Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (14 Viewers)

[The Commish]

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.

This is a pretty hysterical post given the contrasting posts you made JUST YESTERDAY Don't let squishy catch you Tim, you can do it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[RCon]

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.

Agreed. "Person A" versus "some person to be named later" is always a stupid poll. That's on top of the increasing unreliability of polls in general.

 

[The Commish]

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.

Agreed. "Person A" versus "some person to be named later" is always a stupid poll. That's on top of the increasing unreliability of polls in general.

no no....polls are valuable predictors of everything and anything. You can trust them until you can't...right?

 

[timschochet]

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.

This is a pretty hysterical post given the contrasting posts you made JUST YESTERDAY Don't let squishy catch you Tim, you can do it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Which post are you referring to? Oh and far more interesting than the contest between me and Squisition is the one between you and Slapdash as to who is more gullible.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

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.

Agreed. "Person A" versus "some person to be named later" is always a stupid poll. That's on top of the increasing unreliability of polls in general.

The -4 Unfavorable, the 57% untrustworthy, and the decline in the "cares about people" and "inspires confidence" numbers, are all completely unrelated to the opponent she is facing.

I said this a long time ago, the more Hillary campaigns, the more she puts her face in front of people, the less well she does. It's bizarre. She's not a natural like her husband and you have to be a natural to be president.

Her bating of the press on her ethical issues reminds me more than a little of Gary Hart with the cheating issues. She's daring AP, WaPo and NYT and the rest of the investigative press to dig up real ethical problems in her closets (multiple)? Great idea, Hill, I'm sure they'll keep complying.

I do think the electoral map changing might really affect this though, it's possible that someone could be viewed unfavorably, not be trusted, and not even liked and maybe get elected. That could happen. The poll also reflects what we know, that Jeb Bush is the dream matchup for Hillary (and Clinton/Bush is a nightmare for the electorate).

 

[skol asylum]

Hillary is now at a net unfavorable, per the HuffPo Pollster summary of multiple polls.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating

New poll out, from Quinnipiac:

- Hillary at net negative -2 favorability (45/47 unfavorable).

- That number is -12 unfavorable with Indies.

American voters say 53 - 39 percent that Clinton is not honest and trustworthy

That's a net -14 negative on trustworthy.

For Indies that number is a staggering net negative -30.

Voters are divided 48 - 47 percent over whether Clinton cares about their needs and problems.

Really, that's a tough one for any pol.

but say 60 - 37 percent that she has strong leadership qualities...

Hillary continues to do really well here. It's just possible that Americans want "strong" over "trust" these days.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2228

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/us/us05282015_U32trdf.pdf

My guess? She gets plays this "strong" strength up somehow.

What has she done that was "strong"?

 

[The Commish]

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.

This is a pretty hysterical post given the contrasting posts you made JUST YESTERDAY Don't let squishy catch you Tim, you can do it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Which post are you referring to?Oh and far more interesting than the contest between me and Squisition is the one between you and Slapdash as to who is more gullible.

I have fully acknowledged that I could be wrong about Hillary. I'm just going on her past actions. I have no reason to believe she's changed her spots...NONE. So I'll continue making assumptions based on the past and you continue making assumptions based on the political babble she spews and we'll see who's closer to the truth. Right now the only running opinions I have that are in direct opposition to you are around:

1. She is unbeatable.

2. Most liberals are fans of hers

3. She is squeaky clean.

Not sure what gullibility topics I would be part of. The only thing I can think of is the security issues with her email security. I'd like an explanation from you, why it's me being "gullible" to assume she had ####### clue what she was doing in that instance. If you're referring to me believing her camp is the one digging up stuff on Bernie, I'd like to know why that position is to the point of gullibility.

 

[timschochet]

I think you took me a little too seriously. I was kidding. You're fine in my book, Commish.

To correct you:

1. I think Hillary is unbeatable among Dems. That's not a stretch. I think she's the favorite to win the entire thing but not unbeatable.

2. I think most liberals like Hillary more than they did in 2008, and the few who don't will still mostly vote for her.

3. I don't think she's "squeaky clean"; just innocent of the serious charges being laid against her.

 

[cubd8]

Clinton's favorability rating among likely Democratic caucus-goers is actually two points higher now, at 86 percent, than in January. Her unfavorable rating is down three points, to 12 percent.

Overall, 71 percent of likely Democratic caucus-goers say the Clintons get a “bad rap” about unethical behavior rather than actually having behaved unethically.

More evidence that the continual conservative attacks are failing big time.

How is democrats "vouching" for democrats evidence of anything?

As I pointed out before, there is a concerted effort among certain conservatives to attempt to weaken Hillary in the primaries by boosting other candidates, particularly Sanders. If you read nothing but the FFA you would believe this strategy is working.

There is an effort to weaken Hillary by conservatives, no doubt. Just like there is an effort by Hillary to weaken any threat to her winning. Somebody (Sanders?) stands to benefit if her numbers decline.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hillary is now at a net unfavorable, per the HuffPo Pollster summary of multiple polls.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating

New poll out, from Quinnipiac:

- Hillary at net negative -2 favorability (45/47 unfavorable).

- That number is -12 unfavorable with Indies.

American voters say 53 - 39 percent that Clinton is not honest and trustworthy

That's a net -14 negative on trustworthy.

For Indies that number is a staggering net negative -30.

Voters are divided 48 - 47 percent over whether Clinton cares about their needs and problems.

Really, that's a tough one for any pol.

but say 60 - 37 percent that she has strong leadership qualities...

Hillary continues to do really well here. It's just possible that Americans want "strong" over "trust" these days.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2228

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/us/us05282015_U32trdf.pdf

My guess? She gets plays this "strong" strength up somehow.

What has she done that was "strong"?

I have no idea, that's just something that shows up in the polling and it seems to be her one supposed quality that does well. I think it's her tone and demeanor, that's my best guess. I'm also guessing that since that is the one thing that maybe "works" that her people will tell her to do more of it, act strong and decisive.

Of course she doesn't take challenging questions well and she doesn't take positions on key issues, like TPP and the Patriot Act, that people really care about, until she determines which is the popular position or after its a decided matter. I think as the campaign goes on this becomes more clear, but we shall see.

 

[squistion]

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.

This is a pretty hysterical post given the contrasting posts you made JUST YESTERDAY Don't let squishy catch you Tim, you can do it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree with Tim. And any politician's popularity will be higher when they are not running for office, no reason to believe that Hillary would be the exception, particularly with the constant attacks from the right (even if they ultimately turn out to have no substance).

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I think you took me a little too seriously. I was kidding. You're fine in my book, Commish.

To correct you:

1. I think Hillary is unbeatable among Dems. That's not a stretch. I think she's the favorite to win the entire thing but not unbeatable.

2. I think most liberals like Hillary more than they did in 2008, and the few who don't will still mostly vote for her.

3. I don't think she's "squeaky clean"; just innocent of the serious charges being laid against her.

Her beatability has been rattling around as a side issue - I largely agree with No. 1, as I have mentioned. I think she needs to blow away the competition in IA & NH to get real momentum in the GE though.

Open Question to the gallery: what percentage do you think Hillary needs to get in IA, and what percentage in NH should she win with, in order to say she is on the right track towards winning the whole thing?

I think under 50 in either is bad for her, I think 65%+ is where she needs to be. She is largely running on invincibility and inevitability, she needs to validate that and she also needs to generate enthusiasm in the base, if they want her they want her because she can deliver the USSC and secure the WH, little else.

 

[The Commish]

Well, that turned quickly

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

She gone from Most! Popular! Woman! In-The-World! ...to .... 'hey guys don't get your expectations too high...'

 

[timschochet]

I think you took me a little too seriously. I was kidding. You're fine in my book, Commish.

To correct you:

1. I think Hillary is unbeatable among Dems. That's not a stretch. I think she's the favorite to win the entire thing but not unbeatable.

2. I think most liberals like Hillary more than they did in 2008, and the few who don't will still mostly vote for her.

3. I don't think she's "squeaky clean"; just innocent of the serious charges being laid against her.

Her beatability has been rattling around as a side issue - I largely agree with No. 1, as I have mentioned. I think she needs to blow away the competition in IA & NH to get real momentum in the GE though.

Open Question to the gallery: what percentage do you think Hillary needs to get in IA, and what percentage in NH should she win with, in order to say she is on the right track towards winning the whole thing?

I think under 50 in either is bad for her, I think 65%+ is where she needs to be. She is largely running on invincibility and inevitability, she needs to validate that and she also needs to generate enthusiasm in the base, if they want her they want her because she can deliver the USSC and secure the WH, little else.

I don't think it's relevant either way.

If she wins easily her critics, including you, will point out that there really was no significant competition. If she struggles at all the media will make a big deal out of it, but by the time the convention comes around nobody will remember.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I think you took me a little too seriously. I was kidding. You're fine in my book, Commish.

To correct you:

1. I think Hillary is unbeatable among Dems. That's not a stretch. I think she's the favorite to win the entire thing but not unbeatable.

2. I think most liberals like Hillary more than they did in 2008, and the few who don't will still mostly vote for her.

3. I don't think she's "squeaky clean"; just innocent of the serious charges being laid against her.

Her beatability has been rattling around as a side issue - I largely agree with No. 1, as I have mentioned. I think she needs to blow away the competition in IA & NH to get real momentum in the GE though.

Open Question to the gallery: what percentage do you think Hillary needs to get in IA, and what percentage in NH should she win with, in order to say she is on the right track towards winning the whole thing?

I think under 50 in either is bad for her, I think 65%+ is where she needs to be. She is largely running on invincibility and inevitability, she needs to validate that and she also needs to generate enthusiasm in the base, if they want her they want her because she can deliver the USSC and secure the WH, little else.

I don't think it's relevant either way.

If she wins easily her critics, including you, will point out that there really was no significant competition. If she struggles at all the media will make a big deal out of it, but by the time the convention comes around nobody will remember.

Wow, fascinating, a push there. - Well I think enthusiasm coming out of the early primaries is a big deal in any general election. Enthusiasm among the base is very important.

 

[timschochet]

Hillary is now at a net unfavorable, per the HuffPo Pollster summary of multiple polls.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating

New poll out, from Quinnipiac:

- Hillary at net negative -2 favorability (45/47 unfavorable).

- That number is -12 unfavorable with Indies.

American voters say 53 - 39 percent that Clinton is not honest and trustworthy

That's a net -14 negative on trustworthy.

For Indies that number is a staggering net negative -30.

Voters are divided 48 - 47 percent over whether Clinton cares about their needs and problems.

Really, that's a tough one for any pol.

but say 60 - 37 percent that she has strong leadership qualities...

Hillary continues to do really well here. It's just possible that Americans want "strong" over "trust" these days.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2228

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/us/us05282015_U32trdf.pdf

My guess? She gets plays this "strong" strength up somehow.

What has she done that was "strong"?

I have no idea, that's just something that shows up in the polling and it seems to be her one supposed quality that does well. I think it's her tone and demeanor, that's my best guess. I'm also guessing that since that is the one thing that maybe "works" that her people will tell her to do more of it, act strong and decisive.

Of course she doesn't take challenging questions well and she doesn't take positions on key issues, like TPP and the Patriot Act, that people really care about, until she determines which is the popular position or after its a decided matter. I think as the campaign goes on this becomes more clear, but we shall see.

First off, her campaign said yesterday she'll be giving long interviews to the press once things really kick off after June 13. So this whole meme of "Hillary's refusing to answer questions" is going to go away very shortly. If you look at her career it was never much of a meme to begin with- she's always answered the hard questions.

Second, people like you and I care about TPP and the Patriot Act, but there's no indication that the majority of the public do, or even know what they are. These are not issues that "people really care about." They care about the old standbys: jobs and education.

 

[Stinger Ray]

She gone from Most! Popular! Woman! In-The-World! ...to .... 'hey guys don't get your expectations too high...'

Tim is the gift that keeps on giving.

 

[timschochet]

I think you took me a little too seriously. I was kidding. You're fine in my book, Commish.

To correct you:

1. I think Hillary is unbeatable among Dems. That's not a stretch. I think she's the favorite to win the entire thing but not unbeatable.

2. I think most liberals like Hillary more than they did in 2008, and the few who don't will still mostly vote for her.

3. I don't think she's "squeaky clean"; just innocent of the serious charges being laid against her.

Her beatability has been rattling around as a side issue - I largely agree with No. 1, as I have mentioned. I think she needs to blow away the competition in IA & NH to get real momentum in the GE though.

Open Question to the gallery: what percentage do you think Hillary needs to get in IA, and what percentage in NH should she win with, in order to say she is on the right track towards winning the whole thing?

I think under 50 in either is bad for her, I think 65%+ is where she needs to be. She is largely running on invincibility and inevitability, she needs to validate that and she also needs to generate enthusiasm in the base, if they want her they want her because she can deliver the USSC and secure the WH, little else.

I don't think it's relevant either way.

If she wins easily her critics, including you, will point out that there really was no significant competition. If she struggles at all the media will make a big deal out of it, but by the time the convention comes around nobody will remember.

Wow, fascinating, a push there. - Well I think enthusiasm coming out of the early primaries is a big deal in any general election. Enthusiasm among the base is very important.

Can you provide a recent example of this?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hillary is now at a net unfavorable, per the HuffPo Pollster summary of multiple polls.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating

New poll out, from Quinnipiac:

- Hillary at net negative -2 favorability (45/47 unfavorable).

- That number is -12 unfavorable with Indies.

American voters say 53 - 39 percent that Clinton is not honest and trustworthy

That's a net -14 negative on trustworthy.

For Indies that number is a staggering net negative -30.

Voters are divided 48 - 47 percent over whether Clinton cares about their needs and problems.

Really, that's a tough one for any pol.

but say 60 - 37 percent that she has strong leadership qualities...

Hillary continues to do really well here. It's just possible that Americans want "strong" over "trust" these days.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2228

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/us/us05282015_U32trdf.pdf

My guess? She gets plays this "strong" strength up somehow.

What has she done that was "strong"?

I have no idea, that's just something that shows up in the polling and it seems to be her one supposed quality that does well. I think it's her tone and demeanor, that's my best guess. I'm also guessing that since that is the one thing that maybe "works" that her people will tell her to do more of it, act strong and decisive.

Of course she doesn't take challenging questions well and she doesn't take positions on key issues, like TPP and the Patriot Act, that people really care about, until she determines which is the popular position or after its a decided matter. I think as the campaign goes on this becomes more clear, but we shall see.

First off, her campaign said yesterday she'll be giving long interviews to the press once things really kick off after June 13. So this whole meme of "Hillary's refusing to answer questions" is going to go away very shortly. If you look at her career it was never much of a meme to begin with- she's always answered the hard questions.

Second, people like you and I care about TPP and the Patriot Act, but there's no indication that the majority of the public do, or even know what they are. These are not issues that "people really care about." They care about the old standbys: jobs and education.

I do think the base cares plenty on those things, bit of a backward strategy because usually these are things that drive early campaigns. This is one indication that though Hillary says she is taking the primaries seriously, she really is focusing on not screwing up before the general. IMO of course.

 

[timschochet]

FWIW I do think she'll do very well in Iowa and New Hampshire- I just don't think it will matter much.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I think you took me a little too seriously. I was kidding. You're fine in my book, Commish.

To correct you:

1. I think Hillary is unbeatable among Dems. That's not a stretch. I think she's the favorite to win the entire thing but not unbeatable.

2. I think most liberals like Hillary more than they did in 2008, and the few who don't will still mostly vote for her.

3. I don't think she's "squeaky clean"; just innocent of the serious charges being laid against her.

Her beatability has been rattling around as a side issue - I largely agree with No. 1, as I have mentioned. I think she needs to blow away the competition in IA & NH to get real momentum in the GE though.

Open Question to the gallery: what percentage do you think Hillary needs to get in IA, and what percentage in NH should she win with, in order to say she is on the right track towards winning the whole thing?

I think under 50 in either is bad for her, I think 65%+ is where she needs to be. She is largely running on invincibility and inevitability, she needs to validate that and she also needs to generate enthusiasm in the base, if they want her they want her because she can deliver the USSC and secure the WH, little else.

I don't think it's relevant either way.

If she wins easily her critics, including you, will point out that there really was no significant competition. If she struggles at all the media will make a big deal out of it, but by the time the convention comes around nobody will remember.

Wow, fascinating, a push there. - Well I think enthusiasm coming out of the early primaries is a big deal in any general election. Enthusiasm among the base is very important.

Can you provide a recent example of this?

Sure Obama for one.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

FWIW I do think she'll do very well in Iowa and New Hampshire- I just don't think it will matter much.

Ok fair enough, that is an answer.

 

[squistion]

I think you took me a little too seriously. I was kidding. You're fine in my book, Commish.

To correct you:

1. I think Hillary is unbeatable among Dems. That's not a stretch. I think she's the favorite to win the entire thing but not unbeatable.

2. I think most liberals like Hillary more than they did in 2008, and the few who don't will still mostly vote for her.

3. I don't think she's "squeaky clean"; just innocent of the serious charges being laid against her.

Agree with all of the above.

1. Bernie Sanders is a fine man, but he has zero chance IMO of getting the nomination. If Hillary were to drop out right before the convention he still wouldn't get the nomination. The Democrats would never, under any circumstances nominate a 74 year old man who is a self professed socialist - ain't gonna happen, the election would be so lopsided for the GOP candidate that it would the Nixon/McGovern contest look close in comparison.

2. As a progressive/liberal I held Hillary's vote for war authorization in Iraq against her in 2008, not to the point that I would not have voted for her in the general election, but when a viable alternative who had opposed the war emerged with Obama, I gradually shifted my allegiance towards him and voted for him in California primary. I have moved on from the Iraqi vote debacle as I believe have also most Democrats.

3. I have never thought she is squeaky clean or a saint either. But, I have yet to see any evidence that the charges of illegality have any merit.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I think you took me a little too seriously. I was kidding. You're fine in my book, Commish.

To correct you:

1. I think Hillary is unbeatable among Dems. That's not a stretch. I think she's the favorite to win the entire thing but not unbeatable.

2. I think most liberals like Hillary more than they did in 2008, and the few who don't will still mostly vote for her.

3. I don't think she's "squeaky clean"; just innocent of the serious charges being laid against her.

Agree with all of the above.

1. Bernie Sanders is a fine man, but he has zero chance IMO of getting the nomination. If Hillary were to drop out right before the convention he still wouldn't get the nomination. The Democrats would never, under any circumstances nominate a 74 year old man who is a self professed socialist - ain't gonna happen, the election would be so lopsided for the GOP candidate that it would the Nixon/McGovern contest look close in comparison.

...

The most interesting (to me) comparison I have seen for this early race was that it was not like 2008, but most like 2000 between Bradley and Gore.

 

[timschochet]

I think you took me a little too seriously. I was kidding. You're fine in my book, Commish.

To correct you:

1. I think Hillary is unbeatable among Dems. That's not a stretch. I think she's the favorite to win the entire thing but not unbeatable.

2. I think most liberals like Hillary more than they did in 2008, and the few who don't will still mostly vote for her.

3. I don't think she's "squeaky clean"; just innocent of the serious charges being laid against her.

Her beatability has been rattling around as a side issue - I largely agree with No. 1, as I have mentioned. I think she needs to blow away the competition in IA & NH to get real momentum in the GE though.

Open Question to the gallery: what percentage do you think Hillary needs to get in IA, and what percentage in NH should she win with, in order to say she is on the right track towards winning the whole thing?

I think under 50 in either is bad for her, I think 65%+ is where she needs to be. She is largely running on invincibility and inevitability, she needs to validate that and she also needs to generate enthusiasm in the base, if they want her they want her because she can deliver the USSC and secure the WH, little else.

I don't think it's relevant either way.

If she wins easily her critics, including you, will point out that there really was no significant competition. If she struggles at all the media will make a big deal out of it, but by the time the convention comes around nobody will remember.

Wow, fascinating, a push there. - Well I think enthusiasm coming out of the early primaries is a big deal in any general election. Enthusiasm among the base is very important.

Can you provide a recent example of this?

Sure Obama for one.

You mean the Obama who lost New Hampshire? How is that an example of "enthusiasm coming out of early primaries?" His race with Hillary was a roller coaster ride until Super Tuesday.

 

[The Commish]

I think you took me a little too seriously. I was kidding. You're fine in my book, Commish.

To correct you:

1. I think Hillary is unbeatable among Dems. That's not a stretch. I think she's the favorite to win the entire thing but not unbeatable.

2. I think most liberals like Hillary more than they did in 2008, and the few who don't will still mostly vote for her.

3. I don't think she's "squeaky clean"; just innocent of the serious charges being laid against her.

Her beatability has been rattling around as a side issue - I largely agree with No. 1, as I have mentioned. I think she needs to blow away the competition in IA & NH to get real momentum in the GE though.

Open Question to the gallery: what percentage do you think Hillary needs to get in IA, and what percentage in NH should she win with, in order to say she is on the right track towards winning the whole thing?

I think under 50 in either is bad for her, I think 65%+ is where she needs to be. She is largely running on invincibility and inevitability, she needs to validate that and she also needs to generate enthusiasm in the base, if they want her they want her because she can deliver the USSC and secure the WH, little else.

I don't think it's relevant either way.

If she wins easily her critics, including you, will point out that there really was no significant competition. If she struggles at all the media will make a big deal out of it, but by the time the convention comes around nobody will remember.

Wow, fascinating, a push there. - Well I think enthusiasm coming out of the early primaries is a big deal in any general election. Enthusiasm among the base is very important.

Can you provide a recent example of this?

Her run in 2008 She fell flat on her face out of the gate and Obama did his best to give it back to her, but she couldn't catch up.

 

[squistion]

She gone from Most! Popular! Woman! In-The-World! ...to .... 'hey guys don't get your expectations too high...'

That is a misstatement. It is the annual Gallup poll of the most admired woman in the world among Americans, which is not a measure of popularity among voters. Oprah came in second but I don't think she would fare well in any election. And I have said in the past that although she is certain IMO to be the Democratic nominee, I expect the general election to be close and she is not a lock to win that.

 

[The Commish]

I'm as sad today that the Dems can't find a "lock" to beat the GOP as I was when the Dems couldn't find someone to beat GWB. WTF is going on in Washington??

 

[timschochet]

Saints, Obama's run in 2008 is a great example of why early enthusiasm doesn't matter. After he won Iowa, all the experts thought he was riding an unbeatable wave. Then he lost New Hampshire (which shocked all the pundits) and they thought he was dead. Then he won South Carolina and things were back on track. Then the whole Reverend Wright story broke out and suddenly he was on the skids again. At that point Obama beat Hillary because of the caucuses of Southern states which were dominated by black voters.

Speaking of enthusiasm: just as Obama finally put Hillary behind him and was thought to be a shoo-in for the Presidency, along came Sarah Palin and the dormant GOP base exploded. All of Obama's momentum came to an abrupt halt. Now just suppose Sarah was not the dingaling she turned out to be and had been a smart, competent candidate? And suppose Lehman Brothers had not imploded in September? The result of that election could have been very different.

My point is that enthusiasm, especially early on, has very little bearing in Presidential races. They are really like Chutes and Ladders, and the key is to be on top when the time runs out. A whole lot of luck is involved.

 

[timschochet]

I think you took me a little too seriously. I was kidding. You're fine in my book, Commish.

To correct you:

1. I think Hillary is unbeatable among Dems. That's not a stretch. I think she's the favorite to win the entire thing but not unbeatable.

2. I think most liberals like Hillary more than they did in 2008, and the few who don't will still mostly vote for her.

3. I don't think she's "squeaky clean"; just innocent of the serious charges being laid against her.

Her beatability has been rattling around as a side issue - I largely agree with No. 1, as I have mentioned. I think she needs to blow away the competition in IA & NH to get real momentum in the GE though.

Open Question to the gallery: what percentage do you think Hillary needs to get in IA, and what percentage in NH should she win with, in order to say she is on the right track towards winning the whole thing?

I think under 50 in either is bad for her, I think 65%+ is where she needs to be. She is largely running on invincibility and inevitability, she needs to validate that and she also needs to generate enthusiasm in the base, if they want her they want her because she can deliver the USSC and secure the WH, little else.

I don't think it's relevant either way.

If she wins easily her critics, including you, will point out that there really was no significant competition. If she struggles at all the media will make a big deal out of it, but by the time the convention comes around nobody will remember.

Wow, fascinating, a push there. - Well I think enthusiasm coming out of the early primaries is a big deal in any general election. Enthusiasm among the base is very important.

Can you provide a recent example of this?

Her run in 2008 She fell flat on her face out of the gate and Obama did his best to give it back to her, but she couldn't catch up.

Now you're talking about something entirely different. Saint's point is that early enthusiasm in the primaries help you win general elections. I don't buy into that.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I'm as sad today that the Dems can't find a "lock" to beat the GOP as I was when the Dems couldn't find someone to beat GWB. WTF is going on in Washington??

The Bush vs Clinton rubric is really scarey for all. Old banking money vs new global banking connections. If that's where it ends up, that's where we are.

 

[timschochet]

I'm as sad today that the Dems can't find a "lock" to beat the GOP as I was when the Dems couldn't find someone to beat GWB. WTF is going on in Washington??

The Bush vs Clinton rubric is really scarey for all. Old banking money vs new global banking connections. If that's where it ends up, that's where we are.

At this point I think Bush is 3rd likely to be the nominee, behind Rubio and Walker (not necessarily in that order.)

 

[tommyGunZ]

I'm as sad today that the Dems can't find a "lock" to beat the GOP as I was when the Dems couldn't find someone to beat GWB. WTF is going on in Washington??

Country is fairly evenly divided. There is no such thing as a lock 18 months before an election when it's essentially 50-50.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I think you took me a little too seriously. I was kidding. You're fine in my book, Commish.

To correct you:

1. I think Hillary is unbeatable among Dems. That's not a stretch. I think she's the favorite to win the entire thing but not unbeatable.

2. I think most liberals like Hillary more than they did in 2008, and the few who don't will still mostly vote for her.

3. I don't think she's "squeaky clean"; just innocent of the serious charges being laid against her.

Her beatability has been rattling around as a side issue - I largely agree with No. 1, as I have mentioned. I think she needs to blow away the competition in IA & NH to get real momentum in the GE though.

Open Question to the gallery: what percentage do you think Hillary needs to get in IA, and what percentage in NH should she win with, in order to say she is on the right track towards winning the whole thing?

I think under 50 in either is bad for her, I think 65%+ is where she needs to be. She is largely running on invincibility and inevitability, she needs to validate that and she also needs to generate enthusiasm in the base, if they want her they want her because she can deliver the USSC and secure the WH, little else.

I don't think it's relevant either way.

If she wins easily her critics, including you, will point out that there really was no significant competition. If she struggles at all the media will make a big deal out of it, but by the time the convention comes around nobody will remember.

Wow, fascinating, a push there. - Well I think enthusiasm coming out of the early primaries is a big deal in any general election. Enthusiasm among the base is very important.

Can you provide a recent example of this?

Sure Obama for one.

You mean the Obama who lost New Hampshire? How is that an example of "enthusiasm coming out of early primaries?" His race with Hillary was a roller coaster ride until Super Tuesday.

Right I mean the Obama win in Iowa, and the close competition in NH, followed by the flood of caucus and primary victories to follow. Iowa was huge for him and NH he did very well. Wasn't the delegate count there pretty close? Hillary was supposed to be the going-away-winner and she emerged out of a tougher than expected (before IA) race bruised and battered, that was not a strong win for her, the enthusiasm and momentum were with Obama after IA & NH. That's my point.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I'm as sad today that the Dems can't find a "lock" to beat the GOP as I was when the Dems couldn't find someone to beat GWB. WTF is going on in Washington??

The Bush vs Clinton rubric is really scarey for all. Old banking money vs new global banking connections. If that's where it ends up, that's where we are.

I don't buy this "scary" stuff. If those two are the nominees, they will have gotten the support of the electorate. While I don't necessarily like those candidates, I don't think it's scary that he candidates most popular with the masses are the choices.

 

[timschochet]

I'm as sad today that the Dems can't find a "lock" to beat the GOP as I was when the Dems couldn't find someone to beat GWB. WTF is going on in Washington??

Country is fairly evenly divided. There is no such thing as a lock 18 months before an election when it's essentially 50-50.

I disagree with this too. I think the country, as a whole, prefers Democrats.

We seem to be evenly divided for 3 reasons:

1. In off-election cycles, only the motivated voters show up, and Republicans tend to be more motivated.

2. The south, along with a few central "flyover" states, remain solidly Republican, much more so than blue states are solidly blue.

3. In times of existential crisis the public prefers the "stronger" candidate, and most times that is perceived to be the Republican.

But whenever it becomes a question of what matters to people in their daily lives (jobs, expenses, medical, education, etc.) the public chooses the Democrat, by and large.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I'm as sad today that the Dems can't find a "lock" to beat the GOP as I was when the Dems couldn't find someone to beat GWB. WTF is going on in Washington??

The Bush vs Clinton rubric is really scarey for all. Old banking money vs new global banking connections. If that's where it ends up, that's where we are.

I don't buy this "scary" stuff. If those two are the nominees, they will have gotten the support of the electorate. While I don't necessarily like those candidates, I don't think it's scary that he candidates most popular with the masses are the choices.

I agree with TGZ on this one. Hillary is not Bill, and Jeb is not George or George Sr. I haven't paid much attention to the GOP field, but it's extremely easy for me to believe that Jeb may make the best President out of that bunch (not the highest of bars).

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I'm as sad today that the Dems can't find a "lock" to beat the GOP as I was when the Dems couldn't find someone to beat GWB. WTF is going on in Washington??

The Bush vs Clinton rubric is really scarey for all. Old banking money vs new global banking connections. If that's where it ends up, that's where we are.

I don't buy this "scary" stuff. If those two are the nominees, they will have gotten the support of the electorate. While I don't necessarily like those candidates, I don't think it's scary that he candidates most popular with the masses are the choices.

I think the country needs to move on, we need to turn the page, start a new chapter, heck let's get a whole new book. - But aside from that, the connection of the money to the policy is just really too damn close. I think we are all prepared to have some of it but this is starting to get ugly, right in our face. The "People" do all sorts of things that aren't good for them.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

I'm as sad today that the Dems can't find a "lock" to beat the GOP as I was when the Dems couldn't find someone to beat GWB. WTF is going on in Washington??

The Bush vs Clinton rubric is really scarey for all. Old banking money vs new global banking connections. If that's where it ends up, that's where we are.

I don't buy this "scary" stuff. If those two are the nominees, they will have gotten the support of the electorate. While I don't necessarily like those candidates, I don't think it's scary that he candidates most popular with the masses are the choices.

I think the country needs to move on, we need to turn the page, start a new chapter, heck let's get a whole new book. - But aside from that, the connection of the money to the policy is just really too damn close. I think we are all prepared to have some of it but this is starting to get ugly, right in our face. The "People" do all sorts of things that aren't good for them.

I'm starting to think sh'e losing your support.

 

[The Commish]

I'm as sad today that the Dems can't find a "lock" to beat the GOP as I was when the Dems couldn't find someone to beat GWB. WTF is going on in Washington??

Country is fairly evenly divided. There is no such thing as a lock 18 months before an election when it's essentially 50-50.

Evenly divided? By what measure? There's not even a GOP front runner and given the GOP behavior over the last 10-12 years, how is it so "even" as you say? If one wants to fall back on "roughly have the country is conservative and half the country is liberal" that individual is missing the point, or doesn't understand the electoral college, or both.

 

[RCon]

I'm as sad today that the Dems can't find a "lock" to beat the GOP as I was when the Dems couldn't find someone to beat GWB. WTF is going on in Washington??

Country is fairly evenly divided. There is no such thing as a lock 18 months before an election when it's essentially 50-50.

I agree with tGZ on this one. Same drum I was beating the last several times too; a lot can happen in 18 months, and 14 months, and 8 months, and 3 months...

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Another poll out today, same verse, same as the first:

Frontrunner angst: Bush lead evaporates, Clinton favorability hits 7-year lowAfter five months of forums, fundraising appearances and trips to the early states, the 2016 Republican nomination contest is as unsettled as ever, with no candidate receiving more than 11 percent support and seven candidates all within three points of one another, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Meanwhile, Hillary Rodham Clinton continues to dominate the Democratic nomination contest. But her personal attributes continue to erode in the wake of stories about fundraising practices at the Clinton Foundation and her use of a personal e-mail server while at the State Department.

Clinton’s favorability ratings are the lowest in a Post-ABC poll since April 2008, when she was running for president the first time. Today, 41 percent of Americans say she is honest and trustworthy, compared with 52 percent who say she is not — a 22-point swing in the past year.

...

Trouble for Clinton?
Clinton’s favorability rating has fallen steadily since she left the Obama administration in early 2013. Today, 45 percent see her positively while 49 percent see her negatively. That compares with ratings of 49 percent and 46 percent two months ago. Just 24 percent have a strongly favorable impression of her — down six points in the past two months — while 39 percent have a strongly unfavorable impression, up four points.

The decline in Clinton’s ratings as a candidate who is honest and trustworthy highlights a likely vulnerability as a general-election candidate. Half of all Americans disapprove of the way she has handled questions about the Clinton Foundation, and 55 percent disapprove of how she has handled questions about her personal e-mails as secretary of state.

Meanwhile, half also disapprove of the way she has dealt with questions about the attack on a U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012, that resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.

Majorities see the issues of the Clinton Foundation and Benghazi as fair game in the presidential election, while almost half of Americans say the e-mail issue is a legitimate topic.

The survey tested Clinton against Bush in a possible general-election matchup. Among registered voters, she led 47 percent to 44 percent, within the poll’s four-point error margin among voters. Two months ago, she had a 12-point lead over Bush in that hypothetical ballot test. When asked to predict who would win such a contest, however, 55 percent predicted Clinton and 39 percent said Bush.

Bush fares better than Clinton on the question of trust and honesty, with 45 percent rating him as honest and trustworthy and 40 percent saying he is not. But Clinton does better on the question of who appears to be empathetic with average people. Clinton’s rating is slightly net positive, while Bush’s is net negative by 20 points.

...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-2016-republicans-tightly-bunched-clintons-image-erodes/2015/06/01/9e9c26c6-0893-11e5-9e39-0db921c47b93_story.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2015/06/02/National-Politics/Polling/release_396.xml

Again, there's some GOP stuff there, so this is largely just the Clinton stuff.

The trustworthy numbers are astounding, it's disturbing to think that we could elect someone who more than half of America flat out distrusts.

The -4 unfavorable number is a big problem IMO. It's a -7 swing downward since she started her campaign, no that's not supposed to happen.

I think what really surprises me though is the number on Benghazi in this and the CNN poll - I think the outfall is something we should realize, and maybe that is that the Clinton playbook is from the 1990s and before. This is the age of crowdsourcing and social media, and also the nature of the problems are policy and qualification related, not arguably personal (ie sex, or Bill's penchant for lying about women and his behavior towards them), so perhaps the situations are different.

 

[Slapdash]

Well, I guess that is more plausible than these countries knowing that donations to the Foundation opens up access to the Clinton's. It is probably just a coincidence that each country had large arms deals approved by his wife's State Department. I'm sure it is a further coincidence that the countries that donated to the Foundation saw a substantial increase in arms deals by percentage compared to countries that didn't donate. Finally, I'm glad to know that Bill was able to get these countries to care about empowering women and climate change. I'm sure his successful work in Ireland had a lasting impact on the large Muslim-Irish populations in the Middle East.

I'd be interested to see your source for the bolded. I'd also be interested to see you provide any evidence whatsoever that Clinton's actions as Secretary of State were at all influenced by donations to the Clinton Foundation. That is the ONLY evidence that would make all of this crap into a real story, and there isn't any.

Under Clinton's leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data. That figure -- derived from the three full fiscal years of Clintons term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) -- represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bushs second term.

The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation, resulting in a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration. These extra sales were part of a broad increase in American military exports that accompanied Obamas arrival in the White House. The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period.

American defense contractors also donated to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state and in some cases made personal payments to Bill Clinton for speaking engagements. Such firms and their subsidiaries were listed as contractors in $163 billion worth of Pentagon-negotiated deals that were authorized by the Clinton State Department between 2009 and 2012.

The State Department formally approved these arms sales even as many of the deals enhanced the military power of countries ruled by authoritarian regimes whose human rights abuses had been criticized by the department. Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Qatarall donated to the Clinton Foundation and also gained State Department clearance to buy caches of American-made weapons even as the department singled them out for a range of alleged ills, from corruption to restrictions on civil liberties to violent crackdowns against political opponents.

http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

:crickets: once again.

This guy is a complete joke.

I addressed it several times in the other thread. Why repeat myself?

No you haven't. You just ####### said above you haven't even read this, despite it being posted several times.

 

[timschochet]

Such a temper.

If you're referring to my question, yes he answered it, though it doesn't provide any evidence of his implication (or yours.) My main point, which I've repeated over and over and over and over, is that there is no evidence that these sales or ANY action by Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State were influenced in any way by donations. Obama and Hillary (and the State Department, and a lot of other people) decided increase sales of arms and supplies to the countries mentioned for several reasons- the battered aerospace economy (and at the urging of companies like Boeing and Lockheed), the changing security issues, etc. It's perfectly legitimate to have concerns about these transactions, but to imply that they were done because of donations to the Foundation- I mean, given the involvement of Obama and the rest of his administration in these deals- no offense but its really foolish. What, are they all willing dupes of Bill Clinton now?

Still a non-story in terms of Hillary's supposed corruption.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Such a temper.

If you're referring to my question, yes he answered it, though it doesn't provide any evidence of his implication (or yours.) My main point, which I've repeated over and over and over and over, is that there is no evidence that these sales or ANY action by Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State were influenced in any way by donations. Obama and Hillary (and the State Department, and a lot of other people) decided increase sales of arms and supplies to the countries mentioned for several reasons- the battered aerospace economy (and at the urging of companies like Boeing and Lockheed), the changing security issues, etc. It's perfectly legitimate to have concerns about these transactions, but to imply that they were done because of donations to the Foundation- I mean, given the involvement of Obama and the rest of his administration in these deals- no offense but its really foolish. What, are they all willing dupes of Bill Clinton now?

Still a non-story in terms of Hillary's supposed corruption.

It sounds as if you're saying that the Secretary of State doesn't really have much role in shaping policy. If that's the case, then why is Hillary Clinton qualified to be president?

 

[The Commish]

The decline in Clinton’s ratings as a candidate who is honest and trustworthy highlights a likely vulnerability as a general-election candidate. Half of all Americans disapprove of the way she has handled questions about the Clinton Foundation, and 55 percent disapprove of how she has handled questions about her personal e-mails as secretary of state.

Meanwhile, half also disapprove of the way she has dealt with questions about the attack on a U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012, that resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.

Majorities see the issues of the Clinton Foundation and Benghazi as fair game in the presidential election, while almost half of Americans say the e-mail issue is a legitimate topic.

How can this be. We've been told the email, Benghazi, Clinton Foundation etc are only issues here at FBG. The rest of the country doesn't care about them

 

[Slapdash]

Such a temper.

If you're referring to my question, yes he answered it, though it doesn't provide any evidence of his implication (or yours.) My main point, which I've repeated over and over and over and over, is that there is no evidence that these sales or ANY action by Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State were influenced in any way by donations. Obama and Hillary (and the State Department, and a lot of other people) decided increase sales of arms and supplies to the countries mentioned for several reasons- the battered aerospace economy (and at the urging of companies like Boeing and Lockheed), the changing security issues, etc. It's perfectly legitimate to have concerns about these transactions, but to imply that they were done because of donations to the Foundation- I mean, given the involvement of Obama and the rest of his administration in these deals- no offense but its really foolish. What, are they all willing dupes of Bill Clinton now?

Still a non-story in terms of Hillary's supposed corruption.

 

[FlapJacks]

I'm as sad today that the Dems can't find a "lock" to beat the GOP as I was when the Dems couldn't find someone to beat GWB. WTF is going on in Washington??

The Bush vs Clinton rubric is really scarey for all. Old banking money vs new global banking connections. If that's where it ends up, that's where we are.

I don't buy this "scary" stuff. If those two are the nominees, they will have gotten the support of the electorate. While I don't necessarily like those candidates, I don't think it's scary that he candidates most popular with the masses are the choices.

I agree with TGZ on this one. Hillary is not Bill, and Jeb is not George or George Sr. I haven't paid much attention to the GOP field, but it's extremely easy for me to believe that Jeb may make the best President out of that bunch (not the highest of bars).

I thought Bush the Elder did a great job

He was faced with a large bailout left over from his predecessor and it didn't take 8 years or more for the economy to recover

 

[The_Man]

As a liberal, I'm very concerned about the 2016 election. For starters, I kind of despise Hillary, who is an unrepentant warmonger in thrall to the Wall Street wing of the Democratic Party. And I don't think there's any chance anyone beats her in the primary. O'Malley is a lightweight just hoping to get the VP nod, and Bernie will capture the hearts of the extreme left wing who will turn out in droves for his campaign events, garnering him tons of great press while his number never get above 25 percent almost anywhere. Warren was the only legit opposition.

And I hate it when a party aligns behind a presumptive nominee, which is what is happening everywhere, as elected Democratic officials line up to endorse Hillary. When this happens, candidates don't get tested, and they don't have to really articulate the reasons why people should vote for them, other than "I'm going to win anyway" which is never a compelling campaign platform. As a result, such candidates often seem terribly weak in the general election and get knocked off by their primary-tested opponent.

I love Bernie, and I know the media will build him up as much as possible because they like a competitive race. But Hillary is going to ride her "presumptive nominee" status all the way to the general election, where she's going to suddenly be in a fight for her life vs. someone who has put together a highly functional campaign machine.