over” and that “Sanders is still a formidable candidate.”)

But it seems manic as well as grossly premature for one to declare in a fairly close two-person race that whichever candidate won the latest battle (and only the third battle — out of 50 battles) inevitably is going to win the war that probably is going to go on for some weeks to come. And with the headline and subheadline of Bouie’s piece — “Hillary Clinton’s Path Is Clear: Barring a catastrophe, her nomination is inevitable” — that is what Bouie, or at least Slate.com, has done. (The teaser for Bouie’s piece on Slate.com’s home page is more direct; it reads: “Winning Nevada Makes Hillary Clinton’s Nomination Virtually Inevitable.” How is that not declaring the winner after only three states have weighed in?)

I’m seeing news of Billary’s “big” win in Nevada, and the “inevitability” argument has resurfaced after Billary won Nevada by a not-huge margin of 5.5 percent, but I’m not seeing a lot of attention to the fact that we still have 47 states to go and that Billary is sinking and Bernie is surging in the nationwide polls — and that there remains plenty of time for Billary to continue to slip in the polls, even if there isn’t a “catastrophe,” such as a federal indictment of Billary for her criminal mishandling of national secrets. (I mean, a home-brewed e-mail server. When you are the U.S. secretary of state. Wow. She has gotten the pass on this that she has only because of her dynastic surname. If it were you or I…)

At any rate, I repeat: Bernie is rising and Billary is dropping in the nationwide polls of Dems and Dem leaners, and we have 47 more states and several more weeks to go in the Democraitc Party presidential primary contest.

Let’s calm the fuck down and let the democratic process play itself out.

We Amuricans are so fucking impatient for a winner that we’ll declare the “winner” 3/50th of the fucking way in.

As far as the upcoming state No. 4 is concerned, I never will understand why South Carolina is considered to be so fucking pivotal in the 2016 Democratic Party primary race. It’s an incredibly backasswards state — home to the likes of white-supremacist mass murderer Dylann Storm Roof and the first state to secede from the Union — a bright-red state (the last time that a Democratic presidential candidate won South Carolina was Jimmy Carter in 1976), and it is not at all indicative of the Democratic Party’s traditional (that is, progressive) values and beliefs.

So Billary will win the backasswards, ultra-red state of South Carolina on Saturday. Big fucking whoop. It’s nothing to brag about; it only demonstrates what a progressive she isn’t.

As far as the all-important-according-to-the-Billarybots black vote goes, I have three things to say about that:

One, presumably black people were included in the nationwide polls of Dems and Dem leaners, which show Billary losing ground and Bernie gaining ground nationwide. (Duh.) I don’t deny that Billary has an edge on Bernie with black voters (which she inherited from her hubby, our “first black president” [shudder]), but will that edge be her lifesaver? I think that that question is far from settled. Yet again, we have 47 more states and several more weeks to go.

Secondly, Latinos are the nation’s largest non-white racial minority group, not blacks. The black-white binary conception of race in the United States is outdated. So ingrained is this false racial binary within the United States, especially among the older set, that Latinos and Asians (and other non-whites and non-blacks) are pretty much overlooked altogether by white supremacists and by black supremacists, who fairly literally see only black and white.

Because of the shifting racial demographics of the U.S., increasingly, it is the support of Latino Americans that is crucial to winning elections, especially national elections and regional elections with high populations of Latino Americans. With each successive presidential primary and presidential general election, Latino Americans will have more of an influence and black Americans (and white Americans too, of course) will have less. If black Americans truly are the Democratic Party presidential nomination kingmakers that they so widely are said to be now, I don’t see that status lasting for long.

Finally, black Americans, just as are all Americans of every stripe, are perfectly free to vote against their own best interests, such as by voting for a pseudo-progressive like Billary Clinton. I, for one, am not going to beg anyone to vote for the candidate who fairly clearly would be best for his or her own interests. (And the more that you try to convince someone who is not very bright not to do a stupid thing, the more likely, it seems to me, that he or she will do it.)

If black Americans do indeed prove to be instrumental in winning the 2016 Democratic Party presidential nomination for Billary — only to have her lose in November to the Repugnican Tea Party presidential candidate (an event that is quite predictable) — I won’t be happy with them (to put it mildly), as I wasn’t happy (to put it mildly) with the 70 percent of black Californians who quite homophobically voted against same-sex marriage in California with Proposition Hate, but with a Repugnican Tea Party president in the White House in January 2017, they will suffer the consequences of their piss-poor judgment just as I and everyone else who isn’t super-rich will suffer. (Only I can see that suffering coming now, so I won’t be blindsided by it, like they will be.)

No, I don’t assert that Bernie Sanders could come into the Oval Office with his magic socialist wand, wave it a few times, and magically make everything all better for black (and other) Americans.

But I do believe that he would at least try, and that he would try hard, and that he would try a lot harder to fight socioeconomic injustice than Barack Obama ever truly tried. (The hopey-changey Obama can give a good speech, and that’s about it.)

One thing that I and most black Americans do agree upon, if we can’t agree upon Billary Clinton (and apparently we can’t), is that we’d rather not that the next occupant of the Oval Office be of the Repugnican Tea Party.

But, again, the presidential match-up polls show (and have shown for a long time now) that Bernie Sanders can do better against the Repugnican Tea Party presidential contenders than can the widely nationally despised Billary Clinton.

Take a look at Billary’s nationwide favorability numbers (such as the recent Quinnipiac University poll that found that only 37 percent of all Americans favor her while 58 percent disfavor her) and compare them to Bernie’s (such as the same poll that found that 51 percent of Americans favor him while 36 percent do not).

Go ahead; be you a “feminist” (who doesn’t want to go to hell), be you a black American, be you an LGBT American (as I am), be you whoever you are: Support Billary Clinton, who does well enough among Democrats (especially Democratic Party hacks, who are legion) but who is fairly reviled by a solid majority of all American voters.

On the night of Election Day in November, when Billary loses by a large-enough margin that we won’t have to stay up that late for the winner of the presidential election to be called, I will tell you: I told you so.**

*That mostly was a rhetorical question, but the match-up polls suggest that of the top three Repugnican Tea Party presidential candidates — Donald Trump, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz — the only one of these three Billary can beat is Trump, by only about 3 percentage points. Trump’s recent Quinnipiac University poll numbers are quite similar to Billary’s —37 percent favor him while 57 percent do not.

**And mostly, no, I will not derive any pleasure from that.

And you won’t admit that you were wrong for having supported the detested Billary Clinton, and you certainly won’t apologize, because being an Amurican means never admitting it when you are/were wrong, and it certainly means never apologizing.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized