Clinton still unpopular

One of the reasons Hillary Clinton failed in last year’s presidential election was her relatively high unpopularity. While it doesn’t matter now she is political history, she is just as unpopular (her excuses for losing won’t have helped).

People tend to not like losers, especially sore losers.

The Democrats aren’t doing much better.

Fox News:  Is the Democrats’ brand ‘worse than Trump’? Some party officials admit it is

Chris Murphy, a Democratic senator from Connecticut, made some candid comments that caught my eye yesterday.

“The fact that we have spent so much time talking about Russia has been a distraction from what should be the clear contrast between Democrats and the Trump agenda, which is on economics.”

Bingo. Running mainly against Donald Trump didn’t work for the Dems in 2016, and it’s not working now.

Ohio Democratic congressman Tim Ryan told the New York Times that his party is “toxic” in large swaths of the country: “Our brand is worse than Trump. We can’t just run against Trump.”

They are diverting from their own substantial problems by trying to blame everything on Trump.

One of the stupid things about this approach is that they don’t need to show how bad Trump can be, he keeps doing that himself. His stupidity over the Comey non-tapes is evidence of that – seeTrump “did not make…any such recordings”.

Trump’s unpopularity is similar to Clinton’s. From FiveThirtyEight:


That is historically low approval for a president in their first six months in office. Trump has managed to get there through his own efforts, he doesn’t need the Democrats to discredit him.

That both Clinton and Trump are so disliked is an indictment on the state of US politics.


Leave a comment


  1. Alan Wilkinson

     /  23rd June 2017

    Leopards don’t change their spots. I’m a bit sceptical about the spin though. NZ PMs rarely rate over 50% support. That US presidents used to seems a bit anomalous – to do with excessive patriotism and isolationism I suspect. Maybe 40% is a return to normality.

  2. sorethumb

     /  23rd June 2017

    Leftist Atlantic Mag Admits: ‘Democrats Lost Their Way on Immigration’

    “English First would be welcomed by Americans, but Beinart largely ignores the much more important social, economic and political impact of cheap-labor legal immigration, which has greatly helped the high-IQ post-graduate class boost their wealth, political power and status advantage over other Americans in the deliberately fragmented, tribalized, diversified, disunited United States.”
    “The pro-diversity, anti-America perspective is so central to the progressive movement that it drove Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign into a multicultural bog. A second article in the same issue of the Atlantic described how those views helped wreck her campaign:

    By the spring of 2016, one top Clinton adviser explained to me, the campaign’s own polling showed that white voters without a college degree despised Clinton … [Clinton] never fully met her most important political challenge: the need to both celebrate multiculturalism and also cushion the backlash against the celebration … Nonetheless, neither Clinton nor her campaign manager, Robby Mook, had any apparent interest in that appeal. They considered Trump’s disreputable [pro-American] character the issue that would carry the election”

    Katherine Betts
    During the 1970s a particular ideological climate grew up around the topic [immigration] and attitudes to it came to acquire a special significance in intellectual circles. And for a series of historical reasons, the question moved from being a legitimate topic of discussion and disagreement to become not a topic but a symbol, a marker of intellectual status and identity.

  3. sorethumb

     /  23rd June 2017

    Also relevant to the Clinton media:
    “…for adverse public opinion
    on a given question to be an
    effective political constraint
    someone has to articulate it.”

    Governing elites find it hard to pursue policies that fly in the face of public opinion. But for adverse public opinion on a given question to be an effective political constraint someone has to articulate it. The question has to be placed on the national agenda. This role can fall to the Parliamentary Opposition but when bipartisan positions are adopted, as happened with immigration in 1980, formal political channels are blocked. This does not necessarily stifle adverse opinion but, if it is to be heard and to be effective, it must be promoted by other means. For example, organized protest groups can form, and with competent and articulate leadership they can provide a voice for an electorate disfranchised by bi-partisanship, a voice that politicians will be obliged to heed. Where these groups gain the sympathy of the media, the process will be accelerated. But, if the intelligentsia are not interested and the media unsympathetic, protest groups may not even form or, if they do, they are likely to remain on the fringes. Their activities will be ineffective and they will easily be written off as cranky and irrelevant.
    In the past only a small proportion of the population had university degrees and professional occupations, and it was enough for leaders to be intelligent and committed. By contrast contemporary society has been transformed by mass education, and by the growth of higher education for a substantial minority. Most potential leaders have spent a long time in the education system and if a cause cannot attract at least some of the highly educated it will probably be stillborn.

  4. Gezza

     /  23rd June 2017

    Good summary of the situation, PG. No argument.

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  23rd June 2017

      I disagree. I don’t see why it is an indictment of US politics at all. I think it is healthy that the electorate is sceptical of its political leaders and very unhealthy if it is not. I don’t see it at all abnormal that there should be a variety of views as to who should be leading the company and given a range of options it should not be at all surprising that the present leader would have less than 50% support rising above that only if the choice is narrowed to two possible candidates.

      • Gezza

         /  23rd June 2017

        We could discuss this further in November – I shall pack a brick.

        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  23rd June 2017

          .. company => country!!

          You’ll be flying like a pukeko then for sure. Don’t drop anything.

  5. Zedd

     /  23rd June 2017

    maybe usa should finally accept the 2-party system is a failure.. coke v pepsi

    If mr T was really the better choice.. then surely thats evidence, its is broken ?

    & yet some think FPP is the better option to MMP in nz 😦 go figure

    • PDB

       /  23rd June 2017

      I think there were better options on offer than both those systems in the original vote to change the voting system but MMP had far better promotion at the time.

      • Gezza

         /  23rd June 2017

        I look back now & wish I & thousands of others had chosen a preferential voting system. Mechanically & intelligibly it worked easily enuf for the Mayoral & Council elections. It might result in a lower turnout too, at General Elections, but proportionally more votes might perhaps be cast by better-informed voters?

  1. Clinton still unpopular — Your NZ – NZ Conservative Coalition

Leave a Reply to PDB Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: