Hillary Clinton is Done

[thaiboxerken]

The problem with polls like that is that Clinton has been a national figure for 25 years. She is much better known than all of the Republicans..

Except for that Trump guy, which destroys your argument.

 

[Bob001]

Except for that Trump guy, which destroys your argument.

Not necessarily. Clinton was First Lady and informal "co-president" at a time when Trump was nothing but a bankrupt casino developer. Trump has been a celebrity for a long time, but his arrival as a political figure is months-old.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Not necessarily. Clinton was First Lady and informal "co-president" at a time when Trump was nothing but a bankrupt casino developer. Trump has been a celebrity for a long time, but his arrival as a political figure is months-old.

it's not a matter of who was a celebrity for how long, but of name recognition. I'm sure Hillary and Trump are even on name recognition and Trump probably has a more recognizable brand.

 

[Bob001]

.....
Clinton, all you have is accusation and no one can even say specifically what she's accused of. Mishandling classified information? And then what? What difference did it make in anything?

It's not even clear she did that much.

You're right, HC has not been proven to have mishandled classified information. But "what difference did it make?" is not a relevant question. It doesn't matter whether bombs fell or troops died. Gen. Petraeus pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor to avoid felony charges for allowing his journalist girlfriend to see classified material. Whistleblowers have gone to prison for showing classified material to people who weren't entitled to see it. Mishandling classified material is a serious crime by itself.

The real problem -- one of them -- with HC's private arrangement is that if the server in her basement was hacked, neither she nor anyone in the federal government would necessarily know about it or know who might have accessed her communications.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You're right, HC has not been proven to have mishandled classified information. But "what difference did it make?" is not a relevant question. It doesn't matter whether bombs fell or troops died. Gen. Petraeus pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor to avoid felony charges for allowing his journalist girlfriend to see classified material. Whistleblowers have gone to prison for showing classified material to people who weren't entitled to see it. Mishandling classified material is a serious crime by itself.

The real problem -- one of them -- with HC's private arrangement is that if the server in her basement was hacked, neither she nor anyone in the federal government would necessarily know about it or know who might have accessed her communications.

I'm pretty sure letting your lover who is writing a biography see classified information is quite different from communicating with people who have a need to know and using a private email server to do so. In the latter case both parties would have had clearance to see the material.

The comparison is a fail.

 

[Bob001]

I'm pretty sure letting your lover who is writing a biography see classified information is quite different from communicating with people who have a need to know and using a private email server to do so. In the latter case both parties would have had clearance to see the material.

The comparison is a fail.

If HC allowed anyone to see classified material who wasn't authorized to do so, or handled it in a way that could have exposed it to unauthorized eyes, that is potentially a serious crime. Sending or receiving classified material through a unsecured non-classified system could be a crime, and the server in her basement wasn't secure by federal standards. "Need to know" would be completely irrelevant.

 

[wareyin]

The problem with polls like that is that Clinton has been a national figure for 25 years. She is much better known than all of the Republicans. So a certain percentage of respondents are really answering "Would you vote for Hillary Clinton or someone you don't know anything about?" But if you look at the numbers closely, she is only a few percentage points ahead of Bush, Rubio and Walker, who all are relative newcomers to national politics. It would be a big mistake to imagine she's got it all locked up.

Are you trying to say that people who are ignorant of the Bushes would somehow be likely to know the Clintons? The Bush family has been more recently in power by 8 years, and bracketed the Clintons, so that seems unlikely.

Further, do you have any evidence that a voter who is so 'low information' as to be unaware of Rubio, Trump, Bush, or Walker would be aware of Clinton, either?

 

[Fudbucker]

The numbers in a new Quinnipiac University poll are striking: More than three-in-five voters, 61 percent, think Clinton isn’t honest and trustworthy. Overall, Clinton’s favorability ratings slipped to 39 percent — her lowest point since Quinnipiac began polling on Clinton after she and her husband left the White House.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/hillary-clinton-liar-factor-2016-121828.html#ixzz3k47qu8DY

Those are godawful bad numbers. How does she win with almost 2/3 of the country thinking she's an untrustworthy liar? All the GOP needs to do is nominate someone who isn't a far right lunatic.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If HC allowed anyone to see classified material who wasn't authorized to do so, or handled it in a way that could have exposed it to unauthorized eyes, that is potentially a serious crime. Sending or receiving classified material through a unsecured non-classified system could be a crime, and the server in her basement wasn't secure by federal standards. "Need to know" would be completely irrelevant.

If if if if yadda yadda yadda.

That's all well and good, but it is not comparable to consciously giving your lover classified information for a book.

At this point in time, there is no crime in evidence.

 

[Fudbucker]

If if if if yadda yadda yadda.

That's all well and good, but it is not comparable to consciously giving your lover classified information for a book.

What about consciously sending and receiving classified material on a private server?

At this point in time, there is no crime in evidence.

She's not on trial, she's running for office. Based on the latest polling the court of public opinion has already decided she's guilty.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... How does she win with almost 2/3 of the country thinking she's an untrustworthy liar? All the GOP needs to do is nominate someone who isn't a far right lunatic.

Maybe because in those same polls people find her experienced and competent.

At this point those polls show the success of the GOP mudslinging. They have succeeded by saturation marketing getting a negative image of Clinton out there.

Clinton needs to counter that image and to do it soon.

 

[The Big Dog]

Maybe because in those same polls people find her experienced and competent.

At this point those polls show the success of the GOP mudslinging. They have succeeded by saturation marketing getting a negative image of Clinton out there.

Clinton needs to counter that image and to do it soon.

'Twas GOP mudslinging that caused Hillary to say completely idiotic things like in my sig.

What, like a cloth? Hee hee, good come back grandma.

 

[wareyin]

What about consciously sending and receiving classified material on a private server?

Well, we've seen evidence of receiving, but no evidence it was done "consciously", nor any evidence of sending, consciously or not.

She's not on trial, she's running for office. Based on the latest polling the court of public opinion has already decided she's guilty.

Huh, Republicans have still been using the tactic of repeating a lie long enough and loud enough so that people believe it? Must be a day ending in a 'Y'.

 

[Belz...]

My brain says no, my fear there are that many low information voters says yes. So I'm not confident this county isn't vulnerable to insanity.

I think the last few election cycles have shown us that, despite the Palins and Herman Cains not winning, they are considered serious candidates at some point of the process, which is itself very worrying.

 

[Belz...]

Reading all of the above, I can see the panic in your posts and I'll add ITS ABOUT TIME!!!

Now you're finally seeing the terrible situation you're in. All you have left is the presidency and if you lose that your power is completely gone.

If SezMe's hypothetical comes to pass, we'll ALL be in a terrible situation. You Americans, as your freedoms are completely gone, and the rest of us, for other reasons.

 

[Shalamar]

If SezMe's hypothetical comes to pass, we'll ALL be in a terrible situation. You Americans, as your freedoms are completely gone, and the rest of us, for other reasons.

Nah. As long as they have conservative freedoms, they don't care if all freedoms are stripped away. Liberty is like Liberal, and liberal is bad. Therefor liberty is bad.

 

[Belz...]

The rupub establishment agrees with you, which is why they keep putting up moderate repubs.

Moderates? Are you joking?

Agreed, she is done completely

Too much baggage, too much benghazi, emails, lying, clinton affairs etc...

I don't think that mentioning Republican grievances does much to show what will happen during the Democratic primaries.

 

[logger]

Nah. As long as they have conservative freedoms, they don't care if all freedoms are stripped away. Liberty is like Liberal, and liberal is bad. Therefor liberty is bad.

You say the same thing with every post! Lol

 

[logger]

Moderates? Are you joking?

Dole, McCain. Romney and now the establishments favorite J Bush.

 

[logger]

I don't think that mentioning Republican grievances does much to show what will happen during the Democratic primaries.

Lol
I'm sure you haven't noticed her poll numbers, could it possibly be those "grievances"?

Did you see the latest poll on which words people think of when thinking of her?

I've said she won't get the nomination but I'm backing off that, there is no one else for the dems to nominate.