An interesting catch by anti-Trump GOP strategist Liz Mair, who says that this latest polling nugget explains why Hillary Clinton's obnoxious whining about 'sexism' ought to be directed at her own party, not the GOP. The twice-failed presidential candidate recently complained that losing male politicians are never told to shut up and go away (which isn't true at all), so why should she do so? I'd wager that Republicans would wholeheartedly agree in this case; I've argued that the RNC should consider devoting resources to help ensure that Mrs. Clinton's voice remains as loud and prevalent as ever before in our national politics. It's Democrats who should be quietly -- or not so quietly -- wishing that she would exit stage left. Despite all of the Trump administration's endless drama and controversy and chaos, American voters have not developed a case of buyers' remorse vis-a-vis "Crooked H:"
Here's why people are still talking about Hillary Clinton, despite her losing in 2016. She's incredibly unpopular, and that makes her worth keeping in conversation for Rs. pic.twitter.com/JYWkOpPt8U— Liz Mair (@LizMair) April 17, 2018
Barely over a quarter of Americans have a favorable view of Mrs. Clinton, with an outright majority holding negative opinions. That's significantly worse than Trump, even in NBC/WSJ's generally Trump-unfriendly survey series, well beyond the poll's margin of error. Some of her dreadful numbers can be chalked up to many on the Left turning sour, from Bernie folks (who've never liked her), to a decent number of Clinton supporters and endorsers whose patience has run out -- or who fret that her ongoing blame-storming and high-profile presence is an impediment to Democratic gains. I also suspect that anti-Hillary sentiment has hardened in centrist and right-leaning precincts, too, particularly after her appalling overseas smears against Trump voters -- whom she cast as racist, nativist and sexist. Her digs at Trump's millions of female voters were also condescending beyond belief, forcing some of her vulnerable Senate gal pals to push back. I'll leave you with Hillary's campaign chairman -- whose name has gotten caught up in the Mueller probe -- ripping James Comey's 'idiotic' handling of the email scandal investigation:
Comey's original mistake was not recommending charges against Clinton in the first place, based on the letter of the law and his own "intent" standard. And by the way, via the Free Beacon, Comey writes in his new book that a splashy 2015 New York Times story over which the Clinton campaign freaked out, demanding (and receiving) partisan retractions, actually wasn't that far off the mark:
The Clinton campaign, which requested the corrections in the first place, seized on those small inconsistencies and attempted to use them to discredit the entire story. The campaign wrote a nearly 2,000-word public letter to the Times demanding an explanation for the "egregious" story and attacking the paper's "apparent abandonment of standard journalistic practices." Liberal media outlets were more than happy to join in the pile-on. Newsweek‘s Kurt Eichenwald declared the Times guilty of "a level of recklessness that borders on, well, criminal behavior." The Atlantic called the "botched story" a "huge embarrassment" for the paper. Salon.com declared it"another shoddy Clinton smear." Mother Jones wrote that it was an "epic screw-up." But former FBI director James Comey's new book indicates that the ridiculous semantics game was even more moot than it appeared. The Times actually understated the reality: Clinton was already under criminal investigation at the time by the FBI, and yes, she was definitely the target. "Though The Times may have thought those clarifications were necessary, their original story was much closer to the mark," Comey writes. "It was true that the transmission to the F.B.I. from the inspector general did not use the word ‘criminal,’ but by the time of the news story, we had a full criminal investigation open, focused on the secretary’s conduct."
Hillary was the target of a criminal investigation. And Democrats nominated her anyway -- and now even many of them are growing weary of hearing from her. But third time's a charm, Madam Secretary; 2020 beckons.