NBC's Gregory, Fox's Wallace did not challenge Rove's false polling claims
SUMMARY: Karl Rove asserted
that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton "enters the general election campaign with the
highest negatives of any candidate in the history of the Gallup Poll," and
added: "The only person who comes close is ... hers are at 49. The only
other candidate to come close was Al Gore with 34, I believe." In fact, Gallup's
polling results show that President Bush's unfavorability ratings as he entered
the 2004 general election campaign were consistently above what Rove claimed to
be "close[st]" to Clinton's unfavorability rating -- "Al Gore with 34" percent.
During the August 19 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, discussing his opinion that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) is a "fatally flawed" presidential candidate, White House senior adviser Karl Rove asserted that Clinton "enters the general election campaign with the highest negatives of any candidate in the history of the Gallup Poll," and added: "The only person who comes close is -- she -- hers are at 49. The only other candidate to come close was Al Gore with 34, I believe." Similarly, during the August 19 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, in response to host Chris Wallace's remark that "George W. Bush had high negatives going into the 2004 campaign -- didn't beat him," Rove stated: "Yeah, but look. First of all, they were nowhere near as high as hers. In fact, I think the next-highest is Al Gore going into the 2000 campaign." In fact, Gallup's polling results show that President Bush's unfavorability ratings as he entered the 2004 general election campaign were consistently above what Rove claimed to be "close[st]" to Clinton's unfavorability rating -- "Al Gore with 34" percent.
Between October 2003 and March 2004, polling data collected by Gallup shows that Bush received unfavorability ratings that ranged from a low of 35 percent to a high of 47 percent. In five Gallup polls conducted during this period, Bush received unfavorable ratings above 40 percent three times.
From the August 19 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:
WALLACE: And we're back now with White House strategist Karl Rove.
Looking ahead to the 2008 campaign, you said this week that the Democrats are likely to name a, quote, "tough, tenacious, fatally flawed candidate, Hillary Clinton." As you said in the first segment -- that no front-runner has ever gone into the primary season with such high negatives.
Here was Clinton's response this week.
CLINTON [video clip]: Today, Karl Rove attacked me again. I feel so lucky that I now am giving them such heartburn.
WALLACE: Her campaign says the more you attack her, the more the Democrats love her. So, why are you helping Hillary Clinton?
ROVE: Didn't know that I was. Don't think that I am.
WALLACE: In fact, I mean, is there a certain amount of -- don't throw me into the briar patch here -- that you'd actually like to see her as the Democratic candidate?
ROVE: Look, it is going to be what it's going to be. I mean, you know, the Democrats are going to choose a nominee. I believe it's going to be her. That's their business. That's -- maybe I made the mistake of trying to be -- audition for a member of the Fox panel by opining about what might happen, but I think she's going to be the nominee.
WALLACE: Well, but what makes her fatally flawed? I understand she has high negatives. George W. Bush had high negatives going into the 2004 campaign -- didn't beat him.
ROVE: Yeah, but look. First of all, they were nowhere near as high as hers. In fact, I think the next highest is Al Gore going into the 2000 campaign. But look, the fact is she's known. People know her. She's been around for 16 years. It's really hard, once you jump up onto the stage and have been on the stage that long, to do much to change people's attitudes about you, and she's going in with more people having an unfavorable opinion than having a favorable opinion.
WALLACE: And from your experience in politics, can you turn that around?
From the August 19 edition of NBC's Meet the Press:
DAVID GREGORY (guest host): In our remaining moments, I want to talk about the 2008 campaign. Now, you've said -- you haven't ruled anything out -- but you said you're not going to go work for another candidate. But you also said that you're an opinionated guy, and some of those opinions came flowing out this week, including your conversation with Rush Limbaugh this week about Senator Hillary Clinton. Watch.
ROVE [audio clip]: I think she's likely to be the nominee, and I think she's fatally flawed.
GREGORY: "Fatally flawed" how?
ROVE: She enters the general election campaign with the highest negatives of any candidate in the history of the Gallup Poll.
GREGORY: The president has much higher negatives than she, however.
ROVE: She enters the presidential contest with higher negatives. The only person who comes close is -- she -- hers are at 49. The only other candidate to come close was Al Gore with 34, I believe.
GREGORY: And how does that hurt her?
ROVE: Well, it just says people have made an opinion about her. It's hard to change opinions once you've been a high profile person in the public eye, as she has, for 16 or 17 years.
I don't know about Devid Gregory, but it's become obvious that the Wallace Family only had a finite amount of journalistic integrity, and Mike Wallace has all of it.
I just saw Gregory, and he missed about three or four fat ones that a whole lot of journalism school students would have knocked Rove around on. Rove may be a pro, but when he says 2+2=5, I'd have to do a follow up instead of smiling like you are just happy to have him in the seat across the table from you.
They won't treat Hillary that way...good thing she's tough, like her husband. Cuz she'll actually have to respond to tough questioning...not this cheese whiz, homogenized corporate GOP media softball toss.
Rove the pro? He's successful true but he wouldn't be if he didn't get this kind of treatment from the media ALL THE TIME. This has been the story of his career. History should hold him up as proof of the complicity of the mainstream media with the right wingnuts in their rise to power in this era. None of his sleazy tricks work without the help of a lapdog media. His 'genius' seems to come simply from a cynical understanding of this fact combined with having no scruples whatsoever. Another thing he can be used to illustrate is that if you're going to be a criminal go big. Justice can only touch power if those in power have any respect for her.
Oh, so you guys at Media Matters are going to insist that Karl Rove use statistics accurately now? What are you -- "accuratistas" or something?
I have it on good authority that Rove had a 12 volt battery under the table, with the electrodes connected to Gregory's genitalia. That pretty much explains Gregory's sheepish performance.
I couldn't believe this was the same David Gregory who often hammers Bush's press secretaries at White House briefings. What the hell happened to THAT David Gregory in this pathetic interview that was conducted on Sunday? Ever since Gregory and Snow bumped heads, where the latter accused the former of posing a partisan question, Gregory has remained restraint in his questioning from that moment forward. Perhaps Gregory is afraid that the Fox News attack assassins will label him with the big “L Word” again.
"Perhaps Gregory is afraid that the Fox News attack assassins will label him with the big “L Word” again"
They certainly should. Gregory is unabashedly liberal. The questions that he asked Rove on Sunday sounded like they came directly from the DNC. To act like these were soft questions is ridiculous.
Really? I thought the questions were pretty tame. The DNC has to come up with more challenging questions for someone like Rove. If Rove is ever on MTP again, I'll have to submit questions to the DNC so that Gregory is better prepared.
What more could Gregory have done other than personally attack him by calling him "mean" or a "scumbag" or something like that? Gregory isn't a hateful person, so I'm pretty sure he wouldn't use personal attacks like that.
Also, when Rove ignored Gregory's mention of Bush's negatives and simply repeated his previous statement...I halfway expected him to wave his hand and say..."These aren't the droids you're looking for".
So the more accurate report would be that Senator Clinton has higher negatives going into the general election than any candidate who'd not already served as president? I mean, I accept that discrepency, but that still seems pretty bad for her.
On review, I guess, my read was wrong, and Rhino's below, the one that's even worse news for Senator Clinton is the accurate one.
So according to "The Math"(ematician) 34 is very close to 49 , but 45 is "nowhere near" 49.
[link to www.galluppoll.com]
Is this what them mean by the New Math taught in schools?!?
So in other words, Hillary Clinton still has the highest negative ratings of any Presidential candidate in history. Thanks for pointing that out Media Matters.
You don't really expect Rove to say the only candidate with negatives as high as Clinton's was Bush in 2004 and he got reelected do you?
He'd rather lie about it.
God bless MMFA for correcting these lying weasels, each and every one.
The only person who's lying is you. Bush's negative ratings weren't as high as Hillary's. The article stated that Bush's negative ratings ranged from 35%-47%. Hillary's negative ratings are 49%. On other polls like Rasmussen her negative ratings are 53%. Bush also had the advantage of being an incumbent President running against an extremely weak candidate. Rove's point is a valid one.
here's an article noting hillary's favorable ratings down to 48%, "a 20% drop from a year earlier". let's just look at the date.....oh, march 2000, when she went on to win the senate seat by 55%.
http://www.russbaker.com/The%20American%20Prospect%20-%20Only%20In%20New%20York,%20March%2013,%202000.htm
Um, that was in New York. The rest of the country is a little more conservative than New York.
Actually, the majority of the country is a hell of a lot smarter than YOU, Rino Hunter. Which is why the GOP is gonna lose BIG next year, regardless of who gets the Democratic nomination.
Sorry, but that's not what the polls say. You have no basis for that. You're just living in far left fantasy land.
rino just can't catch a clue. the purpose of posting the senate race poll was to show the big drop in hillary's favorable ratings, after which she went on to win by a big margin.
Um, see the post below. No, the only person to come close to Clinton was not Gore--it was Bush.
You can see the lie, can't you?
"The only person who's lying is you."
You apparently don't know a lie even when it hits you in the face.
Here's what Rove said:
"The only person who comes close is ... hers are at 49. The only other candidate to come close was Al Gore with 34, I believe."
Gore is not the only person who comes close. As you noted Bush topped out at 47% hence Rove's statement simply isn't true. Bush's negatives at 35-47% were higher than Gore's ever were and closer to Clinton's than Gore's ever were.
Rove is a lying weasel because he had to know this. He ran Bush's campaigns.
"The only person who comes close is ... hers are at 49. The only other candidate to come close was Al Gore with 34, I believe"
When he says "I believe," he makes it clear that he doesn't know that for an absolute fact. That leaves some room for error. I don't know how the guy is supposed to have all the polls memorized. He was right that Hillary has the highest negatives of any Presidential candidate in history, and he was wrong on the inconsequential point that Gore was the 2nd closest. It doesn't matter that Bush was the 2nd closest when Hillary's negatives were still 5-10 points higher, Bush was an incumbent President, and he was running against a very weak candidate.
All the polls memorized?? Are you really a wingnut or just someone doing a spoof? If you're seriously trying to defend Rove here, do you really think he doesn't know where Bush has been in the polls for ONE SECOND for the past decade? You must just be someone goofin on the whole right wingnut thing right? Sorry if you're not because that sounds insulting, but I'm genuinely curious now.
RINO enjoys jerking liberal progressive chains. Approach with caution. He makes sense on occasion, not much today though.
Rove ignores the fact that polls show Hillary consistently beating all the other candidates, both Dem. and Repub. That's the only thing that counts.
"Popularity" means nothing. Many Dems. don't like her-- which could account for some of the numbers-- but they certainly aren't going to vote against her in the general election. People don't like Congress either-- but for many different reasons....and they don't necessarily like Republicans in the converse.
"Rove ignores the fact that polls show Hillary consistently beating all the other candidates, both Dem. and Repub. That's the only thing that counts"
That simply isn't true.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/in_surge_giuliani_now_tops_clinton_by_seven_points
Most of the time, Rasmussen has completely different numbers from the rest of the polls. The only people who seem to trust Rasmussen are republicans and rightly so because their numbers tend to put conservatives and conservative issues in a better light.
Rasmussen has been the most accurate polling organization in the past two elections. The other polls over sample Democrats and end up being wrong. And even The Daily Kos posters cite Rasmussen polls on a regular basis.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/presidential_tracking_poll_bush_kerry
Most of the polls before the 2004 election had Bush leading. The only one that I remember which gave Kerry a lead was oddly enough a FOX News poll. So at that time, Rasmussen's polling was on par with other polling organizations but right now their numbers are different from everyone else.
Rasmussen had the Guiliani-Clinton matchup dead even until about a week ago. That's the same as most other polls had it. But I don't know of any other polls that recent. Do you know of any polls as recent as the one I linked to?
The polling report.
Sorry, but those polls still aren't as recent as the Rasmussen poll. Rasmussen had similar numbers as these polls before. It was only the last poll in which Guiliani had a lead.
I lot of these polls had leads for Clinton and some had substantial leads. Did any Rasmussen poll have leads for Clinton?
A few Rasmussen polls had Hillary winning by about 1-3 points. They come out with a new poll about every week. The biggest lead I saw Hillary have in any of those polls you linked to is 6 points. That's hardly a substantial lead. A few polls had Giuliani leading as well.
"A few Rasmussen polls had Hillary winning by about 1-3 points."
When? All I saw was a June poll with her having a one point lead.
"The biggest lead I saw Hillary have in any of those polls you linked to is 6 points. That's hardly a substantial lead."
Six points is substantial in a presidential race nowadays.
"A few polls had Giuliani leading as well."
Yeah, he was leading in a couple of the polls there.
I believe one poll before that had Hillary with a 3 point lead, but I'm not completely sure. And a 6 point lead isn't significant. That's barely out of the margin of error. But anyway, my point in linking to that poll was simply to refute that poster's claim that all the polls show Hillary with a lead. That isn't true. Some polls show Clinton with a small lead, some polls have it dead even, and some polls have Guiliani with a lead. But it won't really matter until right before the election. This election is going to come right down to the wire, just like the past two elections.
The first poll on the page was taken around the same time as the Rasmussen poll. Those numbers are completely different from Rasmussen.
You said that all the polls were different from Rasmussen, not just one. Why should I believe that poll over Rasmussen which has been the most accurate polling organization by far in the last two elections? And that poll was from the 7th-13th. Rasmussen was the 13th-14th. It's still the most recent poll out.
"You said that all the polls were different from Rasmussen, not just one."
They are different. Compare time frames. Does Rasmussen match up with other polls?
"Most people last month had Clinton Why should I believe that poll over Rasmussen which has been the most accurate polling organization by far in the last two elections?"
When they say most accurate, are we talking about a fraction of a percentage, a percentage or what? As I said before their numbers were on par with other polling organizations.
"And that poll was from the 7th-13th. Rasmussen was the 13th-14th. It's still the most recent poll out."
It's about the same time frame and there is a ten point gap between the polls.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Rasmussen got lucky in the last election. They were wildly off in other elections, and their numbers are always skewed towards the benefit of Republicans and the detriment of Democrats. The way they publicize their polls is misleading too. A couple of weeks ago, they tried to claim that all Republican candidates beat the Democratic candidates, but what that meant was that when they listed all the candidates together, with more on the Republican side than on the Democratic side, the Republicans one, but on any one individual topic, comparing one Democrat (Hillary) against any of the Republicans, Hillary won.
People who study polls have documented this about Rasmussen. Here's one example. Rasmussen is not a balanced polling organization to cite as a reference without noting that bias.
http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2006/01/rasmussen_a_cle.html
Bill Maher just announced on O'Reilly that Hillary will have a difficult time winning the national election...he thinks Edwards would win the presidential race.
For once I agree with Maher...about Hillary...way too much baggage.
I agree with Maher's assessment but I have no idea why you posted it?
A very visible and unabashed liberal says that Hillary can't win...despite the polling data that she is the runaway favorite to win the nomination.
That suggests to me that her high negative numbers is a real problem in the general election for the democrat party.
Nothing more...nothing less.
"A very visible and unabashed liberal says that Hillary can't win...despite the polling data that she is the runaway favorite to win the nomination."
Even though I agree with Maher's assessment, I really don't care what he thinks. No one here is going to change their opinion because "a very visible and unabashed liberal" says something. Maher and I could be wrong on Hillary's electability.
Sure you care what he thinks...and says...that's the whole point of this site.
Will he affect your position on the candidates? You clearly said no. Fortunately or unfortunately many voters are not as dogmatic.
You...me...and Maher could easily be wrong but there are a lot of people who agree with us that Hillary can't win the national election...and that is a problem for the liberals.
"Sure you care what he thinks...and says...that's the whole point of this site."
No. The point of this site is to correct conservative misinformation in the media with factual information.
"Will he affect your position on the candidates? You clearly said no. Fortunately or unfortunately many voters are not as dogmatic."
Liberals are not like conservatives. We don't change our opinions because a high profile person on our side says something.
I don't care about the argument concerning Rove's statement about Hillary's negative numbers.
The fact is that she does have high negative numbers that will be a problem in the general election...not that Rove may have misstated the actual numbers.
You, Maher and many other liberals believe that to be the case...which means that it is hardly a case of conservative misinformation.
If Hillary is nominated...she will have a problem with her unfavorable ratings in the general election...and that means the democrat party will have problems.
You know it...and I know it.
What I find interesting about Maher's comment is that he feels that the most popular democrat at this point can't win the presidency...but Edwards, who is being mostly ignored by the democrats at this time...is the candidate who can win the national election.
Once again, the Cons have framed the Democratic Party as a know nothing Party. Thank God that the Con jobbers are willing to take so much time out of their busy "listening classes" to let the D's know who to run and how they should run. SORRY, but let us return to last November and see what happened...ahhh, the Cons got the butts kicked.
My suggestion to the Cons...look in your own house. Any D can run with a 55% negative rating, (that is the dumbest poll number ever concocted..a NEGATIVE number) and waltz into the White House..Anyone know the NEGATIVE numbers of the Cons? Nope, just Sen. Clintons'. And why all of a sudden, Wesley, do you use Maher for your side..How about some other comments by Maher concerning elections.
There is no such thing as a Democrat party there is a DemocratIC party and a ReNAMBLAcan party since you are too ignorant to even know the parties name we can dismiss any dumb thing you have to say about it.
Mahar is NOT an unabashed liberal or really a liberal at all he is a left leaning libertarian. Now if you say unabashed lefty that one thing but lefty libertarians are not really the same as liberals.
Mahrer is actually a left-leaning libertarian.
"When he says "I believe," he makes it clear that he doesn't know that for an absolute fact. That leaves some room for error. I don't know how the guy is supposed to have all the polls memorized."
Do you really think the guy most intimately linked to ALL of Bush's campaigns doesn't know by heart what Bush's neg rating topped off at?
Get serious.
Do you really believe Rove knows what Gore's neg number was but not Bush's? That's just laughable.
Rove has been doing nothing but eating, sleeping and dreaming George W. Bush for many years now.
Rove didn't leave himself room for error he flat out lied.
It seems this "I believe" phrase is like the magic words for conservatives. Not only does it "leave them room" when they lie, it also completely expresses their political ideology.
Very true, Paligap. It's used regularly by a couple of conservative posters here/
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but (BS myth)"
"If I remember correctly (pile of crap)"
"I remember it being reported at the time that (long-ago debunked media lie)"
i haven't paid any attention to Mr. Wallace's kid since former President Clinton whipped his sissy fox noise kiester pre "06 election. But i watch MSNBC so i'm familiar with "stretch". that sycophantic rollover was at once sad, disgusting, and dissappointing. gregory was a deer in the headlights, cowering, unable to look turdblossom in the eye, and fawning over jeff gannon's "client" the entire segment. gregory will look back at sunday, 19aug07 as the day he sold his conscience and forever compromised and forfeited his credibility. and as for russert? that toady didn't even have the stones to face rove himself, leaving gregory to make a fool of himself.
Someone should count Rove's lies in the Aug 19 segment on Meet The Press.
According to Rove, Joe Wilson's trip to Niger actually confirmed that Iraq was attempting to buy yellow cake uranium.
That is just one I remember, there were simply one after another after another.
How could Gregory deal with them all? I think if one has Rove on a show, you have to know he will lie, and all you can do is perhaps follow it up with an extensive fact check afterwards.
However, I've found that asking for citations for supposed facts usually slows down the rate of lies spewing forth from the noise machine.
The lies were flying faster than the speed of light, a physical impossibility for all but Rove.
But wait a second everyone, didn't you know that 9/11 changed everything?
Oh wait, maybe I cant type that. I think Rove has it trademarked.