Not that this has been a day of sterling imagery for Hillary Clinton. The Sunday Times suggests that the Clintons’ treatment of former First Cat Socks could cost her some votes. And why not? American elections and nominations have turned on silly things before as larger issues have fallen by the wayside.

Could Sarah Baxter be a bigger cunt? And frankly Joe, you aren’t any better. Wasn’t it Mitt Romney who placed his dog in a cage and tied it to the top of his car when traveling?

The media spends the last 15 years heaping non-stop vitriol against Hillary Clinton, then has the gall to publish polls which prove her unpopularity, ignoring their own role in shaping the public’s opinion of her.

How could the polls be diferent, when every news cycle has a stream of ‘what’s wrong with Hillary’ features?
People succumb to a persistent drum beat, regardless of what it says.

Plus, polls contribute to the drumbeat.
No one likes her? Then I shouldn’t either.

You hit the nail on the head. I have said that most people are incapable of thinking for themselves.

It’s an internet poll. I’m utterly unconvinced that internet polls have any value. Zogby runs a telephone poll and Zogby International runs the internet variety. The telephone polls are much more accurate in the end than the internet ones.

Washington Post did a similar survey – but via telephone – and found Hillary Clinton to be the third least unelectable candidate out of the 18 running in both parties. Both can’t be right.

Honestly, posts like this really make the “moderate” enterprise look like an attempt to repackage right-wing talking points. Shame.

The Republican frontrunners are at 42 and 43%, not horribly far from Clinton’s 50%. What’s the standard error on the poll, Joe? What have other recent polls shown?

Not that this has been a day of sterling imagery for Hillary Clinton. The Sunday Times suggests that the Clintons’ treatment of former First Cat Socks could cost her some votes. And why not? American elections and nominations have turned on silly things before as larger issues have fallen by the wayside.

Why not, Joe? Because it’s retarded and landed us with our current crop of imbeciles. Damnit, the hyper-mediated way the election has become about superficial issues-to-only-press corps-douchebags (Socks! Haircuts!) is a problem, Joe! Stop pretending it’s not stupid and destructive!

This post did a horrible job of giving actual information or helping the country. As “moderate” as it was, it was, when you look at it, mostly reporting on the reporting about a poll (or reporting on the reporting on the reporting about a poll, in the case of blog quotes), a poll which is already reported in a stupid, anti-Hillary manner, without context or basic statistical information.

This is how democracy dies. People who should know better playing dumb.

Let me be clear: this poll is bad news for Clinton mostly because everybody will say it is. Being 8 points more loathed than Rudy a year before the election is not a huge deal. To the extent that’s it’s news, it’s not good news, and it will embolden Hillary’s opponents, true. Of course, I’d rather see Edwards be the nominee, nonetheless, this sort of thing will come back to bite any candidate, especially a democratic candidate (see the Daily Howler), so it’s important for us to push back against these sorts of stories.

The campaign against her seeks to bring back the image of the 90’s when she was not a popular First Lady, and didn’t fit the traditional image of a fashion leader that had few political views outside of her husband’s. Hillary was outspoken and a policy maker on her own-leading the way for national health care. It basically assumes that she’s learned nothing since then, during her years in the Senate- despite the fact that she’s received high marks from opponents and allies alike.

Plus, polls contribute to the drumbeat.
No one likes her? Then I shouldn’t either.

In addition, Senator Clinton will probably easily win Ohio, Missouri, Iowa, and Colorado. Those wins would make the election a rout.