By Dave Andrusko
Let’s see if I can get the latest back and forth about pro-abortion Hillary Clinton straight.
Yesterday the Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza told us that whatever the case against the former Secretary of State may be (a case that is metastasizing by the day), she’s got so much money, so many of the best people to run a campaign sewed up, so many endorsements (well, maybe not so many) that “Dear Democrats: It’s too late to start over.”
Today an even more reliably Democratic columnist, Eugene Robinson of the Post, just eviscerates Clinton for all the missteps and misbehaviors everyone knows about.
Even though she is “her own worst enemy” with a questionable “basic respect — for us and for the truth,” Robinson concludes, “At present, I have no reason to believe the controversy is enough to derail the Clinton locomotive’s grinding progress toward the nomination.” And, of course, no Republican can beat her in the general.
What else is new yesterday and today? Rasmussen Reports has some interesting numbers about what underlies the Cillizza/Robinson argument: Mrs. Clinton is the inevitable Democratic nominee, as sure as the sun rises in the east.
The latest Hillary Meter shows that 63% of Likely U.S. Voters believe that Clinton is likely to be the next Democratic presidential candidate, but just 26% say it is Very Likely. That compares to 78% and 43% a month ago. Thirty percent (30%) consider that outcome unlikely, with 11% who feel it is Not At All Likely. That overall figure is up 10 points from the previous survey.
Among likely Democratic voters, 74% think Clinton is likely to be their party’s nominee, but that’s down from 87% in the previous survey and 93% earlier in July. Eighteen percent (18%) of Democrats think Clinton is unlikely to be the nominee. The latest findings include 35% who say Clinton is Very Likely to be the nominee, down from 53% a month ago, but still just four percent (4%) who say that scenario is Not At All Likely.
And it’s just early August and Mrs. Clinton’s woes are just beginning. No wonder she wants to keep the number of candidate debates among Democrats to a minimum.
But, to be fair, as we have noted before, respected observers essentially argue that of course someone as “inevitable” as Mrs. Clinton was/is will go through batches of rough waters. It’s a defensible argument but (in my opinion) filled with as much desire that she prevail as reason to believe she will carry the day.
I have to admit I laughed out loud when I read Nate Silver’s analysis when he downplayed the impact of the email scandal. Why is no big deal in the long run?
The reason I’m skeptical that the email scandal is the cause of Clinton’s problems is because it’s not as though she entered the race with a squeaky-clean reputation. Instead, given how long the Clintons have been in public life and their reputation for playing at the edges of the rules, it might take a fairly bad scandal to capture the public’s imagination and produce much “value over replacement scandal.” Search Google Trends for “Clinton scandal”1 and you’ll find a spikes of public interest around an actual or alleged scandal involving the Clintons once or twice per election cycle; the current one does not particularly stand out.
I guess that means if people have a low enough opinion of you going in, they will “discount” the importance of any given “scandal.” Talk about a scandal half full.
It kind of reminds you of a sarcastic quip from the late Senator Everett Dirksen. Drolly talking about runaway federal spending, he observed, “A million here, a million there, pretty soon, you’re talking real money.”
But the most interesting development for what it says about how pro-abortionists/Clinton intend to win may have been found in a piece written yesterday by Joe Schoffstall for the Washington Free Beacon. It begins
Two pro-Hilary Clinton groups will be joining forces to launch a multi-million dollar campaign in hopes of energizing young female voters to vote against Republican “extremism” in the 2016 presidential election.
Priorities USA, the biggest independent expenditure super PAC backing Hillary Clinton’s presidential run, will be working alongside Emily’s List’s Madam President project in kicking off a “war on women” themed campaign intended to push female voters away from supporting the eventual Republican candidate in the general election.
The groups hope to raise at least $20 million to pump into the campaign to paint the Republican presidential field as wanting to interfere with women’s access to health care along with opposing fair pay. The groups will utilize targeted paid media and voter contact efforts in key battleground states throughout the 2016 election cycle.
“Interfer[ing] with women’s access to health care”? Is there nothing new under the sun?
Do they actually believe the public is so stupid it cannot distinguish between aborting pain-capable children and then selling their lungs and hearts and livers and brains to middle men who will whisk these intact baby body parts along for medical experimentation and “women’s access to health care”?
Do they really believe that Mrs. Clinton’s pedal-to-the metal support for Planned Parenthood will operate like a kind of magic wand, casting spells in whichever direction she points?
Are they completely oblivious to the nauseous reaction every ethically sentient human being has experienced to the six undercover videos the Center for Medical Progress has also placed online? Do they really think that PPFA’s image has not taken a tremendous hit?
Editor’s note. If you want to peruse stories all day long, either go directly to nationalrighttolifenews.org and/or follow me on Twitter at twitter.com/daveha