Gallup Poll takes on Rove's argument that Hillary is fatally flawed.

Lots of data for polling junkies but I will skip to the good part

Conclusion

A review of Gallup poll data suggests that Hillary Clinton's current high unfavorable ratings are not unprecedented. Other candidates have had similarly high unfavorable ratings at various points in presidential election campaigns in previous years. Two of these candidates -- George W. Bush in 2004 and Bill Clinton in 1992 -- went on to win the election.

Additionally, Rove's assumptions that Hillary Clinton's candidacy is "fatally flawed" run counter to the historical finding that candidates' images often change, sometimes dramatically, as the campaign progresses. In other words, Clinton's ultimate electability will likely be determined more by what happens in the next 15 months while she campaigns than by what Americans think of her now. It is clear that Americans have been willing to revise their opinions of Clinton over time in response to current events, just as they have of other presidential candidates historically.

Typically, a winning presidential candidate's favorable rating is only slightly more positive than negative on the eve of the election. Clinton would only need to boost her positives a few points to achieve that position.

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=28477

His antics are those of a coward. Only a fucking weasal would have been a threatening blowhard, as Karl was, when he did the attacks on Valerie Plame, and told Mr. Matthews that she was "fair game." I think that he will continue his bullying tactics. The art of politics includes some harsh realities, but I have no respect for a man who attempts to threaten and bully a woman.

I recall Malcolm X saying that there are hunters in the jungle, and those who hunt the hunters. Bullies, beware.

and other Blue Meanies bug me.

Junior got some big negatives at various times and for various reasons. He's hardly a great example to hold up, considering that he LOST THE DAMNED ELECTION. This justification shouldn't even be used at all; that election was stolen, stolen, stolen, or as the San Francisco Chronicle said: it fell off a truck.

Clinton won a plurality in a three-way race, which is a lot of the reason the reactionaries never accepted him as a legitimate president. If those circumstances are duplicated with a credible third-party candidate that soaks-off conservative votes by definition, then we should talk about it; otherwise, it's apples and Orange Juliuses.

Not only are both of these examples basically inapplicable, they don't address the core issue of consistency. Bill Clinton fluctuated wildly up with the excitement of the faddish new, down with character issue revelations, up with deft damage-control handling, and he was up and down. Junior took a major hit right at the end with his arrogant unwillingness to even address the drunk-driving issue. Neither was consistently laboring under huge negatives like Hillary and neither was nationally known in his first election, although Junior had name-recognition.

These comparisons simply don't have any bearing on the discussion at hand; she's been a VERY well-known public figure for seventeen years now, and her negatives have been very and consistently high for well over a decade. She got a bit of a sympathy bump from the victim crowd during the infidelity revelations, but other than that, she's got some well-entrenched, powerful and vigorous enemies. That shouldn't necessarily rule out supporting her, but it simply can't be dismissed: a workable strategy for her to be elected needs to factor this in.

Holy crap, what kind of fantasyland is this?!

You're showing me a graph where her unfavorables are consistently within about 10 points over the last 7 years and between roughly 40% and OVER 50%. Those are high unfavorables; at the high end of that VERY SHORT SPREAD she cannot be elected in a two-way race BY DEFINITION, and at the low end, she's gasping for air with the 60% who will even consider thinking of considering thinking of possibly holding their noses and marking the ballot for her. Gosh, FOUR YEARS AGO she actually dropped into the upper thirties. Ooooh!

Hell, the Wicked Witch of the West could've probably pulled better numbers.

If she was a crusading lionhearted liberal with an agenda to slay the evil corporatists and usher in a bright new day it might be worth the risk, but even then it would be silly, sentimental and ill-advised.

Lest we forget, however, she's not even all that close to the middle of the road, much less to the left of it.

This makes no sense at all.

The earliest numbers were from 3 months before the election. The numbers from Jan. the year of the election were about an incumbent president. A valid comparision would be of where Kerry was at this time in 2003, Bush and perhaps Gore in 1999, Dole in 1995, Dukakis in 1987, etc. The key caveat is that HRC is unique in that she is already universally known because she was First Lady. She is like a former VP in terms being well-known and being associated with a past administration.

That means if times are bad---if people are scared for their jobs, the economy, the war--they will consider her and Bill and known quantity and they will be willing to accept the bad with the good over an unknown quantity.

Karl Rove is an idiot if he does not understand that, and a liar if he does understand that but still says what he says.

Is he painting her fatally flawed because he fears her, or because he secretly lusts for her candidacy:crazy:

The best bet... take Rove anything says and immediately flush it down the appropriate receptacle.