A thread for ISH only

[busybody..]

Hillary Clinton’s Poll Numbers Plummet, Will Media Report It?

Poll fixation by the media has been a frequent topic of discussion for conservatives as the press have focused ad nauseum on the falling approval numbers of President Bush the past couple of years.

With that in mind, will the press show equal interest in a study just released by the Gallup Organization identifying Hillary Clinton’s favorability rating plummeting an astounding thirteen percentage points in two months to one of its lowest levels since 1993?

Given the truly shocking results reported on Wednesday, one could easily envision this being the lead story for network evening news programs if the data was about one of the Republican presidential frontrunners, and if not for the massacre at Virginia Tech (emphasis added throughout):

A majority of Americans have an unfavorable image of New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination. Clinton's current 45% favorable rating with the American public is her third consecutive reading below 50% in the past two months, and is one of the lowest Gallup has measured for her since 1993. The recent decline in her image appears to be broad-based, as it is evident among most key subgroups. Even after her image first showed signs of decline in early March, Clinton managed to maintain a healthy lead in Gallup's trial heat of Democratic preferences for the party's 2008 presidential nomination. However, the new poll shows her lead has shrunk to just five percentage points over Barack Obama.

Substitute Rudy Guiliani’s name for Hillary’s, and Mitt Romney’s for Obama’s. Think this would get a significant amount of attention?

Regardless of the answer, the particulars were quite astounding:

In the latest USA Today/Gallup poll, conducted April 13-15, 2007, more Americans say they have an unfavorable (52%) than a favorable view (45%) of Clinton…As recently as February, her favorable rating was a solid 58%.

That’s a 13 percentage point decline in two months. And, the internals are even more telling:

What is immediately clear from the table is how broad-based the more negative views of Clinton are. Each group analyzed shows a decline in favorable ratings of Clinton compared with earlier this year. This includes groups that have generally very positive views of Clinton, such as Democrats, liberals, blacks, women, young adults, unmarried adults, and those living in low-income households -- as well as those who typically view Clinton negatively, like Republicans, conservatives, and frequent churchgoers.

And, this has ominous implications for her candidacy:

From a comparative perspective, Clinton is viewed less favorably by Americans than her two chief rivals for the Democratic nomination -- Barack Obama and John Edwards. Obama and Edwards both have 52% favorable ratings in the latest poll, slightly better than Clinton's 45%. But Obama's and Edwards' unfavorable ratings around 30% are much lower than Clinton's.

[…]

The two leading Republican presidential candidates -- Rudy Giuliani (57% favorable, 29% unfavorable) and John McCain (51% favorable, 32% unfavorable) -- are also viewed much more positively than Clinton.

Amazing stuff that seems quite likely to get buried by a media obsessed with the former first lady.

 

[Killswitch]

My Ish threads better.

 

[busybody..]

as I have said

this is what I have been hearing for a couple of months

the candidates internal polling is even worse

if this were any other candidate, they would be dead

the MSM love her so they will prop her up like a Potemkin candidate

I hope she is the Dim nominee

Bozo will beat her

 

[Delicacy]

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/singing-fish-original.jpg

 

[Ishmael]

Doesn't really matter BB. Follow the money.

http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/graphs/DConv08.png

It's Obama that's slipping.

Ishmael

 

[Sean]

Did USA Today report the results?

 

[busybody..]

me thinks THAT is a reflection of what most READ and HEAR in the MSM

the country doesnt LIKE her, trust her

as I said

I hope she is the Dim nominee

We will kill her

I know

I KNOW that we have some NEW INFO that we will come out with that will be a siver bullet to the heart of Dracula

I for one cant wait to come out with it!

 

[Ishmael]

me thinks THAT is a reflection of what most READ and HEAR in the MSM

the country doesnt LIKE her, trust her

as I said

I hope she is the Dim nominee

We will kill her

I know

I KNOW that we have some NEW INFO that we will come out with that will be a siver bullet to the heart of Dracula

I for one cant wait to come out with it!

I don't think so BB. Real people putting up real money. You know as well as I that that market hasn't been wrong yet.

Ishmael

 

[busybody..]

about 78-80% of her donations came from little people

$200 or less


so I dont believe the "people" yet know she is dead


sorta like Wyle E Coyote running over the cliff and running on air, not realizing there is nothing underneath

plus of course, EVERYONE supports a front runner

she is still that

BUT

is a POTEMKIN CANDIDATE

 

[Ishmael]

about 78-80% of her donations came from little people

$200 or less


so I dont believe the "people" yet know she is dead


sorta like Wyle E Coyote running over the cliff and running on air, not realizing there is nothing underneath

plus of course, EVERYONE supports a front runner

she is still that

BUT

is a POTEMKIN CANDIDATE

Maybe I should have specified BB. That graph isn't a graph of donations, it's the price per share graph from the Iowa Electronic Markets. OK?

Ishmael

 

[Sean]

Did USA Today report the results?

 

[busybody..]

oh

I know where that came from

I myself look at this

http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/contractSearch/

I see NO erosion for OB and I do see HRC slipping

I might add

The futures mkt had Kerry winning the day before 04

So they are NOT always correct

 

[busybody..]

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27232

 

[Sean]

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27232

Not an answer. The poll was paid for by USA Today. Did they report the findings?

 

[Ishmael]

Maybe your market did BB.

Below is the archive graph for the IEM 2004 Presidential winner takes all market.

http://128.255.244.60/graphs/Pres04_WTA.png

Ishmael

 

[busybody..]

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/04/gallup_clintons.html

 

[Sean]

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/04/gallup_clintons.html

So your original post is utter bullshit.

 

[busybody..]

Maybe your market did BB.

Below is the archive graph for the IEM 2004 Presidential winner takes all market.

http://128.255.244.60/graphs/Pres04_WTA.png

Ishmael

ok, ISH

the best of MY recollection, your graph is correct. Bush had a big lead all the way till the next to last day. I recall ONE of the mkts I read showed K ahead 50.5 to 49.5 for B

It may have been an outlier

 

[busybody..]

So your original post is utter bullshit.

if it makes you happy

 

[busybody..]

need more evidence?

The Layoffs Hillary Didn’t Write a Letter About

Now this is some delicious irony.

As you’ll recall from yesterday, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is upset with Circuit City for laying off 3,400 workers, wagging her finger to management in a letter that declared, “these decisions are inconsistent with the fundamental compact between your company and its employees. This is the wrong way to deal with the economic pressures of the day — and the wrong way to treat workers who’ve given their all to your company.”

Hillary doesn’t mention it in the letter, but one presumes she believes that the company has spent too much on other areas.



I wonder if she feels the same way about another company… like, say, a book publisher, like Simon and Schuster, publisher of Hillary’s book (and, ahem, mine).



Margaret Menge made the case back in 2003:

It may be unkind to say it in one long breath, but here it is: Hillary Clinton took an $8 million advance from Simon & Schuster and then 75 people at the company were laid off. One did follow the other (by weeks) and so it’s natural to wonder: If Simon & Schuster, which is owned by Viacom, had paid a more reasonable advance for the book, would those people still have their jobs? …



"There’s no connection," a Simon & Schuster spokesman balked when asked about the timing of the layoffs and the publication of Living History. The company says the book is one of the fastest-selling nonfiction books in history–proving that the advance was justified. But the advance paid to Hillary and the mobilization of the top staff at Simon & Schuster to plan, publish and promote the book means that the company didn’t make a large profit on it. The book has earned publisher Simon & Schuster a lot of attention, sure. But it hasn’t earned the company a lot of money.



Here’s the evidence. The advance paid to an author represents an advance on royalties based on the number of books expected to sell. The author’s royalty on hardcover books is 10 to 15 percent of the sale price. The publisher gets the rest. This is industry standard. So, if Clinton’s contract gave her 15 percent–the top rate–then she gets $4.20 for every $28 hardcover book sold. At a million copies sold, Clinton’s cut is $4,200,000. At a million and a half copies sold, her cut is $6,300,000–still way short of the $8 million advance.





Last reports are that Living History sold 1.2 million copies, and bookstores are reporting that sales in the last couple weeks have dropped way off. It seems she could sell a million and a half by year’s end–but not much more. There’s really no way they could have expected it to, which means that Simon & Schuster effectively altered the ratio of publisher/author earnings for Clinton. Hillary didn’t get just 15 percent, the maximum percentage that authors earn in royalties; she got a million to a million and a half more than the 15 percent would have yielded.



This is money that, under the standard ratio, Simon & Schuster would have pocketed. At the median 12.5 percent royalty, under which Clinton earns $3.50 per book, her cut is $5,250,000–and the advance of $8 million represents an overpayment of almost $3 million.

Then, later, in U.S.News and World Report’s Washington Whispers column:

Predictions in the slumping book industry that blockbusters like Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's tell-little bio would revive sales are dying fast. Whispers is told that Simon & Schuster, publisher of Clinton's Living History, is planning a second round of layoffs. One reason given: Advances to authors are too high.

(I would note that by the time I came along with a book idea in 2005, S&S certainly seemed to have the problem of too-big advances well under control.)



So, Senator... any letters of reprimand for the management of Simon and Schuster, laying off some of your constituents in New York, because they decided to pay out too much money to fatcats?

 

[Sean]

it has already sold 1.2 million in hardback? Paperback typically sells ten to one HB. Looks like S+S were right. BTW, they haven't counted overseas sales.

 

[busybody..]

stand on the table

so the point doesnt go over your head

as it just did

again

 

[Sean]

stand on the table

so the point doesnt go over your head

as it just did

again

It was an attack against HC, in effect calling her a hypocrite. It used the example of her advance from S+S to do that. The example used leaves out a whole lot of pertinent facts to try and make the case. It's bullshit.
Which bit didn't I get?

 

[busybody..]

what is THE POINT of the thread?

 

[Sean]

what is THE POINT of the thread?

To bash Hilary Clinton. And to claim that the media are biased in her favour.