Since pro-abortion former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton once seemed to be a shoo-in to be the Democrats’ 2016 presidential nominee, NRL News Today has kept close track of Mrs. Clinton’s spiraling downward poll numbers.
We’ve posted dozens of stories, the latest last Friday–“Chuck Todd sys Clinton donors are panicking.” But now, just three days later, comes even more shocking news.
Karen Tumulty’s story for today’s Washington Post is headlined “Poll: Sharp erosion in Clinton support among Democratic women.”
Since there are two inter-related rationales for her candidacy–she is “inevitable” in large measure because women will supposedly flock to vote for the first female president–consider this from Tumulty’s story:
Hillary Rodham Clinton is suffering rapid erosion of support among Democratic women — the voters long presumed to be her bedrock in her bid to become the nation’s first female president.
The numbers in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll are an alarm siren: Where 71 percent of Democratic-leaning female voters said in July that they expected to vote for Clinton, only 42 percent do now, a drop of 29 percentage points in eight weeks.
The period since the last survey coincides with the news that the FBI is looking into the security of e-mails sent over a private server Clinton used when she was secretary of state, as well as an intense media focus on her response to the controversy. The episode has raised questions about her judgment and revived memories of the scandals that plagued the presidency of her husband, Bill Clinton, in the 1990s.
That’s first-rate journalism. Consider (in reverse order):
#1.Just as Toys R Us, Scandals R the Clintons. They are inevitably up to their eye sockets in questionable behavior. Bill Clinton prevailed over his own worse instincts because he is the most adroit politician of our era and because enough of the public chose not to hold him accountable for anything. This is decidedly not the case with Hillary Clinton.
#2. A massive drop–an incredible 29 points in just eight weeks among Democratic-leaning female voters–has Clinton at only 42%.
“[O]nly 37 percent of white Democratic women said they would vote for her,” Tumulty wrote. “There was no statistically significant difference between the support she drew from women older than 50 and her standing among younger women.”
Were it not for significantly higher support from non-white Democratic-leaning women (60%), Clinton’s numbers would be even worse.
Tumulty’s story had the obligatory woman-on-the-street interviews. Most interesting –in light of the remark that Clinton’s status was essentially the same for women older and younger than 50–was this:
Maya Chenevert, a community college student in Columbus, Ohio, who works as a nanny, recalled: “In 2008, I was only 13, but I was super excited about Hillary. I’m actually amazed that I’m not going to vote for her, because 13-year-old me would be so disappointed.”
Chenevert had originally hoped that she would be casting her first vote in a presidential election for Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass). With Warren taking a pass on 2016, Chenevert now thinks that [Vermont Senator Bernie] Sanders offers her the greatest hope of someday being able to afford the schooling it will take to reach her dream of becoming a physician assistant.
Does she want to see a woman in the White House? “Of course. But I’d rather wait another eight, or 12, or 16 years for another woman to run,” Chenevert said. “I totally swayed my mom, who has liked Hillary since 2008. She was so excited about a woman. She still would love to see a woman, but she doesn’t think Hillary is the right woman.”
LifeNews.com Note: Dave Andrusko is the editor of National Right to Life News and an author and editor of several books on abortion topics. This post originally appeared at National Right to Life News Today.