Factually false:
http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/192362/clinton-negatives-among-dems-sanders.aspx
Debate over.
He must be in the same one I was, where people talked about how wonderful Clinton is, how you’d have to be sexist/racist/homophobic to even consider not voting for her, and how she was absolutely guaranteed to be the first female president. If you don’t remember all of the Saint Hillary, Honest Hillary, Qualified Hillary, and so on talk, you’re actually the one in an alternate reality.
Are you saying she wasn’t qualified?
It’s weird that the Democratic establishment is ‘not fools’, that Bush and Trump are fools, but that the Democratic establishment managed to keep losing elections to them.
That’s because sadly a lot of voters in this country are fools.
Not sure who you’re addressing. The Republican establishment is also not fools.
Trump himself is a fool, but he was not the choice of the Republican establishment. Sometimes a fool can beat a non-fool. It’s not all about intelligence; other factors come into play as well.
There’s a difference. You’d have to be sexist/racist/homophobic to vote for Trump. That’s because of Trump. Nothing to do with Hillary.
People did like Hillary. She had the support of many millions of people. People did think she had a very good chance of winning, not that she was “absolutely guaranteed to be the first female president.” Again, that also had more to do with Trump then Hillary. If she was running against Jeb Bush you wouldn’t have seen such confidence. No one thought she was a Saint. Many of us thought she was reasonably honest and qualified.
I think the OP is absolutely correct about Obama in the 2008 election, but by 2012, Obama’s shine had worn off a lot and he was treated pretty much like any other Democratic candidate, and in 2016, there was relatively little Hillary-adoration beyond the typical enthusiasm that any Republican or Democratic candidate would get from their parties. There wasn’t that much for Kerry either in 2004.
But in 2008 (when I was still in college), it was definitely adoration of Obama to an almost Justin Bieber extent, quite creepy, especially among the under-30 crowd of voters; it was like Obama was Ghandhi, MLK, and a rock star all combined into one. He was a Rorschach Blot on which the young voters projected many unrealistic, idealistic dreams or desired political attributes they wanted - they saw in him what they *wanted *to see in him. Kind of unnerving. Definitely the sort of head-in-the-clouds infatuation that the OP describes.
Any natural-born American citizen over 35 who hasn’t been president before and who has lived in the US for 14 years is qualified to be president, it’s not really something to brag about. It would be like me applying for a job and making a big deal out of the fact that I have a high school diploma, it’s not impressive. The things her diehard fans listed as ‘qualifications’ like her time as a Senator, where she voted for the Iraq war and laws against super-predators while arguing against gay marriage, then did a 180 on those positions later, actually work against her.
If this is so, then considering Obama’s very large margin of victory (along with Democrats nation wide doing very well) in 2008, it was a good thing, not a bad thing, for the Democrats.
Well, of course it was a good thing, electorally, for the Democrats. I never said it was a bad thing electorally for them; it of course follows that the more a political party adores its candidate, the more fired-up the base will be to turn out and vote.
But the OP’s claim about Democratic adoration or fan-frenzy about its candidates was true of Obama in 2008. Not so much in 2012 or 2016, but it was definitely true in 2008.
I didn’t say one word about voting for Trump, I talked only about not voting for Hillary, so claiming ‘nothing to do with Hillary’ is complete nonsense. Staying home, writing in Mickey Mouse, or voting third party don’t actually require voting for Trump. Holding your nose and voting for Clinton as the lesser of two evils also doesn’t require voting for Trump, but still got the accusations.
I never made the claim that no people liked Hillary. She did, however, get fewer votes than Obama in spite of a larger population and an opponent much more unlikeable than McCain or Romney.
People were ranting at how awful and biased 538.com was for estimating a 1 in 3 chance of Trump winning. Her own campaign staff was so confident of victory that they started campaigning in CA and NY to increase her popular vote totals at the expense of swing states.
Was she honest on support of the Iraq war, laws against super-predators, campaigning against gay marriage, and opposing the TPP? Or was she honest when she flip-flopped those positions (for the TPP, would have flip-flopped according to her supporters)? And ‘qualified’ is just LOLtastic at this point.
I have problems with Clinton’s honesty on several issues, and I have problems with her conservative positions on several issues, but the issues you list are not issues where I know of any honesty problems. Yes, she changed her position on same sex marriage–as did tens of millions of other Americans during the same time period. Only an idiot refuses to change her mind when presented with compelling new arguments or information.
Yes, but that confidence turned into hubris. She was spending resources on states like Texas and Georgia when she should have focused on the Rust Belt. That would be like a Republican spending resources on New York and Oregon. At a certain point, pride comes before a fall.
There were a lot of democrats who weren’t over the moon about Obama. IIRC, Hillary was the first choice of about 17 million of them.
If you read her speech before the she made her vote, you might be surprised as to how nuanced her position was. A transcript of her speech is here: A golden oldie: Hillary's floor speech to invade Iraq
[QUOTE=HRC last paragraph]
So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.
[/QUOTE]
She voted in favor with the strong proviso that Bush attempt diplomacy first and foremost, as she had been assured he would. Whether you think her vote was or not, it’s not like she was all gung-ho over the war and then reversed herself.
Please also remember she wasn’t any senator, she was a NY senator, representing millions who’s city was just attacked. It was a unique position to be in.
Mistakes were made. Hindsight is 20/20. Her supporters, for the most part, expected her to win. That’s not unusual. Perhaps some were over confident and stayed home. That’s not Hillary worship, that’s just poor GOTV efforts.
There’s no nuance to her position. She voted to enable the Iraq war when she could have voted not to, plain and simple. “YES” instead of “NO” is what matters there. The fact that she voted to enable the war, then opposed it later once it was popular to do so is not an example of nuance, it’s an example of trying to have her cake and eat it too, and of the kind of integrity one gets from Honest Hillary. Trying to paint this sort of hypocritical flip-flopping on issues as ‘honesty’ only works for the True Believers, it doesn’t convince people who aren’t already in her camp, and doesn’t get people inspired to get out and vote.
She changed her position on same sex marriage as soon as it became both irrelevant (SC ruling means there’s no vote on it) and she felt it would help her chances at election instead of hurt it. The only ‘compelling new arguments or information’ was the estimate on whether it would hurt or help her election chance, and reversing a major position to garner votes shows a distinct lack of honesty in my book.
Serious question- did you read the text I linked to?
If you don’t see nuance there, then I’m not sure what to say.