timschochet
Footballguy
There's another thread for that nonsense.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
- Status
Hang 10
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I've been pretty straightforward in acknowledging and even pointing out that the electoral map heavily favors Hillary. She basically needs what have recently been standard blue states plus FL. I also don't think acknowledging she is likely to be president should keep us from discussing her qualifications, her ethical failings, what potential Demo stars are sitting out because of her, what kind of president she will be, or her talents or flaws as a candidate.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think I posted some odds a while back, so time for an update...
Sportsbook.ag currently has the following two bets available:
* The Democrat nominee wins the 2016 POTUS election = -180 (i.e. bet $180 to win $100)
* Hilary Clinton wins the 2016 POTUS election = +105 (i.e. bet $100 to win $105)
* The next Democrats listed for the overall POTUS election are Warren, Biden, and O'Malley, all at +5000 (bet $100 to win $5000 = 50 to 1)
Unfortunately, they don't have a bet for Clinton winning the Democrat primary. She's obviously a heavy favorite, according to the odds above, but not an overwhelming favorite at this point. Odd, in my opinion.
Sportsbook.ag currently has the following two bets available:
* The Democrat nominee wins the 2016 POTUS election = -180 (i.e. bet $180 to win $100)
* Hilary Clinton wins the 2016 POTUS election = +105 (i.e. bet $100 to win $105)
* The next Democrats listed for the overall POTUS election are Warren, Biden, and O'Malley, all at +5000 (bet $100 to win $5000 = 50 to 1)
Unfortunately, they don't have a bet for Clinton winning the Democrat primary. She's obviously a heavy favorite, according to the odds above, but not an overwhelming favorite at this point. Odd, in my opinion.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I think it's like when a small college plays a major program, there is no betting line, it's "off the board."
What are some of the top Republican candidates odds'?
I'd be surprised if the best Republican odds were better than +150.
Baloney Sandwich
Footballguy
Why is it nonsense Tim? I bet you think it is just another conservative hachet job on Hillary, FYI it was written by David Sirota, a progressive.
Sure, for point of reference...
To win the general, Jeb Bush is +800, Rubio is +1200, and Walker is +1500. "The GOP nominee" to win the general is +150.
They do have odds on the GOP primary. Bush is +220, Walker +340, Rubio +350, Christie +1000.
It's so early right now, and nobody pays attention during the summer. Once she starts talking, this early strategy will be long-forgotten.
I really don't think this is about her figuring out how to figure out what her platform will be. It's likely to be war on women (although I expect this to be surrogate driven anytime she is attacked), and the middle class being crushed. I do think that foreign policy is a challenge for any Democrat right now, but I don't think we'll see much in terms of the responses given. It will be interesting to see if she gets similar questions that the Republican candidates got regarding Iraq given her history.
So, by those odds, Hillary is a huge favorite with Bush really the only candidate on the Republican side who can potentially be a threat.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Tim there are at least two other news reports in the other thread on just this point. Yes, ethics matters. Eta - I'm board with keeping the ethics/corruption discussion over there though.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
What exactly is THIS thread for again? 
To discuss if Tiger will ever win another major.What exactly is THIS thread for again?
The Commish
Footballguy
I say no. There was a time where I thought he'd be back to his old self, but let's face it. He doesn't scare anyone anymore. The magic's gone. RIP Tiger Woods.To discuss if Tiger will ever win another major.What exactly is THIS thread for again?
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Politics, political strategy, polls, Hillary as candidate, the race, her opponents, her policies. Kind of like the Adrian Peterson no "child rea" thread. The issues do cross over though when the ethical problems cross over, because there are plenty Americans from all sides which see that as a flaw and it can affect her campaign, which it does. For instance it's hard to discuss Sanders without acknowledging that his integrity and values as opposed to Hillary's lack thereof have a good bit to do with his appeal (IMO). It's hard to look at Hillary's lack of positions on TPP and banking regulations and other regulation and not acknowledge the money she and Bill have received from interested parties. Its hard to look at her proposed foreign policies and ignore the money that's been shelled out to her and Bill, like the discussion above. Etc. The issues do cross over.What exactly is THIS thread for again?
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
I dunno. This started out as shtick and then I decided that I seriously was going to vote for her, because I really am impressed by her experience and I am completely distraught at how the Republican Party has gone so far to the right. I consider myself a centrist, with liberal leanings on social issues and conservative leanings on economic issues, and with a pro "establishment" frame of mind- I believe Obama's been a pretty good President, and Hillary seemed like the right choice. And still does.
But I don't want to go too far out on a limb here. I rain skeptical of most of the criticism but what the Hell? I don't know the woman. Maybe she truly is as sleazy as people say. Maybe she really did give favors in exchange for donations. Maybe, as Commish believes, she was completely irresponsible with regard to security on her email server and it reflects poorly on her judgment. I have a hard time believing any of this, but I'm not around her either.
I don't want to be a shill for anyone. If she really did bad things I won't defend that. But the information so far, that seems to be compelling to everyone else, isn't to me- yet.
But I don't want to go too far out on a limb here. I rain skeptical of most of the criticism but what the Hell? I don't know the woman. Maybe she truly is as sleazy as people say. Maybe she really did give favors in exchange for donations. Maybe, as Commish believes, she was completely irresponsible with regard to security on her email server and it reflects poorly on her judgment. I have a hard time believing any of this, but I'm not around her either.
I don't want to be a shill for anyone. If she really did bad things I won't defend that. But the information so far, that seems to be compelling to everyone else, isn't to me- yet.
There's not really any "maybe" about this one.
That said, as usual, it's not like the GOP candidates are any better. Besides Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders, perhaps, I don't think any of them have the best interests of the country at heart, but are instead simply power and ego driven. And while Paul and Sanders are probably more idealistic, I'm not sure I agree with either of them on what's best for the country.
timschochet
Footballguy
WellYou're raising separate issues here.
As I pointed out earlier, if she really was derelict on her email security (and unlike you I'm not convinced that this is the case) I don't believe it was deliberate. That makes no difference to Commish but to me it's vital. I do believe that Hillary wants what's best for the country and so do most of the GOP candidates- I'm not as cynical about that as you are.
The Commish
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
A few more thoughts on this, aside from the lack of movement since January:
- These are Demo voters only (a telephone poll of ~400)
- 57/43 is not particularly strong against this field, IMO. I think she has to do better than 65%, at least, to get real momentum going. This is with one "wing" candidate actually officially running, and one elderly former Gopper announced but not campaigning, at the time of the poll. She should be crushing the Demo field, I don't think this is crushing it.
- The percentage of people who say that Hillary better represents their views than Warren, has actually declined since October, from 52 to 48. Again, Hillary has been campaigning and throwing pr releases out about new progressive policy positions, while Warren has said ten times over she's not running, so that number should be going up, not down.
- 20% of the polled IA Democrats are "bothered" by the email story.
- 20% are bothered by the Benghazi events.
- 27% are bothered by the foreign contributions to the Foundation.
- 14% think it all shows a pattern of unethical behavior. Another 14% haven't made up their mind about it.
- The number of IA caucus Demos saying Hillary is their 1st or 2nd choice has gone up from 68 to 72 since October, but again just 1 point since January. - So that means 38% of all hard core IA Democrats won't even say that Hillary is their 2nd choice? That seems like a lot, especially considering she is the only game in town.
I know that those numbers may seem low, but these are voters who say they "definitely or probably will attend the 2016 Democratic caucuses", so these are hard core Democrats.
http://images.businessweek.com/cms/2015-05-30/150601_dem_final_365871.pdf
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
To clarify, before you attempt to put words in my mouth, my position is that it doesn't matter in the larger picture. On a micro level the difference would be less of one negative and more of another. If she had no clue what she was doing, it increases the amount of recklessness but decreases the selfishness. Why that is particularly important to you, I am not sure, but ok.
timschochet
Footballguy
You called the wrong stuff shtick. When I started this thread and posted corny songs about Hillary- THAT was shtick. But it was pretty obvious. When I resort to shtick (which isn't very often) I don't hide the fact.
The Commish
Footballguy
I don't believe many will disagree with me when I say, it's NOT "pretty obvious" to us.You called the wrong stuff shtick. When I started this thread and posted corny songs about Hillary- THAT was shtick. But it was pretty obvious. When I resort to shtick (which isn't very often) I don't hide the fact.
timschochet
Footballguy
It's important to me for the same reason as in the NSA thread- I expect government to screw things up, and the larger the government, the larger the screwups. But IMO, actual, deliberate conspiracies are few and far between and we really don't need to fear them. That's why when Slapdash was warning about the NSA's actions leading to an Orwellian society, I was far more concerned about a Kafkaesque society- The Trial, in which nobody knows what's going on, is a far better analogy than 1984 in which Big Brother knows exactly what's going on. Now I admit there is injustice in either case.
I realize I got off on a tangent there. So let me say simply that I think Hillary Clinton is a good person. If this email stuff turns out to be a problem, I think it was due to errors. If it was deliberate, that would contradict my image of her. (Then again, I don't really know her.)
If she exposed national security secrets to the world deliberately, yeah, that's a deep, disturbing problem. I assume she did not. Rather, I assume her security was lax because she didn't know any better. That does, however, reflect very poorly on her judgment. She has access to some of the best IT security personnel in the world; that she chose not to involve them shows very poor judgment.
Note that I'm not making any judgment on the decision to have a separate mail server in the first place, simply her decision to not implement security measures once she did make that decision.
Note that I'm not making any judgment on the decision to have a separate mail server in the first place, simply her decision to not implement security measures once she did make that decision.
The Commish
Footballguy
Again, it's "errors" either way. It's either an "error" in judgment or an "error" in ignorance. Most likely a combo of both. And I am confident, whatever comes of it, it won't matter to you. You are still using "if" for these security issues that were created. If you aren't going to take the security report from a third party seriously, I am confident there is little, to nothing, that's going to change your mind.
As for the NSA thread, you have to go back and refresh your memory a bit. You were plenty adamant about your position in that thread regardless. Now, what I will say is that the possibility of this being a "mistake" or "opps, my bad" is far more likely than what we faced with the NSA. That was a complete overstep and violation of our rights as citizens. That's why those actions were supposedly stopped as of today (or yesterday). Meaning, if one was 100% sure the NSA action was not a simple "opps" then that same person wouldn't be uncomfortable sitting at 95% sure Hillary's actions weren't an "opps". It's 5 whole percentage points, but in the grand scheme of things still well within the "yeah, whatever you say....." realm of explanations.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Hillary Reset (aka Overload):
https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/status/605416525173014528
https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/605408272322043904/photo/1
https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/status/605416525173014528
Hillary super-officially (re)announces, the official, true, this time she means it, real, albeit delayed, campaign launch:
https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/605408272322043904/photo/1
squistion
Footballguy
http://www.vox.com/2015/6/1/8676727/hillary-clinton-popularity
It's time for the media to admit that Hillary Clinton is popular
Quinnipiac is out with a new poll that confirms something the national media is loathe to admit, and that essentially never surfaces in their coverage of one of the most-covered people in the world today: Hillary Clinton is the most popular politician in America.
(Graph of Quinnipiac poll of Hillary versus top GOP candidates at link)
It would be genuinely silly to think that her early leads in general election polling tell us anything interesting about what will happen in November 2016. But they tell us a lot about how people feel in May 2015, and the way they feel is pretty good about Hillary Clinton.
According to Gallup, for example, she is the most admired woman in the world. What's more, she has been the most admired woman in the world for 17 out of the past 18 years.
Journalists don't like Hillary Clinton
But the press hates to admit this. For Clinton, good news is never just good news. Instead it's an opportunity to remind the public about the media's negative narratives about Clinton and then to muse on the fact that her ratings somehow manage to hold up despite these narratives.
Here's how the Wall Street Journal wrote up an earlier poll showing Clinton beating all opponents:
"Hillary Clinton's stature has been battered after more than a month of controversy over her fundraising and email practices, but support for her among Democrats remains strong and unshaken, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll finds."
And here's how the New York Times wrote up yet another poll showing Clinton beating all opponents:
"Hillary Rodham Clinton appears to have initially weathered a barrage of news about her use of a private email account when she was secretary of state and the practices of her family's foundation, an indication that she is starting her second presidential bid with an unusual durability among Democratic voters."
This framing is not surprising, since, among journalists, Clinton is one of the least popular politicians. She is not forthcoming or entertaining with the press. She doesn't offer good quotes. She doesn't like journalists, respect what we do, or care to hide her disdain for the media. She feels that the right-wing press has tried to destroy her for decades, that the mainstream press got played like a cheap fiddle by the conservative press, and that even the liberal press was overwhelmingly hostile to her during her 2008 campaign.
The public also hates journalists
Journalists are obviously free to dislike politicians who are uncooperative with the press, and to celebrate those who embrace a more freewheeling, media-friendly style. But reporters all too often confused the conventional wisdom of the journo-pack with the opinions of actual voters.
The reality is that Clinton's disdain for the press is largely shared by the public, which does not think journalists are credible or contribute to society's well-being.
At the same time, most of the "bad" narratives about both Clintons that exist in the media are essentially self-centered. From an impeachment grounded in Bill's effort to keep an extramarital affair out of the newspapers to a scandal about an email server designed to keep the contents of Hillary's messages out of the newspapers, the Clintons have continually run afoul of the press's fervent desire to know everything.
But few regular people evaluate public figures on the basis of their level of cooperation with media inquiries. Clinton's brand of cautious center-left politics and her genuine passion for trying to bring people together and make deals more or less reflects what the public wants from a politician.
It's time for the media to admit that Hillary Clinton is popular
Quinnipiac is out with a new poll that confirms something the national media is loathe to admit, and that essentially never surfaces in their coverage of one of the most-covered people in the world today: Hillary Clinton is the most popular politician in America.
(Graph of Quinnipiac poll of Hillary versus top GOP candidates at link)
It would be genuinely silly to think that her early leads in general election polling tell us anything interesting about what will happen in November 2016. But they tell us a lot about how people feel in May 2015, and the way they feel is pretty good about Hillary Clinton.
According to Gallup, for example, she is the most admired woman in the world. What's more, she has been the most admired woman in the world for 17 out of the past 18 years.
Journalists don't like Hillary Clinton
But the press hates to admit this. For Clinton, good news is never just good news. Instead it's an opportunity to remind the public about the media's negative narratives about Clinton and then to muse on the fact that her ratings somehow manage to hold up despite these narratives.
Here's how the Wall Street Journal wrote up an earlier poll showing Clinton beating all opponents:
"Hillary Clinton's stature has been battered after more than a month of controversy over her fundraising and email practices, but support for her among Democrats remains strong and unshaken, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll finds."
And here's how the New York Times wrote up yet another poll showing Clinton beating all opponents:
"Hillary Rodham Clinton appears to have initially weathered a barrage of news about her use of a private email account when she was secretary of state and the practices of her family's foundation, an indication that she is starting her second presidential bid with an unusual durability among Democratic voters."
This framing is not surprising, since, among journalists, Clinton is one of the least popular politicians. She is not forthcoming or entertaining with the press. She doesn't offer good quotes. She doesn't like journalists, respect what we do, or care to hide her disdain for the media. She feels that the right-wing press has tried to destroy her for decades, that the mainstream press got played like a cheap fiddle by the conservative press, and that even the liberal press was overwhelmingly hostile to her during her 2008 campaign.
The public also hates journalists
Journalists are obviously free to dislike politicians who are uncooperative with the press, and to celebrate those who embrace a more freewheeling, media-friendly style. But reporters all too often confused the conventional wisdom of the journo-pack with the opinions of actual voters.
The reality is that Clinton's disdain for the press is largely shared by the public, which does not think journalists are credible or contribute to society's well-being.
At the same time, most of the "bad" narratives about both Clintons that exist in the media are essentially self-centered. From an impeachment grounded in Bill's effort to keep an extramarital affair out of the newspapers to a scandal about an email server designed to keep the contents of Hillary's messages out of the newspapers, the Clintons have continually run afoul of the press's fervent desire to know everything.
But few regular people evaluate public figures on the basis of their level of cooperation with media inquiries. Clinton's brand of cautious center-left politics and her genuine passion for trying to bring people together and make deals more or less reflects what the public wants from a politician.
The Commish
Footballguy
So is this the new angle Hillary's camp is taking....popularity at the world level? I personally couldn't care less how popular she is in Gwam, Israel, Egypt, India, wherever. It should also be noted that popular <> liked. If they see her through the Clinton Foundation lens it's hard to argue with likability or popularity really, and that's how it should be. The foundation has done wonderful things as an organization. What it's built on, well, that's yet to be determined. However, does that matter? I mean, if Hillary is completely separated from the foundation like Tim says, does she get credit for the person she's portraying via the foundation? Seems like the Hillary lovers want it both ways taking the positives associated with the foundation while attempting to reject the potential negatives associated with the foundation.
Last edited by a moderator:
TwinTurbo
Footballguy
If you dig deeper into that poll, they randomly called 805 different people across 50 states and several of the responses were ridiculous. Also the most popular response was actually "None", not Hillary Clinton. None beat out Hillary by an average of 2-1 : View survey methodology, complete question responses, and trends
The Commish
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
squistion
Footballguy
No, the most popular response was not "None" it was "None/No Opinion" which were grouped together but are not exactly the same thing. And it was not broken down into separate categories as to who had no opinion at all or who admired no one. Also you make it sound as if the respondents were given only two choices, "Do you admire Hillary or no one at all?" - instead they were to list a woman they admired and 26% could not name one woman or had no opinion on the subject.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
In an effort to address these issues head on and not undercut the results (for instance her unfavorability ratings are higher in that poll that her favorability...)...
...it's a stated fact that Hillary is the best known candidate, by far, in the race, it is a HUGE advantage. She started out there and any Demo or Gopper will have to deal with the uninformed voter who votes for Hillary (sorry that's who votes on popularity/name recognition alone) and will also have to catch up with this disadvantage by the end, and that's a mighty tough task.
And so now she is lauded for being secretive, contemptuous of the free press, and for being criticized by the conservative press AND the mainstream press AND the liberal press.
I think what bothers me here though is the notion that the public hates journalists and that since the news reports left, right and center have been murdering Hillary with facts and since journalists write those and since Hillary has been avoiding the press and they are castigating her for that, that that should be viewed as a good thing by Democrats, liberals or progressives. Because now the problem is the "press", not Hillary?
It's an odd confluence: libs-progs now own the electoral map, they have had 8 years of a presidency which they believe has brought advancements with a president who courted the press and does very well with it; and yet there is this argument that they should now applaud the money making prowess of the Clintons (er, read, greed) profiting off their public office while dealing with corporations and foreign nations who stand against liberal-progressive values, the Clintons' contempt for concerns about conflict of interest and money in politics (supposedly a liberal-progressive value), and their contempt for public transparency and for dealing with an open and free press (supposedly a liberal-progressive value).
Last edited by a moderator:
TwinTurbo
Footballguy
I made it abudantly clear by providing the direct link to the data that the poll is allowing the respondents to name their choices. And what's clear is that a significant percentage of respondents don't even think of Hillary's name, or any famous person's name for that matter, when asked who they find to be the most admirable woman in the world. None/No Opinion wins over Hillary in a landslide. Even Friend/Relative could mount a serious challenge. The only thing that surprises me about this data is that Hillary wins over Oprah. I would have expected it to be switched.
squistion
Footballguy
It is amusing that those on the right usually applaud people making money, but Bill Clinton being paid for making speeches after leaving The White House is pointed to as being greedy or somehow inappropriate.
George Bush has made $15 million in speaking fees from 2008-2011 but I never heard anything from Hillary's critics on that: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/george-w-bush-racks-15-million-speaking-fees-192157129.html. Plus Bill Clinton or Bush aren't alone among former politicians at raking it in on the speaker's circuit: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/07/11/hillary-clinton-isnt-alone-former-politicians-rake-it-in-on-speaker-circuit/
squistion
Footballguy
Providing a link is not making it abundantly clear, since one has to look up the data at the link to discover that you had left out the "No opinion" part of the response. If you really wanted to be abundantly clear, you would have stated that in the OP along with the link, instead of giving a somewhat misleading interpretation of the data.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Did you forget the rest, or miss it?
Note that article says, "Former politicians." - I have thought about this and others have raised it, I think the difference is that George and Laura, and other ex-politicians like this, had no expectation to return to the presidency or any other public office, which Bill and Hillary did. That $15 mill number also pales in comparison to the numbers raked in by Bill, Hillary and the Foundation (and we actually do not know how much money Bill's consulting business at the LLC has taken in, so it's more than we know). Not to mention getting paid and sometimes salary (like Laureate and Teneo), in cash, by vendors, corporations and countries with business in front of them in the past and very likely in the future. And there's what those interests stand for. It all seems very distinguishable.
Last edited by a moderator:
TwinTurbo
Footballguy
There was nothing misleading about my post. None/No opinion means nobody was was named by 25-30% of the respondants. Rather Vox is providing a misleading interpretation of the data, implying that Hillary is the most admired women in the world, when the data in fact shows that around 85% of the respondants did not name her in any given year and a significantly higher percentage also named nobody vs. Hillary. The most recent year 2014 is also the lowest percentage for her out of the last ten years, which is a bad trend and indicates her popularity has continued to decline. If I was on Hillary's team, this poll would seriously depress me.
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion
Footballguy
Most admired over everyone else, is still the most admired.
And being named the most admired woman in the world this year and every year since 2004 is depressing news for Hillary's team? OK, if you say so, but I doubt there are any long faces over this at Hillary 2016 headquarters - more like
timschochet
Footballguy
June 13 will be Hillary's first major campaign speech:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-camp-seeks-to-both-raise-and-lower-expectations/2015/06/01/6302ac86-0882-11e5-a7ad-b430fc1d3f5c_story.html
At her first major rally, to be held June 13 on New York’s Roosevelt Island, Clinton will lay out the main principles of her campaign. The rally will be followed in the subsequent week by a blitz of the four first primary states, according to spokesman Jesse Ferguson.
“Her speech will lay out her view of the challenges facing this country and her vision and ideas for moving the country forward,” Ferguson said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-camp-seeks-to-both-raise-and-lower-expectations/2015/06/01/6302ac86-0882-11e5-a7ad-b430fc1d3f5c_story.html
At her first major rally, to be held June 13 on New York’s Roosevelt Island, Clinton will lay out the main principles of her campaign. The rally will be followed in the subsequent week by a blitz of the four first primary states, according to spokesman Jesse Ferguson.
“Her speech will lay out her view of the challenges facing this country and her vision and ideas for moving the country forward,” Ferguson said.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I have zero problem with ex-politicians getting paid on the speaking circuit. It's a little grubby, but whatever. Like you said, it's common practice.squistion said:
But Bill is married to Hillary, and paying Bill for a speaking engagement is exactly equivalent to paying off Hillary, if somebody was so inclined. That's the issue.
The Commish
Footballguy
Looks like someone is giving Tim a run for his moneysquistion said:Most admired over everyone else, is still the most admired.TwinTurbo said:
And being named the most admired woman in the world this year and every year since 2004 is depressing news for Hillary's team? OK, if you say so, but I doubt there are any long faces over this at Hillary 2016 headquarters - more like
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Hillary's favorability continues to decline, in new poll:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/06/01/2016.poll.pdf
There's other stuff on the GOP that probably belongs in the GOP thread.
And there's stuff about Jeb, and I think we all know that the country is dreading a Bush/Clinton Hobson's choice. Hopefully we don't end up there.
I don't think the article says but she is actually -4 points underwater, her unfavorable is 50%, her favorable is 46%.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/02/politics/hillary-clinton-2016-poll-gop-field-close/index.html
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/06/01/2016.poll.pdf
There's other stuff on the GOP that probably belongs in the GOP thread.
And there's stuff about Jeb, and I think we all know that the country is dreading a Bush/Clinton Hobson's choice. Hopefully we don't end up there.
I don't think the article says but she is actually -4 points underwater, her unfavorable is 50%, her favorable is 46%.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
but but but.......
Boston
Footballguy
The unfavorable rating for Hill is something to watch closely...while her husband could turn negatives into positives Hill simply does not have that type of personality or talent...like him or not you can not deny that Bill was excellent at the podium and could come across as a regular guy...Hillary is aloof and has a temper...it is not a fluke that her handlers are keeping her under wraps...they have no choice...unlike Bill who could address these type of issues and often negate their impact Hillary won't be able to do it...she can either not discuss them which hurts her or she can attempt to address them which will not go well for her as well...she is an extremely flawed candidate and I just don't see many Americans warming up to her personality or the current strategy her team is using...
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
I addressed it several times in the other thread. Why repeat myself?
timschochet
Footballguy
Hillary's popularity was bound to go down. It was impossibly high, and she is a polarizing figure.
I figure it will fluctuate for the next year or so until we have a set Republican candidate to oppose her. Then we'll see how the race is defined.
I figure it will fluctuate for the next year or so until we have a set Republican candidate to oppose her. Then we'll see how the race is defined.
- Status
Similar threads
