Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (3 Viewers)

[timschochet]

Actually, IF I were looking for shenanigans, the quote that would strike me as the oddest is where he says he asked Hillary and she told him there isn't "a shred of evidence".

Sir did you murder those people?

There's not a shred of evidence to prove I did!

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Actually, IF I were looking for shenanigans, the quote that would strike me as the oddest is where he says he asked Hillary and she told him there isn't "a shred of evidence".

Sir did you murder those people?

There's not a shred of evidence to prove I did!

Right, I also love the typical husband-wife dinner talk.

And, "She said, 'no one's ever tried to influence me by helping you. No one has even suggested they have a shred of evidence to that effect.' " You know, because he's pretty clueless about the situation and he's just relying on what she told him. And he doesn't know nothin' `bout no politics, he's just a simple sharecropper trying to put food on the table. They are so cute together.

 

[timschochet]

Three cheers for Hillary!

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-to-challenge-gop-on-immigration-1430820002?mod=rss_Politics_And_Policy

LAS VEGAS—Hillary Clinton,making her first visit to Nevada since she announced her 2016 presidential run, will call for a path to citizenship for some 11 million people in the U.S. illegally, and contrast that position with Republican contenders who stop short of that stance.

In 2013, the Senate passed legislation with some GOP support that offered the chance for citizenship for those who qualified. But that bill died in the Republican-controlled House, and GOP support for the idea has dried up. Mrs. Clinton plans to meet with young people at a Las Vegas high school.

“She will say that the standard for a true solution is nothing less than a full and equal path to citizenship,” said a Clinton aide, previewing her remarks. “She will say that we cannot settle for proposals that provide hardworking people with merely a ’second-class’ status.”

That is a reference principally to former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush,the all-but-declared presidential candidate who once supported a path to citizenship but now is promoting the opportunity for a legal status short of citizenship. Even that is unpopular among many GOP primary voters. Critics of a path to citizenship or other legal status say it would reward people who broke the law.

Many Democrats see Mr. Bush as a strong general-election contender in part because of his potential to appeal to Hispanic voters, who overwhelmingly supported Democrat Barack Obamain his two elections. Mr. Bush has long spoken of immigration in welcoming terms, speaks fluent Spanish and is married to a Latina woman.

Mrs. Clinton has supported a path to citizenship at least as far back as 2004, though she has taken more cautious positions on other immigration issues. She at one point opposed driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants, though an aide recently said that she now supports that policy. Last summer, she upset some immigration advocates when she said that unaccompanied children coming across the border illegally should be sent back to their home countries.

Mrs. Clinton’s appearance on Tuesday is meant to begin laying the groundwork to tell Hispanic voters that Mr. Bush isn’t as supportive of a liberalized immigration policy as Mrs. Clinton and other Democrats are.

“Clinton will talk about her commitment to fixing our broken immigration system by passing comprehensive immigration reform that provides a path to citizenship, treats everyone with dignity and compassion, upholds the rule of law, protects our border and national security, and brings millions of hardworking people out of the shadows and into the formal economy so they can pay taxes and contribute to our nation’s prosperity,” the aide said.

Mrs. Clinton, the leading Democratic candidate for president by a wide margin, will meet with young people who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children. Mr. Obama took executive action to protect these people among other undocumented immigrants from deportation. GOP candidates including Mr. Bush say his move overstepped presidential authority and have said they would roll it back.

She will appear at Rancho High School, which has a student body that is about 70% Hispanic, the Clinton campaign said.

Nevada is one of a handful of states with large Hispanic populations that have been closely fought in recent presidential races.

 

[squistion]

Actually, IF I were looking for shenanigans, the quote that would strike me as the oddest is where he says he asked Hillary and she told him there isn't "a shred of evidence".

Sir did you murder those people?

There's not a shred of evidence to prove I did!

That is a rather poor analogy to use. She said that no one could provide evidence that anyone even tried to influence her by helping Bill. In others word, it can't be proven there was even an attempt to do. You took it a step further to infer that there was no proof that the money paid to Bill actually influenced Hillary.

 

[jon_mx]

Anybody here really believe that Hillary cares about what a regular person thinks?

yeah.

That is a more ridiculous belief than those believing in the Clinton body trail.

 

[Pots]

What's up with Tim being Hillary's cheerleader?

 

[jon_mx]

What's up with Tim being Hillary's cheerleader?

Usually he stays in the closet. But his 8 year love fest with Obama has outed him.

 

[timschochet]

What's up with Tim being Hillary's cheerleader?

What's up with Tim being Hillary's cheerleader?

It just cracks me up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_9oPQBfOlQ

Hooray for Hillary!

 

[timschochet]

Actually, IF I were looking for shenanigans, the quote that would strike me as the oddest is where he says he asked Hillary and she told him there isn't "a shred of evidence".

Sir did you murder those people?

There's not a shred of evidence to prove I did!

That is a rather poor analogy to use. She said that no one could provide evidence that anyone even tried to influence her by helping Bill. In others word, it can't be proven there was even an attempt to do. You took it a step further to infer that there was no proof that the money paid to Bill actually influenced Hillary.

Yeah I know. Just seems like strange wording to use in a private conversation.

 

[timschochet]

So anyhow, Hillary's position on immigration reform represents a clear distinction between her and even the most liberal of Republican candidates on this issue (meaning Bush or Rubio). It's obvious that whoever the Republican is, Hillary means to make this a key issue on her campaign.

In a sense then the 2016 may serve as a final referendum on this issue. Conservatives like tommyboy have long asserted that the majority of Americans feel as they do on this, that there should be no means by which illegal immigrants already here should be allowed to become citizens, and that therefore this is actually a winning issue for conservatives but they're too afraid to push it. We'll find out if that's true.

 

[The Commish]

What's up with Tim being Hillary's cheerleader?

Very poor man's Stat

 

[timschochet]

What's up with Tim being Hillary's cheerleader?

Very poor man's Stat

Yeah you've made this point twice now. Thing is I really do kind of like her.

 

[The Commish]

What's up with Tim being Hillary's cheerleader?

Very poor man's Stat

Yeah you've made this point twice now.Thing is I really do kind of like her.

And it will continue until you get better at it. If you're going to roll the shtick out, have some pride and do it well

 

[timschochet]

Hillary was asked some pretty tough questions last night by the Latino students she met in Nevada. A key one, apparently was: if the makeup of Congress is roughly the same in 2017, how can you possibly fulfill your promises? (This same question can be asked whenever a candidate from either party promises bold action).

She responded, rather vaguely, that she will "push hard" and fight as best she can. But later she vowed to extend Obama's executive order protections to illegals that he did not cover (interesting since Obama has steadfastly maintained that he went to the absolute limit of what he was able to do without Congress- and Republicans argue that he went past that limit.)

 

[timschochet]

What's up with Tim being Hillary's cheerleader?

Very poor man's Stat

Yeah you've made this point twice now.Thing is I really do kind of like her.

And it will continue until you get better at it. If you're going to roll the shtick out, have some pride and do it well

I don't know quite understand you but OK.

 

[Rove!]

Hillary was asked some pretty tough questions last night by the Latino students she met in Nevada. A key one, apparently was: if the makeup of Congress is roughly the same in 2017, how can you possibly fulfill your promises? (This same question can be asked whenever a candidate from either party promises bold action).

She responded, rather vaguely, that she will "push hard" and fight as best she can. But later she vowed to extend Obama's executive order protections to illegals that he did not cover (interesting since Obama has steadfastly maintained that he went to the absolute limit of what he was able to do without Congress- and Republicans argue that he went past that limit.)

It's called pandering

 

[timschochet]

Well sure. But Latinos are likely to prefer a candidate who gives their issues lip service over those who are actively hostile to their concerns.

 

[The Commish]

Well sure. But Latinos are likely to prefer a candidate who gives their issues lip service over those who are actively hostile to their concerns.

Why is it "actively hostile" and not simply providing lip service to their base on Latino issues?

 

[urbanhack]

What's up with Tim being Hillary's cheerleader?

Very poor man's Stat

Thing is I really do kind of like her.

Unreal. She's everything that is wrong with our political system.

 

[timschochet]

Well sure. But Latinos are likely to prefer a candidate who gives their issues lip service over those who are actively hostile to their concerns.

Why is it "actively hostile" and not simply providing lip service to their base on Latino issues?

Have you paid attention to conservative rhetoric on this issue?

 

[The Commish]

Well sure. But Latinos are likely to prefer a candidate who gives their issues lip service over those who are actively hostile to their concerns.

Why is it "actively hostile" and not simply providing lip service to their base on Latino issues?

Have you paid attention to conservative rhetoric on this issue?

Answer my question first. Given your question, should be interesting to see you twist on this one.

 

[timschochet]

What's up with Tim being Hillary's cheerleader?

Very poor man's Stat

Thing is I really do kind of like her.

Unreal. She's everything that is wrong with our political system.

i get that a lot of people believe this but I never have. I probably don't disagree with you about what's wrong with the system, only that she's especially representative of it.

 

[timschochet]

Well sure. But Latinos are likely to prefer a candidate who gives their issues lip service over those who are actively hostile to their concerns.

Why is it "actively hostile" and not simply providing lip service to their base on Latino issues?

Have you paid attention to conservative rhetoric on this issue?

Answer my question first. Given your question, should be interesting to see you twist on this one.

i thought I did. Conservative rhetoric about illegal immigrants is actively hostile to what most Latino Americans want. Yes, some of them are pandering but others inpress me as very genuine in their hostility. Hillary strikes me as very genuine in her beliefs about this issue, and I think Latinos will sense that and respond favorably to her. Where I agree she was pandering is in her explanation of how effective she can be with a Republican Congress.

 

[The Commish]

Well sure. But Latinos are likely to prefer a candidate who gives their issues lip service over those who are actively hostile to their concerns.

Why is it "actively hostile" and not simply providing lip service to their base on Latino issues?

Have you paid attention to conservative rhetoric on this issue?

Answer my question first. Given your question, should be interesting to see you twist on this one.

i thought I did. Conservative rhetoric about illegal immigrants is actively hostile to what most Latino Americans want. Yes, some of them are pandering but others inpress me as very genuine in their hostility.Hillary strikes me as very genuine in her beliefs about this issue, and I think Latinos will sense that and respond favorably to her. Where I agree she was pandering is in her explanation of how effective she can be with a Republican Congress.

So is it rhetoric or genuine and how do you know?

 

[timschochet]

In general I think Hillary is being much more true to herself this time around, perhaps because the politically minded amoral Mark Penn is gone. To paraphrase an old West Wing episode, we could call this campaign "Let Hillary be Hillary".

 

[timschochet]

Well sure. But Latinos are likely to prefer a candidate who gives their issues lip service over those who are actively hostile to their concerns.

Why is it "actively hostile" and not simply providing lip service to their base on Latino issues?

Have you paid attention to conservative rhetoric on this issue?

Answer my question first. Given your question, should be interesting to see you twist on this one.

i thought I did. Conservative rhetoric about illegal immigrants is actively hostile to what most Latino Americans want. Yes, some of them are pandering but others inpress me as very genuine in their hostility.Hillary strikes me as very genuine in her beliefs about this issue, and I think Latinos will sense that and respond favorably to her. Where I agree she was pandering is in her explanation of how effective she can be with a Republican Congress.

So is it rhetoric or genuine and how do you know?

Sorry which are you referring to?

 

[The Commish]

In general I think Hillary is being much more true to herself this time around, perhaps because the politically minded amoral Mark Penn is gone. To paraphrase an old West Wing episode, we could call this campaign "Let Hillary be Hillary".

Wasn't asking about Hillary. Is it rhetoric or genuine and how do you know?

 

[timschochet]

In general I think Hillary is being much more true to herself this time around, perhaps because the politically minded amoral Mark Penn is gone. To paraphrase an old West Wing episode, we could call this campaign "Let Hillary be Hillary".

Wasn't asking about Hillary. Is it rhetoric or genuine and how do you know?

this thread is about Hillary and that post wasn't in response to you. I don't know how to respond to you because I don't understand your question.

 

[The Commish]

In general I think Hillary is being much more true to herself this time around, perhaps because the politically minded amoral Mark Penn is gone. To paraphrase an old West Wing episode, we could call this campaign "Let Hillary be Hillary".

Wasn't asking about Hillary. Is it rhetoric or genuine and how do you know?

this thread is about Hillary and that post wasn't in response to you. I don't know how to respond to you because I don't understand your question.

You asserted that people were being "actively hostile" towards Latinos. That implies it's genuine. Then you follow it up with a comment suggesting it's rhetoric. So I am asking you which it is and how you know? It's not complicated. ETA: And I wouldn't bring it up if it hadn't already been asserted.

 

[timschochet]

OK, thanks.

Well first off there's no contradiction. If I refer to conservative rhetoric that's simply loud political speech. That doesn't mean it's not genuine; it usually is. I believe that the hostility to illegal immigrants among many conservatives, though not all, is VERY genuine. There are a few centrist GOP politicians who likely are simply pandering, but most conservative politicians who speak on this issue aren't pandering; they mean it.

As to how I know this, all I can say is that this particular issue means a lot to me and I've spent a LOT of time studying every aspect of it. I don't consider myself an expert by any means but I'm pretty comfortable with my opinions at this point.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

OK, thanks.

Well first off there's no contradiction. If I refer to conservative rhetoric that's simply loud political speech. That doesn't mean it's not genuine; it usually is. I believe that the hostility to illegal immigrants among many conservatives, though not all, is VERY genuine. There are a few centrist GOP politicians who likely are simply pandering, but most conservative politicians who speak on this issue aren't pandering; they mean it.

As to how I know this, all I can say is that this particular issue means a lot to me and I've spent a LOT of time studying every aspect of it. I don't consider myself an expert by any means but I'm pretty comfortable with my opinions at this point.

Tim, last we heard from Hillary her position on immigration were the same as Ted Cruz's. This is the same woman who advocated for a border fence last time she ran.

Same is true of gay marriage, it was the same position as Ted Cruz, let the states decide it she said, that was last year. When she was Senator of New York she actually spoke out against gay marriage altogether, regardless of the path to it.

Basically if those positions were hateful I guess she was hateful with extremist rhetoric once but now she has heard the choir sing and is saved.

In reality she is tacking hard left because the whole point of her "candidacy" so far is to put out position points that are solely designed to keep out well meaning, principled progressives who truly believe in what they profess. That's it, that's her whole raison d'etre right now.

She read from a script yesterday. I don't even think she can talk convincingly off the cuff on these things. No questions taken.

Does anyone remember the debate in 2008 when she talked about sticking to formal legalization and then also handing out drivers licenses to illegal immigrants in the same debate?

And it cracks me up, or makes me sad maybe, that well meaning progressives would ignore people who have fought for these positions for years when they were unpopular but will feel forced to support Hillary who at times has actually fought against them for years but now turns starboard when the polls finally show those efforts by the principled are finally paying off.

 

[timschochet]

It was never the same as Ted Cruz; that's nonsense. But it wasn't the same as it is now; that's for sure.

I think the Hillary we're hearing now, on most of these issues, is the REAL Hillary, what she truly believes. I think what we saw in 2008 was created by Mark Penn, a concerted attempt to avoid alienating anyone. People sensed this and it's a big reason why she lost. This time around, John Podesta is telling her, be yourself.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It was never the same as Ted Cruz; that's nonsense. But it wasn't the same as it is now; that's for sure.

I think the Hillary we're hearing now, on most of these issues, is the REAL Hillary, what she truly believes. I think what we saw in 2008 was created by Mark Penn, a concerted attempt to avoid alienating anyone. People sensed this and it's a big reason why she lost. This time around, John Podesta is telling her, be yourself.

A border fence is not the same as Ted Cruz? It's not?

 

[timschochet]

It was never the same as Ted Cruz; that's nonsense. But it wasn't the same as it is now; that's for sure.

I think the Hillary we're hearing now, on most of these issues, is the REAL Hillary, what she truly believes. I think what we saw in 2008 was created by Mark Penn, a concerted attempt to avoid alienating anyone. People sensed this and it's a big reason why she lost. This time around, John Podesta is telling her, be yourself.

A border fence is not the same as Ted Cruz? It's not?

In Hillary supported the fence, but she also supported the McCain-Kennedy bill of 2006 which gave a Path to Citizenship for illegals. Cruz wasn't around them but he never would have supported it.

 

[timschochet]

Democrats have announced 6 Democratic debates starting this summer.

Likely

Hillary

Bernie

Martin OMalley

Jim Webb

Chafee

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It was never the same as Ted Cruz; that's nonsense. But it wasn't the same as it is now; that's for sure.

I think the Hillary we're hearing now, on most of these issues, is the REAL Hillary, what she truly believes. I think what we saw in 2008 was created by Mark Penn, a concerted attempt to avoid alienating anyone. People sensed this and it's a big reason why she lost. This time around, John Podesta is telling her, be yourself.

A border fence is not the same as Ted Cruz? It's not?

In Hillary supported the fence, but she also supported the McCain-Kennedy bill of 2006 which gave a Path to Citizenship for illegals. Cruz wasn't around them but he never would have supported it.

But otherwise she has been the same as every other Republican in the race right now, for years and years. And of course she agreed with the conservative position on the fence, which is definitely where Cruz is.

Allll of a sudden she goes left, keeps going, even passes Obama up, waves to him as she keeps going left, and now sits somewhere maybe even to the left of Warren and Sanders. Amazing transition that.

 

[timschochet]

It was never the same as Ted Cruz; that's nonsense. But it wasn't the same as it is now; that's for sure.

I think the Hillary we're hearing now, on most of these issues, is the REAL Hillary, what she truly believes. I think what we saw in 2008 was created by Mark Penn, a concerted attempt to avoid alienating anyone. People sensed this and it's a big reason why she lost. This time around, John Podesta is telling her, be yourself.

A border fence is not the same as Ted Cruz? It's not?

In Hillary supported the fence, but she also supported the McCain-Kennedy bill of 2006 which gave a Path to Citizenship for illegals. Cruz wasn't around them but he never would have supported it.

But otherwise she has been the same as every other Republican in the race right now, for years and years. And of course she agreed with the conservative position on the fence, which is definitely where Cruz is.

Allll of a sudden she goes left, keeps going, even passes Obama up, waves to him as she keeps going left, and now sits somewhere maybe even to the left of Warren and Sanders. Amazing transition that.

No. The key difference between conservatives and everyone else on this issue has never been about border security( it's bern about granting any kind of amnesty for illegals. Hillary has been pretty consistent about this aspect.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It was never the same as Ted Cruz; that's nonsense. But it wasn't the same as it is now; that's for sure.

I think the Hillary we're hearing now, on most of these issues, is the REAL Hillary, what she truly believes. I think what we saw in 2008 was created by Mark Penn, a concerted attempt to avoid alienating anyone. People sensed this and it's a big reason why she lost. This time around, John Podesta is telling her, be yourself.

A border fence is not the same as Ted Cruz? It's not?

In Hillary supported the fence, but she also supported the McCain-Kennedy bill of 2006 which gave a Path to Citizenship for illegals. Cruz wasn't around them but he never would have supported it.

But otherwise she has been the same as every other Republican in the race right now, for years and years. And of course she agreed with the conservative position on the fence, which is definitely where Cruz is.

Allll of a sudden she goes left, keeps going, even passes Obama up, waves to him as she keeps going left, and now sits somewhere maybe even to the left of Warren and Sanders. Amazing transition that.

No. The key difference between conservatives and everyone else on this issue has never been about border security( it's bern about granting any kind of amnesty for illegals. Hillary has been pretty consistent about this aspect.

No she has not. 2008 she was talking the GOP line of legal path to citizenship, not amnesty. When did she actually previously vocally come out and support amnesty?

 

[The Commish]

OK, thanks.

Well first off there's no contradiction. If I refer to conservative rhetoric that's simply loud political speech. That doesn't mean it's not genuine; it usually is. I believe that the hostility to illegal immigrants among many conservatives, though not all, is VERY genuine. There are a few centrist GOP politicians who likely are simply pandering, but most conservative politicians who speak on this issue aren't pandering; they mean it.

As to how I know this, all I can say is that this particular issue means a lot to me and I've spent a LOT of time studying every aspect of it. I don't consider myself an expert by any means but I'm pretty comfortable with my opinions at this point.

Wait...what? Of course it does. That's exactly what it means

language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content

So your source for "knowing" is yourself. Ok then.

 

[timschochet]

Commish when I used the term rhetoric I didn't mean to imply that it wasn't genuine. Perhaps I misunderstood the exact definition of the term; I'll stop using it in this context.

 

[timschochet]

It was never the same as Ted Cruz; that's nonsense. But it wasn't the same as it is now; that's for sure.

I think the Hillary we're hearing now, on most of these issues, is the REAL Hillary, what she truly believes. I think what we saw in 2008 was created by Mark Penn, a concerted attempt to avoid alienating anyone. People sensed this and it's a big reason why she lost. This time around, John Podesta is telling her, be yourself.

A border fence is not the same as Ted Cruz? It's not?

In Hillary supported the fence, but she also supported the McCain-Kennedy bill of 2006 which gave a Path to Citizenship for illegals. Cruz wasn't around them but he never would have supported it.

But otherwise she has been the same as every other Republican in the race right now, for years and years. And of course she agreed with the conservative position on the fence, which is definitely where Cruz is.

Allll of a sudden she goes left, keeps going, even passes Obama up, waves to him as she keeps going left, and now sits somewhere maybe even to the left of Warren and Sanders. Amazing transition that.

No. The key difference between conservatives and everyone else on this issue has never been about border security( it's bern about granting any kind of amnesty for illegals. Hillary has been pretty consistent about this aspect.

No she has not. 2008 she was talking the GOP line of legal path to citizenship, not amnesty. When did she actually previously vocally come out and support amnesty?

Actually she's not even doing that now. Conservative critics refer to any legal path to citizenship plan as "amnesty" and I was borrowing their phrasing (mainly so I didn't have to keep writing legal path to citizenship as I'm texting on my phone here). Hillary doesn't support amnesty (nobody does except perhaps me); she supports, as she hS in the past, a legal pathway to citizenship.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Tim you don't even realize what she came out for yesterday. It's to the left of Obama. 9/10ths of the GOP field is using that legal pathway to citizenship buzz phrase. She has said she will go past what Obama has done including using executive action to do it.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

A rundown from RCP regarding Hillary's new position on immigration.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/05/06/hillary_woos_latinos_vows_more_immigration_action.html

“It was a legal constraint on our authority,” Obama told a town-hall gathering in Tennessee in December. “It was not because we did not care about those parents. And I know that there are a lot of DREAM Act kids who are concerned that their parents may still not qualify.”

Without legal tethers to the United States, the Justice Department advised the president that parents of DREAMers could not qualify and should not be included.

“The challenge we had -- in the minds of the Office of Legal Counsel -- was we’ve already exempted the young people through DACA. And then you boot-strap off of that -- the capacity to exempt their parents as well -- you’re not rooted originally in either somebody who is a citizen or a legal permanent resident,” Obama said.

So Hillary goes beyond that to say she's going to bring in people who have no such "legal tethers" to the US.

 

[squistion]

http://jaybookman.blog.ajc.com/2015/05/06/hillary-talks-policy-gop-talks-scandal-repeat-ad-infinitum/

Hillary talks policy; GOP talks scandal: Repeat, ad infinitum

In Las Vegas Tuesday, Hillary Clinton moved to cement her standing among Latino-American voters by pledging to fight for "a path to full and equal citizenship." And if Congress refuses to act, as president, I would do everything possible under the law to go even further than President Obama has.

"This is where I differ with everybody on the Republican side," she told a group of students whose parents face deportation. "Make no mistakes. Today not a single Republican candidate, announced or potential, is clearly and consistently supporting a path to citizenship. Not one."

Meanwhile, Republicans continue to talk alleged scandal Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation, emails, etc.

Its a matter of faith among Republicans that their intense, visceral dislike for Hillary Clinton is shared or can at least be spread among the American people as a whole. Theyre certain that if they just try hard enough, yell loud enough, stomp their feet vigorously enough, the rest of the world can be made to see her as the wicked villainess that they know her to be. Thats why theyre dragging her back to Capitol Hill this month to testify yet again on the 2012 tragedy in Benghazi, which they seem intent on turning into the most investigated and re-investigated event since the Kennedy assassination.

History, however, suggests that their approach may not work. It may be emotionally rewarding; it may succeed in firing up the GOP base. But as a strategy for winning elections, it doesnt have a strong track record.

Republicans took the scandal-based approach with Bill Clinton, who won in 1992 amid allegations of womanizing and then easily won re-election in 1996. In December 1998, when House Republicans vented their Clinton hatred with votes to impeach him, Clinton enjoyed a 73 percent job approval rating among the American people as a whole. When he left office in 2001, he exited with a higher Gallup rating than had Ronald Reagan.

Undaunted, the GOP applied the same strategy against Barack Obama, again expecting that the intensity of their hatred would somehow spill out into the larger electorate. Instead, Obama has become the first person to get more than 51 percent of the vote in two consecutive presidential elections since Ike Eisenhower. Today, Obamas Gallup standing equals that of Reagan at this point in his presidency and is on the rise.

But with Hillary, were told, it will be different. This time, Republicans are claiming that they will be able to redefine the former secretary of state in much the same way as the Democrats succeeded in redefining Mitt Romney in 2012.

Theyll certainly have the financial resources to make that pitch heard, but again, it seems unlikely. While Romneys image was still fairly malleable, Hillary has been on the political scene for close to a quarter century now. Her public image is well established, both pro and con, as is the Republicans animus against her. And by this point, I think it has become background noise for many voters. Theyve witnessed a long string of alleged Clinton scandals; theyve repeatedly witnessed those scandals come to little or nothing.

The boy has cried Wolf! so many times that voters are going to have to see an actual, living, breathing, 100 percent-authenticated, DNA-verified Canis lupus. And even then they may not believe it.

 

[Soonerman]

I never thought we would re-elect Nixon as a Democrat.

Paranoia? Check.

Ethically Challenged? Check.

Process Trumps Accomplishments? Check.

Permanent 5 O'clock Shadow? Check.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Squiz, interesting piece. Just remind me though, in that 'boy who cried wolf' fable, the wolf really was real in the end though, right?

 

[FlapJacks]

Blast from the past

http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=390

Hillary posing for pics with drug dealer...

 

[squistion]

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/ia/ia05072015_Igrwf25.pdf

WHAT TROUBLE? CLINTON HAS EARLY LOCK ON IOWA CAUCUS,

QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY POLL FINDS;

SANDERS, BIDEN ARE ONLY DEMS OVER 3%

With 60 percent of the vote among Iowa likely Democratic Caucus participants, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has an early lock on the first-in-the-nation presidential test, apparently undamaged by a nationwide flood of negative publicity, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

This compares to a 61 percent Clinton showing in Iowa in a February 26 survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University.

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont has 15 percent among Democrats, with 11 percent for Vice President Joseph Biden and 3 percent each for former U.S. Sen. James Webb of Virginia and former Maryland Gov. Martin OMalley. Another 7 percent are undecided.

Clinton and Biden each get 7 percent on the no way list when likely Democratic Caucus participants name a candidate they would definitely not support. Sanders gets 6 percent.

Iowa Democrats say 76 17 percent that Clinton is honest and trustworthy, with Biden at 84 10 percent

"One thing is obvious about Iowa Democratic Caucus participants: They are loyal as the day is long, at least when it comes to Hillary Clinton," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.

"The former secretary of state has taken a major pounding in the news media and from her political opponents over her e-mail and family foundation. So far these criticisms have had absolutely no effect on her standing among Iowa Democrats."

"One other thing is slightly less obvious but interesting: By more than four-to-one, 76 17 percent, Iowa caucus-goers say Clinton is honest and trustworthy."

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/ia/ia05072015_Igrwf25.pdf

WHAT TROUBLE? CLINTON HAS EARLY LOCK ON IOWA CAUCUS,

QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY POLL FINDS;

SANDERS, BIDEN ARE ONLY DEMS OVER 3%

With 60 percent of the vote among Iowa likely Democratic Caucus participants, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has an early lock on the first-in-the-nation presidential test, apparently undamaged by a nationwide flood of negative publicity, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

This compares to a 61 percent Clinton showing in Iowa in a February 26 survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University.

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont has 15 percent among Democrats, with 11 percent for Vice President Joseph Biden and 3 percent each for former U.S. Sen. James Webb of Virginia and former Maryland Gov. Martin OMalley. Another 7 percent are undecided.

Clinton and Biden each get 7 percent on the no way list when likely Democratic Caucus participants name a candidate they would definitely not support. Sanders gets 6 percent.

Iowa Democrats say 76 17 percent that Clinton is honest and trustworthy, with Biden at 84 10 percent

"One thing is obvious about Iowa Democratic Caucus participants: They are loyal as the day is long, at least when it comes to Hillary Clinton," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.

"The former secretary of state has taken a major pounding in the news media and from her political opponents over her e-mail and family foundation. So far these criticisms have had absolutely no effect on her standing among Iowa Democrats."

"One other thing is slightly less obvious but interesting: By more than four-to-one, 76 17 percent, Iowa caucus-goers say Clinton is honest and trustworthy."

When Quinnipiac University surveyed all Iowa voters last month, it found 49–43 percent they saw her as not honest and trustworthy.

I just have a few straightforward and I hope neutral comments here:

- I've noticed that aside from the party difference in the honesty issue in these polls (though in some of them the any-answer-but-'honest' answer among Demos has at times been sizable, like ~40%), I think Democrats are also more likely to tune out the news on the Foundation and the fees and the scandals, though that's not reflected here.

- I also don't think Demos can be blamed given they have no realistic alternative in front of them. Maybe a good number will pull the lever for Sanders or Webb but we all know Hillary will be carrying the flag in November 2016.

- I don't think the 'honesty' numbers will matter come November 2016. I think the honest/dishonest numbers may or will even grow, but people will still vote for her.

- Hillary has a huge name recognition factor. All that effort that candidates go through to introduce themselves to voters is unnecessary for her. So she is able to read a new policy initiative from a script at a uh "roundtable" event in NV which isn't even close to being in primary play right now, with an eye towards the general, and it doesn't matter if she doesn't take questions or if there is no extemporizing at the actual event. - Meanwhile the goppers are trying to crowd into diners in suburban Burlington.

 

[timschochet]

I dunno. Part of me wants to believe those numbers Squisition posted, and yet...

1. Iowans tend to be iconoclastic in these caucuses. They seem to love surprising people in the last second by choosing an underdog nobody saw. This is true of both parties.

2. Iowa doesn't have a history of liking Hillary Clinton. She came in 3rd, not 2nd, in 2008. People forget this. If Obama had not been in the race, there is every reason to believe that John Edwards would have won Iowa (he had basically moved there in 2006 just for this purpose.) Now with no Obama, Edwards' campaign would have fallen apart within a few weeks after Iowa due to the revelations about his girlfriend, but he would have won Iowa.

3. Nobody outside of the political class knows who Sanders, Webb, Chafee, or O Malley are. The debates this fall will change that. If Hillary stumbles, or somebody comes off as especially charismatic, Iowa could change. That happened in late 2007. Hillary was winning every debate pretty handily when suddenly she was confronted with a question about drivers licenses for illegals which she refused to answer. Her poll numbers went down, and Obama's shot up, all a month before Iowa.

I believe, very strongly, that Hillary Clinton is a shoe-in for the Democratic nomination. But is she a shoo-in to win Iowa hands down? There's a lot of time between now and then.