Hillary Clinton is Done

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why people shouldn't make so much of Clinton's dropping poll numbers. It's par for the course when she goes from non-candidate to candidate reflecting partisan attacks.

Hillary Clinton's Favorability Ratings Are Right In Their Normal Groove
Greg Sargent says that Hillary Clinton's tanking favorability ratings should take no one by surprise. It's what happens every time an election starts up and she's once again viewed as a partisan political figure. "Her drop was probably inevitable once she made the transition from Secretary of State — a job that carries the trappings of above-politics statesmanship, or if you prefer, states-womanship — to candidate for president."

There's much more at the link, but the annotated chart below pretty much tells the story. When she's removed from the fray, her unfavorability ratings bounce around between 20 and 40 percent. When she's involved in an election, they go up to 45-55 percent or even a little higher. The same thing is happening this time around.
Click to expand...
 
Did either of you look at the graph? It goes back 30 years. Combined with the relentless hunt for some scandal that the right wing begins pushing the narrative of as soon as either Clinton became candidate Clinton, how is that only confirmation bias?


BTW, I'm not saying this pattern only applies to Clinton.
 
Last edited:
Dog Town said:
I'm still pulling for Bernie!
Click to expand...

You, and millions of other liberals.

funny how 16.5, just like the CONSERVATIVE media, totally ignores that Hillary is, in fact, running against other Democrats. And no, not Biden. One, Bernie Sanders, who is currently leading the NH polls.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I don't agree it is finally sticking. It is currently in the news and currently being used to paint Clinton as untrustworthy. There are also the usual bending in the wind accusations.

It's a year out. Clinton is ahead by double digits in the national polls. Unless an actual crime is uncovered, like Benghazi, the email scandal has no staying power.

What is the crime here? Lack of transparency, and given the long running Clinton witch hunters, somewhat understandable. That's it. The rest is inflated hot air.
Click to expand...

If investigators discover emails that were obviously of a classified nature (though not marked classified, like discussions with foreign leaders), she still might be in legal jeopardy. It's not like the the classification police are reading over her shoulder, stamping "classified" on each email as it's being written. Some information is "born classified", and is obviously sensitive stuff that no unauthorized person should be reading.

Or the person she hired might be given immunity and implicate her in some criminal activity.
 
Nihilianth said:
You, and millions of other liberals.

funny how 16.5, just like the CONSERVATIVE media, totally ignores that Hillary is, in fact, running against other Democrats. And no, not Biden. One, Bernie Sanders, who is currently leading the NH polls.
Click to expand...
Actually 16.5 has brought up, several times I might add, that she has won nothing, yet. The primary is not a forgone conclusion. Except, of course, to the Shillaries!:D
 
Dog Town said:
Actually 16.5 has brought up, several times I might add, that she has won nothing, yet. The primary is not a forgone conclusion. Except, of course, to the Shillaries!:D
Click to expand...

Ah, my bad then. I was skimming the thread, and got up to page 14, but kept seeing 16.5 mention Hillary (and one post suggested she wasn't running against anyone.) Perhaps he did, and I just didn't see it then.
 
I saw her on Ellen and was astonished by how phony she sounds. I'm starting to think there's a good possibility she might not get the nomination. You can't fake charisma and integrity and Hillary doesn't seem to have much of either.
 
Posted this in the Jeb on Late Night thread too.
Holy CRAP! Did anyone watch Joe Biden on Colbert last Night?
I pray HRC goes on there! She would show what a shallow schiester she is, compared to a real human being! WOW!
Click to expand...
 
I'm an ABH* liberal. She has never come across as "real" to me, whatever that means. About the closest she ever came was the "vast right wing conspiracy" remark, which, while true, was a politically stupid thing to say.

*Anyone but Hillary.
 
Fudbucker said:
I saw her on Ellen and was astonished by how phony she sounds. I'm starting to think there's a good possibility she might not get the nomination. You can't fake charisma and integrity and Hillary doesn't seem to have much of either.
Click to expand...

It is striking at how bad at this she is. You have to like being in your own skin, remember Al Gore used to suffer from the same thing.
 
Trebuchet said:
I'm an ABH* liberal. She has never come across as "real" to me, whatever that means. About the closest she ever came was the "vast right wing conspiracy" remark, which, while true, was a politically stupid thing to say.

*Anyone but Hillary.
Click to expand...

The thing about that is that she said it while denying the Monica Lewinsky allegations, which of course turned out to be true.
 
Fudbucker said:
If investigators discover emails that were obviously of a classified nature (though not marked classified, like discussions with foreign leaders), she still might be in legal jeopardy. It's not like the the classification police are reading over her shoulder, stamping "classified" on each email as it's being written. Some information is "born classified", and is obviously sensitive stuff that no unauthorized person should be reading.

Or the person she hired might be given immunity and implicate her in some criminal activity.
Click to expand...
Everyone seems to forget immediately what the 'found classified stuff' is really about. I posted it, the news has repeated it, Clinton has repeated it, and everyone promptly forgets it.

Clinton turned over thousands of emails to the appropriate government agency and said, as far as she was concerned, she'd prefer it all be released to the public.

The next step, AS PER THE ROUTINE FOR ALL SUCH EMAILS RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC, is for the agency to contact any party relevant to the email and ask them to decide if the material should be released or does that relevant party prefer the information be reclassified and not released.

There is not, and never was, an investigation into whether the emails were "mishandled" or whether confidential information was "mishandled". The NYTs lied or was mistaken about said investigation and retracted the story.

Other that distorted news accounts like the one in the NYTs, or repetitions of the story in the right wing echo chamber, there is no evidence of any investigation of Clinton wrong doing.

Do the search. There are dozens of "calls for an investigation". You can bet where they come from. And there is the retracted NYTs article.

There is no investigation. There is only relevant department vetting of the emails before releasing them to the pubic.


Look, here's the false NYTs article repeated in Wired:
Last night The New York Times reported that two inspectors general for the state department and intelligence agencies have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation to determine whether Clinton handled classified information on her personal email account, which she used while serving as Secretary of State.
Click to expand...
Followed by the retraction that no one reads:
But on Friday the Justice Department clarified that though it had received a referral to open an investigation, it was not a criminal investigation.
Click to expand...
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Everyone seems to forget immediately what the 'found classified stuff' is really about. I posted it, the news has repeated it, Clinton has repeated it, and everyone promptly forgets it.

Clinton turned over thousands of emails to the appropriate government agency and said, as far as she was concerned, she'd prefer it all be released to the public.

The next step, AS PER THE ROUTINE FOR ALL SUCH EMAILS RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC, is for the agency to contact any party relevant to the email and ask them to decide if the material should be released or does that relevant party prefer the information be reclassified and not released.

There is not, and never was, an investigation into whether the emails were "mishandled" or whether confidential information was "mishandled". The NYTs lied or was mistaken about said investigation and retracted the story.

Other that distorted news accounts like the one in the NYTs, or repetitions of the story in the right wing echo chamber, there is no evidence of any investigation of Clinton wrong doing.

Do the search. There are dozens of "calls for an investigation". You can bet where they come from. And there is the retracted NYTs article.

There is no investigation. There is only relevant department vetting of the emails before releasing them to the pubic.


Look, here's the false NYTs article repeated in Wired:
Followed by the retraction that no one reads:
Click to expand...

wait, the new york times are the bad guys? That is going to send the shivers down the back of the GOP! lolz!

everything you just posted was wrong, incompetently embarrassingly wrong. the FBI is investigating the referral from the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community. where in the hell do you get this incompetent nonsense?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom