Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (3 Viewers)

[Fennis]

Are even those predisposed to vote for Hillary based on her party affiliation excited about her running?

We're supposed to be excited about candidates? I've been voting since 1988 and I don't recall being excited once.

Since 1988, I was excited once: when I voted for Obama in 2008. I learned that lesson.

Were you hoping for change?

I was hoping for a better presidency.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Are even those predisposed to vote for Hillary based on her party affiliation excited about her running?

We're supposed to be excited about candidates? I've been voting since 1988 and I don't recall being excited once.

Since 1988, I was excited once: when I voted for Obama in 2008. I learned that lesson.

Were you hoping for change?

I was hoping for a better presidency.

My comments may not carry a lot of weight with you, but I've been fairly happy with Obama's presidency. He managed to get a health care reform package through Congress that used to be a libertarian-Republican idea until everybody switched sides. He killed UBL. He got the US out of Iraq on time and hasn't done anything obviously foolish in foreign policy.

His administration has also been almost entirely scandal-free (I'm ignoring stupid stuff like Benghazi). Hillary's first major scandal has already erupted and she hasn't even officially started her campaign yet.

Clearly he should have appointed a pro-life right-winger to the bench instead of Sotomayor, but otherwise I think he's done fine. It would have been nice to see some sort of carbon tax and immigration reform, but Obama never had any hope of getting those enacted given the Congress he's had to deal with.

What exactly were you hoping for?

 

[Fennis]

Are even those predisposed to vote for Hillary based on her party affiliation excited about her running?

We're supposed to be excited about candidates? I've been voting since 1988 and I don't recall being excited once.

Since 1988, I was excited once: when I voted for Obama in 2008. I learned that lesson.

Were you hoping for change?

I was hoping for a better presidency.

My comments may not carry a lot of weight with you, but I've been fairly happy with Obama's presidency. He managed to get a health care reform package through Congress that used to be a libertarian-Republican idea until everybody switched sides. He killed UBL. He got the US out of Iraq on time and hasn't done anything obviously foolish in foreign policy.

His administration has also been almost entirely scandal-free (I'm ignoring stupid stuff like Benghazi). Hillary's first major scandal has already erupted and she hasn't even officially started her campaign yet.

Clearly he should have appointed a pro-life right-winger to the bench instead of Sotomayor, but otherwise I think he's done fine. It would have been nice to see some sort of carbon tax and immigration reform, but Obama never had any hope of getting those enacted given the Congress he's had to deal with.

What exactly were you hoping for?

less wars, end to drone bombings, end to Gitmo, less NSA intrusion, better record on civil rights, a healthcare package that focused primarily on health care costs, and managing a way to work way better with the republican party.

 

[Sweet J]

Are even those predisposed to vote for Hillary based on her party affiliation excited about her running?

We're supposed to be excited about candidates? I've been voting since 1988 and I don't recall being excited once.

Since 1988, I was excited once: when I voted for Obama in 2008. I learned that lesson.

Were you hoping for change?

I was hoping for a better presidency.

My comments may not carry a lot of weight with you, but I've been fairly happy with Obama's presidency. He managed to get a health care reform package through Congress that used to be a libertarian-Republican idea until everybody switched sides. He killed UBL. He got the US out of Iraq on time and hasn't done anything obviously foolish in foreign policy.

His administration has also been almost entirely scandal-free (I'm ignoring stupid stuff like Benghazi). Hillary's first major scandal has already erupted and she hasn't even officially started her campaign yet.

Clearly he should have appointed a pro-life right-winger to the bench instead of Sotomayor, but otherwise I think he's done fine. It would have been nice to see some sort of carbon tax and immigration reform, but Obama never had any hope of getting those enacted given the Congress he's had to deal with.

What exactly were you hoping for?

I'll speak for federal workers in DC: His management of the government sucks. His mid-level political appointees suck. Gah.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I thought we would have government-subsidized pot by now.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This just gets trainwreckier and trainwreckier.

Hillary:

The server contains personal communications from my husband and me.

Bill:

The former president has only sent two messages ever using the technology, the Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday, citing spokesman Matt McKenna. ... Asked whether Bill Clinton e-mailed with his wife at her e-mail address, McKenna told Bloomberg he did not. ...

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-11/bill-clinton-didn-t-e-mail-with-hillary-ex-president-s-spokesman-says

 

[Fennis]

FWIW, I don't think Obama is a bad president, just wasn't worth getting excited over and he didn't do enough of what I expected to earn my vote in 2012.

 

[Fennis]

Saints you are FFA's Woodward and Bernstein of Hillarys email scandal

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Saints you are FFA's Woodward and Bernstein of Hillarys email scandal

(Thanks (I think)). I'm genuinely fascinated by it. Hopefully it all works out but in my opinion people don't do this enough. There is a guy locally who has actually driven the local small town government into $20,000 in public records requests fines because they refuse to turn over information about improperly knocking down his fence. They keep stonewalling and he keeps hauling them into court.

 

[dhockster]

Are even those predisposed to vote for Hillary based on her party affiliation excited about her running?

We're supposed to be excited about candidates? I've been voting since 1988 and I don't recall being excited once.

Since 1988, I was excited once: when I voted for Obama in 2008. I learned that lesson.

Were you hoping for change?

I was hoping for a better presidency.

My comments may not carry a lot of weight with you, but I've been fairly happy with Obama's presidency. He managed to get a health care reform package through Congress that used to be a libertarian-Republican idea until everybody switched sides. He killed UBL. He got the US out of Iraq on time and hasn't done anything obviously foolish in foreign policy.

His administration has also been almost entirely scandal-free (I'm ignoring stupid stuff like Benghazi). Hillary's first major scandal has already erupted and she hasn't even officially started her campaign yet.

Clearly he should have appointed a pro-life right-winger to the bench instead of Sotomayor, but otherwise I think he's done fine. It would have been nice to see some sort of carbon tax and immigration reform, but Obama never had any hope of getting those enacted given the Congress he's had to deal with.

What exactly were you hoping for?

less wars, end to drone bombings, end to Gitmo, less NSA intrusion, better record on civil rights, a healthcare package that focused primarily on health care costs, and managing a way to work way better with the republican party.

Fixed

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

Security firm Venafi has found that Clinton’s email server may have been open to foreign intelligence snoops when traveling abroad.

On Tuesday, former United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made her first extensive comments addressing her use of a personal email address and private email server while in office, saying that she did not use them to communicate anything confidential but that she wishes she had used a government-issued email address instead. She also sought the “convenience” of a single device.

Venafi, a Salt Lake City computer security firm, has conducted an analysis of clintonemail.com and determined that “for the first three months of Secretary Clinton’s term, access to the server was not encrypted or authenticated with a digital certificate.” In other words: For three months, Clinton’s server lay vulnerable to snooping, hacking, and spoofing.

“Without a certificate you have no assurances that a website you’re attached to or an email server you go to is the one you’re actually going to,” said Kevin Bocek, vice president of security strategy and threat intelligence at Venafi. “There could easily be a ‘man in the middle’ who could easily intercept communications because they’re not being encrypted.”

Without a proper digital certificate to stop them, bad actors can easily wedge themselves between users and the machines they’re attempting to access on a network and, in so doing, collect private information, and possibly even steal credentials such as usernames and passwords. Digital certificates—known more technically as X.509 certificates—are the foundation upon which browsers and servers set up secure and private encrypted channels to communicate. From Jan. 13 to March 29, 2009, clintonemail.com lacked one, Venafi’s analysis reveals.

Clinton’s office did not respond to request for comment by press time.

“Longterm access is probably ultimately the worst consequence here,” Bocek said, raising the possibility that hackers could have obtained Clinton’s compromised credentials and used them to continue accessing her email archive even after a digital certificate was added in late March. The most likely threat though, Bocek added, is spying. “If the Department of State had been eavesdropped on while on diplomatic mission that could have jeopardized a whole variety of activities.”

In fact, during that three month window during which Clinton’s email server apparently lacked encryption, she had traveled abroad. According to a public log provided by the State Department’s office of the historian, Clinton had visited countries and places such as Japan, Indonesia, South Korea, China, Egypt, Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Belgium, Switzerland, Turkey and Mexico.

“In locations where the countries are known to operate and monitor network communications, like China and other countries, that certainly would be a real threat,” Bocek said, mentioning that some parts of the world are “known to have active eavesdropping campaigns.”

“Given the intentions of some countries, there is a real risk of communications being eavesdropped on and credentials being compromised,” he said.

John Kindervag, an analyst at Forrester Research who saw preliminary results from Venafi’s anaylsis, told Fortunethat he considered the lack of a certificate protecting clintonemail.com “a pretty significant gap where systems may have been used but been totally unprotected from a security perspective, and therefore that email could have easily been intercepted and read by even the most amateurish attackers.”

“It’s highly unlikely that a person of that importance isn’t being targeted by people who want to gain access to the computational devices in her possession,” Kindervag said. “By the looks of things at first blush,” he added, “it looks like it was a significant disregard for basic security principles and hygiene.”

“You can see from this issue why its important to have digital certificates in use,” said Jeff Hudson, CEO at Venafi. “Man in the middle attacks, spoofing, eavesdropping—it proves the point once again that these things are foundational and when not dealt with correctly all kinds of bad things can happen.”

To conduct the analysis, Venafi researchers used a tool they’re now launching called TrustNet, which scans the internet and historical sources for information about digital certificates and helps assess their risks and reputations. The company has been compiling its own data base for the past year. You can read more information about Venafi’s analysis on the company’s blog.

http://fortune.com/2015/03/11/hillary-clinton-email-unsecure/

 

[Trey]

Should I fire up a Hillary 2016 thread for Democrats and just let you guys have your fun in here for the next 6-10 years?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hey Trey do you want me to take it to another thread and leave this to campaign talk? Glad to, just interested in the subject. Thanks.

 

[squistion]

Hey Trey do you want me to take it to another thread and leave this to campaign talk? Glad to, just interested in the subject. Thanks.

When Tim started this thread it was not limited to campaign talk, and any issue that might impact the 2016 election is relevant, especially the emails (which I expect to be a dead issue by then, but I could be wrong). You always try to be fair with your political assessments, so speaking just for myself (not Trey) I don't have a problem with your posts (I do have an issue with the resident Hillary haters, but they will find their way into any Hillary related thread regardless).

 

[Jim11]

Hey Trey do you want me to take it to another thread and leave this to campaign talk? Glad to, just interested in the subject. Thanks.

When Tim started this thread it was not limited to campaign talk, and any issue that might impact the 2016 election is relevant, especially the emails (which I expect to be a dead issue by then, but I could be wrong). You always try to be fair with your political assessments, so speaking just for myself (not Trey) I don't have a problem with your posts (I do have an issue with the resident Hillary haters, but they will find their way into any Hillary related thread regardless).

What's your issue?

 

[Todd Andrews]

This email thing wont hurt her much in the long run because everyone already feels that she and her husband cut corners, are slippery, etc.

There are a lot better reasons than this email "scandal" not to want her as the Dem candidate or President. This is about 73 on my list.

 

[squistion]

Hey Trey do you want me to take it to another thread and leave this to campaign talk? Glad to, just interested in the subject. Thanks.

When Tim started this thread it was not limited to campaign talk, and any issue that might impact the 2016 election is relevant, especially the emails (which I expect to be a dead issue by then, but I could be wrong). You always try to be fair with your political assessments, so speaking just for myself (not Trey) I don't have a problem with your posts (I do have an issue with the resident Hillary haters, but they will find their way into any Hillary related thread regardless).

What's your issue?

I guess it is because they are just not as open-minded and objective as you are.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Many Democrats want independent Clinton email probe: Reuters/Ipsos poll(Reuters) - Democrats’ support is softening for Hillary Clinton, their party’s presumed 2016 presidential front-runner, with many favoring an independent review of her personal email use when she was secretary of state.

Support for Clinton's candidacy has dropped about 15 percentage points since mid-February among Democrats, with as few as 45 percent saying they would support her in the last week, according to a Reuters/Ipsos tracking poll. Support from Democrats likely to vote in the party nominating contests has dropped only slightly less, to a low in the mid-50s over the same period.

Even Democrats who said they were not personally swayed one way or another by the email flap said that Clinton could fare worse because of it, if and when she launches her presidential campaign, a separate Reuters/Ipsos poll showed.

The polling showed that nearly half of Democratic respondents - 46 percent - agreed there should be an independent review of all of Clinton's emails to ensure she turned over everything that is work-related.

There was also sizable support among Democrats for the Republican-controlled congressional committee's effort to require Clinton to testify about the emails. Forty-one percent said they backed its efforts to force Clinton's testimony.

"Bottom line is if she didn’t do anything wrong, she’s fine," said North Carolina resident Renetia Lowery, 48, a Democrat and survey respondent.

The online poll of 2,128 adults from March 10 to March 17 showed that Americans, including two-thirds of Democrats, were aware of the controversy surrounding Clinton's decision to use her personal email rather than a government account, along with a personal server, when she was the top U.S. diplomat from 2009 to 2013.

Clinton has tried to tamp down accusations that she used her personal email account to keep her records from public review, which would support an old political narrative that Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, are secretive and seek to play by a different set of rules.

(GRAPHIC: Hillary Clinton's emails here)

HARMFUL POLITICALLY

More than a third of Democrats and 44 percent of political independents agreed that the email issue has hurt the former secretary of state politically.

Democratic strategist Ben LaBolt, a former spokesman for President Barack Obama's 2012 campaign, said that the email controversy has been a "galvanizing call for the Clinton campaign-in-waiting to build an organization," by hiring top political communicators who can defend her record. Clinton, who ran for the White House in 2008 and lost to Obama, is expected to announce as early as April that she plans to seek the White House in the November 2016 election.

Former congressional and Justice Department spokesman Brian Fallon, White House aide Jennifer Palmieri, and Jesse Ferguson, who has handled press for Democratic congressional campaigns, are expected to be among the communications experts joining Clinton's campaign. All three are respected in Democratic political circles.

Clinton told a packed room of reporters this month that she used her personal email for official business for the sake of convenience, because it was easier to carry only one device.

"I admire the fact that she has been so strong on a lot of different things, she stands up for what she believes in, but I do think the emails will hurt her, unfortunately," said Patricia Peacock, 49, of Lewiston, Maine, who took part in the survey.

Clinton's office said she has since turned over paper copies of more than 30,000 work emails last year at the State Department's request, but did not hand over about 32,000 that were private or personal records.

Among the emails turned over were 300 related to a 2012 attack on a U.S. consulate in Benghazi that led to the death of a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans, which were subsequently handed over to a Republican-led congressional committee investigating the incident.

The panel has subpoenaed Clinton's remaining emails and said they would like her to testify on the matter before April.

About half of Democrats said they thought Clinton was composed during the March 10 news conference, but 14 percent found her evasive and 17 percent said she avoided answering questions directly.

Survey respondent Tom Trevathan, 74, a retired math professor from Arkansas, said he was "less than happy" with Clinton’s performance at the news conference.

"It reminds me of a history she has had not responding thoroughly to inquiries," Trevathan said. "If she would be more open about the situation, and show more leadership in saying what she did and why, I think it would be better."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/19/us-usa-clinton-poll-idUSKBN0MF0DV20150319

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Reuters poll results:

http://polling.reuters.com/#!response/TM507Y15_1/type/oneshot/filters/PARTY_ID_:1/dates/20140318-20150324/chart/360

Democrats who are not sure or strongly disagree that Hillary turned over all her State Dept emails - ~40%

Throw in those who only "somewhat" agree and it's ~68%

Democrats who agree or strongly agree there should be an independent review of Hillary;s emails - ~46%. - Another ~12% are not sure. Another 23% only "somewhat" disagree.

Democrats who believe Hillary broke the law by holding public emails - ~33% - Another 22% are not sure.

Democrats who think Hillary's chances were hurt by the email revelations - ~39%.

http://polling.reuters.com/#!response/TM507Y15_1/type/oneshot/filters/PARTY_ID_:1/dates/20140318-20150324/chart/360

 

[squistion]

Reuters poll results:

http://polling.reuters.com/#!response/TM507Y15_1/type/oneshot/filters/PARTY_ID_:1/dates/20140318-20150324/chart/360

Democrats who are not sure or strongly disagree that Hillary turned over all her State Dept emails - ~40%

Throw in those who only "somewhat" agree and it's ~68%

Democrats who agree or strongly agree there should be an independent review of Hillary;s emails - ~46%. - Another ~12% are not sure. Another 23% only "somewhat" disagree.

Democrats who believe Hillary broke the law by holding public emails - ~33% - Another 22% are not sure.

Democrats who think Hillary's chances were hurt by the email revelations - ~39%.

http://polling.reuters.com/#!response/TM507Y15_1/type/oneshot/filters/PARTY_ID_:1/dates/20140318-20150324/chart/360

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/poll-hillary-clinton-support-democrats-116219.html

Democratic support for Hillary Clintons candidacy for the White House has taken a slight dip amid reports this month that the former secretary of state used her personal email address and server for official business, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos tracking poll. But the controversy hasnt changed the minds of most Americans on whether they like her or would vote for her for president.

Another Reuters/Ipsos poll reveals that two-thirds of Americans surveyed had heard of the email controversy, but 66 percent also said their opinion of the former secretary of state has not changed as a result. And 49 percent said it would have no effect on whether they would vote for her in 2016.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

That's actually a tad contradictory. That means that 33% have changed their mind as a result and 51% say it has had an effect on who they would vote for. Those sound like substantive numbers.

 

[otello]

I know this is a couple weeks ago, but I am looking forward to Kate McKinnon doing more hrc skits on snl. When I first saw it, I thought it made her come off as a nut job and would not help her. I know it's parody, but people pay attention to this stuff. Huff post thinks it could help her.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/12/middlebrow-hillary-clinton-snl_n_6834690.html

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Somehow the parody of Hillary as crazy eyes power hungry megalomaniac probably is not preferable to Amy Poehler's calm, cool, acerbic version. If Team Hillary is saying they like it it's because they have to. The fact it's getting knowing laughs is probably the biggest problem.

 

[FlapJacks]

Are even those predisposed to vote for Hillary based on her party affiliation excited about her running?

We're supposed to be excited about candidates? I've been voting since 1988 and I don't recall being excited once.

1988 was my first election too, but I thought it was pretty exciting. It was cool to get to weigh in on an important national issue such as "Should Willie Horton stay in prison?"

But Dukakis looks so funny in that little helmet!! How could we vote for a guy who looks funny like that??? Hahahahahah. . . . pass the beer nuts. What were you saying?

And you, sir are no John Kennedy....

 

[squistion]

That's actually a tad contradictory. That means that 33% have changed their mind as a result and 51% say it has had an effect on who they would vote for. Those sound like substantive numbers.

No, it doesn't mean that 33% have changed their minds or for 51% it has an effect, as those others may be undecided or have formed no opinion yet on whether it makes a difference. I am sure it would have been the headline of the article if that were the case: "33% of Americans surveyed have changed their minds on Hillary!"

I doubt that there were just two poll choices, have you changed your mind on Hillary about the emails, yes or no? But hey, if it makes you feel better to think that these are "substantial numbers" on Hillary's popularity, then go ahead.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Reuters poll results:

http://polling.reuters.com/#!response/TM507Y15_1/type/oneshot/filters/PARTY_ID_:1/dates/20140318-20150324/chart/360

Democrats who are not sure or strongly disagree that Hillary turned over all her State Dept emails - ~40%

Throw in those who only "somewhat" agree and it's ~68%

Democrats who agree or strongly agree there should be an independent review of Hillary;s emails - ~46%. - Another ~12% are not sure. Another 23% only "somewhat" disagree.

Democrats who believe Hillary broke the law by holding public emails - ~33% - Another 22% are not sure.

Democrats who think Hillary's chances were hurt by the email revelations - ~39%.

http://polling.reuters.com/#!response/TM507Y15_1/type/oneshot/filters/PARTY_ID_:1/dates/20140318-20150324/chart/360

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/poll-hillary-clinton-support-democrats-116219.html

Democratic support for Hillary Clintons candidacy for the White House has taken a slight dip amid reports this month that the former secretary of state used her personal email address and server for official business, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos tracking poll. But the controversy hasnt changed the minds of most Americans on whether they like her or would vote for her for president.

Another Reuters/Ipsos poll reveals that two-thirds of Americans surveyed had heard of the email controversy, but 66 percent also said their opinion of the former secretary of state has not changed as a result. And 49 percent said it would have no effect on whether they would vote for her in 2016.

That's actually a tad contradictory. That means that 33% have changed their mind as a result and 51% say it has had an effect on who they would vote for. Those sound like substantive numbers.

No, it doesn't mean that 33% have changed their minds or for 51% it has an effect, as those others may be undecided or have formed no opinion yet on whether it makes a difference. I am sure it would have been the headline of the article if that were the case: "33% of Americans surveyed have changed their minds on Hillary!"

I doubt that there were just two poll choices, have you changed your mind on Hillary about the emails, yes or no? But hey, if it makes you feel better to think that these are "substantial numbers" on Hillary's popularity, then go ahead.

Wait a second, your report just summarizes and links to the actual poll I just quoted in full. Look to the actual poll not the summary of it.

I will add that ontologically if 66% have not changed their mind then necessarily that means that 33% have nor not-changed their mind, so they have changed their mind.

 

[squistion]

Reuters poll results:

http://polling.reuters.com/#!response/TM507Y15_1/type/oneshot/filters/PARTY_ID_:1/dates/20140318-20150324/chart/360

Democrats who are not sure or strongly disagree that Hillary turned over all her State Dept emails - ~40%

Throw in those who only "somewhat" agree and it's ~68%

Democrats who agree or strongly agree there should be an independent review of Hillary;s emails - ~46%. - Another ~12% are not sure. Another 23% only "somewhat" disagree.

Democrats who believe Hillary broke the law by holding public emails - ~33% - Another 22% are not sure.

Democrats who think Hillary's chances were hurt by the email revelations - ~39%.

http://polling.reuters.com/#!response/TM507Y15_1/type/oneshot/filters/PARTY_ID_:1/dates/20140318-20150324/chart/360

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/poll-hillary-clinton-support-democrats-116219.html

Democratic support for Hillary Clintons candidacy for the White House has taken a slight dip amid reports this month that the former secretary of state used her personal email address and server for official business, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos tracking poll. But the controversy hasnt changed the minds of most Americans on whether they like her or would vote for her for president.

Another Reuters/Ipsos poll reveals that two-thirds of Americans surveyed had heard of the email controversy, but 66 percent also said their opinion of the former secretary of state has not changed as a result. And 49 percent said it would have no effect on whether they would vote for her in 2016.

That's actually a tad contradictory. That means that 33% have changed their mind as a result and 51% say it has had an effect on who they would vote for. Those sound like substantive numbers.

No, it doesn't mean that 33% have changed their minds or for 51% it has an effect, as those others may be undecided or have formed no opinion yet on whether it makes a difference. I am sure it would have been the headline of the article if that were the case: "33% of Americans surveyed have changed their minds on Hillary!"

I doubt that there were just two poll choices, have you changed your mind on Hillary about the emails, yes or no? But hey, if it makes you feel better to think that these are "substantial numbers" on Hillary's popularity, then go ahead.

Wait a second, your report just summarizes and links to the actual poll I just quoted in full. Look to the actual poll not the summary of it.

I will add that ontologically if 66% have not changed their mind then necessarily that means that 33% have nor not-changed their mind, so they have changed their mind.

Sorry, that doesn't logically follow. Poll respondents are rarely given just two choices because everyone does not an opinion on every subject. If you believe otherwise, show me the exact poll questions that were asked about Hillary.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

What Americans think of Hillary Clinton's email practicesMost Americans (65 percent) say their opinion of Clinton has not changed in the wake of the email controversy, but 29 percent say their opinion of her has grown worse. Forty-nine percent of Republicans say their opinion of her is worse, as do 28 percent of independents.

More generally, 26 percent of Americans now have a favorable view of Hillary Clinton, while 37 percent view her unfavorably; another third are undecided or don't have an opinion of her. As Clinton weighs a presidential bid, her favorable views are 12 points lower than they were in the fall of 2013, just months after leaving her position as secretary of state. Her unfavorable views have ticked up slightly, but the percentage that is undecided about her has risen eight points.

Clinton's highest favorable rating in CBS News polling occurred in March 2009, early in her tenure as Secretary of State, when 58 percent of Americans viewed her favorably. Clinton received her lowest favorable rating - 24 percent - in June 2003, soon after the publication of her memoir Living History.

Negative views of Clinton have risen among Republicans. Seventy-two percent hold an unfavorable view of her today, compared to 60 percent almost two years ago. Also, the percentage of independents who view Clinton favorably is now half of what it was in the fall of 2013. Many independents now say they are undecided or don't know enough about Clinton to have an opinion. Most Democrats (55 percent) continue to hold favorable views of Clinton but that percentage has dropped eight points since November 2013.

Hillary Clinton: Qualities and CharacteristicsWhen asked to evaluate Hillary Clinton on some key characteristics, the public gives Clinton her most negative marks on honesty. Fewer than half - 42 percent- say she is honest and trustworthy, while more - 47 percent - don't think she is.

Clinton gets more positive assessments on leadership and empathy. Fifty-seven percent says she has strong qualities of leadership, while 38 percent don't think she does.

More than half of Americans (56 percent) think Clinton cares about the needs and problems of people like themselves, but that includes just 22 percent who say she cares a lot.

Democrats are especially likely to view Clinton positively on these attributes, while Republicans take the opposing view. Most independents think Clinton is a strong leader and half say she cares about their problems, but just 34 percent describe her as honest and trustworthy. Also, women hold more positive opinions of Clinton on these measures than men.

The Email ControversyMore than six in 10 Americans do not think it was appropriate for Hillary Clinton to use a personal email address and server for work-related matters as secretary of state. Democrats divide on whether it was appropriate for Clinton to do this, but majorities of 80 percent of Republicans and 64 percent independents do not think her actions were appropriate.

Members of Clinton's own party - 65 percent - say her motivations for using a private email were about convenience, but 62 percent of Republicans think Clinton was trying to keep information from becoming public.

Along similar lines, the public is divided on whether they find Clinton's explanation regarding her use of personal email and server for work satisfactory. Democrats are satisfied with her explanation, but Republicans are not. Independents are split.

A majority of Americans have heard or read at least some about Hillary Clinton's use of a personal email address and server for her work as Secretary of State, although Republicans are more likely than Democrats or independents to have heard or read about it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/views-on-hillary-clinton-and-the-email-controversy/

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This is the actual CBS poll.

Results among independents:

Favorable - 19%

Unfavorable - 36%

Is Hillary honest and trustworthy?

Yes - 34

No - 52

Was Hillary's behavior with her emails appropriate or not?

Yes, appropriate - 22

No, not appropriate - 64

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Reuters poll results:

http://polling.reuters.com/#!response/TM507Y15_1/type/oneshot/filters/PARTY_ID_:1/dates/20140318-20150324/chart/360

Democrats who are not sure or strongly disagree that Hillary turned over all her State Dept emails - ~40%

Throw in those who only "somewhat" agree and it's ~68%

Democrats who agree or strongly agree there should be an independent review of Hillary;s emails - ~46%. - Another ~12% are not sure. Another 23% only "somewhat" disagree.

Democrats who believe Hillary broke the law by holding public emails - ~33% - Another 22% are not sure.

Democrats who think Hillary's chances were hurt by the email revelations - ~39%.

http://polling.reuters.com/#!response/TM507Y15_1/type/oneshot/filters/PARTY_ID_:1/dates/20140318-20150324/chart/360

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/poll-hillary-clinton-support-democrats-116219.html

Democratic support for Hillary Clintons candidacy for the White House has taken a slight dip amid reports this month that the former secretary of state used her personal email address and server for official business, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos tracking poll. But the controversy hasnt changed the minds of most Americans on whether they like her or would vote for her for president.

Another Reuters/Ipsos poll reveals that two-thirds of Americans surveyed had heard of the email controversy, but 66 percent also said their opinion of the former secretary of state has not changed as a result. And 49 percent said it would have no effect on whether they would vote for her in 2016.

That's actually a tad contradictory. That means that 33% have changed their mind as a result and 51% say it has had an effect on who they would vote for. Those sound like substantive numbers.

No, it doesn't mean that 33% have changed their minds or for 51% it has an effect, as those others may be undecided or have formed no opinion yet on whether it makes a difference. I am sure it would have been the headline of the article if that were the case: "33% of Americans surveyed have changed their minds on Hillary!"

I doubt that there were just two poll choices, have you changed your mind on Hillary about the emails, yes or no? But hey, if it makes you feel better to think that these are "substantial numbers" on Hillary's popularity, then go ahead.

Wait a second, your report just summarizes and links to the actual poll I just quoted in full. Look to the actual poll not the summary of it.

I will add that ontologically if 66% have not changed their mind then necessarily that means that 33% have nor not-changed their mind, so they have changed their mind.

Sorry, that doesn't logically follow. Poll respondents are rarely given just two choices because everyone does not an opinion on every subject. If you believe otherwise, show me the exact poll questions that were asked about Hillary.

Ok, I see now, it's a actually a second Reuters poll that's not linked.

I did post the CBS poll which is very similar, stating 29% report their opinion has grown worse.

- However bottom line is her lead is still extreme among Democrtats and over any GOP rival, I think I'm just surprised to see her favorability numbers decrease.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

No way, Jose...

 

[fantasycurse42]

http://m.nydailynews.com/news/politics/hillary-clinton-campaign-signs-lease-brooklyn-heights-article-1.2172344

Last thing my neighborhood needs

 

[Trey]

Reports circulating that she makes it official on Sunday!

Let's do this!

 

[squistion]

Reports circulating that she makes it official on Sunday!

Let's do this!

 

[skol asylum]

Reports circulating that she makes it official on Sunday!

Let's do this!

Let's not.

 

[Todd Andrews]

no thank you

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Reports circulating that she makes it official on Sunday!

Let's do this!

Had to get out in front of that Lincoln Chafee steamroller. Hey I never noticed, is the dancing green pickle actually played by the tumbleweed cactus icon?

 

[Leviathan]

Reports circulating that she makes it official on Sunday!Let's do this!

Seriously?

We need new blood. A JP Morgan/Chase shill or another Bush?

This is the best that we can do?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

If Hillary was a college football team, what would her mascot be?

The South Arkansas Fightin' Cankles!

 

[Stinger Ray]

Reports circulating that she makes it official on Sunday!Let's do this!

 

[timschochet]

Hillary's smart and sexy. It's been a long time since we've had someone this prepared to be President. The last one was Richard Nixon...

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hillary Clinton to announce 2016 bid Sunday with video(CNN)Hillary Clinton is planning to launch her presidential candidacy on Sunday through a video message on social media, a person close to her campaign-in-waiting tells CNN, followed immediately by traveling to early-voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire to start making her case to voters.
The trip to Iowa, where a third-place finish in 2008 ultimately led to the collapse of her presidential aspirations, illustrates what aides say is a commitment to not take anything for granted in her second bid for the White House, even though she dominates the likely Democratic field in 2016.

Clinton has already filmed her campaign video, a person close to the campaign said, which outlines the central themes of her second bid for the White House. The message is intended to send a signal to Democrats that she intends to aggressively fight for the party's presidential nomination.

A new epilogue of her book, "Hard Choices," an excerpt of which was released Friday to the Huffington Post, offers a glimpse into why she is embarking on another presidential campaign. She writes about her new granddaughter, Charlotte, and calls for equal opportunity for her generation.

"Becoming a grandmother has made me think deeply about the responsibility we all share as stewards of the world we inherit and will one day pass on," Clinton, 67, writes in the epilogue. "Rather than make me want to slow down, it has spurred me to speed up."

The decision will sweep aside more than a year of speculation about her political aspirations and allow her to start making her case to voters. Advisers say she knows that Democratic activists are not interested in a coronation and she intends to campaign as though she has a tough primary challenge.

Central to Clinton's second presidential run will be reintroducing the former first lady -- on her own terms -- to the American people. Democrats close to Clinton have started to call her the most unknown famous person in the world. Their argument is that people know of Clinton -- she has near 100% name recognition in most polls -- but they don't know her story.

Opinion: Can Clinton overcome her weaknesses?

Republicans wasted no time Friday going on the offensive, with a paid online ad, called "Stop Hillary," in six presidential battleground states.

"From the East Wing to the State Department, Hillary Clinton has left a trail of secrecy, scandal and failed liberal policies that no image consultant can erase," Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said in an emailed statement. Voters want to elect someone they can trust and Hillary's record proves that she cannot be trusted. We must 'Stop Hillary.'"

Clinton is expected to trade big rallies for a series of smaller events with voters, as she seeks to reintroduce herself to voters. Her supporters have urged Clinton to take the time to meet voters one-on-one and build their trust.

"The views about women candidates and how they should conduct themselves has really changed since 2008," said Bonnie Campbell, the co-chair of Clinton's 2008 campaign in Iowa. "First and foremost people vote for candidates that they like, people who connect with them emotionally. I think that helps with everybody but certainly it helps with women and the men who love them. It just makes her a more complete person."

Clinton's presidential campaign has long been a foregone conclusion, and speculation that she would take another shot at the White House has followed the former first lady since she left the State Department in early 2013.

For much of the last two years, Clinton has crisscrossed the country delivering paid speeches, selling her new memoir and stumping for Democrats during the 2014 midterm elections.

In the coming weeks and months, the Clinton campaign will look to hone in on that story, using themes such as Clinton's Midwestern upbringing, her mother's perseverance in the face of neglectful parents and Clinton's own time raising a daughter to cast the presidential hopeful in a more favorable, softer light than she was seen during her 2008 presidential run.

Campbell said she saw voters in Iowa light up when they connected with Clinton in coffee shops and in their homes, but those events were few and far between compared to large rallies and speeches. She said Clinton's empathetic side was not seen nearly enough during her 2008 campaign.

"Somehow, that did not come through in Iowa," Campbell said.

But her efforts to introduce herself come as Clinton is fighting fresh questions about her trust and honesty. The controversy about using a private email server while Secretary of State has already caused some political damage, her aides concede, which is one of the reasons she is jumping into the race to start campaigning on her own terms.

RELATED: Poll finds Paul best GOP bet in three swing states as Clinton slips

March found Clinton at the center of her own controversy over her exclusive use of private -- rather than official -- email during her time running the State Department. The controversy, again seized on by Republican critics, escalated, and Clinton took to a quickly organized press conference at the United Nations to respond to controversy.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/10/politics/hillary-clinton-2016-announcement-sunday/index.html

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

...no one disputes that reporters will end up frustrated at times. Some events may be closed to the press, others may have limited access, and many may have access to only a select “pool” of reporters who represent each type of outlet on behalf of their colleagues.

To offset perceptions that’s cutting off the press, Clinton may regularly take questions from reporters after events where some were denied access. Or she could prioritize local media and give a few minutes to the local TV affiliate or newspaper, like Obama did during the primary.

The format of the events could further inflame relations between Clinton and the press, which she acknowledged are “complicated,” but pooling coverage may be the only way to satisfy all sides. After all, Clinton wants reporters to cover her small events as much as they want to cover them. If a touching connection is made with an Iowa voter and there’s no reporter around to Tweet it, does it make a sound?

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/can-hillary-clinton-run-intimate-campaign

 

[dozer]

16 years.

 

[squistion]

Do we have a pig in a poke here?

She's announcing by video?????

Can you feel the magic?

Can ya???

Well, I can certainly feel the undisguised contempt and disdain you express for her in every post.

I think it is pretty obvious to anyone who has read your constant rants against Hillary, that no matter how she how announced her candidacy, you would have some issue with it and would use it as another opportunity to bash her.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Do we have a pig in a poke here?

She's announcing by video?????

Can you feel the magic?

Can ya???

Well, I can certainly feel the undisguised contempt and disdain you express for her in every post.

I think it is pretty obvious to anyone who has read your constant rants against Hillary, that no matter how she how announced her candidacy, you would have some issue with it and would use it as another opportunity to bash her.

Yeah, she won't speak in front of a large crowd or take questions from reporters. And she's the lead horse for president.

 

[timschochet]

She's very very very good at this. She's only lost once and barely.

 

[squistion]

Do we have a pig in a poke here?

She's announcing by video?????

Can you feel the magic?

Can ya???

Well, I can certainly feel the undisguised contempt and disdain you express for her in every post.

I think it is pretty obvious to anyone who has read your constant rants against Hillary, that no matter how she how announced her candidacy, you would have some issue with it and would use it as another opportunity to bash her.

Yeah, she won't speak in front of a large crowd or take questions from reporters. And she's the lead horse for president.

Lead horse? She is only horse outside of some fringe candidates.

She is the first Democrat to announce and the election is still about 19 months away. She had no problems speaking in front of large crowds or talking to reporters in 2008. She is intentionally starting out on a low key approach probably so that it doesn't give the impression that she thinks that her nomination is inevitable and that she already has it all locked up.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Do we have a pig in a poke here?

She's announcing by video?????

Can you feel the magic?

Can ya???

Well, I can certainly feel the undisguised contempt and disdain you express for her in every post.

I think it is pretty obvious to anyone who has read your constant rants against Hillary, that no matter how she how announced her candidacy, you would have some issue with it and would use it as another opportunity to bash her.

Yeah, she won't speak in front of a large crowd or take questions from reporters. And she's the lead horse for president.

Lead horse? She is only horse outside of some fringe candidates.

She is the first Democrat to announce and the election is still about 19 months away. She had no problems speaking in front of large crowds or talking to reporters in 2008. She is intentionally starting out on a low key approach probably so that it doesn't give the impression that she thinks that her nomination is inevitable and that she already has it all locked up.

Apparently she did it in 2008 too:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070128055758/http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=1262

 

[squistion]

Do we have a pig in a poke here?

She's announcing by video?????

Can you feel the magic?

Can ya???

Well, I can certainly feel the undisguised contempt and disdain you express for her in every post.

I think it is pretty obvious to anyone who has read your constant rants against Hillary, that no matter how she how announced her candidacy, you would have some issue with it and would use it as another opportunity to bash her.

Yeah, she won't speak in front of a large crowd or take questions from reporters. And she's the lead horse for president.

Lead horse? She is only horse outside of some fringe candidates.

She is the first Democrat to announce and the election is still about 19 months away. She had no problems speaking in front of large crowds or talking to reporters in 2008. She is intentionally starting out on a low key approach probably so that it doesn't give the impression that she thinks that her nomination is inevitable and that she already has it all locked up.

Apparently she did it in 2008 too:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070128055758/http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=1262

Indeed, who can forget she never gave an interview or spoke before large crowds in 2008. And they had to drag her kicking-and-screaming into the debates. Amazing with avoiding the media and crowds that she got as far as she did then.